Ammo For Sale

« « That’s racist | Home | Gun control bill » »

Because fuck you that’s why

Pretty much:

American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?

Screw you. Thats it. Except the first word isnt Screw.

You know, I used to actually argue with them. Now, when they start, I just dismiss them in a number ways:

You’re losing and on the wrong side of history.

I don’t care what you think.

You don’t decide what others do.

Go away. the adults are talking.

On the off chance I find someone who appears to rational but misinformed, I’ll engage just a little to see if they really are or if they’re just nuts.


23 Responses to “Because fuck you that’s why”

  1. Matthew Carberry Says:

    As I commented at the post. If you reply with a dismissive “screw you” and anyone who isn’t really decided on the issue sees it, you just painted yourself, and our cause, as a jerk, or at least someone who doesn’t have a rational argument.

    This is a debate, just like in school. The point isn’t to convince the other team, it is convince the -judges-, the people who don’t have a “side” and who aren’t necessarily looking to become experts.

    Human nature being what it is, they are looking for who seems to have the most convincing argument -and-, and more importantly, who looks like the more reasonable person they might want to associate with.

    Angry bullshit bumper-sticker slogans like “What part of infringed…!”, or “My cold, dead hands…!”, or “The 2nd Amendment is my carry permit!” play well among (some of) the people on our side, but there aren’t enough of us to win just based on our own numbers. We have to change the culture.

    To change the culture we need to engage the anti’s and not cede them the battlefield of the public’s hearts and minds. We need to do so rationally and calmly, but with absolute persistence and confidence. We all know what happens when we resist using insults, and just use wit and calm reason with good arguments; the anti’s quickly devolve into ad hominem attacks and frothing at the mouth insane comments. They have nothing else on their side, no sound science, no sound logic, and no sound understanding of what Rights really mean.

    -That’s- the point of engaging them, letting the undecided, to a degree uncaring, public see over and over again that one side is sane people, their neighbors and family members, who just happen to like guns and have well thought out reasons and philosophies for doing so, while the other side, the anti’s, are irrational and angry, scary even.

    That’s how we win the culture war, we engage the right way and over time inoculate the populace against every tired argument and every gleeful blood dance of our opponents. It’s all they have, once we disarm them of those weapons in the eyes of the public, they will be history.

  2. tincankilla Says:

    the author is slandering liberals when he should be saying “authoritarians”, because there are most definitely conservatives (like a certain GOP billionaire) who are proudly anti-gun.

    again, it’s just like anti-abortion advocates: they are ideologically opposed to others exercising choice they object to. so there’s no arguing with them, just resistance.

  3. mikee Says:

    So instead of “EFFF YOU!,” how about we go with a constant repetition of “You are lying. Your claims are lies. Your last irrational statement was a lie. Your proposals are lies. Why are you still lying?”

    Because trying to argue rationally with the anti gun side, those people with Peterson Syndrome, is an exercise in futility.

    They cannot determine truth from falsehood, nor do they present logical arguments based on actual facts, nor do they argue in good faith.

    How does one win a debate against such as they?

    One gets everyone else to agree with us that the the anti-gun side are lying, they are illogical, they are false from the ground up, and that everything they say and do is against individual human rights, with a purpose of destroying lives en masse.

    And if that doesn’t work, eff ’em.

  4. Lyle Says:

    Matthew has a point, but the problem is that any Progressive who appears to be rational (and over the age of about 25) is just putting you on. They’re acting rational, which is not to be confused with being rational.

  5. Matthew Carberry Says:

    It’s not a binary. Most people in this country aren’t Progressives and most aren’t hard-core Cons of any description. Most people simply don’t have a developed coherent political worldview. I think Volokh calls it rational ignorance.

    They believe that generally people should be left alone as long as they aren’t hurting other people. Our goal is to put gun ownership in that category. The calm, normal people, maybe a little eccentric in our political views in theory but not -scary or angry- about it.

  6. Ron W Says:

    Good points, Matthew.

    Many people have only been exposed to the propaganda of the popular culture. When you engage them with rationality, history and law ( ALL of the Bill of Rights for ALL), you can change minds. I say, I’m ” pro choice on guns and the fight to armed self defense”. I also point out how much gun control violates the 4th Amendment, something generally supported by honest liberals. I also say I respect their choice to waive their 2nd Amendment rights and to unarmed pacifism, but not to have hired government guns enforce it on me.

  7. Ron W Says:

    …the RIGHT to armed self defense, I meant to write.

  8. Huck Says:

    I lived for 12 years in a town in Californication that was infested with liberals and I can say with certainty that one cannot have a intelligent, reasoned discussion with them. They are arrogantly self righteous and refuse to listen to anything that counters their delusions/hallucinations about reality.

    My responses to lib-vermin are essentially like Uncle’s, when I decide to even acknowledge the existence of the lib-turd, which isn’t very often. Who the hell are the libs to think that anyone has to justify what they have/say/do to them?

  9. HL Says:

    I mean, “fuck you” worked for the gay movement. Seems to have worked for the abortofeminists too.

  10. Kristophr Says:

    The anti-self-defense crowd is not engaged in debate, Matthew. They want us to shut up. Period.

    Breitbart had the answer. War.

    The time for civility with these fascists is long past.

  11. Firehand Says:

    To borrow from Michael Z. Williamson, “Call them leftists, because there’s nothing liberal about them.”

  12. jack burton Says:

    I like that comment by that Schwartz guy…

  13. Matthew Carberry Says:

    Kristophr, if we respond with eff you we hand them our shutting up on a plate.

    Again, we are not trying to change the mind of the anti. When we engage them rationally and calmly in a public setting or online we are -exposing- the weakness of their arguments and giving them the rope to expose their own psychopathy. We are letting them destroy their own credibility.

    Conversely, when we run into someone who isn’t a hard anti but has bought their media propaganda we can politely and calmly lead them into the inherent contradictions and irrationality of those anti’s arguments. Even if we don’t get a conversion we have destroyed the anti’s stereotype of pro-rights folks as rude, illiterate, and uneducated.

    Saying “eff you” is just mental masturbation, it doesn’t advance the cause. Being the calm, rational, intelligent side, the side people who don’t feel strongly about the subject and only know the media misinformation would rather be on, is what wins the culture.

  14. Kristophr Says:

    You can argue rationally to sway the undecided, yes.

    But using rationality on the victim-disarmament crowd does not work. They did not use rationality to get to their current position, so rational argument won’t budge them. Ridicule works better on them.

  15. Omega Man Says:

    The problem we have to overcome is that the MSM will not report incidents where firearms were used to save lives, prevent a robbery or other dangerous situation. They will, however, exploit any incident were innocents die but will NEVER ask the question as to what could have happened if one of those victims would have been armed.

    The NRA has a page on their site called “The Armed Citizen” and it’s quite an eye opener. The NRA is the only group willing and able to take on the MSM.

    I realize that arguing with gun control wackos is next to useless, but we ourselves should at least be aware of situations where guns helped to save lives.

  16. Ron W Says:

    The primary people who need the “screw you” response are those who push and impose gun control on us, but not for themselves. Beyond that are their “useful idiots” who believe the hired guns of the ruling elite class are their benevolent protectors and are the only ones who may be armed.

  17. Oleg Volk Says:

    I agree with Matthew:

  18. empty13 Says:

    invite them to go shooting, and educate them. also, NAGR and GOA do well imho.

  19. RCCJr Says:

    No, it’s not a debate, just like in school.

    Oh, if you want to dignify the conversation some you could respond somewhere along the lines of, “Self defense against individuals, groups, and government is a fundamental human right recognized and protected by the 2nd amendment. Fundamental human rights have no place being debated”

  20. Bluntobj Says:

    Kristophr is correct.

    Anyone who is trying to “win hearts and minds” when fighting SJW’s will lose, and will deserve it.

    You are not arguing in a rational manner when you engage an SJW on any issue. Reason has left the building and the only thing that there is room for is emotions. You have to fight the feelz, and the best way to do so is to mock them, as Kristophr says.

    They respond to shame, guilt, and badfeelz. That’s why they try to use them on you. SJW’s project their mental state (Law #3) on everyone else, assume that everyone else feelz the way they do, and anyone that objects must have sanity issues.

    Not to mention SJW’s lie (Law #1) at any opportunity, because facts are mutable, only feelz matter.

    The appropriate response is to mock, ridicule, and call them food at every opportunity.

    (Conversion from the SJW feelset only comes when they get victimized, or experience a moment of clarity. There is nothing *you* can do to change them through rational debate)

  21. Matthew Carberry Says:

    What part of “you aren’t trying to change the mind of the anti” are people not getting? The world is not some kind of binary “us versus them.”

    The world is a minority of “us”, a -much- smaller vocal minority of “them”, and a majority of people we don’t care strongly one way or the other but who we need, at the least, not -against- us if we want to put our energy and numbers to good use politically.

    So, we calmly and rationally engage the anti’s to let them expose themselves for what they are: irrational, angry, insulting, unattractive people on the same side of the majority does not want to be.

    That is our sole purpose, to make them look bad in public. Our being vulgar and ceding the field of argument to them is actively counter-productive in the real world, where the majority do not think like we do about rights, but doesn’t care enough to actively oppose us if we give them a reason not to.

  22. bluntobj Says:


    You already ceded the field of argument to them when they bring emotion and you bring logic.

    Emotion wins when it comes to politicians, lawmaking, and public opinion. Those who have your mindset of “not sinking to the level of your opponents” have stood on their principles and had their knees bitten off.

    Your statement of:

    “That is our sole purpose, to make them look bad in public.”

    is not supported by rational argument when your target audience in which:

    “majority do not think like we do about rights”

    but would rather watch sports, eat poor food, and work as little as possible.

    You are afraid of these people! You fear that the SJW will whip them up against you! Your argument for not using mockery, ridicule, and contempt against the SJW is that the SJW will use emotion to unite the nonthinking against you? You cede the fight to the SJW before you even try! A good mocking meme showing the stupidity of feminists for disempowering women by discouraging gun ownership is a far more effective weapon than any amount of history or rational argument on the masses in the middle.

    Mockery will bring about even more insanity from your opponents. That’s what we want.

  23. Matthew Carberry Says:

    If you can’t make it patently clear how ridiculous an argument is without being vulgar or going tit for tat, frankly, you suck at witty repartee.

    It just isn’t that hard to be better at both debate and sarcasm/snark simultaneously, don’t cheap out and excuse it by calling it “fear.”