Skip to content

Playing with the antis

September 24, 2010

Found this via Tam’s blog and thought it would be fun to fill out and post.

20 Questions from an anti (my answers in block quote):

1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?

I believe that everyone that is not in prison should be able to walk into a hardware store, pick the weapon of his or her choice off the wall put cash on the counter and walk out. Just like a hammer, nail gun, chain saw, axe or machete.

2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?

Leave them in jail, if the “system” lets someone out of jail or a mental institution who will be unable to control themselves when they pick up a firearm, then there is no way they should be released. All free people should have easy and simple access to arms. Criminals will get guns no matter what you or I do; laws only affect the law abiding.

3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”?

Yes, see above. If the government has to give something the OK it’s not a right any more, it’s a privilege. I get to tell the government what weapons I will own they get to be afraid of their people.

4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?

Yes, without question.

5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?

Gun confiscations and bans have happened before in the world, many recently, I will let you pick which model yall want to follow.

6. What do you think are the “second amendment remedies” that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?

The second amendment was and is an armed check on the tyrannical expansion of government. An armed population, ready and willing to face on the field of battle is the final check of our government in our system of checks and balances. A reference to the 2nd Amendment is a reference to that check.
It should be noted that our founding fathers rebelled over a much lower tax and a much less invasive government then we have now in our land of the free.

7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don’t like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?

The second amendment isn’t used against individuals; it’s used against a government. A disagreement isn’t grounds for force or deadly force; actions however can be depending on the action and its possible consequences.
For example a strong push is generally not a reason to use force or deadly force, on a narrow bridge or ledge depending on the context of the push it may very well be an attempt on your life, which would necessitate the use of force or deadly force to preserve your life.
But I think you’re asking if political, and policy differences between the people and the government can be grounds for a violent rebellion. To which my answer is yes.

8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree, liars and demeaning names?

If they are lying then its fine to call them a liar, it is always perfectly fair to identify people by their actions and statements.
To unjustly call someone a liar is itself a lie and should not be done. An honest and true interaction with reality is what everyone should seek.

9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person’s face?

If you are going challenge someone on facts a public place is a good place to do it.

10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?

Yes, rights are absolute.

11. Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.

I think the current system of gun laws is tyrannical and epically unconstitutional, rights are absolute.
Yes unfortunately they are being enforced.

12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?

People are unpredictable, but that really doesn’t matter, freedom isn’t safety. Most people would never hurt another person for any reason, some few will act in defense of another person even to the point of causing harm to an attacker, many would not even then.

13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?

No, gun statistics are irrelevant to anything other than an excuse for tyranny.

14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should “count” in the total numbers?

No, gun statistics are really irrelevant to anything other than an excuse for tyranny.

15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?

Not generally, some older revolvers can fire if dropped on the hammer; the same is true for some older 1911 pistols as well as some older rifles. But any time this would happen a significant amount of force is required to overcome the sear and slam the hammer forward often breaking the gun itself, for the rifles I would imagine that the force required to shift the firing pin enough to activate the primer would probably kill the person holding the rifle at the time. In any case new guns have safety features in place to prevent that from happening. Again this is irrelevant to anything other than an excuse for tyranny.

16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?

I believe it’s irrelevant to anything other than an excuse for tyranny.

17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?

I carry a loaded gun, if I see a bad guy about to shoot someone, ill step in and help the innocent.

18. Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?

They are probably true; but I didn’t go through your entire history and read everything. But what I did read was couched in emotionally manipulative language, a good example is your “Bullets with your eggs?” post, your third paragraph first sentence “I am wanting the readers of my blog to see how easily a simple argument can turn to tragedy if a gun is readily available” That language is designed intentionally or not to lead people to think “Gee no one should just have a gun laying around or easily available” Which is a short putt to “people shouldn’t have guns” I cannot speak to your motive but based upon that entry which from what I’ve read briefly is very representative of your blog I can guess.

19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples (some have written a few that need to be further examined).

Myself personally? No. I do believe that the ATF has a policy of entrapment and harassment of citizens who dare to exercise their rights. From the Atkins accelerator to their dealings with Len Savage to their dealings with Mr. Olofson they have a habit of being evil and tyrannical with their dealings with citizens and companies.

20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

I am always happy to talk to someone about guns and gun laws, you won’t change my mind I’ve been around too long and seen too much to change my position, but I’m willing to discuss whatever you like.

Didn’t bother to mention that when I say weapons I mean weapons not just guns 🙂

One Comment leave one →
  1. September 24, 2010 6:44 pm

    I laughed out loud at Q. 17. Anyway, good blog. Agreed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: