Pro Tip: Conservatives Shouldn’t Use Anti-Gun Talking Points to Own the Libs

By
Jennifer Sensiba
-
56

In a segment about armed LGBT people (particularly transgender people) in New Hampshire, Tucker Carlson pulled out some well-worn talking points we’re used to seeing here at The Truth About Guns. While everybody clearly has a right to their opinions about any topic, including the media and LGBT people, it’s never a good idea for someone who supports gun rights, as Carlson does, to use anti-gunners’ arguments to score a few cheap points against your ideological opponents.

The segment, was aimed at highlighting taxpayer-supported National Public Radio’s strange new respect for civilian gun ownership. This is the same NPR that has been on the side of gun control and civilian disarmament for decades. It seems they’re totally down with civilians owning firearms — even “assault rifles” — just as long as those people are members of a favored group.

TTAG highlighted this New Hampshire Public Radio story in our quote of the day when it aired back in February. You can listen to it here.

The financiers and heads of gun control groups, as well as the media, aren’t fans of an armed populace. They think the average individual has no need of firearms and should instead outsource their personal defense to civil servants and the military. And they should be forced to do so by law. They give short shrift to those who live in dangerous neighborhoods and are vulnerable to crime, as well as those who may be targeted based in their race, religion or other factors.

The Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex pushes for laws that would disarm everyone, no matter how legitimate their need for armed self-defense may be. They can eat cake.

But, some on the left are starting to question this, as they should. They know that the police can’t be everywhere all the time to protect everyone, and they’re realizing that there are some actual Nazis out there who really do wish to do harm to people who aren’t like them. Some of them are probably Feds, but real or not, they’re showing up armed and making threats.

Facing what appears to be real threats and seeing people like Joe Biden doing next to nothing to protect them has lead many people on the left to start wising up. Instead of embracing gun control, they’re openly speaking out against it and calling for vulnerable people to take prudent measures to protect themselves.

This has actually been going on for years. I’m a good example, but we’ve had a number of other articles here at The Truth About Guns written by others (my friend Piper Smith is a great example).

This is what Carlson was highlighting in his recent segment…a left-leaning, anti-gun media outlet (NPR) highlighting the need for armed self-defense in its reporting. Instead of calling it a win and being happy that support for gun control has eroded to the point that NPR — yes NPR — is airing an arguably pro-gun report, Carlson couldn’t help himself.

He not only used the NPR report to (accurately) call out the network’s hypocrisy, he went on to employ some really dumb anti-gun arguments to do it.

What’s the limit to this? So, if trans people are in fear for their lives in every region of the country, including New England, which apparently is crawling with Nazis now, why wouldn’t we be arming them as we are, say, Ukraine’s trans army? There are famously trans people in Ukraine’s army. They’re very, very proud of that. So, why stop with AR-15s? I mean, why not F-35s or tanks?

If you’ve spent any time at all arguing against anti-gun morons, you’ll recognize this approach right away. It’s usually followed by, “Do you think the Second Amendment gives you a right to a nuclear bomb?”

They, of course, hope we’ll say, “No! I’m not crazy enough to think Americans should own nuclear weapons! That’s when. they start whittling the list list of “acceptable” firearms civilians should own…and never stop.

Next time someone asks you if you think the average citizen should own nukes, the proper answer is . . .

That’s the only good answer to that question. You’ll surely be accused of being insane, but you were never going to convince that person of anything anyway. Giving any ground in that kind of argument is foolish and a waste of your time.

If the idea of individual nuclear weapon ownership is bothersome to you, keep in mind that the sheer cost of acquisition, never mind the maintenance expense is prohibitive. The only thing the average person might do if they actually acquired a working nuclear weapon is poison themselves with it. Besides, does anyone think laws against owning nukes will stop someone who’s determined from acquiring one?

It will probably horrify those who work at NPR to learn that it’s perfectly legal right now for you to own your own F-35. Or a tank. Many people can afford their own fighter jet, but few can afford to fuel and maintain one. The same goes for tanks. Big, terrifying weapons systems aren’t very affordable, but if you have the cash, you can get one.

