Still Fighting the Fight

There’s a group over at Quora, “Gun Memes R Us” where I like to read and post. I came across this one and put it up:

It has inspired a number of comments, but I want to archive this thread:

Nobody is coming to take away your guns. The only reason you continue talking about something that will never happen is that it supports your violent fantasies about murdering your fellow countrymen.


UPDATE: Paul has responded, in a sense. The reply below and the remainder of the comment thread are now gone. END UPDATE.

Look at that. Another Trumpanzee who can only communicate through memes that were created by someone smarter than you. I’ve run across your cult before. I always feel bad for you knuckleheads.

I get your message, though. You couldn’t begin to refute my comment about how no one is coming to take your guns, and that disturbed you. To self-soothe, you posted a bunch of memes in the same way someone with epilepsy might have a grand mal seizure.

Look at that, someone who comments on a meme page and complains about memes. (Most of which are screenshots of his ideological brethren.)

We’ve been told “no one is coming for your guns” for decades, while at the same time we get stuff like this from legislators:

Or this exchange between North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop and the loathsome Jerry Nadler over H.R. 1808:

“Would anyone on the other side dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?” Bishop asked.

“That’s the point of the bill,” Nadler replied.

“So, to clarify, Mr. Chairman, you’re saying it is the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today,” the Republican representative pressed.

“Yes,” Nadler clarified. “The problem is that they’re in common use.”

So, no one wants to take our guns? Pull my other leg.

I’m impressed. Most people who speak in memes literally can’t communicate otherwise. You actually made a coherent point.

It’s wrong. First, nobody is trying to take “all firearms” from you (as this meme stated). In the case of HR 1808, that’s a ban on assault weapons, similar to what we had before when mass shootings were much less frequent. You can still have the rest of your guns.

I know, I know. You’d sooner watch a thousand kids mowed down by AR15s than part with yours. That’s your prerogative. But not everyone is a sociopath, and they have their prerogatives too.

What, you’d prefer them mowed down with 12 gauge shotguns? 9mm pistols? How many children are you willing to let die? If the number of guns is the problem, then the solution must be reducing the number in circulation to as close to zero as to make no difference. That’s the logic. “If it saves one life!” So excuse me if I don’t kowtow to your “It’s only ‘assault weapons!’ “ argument. It’s bullshit.

I’ve been doing this for about thirty years now. I have the receipts.

Pundit Charles Krauthammer stated the obvious in his 1996 column “Disarm the Citizenry, But Not Yet”:

“Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically.

“It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

“Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic – move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”

In 1988 the Violence Policy Center, a group founded on the platform of banning all handguns (we could keep rifles and shotguns, for now) wrote a white paper entitled “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America.” From its conclusion:

“Assault weapons are increasingly being perceived by legislators, police organizations, handgun restriction advocates, and the press as a public health threat. As these weapons come to be associated with drug traffickers, paramilitary extremists, and survivalists, their television and movie glamour is losing its lustre to a violent reality.

“Because of this fact, assault weapons are quickly becoming the leading topic of America’s gun control debate and will most likely remain the leading gun control issue for the near future. Such a shift will not only damage America’s gun lobby, but strengthen the handgun restriction lobby for the following reasons:

  • It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an “old” debate. Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an “unsolvable” problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.
  • Efforts to stop restrictions on assault weapons will only further alienate the police from the gun lobby. Until recently, police organizations viewed the gun lobby in general, and the NRA in particular, as a reliable friend. This stemmed in part from the role the NRA played in training officers and its reputation regarding gun safety and hunter training. Yet, throughout the 1980s, the NRA has found itself increasingly on the opposite side of police on the gun control issue. Its opposition to legislation banning armor-piercing ammunition, plastic handguns, and machine guns, and its drafting of and support for the McClure/Volkmer handgun decontrol bill, burned many of the bridges the NRA had built throughout the past hundred years. As the result of this, the Law Enforcement Steering Committee was formed. The Committee now favors such restriction measures as waiting periods with background check for handgun purchase and a ban on machine guns and plastic firearms. If police continue to call for assault weapons restrictions, and the NRA continues to fight such measures, the result can only be a further tarnishing of the NRA’s image in the eyes of the public, the police, and NRA members. The organization will no longer be viewed as the defender of the sportsman, but as the defender of the drug dealer.
  • Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns. Although the majority of Americans favor stricter handgun controls, and a consistent 40 percent of Americans favor banning the private sale and possession of handguns,[129] many Americans do believe that handguns are effective weapons for home self-defense and the majority of Americans mistakenly believe that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms.[130] Yet, many who support the individual’s right to own a handgun have second thoughts when the issue comes down to assault weapons. Assault weapons are often viewed the same way as machine guns and “plastic” firearms—a weapon that poses such a grave risk that it’s worth compromising a perceived constitutional right.

So excuse me if I reject your “They only want to take X away” bullshit for what it is. It’s a camel’s nose under the tent, and your side has no compunction about lying to achieve it.

There’s a reason mass shooters choose AR15s over a 12-gauge or a 9mm pistol. That reason is the same as why HR 1808 exists. The AR15 is an assault rifle (and yes, spare me, I know that’s not what the “AR” stands for). It can also be considered a “battle rifle,” as the cops in Uvalde called it. It’s a gun for little boys to pretend that they’re GI Joe (best case scenario) or to mow down a bunch of people (worst case). It has no positives to it.

Regarding this quote from above:

“Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain.”

I wholeheartedly agree with this. A civilized society can’t be armed like this. However, I understand we will never be disarmed due to the 2nd Amendment and the impossibility of repealing it. Therefore, the US will never be a civilized society. Everyone in government understands that. Seriously, to find someone in government who believes we can take away all guns would require finding someone as dumb as Marjorie Tailor Greene, and the left doesn’t have people that dumb.

“There’s a reason mass shooters choose AR15s over a 12-gauge or a 9mm pistol.” Really? Pray tell, what is it? The last one had an AR, but used a Kel-Tec Sub 2000, a pistol-caliber carbine. The majority of them are carried out with handguns because handguns are portable and concealable. Columbine? Shotguns, a pistol-caliber carbine and a pistol.

But all you want is “assault rifles”? Yeah. Right. For The Children.

I want the school staff that is willing to be able to carry, and I want signs like this posted around the campus:

In the Tennessee shooting the Sheriff reported that the shooter had considered a different target, but because it had security she chose the Christian school instead.

I want to do something that WORKS. You want security theater.

Ok, you want to do something that WORKS. (Caps lock noted…you’re serious!)

Do you know any educators? How many do you think have the aptitude and inclination to use a gun to defend a class of kids against an assailant armed to the teeth? Remember, the Uvalde cops were shit scared to confront such a shooter. But you want Mrs. Harrison who teaches the 3rd grade to handle it.

Also, do you know how little teachers get paid for the amount of work they put in? But you want to add on top of that the requirement to buy a gun and be trained on it all on the same salary, because let’s face it, giving teachers more money is un-American to a republican.

Is this what you think will work?

How many school staffers are veterans? How many staffers are there compared to the teaching staff? Hell, the janitor can carry if he’s willing. Why do want to deny the willing and able? You’re using Uvalde as an example? Those guys signed up for that job, then didn’t do it. That didn’t happen in Tennessee.

What makes you think, in a nation where about a third of the population owns guns, that no school staffers – including teachers – already owns guns? Already have concealed-carry licenses? I know one teacher. She taught middle school math and science for 40 years. She owned a gun most of her professional career, but she wasn’t allowed to even have it in her car on campus.

Yes, I want schools to be less attractive targets.

Your questions are all valid. However, don’t pretend you know the answers. You have no idea if there are enough veterans or gun owners at each school to protect them.

The reason I mention the Uvalde cops is because, yes, they signed up for that job. And they didn’t do it. But you’re expecting people who did not sign up for that job to do it instead?

Also, who’s paying these people? “Oh, by the way, Mavis, starting on Monday we’d like you to start providing security for your Spanish class. It’s just another part of the job.”

This could be a viable plan if it gets past these obstacles. But I don’t expect it would.

Utah has allowed staff to carry on campus for years. I personally know that many trainers offered staff free training so they could get their permits. When was the last school shooting in Utah?

You don’t seem to have any faith in your fellows. Just because you cannot see yourself defending yourself or innocents doesn’t mean others can’t. You’d rather disarm everyone so you don’t have to feel guilty about it. (End – for now.)

I’m curious to see if he’ll come back with anything.

25 thoughts on “Still Fighting the Fight

  1. Paul wrote: “Also, do you know how little teachers get paid for the amount of work they put in? ”

    In my experience, more than cops; but the gap is closing. And if there isn’t sufficient staff, I’m sure there are enough retired military and law enforcement veterans who would gladly patrol the schools.

  2. “But you’re expecting people who did not sign up for that job to do it instead?”

    As usual, leftists cannot distinguish between volunteering and being compelled. You speak of staff being allowed to carry, he responds with the assumption that staff are being required to carry.

  3. You can argue with communists until hell freezes over, and they will never yield on the gun issue. Once they do have the guns, the massacres begin of former gun owners, and any one on that side. Logic and reason do not matter to them, only power. And the communists will sacrifice anyone and anything to get it.

    1. The value in arguing with Paul isn’t in convincing Paul — it’s in showing the rest of the world that Paul’s arguments don’t hold water!

  4. OMFG.

    >>”Oh, by the way, Mavis, starting on Monday we’d like you to start providing security for your Spanish class. It’s just another part of the job.”

    That is almost literally what the [redacted] school district told TeacherWife, GeeketteWithA9mm as part of their post Sandy Hook revised “security plan”. She, completely and explicitly unarmed, was to “monitor” the main door in the morning and at dismissal to ensure that no “unauthorized” people entered. They had no answer to her perfectly reasonable question as to how exactly she was to prevent such unauthorized entry, or what she was to do in the event of armed incursion. Presumably, she was to soak up bullets.

    It is pertinent to note that a decade earlier, the same district threw a hissy fit in writing, threatening her job after the sheriff did the employer background check for her carry permit.

    The wife’s a good shot, and would never let a child be harmed on her watch. The district is controlled by ideologically driven fools.

  5. Paul has not attended to the fact that the leading tool of killing people is one’s hands, followed by knives and baseball bats. Dreaded ‘Assault rifles’ are down there at the bottom. England is confiscating knitting needles…and Paul wants us to be like them?

  6. i don’t see the point in arguing about this any more. i saw a meme too, that summed it up perfectly for me. the people who want to disarm you are pedophiles, terrorists, criminals, perverts, psychopaths, murderers, liars, traitors, thieves…they have said loud and clear what their intentions and desires are. no more compromising on “common sense” gun control. we are the only side doing any compromising in this feud. the very idea of gun confiscation is laughable. once everyone figures out what is going on it will be open season on everyone involved and it will be over in a few days.

  7. What GrumpyOldFart said. “Paul” is conflating “allowing teachers and staff to be armed” with “requiring teachers (no other staff) to be armed”.

    The after-hours custodian at my high-school — who my friends and I knew well because we were there frequently for extra-curriculars — is a guy I’d trust to carry a firearm to protect the property and any students and/or staff who happened to be present … including my own kids if he were still around and they went to that school (and that’s saying something). He was a great guy. But he wasn’t a “teacher” by any stretch.

    Among the actual teachers, I know a few who probably would carry if allowed, several who wouldn’t even if allowed, and some who would quit if it ever were required. However, the point isn’t to require educators to be armed whether they like it or not, as “Paul” says, but to allow educators who are willing and able to be armed to carry if they choose.

    And you can bet “Paul” damn well knows it, but he’s being deliberately obtuse, because it’s easier to set up and knock down the “arm teachers” straw-man than it is to argue effectively against “allow teachers who are willing to arm themselves”.

    1. I recall a few who would probably have carried if allowed…one was retired military, one worked as an armored truck guard part-time in the summer.

  8. I’m uncertain as to why any of us want to “discuss” things with the likes of Paul. You will never change their minds until shit pops off and they run crying and screaming for help.
    No. The hell with that. Let them die. God will sort them out. He always has and always will. And they will stand before Him, ashamed of their cowardice – because that’s what it is.

    1. You’re never going to change the minds of the “true believers”.

      But you might change the mind of the non-commenting readers, the fence-sitters, and the other bystanders who otherwise might not be exposed to pro-gun and pro-freedom arguments.

      That’s why anti-gun people and groups are so quick to shut down comments and discussions. They don’t want our side — our facts, logic, reason, history, and SCOTUS decisions — to be heard.

  9. “There’s a reason mass shooters choose AR15s over a 12-gauge or a 9mm pistol.”

    Yeah, they’re not willing to put in the work, like the VA Tech shooter, who mostly used a handgun with 10-round magazines to kill 30+ people.

  10. 99% of the people wanting to “take the guns” want SOMEBODY ELSE to do the actual taking. Because they are feckless cowards.

    1. And the other side of the coin is that most of the people who love the idea of police going door to door taking people’s guns would be absolutely outraged at the idea of cops searching THEIR homes to see if they had anything that was not approved.

      I remember back in the day how incensed Markadelphia was that Centerpoint Energy reserved the right to periodically inspect THEIR OWN equipment on your property if you had natural gas laid on in your house.

      Personally I’ve seen the blast radius around a propane tank that blew up. You’re damn skippy I’ll allow them to inspect, thanks.

  11. One of the major tool of the communist left is to LOUDLY proclaim they are NOT doing something while they are working feverishly to exactly what they say they aren’t doing. And one of the many failings of the gullible right is to continue to believe the lies the communist left keeps spouting.

  12. Just out of curiosity, I googled “JoeBrandonFan.” Yes, he has all the earmarks of a typical leftist. Consider:

    May 16, 2023 – “Joe, I am a lifelong Republican but it’s time to put your executive orders to use and abolish the second amendment. I speak for every honest American.”

    May 18, 2023 – “I live in a conservative town near Orlando and I’ve had enough of DeSantis’ fascism. Me, my husband and my 12-year-old trans daughter are packing our bags and moving to San Francisco. I’m tired of conservatives making me fear for my life every single day.”

    May 24, 2023 – “Once Joe signs the executive order that bans all firearms, I’ll be the first to join a gun confiscation unit down here in Texas. We will go door to door and nothing can stop us.”

    May 25, 2023 – “It’s time Joe. Ban the second amendment and pass an executive order that demands the confiscation of all firearms, and we will go door to door to start collecting them.”

    Notice that in less than a week, he moved from Florida to Texas. It’s glaringly obvious that he’s spitballing BS to get a rise out of people, he isn’t concerned with facts.

    Even Paul is a cut above this guy.

  13. I’m a bit concerned with his chutzpah from the get-go. He believes that he deserves a perfect society, and second, he believes that in a perfect society, he’d be allowed to live.

    Who’s to say that a perfect society doesn’t have every individual able to defend themselves from rando fearmongers? Like, say, JoeBrandonFan or Paul?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *