1964 Checker Marathon cab interior (courtesy briangatrailer.com)

Civilian disarmament crusaders fight for ever-more Draconian gun control laws under the banner of public safety. End gun violence! Do it for the children! The resulting “argument” centers around whether or not private gun ownership is good for society. Which completely and conveniently ignores the fact that Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is not subject to arguments over social utility…nor the democratic process (for that matter). But if you really want to know what flicks their anti-ballistic Bic, check out A Cabdriver’s Take on Guns via nytimes.com . . .

During the midst of [a] well-publicized rash of attacks [against taxi drivers], I was in a taxi one day and asked the driver if he was worried about an assault happening to him. His reply (paraphrased) was this: “Yes. So I bought a gun and kept it on the passenger seat right beside me in easy reach.” That made me a little nervous so I asked, “Is your gun beside you now?”

All these years later I remember his reply. He said: “You know, we cabbies often get in fights and it can get ugly. With that gun beside me, nobody, nobody was going to mess with me, and that scared me. I was afraid I’d use it. So, I leave it home now and take my chances.”

Paraphrased my toches. “With that gun beside me, nobody, nobody was going to mess with me” is camera shy (non-existent?) columnist Enid K. Reiman’s idea of the average gun owner: a Travis Bickle wannabe. I mean, unless a violent passenger actually saw the taxi driver’s gun why wouldn’t they mess with the driver? That makes no sense. And the chances of the city’s Powers That Be blessing an average Big Apple Joe with a handgun permit are roughly equal to said schmoe winning the Empire State Lottery.

Here’s the thing: the alleged driver asserted that he was afraid of his inability to control his temper — to the potential point of homicide. I’ve known people who don’t carry for that very reason, but this article would have you believe that all gun owners are proto-murderers, a reason why none of them should own guns.

I’m not a proto-murderer. You’re not. And neither are tens of millions of Americans. What’s the bet that gun control advocates are? That their own inadequacies and insecurities fuel their anti-gun jihad? To paraphrase Mr. Rodgers, can you say “projection“? Sure you can!

Recommended For You

67 Responses to The Antis’ Ultimate Argument Against Guns: We’re All Mentally Unstable

    • Yep.

      You won’t catch me arguing that some/most/all lefties are stable enough to handle gun ownership or carry. They know themselves (and the other folks in their bubble) best. My problem starts when they assume everyone else is as defective as they are, and try to legislate accordingly.

      Like many other areas with the left, it’s all about projection. “If I can’t be trusted”, they say, “then no one can!”

      BS. Just because you’re broken/defective, that doesn’t mean we are.

      • This! The leftists/progressives/statists don’t trust themselves so how can they trust us? Maybe blood WOULD run in the gutters if THEY had guns…and no training.

    • I remember being in a chat room with two overseas leftists, and they both were quite candid that they would snap someday (and they both explained why; it basically amounted to frustration with their lives), and it would be bad if they had a gun. They seemed very surprised that I wouldn’t.

  1. I’ve said this before: if we’re all too crazy to carry a gun, the cops are included. When the antis focus their attention on disarming police I might be inclined to believe their horseshit. I still won’t agree with it but at least they won’t be blatantly lying at that point.

      • Some are, some aren’t. I think it’s a minority of lefties who want to disarm the police, at least in the foreseeable future. Some lefties just don’t like guns. Most of them are more about the state being in control.

        The police need to stay armed long enough shoot all the OC’ers who get SWATTED by the MDA and then once 2A is repealed to do paramilitary confiscations of the 300 million guns in the country. That will take a while. Then they could be disarmed, at least until they realize the BGs, who will always have guns, are still shooting people, then they will have to rearm the cops.

        They will never admit it, but prototype of the kind of gun control the lefties want is what Hitler did before WWII. And there was no one suggesting anyone in uniform be disarmed with that action.

  2. If we are all mentally unstable – we need to ban a lot more things than guns. Things the lefties would be unwilling to ban.

    • They are on the verge of banning human-controlled vehicles. So no more slogging down the logging trail to the deer stand, no more riding down rice checks to that super-secret duck honey hole, no more scouting the high country for mule deer tracks. I thinking of getting a horse…and and damn well sure keeping my ’00 4Runner.

  3. Yes, the antis believe it we’re all crazy, themselves included. They also believe that we are all criminals, themselves included. This is why they never make a distinction between a gun used to protect a life in lawful self-defense and a gun used by a criminal to rob a liquor store.

    They see absolutely no difference… Because, well, they’re crazy.

  4. So would he leave his hands and feet at home too? Maybe not even drive his 3000lb cab anymore? Surely one could recognize the potential deadly utility of all those items in a fit of rage?

  5. After years of hearing the anti’s excuses, I’m reminded of Willie the Shake’s “Me thinks thou protestith too much!”
    Truth is simple, obvious, easily seen. Lies must be propped with more and more lies and blinds all to the truth with it’s massive web.

        • By all means! For authenticity, change it to “thou dost” (second person singular) when directly addressing one of those clowns. Or “he/she doth” when talking about them (third person singular). I guessed (and on further research it seems to be right) that even back then, it was “they do” in third person plural.

      • The quote, by the actual queen in regards to the lady playing the queen in the “play within a play” is as follows:

        “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

        I have also seen it written as “The lady doth protest overmuch, methinks.” I’m not certain which is more historically accurate.

        FIFY.

  6. I’m not a proto-murderer. You’re not a proto-murderer. But I’m fairly certain that leftists hate us and would kill every one of us if they could. Which is just another reason for us to stay armed.

  7. Wasn’t “public safety” interests in gun control Hitler’s mantra right before rounding up 2 million Jews and other undesirables for the gas chambers? Don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m not going to be part of repeating that bit of history. I’ll take responsibility for my own “public safety” thank you very much.

  8. This is why I believe the NRA misstepped when they said we need to deal with the mental health issue. It will make it so much easier for the liberal elites to declare us all mentally deficient in order to disarm us all. One at a time. We simply cannot give another single inch.

    • There is nothing in the Second Amendment that says the Constitutional protection to keep and bear arms doesn’t apply if you’re crazy. A significant percentage of colonists thought the revolution against England, and the people who promoted it and fought against the crown, was/were crazy.

  9. I once offered to introduce a lady friend to gun ownership. She declined and said “I have a wicked temper, I don’t trust myself to own one.” I asked point blank if she projected her own emotional problem on others as justification to ban guns. Her response “Of course not. Buy as many guns and crates of ammo as your wallet will allow, just count me out.” I’m glad when people recognize their limitations, but also have that rare live and let live attitude towards things. It’s sad that she’s basically a political unicorn.

    • In many cases I suspect that anti-2A people are just plain cowards. Placed in a situation where they are frightened of something/someone and given no opportunity to run or call for help, I think that the presence of a gun would lead them to use deadly force when it was not a proper response. This propensity to over-reaction out of fear may be what leads them to believe that the mere presence of a gun is dangerous in anyone’s hands. They can’t imagine that anyone would have enough courage and presence of mind to know if and when the escalation to deadly force, or just threat of deadly force, is appropriate.

  10. I would trust someone with a gun before I would trust them with a 4000lbs vehicle and voter registration card…

    If that cabbie (God bless him for being self-aware enough to see his issues) could not handle a gun, then handling those other things, with such little impulse control, could prove far more dangerous to society than any one handgun could ever be.

    Handguns do not cripple the economy, raise taxes, and send people to war – voting for the wrong people could. And how many DUIs do you have to get before you lose your license, indefinitely, like 30?

  11. My interpretation of the cabbie’s statement was a bit more self centered. I think he realized the odds were pretty good he would have cause to use it, and rather than the moral conflict over taking a life, his biggest worry was the legal nightmare he would be facing afterward. He feared that worse than death.

  12. I’m just going to say that the vast majority of cars I see with tons of bumper stickers are left leaning people judging on the messages on said stickers.

