Martha Rosenberg (courtesy meria.net)

“How many gun rights activists does it take to change a light bulb? 301. 100 to blame the burned out bulb on a gun-free zone; 100 to call the replacement a threat to their constitutional rights, 100 to post prepper remarks about Hitler and the ATF and 1 to change a light bulb.” And there you have it. Martha Rosenberg’s opening salvo in opednews.com‘s Gun “Carry” Extremists Causing Accidents. Clearly, Ms. Rosenberg has nothing but contempt for those who work to defend and extend Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. What’s up with that? For one thing it’s good for her career . . .

Google tells us that the self-proclaimed “health reporter” has found favor as an anti-gun propagandist. The huffingtonpost.com has publisher her rants. The equally anti-gun Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, New Orleans Times-Picayune, Los Angeles Times, Providence Journal and Newsday have disseminated Rosenberg’s anti-pistol polemics.

That said, some of Rosenberg’s gun control editorials are too vitriolic for the mainstream media. Her anti-NRA rants and repeated calls for a national boycott of any “gun-friendly” business (via the National Gun Victims Action Council’s “Tell and Compel” campaign) are only found in the more obscure corners of the Progressive media machine.

Truth be told, Rosenberg is a anti-gun extremist. Ironic, no?

Anyone who covers the gun debate gets a volume of threatening and repetitive emails that seem like they are written by one person with 12,000 different signatures. Passionate and inchoate, the writer is both a “tough guy” not to be messed with and a victim whose “rights” are being violated. Make up your mind!

Rosenberg is stuck in an anti-gun animosity loop. The more aggressive her stance on gun control, the more aggressive the pushback, the more she becomes convinced that gun rights advocates are extremists, the more aggressive her stance.

This leads her to lump all her antagonists into one, dismissing their arguments as “half-formed” and illogical. Rosenberg pays them no heed—even as she rattles their cage. Switching metaphors, she loves the heat but avoids the light.

[The gun rights advocate] is terrified of gun grabbers and the government who want to disarm him. (Psychology books have a lot to say about that.)  He is terrified of “bad guys” even though he is in a rural or suburban setting that is virtually crime-free. He is a classic bully with a high fear level that only subsides when he acts fierce and makes others scared. He only feels safe if he can “carry” everywhere and becomes enraged at places that ban guns. He has a huge amount of time on his hands to “defend” gun rights and seems to lack a day job.

Speaking of Psych 101, file Rosenberg’s splenetic splendor under “projection.” Drilling down, there’s a theme running through her kvetch: fear. She believes gun rights advocates are motivated by fear. Just as she is. But there’s a difference between gun grabbers’ and gun rights advocates’ fear.

Gun owners manage their fear of criminal violence or tyrannical government by, wait for it, owning a gun. By taking personal responsibility for their own protection, they gain a sense of control. Contrary to Rosenberg’s thesis, gun ownership has a calming, civilizing effect.

Contrast that with gun grabbers’ fears. They’re oblivious to government tyranny—the single greatest cause of homicide the world has ever seen. They’re also blind to the possibility of firearms-related violence in their safe suburban or highly policed urban enclaves. And yet they’re deathly afraid of guns. Specifically, citizens exercising their firearms freedom.

For gun grabbers, firearms represent chaos. Disorder. Moral disintegration. Firearms are the literal embodiment of their fear that society won’t make progress towards, well, anything. How could it when individuals hold the power of life or death? Power over intellectually superior members of society like, gulp, them? People who chart the course of socio-political evolution over a skinny latte at Starbucks.

Starbucks! Where firearms accidents happen! Now that’s scary.

How do women carrying guns in their purses like cell phones “protect” themselves? How does such universal “protection” not cause accidents? Why does Starbucks allow armed people to stride in its stores with carry permits or without, as the case with the two women?

Starbucks has ignored pleas from customers and gun safety advocates to ban lethal weapons in its stores which is the right of property owners. And, in the height of  hypocrisy, it issued a statement following the Florida shooting which said, “At Tyrone Square Mall, our primary concern is always for the safety of our customers and store employees, and we are thankful that the injuries sustained are reported to be non-life threatening.” What?

Would a business whose “primary concern is always for the safety of our customers and store employees” allow lethal weapons on its premises.

Note: Rosenberg’s editorial ends without a question mark. For her, there is no question: Starbucks has allied itself with “them.” Ordinary people who cherish their gun rights. The fact that a Florida Starbucks was the scene of an armed robbery last year, with four perps, doesn’t figure. In fact, it makes her point.

Rosenberg believes civilian disarmament is the one and only answer to “gun violence” and firearms-related stupidity. If that means creating a police state, well, as long as it’s her police state, that’s OK.

In truth, the world can never be the utopian gun-free paradise that Rosenberg envisions. Neither man’s nature nor the nature of government will allow it. An inherently precarious balance of power is as good as it gets. Maybe that lightbulb will go off over Rosenberg’s head someday. Probably not. When it comes right down to it, haters gotta hate.

Recommended For You

142 Responses to Inside the Twisted Mind of a Gun Grabber Pt. 8: Martha Rosenberg Edition

  1. Side note – that woman responsible for the (truly) negligent discharge deserves to be prosecuted. Unbelievable.

  2. Wow, amazing these kinds of arguments are being posed in our country. If this was any other country and someone was arguing for this I would say give them what they want and see how much fun it is when only police, military and politicians have guns. Oh, don’t forget criminals because those will be the ones who control you. Everything you do will be in fear of government or local gangs. Good luck with the fantasy that a swoosh of a magic wand and guns disappear from the earth. The magic wand thing doesn’t work. Believe me, I’ve tried, ever since I saw the picture of that woman’s ugly face. Some things can not be unseen even with a magic wand.

    • On that note, have you noticed how none of the anti-rights
      crowd will actually move to countries where their insanity
      has been tried?

  3. I’m disappointed that the first four comments I saw after reading this article were all about her physical appearance. That has nothing to do with her arguments, and the ad hominem onslaught only weakens our attempts to show we have the better side of the argument.

    While reading this piece I was considering posting it on facebook in an effort to sway some of my fence-sitting friends. The comments ensure I won’t, because I don’t want my other arguments to be weakened by association with the “she’s ugly” contingent’s shallow attacks.

    • What I should have said is “Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clear to the bone (head) about whom this piece is written. My bad..

      • No, a rational argument and antagonist can be argued with… An irrational rabble rouser can be mocked… But if you tried to argue rationally with her you lose… So yes she is a dog, and he whining, while annoying, cannot be reasoned with

    • As if what we say on this blog matters. I don’t figure what I’m typing is being echoed at the NY Times for front page content.
      This is a blog. An ugly woman is being rude. What she said doesn’t deserve comment because it is the same old crap. She is being insulting and looks like a witch.

  4. Why so . . . personal? Would these arguments be more palatable coming from Gwyneth Paltrow?

    It’s the ugliness inside that I find frightening.

  5. The guys from Monty Python made better looking women than her. As for rebutting her arguments, she doesn’t have one.

    • Jeff, we’re not hating on her for being Jewish. Farago, the guy that owns this site, is Jewish. We’re hating on her for trying to violate the constitution and our rights. As for my calling bloomberg a kapo. Kapo’s were the jews that sold out their own in the death camps for privilege and a better chance at survival. The jews that helped in the killing of jews.

      I’m not contemptous of bloomberg for being jewish, but for being a kapo in his soul.

      • I never said anything about hating her for being Jewish. I was simply asking why, it seems, that a lot of the prime players in the gun control scam seem to be Jewish – Feinstein, Bloomberg, Lautenberg, etc. The JPFO link below offers a good explanation.

        • @Jeff, you might as well ask why so many 2A advocates are Jewish. Without Alan Gura, Robert Levy and Alan Gottleib, there would not be any Heller or McDonald cases. Dave Kopel is heading up the litigation to roll back Colorado’s latest venture into citizen disarmament. Our own RF is doing more to publicize the legitimacy of gun ownership than almost anyone in the blogosphere. There’s a long list of Jewish fans of 2A.

          On the other hand, I see gungrabbing Governors like Cuomo, Malloy and O’Mally and ask, “why are so many Catholics anti-gun?'”

    • You’d think the would have learned the lesson of civilian disarmament, right?

      It’s not the case, therefore she and those like her are JUDAS GOATS, i.e., Jewish turncoats.

    • TO: Jeff
      RE: Why Do Jews Hate Self-Defense?

      Good question.

      One would think they learned better from Hitler & Company.

      But apparently their self-delusional, self-hatred continues to THIS VERY DAY!

      Regards,

      Chuck(le)
      [History repeats itself. Especially amongst people too dumb to learn from it.]

  6. You are so egregiously wrong – not to mention personally limited! Rosenberg is one brave, brilliant and dedicated human being who dares to take action in our money-mad culture of violence and cruelty! Thousands of us cheer and honor her courage daily, while you and yours continue to accrue incredible profits from the unlimited sales of weapons of death! Ugh!

    • i’ll let somebody that’s actually made a profit off of guns handle this one. All guns have ever done is cost me money. Money that I enjoyed spending.

      • Exactly, don’t folks understand how much gun food costs for these orphans?
        Another 500 projo’s for Big Mac. 10 lbs of powder. Now I have to prepare the ‘meals’.
        The sacrifices we make to keep our ‘kids’ fed!

    • Wait…our team gets incredible profits from unlimited weapons of death?
      FARAGO! You gypped me!!!

      Real courage comes from recognizing that if you want to protect yourself, your friends, and your family, the responsibility is yours and yours alone, not the Police, not the private security most of the anti-props hold in such lofty regard. So you take that on, responsibly as you can, with the best tools and training you can get.
      And there’s MILLIONS of us. More every day.

    • I don’t make any money off guns; in fact it’s cost me a lot of money to arm myself. That’s the huge mistake you gun grabbers make about your opposition, that it’s all about “corporate profits”.

      Women like you who would disarm all women are traitors to our sex. Firearms are a great equalizer for women.

    • Carol lems-Dworkin;

      I stopped an ex – boy friend from kidnapping and killing a woman a couple of years ago simply by my presence; I didn’t have to pull my gun to do so.

      I did pull my gun but didn’t need to shoot four pit bulls that attacked my dog around the same time; they scattered as I was pulling the trigger.

      In the world that your so courageous? Spokes woman Want’s to inflict upon us all, the woman would have been murdered and me and my dog ripped to shreds by a pack of vicious dogs.

      Why do you hate yourself so much?

      I would suggest you read the ten reasons Jews hate guns and then get some psychological help for your lack of self love and your need to inflict that self-hatred upon us all.

      PS- I spend money on guns, ammo and training; I don’t make a profit in my duty to protect myself and others from predators, human or animal.

    • Hmm, must be one of those Mom’s Desperate for Action members. Or is it Demand Action? Either way they need some action.

    • You too apparently suffer from an emotional disorder of living in your own fantasy world and denial of reality much like Andrea Dworkin did. Any relation?

    • TO: Carol L-D
      RE: Weapons of Death?

      Indeed! Tools? Definitely.

      But a hammer or meat cleaver are also tools that can be used as “weapons of death”. Witness last week in England, where an unarmed citizen was beheaded.

      If he or any bystander had a .45 cal ACP, they could have saved the man’s life.

      But people like you would rather see him killed. THERE is the difference between you and most of US here. We care about human life enough to act to save it when we can.

      And we have anc carry the tools necessary to act in the most effective manner.

      Regards,

      Chuck(le)
      P.S. I’ll bet you even support the murder of little babies……

      • P.P.S. If you support the murder of little babies because they are ‘inconvenient’….

        ….you’ll support the murder of ANYONE you think is ‘inconvenient’.

        Face it, you’re a murderess at heart…..

        And from there comes our willfull support of the RIGHT to keep and bear arms…to protect ourselves, our families and our friends against murderers like you.

    • TO: All
      RE: We’re Wrong???!?!???!

      Please explain to all of US how we are ‘wrong’ in defending ourselves, our families, our property and our friends.

      Admittedly, I’ll not go out of my way to defend this twit or you….if I know who you are if you are attacked and I’m in the immediate area. I figure it’s God’s ‘will’ that you should suffer as much as you condemn others to suffer.

      Hope that helps…..but I have SERIOUS ‘doubts’.

      Regards,

      Chuck(le)
      [The Truth will out….idiots have no concept of what to expect of ‘Life’….]

    • TO: All
      RE: Heh

      Interesting that this ‘woman’ hasn’t got the gonads necessary to respond to ANY OF US.

      Regards,

      Chuck(le)
      [Liberals aren’t. Progressives won’t.]

  7. I thought Starbucks would get a pass. They’re pro-gay ‘marriage’. I’m not, but it’s their right to have an opinion I disagree with. Besides, I can carry when I buy my coffee. I can exercise my rights.. BTW, didn’t those brit muslims that hacked that guy apart have a gun on them? I believe that’s not legal in the once great-now-not-so-much Britain. This woman is just another lefty who doesn’t believe in Liberty.

  8. Come on people – you are better than this. WE are better than this. Defending an attack – even a mean, uninformed, personal one – with reply’s about someone’s appearance is very middle school. So I guess you would want someone on their side, in response to a statement from a heavy gun-rights supporter to respond, “you want to be safe? how about eating salad and hitting the treadmill you fat bastard – you are one bacon double cheeseburger away from a heart attack!”

    How about responding to the point of the post, it’s challenge to consider that fear is the greatest driver in the anti-gun movement. Fear of what? Fear of guns, of course, they say. But I think that is not a completely true statement, or rather it is true, but not complete – which will get back to RF’s thesis.

    Consider a less confrontational, less politically charged example. How about residence fire?. I calculated some time ag the rough odds of having a fire in my home. I did this with simply a rough calculation – how many total residences, how many total residence fires, in a year (I think 2011 data). Answer was .0036% of residences will have a fire. I did not consider dwelling type, location, or any of the other variables that would drive a more accurate assessment of my risk. Just did a simple numbers game.

    I was a bit underwhelmed… So, the risk of a fire will occur in 36 of 10,000 residences. Not a large number. Yet I have smoke detectors, three fire extinguishers, a plan for evacuating my home in the event of a fire, and painfully force my family to go through an evacuation drill a couple of times per year. The plan is updated every couple of years as kiddos got older, home layout changed, etc.

    Someone could say that this is over-reaction to such a small risk. Clearly I am afraid of fire, some would say, and compared to the small risk they may be right. Yet while the overall incidence is small, the direct threat to my family is enormous. Should my home burn down, I could lose everything I own and most of the people I treasure. So, I take action to mitigate the risk. Could a terrible event still happen? of course. But my actions have mitigated the risk for me and my family and I am comfortable with my preparations.

    Wow, a co-worker of mine – who lives in an urban high-rise building, once shook his head and called me paranoid when I shared my preparations with him. When asked what he does to prepare for such an unlikely event, he said he “let’s the building management deal with those preparations.” Indeed.

    I have never been in a house fire. Yet I have visited the scenes of them both through my friendship with a firefighter and as a Red Cross employee (many, many years ago). I have seen the effects. I believe it can happen. My friend in the high rise does not. He does, however, hope it doesn’t happen. And he instantiates his hope – and more importantly his lack of responsibility for his own safety – in an abolute conviction it cannot happen here, it cannot happen to him, and he will never have to face his own lack of preparation.

    So, what do you think this person does whenever the topic comes up? He attacks the speaker with phrases like: don’t be silly, or that’s insane, or why are you so afraid all the time?!! Because he simply cannot reconcile his own lack of preparedness, as driven by his abrogation of personal responsibility to mitigate a negative personal outcome in the unlikely event a fire happens, with any awareness that maybe, just maybe, it will happen to him.

    As for me, I am aware – every time, every place – where the fire exits are. I check batteries in detectors and guages in exinguishers. I work my plan. Not because I am afraid of fire, but because it MAKES me unafraid of fire.

    RF is right – there is nothing more empowering than personal responsibility and preparation. I would also contend that for most people, there is nothing in the world more scary.

  9. Good points about how anti-gun people often think gun owners are irrationally terrified of crime, but really it’s just the opposite…

    I have an emergency fund saved up so I can get by in the event I lose my job for whatever reason. But not because I’m walking around every day terrified I’m going to lose my job. Being prepared makes me feel more confident and secure and pretty much takes away any irrational fears.

    For me, owning a gun for self-defense works the same way.

    • You used the word think. I believe you meant believe. Their position is not the resultant product of actual thought.

  10. I post on here as a gun rights person & NOW THIS! Psychiatric help…I have a tear in my eye, to think that someone finally cares, lol. Yes, shes in a loop alright & no room in there for any logic, Randy

  11. Holy hell is she hideous, and is it just me or do a lot of these people have a name that is a variation of -stein or -berg?

    • You are not mistaken. There are, thankfully, plenty of Jews for whom the words “never again” mean tooling-up.

  12. Reading that woman’s comments reminds me of the Bob Dylan song “Idiot Wind”.

    Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth
    you’re an idiot babe, it’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe…….

  13. Found this quite by accident, and find Rosenberg’s comments delightful, witty, and true, and have now fanned her at the column site. Thanks for printing the long quotations. By the way, since you are all stunningly good looking, why no profile pictures?

