Quote of the day–Gerard Valentino

As pro-gun advocates, we have an obligation to lay out our arguments in a calculating and logical manner. To do so isn’t easy. I fail to tolerate the simple minded nature of our anti-gun adversaries on a daily basis. Like most pro-gun advocates it is beyond my ability to comprehend that people still believe in the validity of gun-control after the mounds of evidence that has disproved it over the last thirty years. Even worse is trying to educate the establishment media on how much they don’t understand about guns. Anger is never the answer, however, since it only reinforces the idea that people who own guns can’t be trusted–an ironic twist since it is backward anti-gun ravings that should incur the scorn of every day Americans.

Gerard Valentino
November 7, 2009
The Good Fight Against the Anti Gun MindSet
[I  spent a good part of my day yesterday being anger over a stupid anti-gun comment by someone. I decided to reload a bunch of ammo rather than make a blog post although the rant I had formulated probably would have released the anger more rapidly.–Joe]


2 thoughts on “Quote of the day–Gerard Valentino

  1. that’s why you keep posts like “Just One Question” or “Jews in the Attic” archived.

    They work for 99% of all anti-gun arguments, and immediately expose them for not rational human beings, but religious zealots who would rather avoid facts and reason to push dogma and agendas.

    Honestly it doesn’t take much effort to expose them. I like to go the extra mile because I like to abuse them. Maybe that’s low of me, but I guess I’ll have to live with that.

  2. “…it doesn’t take much effort to expose them.” That’s really the point, isn’t it? You can’t reason someone out of a position they never reasoned themselves into in the first place. Reason has nothing to do with it, but you can expose them.

    Now I’m just asking here, but since when has our anti-libertarian opposition, which has made a lot of progress over the last 100 years, ever been polite or made a point to avoid offending their opponents? Seems to me we’re often fighting rabid dogs by trying to be polite and reason with them, taking extra special care not to offend a rabid dog, which, don’t you know, might result in a rabid dog doing unpleasant things to us (who’s really in charge in that situation?). You and I may understand at the least the concepts of truth and reason, but the other side is about nothing but fraud and force.

    With that in mind, go and re-read Whittle’s piece on Boyd, and his concept of keeping your opponent responding to you, beating his decision loop, instead of the other way ’round. I submit that if we’re responding to what the opposition is doing on anything resembling a regular basis (and we have been) then we’re doing something wrong. They should be so busy responding to what we’re doing, that by the time they start to get a grip on what happened yesterday, there’s something today that captures their atention. That is in fact more like what they’ve been doing to us over the years. Who’s been in charge then? And who’s been in a situation of self-limitation, based on the opposition’s charges?

    Things have shown signs of turning around in the gun rights battle. We’ll see. Right now all our other rights are under full assault, and we’re worried about putting on a polite face when the opposition has no such reservations.

Comments are closed.