    “As scientists led by Paul Bell, Lucy Troup and Bell’s student William Szlemko of Colorado State University report in the June issue of the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, it’s a simple matter of territoriality. Researchers have long known that drivers who have a strong sense of personal space while in their vehicle are more likely to be road-ragers, and the more someone plasters his vehicle with bumper stickers and decals the more territorial he feels about the space inside.”

    And its usually a matter of transference – what THEY would do if they had guns IS NOT the same as what WE would do.

    And all of this goes to what has already been said – impulse control. 😉

  13. Well, since most of the mass shooters have been with a leftward bent, if not jihadiis: we should probably accept their self-assessment about people like themselves, and be glad that most of them self-regulate by not carrying a gun.

    The only problem being that they figure because they have a raging homicidal rage due to their self hatred at feeling like victims that blame their powerless, helplessness and dependency on everybody but themselves; and act accordingly with their homicidal rampages; everybody else must be as emotionally damaged as they are.

  14. This projection applies to other areas of liberal policy thinking as well.

    Why are mental health care and drug abuse care mandated into my insurance policy by Obamacare? I’ve never needed either one, ever, and yet here I am, paying for this nonsense.

    • Even if they do realize not everyone is brain damaged enough to need this…they’ll happily make those who don’t need it, pay for those that do.

    • Well, you’ll never need ovarian or uterine cancer treatment either, but that’s covered as well.

      Since no one has Monty Burns disease, everybody is paying for stuff they’ll never use.

  15. Sooooo………if we all agree that some people have short tempers, lack impulse control and do not (should not) carry a firearm for that reason, but who otherwise can function as productive members of society, then can we FINALLY dispense with the misapprehension that released violent felons must regain their 2A rights because “if they can’t be trusted with a firearm, then they can’t be trusted to walk the the streets” now?

    There does exist a middle ground. Yes, I know that other weapons exist and that body parts can be used as weapons. Those are not as effective or convenient as a firearm. The proof? YOU don’t employ such alternatives in preference to a firearm. Removing the implement that amplifies the output of their angry impulses is fine by me.

    Yes, I know they can still get guns. Those that do, we lock up again. Those that don’t, we allow to live among us in disarmed semi-freedom. We do the same with their right to associate. On parole? Can’t associate with other cons. In recovery? Can’t visit bars and do get drug tested. Violate your terms and prove our trust in second chances was misplaced? Back you go.

    The flip side to your arm the violent felons argument is to incarcerate all the hotheads proactively. Nobody advocates that. We just suggest they not carry a firearm, just in case. Yet, folks urge the arming of all violent felons, despite their histories of violence. Unbelievable.

    • Sooooo………if we all agree that some people have short tempers, lack impulse control and do not (should not) carry a firearm for that reason,

      False equivalency. “Should not” is not the same as “should not be allowed to.” We’re hoping those who “should not” will restrain themselves.

      Conversely, we aren’t advocating “arming violent felons” (that’s proactive) but rather restoring their right to be armed. Those who truly can’t restrain their impulses will hopefully pre-restrain themselves by not having a gun…or prove themselves not just hotheaded, but genuinely sociopathic.

      • …we aren’t advocating “arming violent felons” (although the Academy Award winning movie “The Dirty Dozen” was premised on this concept).

        …but rather restoring their right to be armed.

        You cannot revoke a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right, you do not have the ability nor does the government have the authority (see Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution). The best that can be accomplished is to attempt to inhibit the exercise of that right under certain tightly controlled circumstances. (after being convicted of a crime and while incarcerated.) Since this right cannot be revoked, it cannot, ipso facto, be restored”.

        The entire point of the Second Amendment is that everybody has the right to keep and bear arms and nobody has the right to restrict that right, including the government. The result being that when and if a threat presents itself the PEOPLE are prepared and able to deal with it as necessary.

        Attempting to revoke or restrict the right to keep and bear arms of any person is prior restraint, regardless of their history. Even in court cases for murder the law restricts the introduction of prejudicial evidence of prior acts unless they are directly relevant to the current case being adjudicated. (Lawyers may weigh in on this topic if I am not wholly accurate). Why then should prior bad acts be a measure of future exercise of Constitutionally protected rights? If a person is caught in a lie or perjures himself does he forever lose the protection of the First Amendment? If a person is convicted of child pornography does he lose his First Amendment freedom of the press in all other forms?

        We either support the Bill of Rights as it was written, or we do not. We do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which amendment, or which portion of each amendment, we will support while ignoring other parts, that is the tactic of the Progressives.

    • @ Jonathan – Houston, I could not agree with you more. The whole “if you can’t trust them with a gun, you can’t trust them on the street” is the most stupid thing I’ve ever heard. The fact is that we can’t trust violent ex-cons on the street. They will re-offend. They will kill, injure or rape people. That’s all there is to it.

      And the so-called “purists” want to facilitate the carnage by enabling the violent felons to re-arm. If it wasn’t so frightening, it would be laughably absurd.

      Unfortunately, the majority of dangerous, bad people can’t be kept in prison forever. For a lot of reasons, we need to recycle the trash. Too bad.

      • From a Constitutional standpoint, I’m completely comfortable with convicts losing rights, because the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments guarantee due process for “loss of life, liberty, or property”. If that due process is afforded, then I believe it’s legitimate for rights to be denied in limited cases. I also believe that there should be a way for people to petition to restore their rights. Someone convicted of a violent felony thirty years ago who has demonstrated no propensity for violence in the intervening years is probably not a risk and should not be denied their right to keep and bear arms any longer.

        • “Someone convicted of a violent felony thirty years ago who has demonstrated no propensity for violence in the intervening years is probably not a risk…”

          And yet a man in Kalamazoo who had no criminal history, violent or otherwise, over the last 30 years went out one evening and murdered 6 people with a pistol.

          The point is that you cannot know who will and who will not, which is why the Second Amendment does not discriminate nor allow discrimination. “…the right of the PEOPLE [emphasis mine] to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This leaves everyone equal and permits Good Guys to shoot the bastards who lose those inhibitions.

          The only approved method of revoking any person’s right to keep and bear arms is to shoot the bastard down when he attempts a criminal or other anti-social miss-use of a weapon (any weapon).

      • Well, here’s a thought I had… no it didn’t hurt too much.

        It’s recognized, of course that people can be deprived of rights from due process of law…after all, throwing somebody in jail is precisely that. While IN JAIL they can’t have firearms. The disagreement comes in whether or not it’s appropriate to continue denying the right once they have left jail. Ralph (apparently–Ralph if I misunderstand you, I apologize) maintains that being deprived of firearms rights even after jail is over can be a part of punishment, same as probation, suspended sentences, etc. Others maintain that once someone’s done serving time their sentence is over. Clearly that’s not true.

        How about, instead of having a blanket prohibition on felons owning arms…telling judges that they can make it part of the sentence? That way it’s explicit during the sentencing phase, instead of a “gotcha” that lands on a guy who sells some pot? It would also (possibly) inhibit a judge from applying it to someone who’s non-violent since the absurdity will be obvious.

  16. I have a question on the content of the infamous NY “Sullivan Law” and the truth of this NYT article. I recall reading somewhere (many years ago) that taxi drivers were specifically forbidden to be armed when working, either out of fear of “road rage”, or robbery of passengers, or both.
    That would be a “Sullivan Law violation”.
    If this driver was plying the streets of NYC with a pistol openly displayed on the seat beside beside him, even in the simpler times before “bulletproof” barriers, etc. were found in cabs, he would not be flirting with arrest, but outright soliciting arrest.
    Perhaps Enid K. Reiman, is old enough to be recounting an incident before the Sullivan Law. I would estimate his age as ~120 years to have had such a pre-Sullivan Law experience.
    Or could it be he was geographically confused? I recall hearing about a taxi driver in Georgia who kept a revolver (legally) in plain sight on the dashboard of his cab.
    Then again, perhaps it was a great story about what really, truly SHOULD have happened, even if it didn’t.

      • It’s all in HOW you break the law in NYC. I doubt if any of the gangbangers open carry or cruise with guns on the dashboard, or on a car seat, as this driver claimed, baring his soul to a stranger.
        I kind of expect the guns would be under the seats, or otherwise out of sight, even on the way to a drive-by.

  17. An Uber driver flipped out and shot some people, so we’re all supposed to take public policy suggestions from imaginary cab drivers now?

    I don’t know how much more pathetic and desperate some of these disarmists can get, but it’s kind of fun to watch them flail, hoping vainly that some of their bullshit will stick.

  18. They don’t trust themselves with a gun. Maybe this is why you cannot convince them that voting, particularly for the government to steal money to benefit others, is an act of force as well. Then they’d have to realize they can’t be trusted with that one either.

  19. Projection it is.

    Regardless, if everyone is basically a time bomb, I cannot think of a more compelling reason to be armed.

  20. Well, to be fair, most people believe in an invisible friend with magical powers… So clearly most people are a mixture of delusional and not too bright.

  21. Mentally ill peoples lives matter. They deserve to protect their lives too. Mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence and less likely to be instigators if attacks than the general populations.

    Theres most likely over a million people in the US with schizophrenia but very few of tgem will ever try to kill somebody.

  22. Of course we are, that is the goal behind the push for subjective criteria being used, mental health, to determine, or more accurately to eliminate constitutional rights.

  23. Man I’ve heard this diatribe a lot. Mostly from black folks who don’t trust their impulse control. Playing into the racist assumptions of the evil white man. “Those people”. A man’s got to know his limitations-I got no problem with cabbies not having guns.

  24. eh. this narrative that ‘gun owners think that guns make them invincible’ is only ever actually said by antis. I’ve never actually heard such bravado come from an actual gun owner. Only charicatures of what they think we sound like.

  25. If we’re all crazy, I want to be equally armed, regardless.
    And we are, of course, just one impulsive move away from sanity. It’s the price of being human.
    When you realize that, you understand why Jesus had to come and die for us, proclaiming “Forgive them Father, they know NOT what they do.” (Luke 23:34)

  26. I think the cabbie, assuming he was real, was saying he wouldn’t let anybody mess with him if he had a gun handy. Kind of like the way a cop can’t stand to lose a disagreement when he has arrest powers on his side.

  27. @RF –
    “Which completely and conveniently ignores the fact that….right to keep and bear arms is not subject to….the democratic process (for that matter).”

    Robert, all, every one of them, of your constitutional rights ARE subject to the democratic process, as clearly described in the constitution itself. Period. Over and Out. Any portion of the constitution can be amended, amended and repealed, repealed and amended, backward, forward and back again. I understand there is a multitude of readers of the blog who are uninformed about the reality of the constitution, but it is surprising that you would continue to publish the fiction that your rights are not subject to review and modification.

    NOTICE: To all, save your time, comment on other comments, but I will not come back to this commentary, at all.

  28. Considering the utter contempt that the 2nd amendment and the Bill of Rights in general is shown in NYC, it’s unlikely the guy had even been given permission from the government to carry the gun in his cab, or at all.

  29. There was a saying used by the abortion rights movement after Roe v. Wade. I remember the bumper stickers, “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” I was against that movement and that saying, but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. We have 2A and the Heller decision. I’d like to see us have bumper stickers that say, “If you don’t like guns, don’t own one.”

  30. Sigh. In the end their arguments all come down to you are…

    – too incompetent and dumb to use a gun, er, usefully,

    – too crazy and dangerous to be trusted with that kind of capability,

    – and expendable: not worth saving at the price of any risk at all to your betters, protected by gated communities, armed guards, or enforced “gun free” buildings (with gates and armed guards.)

    • “– too incompetent and dumb to use a gun, er, usefully,”
      – – – might be

      – too crazy and dangerous to be trusted with that kind of capability,
      – – – might become

      – and expendable: not worth saving at the price of any risk at all to your betters, protected by gated communities, armed guards, or enforced “gun free” buildings (with gates and armed guards.)
      – – – no life is “expendable”, that’s the point of improving gun safety/preventing the shooting of innocents

Leave a Reply

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