    • I find her neither witty nor truthful. She attempts to describe me, and in that attempt fails utterly.

      You wouldn’t notice me on the street. I am a white collar professional. I am quiet and unassuming in person, and no one who encounters me would know that I carry a concealed weapon. Since I do, I’ll turn the other cheek and go out of my way to avoid confrontations.

      I live in an urban area that could be defined as upscale. Yet there have been 6 murders within less than a mile’s radius of me, all within the last year. Five of them were a ‘mass’ murder where the victims were stabbed to death, so that didn’t make national headlines. The sixth was found on a bike path. All occurred in areas that I frequent either on foot, bicycle, or in driving by.

      Don’t dare to tell me I’m paranoid, unemployed, or a wannabe tough guy. You have no idea.

    • Never claimed to be good looking, quite the opposite in fact. Where her ugliness really comes from is her desire to impose her opinions on us as facts and laws. Like others of her kind, and probably you as well, she wants to infringe herself into my life and my choices. Uncool.

  14. How many far left liberals does it take to change a light bulb?

    A liberal work, that’s hilarious!

    (Sorry, I know some of you are good people, just not all)

    • Yep, we have a couple here like Russ Bixby who get it; they may be liberal in their personal views but they understand the importance of preserving ALL of the constitutional protections on our freedom and work with us to that end. We love guys and gals like Russ.

      Then you have guys like rtempleton, who is an engineer and therefore knows absolutely everything, that will throw in a token “of course I like guns” before castigating the rest of us as paranoid fascists who want to arm mass killers, imprison gays and blast the poor into space.

      Guys and gals like him can F*ck Off And Die.

      • Yes, I was wrong about Mr. Bixby. Ur comments about that little prick rtempleton are also spot on.

  15. If civilian disarmament succeeds, how is this genetic aberration going to survive when one or more assailants come to bash her skull in? Oh… I forgot… Passive cooperation via the NYTimes. “you want me to hold my head steady how? Sure.”

  16. How many gun grabbers does it take to change a light bulb?

    Doesn’t matter, theyll just blame the burned out bulb on a gun and demand the government ban all guns. Meanwhile the light bulb remains burned out.

  17. It looks like we are getting more trolls lately. Unfortunately they are no up on facts and statistics of gun ownership. They see it as only a bad thing. Tell that to the over 2000 crimes stopped by an armed civilian per day. They also think being prepared is paranoia. I myself and prepared for many things. Like tools in my vehicle, jumper cables and a blanket for winter. A generator and fuel for those times I lose power. Fire extinguishers for my garage and house. Oh, and a firearm for defense of myself, my family and others. When one is not prepared for anything, their whole life is reactive. I like to be proactive. I also don’t worry about much because I’ve got the bases covered.

    • It looks like we are getting more trolls lately.

      That’s because we’re winning, and also because their mommies are letting them use their computers on non-school nights.

  18. I wonder if her health articles are as well researched as her gun ones are? If so, not worth reading.

  19. I swear thats my distant cousin Irving Rosenberg in drag.

    Otherwise, I think the stereotyping and labeling by the gun grabbers is hysterical. Increasing numbers of people from the Left of Center are buying guns as are people from groups that traditionally avoided and even condemned guns. Non-gun owners know gun owners and strong supporters of the 2A as real people, friends, neighbors, family, and co-workers. No one who owns guns and is a strong advocate can make the gun grabbers look like the crazy fools and liars they are better than themselves.

    Irving err I mean ‘Martha’ please keep writing. Thanks!

  20. Q: How any grabbers does it take to change a lightbulb?

    A: Well, since their eyes are closed and they’re in the dark…

  21. TO: All
    RE: Heh

    You have to HAVE a ‘mind’ in the first place for it to be ‘twisted’. Based on this characters concept of ‘humor’, it’s obvious that she’s LOST hers. Probably because the strange effects of too many weird drugs and the rarified atmosphere of the ultra-liberal environment. Such things are known to kill brain cells.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Question: How many Rangers does it take to change a lightbulb?

    Answer: None. Rangers aren’t afraid of the dark.]

  22. Perhaps this poor excuse for an intellectual should ask the six women who were shot in the Feb 2, 2008 Labe Bryant shooting whether they would have opposed being allowed to carry themselves or allow law abiding CCW civilians carry as they shopped there. Oh… Wait… That would be kind of difficult since give of the six women were killed and the gunman never captured. Well in that instance, perhaps she can ask their families.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *