“When the best argument the anti-rights cultists have is the physical dimensions of pro-rights activists, you know they are losing. Badly.”
by Linoge




"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

we do not claim; we prove

Regular – or, hell, even irregular – readers of this weblog are probably more than familiar with my rebranding of "gun control" supporters as "anti-rights cultists" but go ahead and slide back there to re-read that particular post to get everyone back on the same page.

All good? Great.

So, really, that was just an exercise in me stretching the definitions of a few words in order to cast my opponents in a negative, socially unacceptable light, right? Wrong. I meant every word of what I said almost a year ago now, and I contend they are even more poignant today than they were in the past; here are a few reasons why, courtesy of my fellow pro-rights activists.

Example the first:

He believes (or claims to) that somehow a law against possessing a gun in national parks would have stopped someone on the run from the police after shooting multiple people from bringing his gun into the park, so that it would have been impossible for him to shoot the ranger. And he expects other people to believe this irrational assertion, too.

Example the second:

The anti’s truly believe that, had guns not been allowed in National Parks, the shooting in Mt. Rainier would not have happened. You see, crazy people do not care about taking human lives nor are they concerned with any punishment for their actions, unless of course that punishment revolves around getting busted for carrying a gun. Then they’re all like “Whoa! The death penalty for murder I can deal with, but 5 extra years for carrying a gun across an imaginary line? I can’t live with that on my conscious!”

Example the third:

So what CSGV says is that a mentally unstable person who already committed murder was actually going to respect a law forbidding the possession of firearms in a National Park if it wasn’t for the NRA convincing both Congress and president Obama to rescind the prohibition.

Example the fourth:

Because if a CRIMINAL knows that there is a LAW that stops them from crossing state lines while they have a gun in their waist band they will stop, turn in their firearm to the nearest police officer and stop their life of crime, and join a local non-profit that’s whole mission in life is not to help people but to strip them of their rights because they believe that an inanimate object is what causes people to commit crimes not the person themselves.

If you honestly believe that a "gun free zone" will actually keep out a criminal intent on murdering someone with a firearm, or will cause him to somehow surrender his firearms before he commits that crime, or if you honestly believe that one state not honoring a criminal’s carry permit (if he has one at all) will stop him from entering that state, you are thinking no more rationally than the sign-wielding fool below:


You are allowing yourself to be deluded by the belief that a sign and an arbitrary, invisible line will somehow cause a violent, sociopathic, probably psychopathic, murderer to somehow rethink his methods and his motivations and adapt them according to your desires. That is not sane. That is not logical. That is pretty much the very embodiment of "blind faith", especially since there is precisely no evidence to support it.

And as such, it is, by definition, an "unconventional belief" – after all, convention indicates that if something works, are some sort of indications that it does, in fact, work. Sure, we may not understand the precise mechanics of why it works, but at least we know it functions. This cannot be said of "gun control" as a whole, and it surely cannot be said of "gun free zones". Furthermore, per the definition established by the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller, "gun control", and specifically the banning of firearms in specific locations, is an "unconventional" belief, in that the Second Amendment explicitly protects and preserves the individual right of all law-abiding, of-age Americans to own firearms "in common use for lawful purposes", such as handguns, shotguns, semi-automatic magazine-fed rifles (aka "assault weapons"), and so forth.

As I said, "gun control" supporters are operating off blind faith that verges on religious zealotry – not only do they know they are right (despite the absence of any evidence whatsoever demonstrating their right-ness), but you should have to live according to their beliefs, damnit*! In any case, couple that single-minded fervor with charismatic (in their own minds) leaders who are capable of riling up their followers into a (supposedly) righteous, frothing-at-the-mouth rage, and, hey, look, a cult.

Speaking personally, I prefer to have my world view shaped by facts, rational thought, logic, and actual hard evidence, rather than the deranged rantings-and-ravings of charlatans whose continued employment literally relies on more people being shot and killed by firearms. But maybe that is what sets me apart from anti-rights cultists…

(* – When I phrase it like that, maybe "cult" is too gentle of a word… perhaps "inquisition"?)

22 comments to we do not claim; we prove

  • Ace

    I think “cult” works. “Inquisition” tends to connote an investigation (not counting the Spanish Inquisition, which one never expects). At least in my mind.

    And thanks for the linkage.

    Carry on, sir.

  • May I post that picture on Facebook?

  • TS

    Did the Mr. Rainier shooter even have a CCW permit? Didn’t he use a shotgun?

  • Good stuff, there. Especially that last paragraph.

  • Braden Lynch

    I think they are not quite a cult yet since they would have to have committed a mass suicide after their leader declared the coming of a space being that would melt all firearms into scrap. Usually these predictions are given with a very specific date. Such a doomsday date is updated “due to calculation errors” after it has passed uneventfully.

    Regardless, I think we will need to put CSGV, BC and MAIG people on suicide watch if “Their One” is not retained in November.

    Seriously now, if anyone can offer a defense of “Gun Free Zones” I would love to hear it. Arguing in favor of them definitely proves insanity or ideological zealotry.

  • […] chews up the anti-freedom people and spits them out in this remarkable post. Share this:EmailDiggRedditFacebookRelated […]

  • MAJ Mike

    I’ve used those same arguements. Gun Free Zones are just safe shooting galleries for killers. I’ve also argued that life is God-given and, therefore, worthy of defense. Self-defense is a civil right.

  • @ Ace: Well, honestly, I would not doubt they would mount such a thing, against politicians at the very least, if they were in a position to do so. Thankfully, they are not, and they know it, and we know it.

    Regardless, you are quite welcome :).

    @ David, Chandler, AZ: ‘T’ain’t mine, so have at it :). No idea the original source.

    @ TS: Dunno, and yes. Which just goes to prove the point :).

    @ bluesun: Why thank you :).

    @ Braden Lynch: Well, there is a difference, and not just a semantical one, between “cult” and “suicide cult”; however, they do lay on the “blood running in the street” meme a bit… thick… don’t’cha think? And those predictions definitely have very specific dates (typically as soon as pro-rights legislation passes). And those predictions typically fall flat on their faces…

    @ MAJ Mike: No argument from me.

  • The picture is clever but using a fantasy creature undercuts it. Tigers?

  • Fantasy, perhaps, but one that all people are familiar with, and one for which the rules are clearly defined, especially that they, much like criminals, are going to ignore arbitrary signs and invisible lines.

  • Braden Lynch

    Linoge: You are quite right about differences between cult types. I was being snarky, which the anti-freedom, anti-gun “cultists” bring out in me with a vengeance. I guess the big difference is that they do not mind the blood, if it belongs to someone else.

    So, they are not about to drink the Kool-Aid themselves. Rather, they want to force us to drink it. I’ve commented before asking a humble question: Why can they not seem to mind their own business? They have nothing to fear from armed, law-abiding citizens.

    Their PPV (Positive Predictive Value) for foretelling the future of total carnage with each relaxation of gun laws and the restoration of our freedoms does indeed fall short.

  • Sorry – I tend to take people literally, which can generally be a Very Bad Thing (TM) on the intertubes.

    Speaking more generally, I have always wanted to coin an acceptable/spreadable word/phrase for the notion of forcing someone else to be a victim. I mean, “voluntary victim” is a good way of describing someone who wants to leave themselves defenseless, but what about forcing others to be so?

    And I have been asking that question for about as long as I understood the value of independent rights, such as that of self-defense. I just do not comprehend why people feel so… empowered… to mindlessly, incessantly meddle in the affairs of others.

  • […] great surprise that the Germans had a word for that concept, but no matter how you cut it, watching anti-rights cultists destroy their own arguments with wanton disregard for the damage they are causing is hilarious […]

  • DJMoore

    It’s a funny cartoon, but most folks I know who support gun control would roll their eyes, possibly even get offended, at the straw man. They know very well that signs and laws don’t stop those who have been betrayed and broken by social injustice from using violence to try to get their fair share.

    Instead, gun control cultists have two core delusions. First, if guns are banned generally, criminals won’t be able to get them.

    Second, and far more deadly, rank and file gun controllers consider themselves pacifists. That is, they deeply and truly believe that violently defending yourself puts you on the same level as the criminal.

    The signs aren’t directed at the disenfranchised trying to free themselves from imperialistic capitalists. Instead, the signs are there to remind good, decent, well-educated liberals to not answer violence with violence, but to pursue a higher consciousness, to act out of love instead of anger or fear, and to extend the hand of peace to the oppressed.

    To gift you with the opportunity, as you are being robbed, raped, or murdered, to learn what true victimhood feels like, to come to understand how society’s victims feel All. The. Time.

    Yeah, yeah, I know, just as stupidly crazy as a zombie interdiction zone, but if you want to heal the sheepified, you have to be able to frame the discussion in their own terms.

  • See, for me, that fails for two reasons.

    First, I have already mostly written off those people who actively support “gun free zones” for the above reason – they are not thinking rationally, and I not only refuse to cater to people who are incapable of doing so, I am just not going to waste my time on them any more.

    Second, “social injustice”, “fair share”, “disenfranchise”, “imperialistic capitalists”, and all the rest of that bullshit is exactly that: bullshit. Crime is the product of a conscious, of-their-own-free-will choice on the part of the criminal. Period.

    It is those people who tolerate “gun free zones” because they do not know any better, and have only been exposed to the maliciously self-serving propaganda of the “gun control” extremists that cartoon is going to reach, and, given the prevalence of zombie-everything these days, I dare say it might.

  • DJMoore

    Your diagnosis of bullshit is of course correct; I’m only repeating what I’ve heard them say. I’ve just never had one tell me that they think criminals will obey the sign. The sign might well attract attention, but it won’t make the point.

    There are basically three tiers of liberty control advocates. First are the Gramscian/Alinskyite leaders. They know it’s all bullshit, too, but it sounds good and works to get otherwise intelligent, well meaning people on the second tier to voluntarily, enthusiastically surrender their liberty.

    Second tier folk are in effect cultists, and you are right again, they are beyond reach. They believe with all their heart and soul; their minds never enter into it. These are the ones who think that being well informed about guns is a bad thing, a sign that you are a violent fanatic racist Nazi.

    Third tier folk don’t know anything about guns or gun control. They tend not to be politically aware in any real sense; they just know what the current “expert” opinions are, what they’re supposed to think. Hearing about fairness and the disenfranchised makes them nod their heads, but they don’t know where those ideas come from or what they really imply in terms of policy.

    Third tier people can be taught; I’m an existence proof. So was my Mom, and a few others I’ve known.

    What I’ve seen work on those folks, what worked on me ten or twelve years ago when I was one of them, was a direct attack on the actual claims being made. The zombie sign wouldn’t have worked on me because I’d’ve immediately recognized that nobody was saying that, and correctly labeled it propaganda.

    I remember a lot of Usenet mockery of the idea that magic gun rays caused people who handled guns to become violent. I snorted and rolled my eyes every time I saw it, because nobody on the control side was saying that. And it seemed there was similar thinking on the liberty side: guns gave off magic rays that made the bearer free.

    Rubbish on both sides, of course; the argument that worked on me was that guns were tools that allowed you to take actions that were unavailable to you before. The controllers assumed I was stupid, ignorant, and easily panicked; the liberators assumed I was smart, could be taught, and could control my emotions. Plus, tools! Always good things!

    In contrast to the gun rays argument, the line about the moral superiority of a defenseless woman raped and murdered over a woman with a smoking gun in her hand does work. Controllers do in fact claim that defenseless people are moral and that self–defenders are not, but they’re tend not to say both things at the same time. Seeing the claims juxtaposed, and bolstered by pointing out the real life consequences, is devastating to the controller argument.

    The other thing that worked for me was gun folk endlessly, patiently, answering controllers’ lies with facts, from the difference between semi and full auto to the Founders’ definition of “well-regulated militia”. The controllers had nothing but lies, and the gunnies almost always had facts.

    As always at about this point in the discussion, I have to thank Dave Potter, aka Gharlane of Eddore, for showing me the light on the Babylon 5 newsgroups. He often mocked controller lies, but never that I can remember told a newbie that controllers made arguments they hadn’t. That was his great strength as a debater: he always caught your attention with the truth, and only then, when he’d brought you along far enough to get the joke, moved on to satire and ridicule.

    That’s the use of the zombie poster, to mock the magical thinking of controllers once you know what’s what. But it isn’t something controllers say, and someone who isn’t familiar with the debate might be turned off by the misrepresentation of the controllers’ real position.

    That’s all I was trying to say, long winded as I am.

    (Gharlane’s gone now; he got to see the end of Babylon Station, and Delenn’s sunrise, but not much beyond that. I don’t know if he died knowing that the tide was beginning to turn, and I don’t think I ever thanked him for opening my mind to what liberty is really about. I pray he, too, sleeps in light.)

  • This is all good and well, except for one rather fatal flaw in you entire argument: as this post clearly shows (which was, in the end, its entire purpose for existing), there are people who firmly do believe that “No Guns Allowed” signs will stop criminals and other people of ill intent from taking their firearms into specified locations, and they do their absolute best to propagate that belief whenever possible.

    It is all right there, in off-white and grey (though some clicking-through may be necessary, since I was giving credit to those who found the aforementioned adherents).

    Furthermore, to address the example you raise, there are people who sincerely believe that firearms cause people to commit crimes / commit worse crimes than they would have otherwise / etc. Joan Peterson, a Brady board member, is a name that leaps immediately to mind as a prime example, but also “Dog Gone” from Mike Bonomo’s weblog. They constantly propose that not only would the damage from the crime be reduced without a firearm (an arguable proposition at best, and based entirely on the lack of imagination in modern criminals), but that the crime itself would not have transpired without the firearm.

    “Magic rays” may be a simplistic and intentionally demeaning way of addressing that peculiar belief, but it is accurate.

    Am I saying that all “gun control” extremists peddle this nonsense? Of course not. But enough of them do that the nonsense needs to be addressed. There is no misrepresentation taking place on any front, aside from those ascribing to rather idiotic beliefs regarding criminals and their adherence to laws.

  • […] (19)quote of the day – joan peterson (17)paul helinski of gunsamerica fails at the internet (17)we do not claim; we prove (17)how social are you? (16)i come bearing patches (14)but, hey, it will sell! (14)you want to know what […]

  • […] day – national defense authorization act (24)paul helinski of gunsamerica fails at the internet (18)we do not claim; we prove (18)a spotter for the superlaser (17)ngvac set gun control up the bomb (15)i come bearing patches […]

  • […] and thunder” at its own game (22)steer clear of "smoke & thunder" (20)we do not claim; we prove (19)"smoke & thunder" redirects to the violence policy center (19)paul helinski of […]

  • […] (25)“smoking blunder” trumps “smoke and thunder” at its own game (22)we do not claim; we prove (20)steer clear of "smoke & thunder" (20)"smoke & thunder" redirects to the […]

  • […] (25)“smoking blunder” trumps “smoke and thunder” at its own game (22)we do not claim; we prove (21)steer clear of "smoke & thunder" (20)"smoke & thunder" redirects to the […]