Author Topic: Hilarious Gun Control Letter To The Editor, Even Funnier Response From Anti-Gun Zealot  (Read 231 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48,518
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Hilarious Gun Control Letter To The Editor, Even Funnier Response From Anti-Gun Zealot
By Brian Anderson on May 13, 2014  | Subscribe to Brian Anderson's feed   |


Maybe you’ve seen the truly hysterical letter to the editor by someone calling himself Walter “Digger” concerning his firearm’s lack of inherent evil. It’s been around for a while but seems to be making the rounds on Facebook lately. It is meant to be a sarcastic jab at gun control, but at least one liberal is taking offense. More on that in a sec.

First, bask in the comedy. Just in case you can’t make out the text on the picture, I’ve taken the liberty of transcribing it:


My Gun

To the Editor:

Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my Remington 870 right in the doorway. I gave it four shells, left it alone and went about my business. 
While I was gone, the mail gal delivered my mail, the trash man picked up the trash, a girl walked her dog down the street and quite a few of my neighbors drove past. 
Well, after about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there right where I had left it. It hadn’t killed anyone even with the numerous opportunities it had been presented to do so. In fact, it hadn’t even loaded itself. 
Well, you can imagine my surprise with all the media hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people. Either the media is wrong, and it is the misuse of guns by criminals, or I have one of the laziest shotguns ever made. I must hurry off now and check on my spoons. I heard they are making people fat.

Walter “Digger” New Shady Grove

Walter’s point, hilariously made I might add, is that guns are inanimate objects that do not “just go off” and kill people indiscriminately. It’s the person behind the gun that is responsible for what it does. That point was somehow missed by an anonymous opinion-maker at who thinks…well a lot of really moronic things.

In an article called Gun Laws Are Stupid. This Is Better, the writer completely misses sarcasm of the letter and takes it at face value, complaining that Walter had placed the public at risk:

How did Mr. New know there wasn’t a neighbor who was starting to go nuts but hiding it walking in front of his unsecured and unsupervised firearm? How did he know that little girl wouldn’t think it was a toy and grab it up and shoot her dog, or anyone else walking down the street with it? He didn’t. To prove his point he was more than happy to put the public at risk. And his article was met with roars of laughter. This is where the problem lies.


No, the problem lies in that this writer is an idiot, missing the humor. That’s just the tip of the iceberg in not quite getting it. The basic argument from this anonymous gun hater is that most firearms used in crimes are stolen, so the victims of theft should be held responsible for what criminals do:

…we should instead be focusing on passing laws that punish gun owners who let their weapons fall so easily into the hands of people and children that should not be able to get to them. If gun owners were held as responsible for the deaths as the murderer that stole the gun, how hard would it be to expect more locks on doors, more security systems being put up to warn authorities and how greater would the unity between neighbors would arise?

Wow, that’s kind of like blaming a victim of rape for being too sexy. No, it’s much much worse. So, if a scumbag breaks into your house, steals your gun, then uses that gun in a homicide, you too should face murder charges? That’s actually the most whacko thing I’ve ever heard a gun control proponent say. Congratulations anonymous person, you win the Internet of idiocy.

Of course, this article wouldn’t be a proper anti-gun rant if it didn’t contain a deep lack of understanding about firearms and how they work:

After all, except in the hands of an expert, smaller clip sizes would give people the chance to escape as they reload. Smaller calibers could reduce the number of fatalities. Good things all of them.

Let’s get past the fact that a monkey can change out a magazine in seconds and focus on the common gun-grabber idea that it is a “clip.” For the millionth time, clips and magazines are different things. I do like the new wrinkle of calling for “smaller clip sizes” though. Would this be a low-profile clip? “Size” and “capacity” are also different things.

And the other new take is calling for smaller calibers as a way to reduce fatalities. .22 LR is close to the smallest caliber readily available to most people. Does this “gun expert” realize that those evil AR-15 assault rifles are general chambered in .223, you know a .22 caliber bullet. Heck, even most sniper rifles are only chambered for .30 caliber rounds, which aren’t much bigger (.308, 7.62, .30-06).

Lastly we get this gem about how all tragedies can be avoided if only we require gun owners to not have their weapons stolen by bad guys:

Sandy Hook would never have happened…making gun owners keep their guns locked away or face severe penalties would reduce the number of deaths.

Adama Lanza killed his mother and stole her guns. Those guns were in a gun safe. How much more should Nancy Lanza done to secure her weapons? If criminals aren’t going to obey the “do not steal” and “do not kill” laws the solution is not to punish law-abiding citizens for the actions of the evil-doers.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2014, 04:20:54 PM by rangerrebew »
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. Abraham Lincoln

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo