3 Anti-Gun Arguments I Love Trolling
Once upon a time, when I was just a wee Munson, I used to answer these in earnest. Not anymore.
Have you ever noticed that so many of the average anti-gunner’s commentary regarding gun rights seems to all come, not just from the same playbook, but the same photocopied handwritten crib notes your frat passed around for decades? And that most of them are about as deep and well-considered as your average bumper sticker? Time was, I used to give earnest, in bona fide answers to anti-gun comments…but then I decided that if they weren’t going to be original with their anti-gun-rights arguments, then I wasn’t going to bother being original with my rebuttals. And in that spirit, I’m sharing my canned replies with all of you, so you don’t have to waste any more time or energy, either.
Anti-Gun “Argument” Number Uhhhh: “The Founding Fathers didn’t mean AR-15s when they wrote the Second Amendment!”
YOUNG TRACE: “Actually, multi-shot firearms go back to the 14th century, when the ‘volley gun’ was invented. Although these early blackpowder rifles used multiple barrels to achieve this aim, they were certainly capable of firing multiple shots without reloading. The Founding Fathers, who were learned and well-traveled men, certainly would have been aware that this technology could someday be inexpensive enough that ordinary members of the public could own them.”
OLD MEAN TROLL TRACE: “The Founding Fathers probably didn’t know there would be dozens of STDs in the future, and yet your mom is still legal. Weird.”
Anti-Gun “Argument” Number Duhhhh: “A gun in your home is umpty-billion more times likely to kill you than an intruder!”
YOUNG TRACE: “That’s because people are conflating suicides with murders. Suicide is a horror and a plague on society, but adding it in to the murder figures is disingenuous. And they’re also forgetting that the vast majority of home invaders here in the U.S. tend to actively avoid entering homes that are occupied. (Guess why that is!) Therefore, that means that most home invaders never see the homeowners they’re robbing. And if they do, they frequently turn tail and run upon seeing the gun, so you’re leaving all of the statistics about home invaders being repelled or deterred by a gun out of the equation.”
OLD MEAN TROLL TRACE: “Nah, your dad is umpty-billion times more likely to kill me when he catches on to what your mom and I have been up to than I am to die of exhaustion in her arms.”
Anti-Gun “Argument” Number Twaaahhht: “My need to feel safe trumps your need to compensate for your tiny penis!”
YOUNG TRACE: “What about women who own guns? What are they compensating for? Do you feel like it’s OK to tell a woman that she shouldn’t be allowed to defend herself against a bigger, stronger aggressor because you think guns are kinda phallic? Do you think that women should make sure to always have a man around to defend her physically, or do you think women have the right to live independently if they wish? Also, are you aware that the most popular concealed-carry guns have barrels that are 3 inches or fewer? If I was going to ‘compensate,’ don’t you think I’d choose something much more impressive looking than a Ruger LCP?”
OLD MEAN TROLL TRACE: “Your mom never complains about my microwang. She figures it’s not cheating on your dad as long as I don’t knock any dust off.”
I know, I know. I’m no Archie Bunker. But I hope you enjoy these anyway!
Great Job!
As for the 2nd Amendment not allowing this or that: a) Nothing in the 2nd A “allows” types of guns. It reaffirms our RIGHTS as citizens to own them.
b) OK, if sparky is going to use the “logic” that this or that gun was not available when they wrote the 2nd A, then get off the internet, sell your typewritter and break out your quill pen before YOU EXERCISE YOUR 1st Amendment Rights…!
The waste of time is your canned responses, pendejo. No one is taking your guns. Get over it already.
No one is taking your Guns…yet ”,there is no mafia” j.edgar said that for years ,then people found out about the photos in drag with his naked deputy by the barbecue which the Gambino’s had in the scrapbook,no riots,in Portland ,all lies oh yea I won’t come in your mouth,check is in the mail,no those pants don’t make you look fat…pendejo. huh?yea start with a insult that should convince everybody you’re not lying through your dental gaps
LMAO here, I will try to remember them next time. I just ask em “When the police are defunded who will protect You from US?”
Well said! I choose to not knowingly associate with left wing wackadoodle anti gunners!
Yep I agree. If they keep allowing stupid to be a head of the line then we can smack ‘Em hard. Their moms tell me they like to get smacked hard….
Good head exploders for the Lie-berals !
Do some more!!!
TJ
The “studies” I have seen that calculate the probability of being killed by a gun in the home do not use suicides, but they’re still way off. They take homicides in the home by firearm and compare homes with and without firearm. There are two huge problems with their methodology. 1. They don’t distinguish between legal ownership and illegal possession because the stats don’t. 2. They assume an equal distribution of risk. In reality, a gang member that illegally possesses a gun is somewhere around 36 times more likely than a non-criminal to be killed with a gun in the home (surprising, right?). They then take this rate and neatly apply this risk to all people who have a firearm in the home. The real risk to a suburban family member who lives in a home with firearms is about zero. Average astronomical risk with extremely low risk and you get the risk factor every anti-gun individual parrots.
As for the intentions of the Founding Fathers; they didn’t intend for us to have AR-15s, they intended us to have every military implement that exists. That’s why they used the term “arms” which then and now means every kind of weapon system and the ammunition and supplies to operate and maintain them. Everything in the Bill of Rights and Constitution is scalable for any technology or culture shifts.
Priceless! These are so good that I want more, even if I don’t use them.
Great job. But you need more canned responses. The craisies are getting more stupid statements so we need more stupid responses. But gad damnit you are on the right tract.