February 1, 2013

Shit NRA Supporters Say

If the video has not fully loaded to YouTube yet check back in 30 min.

DONATE: ‪http://bit.ly/7OwKc2‬
BLOG: ‪http://punkpatriot.blogspot.com‬
FACEBOOK: ‪http://bit.ly/1OtiqI‬
TWITTER: ‪http://www.twitter.com/punkpatriot‬
STORE: ‪http://punkpatriot.etsy.com‬

A car, a knife, or a hammer are just as leathal as an AR-15.

Oh, ok. So why do you need an AR-15 if you already have a car, a knife and a hammer?

You can’t possibly defend yourself with a hammer against a handgun. That’s why you need assault rifles.

What about an assault hammer? Like a semi-automatic Thor hammer that swings itself? I didn’t want to go through the waiting period or go through a background check, so I went to a hammer show and bought one on a private sale from a Norse God weapons collector-- and the sale was totally legal!

The thing about assault rifles, is that you don’t need them until they try to take them away.

Well, I’ve pre-empted them by not having any to start with. They’ll never be able to take mine!
But seriously, what you’re saying is that you need a semi-automatic rifle to defend yourself against the tyranny of the government, right? The idea that you're going to defend yourself against a national military force that has nukes, signature strike predator drone missiles, LRAD, and microwave guns at their disposal-- and that you're going to defend yourself from all of these things with your AR-15, is a paranoid fantasy detached from reality. Hell, you couldn't do it with a 50cal and an armored tank.

You should stop watching so much Alex Jones.

The reason nobody invades Switzerland is because modern military tactics are focused around polycentric warfare. When every man and woman has a gun, not even the greatest military can hold an occupation.

I’m pretty sure that the reason that nobody invades Switzerland is because we can’t run our cars on Chocolate. In all seriousness, this argument is totally fallacious. It’s based on the following false corrolary: Nobody has invaded Switzerland in a while, a lot of people have guns in Switzerland, therefore having guns means nobody will invade.

Everybody and their grandma having guns didn’t stop the USA from invading Iraq or Afghanistan, now did it?

Also, your analogy assumes that EVERYBODY is chomping at the bit to invade Switzerland, and that the ONLY REASON that Switzerland hasn’t been invaded is because they have guns in their households, and that they are constantly fending off invading hordes who have come to pillage their army knives and swatch watches. And probably their hot cocoa as well.

Moreover, there are lots of countries that haven’t been invaded recently, some of which have all but banned guns. Like England. Nobody has invaded England in a while. Practically nobody in England has a gun. Maybe the reason why nobody has invaded England recently, is because brute force colonialism, like the 2nd amendment, is an antiquated concept that isn’t equipped to deal with the very different reality of today.

Just like neo-colonialism uses trade policy, debt, and international finance to extract resources instead of invading and occupying, today’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment is very different from the State-run National Guard forces equipped with Muskets envisioned by the authors of the 2nd amendment.

I have a RIGHT to a gun. It’s in the constitution!

First, off, the constitution is a contract between the citizens and that government you're so scared of. And there was a lot of stuff that the founding fathers got wrong. Like slavery. Or women not being able to vote. Or people who don’t own land not being able to vote. Or black people being 3/5th of a human being (which some of our founding fathers argued against using the rhetorical question something along the lines of saying, “why should we count black people in our census? If you’re going to do that, why not count every cow and oxen as well?”

And yet, many would have you believe that these men are imbued with holy powers, that they’re like the 12 apostles of Jesusmerica, that each founding father is an infallible pope beyond reproach or questioning.

What’s also weird is a gun is the only product for sale on the market that is imbued with the magic powers of the Constitution Founding Father Jesus America Apostles. There’s no other product on the market that enjoys this sort of treatment. Do you have a right to own a stove? Do you have a right to own a cast iron frying pan? An iPad? No, you don’t. Every single one of these things is just a product. But guns! Guns are imbued with MAGIC!

If you banned guns, it would create a black market, and then you’d have MORE guns! Just look at the drug trade. Prohibition doesn’t work!

You can’t make any meaningful analogy between drugs and guns. Most drugs come from plants, and plants grow out of the ground from seeds. They’re living things, part of nature. And the thing about nature is that nature is EVERYWHERE. Guns, you can’t plant bullets and grow AK-47s out of the soil. Guns, like iPads or automobiles, are a technology, and require human beings to spend a lot of time at a machine, building well engineered parts, and then putting them together. Now I’m not advocating the banning of all guns, but let’s entertain the idea for the sake of argument. If guns were banned, the price of a gun on the black market would be such that nobody could afford one. But what about people building their own black market guns? Even if you had the thousands of dollars of machinery to build your own semi-automatic weapons, and make your own bullets, the amount of time that you would have to spend to build these weapons on any scale large enough to affect the market, would be insane. To affect the price of black market guns, you’d have to be producing guns on an industrial scale, like how they are being produced right now-- reaching the point of making it really easy to detect by authorities. The risk involved would also be large, further increasing the price of guns on the black market, further putting them out of the reach of most people. To avoid detection by authorities, testing probably wouldn’t be very thorough, meaning lower-quality guns would be on the market, which would either be in accurate, or more likely to blow up in your face when used.

Obama’s kids have 11 armed guards where they go to school! My kids go to school in a “gun free zone!”

Gee, I wonder if there is any reason that Obama’s kids might be a target, and nobody cares about kidnapping your kids? Let’s ponder that for a little while... There’s got to be SOME REASON...

It can be argued that if citizens were able to use their 2nd amendment and carry a gun on the plane if licensed to do so, then 9/11 would never have happened. Remember it was box cutters they took over the planes with, not guns

Dude, if you fired a gun on a plane, the cabin would depressurize, and everybody would die of asphyxiation. Not to mention, in a crowded space like that, if everybody had a gun, in the confusion ensuing, people would not know who the actual "bad guy" was, and there'd be a lot of cross fire, and a lot of innocent bystanders.

I have a right to defend myself-- with anything I can get my hands on.

Really? Anything? But if there were no guns on the market, it wouldn’t really be an issue, because they wouldn’t be readily available, now would they? Or do you think that there should not be any limits whatsoever? Like what about a nuclear weapon? Or anthrax? Should you be able to buy a rod of weapons-grade plutonium at Wal*Mart? I mean you could say, “if nuclear weapons were illegal, only criminals would have nuclear weapons” but you’d be full of shit, because people don’t rob banks with nuclear weapons, and nobody can buy them. Because you can’t have them right now. Because those things are illegal, and there’s no market. And sure, you have a right to defend yourself. But not with nuclear weapons. So why should that extend to assault rifles? What we’re really talking about here is what degree of regulation is appropriate. So let’s have that conversation. Or we could continue having the knee-jerk crazy talk conversation. It’s fun for me to make fun of.


  1. So if me with my rifle isn't going to be effective against the full force of the US military, then why have we been in Afghanistan for a decade fighting groups of people with nothing but rifles?

  2. The goal in Afghanistan wasn't to wipe them all out. If that was the case, we'd have dropped a nuke.

  3. I still remember when Paul Harvey advocated using nukes and it took a while for people to say what the heck.
    When he said it on air, I remember my jaw hitting the floor and wondering if that was where we were as a people.