635921041027730492-Barbara-Sanders

By Barbara Sanders (via tennessean.com)

Dear gun advocates,

Some of you want pistols to protect yourselves and your families. Some are vigilantes, like George Zimmerman, who want to keep neighborhoods safe. Some are police, some of whom need to use weapons more responsibly. Some shoot defenseless animals for sport. And some own military weapons that can mow down large groups of schoolchildren or moviegoers.

I am writing to this last group. Please, help me understand . . .

It may be a constitutional right to bear arms, but the Constitution said we have the right to bear arms in a militia, those arms being muskets at the time, guns that you could shoot once, taking much time to reload. Not AK-47 weapons.

Please, help me understand.

Why these weapons? Are you waiting for a once-rare-but-now-more-frequent mass shooting or another shooting so you can save the day, planning to kill the “bad” guys? How many times might you have that opportunity in life? One can always hope, I suppose.

Have you listened to police chiefs who say that they don’t want their staff entering an active shooting scene where “bad” shooters and “good” shooters are battling around innocent families and children, unable to discern who is bad or good? Do you think you can shoot your AK-47 and hit only the bad people instead of innocents as well?

Please, help me understand.

The police might mistake you for a “bad” shooter. The might shoot and kill you. The investigators will also need to determine if your bullets killed the innocent. Are you asking to be imprisoned?

Maybe you just don’t feel very good about yourself or your life, and you need to boost your confidence and self-esteem by openly carrying a giant weapon, hiding your disappointing body parts and/or your psychological distress. Maybe you really are fearful, thinking that Muslims are taking over this country, and if not Muslims, that perhaps black and brown men and boys are wreaking havoc. Maybe you have been severely traumatized and need help.

I still don’t understand.

Who makes you God? Even if you were in a challenging shooting situation, are you the judge or jury? Can you sort out facts in the heat of the moment instead of using our justice system to work through an agreed-upon process for determining innocence, guilt and sentencing?

I, for one, am extremely frightened of you because you hold my and my family’s lives in your hands when you carry your weapons of mass destruction around our schools, parks and churches. Tiny children find your weapons, thinking they are toys, forever ruining or ending their own or others’ lives. Who gave you the right to endanger so many people?

Please help us all understand your thinking, feelings or logic. And then, maybe we can have a safe and honest conversation about your fear, your anger and your obsession with power, control and violence.

Barbara Sanders, LCSW, is a psychotherapist in Nashville.

Recommended For You

223 Responses to TN Therapist’s Open Letter to “Gun Advocates”: Who Makes You God?

  1. “Please help us all understand your thinking, feelings or logic. And then, maybe we can have a safe and honest conversation about your fear, your anger and your obsession with power, control and violence.”

    Way to set the agenda, lady.

    • Another woman who thinks we’re all uneducated, inbred, low information voters with small penises. She doesn’t want to, strike that, can’t accept that we’re largely educated, well-informed, well-endowed responsible folks.

        • Weapons of mass destruction, eh? I wonder what her opinion is on whether or not we found WMDs in Iraq, then.

          “…some own military weapons…”
          “…the Constitution said we have the right to bear arms
          in a militia, those arms being muskets at the time…”

          Basically right off the bat she crushes her own argument and doesn’t realize it. Some gun owners own “military weapons” and she’s a believer that the Second Amendment only applies to those in the militia. She points out that they had muskets, which were the pinnacle of military technology at the time. In fact, most of the arms in the hands of private citizens were superior to those owned by the government. The militia’s obvious requirement is to have access to “military weapons.” As the militia is clearly defined as all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 y/o, then not only are most of us good to own “military weapons” but, according to her, those are the only weapons we should actually be able to have. And, sorry, since she isn’t male and isn’t in the national guard I’m afraid she isn’t eligible to own a firearm under her interpretation of the 2A. But to say 1) you can’t have military weapons and 2) the 2A only protects military weapons (via saying it’s only for the militia) is completely idiotic.

        • Well, she did admit she is extremely frightened. It’s not our fears we should have conversation about.

      • Fear-based. Lack of comprehension. Simply does not understand that responsible owners are _not_ the issue.

        Reality check: Were one twisted/evil; bent on twisted/evil deeds… no amount of legislating, or prohibition will act as a roadblock to said individual performing twisted deeds with whatever means are convenient at the time.

        Also: Nashville is in, but isn’t TN. Don’t judge based on this nonsense. /rant

        • Second that. Knoxville and Memphis aren’t much better. Thank goodness I live n the country. Lord help us if they ever get a chiraq type majority.

      • I think that insinuating that a person has something (a modern sporting rifle, lifted pickup, loud speakers, anything above what a ‘normal’ person has) is to compensate for their lack of anatomy is extremely short sighted, close minded, and frankly sexist. Then again, if she’s just trying to find out what I’m packing, she could always ask 🙂

      • Sean Connery: I’ll take “The Rapists” for $200.
        Alex Trebek: That’s “Therapists.” That’s “Therapists,” not “The Rapists.”
        Haha.

    • Indeed. “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

      I find it amusing, though, that, apparently, in her mind, owning an AR-15 amounts to “appointing oneself God”. I didn’t realize that’s all it takes. Makes me wonder if there’s some sort of hierarchy there – like, if I have 5, am I more godlike in my powers than the poor schmuck with just 2?

      Anyway, the lady sounds like she’s the one with a religious attitude towards guns.

      • Well, she claims to be a LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker).

        Googling ‘Licensed Clinical Social Worker’, I discover this:

        “The Licensed Clinical Social Worker or LCSW, is a sub-sector within the field of Social Work. LCSW’s work with clients in order to help deal with issues involving mental and emotional health. There are a wide variety of specializations the Licensed Clinical Social Worker can focus on. These include specialties such as: working with mental health issues, substance abuse, public health, school social work, medical social work, marriage counseling or children and family therapy.”

        http://www.humanservicesedu.org/licensed-clinical-social-worker-lcsw.html

        To her, I say – “(kinda) Physician, heal thyself.”

        • Thirty years ago a Licensed Clinical Social Worker would be fined for advertising herself as a psychotherapist in most states, and the federal government would not reimburse LCSW visits under Medicare.

          However, one year in an Omnibus Federal Budget Reconciliation Act congress decided that a dandy way to meet the promised delivery of psychotherapy without again busting the budget would be this: Simply declare LCSWs eligible for reimbursement.

          Now your alcoholic uncle can get professional therapy from someone who like as not was an undergraduate history major who went back for a two-year masters in “social service.” Then the person needs to work under, be observed or monitored by, a senior LCSW as they practice their talk therapies on the unsuspecting. Or not. You draw your own conclusions.

    • We need not reply. She says “I am writting this to the last group.” The ones who own military weapons and mow down groups of people and children in movie theatres. It was a trick question.

      • “…t may be a constitutional right to bear arms, but the Constitution said we have the right to bear arms in a militia, those arms being muskets at the time, guns that you could shoot once, taking much time to reload. Not AK-47 weapons…”

        Not only was it a trick question, she’s asking on the wrong medium. According to her own words, any form of communication she has should be restricted to voice, snail mail (prior to Pony Express), and newsprint, since those were the only forms of communication when the First Amendment took effect.

    • “And some who own military weapons that can mow down large groups of school children and movie goer”s. Its this last group who Im writting too.” Yeh she got me on the trick question too.

    • “… Can you sort out facts in the heat of the moment instead of using our justice system to work through an agreed-upon process…”

      I have found ‘our justice system’ to be a slow, heavy, and unwieldy thing to carry in my pocket when an armed bad guy decides to:

      • Threaten me or my family
      • Break into my home
      • Attempt to take my belongings by force
      etc.

      But if it makes her feel better about her high moral position to be sprawled dead on the floor after she’s been brutalized and raped, go for it.

      • “But if it makes her feel better about her high moral position to be sprawled dead on the floor after she’s been brutalized and raped, go for it.” — there’s no chance in hell that she would ever be raped…

        • When The Really Bad Thing happens, always call on a liberal for help. **sarc**

  2. An open letter to Barbara Sanders and gun control advocates like her.

    Dear Barbara Sanders,

    Your first paragraph is extremely well-written. That is to say, it tells me what I need to know about you and your thought process, which appears to begin and end with “gunz r bad mkay.” I do have to applaud you for making your bias so wonderfully clear in your opening paragraph, though I do have some questions about the objectivity of The Tennessean’s editorial board.

    I would like to take this opportunity to openly admit my bias on this topic, and I hope this trend catches on. I believe in individual rights and responsibility. I have owned and built multiple “assault weapons” and carried a handgun every day for over three years.

    Now let’s look at your story highlights.

                “Please help us all understand your thinking, feelings or logic.”

     
    Not big on the Oxford comma, I see. At any rate, feelings don’t matter and thinking ≈ logic, so this one should be easy: We are individualists, and individual rights are important to us. There are no collective, social, or group rights; there are only the rights of the individual. One of them happens to be the topic of this open letter: ownership of property.

    Story highlight two:

                “Even if you were in a challenging shooting situation, are you the judge or the jury?”

     

    Neither. I’m the witness to a crime, the victim of said crime, and the first responder to that crime. You might be surprised at how long it takes a judge and jury to show up to a crime scene. 

                “You hold innocent lives in your hands by carrying weapons around schools, parks and churches.”

     

    I actually don’t. The only person holding your life in your hands is you. If anyone happens to take your life illegally, there’s a whole overpaid criminal justice system just for that. It’s also a good thing that, out of 500,000 people in Tennessee who have Handgun Carry Permits, only about 20 per year are arrested for any crime. (I like how you leave out malls, movie theaters, and airports. I’ve carried a firearm in all three such places, legally, this calendar year alone, without incident.)

    The rest of your open letter consists of flawed conclusions that come from flawed premises. Instead of addressing your conclusions, I’ll address your premises.

    Pistols and ownership thereof do not protect anybody. They do, however, increase one’s physical ability to protect oneself. In fact, a 2lb pistol makes a 90lb paraplegic deaf black woman physically superior to a 200lb athletic rapist.

    “Defenseless” animals breed themselves out of their food supply without hunters, and several of them even kill livestock that actually are defenseless.

    A weapon that “can mow down large groups of schoolchildren or moviegoers” does not exist. No weapon can act on its own accord. The person holding it does those things. Individual responsibility, remember?

    Additionally, most “military weapons” that citizens in the USA own are surplus rifles like the Mosin Nagant, Springfield 1903, M1 Garand, and so on. The modern sporting rifles to which you allude by saying “large groups of schoolchildren or moviegoers” are not military-grade. It’s possible the shotgun that was used in the Aurora movie theater was of military quality, but the rifle was not. The rifle lacked both full-auto and burst fire capacity, and it likely cost too much to produce for any military contract.

    If you think “military-grade” means “more dangerous than civilian quality,” then you must only be talking about the food.

    The Constitution said no such thing about militias. If you’re not going to listen to me, listen to Roy Copperud, English Language Expert: The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

    I’d like to bring this response to a close with an invitation: If you’re ever down near Chattanooga on a weekend, I’d like to take you to a shooting range. I’ll pay for everything except your hearing protection and eye protection. You should choose those yourself to ensure a comfortable and secure fit.

    I also request to remain anonymous, as owners of conservative voices often find themselves lynched in the public sphere (see Gregory Elliott’s ruined life due to disagreeing with someone on social media). I won’t give you my name, but you can contact me via email at gunsplain@gmail.com and via Twitter @Gunsplain. 

      • Agreed, nicely done! Sadly Barbara Sanders doesn’t really want to hear a well-researched and thought out answer to her rhetorical questions. She seeks personal, life-altering, introspection on our parts.

        • Unfortunately, the best and worst way to get some quick personal, life altering introspection is to survive home invasion, rape, assault and battery, armed robbery, a spree killer and/or road rage incident.

          If you survive, you may achieve some of the enlightenment you seek. If you don’t survive, you and your loved ones will know exactly why we like to have the option of armed self defense available. We don’t eagerly await having to use a firearm for self defense, but nobody can guarantee we will never need one either.

      • I have a strict “no insult” policy.

        I will tell your that your premise is flawed, your method is nonexistent, and your conclusion is a non sequitur, but I won’t insult you.

        • what first attracted me to ttag was the no ad hominem comments policy. congrats on you doing so on your own. impossible to have an intelligent conversation with personal attacks being involved.

        • Insults are often the method of people who are trying to cover for their ignorance, or paid astroturfrers working to obfuscate and derail a conversation..

    • “We are individualists, and individual rights are important to us. There are no collective, social, or group rights; there are only the rights of the individual.” Very refreshing to read this even here on TTAG, where I’m convinced many people have fallen for the collectivist brainwashing. The vaccine issue highlights this collectivist mentality that is prevalent even here.

      • Yep, typical of believers in pseudoscience to play the martyr when called on it. And of course you just can’t leave this issue alone–you invent excuses to bring it up. It’s your personal obsession. Maybe you should spend more time at vaxxer sites, where, you know, someone might give a shit.

        Didn’t JR in NC thump your ass into the ground on this issue? Are you hoping we’ve forgotten this?

        Personally…I don’t care if you vax your kids. If you’re that stupid…well, you’re that stupid. But don’t try to claim science is on your side.

        • Steve, the only ass thumpin I recall is the one I gave pwrsurge. Feel free to refresh my memory, if you recall differently. Truthfully I don’t give a shit what you think, especially if you are one of these full of shit people pretending to support individual rights but at same time support further if not total governemt Control over parental rights. Sorry if pointing out this contradiction gets you all emotional.

        • Steve, the only ass thumpin I recall is the one I gave pwrsurge. Feel free to refresh my memory, if you recall differently. Truthfully I don’t give a shit what you think, especially if you are one of these full of shit people pretending to support individual rights but at same support further if not total governemt Control over parental rights. Sorry if pointing out this contradiction gets you all emotional.

        • Steve,

          Remember the saying “Don’t argue with stupid people. They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” It applies in this case. Just like anti-gunners he’ll just keep throwing his “facts” around and trying to brow beat you and then claim victory when you don’t bother replying to his absurd comments.

        • @IA, saw you run for cover when I called you out a few days ago. Still waiting for an intelligent response to your troll post…..but it will never come, because you have no intellectual ammo.

        • @IA, you don’t reply to posts because you have no facts to back your opinions, then you use insults when called on your troll-like tactics. You might fool some people.

        • Truthfully I don’t give a shit what you think, especially if you are one of these full of shit people pretending to support individual rights but at same time support further if not total governemt Control over parental rights.

          Clearly you didn’t read my last paragraph. But, IA is right about you. Have a nice life.

        • At least you’ll honestly label it, unlike many of the faux libertarians here who somehow think socialism and a denial of the concept of property is libertarianism.

        • They know that socialism is bad. That is why they hijack other words and hide behind them. Socialists have been doing it for a century – the Democratic Republic of North Korea, Liberals, German Democratic Republic, Progressivism, … Have to redefine terms all the time…

        • I’m ready for it buddy. I don’t think it will ever happen in america, but a man can dream right?

        • @steve, unlike the “faux libertarians” who believe the government and private industry should have medical making authority over children instead of their own parents? You’re full of crap.

        • @pg2… find where I *ever* advocated for mandatory vaccinations… and you might have a point.

          I argued with your science, not against your right.

        • @Steve-You need to understand the science, or lack of it, before can you argue it. IA is a troll, it doesn’t surprise me that you are so easily fooled by his tactics.

        • I did not base ANYTHING I had to say on ANYTHING IA wrote, with the sole exception of thinking maybe arguing with idiots was a waste of my time–as he suggested *today* further upthread.

          When I said JR in NC thumped you, I meant JR in NC. IA had nothing to do with that. It was several months ago, he asked you for your evidence, and picked it all to pieces. You were notably silent on your favorite irrelevant topic for quite some time after that. I thought, “maybe this clown got a clue” but you started up again.

          And you’ve yet to back up your accusation that I oppose parental rights with *anything.* As I said before, go ahead and don’t vax, but don’t claim scientific justification for it. You’ve ignored that paragraph, and when called on it, ignored it yet again. But even better go spread your pseudo-scientific bullshit on some forum where it’s actually germane. You’re like a guy on a motorboat forum who always wants to talk about Ford diesel trucks.

          Do you ever talk about shooting? Or do you just make excuses to ride your hobby horse?

        • I’d be happy to re-visit the “thumping” you are claiming I took. I have no such memory of being stumped or “thumped” on this forum, or any other forum, regarding this issue. And please feel free to post some of the “pseudoscience” you continue to say I have posted. Let it rip. And do you often put your thoughts in quotations? You are right in that you did not call for mandatory vaccines, and my bad for lumping you in with others here that have done so. At the same time you are claiming science is not my side, and that I have not been able to defend my positions, and posted “pseudoscience”, which is 100% BS. I have been intermittently posting here since 2012, and only last year began to post vaccine related posts due to the push in CA and and other states to remove parental control over this. I’ve pointed out the similarities dozens of times, mostly in vain, the similarities used in both the mandatory vaccine campaign and the anti-gun campaign, both of which are fundamentally attacks on individual freedom. As a gun owner and 2A supporter(as if rights need supporting) I cant understand the contradiction in logic that some alleged gun owning supporters of individual freedoms would support government control over the public making it’s own medically informed decisions. What meaning do gun rights have when the government can tell you or your children it must undergo whatever medical procedures it deems? BTW, ford diesel is the way to go.

        • @pg2

          I certainly understand where you’re coming from regarding people who are inconsistent on principle. See, for instance, all those who (correctly) assert you do no harm open carrying, but then the sky is falling if two people with the same plumbing want to get married–even though that, too, would have no effect on anyone else.

          There are a MILLION issues one could use for this. The fact that you pick this issue, and this issue alone, to highlight your frustration, tells me you find it more important than anything else…so important that it basically comes out even if you have to change the subject to do it. It’s your litmus test, just as there are jackwagons here who can’t resist an out-of-the-blue anti-abortion tirade. If you can’t restrain yourself from talking about Issue A on a forum devoted to Issue B, then… well honestly, you probably would be happier on Forum A. That issue is clearly far, far more important to you there. If you imagine you are here to recruit allies, well, I have news for you, you’re laying an egg.

          I personally have many issues other than the gun issue, yet I *don’t* bring them in arbitrarily. (I will, however, *respond* if someone else says something–people have learned that I will fight them if they bash atheists without provocation.)

          I compared this sort of thing, earlier, to the guy who does nothing but talk about Ford Diesels on a motorboat forum. Now clearly sometimes it’s appropriate to do so, especially if someone asks the question “what do you haul your boat with”? But when the topic is outboard motors, barging in with some snide comment about how so many people drive Chevy trucks is just plain gauche and, if repeated enough, FUCKING IRRITATING. Even if you think you can prove that Chevy trucks destroy boats.

        • @steve, the vaccine issue is not some arbitrary, pet hobby of mine as you suggested. Comparing gay marriage, open carry, chevy vs ford, ect is a poor comparison to discussing the national push by the government and the pharmaceutical industry to dictate medical procedures to you and your family. If and when the government/pharmaceutical partnership gets this control over you and your family, the entire Bill of Rights, let alone the 2A, becomes meaningless. Gay marriage and the multiple, :millions” of other issues you are suggesting do not have these profound implications, not even close. The tactics that have been used in pushing mandatory vaccines(and it won’t stop there) have been nearly identical (do it for the kids, collectivism, greater good, public health, ect) to the tactics used in the push for elimination of the 2A. If you don’t see this I can understand why you might feel irritated, but when there are agendas designed to eliminate individual freedoms across the board, you should be irritated. I have no problem with intelligent rebuttals, that is the whole point of these discussion boards, whatever the topic. In the future, please do not put words in my mouth or make untrue accusations as you have in saying or implying I have posted “pseudoscience” here. I have never done so, and you are mistaken. That is what IA and the paid trolls do all day long on these internet forums, their job being to derail real conversation/discussion about relevant issues.

        • “relevant?”

          But thet’s precisely the point. You’re the ONLY person here who sees the overwhelming relevance.

          To the rest, it’s just some fucking tangent you go off on.

          As for the pseudoscience, JR hasn’t responded. But I remember that discussion vivdly, and he owned you. I can’t FIND it because (of course) it happened in a thread that would have had nothing to do with it except you have Vaxxer tourettes and just bring it up randomly. So whatever post it was on, it wsn’t about vaxxer stuff. (You should note the fucking pattern there.) In any case, everything you presented he checked out and found was either misinterpreted or of questionable quality at best. That’s where the “pseudoscience” allegation comes from.

          OK, I’m posting under less than ideal circumstances right now, and it’s a miracle my browser hasn’t crashed (it did on four previous attempts). It may be several days before I can continue this.

        • @steve
          I’m gonna call bullshit on this. You seem to be overly emotional about this, and I think it’s influencing your memory. If It makes you feel better believing someone “owned” me, then go for it. Whatever makes you sleep better. If you miss the relevance of nearly identical propaganda campaigns being waged to attack different individual freedoms, then sad for your ability to put bigger pictures together. Don’t feel like you have to continue this thread, I won’t be checking back this far again.

    • No argument, fact or feelings will ever get through the Progressives’ underlying assumption that individuals cannot be trusted with anything at all, not just guns. Even school lunches cannot be entrusted to individuals. Government is the answer to every breath we take. Government is the answer because government does not consist of the unwashed masses, but is reserved for elitists like her. And from that perch, none of your arguments could be heard, let alone dislodge her.

    • I guarantee you that this person is not trying to understand anything, will not engage in discussion, will not listen to reason, and has already had her mind made up for her.

      This is not dialogue here, this is a lecture from a statist.

      I guarantee it.

    • Very good, however the AR-15s are very much military weapons. The AR-15 was originally created as a military weapon. The assault rifle version of it, the M-16, is what the military eventually adopted it, but the AR-15 was still designed for military use and there is no reason why soldiers today couldn’t be armed with AR-15s instead of M-16s, as most soldiers fire using semiautomatic, not burst-fire, mode.

      The 5.56 round that the AR-15 fires is a military cartridge, based off of the .223, also a military cartridge, itself based off of the .222, a varmint hunting cartridge.

      Almost all guns people own are military in some manner of their design because generally-speaking, guns are guns.

      • I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: AFAIK, there isn’t a military in the world, down to the poorest third-world hellhole, that arms its common soldiers with semi-auto only rifles. So in the sense that these hysterical gun-grabbers mean the term (you can tell with the inevitably accompanying language about “spraying bullets”, “killing as many people as rapidly as possible”, or, as here, “mowing people down”), no, the AR-15 isn’t a military weapon. The Mosin-Nagant rifle is a military weapon, but that ain’t what they are talking about, and they need to be called out on what they are talking about, which is full-auto weapons not available to civilians without special government permission.

        • I get what you are saying, but to the anti’s, I don’t think they only mean automatic fire weapons, I think they mean military weapons period. So while it is important to point out that such weapons are not automatic fire like the military versions, it is foolish for us to try claiming that they are not military guns.

          It also plays right into the anti’s hands by making it sound like even we do not think civilians have the right to possess military guns, that our argument is that the AR-15s are not military, instead of just coming right out and saying, “Yes, they’re military. Almost all the guns civilians own are military. Almost all of them can be said to be more dangerous or lethal in some manner in comparison to each other. The shotguns are excellent anti-personnel weapons. The bolt-actions make great sniper rifles. The hand guns are easily concealed…” and so forth.

          I have even read multiple gun control proponents say that semi-automatics should be banned as they are more dangerous than fully-automatic, because most soldiers use the semi-auto mode.

    • Well done indeed!

      She is not looking for dialog. She already has all the bad info she needs to come to her conclusion. Do not try to confuse her with other conflicting factual information or reasoned thought.

      She knows best, like most superior beings. NOT.

      Plus, she is FUGLY.

        • “I believe people can be convinced of the qualities of your argument until you insult them.”

          A noble idea, but how effective?

          The number of people who oppose gun rights and who would be intellectually mature enough to recognize a “quality” argument with which they disagree are as common as unicorns. When your opposition declares, “Nothing will cause me to agree with you, ever, about anything on this matter.”, you are done. The best hope then is to get that person to say or write something public that is so stupid even they will be embarrassed with themselves. Of course, some people cannot be embarrassed. Take Hillary, for example. She declared that the FBI investigation initiated inside the leftist DOJ is nothing but more of the vast right-wing conspiracy, and her believers nod their heads in agreement.

        • @Sam,

          I recently dealt with a drive-by snipe from an anti-gunner on a site devoted to a totally different topic (you know, kind of like a certain individual here and his vaxxer baloney). He basically claimed that the founding fathers didn’t envision the current “insane” situation when they wrote the second amendment; I pointed him to evidence that indeed they wanted everyone to have the right to keep and bear arms, he again repeated he didn’t think they had the current insane situation in mind.

          I responded that he was probably right: They certainly would not have approved of a regime where people were legally rendered unable to defend themselves from violent crime… or did he mean something else?

          His response was priceless, basically to the effect of 16,000 murders each year, yet “7” (yes he wrote the number seven) defensive uses. And then went on to say we couldn’t have a rational conversation with him.

          My response was that if he was going to make up stats like “7” he was right, a rational conversation was indeed impossible.

        • Yes, it does get tedious, doesn’t it ?

          Some time ago, I was involved in product sales. After a wonderful two hours detailing the product and implementation, the value to the customer and all the really neat things the company would gain, the buying decision-maker said, “Well, I appreciate and understand everything, but I now is not a good time. I tried to politely ask why “now” was a complication in the decision. He answered, “I’m supposed to cut my lawn next weekend.” That sort of answer was nowhere in sales training material I had experienced. So, I asked, “How does cutting the lawn next weekend affect making a purchase decision at the moment. He sipped again from his coffee, then said, “Well, when I don’t want to buy your product, one excuse is as good as another.” That response seems to be the “go to” for people who just don’t want guns available to anybody.

        • @sam. I work with a lot of fudds. rational dialogue has moved a lot their needles. don’t give up. and the Internet is not always the best forum. talk to people you see everyday. it makes a difference.

        • I live on a street with anti-gunners as far as the eye can see. Always thinking about running around at night putting “Gun Free Zone” signs in their yards. Attitudes are fossilized here. Spend most of my internet “talking” on this blog, not too many unicorns here.

        • @sam absolutely don’t give up working on Fudds. As well those who haven’t spent much time thinking about the issue, who aren’t emotionally invested in it.

          As for those who have spent a lot of time thinking about it, but somehow still haven’t given it much thought (if you catch my meaning), they’re hopeless. but it’s still worthwhile making sure others see how ridiculous they are being. In my case, it was my goal to make sure people saw that HE was being the irrational one. He was using the most invective, and I was ready with the “raped and strangled with pantyhose” argument if he decided to push back. As well as enough statistics to back up my claim that his “7” was laughable. (Finding 7 DGUs reported in the news in less than a week would have done so, then I can plant the question of how many DGUs don’t get into the news because they aren’t even “shots fired.”)

        • “@sam absolutely don’t give up working on Fudds. As well those who haven’t spent much time thinking about the issue, who aren’t emotionally invested in it.”

          Afraid the landscape is set. We either remain about evenly split on gun rights, and accept the eternal struggle as the norm, or something worse happens. The laws are not overwhelmingly in our favor, the courts disregard higher courts, and the general populace is growing against us. But worst of all, politicians are better at vote counting than we are. For politicians, there are no principles, only mechanisms that result in more votes. (which is to be expected because politicians are all lawyers, and you know what that means)

    • “The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia.”

      However, it would be impossible for the people to form and/or regulate said militia if the right to keep and bear arms did not exist and was not protected from government infringement.

  3. LOL, I didn’t know I could carry my SCAR17S around in public. Too funny. Next time I go to the movies, I’ll make sure I have it in the seat next to me.

  4. Dear Barbara Sanders: The first thing you must understand is that the only people in this country who own “military weapons” are, with rare, government-approved and taxed exceptions, either in the military or the paramilitary police. Then the second thing you must understand will become clear: your whole “letter” is based on fantasy and hysterical fear. And at that point I want you to understand that I don’t care to try to understand your delusions.

  5. Sorry I’m late, I was giving the unicorns their dinner of rainbows and utopian wafers.

    Really? Psychotherapists are some of the most screwed up folks on the planet.

    Sheesh.

    • They spend so much time trying to understand that which cannot be understood (or cured) – mental illness, that they cannot understand that which is clearly logical – shall not be infringed.

  6. Doesn’t give the impression of a mentally stable or mentally tough psychotherapist. Would this person inspire any confidence in those she is allegedly trying to help?

        • I’m guessing there’s nothing “probable” about it–if, indeed, there ever is an “after”.

        • Oh, I can imagine some of her clients realizing she’s batshit stupid and running away screaming before their own brains get damaged. So I’ll scratch “probably” and replace it with “most often.”

      • Not that it makes her attitude any more palatable, but the type of people she sees daily might tend to give anyone a grim view of humanity and their ability to make good decisions. Of course, that does not give her the right to control the lives of others, but I can understand somewhat.

  7. And some own military weapons that can mow down large groups of schoolchildren or moviegoers. Like the government?
    Gee…there are a lot of weapons that could mow down a lot of people, such as motorized vehicles, bombs, molotov cocktails, knives, gas. The list goes on and on.
    What is a military weapon? Bolt action and pump shotguns have been used by the military?

  8. I, for one, am extremely frightened of you because you hold my and my family’s lives in your hands when you carry your weapons of mass destruction around our schools, parks and churches.
    I really do not care if you are frightened and my weapons are hardly those of mass destruction. This is your problem.

    • I for one , am frightened of , you and your ilk disarming the populace of our country and paving the way for a tyrannical all powerful state that may murder me and my family. read democide. the most common cause of non-natural death in the 20th century. that includes influenza, diabetes, ebola, smallpox, etc.

  9. First she needs to help us understand her position. She’s afraid of guns, if you own a gun you are a bad person, bad persons kill people, so everyone must be a disarmed helpless victim like her so only good people will be killed when the bad people with guns come? I have a headache. She wants us to not carry guns and let the courts decide guilt or innocence because if we carry a gun we are guilty without due process because she says so? Lot of feelings and cognitive dissonance here, as usual. No way to have a logical and honest conversation with this person because she cannot face reality. By the way, nationwide the rank and file police officers prefer armed citizens carrying, we’re their on scene backup until the other badges show up, and they damn well know it.

  10. Yo Babs,

    You’re the one playing god trying to strip me of my obligation to nature that I preserve my life. You are also the one with the unfounded fears and the inability to establish who is a threat to you and who is not. You do not have the moral authority to force me to be at the mercy of barbarians, thugs (both B & W) nor 7th century religious zealots.

  11. How can anyone so prone to irrational fear brought on by hypothetical people ever hope to help real people deal with real problems?

  12. Ralph’s Law: When somebody says “please help me to understand,” what he or she really means is “I’m smarter than you are and what you say doesn’t matter.”

    By the way, please help me to understand the difference between therapist and the rapist.

  13. This woman is what at least half the population believe is a “reasonable” person. She will vote, she will sit on your jury.

  14. A bad guy has 3-7 minutes to kill innocent people. Help me understand why your willing to sacrifice men women and children waiting on police to arrive?

    While you view all people through the lens of democracy, brown men and women you speak of believe we are inferior and must serve their God or die. It is the reason I carry. Unlike you, I’ve walked, ate and lived with them. Clouds of darkness the like you cannot imagine is on the horizon. Your defense rest not with others and if you care about your family, your friends and your life, be vigilant, arm yourself keep your freedom to choose the how and why you live.

  15. Who makes you God? I am not God, but I am a rational intelligent being.
    Even if you were in a challenging shooting situation, are you the judge or jury? Yes, by default.
    Can you sort out facts in the heat of the moment. Yes.
    Instead of using our justice system to work through an agreed-upon process for determining innocence, guilt and sentencing? The criminals most certainly did not agree on this process and its representatives will be about 30 minutes too late anyway.

  16. A couple of comments. First she is a licensed social worker, the lowest level person in this field. Not a doctor or even close. She cannot even prescribe any drug at all to people she counsels, she does not qualifiy as an expert in this field and could not testify in any courtroom as an expert of people and their relationship with guns. Point being, her opinion is an emotional rant. After 35 years as a trial lawyer including 8 as a prosecutor and a decade before that as a cop, I too have feelings and experience. Let me throw out some science for her, there is no such mental illness as being a gun nut, however, her unexplained paranoia is a medical condition.

    • +1. This should be underscored. An LCSW is the lowest form of psychological/psychiatric practitioner. Is legally prohibited from working in other than a subordinate capacity. The psychologist or psychiatrist creates the treatment plan. In other words, under the law is not entitled to have an opinion about mental health. She is there to follow orders (I mean that in all its meanings) and to be the cheapest method of providing “counseling” to HMO and Medicaid clients.

  17. Proof that someone who is most likely rational in most areas of life can be completely irrational and ignorant in others.

  18. Why are y’all wasting time replying to a crazy woman in TN who will never see much less read, and certainly never be persuaded by your words?

    • Because there is the chance that someone read her screed and will also read the responses here.

      It remains very important to make the counterpoints to crap like this not only available online, but highly indexed by major search engines.

    • It’s because that intellectual property thief and editor of dead hooker magazine, Dan Zimmerman, can’t think of anything better to write about.

  19. How arrogant and self serving is it that you are under the presumption we are of poor judgment as firearms owners, and that you also make the presumption that people who would use a firearm for self defense would take a cavalier attitude towards taking a life. If anything I assure you it’s as a whole the opposite. Perhaps the sheer number of gun owners versus the number of incidents should be looked at in a rational way, rather than through the eyes of panic.

  20. Dear Barbara Sanders

    The following is the US governments legal definition of the Militia. It is copied from
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
    You will see that pretty much everyone is in the militia whether they know it or not. (Ignorance is no excuse under the law)

    10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    • Yeah, I don’t like the ’45’ part much. At 62 and a free American, I consider myself an “Honorary Member of the American Militia” with the ability and desire to defend my home, family, and country, Don’t count us old guys out just yet. You may need us. We’re pretty good at boring our enemies to death with our ‘Back in the day…’ rambles.

      • In all fairness when that law was written, 45 was pretty darn old. Older than 62 is today.

        I’d personally have gone with “every able-bodied adult” (I would not limit it to men) but even THAT would weed people out who can make a valuable contribution in spite of (say) being an amputee. (Some tasks require fighting spirit more than they require physical perfection.)

  21. I dont feel good about myself. I got a great big gun because I have a small penus. Im sorry if your terrified of it. There, do you feel better now? I kno I sure do.

  22. I want to own a weapon capable of defending myself. The weapon I want to own is not the one that will be adequate or on par with what someone who wishes to do harm might use. I want the newest, best weapon that they issue to troops we send to where ever. Thats what protects them and their fellow troops. When you start out with the problem of wanting to be able to meet a threat with sufficient firepower to stop that threat, why would you want to stop short?

    You start with a lot of assumptions about the capabilities of what you call an assault weapon, but maybe you should consider getting real world knowledge about these firearms and the good people who largely own these weapons.

  23. Ah yes, more from the wonderful world of pseudo-science that is psychiatry and psychology.

    If you would leave the study of feelings and emotion, for a bit, and dive on into the field of behavior science, you might find yourself to be less hysterical and melodramatic, Barb.

    Come on over to the pool of facts, data, reason, and evidence, Barb – the water feels fine.

    • The only positive that can be said about psychology (not psychiatry) is that it uses generally valid statistical analysis in an attempt to explain and/or predict stereotypical human behavior. Whether or not that has any valid social utility is another question as human behavior is notoriously difficult to predict.

      • Fair enough. It does hold value for the portion of the population which has serious chemical imbalances and serious mental illnesses.

        However, that isn’t what we are talking about here (Barb specially.)

        Psychology holds some value, IMHO, in the far end conditions of the human mental spectrum. One ex. being “why are you upset today” and the other being “why did you not take your meds and stab that guy in the neck?”

        As far as, the general population and how it relates to human behavior, choices, and culture, (gun ownership in particular) Barb, is talking out of her league.

        She is talking about feels in a subject based in science. Feels don’t belong.

        • There are no laboratory or diagnostic tests for any mental disorders. There is no proof that chemical imbalances exist in those labeled mentally ill. This may seem like splitting hairs, but maybe not as much when you understand the entire field of psychology/psychiatry is based on 100% opinion, and its an important distinction to make when these subjective opinions are being used to deny people of their rights.

  24. Golly – she’s an LCSW AND EVERYTHING! She must ne right.

    Either that, or she is just one more person who can rightfully express one more opinion.

    • Oh look, she is using her credentials to lend credence to her opinion! Isn’t this also the logical fallacy: Appeal to Authority?

  25. Maybe you just don’t feel very good about yourself or your life, and you need to boost your confidence and self-esteem by openly carrying a giant weapon, hiding your disappointing body parts and/or your psychological distress. Maybe you really are fearful, thinking that Muslims are taking over this country, and if not Muslims, that perhaps black and brown men and boys are wreaking havoc. Maybe you have been severely traumatized and need help.

    The lady doth project too much, methinks.

  26. “Do you think you can shoot your AK-47 and hit only the bad people instead of innocents as well?”

    Actually, yes! My AKM shoots right under 2 MOA (AK 74 is 1.5 MOA). It is also a semi automatic weapon. I bet in your Psycho-the-rapist mind you think these weapons only shoot spray and pray? I guess you watched too many action movies in the 1980’s.

    • And pigs and chickens and steers and fish, etc. They are all “defenseless” and tasty. Perhaps we should all just become vegans and let the poor critters overpopulate until they die out of disease or starvation?

  27. That twit should memorize the following:
    1. Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
    2. Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
    3. Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals to whom they’re not assigned as bodyguards.

    Police don’t protect individuals. Police draw chalk outlines around individuals who can’t or won’t protect THEMSELVES.

    If you are unable or unwilling to protect YOURSELF, you just aren’t going to get protected AT ALL. Anybody who tells you different is LYING.

  28. Pretty heavy on emotion and light on fact. Barbara should really see a competent therapist about her self confidence and self reliance issues

  29. Dear Therapists,

    Some of you want to be a therapist to earn a living for your families. Some are screwed up people who pursued the field to make sense of their own angsty existence. Some are genuinely interested in helping people, but need to give advice more responsibly. Some use their position to gaslight and delude their clients, setting them up for years of dependency. And some are predators who stalk, rape, murder, and cannibalize their patients.

    I don’t own any “military grade weapons”. The military contracts to the lowest bidder and their equipment is beat to hell. I wouldn’t settle for a “military grade weapon”, I desire much better than that. All of my weapons are definitely far above “military grade”, as they should be. It is a shame that the military has to settle for “military grade weapons”. They deserve much better than that, so they have a better chance of surviving their deployments. I hope you can give better than what is standard “military grade” therapy, so when soldiers come home they have a better chance of surviving the rest of their lives in society. But unfortunately, people like you settle for “military grade therapy” or worse.

    I also don’t have a god complex. I’m just another turd in the herd of humanity and there will forever be your failures, the deviants among us you passed the buck on or failed to identify, that I will need to defend myself against. You’re watering your office plant when police are out serving restraining orders on felons only hours before they go on rampages or out doing mental health checks on spoiled California psychopaths only weeks before they kill a bunch of people. Why don’t you therapists ride along with these police and do the evaluation? It would be a more important public service if you did than listening to a bunch of whiny spoiled mopes. Why do you leave it to a guy with a few months training in law enforcement to do your job where you job is needed the most? How come you aren’t riding in the car telling the cop “hey, I don’t think you should escalate things with this guy, he’s clearly got a problem”. Maybe you can save the lives of some people with mental issues when they interact with police? Oh yeah, back to your office plant…

    I, for one, am frightened at how little it takes to become a therapist and how ignorant you are about the psych drugs you recommend to your patients. Tiny children take your pills and listen to your BS and one day when they miss a dose and someone triggers their special snowflake sensitivities you told them they were entitled to, they’ll mow us down in their BMW, blow us up, or shoot us. But with some luck, one of us normal armed citizens will be able to defend ourselves with the firearms we carry around every day for this purpose. Maybe we won’t be able to stop them, or maybe we’ll stop them before they get to you.

    -D

  30. “Well… I kind of like her editorial.

    They’re starting to catch on that yeah… all of our military pattern rifles, no matter how much we enjoy them, or do 3-gun with them, or even hunt with them… we do own them to use on her and people like her who would try to use force and the government to do their bidding, should shit go all rodeo.

    Will we restore America to some strict constitutionalist republic? Probably not. But they’re going to pay first.

    I don’t deny it.

    And if it frightens them. Good.” -AJ_Dual

  31. Does she expect police responding to an active shooter to first provide him him with an attorney, convene a grand jury, get an indictment, conduct voir-dire, call witnesses, get a jury verdict, and let him exhaust his appeals before they open fire? Or is that excruciatingly stupid notion of armed combat reserved for civilians?

  32. Just a rambling series of non-sequiturs… So right back at ya, Barbara: “Why do you hate Freedom?”

    Oh, and No… Not Judge and Jury. And No, not determining guilt and innocence and sentencing…and pretty much no to all of the stupid straw man rhetorical questions you “asked”

    Why do you own a car that “can mow down large groups of schoolchildren or moviegoers”?? Why? Please help me to understand, Barbara??? (note the mocking voice)

    Oh, and you are not frightened of me. You are frightened of your Phobia. Look it up, you’re the shrink.

    And of course, you had to get the little childish veiled penis reference in too huh? (giggle giggle)

    What a joke. You have been severely deluded by your media masters. Better run now, time for your daily “programming”…

  33. Why should the words of this person matter?
    She sounds like a teacher for charlie browns class room.

    • Just a guess but I don’t think she has seen real male genitals in years. Lack of a good schlonging for an extended period of time has probably contributed to her current state.

  34. “Some are police, some of whom need to use weapons more responsibly.”
    So you understand that police are not perfect, but you want to surrender all power to them anyway?
    The local police fire 40 rounds twice a year for qualification, and have department supplied legal assistance if they get into a shooting.
    I practice twice a week (100 rounds or more each) and compete once a month (250 rounds), and if I get involved in a shooting, I’m on my own.
    Who should you trust more??? The police, of course! They run to the sounds of trouble! If I hear you screaming for help, I’ll run the other way, calling 911 as I go! Which is what you want, isn’t it? I’m sure you wouldn’t want to have some God-Complex Gun Nut save your life, unless he had been ordained by the State…. Maybe not even then.

  35. For a psychiatrist she sure is having a hard time picking up on her own issues. You’d think a professional like this woman would/should have the ability to remain objective and look at the facts but her entire statement is nothing but assumptions and contrived anti-gun propaganda.

    This is what happens when someone buys into one party’s ideology and subconsciously attaches a portion of their sense of self-worth to that party’s success or failure. They absolutely lose the ability to remain objective, think freely, or discern other people’s underlying motives.

  36. You want to ban me from self-defense? who makes you god? Thankfully our founders explicitly forbade government from playing God, too bad she wants to undo it

  37. Have a discussion with you? No you’ve already made up your mind. You accuse us of having a god complex? Most therapists I know are the ones with a god complex. I’m an lcsw-c so I think I can speak to that. Is it so wrong that I enjoy hunting or want to protect my family? You of all people should know that many suffer horiffic traumas.

  38. If you think a handgun gun makes one God-like in power, I dunno what to say, other than that you must be pathetically weak. Very much akin to saying a knife makes one all powerful. Or a fist. As to who gives us the authority? Either the founding fathers, simple logic, basic biology, or the almighty himself; take yer pick.

  39. Lady, if we were a tenth measure as horrible as you truly seem to believe us to be, you would already be dead.

    We are in fact 9 times more law abiding, more responsible than your average random citizen. Your fear of us is 9 times more justified against literally anyone else, aside from police. You should only be 3 times more afraid of them than you are of us, if crime statistics are any measure.

  40. Hopefully no one has said this, because I am way to busy to read all of the comments, but this story could be used as more proof that most therapists are more wonky then their patients.

  41. This is the typical drivel of someone that confuses emotional responses with facts. Facts would get in the way of her feelings, so therefore facts aren’t considered. And like most of her ilk, she quotes half of the 2nd Amendment and pretends that is all there is to say. It is sad that such weak intellectualism can get published. But since she is preaching to the choir, who cares anyway?

  42. This exactly the “type” of person who SHOULD not be involved in DHR. but sadly this is the only person who will take these crap jobs with such low pay. it’s because they are Crazy! They are not there to help people, they are there to help themselves and make them feel important and superior.

  43. “It may be a constitutional right to bear arms, but the Constitution said we have the right to bear arms in a militia, those arms being muskets at the time, guns that you could shoot once, taking much time to reload. Not AK-47 weapons.”
    I absolutely HATE this argument. If I have to give up my modern firearms, then you, dear lady, need to scribble you inane drivel with a quill pen, ink, on parchment; those implements of the time. Not computers, word processors, typewriters, ball point pens, etc., etc. After all, you have the Constitutional right to free speech, eh ?

    • “If I have to give up my modern firearms, then you, dear lady, need to scribble you inane drivel with a quill pen, ink, on parchment; those implements of the time. Not computers, word processors, typewriters, ball point pens, etc., etc. After all, you have the Constitutional right to free speech, eh ?” — Perhaps she should only be allowed to exercise the First Amendment if she first learns Aristotle, Socrates, Virgil, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Bastiat — after all, the Founding Fathers never imagined uneducated people playing God.

    • Here’s the (in)famous twitter exchange that got “Musket” Morgan his handle:

      The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles. Fact.

      — Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) December 3, 2012

      @piersmorgan It was devised 4 people 2b able 2 protect themselves w same type of weaponry used by those from whom they might need protection

      — Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) December 3, 2012

      @caroljsroth Where exactly does it say that in the Constitution – must have missed it?

      — Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) December 3, 2012

      @piersmorgan right next to the word “muskets”

      — Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) December 3, 2012

    • If the right of the people to keep and bear arms only covers muskets, does that mean the power of Congress to keep a Navy only covers wooden sailing ships with black powder cannon?

  44. Ease up on lumping LCSWs as all anti-gun. I just picked up my 7th CZ today and my first AR two weeks ago. I am a psychotherapist who works long and hard to help clients function better and have had frank discussions about the irrational fear of guns. I share my knowledge with colleagues and always offer to take them shooting (they mostly love my revolvers.) I have converted my fair share of anti gunners.

    • Likewise, I’m behind too.

      I’m trying to get them with different years of manufacture, though I don’t know how I’ll backfill the big gap between ’08 and ’12. (’15, of course, was the anniversary edition)

  45. “Why these weapons?”

    I didn’t read past those words. This person is obviously a moron.

    This mentality is fantastically idiotic when applied to other common-sense scenarios. For example, if people with this mindset watch a vampire horror movie, they would have to conclude that sharp teeth are the root problem.

    Jason or Freddy Krueger aren’t to blame. It’s obviously evil machetes and sharp gloves that are to blame for murder.

    So dumb…

  46. She lost all credibility when she said “defenseless animals”. She must be an upper-class yuppie from the city. I hope she doesn’t eat a burger with that mouth.

    Someone should kick her door down and see if she calls the cops, aka men with guns, and then hit a stopwatch to see how long it takes for them to arrive.

    Maybe that would talk some sense into her. I would even buy her a new door, and a gun in case the next guy wasn’t so benevolent.

    • Just to clarify, I’m not promoting violence against her. I’m using sarcasm to illustrate a point.

      Besides, I’m sure she has her own army of bodyguards, like Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Bloomberg. It’s the old double standard of guns for me but not for thee.

  47. What she is saying could be said of the Army, the police, any organization that wants to actually oppose bad people, enforce laws or protect people.

    I think this naive person needs to spend more time in dangerous parts of the world before rushing to judgment about people who want to protect themselves and others.

  48. If I was God, I wouldnt have to use a shitty little ar15 to kill just a few people at a time, I could use big baller type weapons like famine and malaria to kill millions of you little piss ants at a time! Muahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!

  49. “Do you think you can shoot your AK-47 and hit only the bad people instead of innocents as well?”

    Yes, as a matter of fact. I don’t own an AK, but my dad does, and I don’t sling a rifle everywhere I go, but if I was dumped into a stupid hypothetical, say a mall shooting where I am armed with my fathers AK, I could drop the bad guy from 200 yards at least, or much, much, further with my AR. I’m also confident in my ability to discern innocents from evildoers. That’s beside the point, however, as I’m more likely to be carrying an SR9C, which I’m capable of 25 yards on a good day.

  50. Man, I wish ole Barbie could read some of these comments. Not that it would assist her in realizing she just MAY have a bit of flawed “reasoning” going on, but there’s always hope.

  51. Dear Barbara Sanders,

    I don’t own an assault rifle… yet. However, I do possess a basic understanding of economics, which I studied both in high school and college. With that understanding comes the rational fear that our government, which has been spending far more money than it takes in for the better part of two decades, shows no sign of stopping this irresponsible behavior any time soon. As anyone should know, if you continue to max out credit card after credit card, the banks will eventually stop giving you credit cards. And at some point, they’ll all come looking for the money you owe them. Our government’s solution to this quandary – just print more money! Except you can’t make something out of nothing. So our national debt has in effect become one giant ponzi scheme. And like all ponzi schemes, it will eventually come crashing down. I hope I’m not alive to see that happen. But I believe I will be. And while I don’t claim to know what a global financial meltdown will look like, I’m sure it won’t be good. And when it happens, the government won’t be there to save us. The police won’t be there to save us. The military won’t be there to save us. So while you’re stumbling around in doe-eyed disbelief and starving to death, I’ll be protecting my family as best I can. And if it isn’t a global financial meltdown, it’ll be one of those long overdue supervolcanoes. Or a meteor. Or sun flares. Whatever the case, when SHTF, I’m going to keep the people I love alive for as long as I can. It brings me some comfort to know that you will be gone, and therefore not competing for our resources.

    P.S. My penis and I are just fine.

  52. Please give me and everyone else here this woman’s email address so we may send her a logical response to her inquiry. If she truly wants an answer to her questions, she will get them.

  53. Gah! Animals ARE NOT DEFENSELESS!!! Animals have every advantage over man. They hear better, see better, smell better(ha ha) and run faster. You might think our big brains give us the edge but their little ones send them running at the drop of a hat(or snap of a twig). So again, advantage: animal.

  54. I don’t get it. Is this woman just not very sharp? She’s certainly educated. I understand the foolishness from professional anti gun zealots. They have a reason to spout such nonsense even if they are smart enough to see how free from logic, just to support their self interest and often pay checks. I want to call attention to a few parts.

    “Some of you want pistols to protect yourselves and your families. Some are vigilantes, like George Zimmerman, who want to keep neighborhoods safe. Some are police, some of whom need to use weapons more responsibly. Some shoot defenseless animals for sport. And some own military weapons that can mow down large groups of schoolchildren or moviegoers.

    I am writing to this last group. Please, help me understand . . .”

    Well she must not understand too much. Is she taking to the few people who commit mass shootings or the people who carry guns to defend themselves ? And does she think that there are all the people carrying AK patterned rifles as EDC weapons? Maybe in Iraq.

    “It may be a constitutional right to bear arms, but the Constitution said we have the right to bear arms in a militia, those arms being muskets at the time, guns that you could shoot once, taking much time to reload. Not AK-47 weapons.”

    Ok first off this is untrue. Repeating arms where known to many of the founders. They where not in common use but did exist. Also the common repeating arms of the day where groups of men with a single shot rifle or musket. The fact that I can shoot as many rounds in a minute as 30 soldiers in 1776 is does not change the fact that civilians ( the militia ) had the capability to fire those rounds. Should we accept restrictions on modern communications because the first amendment was written with quill and ink ? I can certainly communicate as effective as any 1000 men in 1776 with. The Internet. Should we rethink our right to travel since we can carry so much more in our vehicles and so much farther ? please help ME understand.

    “Why these weapons? Are you waiting for a once-rare-but-now-more-frequent mass shooting or another shooting so you can save the day, planning to kill the “bad” guys? How many times might you have that opportunity in life? One can always hope, I suppose.”

    I think the bad guys these weapons help protect us from are armed men who will never attack us or repress us since they know we are armed.

    “Have you listened to police chiefs who say that they don’t want their staff entering an active shooting scene where “bad” shooters and “good” shooters are battling around innocent families and children, unable to discern who is bad or good? Do you think you can shoot your AK-47 and hit only the bad people instead of innocents as well?”

    Well I don’t know any police who want to go to any active shooter situation. Generally if anybody wants to be in an active shooter situation , it’s only the active shooter. All the good guys would much rather he wasn’t actively shooting. But the police might feel better with less shooters, true. Of course if I’m dead from an active shooter, that’s little consolation to me or my family.

    Can I hit only the bad guys? I don’t know. Police certainly can’t always miss the good guys. We still don’t expect them to just be sitting ducks and be slaughtered defenseless. Why should I not be allowed to fight back? Also while I’m more likely to be armed with just a handgun as a carry weapon, in much SAFER shooting at a bad guy with my AR as it is much less likely that I miss.
    .

    “The police might mistake you for a “bad” shooter. The might shoot and kill you. The investigators will also need to determine if your bullets killed the innocent. Are you asking to be imprisoned?”

    They might shoot me by accident and police shoot each other by mistake sometimes too. They are much less likely to mistake me for the shooter if I’m lying dead in the ground after he has shot me and left my unarmed body lifeless. While I understand the risk of being shot by mistake by law enforcement or even another civilian , that threat pales next to the threat of a guy right there trying to kill you.

    As far as being imprisoned id rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. And I’d rather both happen to me than my wife or children who might be with me.

    “Maybe you just don’t feel very good about yourself or your life, and you need to boost your confidence and self-esteem by openly carrying a giant weapon, hiding your disappointing body parts and/or your psychological distress. Maybe you really are fearful, thinking that Muslims are taking over this country, and if not Muslims, that perhaps black and brown men and boys are wreaking havoc. Maybe you have been severely traumatized and need help.”

    Yea maybe that’s it Muslims that’s why we carry guns. Cuz we have small pricks and we are scared of Muslims and. Gays. Lol.

    Or maybe it’s because we love life and ourselves ,are families and our fellow man. Maybe we want to keep our country free for everyone including Muslims and gays.

    On a side note I finding laughable that a woman so far beneath my standards of who I would sleep with ( abcent 17 shots of mescal ) would elude to my self confidence. It sounds. More to me like she is projecting her own self doubt and insecurity on others.

    “Who makes you God? Even if you were in a challenging shooting situation, are you the judge or jury? Can you sort out facts in the heat of the moment instead of using our justice system to work through an agreed-upon process for determining innocence, guilt and sentencing?”

    God does not need a gun. And juries are called upon to determine guilt after a crime has occurred. Defense of self or others from violence is NOT the administration of justice or a punishment. Injury or death suffered by a person commuting a violent act at the hands of a victim is a direct consequence of that persons violence. ” society” agreed on this thousands of years ago.

    “I, for one, am extremely frightened of you because you hold my and my family’s lives in your hands when you carry your weapons of mass destruction around our schools, parks and churches. Tiny children find your weapons, thinking they are toys, forever ruining or ending their own or others’ lives. Who gave you the right to endanger so many people?”

    Well sorry your scared. I’m scared of flying. I know it’s an irrational fear as flying is safer than the driving I do every day. The difference between you and I is that I can look at reality and accept that my fear , while present , is based on emotion not reason. We law abiding gun owners are not very likely to harm you, unless you decide to attack us or our family. Statistics show this over and over agin. Those same statistics show that an AR or AK patterned rifle( or any rifle) is very unlikely to be used in a crime.

    “Please help us all understand your thinking, feelings or logic. And then, maybe we can have a safe and honest conversation about your fear, your anger and your obsession with power, control and violence”

    Well how about we talk about you fear and anger? I mean there seams to be a lot of it in this diatribe you managed to get shown around the Internet. Also lets talk about obsession with control and power. Your side wants to take away the individuals power and to control our freedoms. My only “issues” with control and power are that I refer not to be controlled by people in power.

    In short you ma’am are a giant ugly doodoo head. Keep you hands off my guns AND my rather ample penis !

    • “Well I’m sorry your scared. I’m scared of flying. I know it’s an irrational fear as flying is safer than the driving I do every day. The difference between you and I is that I can look at reality and accept that my fear, while present , is based on emotion not reason. We law abiding gun owners are not very likely to harm you, unless you decide to attack us or our family. Statistics show this over and over again.”

      *Slow clap*

    • What makes you think that she is educated? A truly educated Progressive that reads outside of the Party approved brochures is a rarity. I’m yet to meet one.

  55. “A good diet being essential to a healthy body, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed”. Author unknown.

    If you can only bear arms in a militia, then you can only eat if it’s part of a healthy diet based on your argument. No more fast foods, french fries, potato chips, chocolate shakes, well, you get my point I hope. I on the other hand see my food choices as unlimited as I want to make them, whether it be a plain jane hamburger or some fugu, my choice, not yours. Please go pedal your psychological claptrap somewhere else.

    • Better analogy I’ve heard:
      “A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a good day, the right of the people to keep and eat bacon shall not be infringed.”

      Who has the right to eat bacon – the People or the well-balanced breakfast?

  56. “Help me understand” is corporate-America code for, “I think you’re fvcked up, but our politically correct policies don’t allow me to say that, so I’m forced to couch my extreme distaste for you in this insipid nicey-nice language and give you an opportunity to speak your peace before I fire you (or take your firearms.) I really don’t give two hoots in Hell about what you’re saying.”

  57. Mam, how are you dealing with what’s in the minds of these people? Men in China stab those children. Take guns away. The violence is still there. You say no guns less people die. Ask those people what living with your face slashed is like. India this last weekend. Horrific!

    What are you doing to help heal this angst. Your response is so immature. Stop the thunder, I’m scared.

  58. “your fear, your anger and your obsession with power, control and violence.”
    Oh. Now I get it, she’s talking about political leaders.

  59. I believe Barbara Sanders, like many progressive in Nashville, are having a hard time with the success that responsible residents have made reestablishing TN gun rights. Castle Doctrine has been extended to cars – IE Car carry without a permit. Life time carry permit now available (Open and Concealed weapon carry). Carrying in most parks now legal. Roll back of a law allowing you to carry where alcohol is severed as long as you do not drink. Bretta plant to the north of Nashville and Barrett to the south. I can think of 3 new gun shop/ranges that have opened in the past few years, including one that has an indoor range where you can shoot 50 BMG rifles.

    Mrs Sanders article was published in a dying paper that is very liberal. Most of the comments online on their site are similar to the comments posted here on TTAG.

  60. “you could gt killed or arrested for jumping in and trying to protect other people!”

    Yeah, well that’s what I knowingly accept every time I have a gun.

    …arrogant bitch.

  61. Maybe it’s time for an amendment stating that anyone who opposes any part of the Bill of Rights will be deported to a randomly selected dictatorship?

  62. “Please, help me understand.”

    I’m not sensing any attempt on your part to try to understand.

    It’s not my job to try to convince you of anything.

    “Please help us all understand your thinking, feelings or logic. And then, maybe we can have a safe and honest conversation about your fear, your anger and your obsession with power, control and violence.”

    We can always have a “safe conversation” so long as you don’t try to take away my guns.
    We can always have an “honest conversation” when you are honest yourself.
    Honest conversations are a two-way street.

    My fear? My anger? My obsession with power, control and violence?

    Who is not being honest, now?

    Who is the one that Projecting their own fear and paranoia on to a law-abiding, peaceful minded people?

  63. Plainly not qualified to be a therapist — too many judgment statements.

    BTW, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker is by definition NOT a “psychotherapist”. An LCSW is to an actual psychotherapist as a five-year-old playing “Chopsticks” is to Victor Borge.

  64. “Please help us all understand your thinking, feelings or logic. And then, maybe we can have a safe and honest conversation about your fear, your anger and your obsession with power, control and violence.”

    It seems she doesn’t want rational debate leading to understanding, rather as a pseudo-therapist wants to help us reject our “gun nut” ways and start thinking rationally again.

    Good luck with that

  65. “Please help us all understand your thinking, feelings or logic. And then, maybe we can have a safe and honest conversation about your fear, your anger and your obsession with power, control and violence.”

    There are irrational fears and rational fears. An irrational fear is worrying about a shark climbing up the stairs to your apartment and eating you for lunch. A rational fear is knowing that evil can strike anytime anywhere. I have people in my life I care about; people who would miss me if I died, and I would miss those people if they died. If any of us as victimized or harmed, we would all be aggrieved. Therefore, it makes sense to protect ourselves, because any time we need that weapon, life and death will be on the line. It is no different than buying insurance. Do you you plan on getting into a car accident? Do you wish to develop cancer? Do you think nothing can damage your home? While all these threats are unlikely, they are facts of life and it would be foolish to protect yourself against them. I would like to talk about your anger, fear, and need for control. Why are you so outraged as to make an open letter to all of us? Why are you convinced that out of the thousands of things that can cut a life tragically short, it’ll be someone with an AR15 and an itchy trigger finger? You address this even to armed professionals, so why do you seem to think the tool itself changes a person. Owning a violin doesn’t make a musician, owning a stove doesn’t make you a chef, and owning a weapon doesn’t make you a murderer. What gives you the right to preach to us? We both have fears, my fair lady, but the difference between us is we confront our fears by taking personal steps to prepare for hte world, while you demand that others change to comfort you.

  66. Pathetic. The only thing she wants to understand is why anyone else would want a viewpoint other than hers. Twit.

  67. James Madison took on the role of being the writer of the Constitution. Shortly after its ratification, some of the framers wanted to specifically include some individual rights that could not be taken away by a tyrannical government.

    Madison penned 27 specific rights and submitted them to the House of Representatives. From there 12 were approved and sent to the US Senate. The Senate deleted two of the twelve leaving ten for the House to reconsider. The Senate also condensed the wording, leaving the second amendment a little confusing for those who are comma-deficient when reading.

    Here is the amendment as originally written by James Madison and approved by the House of Representatives:

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

    That writing clears up any misconception that weapons were meant for the militia. Please note that a standing army is not a militia. A militia is an ad hoc group of individuals with access to weapons willing to stand and fight against those who would attempt to deny the People their individual rights.

    In fact, our country did not support a large Constitutionally funded standing army until well into the 20th century. The National Defense Authorization Act, though challenged all the way to SCOTUS, gave Congress authorization to fund a large military with the capability of going overseas. Of course the Constitution mandates that the President is the Commander in Chief. The Constitution also limits how long Congress can approve appropriations for the military to every two years. Ever wonder why the government almost comes to a halt once each year, and why the military may endure a month or more of no pay? That is why. The military and the civilians who work for the Department of Defense are funded annually. Without that funding, they continue to operate without appropriation. Congress always back dates the appropriation package so that our military and others who went without pay, receive back pay.

    So, ma’am, your whole argument fails before it ever gets started. May I suggest a technical writing class in addition to English 101 and 102 where you learn about punctuation? I presume you were out sick during those lessons in K-12.

    If you choose not to arm yourself, or choose to ask an assailant to wait until a judge us selected and a jury is seated, worry not: your gun toting neighbors have your back. All of us will happily put ourselves in harm’s way to protect other Americans.

  68. She is truly just a psycho, not a psychotherapist!!!! She can not be made to understand that the weapons of today are a direct correlation to the weapons of then. The weapons are to be able to overthrow tyranny as the need arises. We are not musket and slingshot times, we are modern weapons technology!!!

  69. The constitution does not say you have the right to bear arms only in a militia. For God’s sake, at least learn how to read, before you treat any more psych patients. The Constitution says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That exact wording has been clarified by the Supreme Court of the United States to mean, as with every right, such as your freedom of speech, that it extends to every person.

    Get educated before you spout off, you brain-dead condescending filth!

  70. “Who Makes You God”

    I just got this. This is the medievalist objection to medicine. For example. “Who makes you god?” to decide who lives and dies of cholera or infection, when god made them sick to begin with.

    This is a theological argument. Grasping the power and agency of acting in the world is … to be as god, to try to be as god, the essence of “the fall” having the hubris to grasp knowledge of good and evil, and the power that comes with that. The passive-acceptance anti-gun argument is the same fatalism accepting the ordained: Hey, god sent us suffering, and, you know, that thug shooting people up, so who are you to oppose that? They don’t say “god” but it’s exactly the same structure.

    There’s an opposing theological argument(*), but I’m struck by how fatalistic, and frankly anti-humanist this anti-gun argument is.

    (*) Roughly, the opposing (Christian) theological argument is that we are gifted not just with circumstances, but also with reason, will and abilities. We are free to choose to express those gifts in accordance with god’s will. Or not. There’s a more subtle argument that engaging in creation – making what we can of the world – is not necessarily at odds with the divine will, but can be a seen as part of that will. There’s a constant tug of war between “paradise on earth” and “redemption of a fallen world”, along with “works righteousness” and “redemption through faith.”

    I’m not taking sides. I’m just noting the incredibly strong parallel in the thinking “Who made you god?” The snark-y answer is: “God did. Next question.”

  71. Disclosure: I am a one of those liberals everyone is talking about. I heartily support mental health screening for gun licenses and I voted for Sanders.

    People own guns because having one grants you options. I would gladly abandon every weapon I own if I had any evidence that it could be done safely. Since I have plenty of evidence to the contrary, I cannot shrug off my duties to myself, my family and my community. It saddens me to know that animals will die of starvation if they are not properly culled. All the hunters I know are grateful for their prey and treat them with respect. Guns ensure that governments rule with the consent of the governed and send a powerful message to our would be invaders. There is no rest on these shores. There may come a day when we can bend our swords into plows, but it is not today,

    • Thank you for this, Chris: “…I would gladly abandon every weapon I own if I had any evidence that it could be done safely. …”

      That is the crux of what I’ll call the Menckenite argument for gun rights in the US(*), and quite a few other things, more or less: “Yeah, that would be great, but how?” From time to time you’ll see “more gummint doing stuff” folks quoting Mencken, or claiming him as an advocate for their preferred policies, because he said something that reads as pro-socialist, or more precisely anti-oligarch. Hardly. His curmudgeonly, elitist contempt for weasel-y people dinged would-be overlords if anything harder than the simply clueless wad.

      The thing is he didn’t trust anybody. So his counter-argument to “Let’s put good people in charge, and fix this.” was some form of “OK, who?” “Who does it?”” is one of the “OK, how you gonna do that?” arguments, which include “Can you really do that?” (like get rid of all the guns), and “Does that really work?” (like make a law that gets guns away from the gad guys.) For guns, “Who does that?” leads to things like keeping guns away from black people during Jim Crow, and of course the 34,000 or so people in NY State on the “No Guns for You” list, on standards, via procedure, with appeal and correction processes nobody knows. (It took the NY Times to get that number, finally.)

Leave a Reply

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