Here’s Why Gun Grabbers Are So Nasty

 Screen-Shot-2014-07-19-at-9.01.26-AM
We’ve noted for a while now how nasty the forces of civilian disarmament have become in recent years. Since their failure to significantly move the anti-gun needle after Newtown — an opportunity they saw as a sure thing for rolling back Second Amendment rights — the gun-grabbing community seems to have ratcheted up (or down, really) the venom and vulgarity. One of our readers, Ozallos, posited the following theory under our post, ‘Why Are Anti-Gunners So Vile? – ConcealedNation.org Reads Their Hate Mail’ . . .

Ok, here’s the deal. You own a gun. They don’t. Or by their very ethos can’t. You have taken the responsibility of security upon yourself and are secure in that fact. Again, they aren’t. You’re a threat to the philosophy they believe in and there are very few ways they have in order to express that frustration. First, they must have somebody else take your guns. Empowering somebody else with guns to take your guns is hypocritical at its very core, but seen as a necessary evil . . .

The ends justify the means and if a few eggs need to be broken, /shrug. You need to burn the village idiot to save him or something.

Next, you need to feel bad about yourself. This is usually where the bogus statistics and outright lies come from. You’re an evil, evil person and this is why. But the real nastiness comes out when social intervention or public shaming doesn’t work. Their impotency manifests itself violently in their true beliefs. Gun owners need to die in a fire. They need to be strung up by the government. Firearms owners need to be disappeared.

Nevermind the fact that this behavior is just as, if not more reprehensible than what they’re rallying against. Nevermind that the entity that they happily empower to do their dirty work to keep their own hands clean would just as likely turn upon them as it would their opposition. In their mind, your disappearance will create a new eden with one less problem in the world and they hate the fact that it cannot be made to happen now, now, now. they are, in effect, spoiled children who are above the law.

If they can’t do anything about it, can’t get others to do it for them or can’t shame you into doing it, they get nasty. Magnifying this personality flaw is the fact that they are being led by the nose by political organizations suggesting that disarmament is the proper state of affairs and you personally are denying them this idyllic world. Even worse, they can’t enforce their will upon you directly because you’re armed and secure in person and philosophy.

Result: gun owners need to die in a fire.

comments

  1. avatar Bob Wall says:

    Isn’t Shiva the Goddess of Destruction?

    Seems counter-intuitive to the Kumbaya paradigm of gun grabbers, but that’s not really their mind-set. Just disarmament and complete social control. What’s the Hindu god/goddess for that?

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      I’ve interacted with “Shiva” on a few occasions in comments on various articles. With him (her?) it literally is all about alleged penis compensation, “ammosexuality,” and paranoid delusions. Of course there are also the additional ad hominem racism and delusions of grandeur attacks.

      Shiva and his ilk spew vile and intolerant comments that are almost universally devoid of fact. Despite that, I respect his 1st Amendment rights. Anyone with sense can see he is making an a$$ of himself.

      What I don’t respect is that people like him would gladly promote totalitarianism to satisfy his delusions of morality and an ideal society. To do that, they desperately need independent thinkers such as responsible gun owners to be disarmed and dependent upon the government.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        I’ve interacted with “Shiva” on a few occasions in comments on various articles.

        Why not just start snorting meth? It’s probably a more productive use of your time, and less destructive on your mental faculties.

      2. avatar Fred Lead says:

        Of course it’s about penis compensation, I can’t fight off a criminal with my penis! I guess the intellectually and morally superior antis would prefer to take hold of their penis than a firearm when someone threatens their life. That might also shed some light on why they leave women out in the cold when it comes to self defense; women have nothing to hold so it is inconceivable that women could defend themselves in the eyes of the antis.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Some human male embryos in the womb hold their penises. It is assumed to be a self-soothing mechanism. Perhaps antis are more regressive than originally speculated.

      3. avatar tdiinva says:

        Next time you exchange pleasantries with her/him explain that the gun = penis thing is an urban myth. What Freud said was that people who are afraid of guns are sexually and emotionally immature.

