Ah, yes, as is often the case, those fact checking sites turn out to be statist shills. First there was Snopes (or actually, I think there was one before it, but forgot the name), then Factcheck.org, and now we have someone over at cracked.com seeking a bloody civil war.

In his latest cracked (up) post he brings up four points that freedom lovers bring up during any debate on gun people control.

I’m not going to fisk his entire post. There’s plenty of rebuttal for just about every point he makes all over the ‘net and dead tree letters to the editors.

But the bottom line is, the answer is “No.” As Bob Owens said, We, the supporters of the Constitution, are in the position of strength. So why should we compromise? Show me one time in history an instance when those interested in individual liberty compromised with those who wished to control them and it didn’t benefit those on the side of control and be detrimental to those on the side of liberty.

Go ahead. I’ll wait.

There’s been enough carnage, in the 100s of millions, due to tyrants killing their own innocent countrymen in the 20th century alone (after disarming them, of course), that we simply do not trust you. And never will.

Yes, we’ve figured it out. You are lying through your teeth when you say things like we should license guns they way we license cars. You are a liar.

Cody at Cracked whines about the four most meaningless annoying arguments he hears from pro-gun folks ending the argument. He makes it sound like they’re four magic incantations recited by the faithful that puts metaphysical tape over their opponents’ mouths. If these end the argument, maybe it’s because you hoplophobes haven’t come up with believable counterarguments, eh?

There’s always a gun people control debate after a tragedy involving firearms. The problem for you statists who would control us is that you keep using the same old tired arguments that the majority of populace does not buy.

It’s obvious that the antis are feeling a bit defeated these days. But it’s clear to this writer that there’s plenty of debate going on, just nothing new.

Ayn Rand said it best: “A gun is not an argument.”

And we know damn well that those who would restrict us further in our right to keep and bear arms would have no compunction about using government guns to enforce their edicts. Whether you accept it or not, that makes you an accessory to the state sponsored murder of me and those who think like me. Although I have scant hope that there would be a 100 heads response to my death by tyrant, you can rest assured that the collectivists’ army will eventually take out someone of enough significance that you who advocate for our disarmament most definitely will be one of those 100 heads sought out as a result. To echo Billy Beck’s take on those who think they only advocate common sense gun laws but really advocate for reversing the government to citizen equation:

Get those guns out of my face and I can be the sweetest person you ever met. I will always meet you on your premises.

Should you succeed in subversively enacting further control over our lives, you’re advocacy will not be forgotten when the killing of those who love liberty begins. You can be certain that our side will be operating under Clinton’s “Serbian Rules.”

When it comes to my unalienable human rights, I will not argue to make my point. Not because our side doesn’t have great arguments for the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, as we most certainly do. I will only argue for my own entertainment.

Tam, of the blog View from the Porch gets credit for an often quoted footnote to one of her “tab clearing” posts: “Where the hell do you get off thinking you can tell me I can’t own a gun? I don’t care if every other gun owner on the planet went out and murdered somebody last night. I didn’t. So piss off.”.

So, yeah: do that.

Update: via Mike, Mama Liberty says, “Get over it” which is a slightly nicer way of saying Tam’s “So piss off.” ML’s post is great. Go read it. (I still like “piss off” better than “get over it” but it’s a great post, nonetheless. :-))