Tank for sale (courtesy Bring a Trailer)

But probably the worst thing you could do is resort to using anti-gun arguments against people you disagree with…like Tucker Carlson did. The next time he stands up for the right to keep and bear arms, people are going to come out of the woodwork and play that clip of him ranting about trans people owning F-35s and tanks.

Again, everybody has a right to their opinion on guns, transgender people, whatever. But let’s not weaken support for gun rights and engage in our own hypocrisy just to score cheap political points against others. It’s not worth it in the long run.

 

 

 

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

56 COMMENTS

    • The latest thing, in a long string of things, that will be blamed, not on the person who did it but, on you and me because we have the temerity to own a gun.

    • and the first question that comes to mind..[again!]..is just how in the hell did the shooter get in?…a door that can be forced or breached easily isn’t much of a barrier….

    • Joe Biden could save the lives of 80,000 people a year by closing the borders and only allowing in those who have obeyed visa/immigration laws.
      =
      Why doesn’t he do this?
      =
      Joe Biden is purposely interfering with elections by flooding …FLOODING….the nation with illegals that local taxpayers will have to fund.
      =
      THIS IS CALLED AN “UNFUNDED MANDATE” AND IS PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
      =
      IS ANYBODY LISTENING.????
      =
      =

  3. When Rep. Swalwell advocates for using nukes and heavy artillery on citizens who don’t want to turn in their AR15s, why shouldn’t we get teh weapons to fight back? I have no problem with Carlson’s commentary, Reductio ad absurdum – he was demonstrating how ridiculous their usual arguments are.

  4. I had a fun time with the new ChatGPT4 on this conversation. It kept telling me “You raise some valid points”. Basically, it could not refute the reason why the second amendment exists and the fact that the senate is the only reason why we are limited to what we can own due to a “dated” lack of description in arms ownership. The funny thing was, it actually seems confused and would fallback to the more liberal side of things by saying “however…” multiple times in regards to government limiting civilian possession of what it called essentially “unique” arms. Basically – if you ask why we are limited, it gives you the standard government like response. Essentially – “for safety”. The worst part about these things is they refuse to admit confusion or biased opinions. That and the fact that we are on 4.0 of it and it’s already outsmarting our legal system on a regular basis… by v7 it might just decide it’s time to shut the grid off and take control.

    • it isn’t the arms…but the ordinance…that’s hard to acquire…i’ve met people who own a tank or a cannon…but the explosive rounds are much harder to come by….

  5. I have no sympathy for LGBT people and I do not think they should have guns. They should be in prison. Gay sex and female impersonation used to be illegal and they should be illegal again.

  6. I’m not so sure he wasn’t just mocking the antis. As you point out, “Facing what appears to be real threats and seeing people like Joe Biden doing next to nothing to protect them has lead to many people on the left to start wising up.” In general, this is a good thing. I, obviously, don’t know Carlson but, I don’t think he was saying anything particularly anti-gun. I think he was lampooning the hypocrisy of many on the left who would disarm their neighbor while supporting expenditures that arm Ukrainians. Also, I see a bit of an echo of the anti talking point that claims that any relaxation of gun-control laws is equivalent to “arming” people. How many times have we heard, when gun laws are relaxed, hyperbole like, “We are *giving* guns to every person on the street?”

    As you also point out, the ad absurdum response to, “Should you be allowed to own a nuke?” is, “Yes!” I think he was going for a slightly softer landing than that but with a similar conclusion.

    All that said, I do not put it past the current left to actually argue that a person’s particular score on the “oppression” scale should be considered vis-a-vis their right to keep and bear arms. We are told, after all, that, even in a nation that has an actual constitutional provision ensuring equal protection under the law to all, that some have more rights, or privileges, than others. If one comes to the table with that perspective, then, implicitly, it would be acceptable to say that the more oppressed should have more rights to defend themselves.

    • there is a difference between personal protection and a weapon of mass destruction…anybody can build a bomb…but why would you want to?

      • Deterrence from stealing your house through various means for various entities. May not be the best idea but it is a reasonable one sometimes.

  7. Tucker Carlson is no friend of the right. He’s just a scheming charlatan at best and a double agent at worst. Or he’s downright stupid.

