Foul-mouthed Wonkette wag-ette Rebecca Schoenkopf read RF’s earlier post in which he highlighted her standard, lefty playbook, by-the-numbers portrayal of all gun owners after a couple of open carriers waltzed through Phoenix’s Sky Harbor Airport fully strapped. During a hellacious hissy in which she all but played the hoary compensating-for-their-small-penises card, Schoenkopf reached down deep into her progressive thesaurus and pronounced “Mr. Big Brave Manly Macho” a total fncking a$$hole. Just the kind of enlightened conversation about guns the civilian disarmament side can be counted on to carry on. But there’s more! She then revealingly jumped into our comment section looking for juicy Tweet fodder and it’s safe to say that a good time was not necessarily had by all. In an effort to talk the screeching scribe down a few rungs, would-be peacemaker michi unleashed the following bit of wisdom which is more than deserving of a post all its own . . .

Hey uh, Rebecca? Pause – please – Seriously. I feel (from my own experience, that you’re not speaking from a tone of rationality, but one of anger. I just need to say “stop for a second” and consider. I understand the ‘seeing red’ anger. I’ve been there, and that’s not the best time to hit the ‘post’ button. Sure know that I’ve written up documents and oh-so-wanted to put them online in my moment of anger…

I used to be an anti, and I still am rather liberal. And I know when the anger gets behind you, you see what happened at LAX and you think that these guys in this airport are of the same thread.

They really are not.

Just like I -used to- think that all Republicans had to answer for every little thing Rush Limbaugh said, and it’d make me seethe, (and I was wrong) – as Matt mentioned the only connecting factor is gun ownership.

I understand that you, yourself, couldn’t comprehend the want or need to own, see, touch or even be around a gun. I get that! And you don’t ever have to be a gun owner. You can keep them out of your household – but, the crux of it is this:

These guys were NOT going to hurt anyone. Really really. What broke my ‘reactive’ shell at first *was* going to the range with people I knew were “good people”. It forced me to reconcile in my head the disconnect I had between “only evil people own guns” and “wait, some of my good friends own guns.”

I’ve been on both sides of this line, and I can say from *my own experience deep in it*, the outrage is not from a rational place. These guys were not going to harm anyone; proven out by the fact that they didn’t harm anyone. The gun really is NOT the corrupting factor. They were not standing up for the LAX shooter – even though it can appear that way on its face.

The fact is, whenever a nut goes nuts, (because that’s what nuts do) – people come out of the woodwork to paint all of -us- as a clone of that nut. (such as the LAX shooter.) So people think of ways they can make a ‘political statement’ on that prompt, and I’m betting that that’s all these guys were really doing. “I’m going to go exercise these rights and show a few people – try to normalize it, and fight back (politically and symbolically!) on what people are saying we’re about; which we’re not.”

In short, they were probably trying to say, “See? It’s not the machine. I can carry a rifle through an airport and nobody gets hurt.”

THAT was likely their point, (even if you disagree with it!) NOT some kind of solidarity with the LAX shooter’s feelings about Janet Napolitano.

You’ve probably met gun owners, and you didn’t even know they were gun owners. You may have even met people who were concealed-carrying.

There are other political trappings that may be ‘generally common’ with gun owners that you may not agree with. (Chances are, I don’t agree with them either!) – But that’s not what this site is about. Yeah, the commentary devolved, but, when you enter a debate with a given tone, folks are gonna respond in kind. That’s the nature of discourse, and doubly so online.

Anyhow, to wrap this up: We aren’t LAX or Newtown or Aurora shooters. We *really* don’t like those guys. (I was at a movie theatre a mile away from the Aurora shooting on the night it happened. We got out of our movie to be greeted with a string of screaming police vehicles, and had to drive past the incident on the way home. I lived in Littleton during Columbine.) No really. We *REALLY* don’t like those guys because since we (as gun owners) are generally the only ones left standing after the event that share any commonality (the gun) – we get the “Explain yourself!!!!” invectives directed at *us*.

And really, the only answer we have is, “I got nothing, the guy was a nut” and with our ‘anti’ friends we even have to trot out the demeaning phrase “… and I’d never do anything like that.” Wow. As if that even needs to be said. :\

Anyways, Rebecca, I can’t say I’m perfect in explaining a point of view. That’s rarely done in a single post. It usually takes discourse.

But really, we aren’t evil. From an inside view I can assure you of that.

Recommended For You

93 Responses to Commenter michi to Wonkette’s Schoenkopf: Take a Chill Pill

      • She actually calls herself commiegirl? I didn’t notice this before. We have a whole generation (or more) that seems to have no idea what communism is (as practiced in the real world), and what it has done to entire populations. If she thinks she gets cool points for calling herself a commie (even jokingly), then there is absolutely no point in talking to her. People like this need to be politically defeated, not debated. The open mockery of the other thread was better. Cold contempt is the only appropriate response to people like this.

        • She has probably been called a “commie” by so many enraged right-wingers that she likely adopted it as a moniker out of pride rather than any actual political affiliation.

        • I think ‘commiegirl’ is just a reference to Marx and Engel’s (h/t Plato) Manifesto view that women should be held in common, not exclusively. Can’t blame a girl for hoping, can we? ‘Held’ at all would probably be a good first step, eh?

        • @ Michi: I understand. I myself was steeped in some of the most toxic leftist twaddle that our fine University system had to offer. My wake-up call was someone calling my out for being an idiot on some important points. I think I was lucky to encounter it sooner rather than later. I won’t fault others for using a more compassionate approach if that’s how they prefer to operate (like your response). Not me, though.

        • I think people forget just how EVIL communism is and how citizens are treated under it. Ask any former North Korean, Chinese, Russian, Eastern European, former East German, Vietnamese, Cuban… the list goes on… and I’m sure they will tell you how awful it was and how lucky we are to have the government we have in America. They know how special our freedoms are. We have a government where both people can speak their minds and not be arrested and killed or put in jail their whole life with no chance of release because of their opinion. Its sad in this day and age that Ms. Schoenkopf, who I assume is college educated, takes for granted that without our form of government we wouldn’t be able to say things that we can say. Again the commie handle might be a joke, but it is sad that she probably believes that communism is the answer in America. She fails to see it has failed EVERY time its tried. It didn’t fail for the leaders, but it failed for the people, similarly to what is happening to us now. Ms. Schoenkopf is too blind to see that if she was in a communist country she would have no freedom and her standard of living would be drastically worse than it is right now.

        • I have a friend who grew up in a communist nation(Romania), and she would certainly have choice words to say about that commie girl business. “Idiot” would likely be one of the milder things she’d call her.

    • No Twitter here. But wow! michi… you’re some kinda mass shooter magnet! If you’re coming to the Richmond area, would ya give me a heads-up, so I can stay home that day? Well, I don’t go to movies, or hang where there’s masses of people, usually. So I guess it’s OK.

      • I think it’s less that I am, and more that Colorado has been, but 2 in almost 20 years, well… Aurora and Littleton aren’t that far apart.

        Maybe it’s the lack of oxygen here.

    • What you wrote to her was an excellent message. It was very entertaining to read. Also, thank you for being willing to give the side of gun ownership a chance after having admittedly been anti-gun.

      • Thanks. Because of my past and politics sometimes it does get a bit heated in here, but at the same time it doesn’t detract from ‘the point’, which we tend to hold in common.

        Political upsets and conflict DO cause SOME people to turn on their think switches. Not all. But some.

    • well written. I only wish facts and logic mattered. Invite her to the range, see if she is open minded enough to go. Not gonna hold my breath.

  1. Incredible post. I’m sure our friend Rebecca won’t listen to a word of it, but hopefully this kind of thoughtful discussion will get those on the fence to come down on the side of rational thought rather than histrionics.

  2. It is a well meaning post, and I’d imagine it brought down the fracas some.

    Yet, as a former liberal myself, the real enemy we face isn’t people like Schoenkopf, but the philosphy she’s unwittingly perpetuating.Without any exposure to law abiding gun owners, the only message she’s ever heard since grade school is that gun ownership is the territory of the reprobate and the government.

    Big surprise then, that she emotionally lashes out against us.To borrow a phrase from a movie ,people like Schoenkopf are all around us.Doctors ,lawyers, family members.Were all here for the same goal, ultimately:which is a better and safer America-but they’re wedded to a thought system against guns which they’ll unwittingly defend with little logical reason why.That system of gun control is our enemy-not the unwitting mouthpiece .

    • Yeah. I actually didn’t “get it” for years, either. It took a while for me to realize that in general, the “folks driving the bus” don’t have our interests at heart, and that they try to get us on the same page as them, to support their ends (not ours) by broadcasting messages that we can relate to. To make us stir up the team mentality and hitch our wagon to a “side”.

      And then we unwittingly become amplifiers for them.

      Over time I’ve learned to form opinions on my own, based not on what I’m told but what I can find myself.

      That’s lead to a bit of a motley crew of political views, but I think it’s healthier to have conflict in your own mind that forces you to think out the unresolved issues, than to just nod, point, and agree with “Everything they just said” .

        • Was going to say, I could, but it’d be a one way broadcast. I actually do believe folks minds can be changed (mine was), but only if they’re not disingenuous in the first place.

          MDA’s is disingenuous all the way through, so you can’t counter a belief with rationale that isn’t held out of sincerity in the first place.

        • Is it really necessary to counter someone who nobody’s paying attention to anyway? If all us gunnies ignored them, there’d be nobody at all listening to those fools (whose name should really be “A Few Dozen Moms Have Vague, Ill-Defined Demands About Guns But Really Enjoy Spending Bloomberg’s Money” (AFDMHVIDDAGBRESBM)).

      • i don’t remember where i heard it, but i’ve paraphrased it for many years – it’s impossible to back one side, 100%, all the time without ignoring huge, important, glaringly obvious parts of the big picture.

        “a motley group of political views” says (to me, anyway) you’re willing consider different options and opinions, willing to work toward the best solution even if the solution isn’t yours… i guess it means (again, to me) that you’re willing to ‘think,’ an admirable trait that many others have replaced with jumping up-and-down and screaming. it’s the proverbial ‘na na na na boo boo.’

        thanks for thinking, michi. keep leading by example.

    • Thought I recognized a fellow former liberal. Now I’m a Jeffersonian liberal with a libertarian streak, aka “no neatly defined labels quite apply to me anymore”. Sounds like I’m in good company.

  3. There’s really no point in throwing rational discourse into an argument that’s already devolved into emotional one-upsmanship. It’s an extremely well written response, but I doubt it will be considered or even read until the recipient is in a calmer place emotionally.

  4. What else would you expect? She is a disgusting liberal. They feign compassion when their true motives are all about control. These are weak people who act like they are independant and forward thinking but are, in reality, dependant on others and trying to rehash a failed belief system from the mid 1800s.

    • You do know both sides want to control. It is not just a liberal thing. The republicans want the rich to control and keep the poor down.

        • Because most Republicans want to control what women do to their body. Republicans cut taxes for the rich and keep it high for the poor. Bush cut taxes for the rich. Reagan allowed companies to leave the United States for cheaper wages. Bush/Cheny gave non-bidding contracts to Haliburton. Both parties are bad. If you can not see this, you might as well turn in your guns and join the sheepeople.

      • Shawn, I’m sort of reminded of one of my liberal friends and an old classmate back in high school. His problem, as I think yours may be as well, is simply that he hates the Republicans so much as to be blinded to the reality that the Democrats are well and truly destroying this country. I will concede that it is not entirely a liberal problem. That is true. But I think you are in deep, deep denial. I am very wary of some Republicans, but on the whole they’ve been a far wiser and safer choice than Democrats. Period.

        Now if you can articulate WHY the Republicans are such a threat vis-a-vis gun ownership (as opposed to just about anything else) then I and others would surely be interested. But if you can’t make it relevant, you’re not going to have much credibility.

        Your turn.

        Tom

        • Ronald Reagan; “As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases. After leaving the presidency, he supported the passage of the Brady bill that established by federal law a nationwide, uniform standard of a 7-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns to enable background checks on prospective buyers. He urged then President Bush to drop his opposition to the bill.”

          With friends like this, who needs enemies?

        • Republicans want to deny birth control to woman.
          Republicans let the major corporation move to out of the United States for cheaper wages.
          Republicans allowed non-bidding contracts that should of been bid on go to Haliburton.
          Many Republicans have changed their thoughts towards gun control…McCain, that guy in NJ, etc.

          So, yeah, they both are crooks.

      • Actually Shawn, it’s the Democrats who want to keep the poor down, not the Republicans. Michael Gerson, a fine socialist,, woke up when O-care was unveiled. He finally saw the Democrats have no interest in the middle class. Their world is divided into the nomenclatura, a vast population of clients and a shrinking middle class that will pay for it all. If you define caring for the poor as passing out other people’s money then you are right, the Republican’s don’t care about the poor. The Republicans want people to make money and moneymakers build business and employ the formerly poor.

        • You said “disgusting liberal” which implies Democrat. Just wanted to let you know that both sides are screwing with us.

      • Both the Dems and the Repubs want that to some extent. That’s why I want the tea party to keep reforming the Repubs.

  5. In all seriousness, if I were having a face-to-face conversation with Ms. Schoenkopf, which eye am I supposed to look at? I see one clearly going to the left, and one clearly going to the right.

  6. Why is she getting any attention? This here vs. there nonsense is setting up the proper foundation for a grade school name-calling session. Best advice when being trolled: ignore it and move on. Nobody who reads that blog is going to turn and nobody who reads this one will either. Take a breath, count to ten and move on.

      • I agree. I get the “know thy enemy” strategy, but are bush league clowns like this really worth our time? I mean, yeah, they’re on the other side, but maybe we ought to save some of our energy for people who are actually taking action to take away our rights, and ignore those who are just stamping their feet and having a tantrum.

        But I guess these little pissing contests are good click-bait for both sides…

  7. As the rabbi says, you can’t use rational thought to get someone out of a position they didn’t get to by rational thought. Or something like that.

  8. I’ve seen that face before. Many times. Deadly poison. Growing up, post-WWII, in an upper middle class Boston suburb, in a 2nd generation Jewish-American milieu, I’ve dated these Princesses. Fortunately, I went to college out of state, joined the Army and didn’t take my family’s advice on whom to marry. I was the first in my family to own guns. Lots of them. Happily married for 47 years and now living in America (AZ).

    • i can’t say I have the exact same experience but I did go to a high school that was virtually 90% Jewish. I really didn’t start dating until I went to college because none of the girls appealed to me and the few that were nice were already taken by, as it turned out, male versions of Ms.Shoenkopf. The marriages didn’t last.

  9. The bump in this back slap fest is that one cannot simply use facts as a means of winning an argument with a Progressive Communist any more than one can talk-down a suicide bomber as he hits 3rd gear in his truck bomb.
    This woman is a Revolutionary, a personality type that basks in the glow of a society in flames

  10. You are too kind, michi. Becky did not misconstrue anything that occurred at the airport. Becky HATES our culture. That’s all there is to it.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat myself — this is a culture war, and it’s to the death. One culture will live and the other will die.

    • What does that add to our argument again? We should be debating the antis on actual philosophy, not making remarks on appearances. IMO, she ain’t that bad looking. Get deployed overseas for a while and you’ll realize how much you’d miss bitchy entitled American women. I digress, by saying sh*t like that you’re only giving them more ammo dood. Chill.

  11. My response to her would have been a bit more pithy in that her kind is incapable of reason: “Becky, no one give a f8-0k what you think.”

  12. A textbook communist, in the same vein as a “Chardonay Socialist”. People who attended Social(ist) Studies and University or Community College and think they now know the answers to all the wrongs of society.

    Marx wasn’t a good commentator as he married into money and was one of the bourgious he so despised. His manifesto is based on his opinions of 19th century society and can be summed up as 19th century solutions to perceived 19th century problems. And if the arguments got too tricky, he would resort to the cop-out phrase that the dictatorship of the proletariat will take care of the problem.

    Here is a good reference to Marxism and it’s relation to a popular sci-fi series:

    http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html

  13. People like Rebecca aren’t interested in any truths that don’t match her perspective, or at least one’s that she can’t manipulate and profit from on her website.

  14. click on the picture for a link to an article about her. . . . . she was 39 at the time and NOT MARRIED. Enough said.

  15. For the wank:

    http://www.nbc12.com/story/23874589/77-increase-in-women-carrying-guns-since-2005

    12 Investigates: More Women Carrying Guns

    The number of women carrying guns is reaching record highs nationwide.

    Nearly one in four woman in the United States are packing heat, an increase of 77 percent in just a few years.

    Why are so many moms carrying firearms? Rachel DePompa talks to Central Virginia women to see what’s motivating them to learn to fire a weapon. Tune in for her special report tonight on 12News at 11.

  16. You’re more patient than I. Like I’ve said before, I don’t waste my time having rational discourse with leftists, same way I don’t try to have a rational talk with a dog or rat or any other low-intellect animal. The difference is that the latter examples have no choice in their intellect level, whereas a leftist is willfully either evil or stupid.

Leave a Reply

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