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

[JoeB131]

And this shows how dumb you are.....actually read my posts...what do I talk about? Do I focus on guns....no

Um, yeah, you kind of do, guy.

Do I focus on the Right of the American people to own and carry guns for self defense...yes.

Again, gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

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.

The guy who talks about guns every day, and goes into overdrive when there is a mass shooting thinks someone needs 'help".

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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

What if you're up against Lee Marvin and The Dirty Dozen?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Are you implying 2ndA is going to commit a crime? you do know that is against the rules right?

The gun is merely a tool that is used to protect one's freedoms, be it freedom from harm by some criminal, to the potential need to protect it from a government out of control.

 

[martybegan]

And this shows how dumb you are.....actually read my posts...what do I talk about? Do I focus on guns....no

Um, yeah, you kind of do, guy.

Do I focus on the Right of the American people to own and carry guns for self defense...yes.

Again, gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

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.

The guy who talks about guns every day, and goes into overdrive when there is a mass shooting thinks someone needs 'help".

View attachment 181178

Stop using that debunked study, you fucking hack.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

it can be gunsplained to them a 1000xs yet they will continue

to wallow in willful ignorance

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

it doesn't matter

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

That's your opinion and we all know what that's worth,

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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

Why the hell would any US citizen take seriously the opinion of an English comedian on our gun rights? They still have a monarchy for fucks sake and if they ever really had the right to bear arms they gave it up with not so much as a peep. Now if he wants to give out some nuggets on tea and crumpets or some shit I might listen otherwise piss off.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

I was in the Army and I fired a number of weapons from small arms all the way to heavy machine guns. There are no firearms at my local gun shop for sale that can be considered a "military grade weapon". My personal AR-15 is not a "military grade weapon"..

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Why the hell would any US citizen take seriously the opinion of an English comedian on our gun rights? They still have a monarchy for fucks sake and if they ever really had the right to bear arms they gave it up with not so much as a peep. Now if he wants to give out some nuggets on tea and crumpets or some shit I might listen otherwise piss off.

I agree with our founders and do not want to be like the British

 

[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.....

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.

The AR-15 is not a military weapon, it has never been used in war. The pump action shotgun...that is a current military weapon, the bolt action rifle, that is a current weapon of war

You lie every time you post and you say you want to be taken serioiusly......

And now....the benefit side of the gun owning equation in dollars...

How much money, how many lives are saved by armed americans...Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns

Our man Bruce Krafft — whose posts we dearly miss — did the math back in 2012. Here it is:
Our fearless leader suggested that I take a look at the flip side of the anti’s latest attack on our freedoms (a recycled strategy from the Clinton-era Public Health model of gun control): the monetary cost of gun violence.
For example, the Center for American Progress touted the “fact” that the Virginia Tech massacre cost taxpayers $48.2 million (including autopsy costs and a fine against Virginia Tech for failing to get their skates on when the killer started shooting).
It’s one of the antis’ favorite tricks: cost benefit analysis omitting the benefit side of the equation. So what are the financial benefits of firearm ownership to society? Read on . . .
In my post Dennis Henigan on Chardon: Clockwork Edition, I did an analysis of how many lives were saved annually in Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). I used extremely conservative numbers. Now I am going to use some less conservative ones.
The Kleck-Gertz DGU study estimated that there are between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs a year in the U.S. The Ludwig-Cook study came up with 1.46 million. So let’s split the difference and call it 1.88 million DGUs per year.
In the K-G article Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 15.7 percent of people who had a DGU reckoned they almost certainly saved a life. Ignoring the ‘probably’ and ‘might have’ saved a life categories for simplicity, 15.7 percent of 1.88 million gives us 295,160 lives saved annually.
[NB: A number of people have questioned the 15.7 percent stat. Remember: many states regard the mere act of pulling a gun on someone a form of deadly force. In addition, virtually every jurisdiction in the nation requires that an armed self-defender must be in “reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm” before using (or in some places even threatening to use) deadly force.]


How can we get a dollar figure from 1.88 million defensive gun uses per year? Never fear, faithful reader, we can count on the .gov to calculate everything.


According to the AZ state government, in February of 2008 a human life was worth $6.5 million. Going to the Inflation Calculator and punching in the numbers gives us a present value of $6.93 million.

So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.

Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.


When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.

=========

 

[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.

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.

Why on earth would you limit how many chances a good person has to stop the rapist, the robber or killer attempting to attack their family?

The Fire Department is not given a limit on how much water they can use to save a building, but you want to put a limit on how many bullets a good person can use to stop violent monsters....you guys are such irrational fools it is simply amazing.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Jesus!! You really dont know shit about firearms!!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Thats what Cruz's rifle held.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

I was in the Army and I fired a number of weapons from small arms all the way to heavy machine guns. There are no firearms at my local gun shop for sale that can be considered a "military grade weapon". My personal AR-15 is not a "military grade weapon"..

Well yeah.....but it looks like one!!

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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.

Bubbles made of lead... Are you asking how many bullets it holds?

 

[BlackSand]

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.

They don't care about the facts ... It's a firearm and they will ban whatever they think they can get away with.

.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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.

I was in the Army and I fired a number of weapons from small arms all the way to heavy machine guns. There are no firearms at my local gun shop for sale that can be considered a "military grade weapon". My personal AR-15 is not a "military grade weapon"..

Well yeah.....but it looks like one!!

Yeah, but still is not one and I know you know this but nimrods on the left do not know this for some damn reason...

 

[JoeB131]

I was in the Army and I fired a number of weapons from small arms all the way to heavy machine guns. There are no firearms at my local gun shop for sale that can be considered a "military grade weapon". My personal AR-15 is not a "military grade weapon"..

The Ar-15 fires the same rounds and has the same range as the M16. Yes, it is military grade.

 

[2aguy]

I was in the Army and I fired a number of weapons from small arms all the way to heavy machine guns. There are no firearms at my local gun shop for sale that can be considered a "military grade weapon". My personal AR-15 is not a "military grade weapon"..

The Ar-15 fires the same rounds and has the same range as the M16. Yes, it is military grade.

Moron, all semi auto rifles that fire the 5.56 or the .223 have the same range, you dope......and it is a smaller round than the other hunting rounds.......

The AR-15 has never been used by the military, and it has never been used in war...

These rifles have...

6 shot revolvers.
Lever action rifles.
Bolt action rifles.
Muzzle loading rifles.
pump action shotguns.

The AR-15, never been used in war....