Why are Gun Control Advocates so Violent

Gun control advocates like to position themselves as peaceful individuals however they have a habit of advocating violence against those who disagree with them. Consider this op-ed written by an advocate of gun control:

Here it is. The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That’s treason, and it’s worthy of the firing squad. The B.S. needs a serious gut check. We are not a tin pot banana republic where machine gun toting rebel groups storm the palace and depose the dictator.

I’m not sure when the National Rifle Association (NRA) advocated armed rebellion (I must have missed a mailing) but even if they did it’s not worthy of a firing squad. Being an anarchist I find the crime of treason to be bullshit in of itself but even those who recognize the state as a legitimate entity must also acknowledge that advocating armed rebellion, which the NRA hasn’t done as far as I know, is protected by the First Amendment. Unless the NRA was actually involved in an armed rebellion against the state they couldn’t be found guilty of treason.

Beyond advocating violence the author also invalidates his own argument. In the above paragraph he implies that armed rebellion is not the proper way to resolve disagreements with the duly elected government. However, in the previous paragraph he argues that might makes right:

And how does choosing a white, rich old man with an offensive degrading speech about the war of “Northern Aggression” as NRA president forward a sense of reasonableness? History lesson: It was an awful Civil War won decisively some 150 years ago. Over slavery. The Confederacy wanted to keep African-Americans in chains and President Lincoln didn’t.

Sure, there were states’ rights issues, but nullification, secession, and treason were settled at Appomattox Courthouse. Sure, Reconstruction left a bad taste. But, resurrecting these same things, the way South Carolina is as we speak, is to invite a return to the whole concept of a Union.

This man isn’t too bright if he thinks the Civil War was about slavery. If that were the case slavery would have been illegal in the Union but it wasn’t. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation would have only ended slavery in Confederate states that refused to rejoin the Union by January 1863. Slavery was one minor issue amongst a great many. What started the session movement that preceded the Civil War was the United States government’s continuous encroachments on the powers reserved for the individual states. In other words the Confederate states were sick of the federal government and decided to vote with their feet. They left the Union peacefully and formed a confederacy.

The Union wasn’t very happy with such open disobedience. Eventually the war broke out and the Union used violence to coerce the Confederate states to rejoin the Union even though the duly elected government of the Confederate states chose a different option. According to the author armed rebellion against a duly elected government is treason except when it’s not.

The closing of this op-ed is where the real content is. In three short paragraphs the author demonstrates just how much of an authoritarian blood thirsty psychopath he really is:

Normally, I am a peaceable man, but in this case, I am willing to answer the call to defend the country. From them.

To turn the song lyric they so love to quote back on them, “We’ll put a boot in your —, it’s the American way.”

Except it won’t be a boot. It’ll be an M1A Abrams tank, supported by an F22 Raptor squadron with Hellfire missiles. Try treason on for size. See how that suits. And their assault arsenal and RPGs won’t do them any good.

According to the author he is normally a peaceable man except when people disagrees with his position on gun control. He’s all for murdering those people with guns. In fact he wants to suppress free speech so badly he’s willing to use weapons of war to kill anybody who expresses an opinion different from his own. Think about that for a minute. A man who opposes guns wants tanks, fighter jets, and Hellfire missiles used on people who have, according to his accusation, done nothing more than express an opinion that differs from his own. I’m starting to think that the author has a shrine to Pol Pot somewhere in his domicile.

Also, if the author doesn’t believe people with rifles can stand up to the American war machine he should read The Sling and the Stone by Colonel Thomas X. Hammes. The United States hasn’t fared well against poorly equipped opponents.

One thought on “Why are Gun Control Advocates so Violent”

  1. Even the term civil war isn’t accurate. A civil war implies a war between 2 parties to control the 1 state. Since it was a war of succession and not a war of whether the north or south would control the federal government the more accurate term is the war between the states.

Comments are closed.