    2. avatar Desert Ranger says:

      Nail on the head! Twerp probably took two yoga classes and thinks he is some guru now.

    3. avatar David says:

      Shiva is male. I think you are thinking of Durga/Kali . . . and she is often depicted as being armed. So is Shiva. Shiva is usually depicted as having a trident.

      Irony here is Shiva is often represented by by his ling/lingam or Shiv-ling a.k.a. a phallus or penis.

  2. avatar Lurker_of_Lurkiness says:

    Why is shiva obsesessed with gun owner’s penises?

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      Maybe there’s something missing in her life.

      1. avatar DJ9 says:

        Or his life (NTTAWWT).

        1. avatar Foster says:

          Nice Seinfeld reference!

  3. avatar arsh says:

    Does anyone else find any irony that it’s those without weapons wishing harm on those with weapons?

    1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      Well, wishing is all they’ve got.

      1. avatar Foster says:

        It’s not wishing so much as it is bullying. They are control freaks who can’t imagine why anyone would want to use or have a gun, so no one should, Because they say so. They have absolutely no understanding of freedom. They can’t respectfully disagree. You don’t see it their way…you’re the evil enemy. It doesn’t even have to be about guns. Could be politics, food, cars, whatever. Except when it comes to women’s rights I guess.

        1. avatar chuck (hates nj) says:

          Have you been hanging out with my ex gf? Though she is kinda pro gun but doesn’t care to shoot any.

    2. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      I’ve stated the same thing many times. Bring it on p##sy(fill in the blank)…cold dead hands…

    3. avatar Jason Lynch says:

      I’m without firearms here in the UK (got a decent collection of long and short bladed weapons, though – could get a Joe Biden special if I wanted it, but don’t feel the need) and in a perfect world would suggest a few safeguards around ‘guns’ in the US; enough that some would call me a gun-grabber, though until the ’98 ban I did enjoy loading up a hundred or two rounds of .45ACP a week and turning them into noise, empty cases and half-decent groups. In other words, in the US debate, the default position is that both sides hate me 🙂

      I don’t have a vote in the US so I don’t have any more voice in your debate than anyone is willing to listen to; but the USAian gun-owners I’ve known personally have been thoroughly decent individuals. Far from wishing them harm, if they were in danger while I was around, I hope I’d have the fortitude to borrow a spare firearm or pull a blade and stand beside them to help them stay safe.

  4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    They express such visceral hate because their thought processes are controlled by emotion, unconstrained by fact or logic. They are mental toddlers with the imagination of adults. They are incapable of separating the inherent worth of the person from the ideas expressed by the person, and since they hate the idea, they likewise hate the person expressing the idea. And all of that is exacerbated by their tendency to project their own fears and insecurities on others. Put it all together, and you get your average CSGV facebook post comment.

    1. avatar DJ9 says:

      ^^This, combined with a big dose of projection.

      They feel (know) that they couldn’t be trusted with guns, so obviously, no one else can be trusted, either.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Are they insecure about their penises, then, too? I cannot imagine another reason why they think penises have a place in conversations about firearms, hunting, self defense, collecting, or whatever. Any place at all.

      1. avatar Slicer87 says:

        It is simply crude, sexist anti-male bashing. Most of these pro-control nuts are also the types who believe men are the causes of all the ills in society. They like to think only we only want guns so we can oppress everybody who isn’t a privileged white male. Shiva probably hates his own gender and thinks men are all inherently evil. That equality can only be reached after the evil white men are disarmed.

    3. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Yes, all of this. And, since I’ve been involved with dealing facts to these people since about 1992-1993 in earnest, (cripes, that’s 30+ years now), I have this observation about anti-gunners:

      Many of them are perverts. Straight-up, no-debate, creepy perverts. Both male and female. They literally think with their genitals. What’s more and worse is that they’ve obsessed with your genitals. I’ve confronted this in the past by asking some of the bizarre male anti-gunners with questions like: “Are you homosexual or something? You’re obsessed about my johnson and the size thereof, and, I might add, a lot more than I have ever been.”

