anti gunners do not like "Gunsplaining" because it requires knowing the truth, the facts and reality

[2aguy]

There is a column in the Washington post this week where the anti gun weenie complains about 2nd Amendment supporters who correct anti gunners when they don't use the correct terminology for guns, or don't actually know what the hell they are talking about in the gun debate.....

The author is trying to shame gun Rights supporters into being quiet by labeling this "gunsplaining,"as if actually talking about actual guns and the truth about the issues is a problem...

If You're Trying To Ban Guns, The Least You Can Do Is Learn The Basics

Can anyone imagine a major newspaper running an op-ed justifying public ignorance on public policy? Actually, not merely justifying the ignorance, but rather arguing that facts only help smother discourse rather than enhance it. It’s improbable. Then again, this is the gun debate. And one side benefits from policy illiteracy.

The Washington Post ran an op-ed by former Gawker writer Adam Weinstein arguing that Second Amendment advocates use “jargon” to bully gun-control supporters. “While debating the merits of various gun control proposals,” he contends, “Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology.”
-------
How dare Second Amendment advocates expect that those passionately arguing to limit their constitutional rights might have some rudimentary knowledge of the devices they want to ban? To point out the constant glaring technical and policy “faux pas” of gun controllers is to engage in “gunsplaining,” a bad-faith argument akin to intimidation.

“If you don’t know what the ‘AR’ in AR-15 stands for, you don’t get to talk” explains the sarcastic subhead. If you don’t know what the “AR” in AR-15 stands you still get to talk. But if you want to ban or confiscate AR-15s and you haven’t taken the time to learn what the AR stands for, then gun owners have every right to call you out.

Weinstein bemoans the unfairness of gun controllers “being forced to sweat the finest taxonomic distinctions between our nation’s unlimited variety of lethal weapons.” This statement is illustrative of the emotionalism and hyperbole of the debate (the notion that there’s an “unlimited variety” of firearms is absurd) but also, at the same time, it’s an exaggeration of the Second Amendment advocate’s expectations.
----

Then again, much of gun-control policy isdriven by the mechanics of a firearm. So while not knowing what a “barrel shroud” is should not prevent anyone from pondering gun policy (well, unless you’re a politician who goes on TV to advocate the banning of barrel shrouds without knowing what they are) but failing to understand the distinction between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon tells us you’re either dishonest, unserious or unprepared for the debate.

 

[Hossfly]

There is a column in the Washington post this week where the anti gun weenie complains about 2nd Amendment supporters who correct anti gunners when they don't use the correct terminology for guns, or don't actually know what the hell they are talking about in the gun debate.....

The author is trying to shame gun Rights supporters into being quiet by labeling this "gunsplaining,"as if actually talking about actual guns and the truth about the issues is a problem...

If You're Trying To Ban Guns, The Least You Can Do Is Learn The Basics

Can anyone imagine a major newspaper running an op-ed justifying public ignorance on public policy? Actually, not merely justifying the ignorance, but rather arguing that facts only help smother discourse rather than enhance it. It’s improbable. Then again, this is the gun debate. And one side benefits from policy illiteracy.

The Washington Post ran an op-ed by former Gawker writer Adam Weinstein arguing that Second Amendment advocates use “jargon” to bully gun-control supporters. “While debating the merits of various gun control proposals,” he contends, “Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology.”
-------
How dare Second Amendment advocates expect that those passionately arguing to limit their constitutional rights might have some rudimentary knowledge of the devices they want to ban? To point out the constant glaring technical and policy “faux pas” of gun controllers is to engage in “gunsplaining,” a bad-faith argument akin to intimidation.

“If you don’t know what the ‘AR’ in AR-15 stands for, you don’t get to talk” explains the sarcastic subhead. If you don’t know what the “AR” in AR-15 stands you still get to talk. But if you want to ban or confiscate AR-15s and you haven’t taken the time to learn what the AR stands for, then gun owners have every right to call you out.

Weinstein bemoans the unfairness of gun controllers “being forced to sweat the finest taxonomic distinctions between our nation’s unlimited variety of lethal weapons.” This statement is illustrative of the emotionalism and hyperbole of the debate (the notion that there’s an “unlimited variety” of firearms is absurd) but also, at the same time, it’s an exaggeration of the Second Amendment advocate’s expectations.
----

Then again, much of gun-control policy isdriven by the mechanics of a firearm. So while not knowing what a “barrel shroud” is should not prevent anyone from pondering gun policy (well, unless you’re a politician who goes on TV to advocate the banning of barrel shrouds without knowing what they are) but failing to understand the distinction between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon tells us you’re either dishonest, unserious or unprepared for the debate.

Clear your piece, fella.

 

[Missourian]

Gun grabbers do not want the general public to understand that THIS...

....is a semi-automatic....or "fully" semi-automatic, if you're that idiot on CNN...

 

[Penelope]

Oh is that a new word the NRA made up.

 

[2aguy]

Oh is that a new word the NRA made up.

No, twit...it is a word an irritated anti gun extremist made up for when he is corrected in his stupid statements about guns by someone who actually knows what they are talking about...

 

[2aguy]

Oh is that a new word the NRA made up.

The word come from this anti gun extremist, pretending to be a journalist....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...un-control-supporters/?utm_term=.f05f6f2b1458


Has this happened to you? If so, you’ve been gunsplained: harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner, admonished that your inferior knowledge of guns and their nomenclature puts an asterisk next to your opinion on gun control.

 

[Penelope]

Gun grabbers do not want the general public to understand that THIS...

View attachment 181082

....is a semi-automatic....or "fully" semi-automatic, if you're that idiot on CNN...

and what does the magazine hold.

 

[2aguy]

Gun grabbers do not want the general public to understand that THIS...

View attachment 181082

....is a semi-automatic....or "fully" semi-automatic, if you're that idiot on CNN...

and what does the magazine hold.

Bullets.

 

[Rustic]

Oh is that a new word the NRA made up.

The NRA is not pro gun enough, the country needs to be better armed

 

[Missourian]

and what does the magazine hold.

One round less than the magazines Cruz used in Florida.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Gun grabbers do not want the general public to understand that THIS...

View attachment 181082

....is a semi-automatic....or "fully" semi-automatic, if you're that idiot on CNN...

and what does the magazine hold.

Some lead, gunpowder and brass.

 

[Deno]

Admit it..

liberals are right about guns...

We need to get rid of all of them....

I had no clue they could be this dangerous,

watch the video and you will see what I mean..

 

[skews13]

There is a column in the Washington post this week where the anti gun weenie complains about 2nd Amendment supporters who correct anti gunners when they don't use the correct terminology for guns, or don't actually know what the hell they are talking about in the gun debate.....

The author is trying to shame gun Rights supporters into being quiet by labeling this "gunsplaining,"as if actually talking about actual guns and the truth about the issues is a problem...

If You're Trying To Ban Guns, The Least You Can Do Is Learn The Basics

Can anyone imagine a major newspaper running an op-ed justifying public ignorance on public policy? Actually, not merely justifying the ignorance, but rather arguing that facts only help smother discourse rather than enhance it. It’s improbable. Then again, this is the gun debate. And one side benefits from policy illiteracy.

The Washington Post ran an op-ed by former Gawker writer Adam Weinstein arguing that Second Amendment advocates use “jargon” to bully gun-control supporters. “While debating the merits of various gun control proposals,” he contends, “Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology.”
-------
How dare Second Amendment advocates expect that those passionately arguing to limit their constitutional rights might have some rudimentary knowledge of the devices they want to ban? To point out the constant glaring technical and policy “faux pas” of gun controllers is to engage in “gunsplaining,” a bad-faith argument akin to intimidation.

“If you don’t know what the ‘AR’ in AR-15 stands for, you don’t get to talk” explains the sarcastic subhead. If you don’t know what the “AR” in AR-15 stands you still get to talk. But if you want to ban or confiscate AR-15s and you haven’t taken the time to learn what the AR stands for, then gun owners have every right to call you out.

Weinstein bemoans the unfairness of gun controllers “being forced to sweat the finest taxonomic distinctions between our nation’s unlimited variety of lethal weapons.” This statement is illustrative of the emotionalism and hyperbole of the debate (the notion that there’s an “unlimited variety” of firearms is absurd) but also, at the same time, it’s an exaggeration of the Second Amendment advocate’s expectations.
----

Then again, much of gun-control policy isdriven by the mechanics of a firearm. So while not knowing what a “barrel shroud” is should not prevent anyone from pondering gun policy (well, unless you’re a politician who goes on TV to advocate the banning of barrel shrouds without knowing what they are) but failing to understand the distinction between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon tells us you’re either dishonest, unserious or unprepared for the debate.

Anybody that is this obsessed with an inanimate object needs psychological evaluation. I hope the authorities actually do watch sites like this one. You are the text book example of someone who is likely to shoot up a school.


Any parent near you should make sure the local police know who you are.

 

[2aguy]

There is a column in the Washington post this week where the anti gun weenie complains about 2nd Amendment supporters who correct anti gunners when they don't use the correct terminology for guns, or don't actually know what the hell they are talking about in the gun debate.....

The author is trying to shame gun Rights supporters into being quiet by labeling this "gunsplaining,"as if actually talking about actual guns and the truth about the issues is a problem...

If You're Trying To Ban Guns, The Least You Can Do Is Learn The Basics

Can anyone imagine a major newspaper running an op-ed justifying public ignorance on public policy? Actually, not merely justifying the ignorance, but rather arguing that facts only help smother discourse rather than enhance it. It’s improbable. Then again, this is the gun debate. And one side benefits from policy illiteracy.

The Washington Post ran an op-ed by former Gawker writer Adam Weinstein arguing that Second Amendment advocates use “jargon” to bully gun-control supporters. “While debating the merits of various gun control proposals,” he contends, “Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology.”
-------
How dare Second Amendment advocates expect that those passionately arguing to limit their constitutional rights might have some rudimentary knowledge of the devices they want to ban? To point out the constant glaring technical and policy “faux pas” of gun controllers is to engage in “gunsplaining,” a bad-faith argument akin to intimidation.

“If you don’t know what the ‘AR’ in AR-15 stands for, you don’t get to talk” explains the sarcastic subhead. If you don’t know what the “AR” in AR-15 stands you still get to talk. But if you want to ban or confiscate AR-15s and you haven’t taken the time to learn what the AR stands for, then gun owners have every right to call you out.

Weinstein bemoans the unfairness of gun controllers “being forced to sweat the finest taxonomic distinctions between our nation’s unlimited variety of lethal weapons.” This statement is illustrative of the emotionalism and hyperbole of the debate (the notion that there’s an “unlimited variety” of firearms is absurd) but also, at the same time, it’s an exaggeration of the Second Amendment advocate’s expectations.
----

Then again, much of gun-control policy isdriven by the mechanics of a firearm. So while not knowing what a “barrel shroud” is should not prevent anyone from pondering gun policy (well, unless you’re a politician who goes on TV to advocate the banning of barrel shrouds without knowing what they are) but failing to understand the distinction between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon tells us you’re either dishonest, unserious or unprepared for the debate.

Anybody that is this obsessed with an inanimate object needs psychological evaluation. I hope the authorities actually do watch sites like this one. You are the text book example of someone who is likely to shoot up a school.


Any parent near you should make sure the local police know who you are.

And this shows how dumb you are.....actually read my posts...what do I talk about? Do I focus on guns....no. Do I focus on the Right of the American people to own and carry guns for self defense...yes. That you fail to see that simply means you are blinded by your own hatred of guns...we discuss the Right to keep and bear arms...and all you see is "Gun".......of the two of us, you are the one with the issue, a paranoia about a tool......get help.

 

[skews13]

There is a column in the Washington post this week where the anti gun weenie complains about 2nd Amendment supporters who correct anti gunners when they don't use the correct terminology for guns, or don't actually know what the hell they are talking about in the gun debate.....

The author is trying to shame gun Rights supporters into being quiet by labeling this "gunsplaining,"as if actually talking about actual guns and the truth about the issues is a problem...

If You're Trying To Ban Guns, The Least You Can Do Is Learn The Basics

Can anyone imagine a major newspaper running an op-ed justifying public ignorance on public policy? Actually, not merely justifying the ignorance, but rather arguing that facts only help smother discourse rather than enhance it. It’s improbable. Then again, this is the gun debate. And one side benefits from policy illiteracy.

The Washington Post ran an op-ed by former Gawker writer Adam Weinstein arguing that Second Amendment advocates use “jargon” to bully gun-control supporters. “While debating the merits of various gun control proposals,” he contends, “Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology.”
-------
How dare Second Amendment advocates expect that those passionately arguing to limit their constitutional rights might have some rudimentary knowledge of the devices they want to ban? To point out the constant glaring technical and policy “faux pas” of gun controllers is to engage in “gunsplaining,” a bad-faith argument akin to intimidation.

“If you don’t know what the ‘AR’ in AR-15 stands for, you don’t get to talk” explains the sarcastic subhead. If you don’t know what the “AR” in AR-15 stands you still get to talk. But if you want to ban or confiscate AR-15s and you haven’t taken the time to learn what the AR stands for, then gun owners have every right to call you out.

Weinstein bemoans the unfairness of gun controllers “being forced to sweat the finest taxonomic distinctions between our nation’s unlimited variety of lethal weapons.” This statement is illustrative of the emotionalism and hyperbole of the debate (the notion that there’s an “unlimited variety” of firearms is absurd) but also, at the same time, it’s an exaggeration of the Second Amendment advocate’s expectations.
----

Then again, much of gun-control policy isdriven by the mechanics of a firearm. So while not knowing what a “barrel shroud” is should not prevent anyone from pondering gun policy (well, unless you’re a politician who goes on TV to advocate the banning of barrel shrouds without knowing what they are) but failing to understand the distinction between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon tells us you’re either dishonest, unserious or unprepared for the debate.

Anybody that is this obsessed with an inanimate object needs psychological evaluation. I hope the authorities actually do watch sites like this one. You are the text book example of someone who is likely to shoot up a school.


Any parent near you should make sure the local police know who you are.

And this shows how dumb you are.....actually read my posts...what do I talk about? Do I focus on guns....no. Do I focus on the Right of the American people to own and carry guns for self defense...yes. That you fail to see that simply means you are blinded by your own hatred of guns...we discuss the Right to keep and bear arms...and all you see is "Gun".......of the two of us, you are the one with the issue, a paranoia about a tool......get help.

John Oliver did a show this weekend that pegged your nutjob ass to a T.

John Oliver explains what the NRA’s TV channel actually does

 

[2aguy]

There is a column in the Washington post this week where the anti gun weenie complains about 2nd Amendment supporters who correct anti gunners when they don't use the correct terminology for guns, or don't actually know what the hell they are talking about in the gun debate.....

The author is trying to shame gun Rights supporters into being quiet by labeling this "gunsplaining,"as if actually talking about actual guns and the truth about the issues is a problem...

If You're Trying To Ban Guns, The Least You Can Do Is Learn The Basics

Can anyone imagine a major newspaper running an op-ed justifying public ignorance on public policy? Actually, not merely justifying the ignorance, but rather arguing that facts only help smother discourse rather than enhance it. It’s improbable. Then again, this is the gun debate. And one side benefits from policy illiteracy.

The Washington Post ran an op-ed by former Gawker writer Adam Weinstein arguing that Second Amendment advocates use “jargon” to bully gun-control supporters. “While debating the merits of various gun control proposals,” he contends, “Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology.”
-------
How dare Second Amendment advocates expect that those passionately arguing to limit their constitutional rights might have some rudimentary knowledge of the devices they want to ban? To point out the constant glaring technical and policy “faux pas” of gun controllers is to engage in “gunsplaining,” a bad-faith argument akin to intimidation.

“If you don’t know what the ‘AR’ in AR-15 stands for, you don’t get to talk” explains the sarcastic subhead. If you don’t know what the “AR” in AR-15 stands you still get to talk. But if you want to ban or confiscate AR-15s and you haven’t taken the time to learn what the AR stands for, then gun owners have every right to call you out.

Weinstein bemoans the unfairness of gun controllers “being forced to sweat the finest taxonomic distinctions between our nation’s unlimited variety of lethal weapons.” This statement is illustrative of the emotionalism and hyperbole of the debate (the notion that there’s an “unlimited variety” of firearms is absurd) but also, at the same time, it’s an exaggeration of the Second Amendment advocate’s expectations.
----

Then again, much of gun-control policy isdriven by the mechanics of a firearm. So while not knowing what a “barrel shroud” is should not prevent anyone from pondering gun policy (well, unless you’re a politician who goes on TV to advocate the banning of barrel shrouds without knowing what they are) but failing to understand the distinction between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon tells us you’re either dishonest, unserious or unprepared for the debate.

Anybody that is this obsessed with an inanimate object needs psychological evaluation. I hope the authorities actually do watch sites like this one. You are the text book example of someone who is likely to shoot up a school.


Any parent near you should make sure the local police know who you are.

And this shows how dumb you are.....actually read my posts...what do I talk about? Do I focus on guns....no. Do I focus on the Right of the American people to own and carry guns for self defense...yes. That you fail to see that simply means you are blinded by your own hatred of guns...we discuss the Right to keep and bear arms...and all you see is "Gun".......of the two of us, you are the one with the issue, a paranoia about a tool......get help.

John Oliver did a show this weekend that pegged your nutjob ass to a T.

John Oliver explains what the NRA’s TV channel actually does

Oh..john oliver, is he the guy who pretends to be a comedian on Comedy Central...or is that some other unfunny, left wing, democrat who is pretending to be a journalist?

 

[blackhawk]

 

[Penelope]

Gun grabbers do not want the general public to understand that THIS...

View attachment 181082

....is a semi-automatic....or "fully" semi-automatic, if you're that idiot on CNN...

and what does the magazine hold.

Bullets.

How many?

 

[JoeB131]

There is a column in the Washington post this week where the anti gun weenie complains about 2nd Amendment supporters who correct anti gunners when they don't use the correct terminology for guns, or don't actually know what the hell they are talking about in the gun debate.....

No, when you have 17 dead kids shot by a military grade weapon attained by a mentally ill man, there really isn't much more to talk about.

"It wasn't a MACHINE GUN, it was an ASSAULT RIFLE", whines the guy with the tiny er... hands... when someone threatens to take away his gun.

33,000 dead, 70,000 injured, 270 Billion in economic losses... every year.

Not much more to discuss.

 

[Penelope]

Gun grabbers do not want the general public to understand that THIS...

View attachment 181082

....is a semi-automatic....or "fully" semi-automatic, if you're that idiot on CNN...

and what does the magazine hold.

Some lead, gunpowder and brass.

I have no problem with magazines that hold 10 shells, anything more is overkill and also if you can't defend yourself with 10 bullets you are a bad shot.