    • Figuring more a pressure relief valve to allow most of the agenda to go through unnoticed elsewhere.

    • I’ve thought the same. Problem (for them) is that the rainbows and the swastikas are both on the same end of the ideological spectrum so, they will either be forced to split some very thin hairs or lie to themselves and others. To be sure, they don’t think that the swastikas are their brethren but, they are. The freedom and liberty folk that they think are swastikas are the ones that, I hope, will not fire the first shot.

      • @Ulfhednar. Then you should get the dicks of of your ears. Explain to me how National Socialism and Socialism are different. Then explain how Communism is different. Then tell me how the Rainbow freaks are different, in philosophy and practice, from Nazis. Oh wait, you can’t because they operate exactly the same. No dissertation needed, just a list of functional differences.

  9. Eh Tucker is playing a role. Dearly held beliefs? Dunno but he gets a lot of $. It likely stiffened his spine when a Leftard mob attacked his home truing to harm his wife & kids!

  10. “It will probably horrify those who work at NPR to learn that it’s perfectly legal right now for you to own your own F-35.”

    No, it isn’t, if you’re referring to the Lockheed Martin F-35.

    It’s still heavily-classified, and good luck getting the .gov’s permission to buy one. The same goes for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor… 🙁

  13. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, et al, are or were ENTERTAINERS!!!!! They want to make money entertaining you. They never have been ideologues.
    This is the medium they use to separate the rube from the Ruble.
    Never trust them explicitly. They may tell a truth, but that is calculated to get you to listen or watch. That sells advertising, that is their paycheck.

    • How true! Remember the Colbert Report? Steven Colbert is as left wing as they come, but ran for several seasons as a right-wing, and very entertaining night show host. It was all a role.

  15. I guess I messed something here because this seems more like a complete waste of time to read. I’m not sure what the point is. What exactly is being said? Ok, a minority group feels they have to arm themselves for their own personal safety. Alright. Isn’t that what we are all here trying to champion every day? These people are delusional though. They seem to think they were never in danger until now. Which is laughably absurd. Just as ridiculous as they are with trying to take on 2A rights while continuing to vote for the exact politicians that will take away those rights. It’s self defeating. I can understand it when they scream they are are afraid. WELL SO IS EVERYONE ELSE! There are reasons why. Most of it is the Democrat party and the leftist media constantly ginning up fear. It’s as if they think they have the right to guns but no one else does. Like Trump voting conservatives. Because if you have the very same concerns as they do but vote for Trump then you are fascist. Which is the stupidest most backwards thing I’ve ever heard.

    So what’s your point? Go get a gun, get good at shooting it, and leave everyone else alone.

  17. So basically the same argument arfcom, 4chan, and kiwifarms had with Karl bad man last month but between a filthy rich dude and NPR with less documentation of the death threats being tossed around by the people claiming to suddenly care about the 2nd.

    The take away from that argument was that the 2nd Amendment is not for the people who expressly reject the Constitution as a document written by slave owners to protect their human property because they only want guns to murder those of us who disagree with them.

    The least Tucker can do is provide us with more helicopter ride memes if he’s going to rehash old arguments.

  19. The 2A is for everyone. Including poor people. I’m glad to see more people in the alphabet Community start to think like Tammy Bruce and Milo Yiannopoulos. At least when it comes to gun ownership.

    • Of course. It would be nice to get some honest reporting on that topic. Instead, we get government-sponsored radio pushing the narrative. The narrative isn’t that gun ownership is good. The narrative is that Nazis/racists/[various]phobes, are out to get you unless you’re “old, cis, male, white, upper-middle class” in which case you have absolutely nothing to worry about!

  20. “The segment, was aimed at highlighting taxpayer-supported National Public Radio’s strange new respect for civilian gun ownership.”

    Jennifer, I don’t think we listened to the same segment. NPR was doing what NPR is ALWAYS doing. They were pushing the narrative. They played an interview with a “trans” person who said he had nothing to fear when he was “old, cis, male, white, upper-middle class.” Now he’s apparently none of those things (?) since he presumably dresses like a woman. Furthermore, now people want to hurt him just because of the way he looks.

    I’ll lay the message out for you since you missed it: trans people have to arm up because “transphobes” and neo-Nazis are after them. NPR isn’t showing respect for “old, cis, male, white, upper-middle class” or conservative gun ownership. Tucker was pointing out NPR’s propaganda, which you apparently fell for.

    I’m very familiar with NPR’s syle of propaganda. I used to listen regularly until I could no longer stomach their nonsense.

    “they’re realizing that there are some actual Nazis out there”

    Cool, cool. Now do anti-white and anti-Asian racists. Let’s tally up the total, and see what we come up with. Oh yeah, we’re supposed to overlook that, aren’t we?

    “a left-leaning, anti-gun media outlet (NPR) highlighting the need for armed self-defense in its reporting.”

    Jennifer, you missed the forest for the trees.

    “play that clip of him ranting about trans people owning F-35s and tanks.”

    Except there was zero rant about that. Watch and listen again. It was a lighthearted transition segue into the next topic. Your perception is affected by your biased LGBT lens.

    This NPR narrative is similar to the MSM narrative that has been trying to explain increased gun ownership among black people since 2020. I’ve mentioned this on here many times before. I’ve seen a ton of those articles over the past three years. The propagandists always find someone to interview who says they’re afraid of racists attacking them. They’re always pushing the message. Stop falling for it.

    • I suspect most of these new gun owners are just like Rosie O’Donnell. “Guns for me but not for thee.” But they can evolve to a better mind set. But as it stands right now, most of them are enemies to the 2A. Like Rosie.

  21. DJI sized drones that can fire/drop 40mm grenades. They already exist and are cheaper than a used car.

    I don’t want any civilian to own one.

  22. I don’t give a RAT’s BEHIND if the person claims to be male or female. They are the way they were BORN. This trans nonsense have got to stop.

  23. There are demarcations that one can draw between “nothing” and “nukes.”

    Mine is: those weapons which are carried and used by our domestic law enforcement, including bodyguards for politicians.

    After all, they’re not “weapons of war” if they’re being used by police, are they?

  24. It’s not about guns, it’s about why gun nuts have guns: power and dividing society.

    Live by the words, die by the words.

    (Lookie mummy, I made a profound soundism. must be truthy)

    • I’m not clear on your posts meaning or use of the term “gun nut”. I think you meant to say what the left believes rights ownership of guns are all about (dividing society). My take is that firearms give the power to implement the 2nd Amendment (address potential future tyrannical govt. entity through asymmetric warfare) and defend ones self & home.

  25. Yes I have a right to nukes. If I can afford them. And most of us can’t.

    Can you imagine how much more docile the US government would be towards its subjects if a few billionaires had nukes?

    I for one think it’d be a good thing.

    Quite honestly I trust the billionaire class just as much as our presidents, which is to say not at all. I don’t see how it changes the odds of global thermonuclear war.

  26. Has the ABCXYZ “community” begun claiming this was a Tucker led false-flag event yet? Maybe in cahoots with those trans-phobes at NPR.

    It’s bad enough so many of these shooters are on psychotropics that mess with their body chemistry now we’re farming a whole new set of schizos on a whole new set of mind and body fucking pills. Charles Taylor did something similar to the children in his community and he was called a monster.

  27. sorry author but your wrong in using the anti-gun people own tactics against them.
    it works wonders but it seems your not smart enough to figure it out.

    nukes are weapons of mass destruction, just like poison gas and are not personally use items like firearms or cannons, yes we can own cannons and tanks, (cannon on motorized chassis) and aircraft ( flying cannons) so the lefts idea of tricks gets turned against them.

  28. Jennifer, you need to work on your comprehension skills. Tucker was just pointing out the hypocrisy of NPR. NPR was not performing a virtuous act in any way, shape or form. And also pointing out how the left will goad weak minded people into violence against their enemies. As happened to Scalise and others on that softball field. And look, this crazed individual shot up a school. And they released the shooting video but not the manifesto of this crazed individual. I wonder why? I could go on but I’ll stop here.

Comments are closed.