      When a male anti-gunner confront a female gun owner, the change in the male anti-gunner’s behavior is really bizarre to see, especially when she’s young and pretty.

      When I’ve confronted many female anti-gunners, even some of them who start out near-hysterical in manner, remaining calm, standing right in front of them and looking directly into their eyes with something between a smile and a smirk on my face as I calmly ask questions about their mindset produces some very humorous changes in their behavior. In hindsight, if I’d been single at the time, I could have had my way with at least a dozen anti-gun women over the years. Dirk is absolutely on to something in this respect.

      1. avatar Timmy! says:

        “…since about 1992-1993 in earnest, (cripes, that’s 30+ years now)”

        Not to be “That Guy,” but that’s only 22-23 years. Not that it invalidates your point, just, y’know, math and stuff.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Could be a mental error, but not a biggie. I was thinking he meant “1992-1993 in earnest”, as in maybe that’s when he became a professional in the field, but has been involved in firearms and the cultural struggle personally going back as far as the early to mid-1980s or so. I don’t know, just my first impression.

        2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          You’re right – I was thinking that I first really got up on my hind legs about gun control in 1986 and the freeze on full-auto guns was being rammed through, along with the early efforts at handgun control. I typed ’92-93 because that’s when I started going public and moving into the same orbit as guys like Don Kates, Clayton Cramer and others in the SF Bay area at that time. Brain fart on my part.

      2. avatar Matt in TX says:

        “When a male anti-gunner confront a female gun owner, the change in the male anti-gunner’s behavior is really bizarre to see, especially when she’s young and pretty.”

        Just curious, elaborate please.

        1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          They get this bizarre brain melt-down and they start saying the most… disturbing things.

          The typical gun grabbers are used to spouting their twaddle at white males. When they’re confronted by a black gunowner, they just shut up and usually walk rather smartly in the other direction. That’s always fun to watch.

          But when a young attractive woman starts debating the issue of guns with these pervs… wow. You see their full perversity start coming out after a pause where you can see that their ‘internal narrative’ has been derailed. First (and typical) attack used to be that the young woman was the “kept woman” of some “old white sugar daddy.” That went out of favor after the 90’s and the dot-com implosion, I noticed.

          Now, there’s some really weird sexual tropes they start throwing out, like the woman must be lesbian and want a gun as an artificial phallus (I’m trying to be polite here). If that doesn’t work, then they become really pervy and suggestive, or flat-out ask the woman if they’re a dominatrix or some such thing.

          When I said that many of these gun control people are flat-out pervs, I was not kidding. Now, maybe my experience was warped by being in the major metro areas of California, where the weird are professionally strange, but that’s my experience.

      3. avatar Tom says:

        I ask these anti gun individuals how do they know that gun owners have small male appendages, are they Peeping Toms or fetishists? And I assure them, its OK you can come out of the closet, its 2015 and its OK to be gay. They go silent after these comments.

    4. avatar Desert Ranger says:

      Well said, Chip!

  5. avatar Craig says:

    I don’t know where pointing out personality flaws of the opposition is going to get us. A lot of people on our side have serious personality issues like when Dudley Brown posted on ARFCOM or when Mr. Smith of Smith Enterprises decided to sue a guy from M14.com.

    Telling someone they have a personality problem in a blunt manner is going to escalate the problem. Don’t feed the trolls.

  6. avatar PeterW says:

    There will be peace in the middle East as soon as all the Americans not in the army are disarmed.
    Sure.

  7. avatar Sammy says:

    They are vile because:
    1) Most do not agree with them leaving them in the minority
    2) Facts counter dict their claims
    3) They are left with only emotion for an argument

  8. avatar Franko says:

    I’ve asked this question many times. Why do liberals always want to take things, rights, money away from people other than themselves? Why don’t we start campaigning to take things, rights and money from liberals and watch what happens? Am I going to far suggesting that most gun grabbers are liberals?
    What do gun grabbers have that needs to be taken away from them because we say so?

    1. avatar Craig says:

      +1

      Every mass shooter in the last few years has been left wing or a registered Dem. It’s time for a ban on Dems, for the children!

      1. avatar God says:

        Oh yeah. Those two mutants that were throw off of the Bundy Ranch and who then killed two Las Vegas cops before shooting up a WalMart were flaming liberals. Try to sell that one at your next NRA meeting.

        1. avatar Jake R says:

          One spec in a long lineup of left-leaning individuals gone off the deep end.

        2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Well, they were pro-Nazi, aka national socialists. That’s pretty liberal. They killed a couple of cops. That’s an infamous liberal crime going back at least to the 1970s, up through the incitements in Ferguson. Pretty liberal again. What else? Let’s see, he was a felonvwho wanted his gun rights restored, just like liberal Holder advocates. He stormed into Walmart, shooting, and announcing the revolution had begun. It’s liberals who advocate violent governmental overthrow of the government.

          I’m notvsee much

    2. avatar Roscoe says:

      Choice.

      Just as they want to limit ours, we should seek to limit theirs. Name the topic.

      Abortion comes immediately to mind.

    3. avatar Fred Lead says:

      I don’t know what liberals you have come across, but no liberal I have met has anything of value to take. Those that want communism only want it because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

  9. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    If law abiding gun owners were the seal-pup-bashing, bus-full-of-nuns-shooting troglodytes that they say they believe, none of them would ever confront us. They know we’re not going to harm them or anyone else. That’s why they protest us instead of going to the gang infested urban areas of the country where the “gun violence” is actually a problem. We are their safe place.

    1. avatar Amok! says:

      +1

      They spew vitriol safely to the law abiding gun owner.

      They also show bravery by vitrioling it over the interwebs.

    2. avatar Bob108 says:

      Exactly. It is all propaganda. If you read and believed the Nazi propaganda in the 1930’s about the Jews, you would think the jews were these vile, evil predators. It is the same tactic. It is the same tactic when the left accuses anyone who disagrees with them of being racists. Their attacks have nothing to do with facts or arguing a point. No, they are trying demean you, to silence you, to force you to submit, and to push you out of the way. These are people who will stop at nothing to get their way, and if that eventually means violence, they will do it. This is why we cannot let them take away our 2nd amendment rights, for this is truly about life and liberty.

      1. avatar Matt in TX says:

        “and if that eventually means violence, they will do it.”

        Only if they can convince somebody else to do the job. That way their cowardly hands are clean.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Boy, ain’t that the truth. Think they’d like to mouth off to (read, “disrespect”) some gang bangers in NYC or Chicago, run off at the mouth about those boys’ penis sizes, stupidity, or whatever? Somebody bring a video camera!

      1. avatar DJ9 says:

        That would surely meet my personal definition of “Must-see TV”!

  10. avatar Bradn says:

    What is it with anti-gunners and penis obsession? I think there’s a whole hell of a lot of projection going on here. I swear do these people ever take a break from thinking about penises constantly? It’s really bizarre.

    1. avatar Franko says:

      Richard Pryor once said:
      “White people go; Why you guys hold your things? Cause you done took everything else, motherf****r!”

    2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Interestingly enough, the consideration that women could own guns never crosses their minds…

      1. avatar Bradn says:

        Of course they don’t. They’re obviously not intelligent enough to come to the conclusion that millions of women across the country use firearms to defend themselves. Of course I would expect the excuse of the anti’s to be “penis envy”.

