Are they really that stupid?

Over the years, we’ve heard a lot of ridiculousness coming from gun grabbers. Anything from calling regular ole black rifles “assault” weapons to screeching about hip-fired weapons that can “spray” bullets to cause death and mayhem.

A couple of years ago, the husband and I went to see the last GI Joe movie (don’t judge!). It was as awful and badly written and acted as one would expect. At one point a female Soldier referred to a “Kalishnikov,” which caused me to jump up in the middle of the crowded theater and yell, “It’s KALASHNIKOV, you dumb b@!ch!” No, I didn’t get tossed out of the theater, but I did get a few amused (and bemused) looks.

To this day, if my employees want to make my head explode, they simply refer to the rifle as a “Kalishnikov” and watch my eyes pop out of my head.

DERP!
DERP!

Remember the now-infamous Everytown graphic depicting an entire cartridge flying out of the muzzle of a gun?

Remember how any number of firearms or boxes of ammo found in the home of a criminal is automatically referred to as an “arsenal,” by the compliant press corps?

Yes, I’ve actually had a retired  ATF agent at a “Gun Violence Forum” in Arlington refer to a magazine as a “clip,” and when I called him on it on the sidelines, he waved me off and said, “you know what I mean.”

So using last week’s poll as a jumping point, I started to wonder what is the best/worst/most egregious gun flub you’ve heard over the years?

Tell us in comments if your choice isn’t included.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

12 thoughts on “Are they really that stupid?”

  1. Proper terminology is like proper grammar and spelling, it indicates your level of education and therefore to some extent your level of credibility. I’ve heard people talk about the US Calvary. They say “Your an idiot” and “The right to bare arms”. Reporters who call an MRAP a “tank”. A clip is not a magazine, a bullet is not a cartridge, and an AR-15 is not an “automatic machine gun”.
    “You know what I mean” is just a poor excuse, but poor excuses are what we have for legislators, bureaucrats and reporters these days.

  2. The most egregious example I remember is one from the time of the assassination attempt or Ronald Reagan… It was a sidebar on the story about the media’s hero, John Hinckley Jr. and his “Rotten Gun” RG-14. A lot of time and diagrams were spent on the “Devastator” bullets complete with a Shannon Watts Michael Bloomberg style rendering of the complete cartridge entering media/muscle and the Brass case shattering and causing all the fragment damage… and the bullet itself hardly breaking up… It’s one of those articles I haven’t for the last year or so been able to find on the evil internet, I used to believe that these folks where that stupid, but, Now I think their alleged stupidity is only showing to deflect useful discussion,,,

  3. Shortly after San Bernardino, the Klinton News Network graphic misidentifying every caliber. .9mm, .223 millimeter, and .22 mm Long Rifle (they spelled it out to make it more scary, methinks). Apparently EVERY caliber needs a decimal point in front AND a “mm” afterwards, to cover all bases.

  4. The most frustrating idea anti-gun folks seem to cling to is that anyone (except a cop, etc.) who carries a gun – or even owns one – will likely “snap” and decide to shoot someone, especially over trivial things. The fact that this doesn’t happen generally is irrelevant to them… it “might” happen, and must be prevented at all costs – by making sure nobody has a gun, of course.

    The idiocy of anti-gun people claiming that the irresponsible actions of a very few somehow “proves” that this can happen to anyone, at any time.

    1. Actually, I had a conversation once with two of them (simultaneously, a male and a female) that revealed their logic…and fallacious as it was, it was also quite scary.

      They figured since they themselves were liable to snap, everyone else would be too. There’s a fallacy there, of course, but these individuals had NO shyness revealing they were the sort of person who might “snap” someday because his life was so shitty. In fact they seemed somewhat surprised to hear me say that not everyone was that way.

      It’s ONE little anecdote, certainly, but it makes me wonder if socialistic-control-freak-ism correlates with being so profoundly stressed and unhappy with one’s own life that one might just “snap” in frustration. I do know from other conversations that lefties all seem to know a lot of people they wouldn’t trust with a gun (even as they are willing to concede I wouldn’t be part of the problem)…even ones on “their” side. So does leftism attract mentally unbalanced people, making their self-selecting sample biased towards nutters, who, let’s face it, you wouldn’t be happy to see with guns? (Call it the Michael Savage hypothesis.) If so, their concern might be honest, but based on a skewed data sample.

      1. They, control freaks in general and anti-gun specifically, are almost 100 percent unfulfilled therefore unhappy and even angry. They can’t stand a happy family, a pretty/handsome person of their same gender, smart folks, people having fun, somebody with a “better life” (whatever that is) but mostly they can’t stand somebody that has a set of core beliefs that are immutable and non-negotiable. They feel they must MAKE you negotiate in order to satisfy their own ever changeable beliefs. They have no G-d, they are tormented and want you to feel it too. I speak of the hirelings; the controllers just want power and money.

  5. I was rather amused by this one. 1911 with two triggers, expelling complete cartridges. I actually wrote to the editor. He claimed the ‘shopped in DA trigger was “necessary” because the pistol wasn’t dramatic enough.Then he admitted they hadn’t seen the SA trigger, so added one to be more realistic. As I recall he didn’t get the prob with the cartridges until I explained it, then said just bullets wouldn’t have made sense to their readers.

  6. As for silencer… I’m a little more understanding of that since I realized that the first commercially successful “suppressor” was the Maxim Silencer. Marketed as a silencer, and described as a silencer in the patent. But I prefer “suppressor,” particularly because of the folks who get their firearm knowledge from Hollywood and think the guns will quietly go “click, click, click.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *