Monday, May 9, 2011

Mr. G Guy Makes Another Indefensible Claim

That's Mike G. from That Mr. G Guy's Blog

He said:

It matters not. Anti-gun loons are against gunloons and it will always be this way. Even back in the Revolutionary days, there were some folks who were against having or owning firearms. The difference is, back then, they didn't try to force their beliefs on everyone else like pacifists and anti-gunloons do now a days.

I said:

Dear Mike G., Are you making stuff up again? What could you possibly be referring to as "folks who were against having or owning firearms" during the Revolution?

What do you think? Was he just shootin' off at the mouth, or is he actually saying there was a gun control movement in the 18th century? Could he have been referring to Quakers or people like that?

I wish he'd tell us.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.


  1. He was probably referring to Quakers. However, there were indeed anti-gun loons that tried to disarm Americans by force. In fact, the first shots of the American Revolution were fought because of attempted gun control.

  2. I was indeed referring to Quakers. Some of my relatives are Quakers, but fortunately, they forsook the part of their religion that looks down on gun ownership.

    Mike G.

  3. Mike G. is OK now, since he's made it clear now that he's talking about Quakers. But, FWM, what in the hell are you talking about?

    the first shots of the American Revolution were fought because of attempted gun control.

    Are you saying the occupying British Army was a gun control organization? That's even a more bizarre stretch.

  4. Mike,

    The soldiers did not march on the Massachusetts countryside on April 19, 1775 to collect tea or sell tax stamps.

  5. Mike G,

    My family is quaker and I know of absolutely no basis for your claim. There are old artistic renditions of early Quakers with guns for hunting.

    Some family members of mine that were farmers owned guns.

  6. Dear Anonymous,

    There is no shame in abstinence from owning firearms. I can dig what you are saying, ancient paintings of Quaker hunters, a few guns in the last century of your own family. So Quakers are into peace and non-violence? You know, Nixon was a Quaker. Supposedly he hated guns. Dig this pearl I found on a Quaker website.

    I loath firearms because they were invented for one purpose only, that being to kill (few shoot at inanimate objects). They are symbols of violence and death and whether or not I was a Quaker I would still hold the same opinion. Personally, I think that anyone who is comfortable with guns and defends their use should give serious consideration to Quaker testimonies for peace and non-violence and not defend the symbols of their contradiction.
    If a man aspires towards a righteous life, his first act of abstinence is from injury to animals [or allowing others to do it in our name or on our behalf] Albert Einstein

    Yeah I'm going to go with the idea that a holy life does not require an arsenal of weaponry. Turn the other cheek. Walk with him twain. Can you dig it too, baby? A lot of churches have had to ameliorate or play down their traditional stances against war this past decade to not piss of their war-supporting parishioners.

  7. What a great thread. Even the Quaker reference is wrong. That's a riot. And by FWM's logic any army involved in an armed conflict is a gun control organization because they would like to disarm their opponents.

  8. The British army was sent out to confiscate firearms and powder from the local townships to preclude the colonists from arming themselves and rebelling. The crown was aware of the colonists dissatisfaction with British rule and was attempting to make rebellion an impossible option by disarming the populace. Unfortunately for the British, the citizens were aware that the British army was moving on them and took up arms before they were taken. In a way, the British army was being used as a gun control agency.

  9. Yes, In a way, the British army was being used as a gun control agency.

    Of course you could just say the British army was being used as an army.