  11. avatar ralph says:

    Liberals believe that they have the best path for everyone to follow and do not suffer any deviation from their paradigm nicely. Control, supremacy of the state is their mantra. they have issues with concepts such as freedom, choice, limited government, personal responsibility. When challenged on this, or in the losing camp when the results either are in or do not get off the ground, tend to be very insulting. What they cannot forcibly remove they belittle and demean. They accuse others of the tendencies they themselves possess and use. To put it another way, they are the greatest danger this nations faces, far more dangerous than anyone we have fought in memory.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      …they have no understanding of concepts such as freedom, choice, limited government, personal responsibility.

      FIFY. It explains a lot. They fear what they can’t understand.

  12. avatar Franko says:

    There was a news site that did a story last week about how Arkansas is preparing to allow concealed carry in courts and other public places. Of course this sent some liberals into a feeding frenzy.
    One of them immediately started calling names and one of ours responded in kind.
    I tried to calmly explain to both sides the following:
    The problem is that anti-gun people typically do not understand the difference between a trained, licensed, fingerprinted and background check person and Billy Joe Bob that has a gun. Billy Joe Bob would not be able to legally carry a firearm into public places. The permit holder would. It’s not the same. Concealed carry permit holders have been proven to be much more law abiding than the public and even more law abiding than the police themselves. There is a reason that the Police themselves see more permit holders as an important tool in reducing violent crime.
    http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/

  13. avatar Roscoe says:

    That essay sounds eerily like a description of Hillary Clinton.

  14. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    My wife, mom, and sisters have penis extenders… I think I need a drink, and soap…

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Yeah, their misandry is showing…in multiple dimensions.

  15. avatar David N says:

    I do notice the violent threats which some liberals use when talking about gun owners, the phallic symbol being some of the kinder words they use, Others include being compared to Nazi Germany and other fringe radical groups. As a group, they tend to talk about how they wish to take things away from people, and about people doing things they don’t personally like.

    Sorry about that. In a democratic republic, people are free to do things you may not personally like so long as they aren’t stepping on the toes of others or creating a dangerous situation.

    On the other hand, most all of the gun owners I personally know are quite calm and polite. Yet another truism that an armed society is a polite society.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “On the other hand, most all of the gun owners I personally know are quite calm and polite.”

      One truly funny, and remarkable, thing about their vitriol against concealed carriers in particular is that they don’t, by definition, generally even know who is carrying.

      The cognitive dissonance is amazing to behold. And, once again, I’m reminded of one of my most favorite Internet photos: Shannon Watts in a smiling pose standing next to Alan Brooks. Shannon’s response was so over-the-top it was an amazing insight into her mind (or the public face of ‘her mind’).

      I know one vocal anti-gunner that is (or acts) completely clueless that every time she talks to me I am carrying. She SHOULD know..based on things I have said, my wife has said, and conversations her husband and I have had (including teaching their children to shoot and helping him buy a gun and inviting him to IDPA matches, etc).

      Either she does not know (denial of readily observable facts) or she just cannot associate me as being “one of THOSE people” which may be worse than denial since she can’t update her prejudices to match observable facts (cognitive dissonance).

      As I said…remarkable.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/03/daniel-zimmerman/incendiary-image-day-ankle-holster-edition/

        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/03/daniel-zimmerman/gun-tweet-of-the-day-tangled-web-edition/

        And it eventually led to Dirk commenting:

        Dirk Diggler says:
        March 10, 2014 at 10:15

        comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂 comment moderated 🙂

        Where has Dirk disappeared to, anyways?

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          JR –

          Me bad.

          That was supposed to be a comment on Dyspeptic’s comment on Shannon…

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    Interesting that the penis-obsessed Shiva chose to name him/herself after the Supreme Deity in the Hindu religion. I detect a whiff of self-importance here. Usually, such people live in basement apartments and host cockroach races for fun.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Don’t dismiss cockroach racing so easily. It’s difficult finding jockeys that small and roaches that big.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        You’ve never been to New York City, have you?

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Many gun control freaks still live in Mommy’s basement.

    3. avatar Azman says:

      Shiva is not the supreme deity in Hinduism. She’s just the goddess of destruction.

  17. avatar Bruce Abbott says:

    I don’t pay much attention to the haters; I served as a volunteer firefighter for 20-odd years, and as a boarding officer in the USCGR for 6 years. I don’t remember running into any of them in any sinking boats or burning houses. Three times in my life I have met potential adversaries with a gun in my hands, twice in defence of women and children, and once in defence of my own life. Luckily, I never had to fire a shot, and only racked a round to demonstrate the seriousness of the situation once. Rest assured, if anybody comes to try to take our firearms, the haters will not be in their number. I worked on a farm years ago, and several times watched crows mob an owl in a tree. They made a lot of noise, but kept their distance, mindful of those talons. The owl just sat there and waited…

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      I love owls. I had fun when the crows would come calling and harassing our long-eared and Great Horned owls on the farm.

      I’d back off into concealment about 90 yards away with a .17 HMR and take the crows down, one by one. The owl never showed interest in the carcasses. I’d wire a couple/three of the dead crows to a fence or hanging from the owl’s favorite roosts and leave them there for a month or so. Kept the crows off at a distance.

      Owls are by far my favorite birds, even more than the big hawks and eagles.

      Back to our regularly scheduled dissection of lunacy…

    2. avatar brentondadams says:

      USCG vet here too. Went through boarding team school as well.

      Here in California, the crows mob the hawks. At a safe distance…

      Let them rant. It really is a ‘sound and fury signifying nothing’ I focus on winning political battles. We’ve been doing pretty good in the big arc of things. At the end of the day, if our side can sit back and say we won more than we lost, I don’t care about anything else.

      1. avatar Bruce Abbott says:

        Did my training at Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod, Maritime Law Enforcement School. Love my time as a Coastie, but got hurt during unarmed combat training, crushed two discs in my neck. Medical-ed out without a pension but I get by. We were shooting 1911A1s back then; I had one from 17 on and shot expert before they gave me uniforms. Good times…

        1. avatar brentondadams says:

          Wow, 1911s? That was well before my time 😉 We had beat up 92’s. They have Sigs now. Fancy.

    3. avatar Desert Ranger says:

      Is it any wonder that the owl is the symbol for Athena, goddess of Wisdom and Strategic War (and of Athens, the first Democracy)?

  18. avatar Janine@BWSS says:

    The trolls that I now ignore, rather than fruitlessly engage in debate, often believe that if it wasn’t for law abiding gun owners, people willing to use violence while breaking the law, wouldn’t have access to firearms. Ergo, violent crimes would drop, because most criminals are so lazy that without firearms they wouldn’t commit violent acts. If they concede that violence won’t dissipate, they claim it will be less effective without firearms. On the long road to this illiberal utopia, as you said, “The ends justify the means and if a few eggs need to be broken, /shrug. You need to burn the village idiot to save him or something.” They shrug their shoulders at cases of news reports of women successfully defending themselves with firearms and point to cases of domestic violence-initiated homicides. They say those lost lives outweigh the gain of the women’s lives that were saved by firearms. They say that they’re not denying any woman’s right to self defense; they just want to deny her the ability to do so effectively. After all, they believe pepper spray, whistles, and alarms ALWAYS work. Aurrgh! I thought I was done raging against those who refuse to admit that a civilian can be responsibly armed and those who want me to sacrifice my attempts to prepare myself and other women for the worst, because by doing so I am enabling a violently angry man to kill a woman in his household by allowing him the ability to access a firearm. After all, he wouldn’t have killed her if he didn’t have convenient access to a firearm. He wouldn’t ever resort to strangling, beating, bludgeoning, burning, stabbing, etc. Their anger then turns from the homicidal scumbag to me and you, the responsibly armed who in their minds enabled the murderer. If it wasn’t for our “gun culture,” he’d have never been a murderer in the first place. //Deep breathe// Thanks for the post. Guess I needed a cathartic release of frustration.

  19. avatar raptureRaptor says:

    Do yourself a favor and check out 2nd amendment articles from Gawker media. I thought I was fairly left wing until I started defending the right to bear arms in arguments with these people. They’re some of the first in a community that I’ve ever heard jump to wishing violence unto others at the first sight of opposing viewpoints. Race/gender/creed cards were quick to follow.

    1. avatar Bradn says:

      I’m pretty left wing as well, I still consider myself to be a liberal but holy crap, people who call themselves democrats are among the most authoritarian, emotionally unstable, intellectually inconsistent and incompetent people I’ve EVER had the displeasure of conversing with. These SJW’s are getting out of control and are beginning to define these people as a group. It’s pretty messed up but I won’t be shamed out of considering myself a minamist liberal just because of these crazy psychos.

      1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        Wait until you get into it with some hysterical feminists.

        They’re about as fun as a frog in a blender.

        1. avatar jlottmc says:

          I’ll just leave this here.
          http://joecartoon.com/watch/k1bbbc?list=dynamic&category_id=0&synd_channel_id=0&time=last_7_days
          Used to be more fun, you pushed the buttons yourself.

  20. avatar pwrserge says:

    See earlier comment about beatings and lack thereof.

    I find the below quote from one of the best comedies of the 20th century oddly appropriate.

    “Do you know what makes a human being decent? Fear. And therein lies the problem. None of [them] has anything left to fear anymore. [They] rest comfortably in seats of inscrutable power, hiding behind [their] false idol, far from judgment, lives shrouded in secrecy even from one another.”

  21. avatar John in Ohio says:

    The term useful idiot comes to mind. Rest assured, we have more than a few on our side as well. Just look at some of the comments on TTAG, especially related to open carry. Conservative statist useful idiots, while apparently less in number, are nothing to sweep under the rug.

  22. avatar Bob says:

    This is how you know gun owners are almost universally good people:

    If we were the evil, just-give-me-a-reason-to-shoot-someone, animals, they believe us to be, we would have shot everyone of “them”, in their liberal enclaves a hundred times over.

    If we are so evil how come no one has walked into the CVPC (or whatever that acronym is) and lit the place up like a christmas tree? Harder to find a more direct, clear, vocal “enemy” then them. Yet nothing bad ever happens to them. ‘Cause that’s not us.

  23. avatar John H from Sugar Land says:

    Stolen from a web-posted sign (and modified by me) to sum up the gun-grabbers agenda-
    “Gun Control- (Advancing)The theory that being a(n) (unarmed) victim is somehow morally superior to defending yourself and your family.”
    I confess to being a reformed liberal (and work as a social service professional), but see the absolute moral deficits of anyone that would profess their superior thinking and support the denial of individual rights to protect self and property.

  24. avatar Anonymous says:

    Haha.

    What a coincidence. I ran in to Shiva too a while back in the comments section of some article. As a recall his statements haven’t changed much.

    Anti’s are absolutely obsessed with guns and penises.

    1. avatar Fred Lead says:

      Both are signs of power to them and they always want to have more power than everyone else. They can’t feel secure in themselves or actually do anything to provide for their own safety so they justify their own perceived weaknesses and insecurities by touting the same myths that just so happen to point to the source of their projection. They refuse to better themselves, whether that be through their attitude, education, or self defense, so in order to protect their psyche they have to tear down everyone that shines a spotlight on their weaknesses and insecurities. That’s partially why they are so emotionally volatile, the topic itself it an assault on their very being as they perceive it.

      Analyzing the antis is pretty simple but ultimately doesn’t help our cause. All it shows is those that are truly antis cannot be converted because they have no foundation in anything outside their already made-up, emotionally-controlled mind. It explains their arguments and responses pretty well.

  25. avatar SteveInCO says:

    Shiva has been busy. because that name sure seems familiar. Does the douchebaggery of at least a dozen douchebags.

  26. avatar George says:

    If the gun control crowd thinks guns are appealing because they are “penis extenders” then I have a gun control proposal for them: Let’s ruin the appeal of guns by removing restrictions on SBRs. Once guns are associated with “short penises” then surely they will lose their appeal. Someone call Bloomberg.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      Too bad they don’t even know what SBR stands for. They can’t explain the popularity of the LC9 series or why the Glock 43 will sell out faster than any Iphone. The problem is you have applied logic, logic in any form is not tolerated by antis.

      Take this for example: a community gets upset over the noise from a gun club after they move in near the already existing club. The clear answer would be to allow the use of suppressors on common firearms, but instead they want to close the club that predates the community by the better part of a century.

      How about the banning of wolf hunting because anti hunting groups are upset and make up a false study. Then popular wilderness tourist and camping/hunting areas became overrun by wolves that killed off much of the other fauna to the point open season was called on wolves where proper conservation previously kept everything in check.

      These people are emotionally driven and try to decide the fates of lives and ecosystems they will never see face to face, yet they call on us to fix their mistakes. They move in and make demands then care about history and tradition when it’s their own and they have to change any little thing. Selfish hypocrites won’t get far and we see that in legislation. We have to remember to stay on the right path and not stoop to their level.

  27. avatar Grindstone says:

    Seems “Shiva” here is also a sexist, in regards to the phallic remark, considering the large numbers of female gun owners.

    Needs to check his cis privilege!

  28. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Most of the gun control freaks I have actually met in real life were milquetoasts who worshipped the government. They usually were control freaks who were little tyrants once they were given a position of power. Of course, everyone else was an idiot, and they had superior knowledge.
    Gun control freaks screw small animals.

  29. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    If an anti isn’t willing to be the #1 man in a stack, then it would be nice if they would STFU.

  30. avatar Lfshtr says:

    Shiva just another limp dick! Be safe out there and watch out for shits like her, I think it’s a her!

  31. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Hello all you fellow pots out there. From a frightenly large number of posts on this forum, we are calling the kettles black. Are we approaching a Buffalo Springfield moment (There’s battle lines being drawn. Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.) Too many of the comments on this blog are no different in tone BETWEEN OURSELVES than what we decry form the grabbers. Not supporting a notion we not take note of the bilge water the grabbers spew, but should we be hurling the same such vitriol at each other? It must give the grabbers encouragement to see (and they are members here, somewhere) the meanness with which we too often treat our brother/sister supporters.

    Jes sayin’

    Read more: Buffalo Springfield – For What It’s Worth Lyrics | MetroLyrics

  32. avatar Woodengun says:

    I make a generalization but we have to when putting characteriztics onto groups of people. Why are anti-2A so hateful? They fear. They fear their fellow humans (perhaps because they fear what they would do if they held a gun?).

    Why are pro-2A not so hateful? We believe that most humans are good. Put a gun in our hand and we’ll only use it under dire circumstances or for sport (perhaps because that is what we do?).

    So it boils down to – do you think your fellow humans are basically good or bad? Add a bit of Freud in there and you are basically asking yourself, do you think you are a good or bad person?

  33. avatar Don in PA says:

    I’ve never put a gun on my penis.

    Carry on!

  34. avatar IdahoPete says:

    I would also add the high probability that they are cowards, who are afraid of having to be responsible for their own safety. They have no problem with having armed policemen protect them by shooting anyone who threatens their anti-gun paradise, so they do not really object to the use of force for their protection. The anti-gunners simply resent the fact that the People of the Gun are willing to stand up and protect themselves and their families, which makes the antis’ cowardice stand out clearly.

    They hate us because they are cowards who want someone else to protect them, and we make that clear to them by our willingness to defend ourselves.

  35. avatar teebonicus says:

    They defeat their own argument with the vitriol of their own words.

    If the consequences of being a gun owner were to manifest as they wish, that fact in itself proves why the right is necessary.

    The Second Amendment exists, at bottom, to guarantee the people access to the arms necessary to defend against (and defeat) such facially evil political philosophies.

    And remember, these are the same people who insist “Nobody’s coming to take your guns.”

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email