Quote of the day—Marshall Dunlap

No one needs a gun, especially a handgun. The idea that a handgun is essential for self protection is a myth. If someone is pointing a gun at you then it’s too late for you to pull yours out on them. A handgun is worthless for hunting.

The government is not going to invade your home and take away your guns. Gun-rights advocates say that they need their guns in order to keep the government from confiscating them. It’s illogical, paranoid reasoning, especially given the fact that there are already almost enough firearms in private hands to arm every man, woman and child in the country. The government would not need a list in order to come after your guns. All they would have to do is go door-to-door, and they would likely find one.

Marshall Dunlap
October 7, 2014
Gun control: Background-check inconvenience worth it to keep guns from criminals
[Gun owners are illogical and paranoid? This is a few sentences after he says we handguns being used for defense is a myth (tell the police that), they are worthless for hunting and, “No one needs a gun…” And it’s a few sentences before he suggests it would be easy for the police to go door-to-door and confiscate them.

I think Mr. Dunlap is doing some projection and that he is further evidence of why we shouldn’t have registration lists of guns or gun owners.—Joe]

15 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Marshall Dunlap

  1. I don’t think Mr. Dunlap is in any position to criticize anyone else’s reasoning abilities.

  2. So… if we take him at his word… he wants mass gun bans and confiscations, he brags about how easy it would be to do it (even if it would require door-to-door warrentless searches), but he thinks gun owners are paranoid and illogical for being worried about the very thing he advocates?

      • It’s a prime example of a Duckspeaking goodthinker having a strong bellyfeel for blackwhite.

        And to furhter the Newspeak the exact same opinion: “The goverment should ban millions of guns!” is not only good or ungood depending on *who* is saying it, but it is *also* sensible and logical or paranoid and illogical depending purely on who says it.

  3. As someone who is alive today because he had a handgun and was able to draw it after seeing his attackers’ gun, his first premise is patently false.

    I doubt he would reevaluate his stance given conflicting information, though.

    • I’d bet he wouldn’t re-evaluate his stance even when he was winning the “Kenneth, what is the frequency?” look alike contest.

      But that’s just my take on the matter.

  4. A failure of mindset is evident here, Rob. This creature doesn’t understand that no matter what, I am fighting for my life until my brain is incapable of issuing commands or my body is incapable of following them on a physiological level.

  5. I do think that we should have a registration list of gun-grabbers, though. Knowing who and where the insane people are is good for society.

    • They self identify, so that’s already pretty well covered. The next step then is deciding what to do about them.

      • I thought that decision was already made. It was just that the timing was yet to be determined.

        • But there should be a list somewhere, for ease of consultation. When the time comes, going through billions of bytes of computer data to get the names and addresses of dangerous people like Marshall Dunlap would take a dangerously long time.

  6. So we should violate the rights of everyone so criminals can’t abuse those rights. Fascinating logic. Apply it to all other rights and see how it works. Also, there is the assumption that a general ban would somehow prevent those willing to break the law from breaking the law. Citation needed.

    Drug laws would seem to be a 100% refutation of that reasoning. Certain drugs have been totally illegal for decades, they now exist in greater quantities than ever, and there has arisen a powerful and violent black market infrastructure.

    When someone says they want to ban guns, or any type of gun then, they’re saying that they want a government enforced monopoly on those guns reserved exclusively for criminals. Cause, meet effect. Effect, cause.

    The American founders of course understood all of this perfectly.

    No government ever attempted to disarm the citizens out of compassion or a concern for general safety.

    In a way I can give the Marshall Dunlaps of the world a bit of a break– They’re programmed to think the way they think. They’re prisoners. Mental slaves. Unwitting servants of corruption in high places. I for example used to think very much the same as he. Yes; I was a scum-sucking tool of the power-hungry. It was only through the good fortune of having some sense of independence instilled in me during childhood, and having some decent role models, that gave me the ability to get past the stupidity even after I had been completely infected with it– I had an immune system, so to speak, that fought off the disease and I recovered, with a little help from my friends. For that I’m grateful, but it very well might have gone otherwise in different circumstances.

    And once again I will quote Bob Marley; “Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds.” He had his problems, but he got it fairly close there.

  7. I also note the typical absence of willingness to take point on the whole “door-to-door” scheme. Always, “the police can do it.” Joan would be proud.

  8. Every sentence, every word out of him is wrong, including “and” and “the”.
    In addition to police insisting on carrying what my brother referred to as “The little gun that can’t protect you”, many hunters like to, where legal, of course, carry a handgun while hunting, because often times if the animal needs a coup de grace, it is cheaper to use even a 44 magnum than whatever full-sized rifle cartridge he’s using, particularly if it is a special hand load.

  9. ” If someone is pointing a gun at you then it’s too late for you to pull yours out on them.”

    That’s an argument against a specifically enumerated right that requires no justification?

    Fine, I’ll play — what if it’s a knife, or just 3 big guys saying give us your wallet, car keys, and woman?

    Has he *tried* drawing against the drop? I’ve had brief training on it. Your odds aren’t good, but it’s possible. Would I? Depends on the situation, but the point is that I have one more option that his “get shot” one.

Comments are closed.