Stupid pro-gun slogans

The whole gun rights debate leaves a bad taste in my mouth (like the Flamin’ Hot Cheetos I ate this morning — what was I thinking?). Like most public “discourses” in the age of television (i.e. in the post-rationalism era) it is emotionally charged and accomplishes nothing.

I am not particularly pro-gun control, though I definitely don’t agree with any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that allows civilians to own Uzi’s or submachine guns. Of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, I think the 2nd is the most in need of an update due to changes in the structure of the national defense system: namely, we have a standing army and a national guard and therefore it seems to me that minuteman militias are unnecessary. Besides which, having a well-armed militia is not why most gun owners have guns anyway. But I digress.

Here are a couple of slogans that are posted all over Illinois’ interstates and major highways, Burma-Shave style:

“Armed Citizens / Criminals Avoid / In 43 States / But Not Illinois”

So, not knowing much (or caring much) about Illinois gun control laws, I’m forced to infer that in 43 states, criminals know who the gun owners are and they stay away from them. But because of Illinois’ (again, I am assuming) restrictive gun laws, criminals prey on us helpless citizens because they know we don’t have automatic handguns. Right.

Here’s one of my personal favorites:

“Terrorists Love / Gun Control / Unarmed Citizens / Are Their Goal”

Okay, so if all the people on the airplanes had been allowed to carry firearms, or if the civilians in the WTC had been armed, the September 11 tragedies wouldn’t have occurred. And of course, in Israel all their problems with homicide bombings would end if they just carried more guns. Right? This is as good an example of the irrationalism of gun rights advocates as any I have seen, and I won’t waste time debunking it.

Please, no comments comparing me to Michael Moore. He’s a great example of the irrational, stupid, ignorant, and otherwise despicable gun control advocates. Not like me. Thanks and have a great day. And remember, if you don’t want to be a victim, keep your [insert favorite model and make of submachine gun] locked and loaded.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Stupid pro-gun slogans

  1. tomislav says:

    I’d first venture to say that the guy who puts those signs up in Illinois is neither the wisest nor most literate gun advocate.

    Though, I do think the signs are hilarious and always brought a smile to my face on the long/boring trek to Saint Louis. (In addition to that HUGE/strange giant metal cross).

    Speaking of signs, MN is a concealed-carry state, which means that not only do I have the right to pack a Kalashnikov, but I can stick it down my drawers too.

    Of course, local business that don’t want me or my heavily armed underwear in their emporiums have to place a VERY VISIBLE sign on all entrances.

    Now imagine if everywhere you went you saw, in large block letters: “BOB’S HOUSE OF TACOS BANS GUNS ON THESE PREMISES”

    Walking around this state makes me feel like I’ve been transported to Tombstone… when is the shoot-out at the OK Corral?

  2. mr man says:

    this is my first time looking at this web site and i think its legendary. btw could u smuggle some swords for me i live in NSW australia

  3. Nick says:

    I am in favor of control. A lot of gun control. But you’re arguments are simple and not anything more compelling than Michael Moore. To suggest that you, some random blogger, are somehow above him in your conclusions is ridiculous. When you win the academy award for best documentary feel free to become entitled about this.

  4. Jacob says:

    Lessee, where to start. . .first off, it’s “your,” not “you’re.” Second, what’s wrong with simple arguments?

    As for Mr. Moore. . .to call “Bowling for Columbine” a documentary is beyond reason. Like his premises.

    If you think that winning an Oscar makes someone’s arguments/theories/opinions more valid than those of someone who hasn’t won an Oscar, then we are so far from seeing eye to eye that we may as well just call it quits now. :)

    And that’s my response to Nick, some random commenter on my blog.

  5. Aaron says:

    GUNS SAVE LIVES YOU ARE ALL STUPID

  6. Kris says:

    first of all, if some of the people on board the 9/11 planes had guns, maybe they could have shot the hijackers. now, im not for carrying guns on planes, but thats just something to think about. second, put yourself in the shoes of the criminal. you have 2 choices on who to rob. one is a person who you know wont be armed. the other is a person who might be armed, but you don’t know. why risk it when you know which is safer.i know who id pick. third of all, there was a standing army when the constitution was written, and that is what my gun helps protect me from. the right to form a militia is not to protect us from outside invaders, but from a tyrrannical government, which, if you paid attention in history class, is exactly what we were fighting right around the time the constitution was written. i don’t support fully-automatic gun ownership, but don’t take my shotgun, my rifle, or my pistol.

    I am a proud owner of guns.

  7. Alex says:

    @Kris
    1. If people on a 9/11 plane would have had guns, they could have become hijackers themselves. Owning a gun doesn’t make you the good guy, you know.
    2. The robber will just threaten the unarmed victim, but shoot the armed victim for his own safety. (Being known to) owning a gun poses a risk for the owner too and it doesn’t prevent you from becoming a victim.
    3. It’s all a matter of trust. You don’t trust your government or fellow citizens because they have guns. So to feel safe you carry a gun too. And therefor your neighbours and government officials feel less safe because more people carry guns. Why should they trust you? Owning a gun doesn’t make you the good guy.
    4. If guns would be as normal as clocks, wouldn’t you have been a proud owner of clocks too? No, so what’s exactly to be proud about?

  8. Alex says:

    @Kris
    1. If people on a 9/11 plane would have had guns, they could have become hijackers themselves. Owning a gun doesn’t make you the good guy, you know.
    2. The robber will just threaten the unarmed victim, but shoot the armed victim for his own safety. (Being known to) owning a gun poses a risk for the owner too and it doesn’t prevent you from becoming a victim.
    3. It’s all a matter of trust. You don’t trust your government or fellow citizens because they have guns. So to feel safe you carry a gun too. And therefor your neighbours and government officials feel less safe because more people carry guns. Why should they trust you? Owning a gun doesn’t make you the good guy.
    4. If guns would be as normal as clocks, wouldn’t you have been a proud owner of clocks too? No, so what’s exactly to be proud about?

  9. ethan says:

    guns dont kill people, people WITH guns kill people!!!

  10. J.D. says:

    @Alex:
    1. Law abiding Americans who fight for their right to own a firearm ARE the good guys. the BAD guys are the one’s who obtain firearms with malice intent.
    2. Your “robber” won’t have time to shoot the armed would-be “victim”, if he’s dumb enough to try.
    3. see #1.
    4. uh.. really?

  11. gunowner says:

    I agree with JD and Kris..
    I could kill/rob a random person with a knife or just brute force. Its not a gun that kills its the intent of the owner..no gun can pull its own trigger. its a tool for us to utilize (ie competetive shooting, hunting, just as a hobby and self defense)
    If more people had guns we WOULD be safer.. think of this.. a law breaker is going to BREAK THE LAW anyways and obtain a gun illegaly if he has too.. I still like to think that there are more good people than bad..
    Look at florida.. a few years back there was no self defense laws or concealed weapons permit.. crime was high in every catagory.
    they allowed a concealed weapon law to pass (as long as you were a law abidding citizen who completed the specail class) and instituted a self defense law..
    crime dropped dramatically in every catagory EXCEPT tourism.. because out of staters concealed permits are invalid. so now the bad guys rob tourists cause they know the locals might just be packin heat..

  12. dt says:

    You couldn’t kill me with s**t if I’m armed.
    An unarmed society is a society of slaves.

  13. Randy says:

    First thing to remember is this. The 2nd Amendment was written way before there was any “militia” established in this country. So, how could they have been talking about our current National Guard? Firearms are not the problem. The lawmakers who create laws and then let violaters “plea down” are the ones that cause problems. Why should anyone be afraid of commiting a crme with a firearm when they know it will be reduced to a smaller sentence. And lastly, if our country would decide that our government has gone to far. And they decide that other rights we have can be removed too… What will you all do. Without the personal possesion of firearms. You are at the mercy of the Government. Only by owning firearms does the government realize that they can not “force” any of thier choices on you. Without this option. We would have no way of keeping this from ever happening.

  14. Flu-Bird says:

    To SOULFOOD if you think gun rights slogans are stupid THEN YOU ARE REALY STUPID

  15. mice says:

    First of all, The 2nd amendment is to protect ourselves against our own government not just criminals. Anyone who doesn’t agree needs to go back to history class. As for criminals, They would probably be deterred when you pull out you Semi Automatic whatever (because we are not allowed to posses automatic versions without a class 3, but you wouldn’t know what that means..), (and our military is allowed, which is a whole other issue.) from anything they wanted to steal or criminalize, don’t you think? So my point is, when the criminal has a knife and he is in your house or trying to break you car window in the streets, it WILL NOT MATTER if it is concealed or not. So in conclusion, everyone who is anti-gun would not be, if someone ever put your family or ones you love in real danger and you could of stopped it with a firearm. Number 2, Power corrupts, do your history HW, and look around the world at the crime rate of “Gun-Free Zones” you might not like what you see, but its the hard truth. Guns are good they keep us safe, gun education is necessary for safety. You all are stupid, read a book, and join us in reality!

  16. dailymindjob says:

    Kinda late to the party on this one, but let me share my thoughts in light of some of the absurd comments above me from gun owners.

    Merely owning a gun and knowing how to use it does not equate to deterring a criminal from shooting you while committing a crime. It’s six of one and half a dozen of another as to which one of you shoots first. Let’s assume you’re asleep and have enough sense in terms of safety to keep an unloaded firearm in your home (Having a loaded firearm in your house, by all accounts from 2nd Amendment supporters, is generally frowned upon). There’s a good chance, although not 100 percent, that the criminal has the advantage. On top of that, quite a few accidental shootings occur in situations where a person wakes from sleep. Wives, sons, and daughters have lost their lives in the name of protecting property in this fashion. Shooting into the dark should be an obvious no-no to the educated gun owner, but let me know when you decide it’s appropriate to throw the light switch when you decide to protect your home from an intruder. In theory, everything sounds kosher. In practice, not so much. You were saying something about reality?

    In states where conceal-carry is permitted, I have yet to really hear a major news story where a massacre was averted by a gun toting “good citizen.” The police end up intervening long before one of you gun enthusiasts step up to the plate. Perhaps there is more cowardice among gun owners than I thought.

    In the comment above mine, “mice” seems to suggest that should my life and the lives of friends or family be threatened, I’d be more than happy to own a gun. First, “mice” assumes that the point being made is that all guns are bad and that I would not be allowed to own a gun. Seeing as how that is not the case, now or in the near future, the argument itself is a load of bupkis. On top of that, the shooting at the church in Tennessee, while not completely averted, was brought to an abrupt end by a group of unarmed individuals. Unarmed. No knives or guns. Bare hands.

    While obvious and already explained above, the assumption that gun carrying passengers on the flights of 9/11 could have prevented the attack implies that the terrorists would not have been carrying guns and passengers, of their own good nature, would not have been hijackers themselves. On the contrary, the suggestion that any passenger could have been carrying a firearm means that anyone could have opened fire, good or bad.

    It seems to me we are more threatened by ourselves than the government, but the paranoia coming from gun nuts these days revolves more around the fears surrounding some government oppression than armed citizens. Most of the arguments from the “pro-gun” mentality rest solely on irrational and paranoid suppositions.

    I’ll clue you. Keeping our government from swinging too far to the left or right can be done by way of elections sooner than by firearms and militias. Yes, that means that swinging too far to the right can be equally oppressive. I don’t think I need to point out which side of the fence pumps more money into defense spending and the military.

    Let me put it another way. When you see conceal-carry groups meet up, they are primarily comprised of white males and the occasional white female. How would the mood change among these individuals should a young black male enter the crowd with a conceal carry permit and a firearm? No, not all of these people are racists, I’ll give you that, but I would find the situation to be a rather exciting study in social behavior.

    But the original post is right. These kinds of debates as we currently perceive them, are of little consequence. Nothing is accomplished and we end in a stalemate where one side attempts to compromise and the other stands firm on ideology, refusing to budge, fearing some “slippery slope” should they concede the least little bit, no matter how reasonable the proposal.

  17. Chuck says:

    dailymindjob says “But the original post is right. These kinds of debates as we currently perceive them, are of little consequence. Nothing is accomplished and we end in a stalemate where one side attempts to compromise and the other stands firm on ideology, refusing to budge, fearing some “slippery slope” should they concede the least little bit, no matter how reasonable the proposal”

    Then why write a book on your uneducated opinion? I personally think that people that think guns don’t save lives are those who have never shot a gun, know how a gun works, and are afraid of guns. If this idiot were my next door neighbor, and his wife and daughter were being r*ped while he sat tied up in a chair and being forced to watch….do you think he would want me there with my guns? The answer is either YES…..or no if he could give a s**t about his family….I promise you…the answer would be YES.

    We have a Constitutional right to own firearms…why can’t you anti-gunners just get over it and move on to saving a whale or an owl or something….Or just try getting a life.

  18. Jacob says:

    Nothing written here does anything much to refute my assertion that rational debate about 2nd Amendment rights is difficult to come by. . .

    Not that it matters, but I happen to support 2nd Amendment rights in their historical context. If I agree that the historical context supports the idea that the 2nd Amendment’s intent was to arm its citizens against the government, I still propose that the sloganeering is irrelevant at best and obfuscation of the issue at worst. None of the pro-gun slogans I have seen say anything about defending yourself from the government.

    I think a lot of people who are afraid of guns do know how guns work. They live in urban areas with high crime rates where a high percentage of people are armed, and the people who are afraid of guns are afraid because owning a gun in those areas doesn’t prevent you from being murdered.

    I appreciate the range of viewpoints offered so far. . .however, please refrain from using vulgarities and/or language that could draw the wrong sort of attention to my website. I will edit out anything I deem rude or inappropriate. Thanks!

  19. Brett says:

    Wow…iw shouldn’t say this is funny…it’s not. It’s actually ridiculous. Are you real people having real conversations or is this all made up? Do you actually hold down jobs? I’ve heard that on average Americans have a very low IQ. Some of these arguments are proof! Wow how tragically unimpressive. So glad I didn’t move to the states when asked. Have some well travelled intelligent American friends, they totally exist but If not tightening the gun laws means more stupid americans will die, then maybe I am pro guns : /

    • Crownprussian says:

      Since you think Americans have a low IQ, We suggest that you stay out of America. THAT will obviously raise the IQ average.

  20. Ingmar says:

    The right to own and bear arms stems from a time where the people were afraid of their Government, not eachother. The right was granted to protect the people from the Government, not eachother. With this right, the people could stand up for themselves against the Government, not eachother. WIth the 2nd Amendment, the people were given the right to protect themselves against the Governemnt, at the time using the SAME TOOLS as the Governement.

    These days, the Government does not use a 9 mm handgun, double barrel shotgun, bow and arrow, or crossbow anymore. They use missiles, bombs and pushbuttons to settle their differences.
    My question to all pro-gunners: since the Government has “upgraded”, should The People do the same by arming themselves with similar tools ? Should your neigbour have the power to fire a SCUD missile, or biological weapon ?

    The 2nd Amendment is outdated, it is something from the past that does not contribute to its original purpose of protecting our freedom against Government. The weapons we can hold under this Amendment will no longer protect us from our Government, if it would choose to turn itself agains us. The ONLY thing the 2nd Amendment does is make The People stand up against themselves, and causing harm against themselves.

    But I am not saying that ALL guns should be taken away from The People:
    NERF-guns and waterpistols are perfectly fine.

    • Crownprussian says:

      After all the power grabbing in Washington, you STILL say that crap? America really is doomed as a free nation.

  21. Cam Rahn says:

    Bottom line, If they wanted to take your guns no matter how many you have. You will be in a dark closet in the fetal position crying for your momma. Something about a squad of heavily armed spec ops kicking down your door has that effect. Keep buying them. It’s good for the economy.

  22. 1Greensix says:

    Why is it that a person has the right to carry a gun into my business, but I don’t have the right to have them arrested, when I have posted a No Guns Allowed sign at the front door? Isn’t that the same as criminal trespassing? Where do MY rights begin, and supersede, the gun nut’s? If I owned a jewelry store I certainly do NOT want a UZI carrying customer (or robber) in it.

Leave a Reply

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

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>