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.

*faceplam*

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 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.

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.

Automatic Weapons

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.

We’d really like to know what these “automatic rounds” are. Perhaps they’re new – or maybe they just don’t exist.

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.”

What are “assault weapon bullets” you ask? One Twitter user has the answer. (Warning: strong language.)

Ahh, those assault weapon bullets.

5. When actor Dave King suggested we ban pizza (Warning: Strong language).

Um…what? We’ll just leave this right here.

6. When a Democratic radio host forgot to brush up on his biblical knowledge before sharing this gem.

HA! I’m no expert on Christianity, but even I know that’s not right.

Whoops.

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.

Sadly, it’s not as hard as you think, Stuchbery.

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.

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.

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.

Where to even start? First:

Second:

And third:

10. When actress Patricia Arquette forgot one of our most basic laws.

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.

Roughly a third of the U.S. population would like to respectfully disagree.

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.

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.

As is the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth and the 25 other amendments to our supreme governing document.

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.

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.

What a great idea! That’s probably why it’s been the law since 1996.

17. When Stephen Colbert offered up this analogy.

He is technically right; we wouldn’t do nothing.

That was almost too easy.

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.

Wait for it…

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.

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 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.

Tags: