Just when we thought things couldn’t get any crazier than the whirlwind year we had during the presidential election of 2016, we were served 2017. With a pro-Second Amendment President sitting in the White House and two mass shootings shaking the nation, the calls for increased gun control have grown considerably stronger.
That burning need to do something, anything, to prevent another tragedy like Vegas or Sutherland Springs – or any other act of senseless gun violence – from happening again is understandable. But it does not give anyone a free pass to throw out falsehoods and outright lies to promote their agenda.
Despite what anti-gunners think, Second Amendment advocates aren’t completely against sensible gun laws. It’s just that most of the suggestions being thrown out there aren’t, well, sensible. That’s largely due to the fact that most gun control advocates have zero to minimal understanding of firearms, the importance of our Second Amendment, and existing gun laws.
As proof, here are some of the most outrageous things anti-gunners (including gun control leaders, politicians, and reputable reporters) have slung our way this year. Be prepared to laugh, roll your eyes, shake your head, and maybe even shed a tear or two. Just remember: each infuriating comment is one more reason why Second Amendment advocates must keep up the good fight in promoting facts and sound education.
1. When Shannon Watts posed this question.
— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) January 12, 2017
Ignorance. pure ignorance. https://t.co/banZjipyCT
— waterbearer (@itswaterbearer) January 12, 2017
More proof hack Shannon Watts knows nothing about guns. Suppressors simply reduce sound, not completely silence it. https://t.co/eACGoCndkY
— Alyssa ( 화영 ) (@ladyofsigtuna) January 12, 2017
Even with a suppressor, the gunshot is still pretty loud.
A jet taking off at that distance would actually be quieter than a suppressed 9mm. A closer comparison would be a military jet taking off at 50 ft.
Unfortunately, Watts isn’t the first, nor will she be the last, to make this uneducated assumption about “silencers.” Just look at this hot take from Hillary Clinton after the Vegas massacre.
The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.
Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 2, 2017
The woman truly has no shame. A suppressor would not have changed the outcome of that horrific day.
Even if we lived in Watts’ and Hillary’s ideal world where suppressors were banned, we doubt that would’ve stopped the Las Vegas shooter if he was hellbent on using one. Remember, criminals don’t follow the law.
Silencers can be made with very basic items,of the shooter wanted one he could have made one with a flash light. He didn't use one fortunat
— Thomas Preston (@Artist_Papy) October 2, 2017
2. When a former New York Times reporter posted this picture of the Congressional baseball game shooter’s gun.
Jim Roberts deleted the erroneous tweet, but not before someone snagged a screenshot.
Twitter was quick to point out his mistake…
…and call him out for trying to hide it.
3. When this Washington Post opinion writer listed the “recreational enhancements” of the SHARE Act.
Back in September, the House Committee on Natural Resources advanced the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2017. The bill has earned bipartisan support and, according to the Committee, “expands opportunities for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting; increases safety and hearing protection for sportsmen and women; and protects Second Amendment rights.”
While these all sound like positives, a Washington Post op-ed writer thinks the Share Act will have much more nefarious consequences. In his eyes, if the bill becomes law, American hunters will be able to “load their automatic weapons with armor-piercing bullets, strap on silencers, head off to the picnic grounds on nearby public lakes — and start shooting.” It’s like he was trying to see how many falsehoods he could fit into one sentence.
The NRA does an excellent job fact-checking the article.
It is against the law in every state to hunt with fully automatic firearms. Such weapons are highly restricted and very rare due to the 1986 ban on their manufacture or importation. The SHARE Act doesn’t change this.
Let’s say, the SHARE Act did change that, and hunters were legally allow to use fully automatic firearms. What hunter do you know would use such a gun as their weapon of choice? Despite what many non-hunters think, hunting isn’t just killing for sport. Most hunters fully intend on eating the meat of the animal they’ve just killed. That means they don’t want the animal to be mangled by dozens of bullets. And that brings us to the next fear-mongering term thrown into the op-ed: “armor-peircing bullets” (via the NRA).
“Armor piercing bullets”
All shotgun and rifle ammunition is so-called armor piercing. Congress never intended to place restrictions on all shotgun and rifle ammunition. The SHARE Act simply clarifies congressional intent and limits interpretations that are contrary to that.
Picnic grounds and public lakes
Laws restrict hunting and shooting to designated areas on public lands. You can’t just go to any casual “picnic ground” and “start shooting.”
And on silencers:
The SHARE Act would simply make it easier for law-abiding gun owners to protect their hearing with suppressors, sometimes called silencers in Hollywood movies. Current federal law requires registration, the paying of a $200 tax, and up to a 12 month wait to acquire a firearm suppressor. The SHARE Act would replace that antiquated 1934 system with the modern NICS system used for acquiring firearms in the United States.
According to the Center for Disease Control, “The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel.” The SHARE Act recognizes that we must give law-abiding sportsmen and women greater options for protecting their hearing.
4. When the media literally started making things up to scare people who have no prior knowledge of firearms.
— CBS News (@CBSNews) October 4, 2017
We’d really like to know what these “automatic rounds” are. Perhaps they’re new – or maybe they just don’t exist.
— R M Huffman (@R_M_Huffman) October 4, 2017
We think what CBS was trying to say here is that the Las Vegas shooter’s gun fired automatically – which is still not entirely true.
The gunman used bump stocks, which allows a semi-automatic weapon to fire more rapidly. However, it does not actually convert that firearm into a fully automatic weapon.
Sadly, this isn’t the first time the media has made up a special type of round to alarm the public.
Back in June, The Trace shared a New York Times op-ed which apparently explains why “assault weapon bullets” are “so destructive.”
— The Trace (@teamtrace) June 18, 2017
What are “assault weapon bullets” you ask? One Twitter user has the answer. (Warning: strong language.)
They're the ones 'made to kill'. Unlike happy fun time bullets which are made to make us smile.
— Chumly Pieplate (@Chumly_Pieplate) June 19, 2017
Ahh, those assault weapon bullets.
5. When actor Dave King suggested we ban pizza (Warning: Strong language).
i mean i fucking love pizza but if pizza violently killed 30,000 people a year i'd be like okay maybe none of us should have pizza
— Dave King (@DaveKingThing) October 3, 2017
Um…what? We’ll just leave this right here.
300,000 people die of obesity yearly.
610,000 die of heart disease.
76,000 die of diabetes.
Also, pizza is not a Constitutional right. https://t.co/LJ2hfxk2ln
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) October 4, 2017
6. When a Democratic radio host forgot to brush up on his biblical knowledge before sharing this gem.
The Second Amendment doesn't trump the First Commandment.
We need #GunControlNow to prevent the next Las Vegas or Sandy Hook.
— Grant Stern (@grantstern) October 2, 2017
HA! I’m no expert on Christianity, but even I know that’s not right.
First Commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me https://t.co/UmoSUjAVZ7
— Benny (@bennyjohnson) October 2, 2017
Even if Stern had picked the correct Commandment (we’re assuming he was referring to the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”), we don’t live in a theocracy; the Ten Commandments hold no weight in our criminal justice system.
Or, maybe, Stern was just trying to say the Second Amendment doesn’t give us the right to kill, in which case, we agree. That’s why there’s a law criminalizing homicide.
7. When this guy forgot you don’t need a gun to commit mass murder.
Really, really hard to kill 50, injure 500 with a knife, or even a truck. Pitifully easy with a semiautomatic rifle. https://t.co/rDuVGlgKWE
— Mike Stuchbery 💀🍷 (@MikeStuchbery_) October 2, 2017
Sadly, it’s not as hard as you think, Stuchbery.
Absolute dunce. pic.twitter.com/75NMWBD7CY
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) October 4, 2017
People – CRIMINALS – who intend to inflict harm on others will always find a way.
8. When Geraldo Rivera showed us just how poor his understanding of the Second Amendment really is.
Sorry mates I love guns but If the 2d Amendment really allows psychos to buy machine guns with silencers then the 2d Amendment sucks
— Geraldo Rivera (@GeraldoRivera) October 4, 2017
When will people learn to do a little research on existing laws before tweeting about how unchecked the Second Amendment is? The sale of fully-automatic weapons to civilians has been banned since 1986.
And, even if automatic firearms were legal, putting a “silencer” on one wouldn’t work – or at least it wouldn’t work for long.
You cant put a silencer on an automatic weapon. And a suppressor would melt under automatic fire. Don't fall for it geraldo!
— NascarDood (@DoodNascar) October 4, 2017
Seems like he already has.
9. When New York Times Magazine’s Ana Marie Cox thought it was easier to buy a gun than vote.
Man, imagine if the right believed in unfettered access to the ballot box as much as they believed in the right to own guns.
— take care of yourself (@anamariecox) October 3, 2017
Where to even start? First:
I never had to go through a background check to vote only needed an ID.
— Philphone Mike (@AnonMind1) October 3, 2017
10. When actress Patricia Arquette forgot one of our most basic laws.
You may have the right to have a gun but you don't have the right to shoot it at people because you are simply angry.
— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) October 4, 2017
Last we checked, no 2A advocates or law-abiding gun owners were arguing otherwise. Also, murder and attempted murder are already illegal.
11. When David Frum essentially called responsible gun owners…unicorns.
The biggest obstacle to gun safety: the myth of the “responsible gun owner” https://t.co/Yj4noL5kjl
— David Frum (@davidfrum) October 6, 2017
You won’t get better laws until Americans accept truth that except for most expert, people who keep arms in house are endangering themselves https://t.co/MLowlUERiC
— David Frum (@davidfrum) October 6, 2017
Roughly a third of the U.S. population would like to respectfully disagree.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) October 6, 2017
Sorry, Frum, but millions of law-abiding, good Americans aren’t a “myth.” Clearly, he’s ignoring every single instance where a trained and ready citizen has saved lives by using their firearm.
12. When CNN tried explaining what a bump stock is.
CNN wants you to be informed. That’s why they shared this handy graphic of a firearm equipped with a bump stock. There’s just one teensy problem: the rifle doesn’t actually have a bump stock attached. What it does have is a silencer and a grenade launcher.
13. When the Texas Democrats tried blaming concealed carry after reports came in that Texas Tech University was on lockdown due to an active shooter.
The tweet, which has since been removed, said, “Allowing concealed guns on college campuses was a dumb and dangerous idea. Stay safe, raiders,” with a link to ABC News’ original report.
Thankfully, Dana Loesch was there to set them straight.
Um, how? Suspect reportedly 19, not old enough for FFL purchase or CHL. Did you even BOTHER waiting for facts before RUSHING to politicize? https://t.co/9l6UsZUw9Q
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) October 10, 2017
Now you see why they removed the post.
14. When freelancer Lauren Duca thought an Australian man won the U.S. gun debate with this startling revelation about our Constitution.
A burly Aussie man put our gun debate into condemning clarity:
"Why do you act like you can't change the 2nd Amendment? It's an AMENDMENT."
— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) October 24, 2017
As is the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth and the 25 other amendments to our supreme governing document.
No one is acting like we can't change the Second Amendment. We're acting like we don't want to. https://t.co/Teb8OcZ4RL
— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) October 24, 2017
Not to mention, it’s a lot more complicated to amend our Constitution than Duca and this “burly Aussie” make it sound.
She’s going to need it.
15. When Planned Parenthood’s Steffi Badanes imparted this “scary stat” on us.
So we’ve already established that it is not, in fact, easier to get a gun than it is to vote in the U.S. But is it easier to get a gun than it is to get an abortion?
According to this Twitter user, the answer is yes.
In the United States, accessing a gun is easier than accessing an abortion. #ScaryStats
— Steffi Badanes (@steffibadanes) October 30, 2017
While many pro-lifers may want that statement to be true, it simply isn’t.
You also don’t need to pass a federal background check. Can you imagine what the outcry would be if there was a database for that?
16. When Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) came up with this *brilliant* idea.
A simple idea: Anyone convicted of domestic abuse should see their rights under the 2nd Amendment severely curtailed. https://t.co/bsyihrklJf
— Brian Schatz (@brianschatz) November 6, 2017
What a great idea! That’s probably why it’s been the law since 1996.
A simpler idea
Look up the law that already does exactly that
You're a Senator, & that is embarrassing https://t.co/TbUtOHF0ZD
— Jim Hanson 🇺🇸 (@JimHansonDC) November 7, 2017
17. When Stephen Colbert offered up this analogy.
— Slate (@Slate) November 8, 2017
He is technically right; we wouldn’t do nothing.
You’d shoot it. https://t.co/c7CNPpfsXN
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) November 8, 2017
Uh you’d hunt the tiger with guns, not ban tigers or the guns to shoot it with
— Steven (@MaVASteve) November 8, 2017
That was almost too easy.
This is the worst metaphor ever.
— Mike (@MikeWithamouth1) November 8, 2017
At least it gave us a good laugh.
18. When Sally Kohn inadvertently proved that Democrats’ idea of “common sense gun reform” doesn’t work.
Another mass shooting, this time at an ELEMENTARY SCHOOL in Tehama County in Northern California. Tragic and sickening! Exactly how many people have to die before Congress acts on BASIC common sense gun reform?!?!
— Sally Kohn (@sallykohn) November 14, 2017
Wait for it…
California has the top state rating from the Brady Foundation. Try again. https://t.co/l2PXGpGLg8
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) November 14, 2017
Funny how quiet she gets when someone asks for details and actual facts.
19. When former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords’ gun control group warned against the dangers of muzzleloaders.
A little more than a month after the mass shooting in Las Vegas, Giffords’ anti-gun group released a report warning against nine “extremely lethal” firearms and firearm accessories that are “designed to skirt the federal laws established to keep us safe.”
On the list are binary triggers and trigger cranks, “high capacity shotguns,” AK and AR style pistols, as well as AR pistol arm braces and stabilizers, .50 caliber rifles and rounds, specialized ammunition and…muzzleloaders.
Here’s the group’s explanation:
Muzzleloaders are firearms that must be loaded through the end of the barrel with powder, wadding and a projecticle. Muzzleloaders fell out of favor as a firearm of choice almost a century ago, and are generally seen as primitive antiques. That’s why federal law generally exempts them from regulation.
Cue the .50 caliber muzzleloader, which delivers a particularly lethal .50 caliber round. This weapon is designed with a built-in device to suppress its sound. If any other firearm were built with such a device, it would be subject to the NFA as a silencer. But since this device is designed to suppress the sound of something that is exempt from federal firearms laws, it is not considered a silencer and not subject to the NFA. In fact, it is not subject to any laws at all and can be bought online.
There’s a reason muzzleloaders “fell out of favor as a firearm of choice almost a century ago.” They’re not exactly quick, or easy, to reload. And while they do have a built-in suppressor of sorts, that doesn’t mean they’re silent when fired, or even close to it.
The notion that these antique firearms are “extremely lethal” and could become “the next bump stock” is frankly comical. If someone is looking to do some real harm, we doubt a muzzleloader would be their weapon of choice.
20. When Nancy Pelosi piled lie on top of lie on top of lie about national concealed carry reciprocity.
Inviting violent criminals to carry concealed weapons doesn’t save lives
Inviting domestic abusers to carry concealed weapons doesn’t save lives
Inviting convicted stalkers to carry concealed weapons doesn’t save lives
— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) December 6, 2017
Here we go again with politicians ignoring existing laws.
Violent criminals, domestic abusers and convicted stalkers (at least those who cross a certain line) are already banned from obtaining a concealed carry permit. Even those who reside in a constitutional carry state (of which there are 12) where a permit isn’t needed still wouldn’t be able to legally carry a weapon. Why? Because you can’t purchase a gun if you don’t pass a background check, and you can’t pass a background check with such offenses on your record.
But this hasn’t stopped other politicians from pushing this misinformation and unnecessarily alarming the general public.
Concealed-Carry Reciprocity would let out-of-state people convicted of violent misdemeanors carry hidden, loaded weapons in New York.
That’s pure insanity. Only the NRA could propose something so vile. https://t.co/FN7S8xIPew
— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) December 6, 2017
We passed strong gun safety laws in MD to protect our families from gun violence. But @NRA's #ConcealedCarryReciprocityAct would gut local gun laws – allowing violent criminals, domestic abusers, & stalkers to come into our neighborhoods with guns #StopCCR pic.twitter.com/YE94RqDwWW
— Anthony Brown (@RepAnthonyBrown) December 6, 2017
It’s horrifying that @HouseGOP just passed legislation that forces states to let violent offenders, domestic abusers & stalkers carry hidden, loaded handguns.
— Rep. Betty McCollum (@BettyMcCollum04) December 6, 2017
Concealed carry reciprocity doesn’t make families less safe. It makes them safer by ensuring their Second Amendment rights don’t stop at state lines.
So there you have it folks, the 20 most ridiculous anti-gun takes of 2017. We could’ve made the list longer, but we figured you’d want to finish it before 2018 rolls around.