Previous Post
Next Post



In my post Random Thoughts About The Superbowl and Guns, I wrote than an armed populace gives society a fighting chance against terrorists. That got me thinking: why would gun control advocates deny Americans a fighting chance against bad guys? Because they believe The People of The Gun aren’t trained enough to defend their lives and other innocent life – despite tens of thousands of successful defensive gun uses per year? That’s partly it. The deeper truth: gun control advocates don’t believe in fighting back with lethal force, personally. That’s law enforcement’s job. Or, in the case of the elite, bodyguards. What’s up with that? I can’t come up with any explanation save one: they’re cowards. Which would also explain the “comments disabled” policy on their websites and their refusal to debate me in public. Am I wrong? And if I’m right, what then? How do we get them to (pardon the sexism) man-up?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “why would gun control advocates deny Americans a fighting chance against bad guys?”

    For the same reason they can’t stomach putting offenders in prison.
    It disrupts their schema which idealizes human nature.

    • I disagree. Statists do not idealize human nature (at least not in the positive sense implied by the word ‘idealize’). They believe man is by nature evil and must be restrained lest his base urges go wild. In other words, the great unwashed must be kept disarmed and under control or they’ll go crazy and dive head first into a Hobbesian dystopia.

      The real reason is that they fail to make a moral distinction between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal. To them, they’re the same person–except the criminal happened to stumble upon a gun and then acted as nature/his upbringing/society/bad role models/any excuse except his own free will work here/etc. dictated.

      • Javier – You’re exactly right, they really do believe people are evil (except for them, of course).

        I have observed this in my debates with liberals. Especially when I debate on the side of voluntaryism. They’ll say, we can’t have a stateless society because “people are bad. We need a government because people are bad.”

        Then when I say, but aren’t you “people”? Doesn’t that mean you’re bad? Where do the “people” in government come from? By your logic everyone in government is bad.

        Then they gloss over and change the subject!

        • I get the same reaction from liberals when we debate corporations. They’ll say corporations are evil, so we need government to control them. I’ll counter that corporations exist on paper only, that there are real individuals who conduct the actual activity. Governments are mere legal entities, too, whose business is carried out by real individuals.

          Sooo…..what makes government so noble and corporations so evil, despite neither being physical and both being comprised of individuals? Of the two, only government has the legal authority to initiate violence. Corporations must persuade you to act and only then in exchange for something you want.

          Then comes the hyperventilation, the obfuscation, and finally, the changing of the subject. Liberals do detest having their worldview shaken.

      • You are exactly wrong. The people you call statists are Rousseauians and so are Libettarians. They both believe that society corrupts basically good humanity. Progressives are building socialism to reclaim man’s basic goodness that was corrupted by private property. Faux Libertarians want to go straight to the state of nature and anarchy. The people you denigrate and call RINOs, by which you mean anybody who deviates from the faux Libertarian party line, do indeed believe that man is inherently corrupt and the state of nature is not a utopia but instead is a war of all against all. Republican government is compromise that balances the rights of the individual with the need for public order. There are many places at home abroad where people live in the utopia of faux Libertarian anarchy. I doubt few of you would last fifteen minutes in those utopias.

        • Um.. I think that you are confusing Libertarian and Rousseauian… A libertarian is NOT a statist, and at the end of the day wants less regulation – not more.. A Rousseauian believes that the general will is supreme and that everyone needs to submit to it.. They seem (at least to me with my lowly college education) to be at opposite ends of the spectrum.. Similar to what Republicans and Democrats use to be.. A liberal, on the other hand would be a good match for a Rousseauian – both believe in the supremacy of the general will, except the Rousseauian would believe that the general will would be something that would stop short of total control forever (the societal contract tries to clarify when that would be, but not effectively) where a liberal wants total control forever..

          There isn’t much difference between Republicans and Democrats these days, excepting some key emotional issues (abortion, equality, immigration, and government spending) – but Libertarians are worlds away from both – at least in theory.

          I think I would revise your statement to be more factual, and less emotional – and perhaps it would be more accurate.

        • The general will has nothing to do with statism. Radical Syndicalism , a form of anarchism, is built on the general will. A Rousseauian believes in the purity of the state of nature. So do Libertarians as they are a form of radical syndicalism.

      • …promise of equality in helplessness.

        Ahhh yes…… the merging of the leftist utopia of equality with their often-practiced acts of cowardice.

      • “That person taking responsibility for his/her own safety, I envy and hate that person because I am too lazy and afraid to take responsibility for my life, I want life handed to me. I want my mommy and daddy (government) to take care of me and to protect me.”

    • They would have no problem with throwing gun owners in jail or backing government bullies using deadly force against anyone who wont comply with gun or magazine bans.

  2. That’s a question? Look at their behavior. They hide behind mindless appeals to emotion. Silence all opposition, and then pretend to be the victims. Cowards is a polite term for what they are.

    • Yeah, I’m going with “low-life hypocritical statist scum” as a more precise description.

      Funny how all the anti-gun politicians – including the President – have armed bodyguards.

  3. Not to underestimate the enemy, some are much bolder than others. But for the most part the larger figures like Bloomberg and Fienstien are paranoid cowards scared of the hoi polloi. They are terrified of us, that’s why they fight so hard to weaken and separate us.

  4. I disagree, at least as to why you label them cowards. The reason they want no discussion, no compromise and no opposition to their control agenda is due to hubris not cowardice. They believe that they and only they are right, that their opinions are more educated, more thought out and superior to any others. That their vision is so strong that when they have their control it will make life better for everyone whether the people realize it or not. If the people don’t conform, then obviously something is wrong with them and they are criminals and not sophisticated members of society.

    The way they show their cowardice is to remove all fair discussion of their policies.

    • Agreed. Every liberal I know has that smug, self-satisfied look on their face and truly believes everyone else is a mouth breathing troglodyte.

    • I’ll disagree about why they delete comments, censure alternate views, and go to great lengths on to have contrary views censored. It all comes down to Cognitive Dissonance. While the term is used sloppily, inaccurately, especially by Harvard-trained law professors, it has a precise meaning. CD is an experimentally-determined reality of human social psychology. Briefly it means this, that people form acquaintanceship and friendships based primarily on physical proximity. As people form friendships or peer groups their opinions change as they discover views widely held among their new social milieu. This has an effect: In densely populated urban areas and multi-unit housing proximity causes the shifting of attitudes at the core to those most widely enforced (or propagated, rewarded) initially. It is quite difficult to live in close proximity, develop friendships, but resist taking on common views on social and political questions. Thus something like unanimity easily develops in densely-populated areas. People take on the view of their social group, usually unaware of the purely social-dynamics basis of their views. If a proponent of a political/social position can squeeze out contrary views or evidence, and can do so in an urban area, they can be assured that the view will grow on its own, regardless of its merits.

      Leon Festinger’s 1957 paper is worth a read. Wikipedia actually has a very good statement of the concept, its history and meaning, but requires reading the article carefully in its entirety. The implications of the accurately-stated Cognitive Dissonance results have been taken into the theory of advertising and public relations. Cognitive Dissonance does NOT mean the holding of two opinions or beliefs that are inconsistent with each other. CD is a social psychology theory about external causes of opinion, not a theory of internal cognitive harmonization.

  5. Jeff Snyder; gun rights advocate wrote an excellent book about just this question; “A nation of cowards” .

    It was a compilation of editorials he had written for different publications over the years. One of his proposals is that when an individual chooses to allow others to risk their lives in defense of himself and others; and that individual in return would surrender or run away rather than face the risk of injury or death; by definition, that is cowardice.

    This is why the POTG are attacked so hatefully and so vehemently by the anti-self defense crowd; it’s to make themselves feel better for sub-consciously what they know to be true.- they are cowards.

    • This thinking I believe is closest to the mark. The modern-day metrosexual male does not want the POTG types running around taking control of their own safety because they know it makes them look cowardly. So the gun grabbing male wants to outlaw the right (and duty) of self defense so he can say that he has no choice in the matter.

      In reality I’d bet you that a good majority of the wives of these gun-grabbing males would secretly acknowledge that they married a cowardly wimp that would rather hide in a closet then to protect her and the kids.

      BTW, no offense to the female POTG. That’s a whole other aspect that just freaks out the mind of the metrosexual male and the left as a whole.

  6. Yes, yes they are cowards.

    The real problem to me though is the disconnection they have to TRUE common sense and the real world in which we lowly peasants live our daily lives. Many of them would likely change their tune if they didn’t have armed security, live in gated communities or rub elbows with elitist political royalty on a regular basis.

  7. I learned this in third grade. You punch a bully in the nose. They are bullies and cowards. They are so frightened of YOU with the ability/will to fight back, they will do everything in their power to remove it from you. A bully doesn’t want a conversation, doesn’t want a fair fight, they want a punching bag, so they can prove to themselves that they are superior to you. If you fight back, you might lose to the bully and their droogies, but they will never screw with you again. That’s why guns frighten them. It allows everyone the ability to fight back.

    • So what would be the best method of “punching back” an anti-gun bully? Because literally punching them in the face MIGHT not be the best way to deal with them.

      • Sometimes the literal (or even threat) can work quite well.
        While in college I actually made few converts this way. In one
        class there was an overabundance of Liberal pansies. A
        friend and I made a faux confrontation. My friend was far
        shorter than my 6’3″ frame and about 150lb lighter. (She
        had a black belt in Ju Jitsu and could throw me around at
        will but the class didn’t need to know that. ) One day she
        loudly stated that all firearm use was wrong and should be
        banned. I immediately pounced out of my seat and stalked
        over. We guided ourselves over to one end of the room where
        I threw some very real looking punches and holds. She
        dutifully played the defenseless victim. All the while I’m loudly
        asking how anyone, let alone her, thinks they could stop me
        without a firearm. After a while we dusted ourselves off and
        addressed the class. Surprisingly enough, many actually
        admitted that a refusing to protect yourself could backfire
        horribly; even if this meant had to use a firearm.

        The entire episode was enlightening for me as well. During the
        “confrontation” not one student got up to help. No one would
        place themselves in harms way. It was then and there that I
        took the opinion that the majority of Liberals don’t have the
        courage or personal conviction to be anything more than sheep.
        They may be loud sheep, but when it comes time to do the
        dirty work they instantly quiet down, file to the back, and get
        someone else.

        • They’ve never done anything hands-on in their lives. Never hiked in the wilderness and pitched a shelter; never put down a suffering pet themselves – NO, they let it suffer until the vet can do the job. They’re not hands-on people. It’s either done by a “professional” or not at all.

      • I think we (people with/of the gun) must stick together, and collectively fight back. I can’t, I do not have a billion dollars backing me. We can. We cannot ignore them (they will not go away), we cannot work with them (they will just abuse us more), we cannot appeal to their better nature (they do not have one).
        We must shove guns (metaphorically) in their face and prove that we will not quit, we will not back down. You punch the bully in the nose no matter how big he appears. When the next one shows up you punch them too. There will always be a cowardly, immoral, immature, insecure subset to our culture. We cannot let them win. /rant off/

        • ” You punch the bully in the nose no matter how big he appears. When the next one shows up you punch them too. ”

          That never worked for me. When I popped the bully, either he came back with the next one, or he went crying to the authorities with his bloody nose and, of course, I got in trouble for punching him.

          All we can do is stand fast. Our Founding Fathers drew the line in ink on parchment and ratified it in 1789. We must stand firm, but be very careful not to take any aggressive action against them. My right to swing my arms around stops not only at your nose, but also that whiny bimbo’s nose. We need to be the better person. We’re the real Good Guys here, right?

  8. Gun control advocates are not really that passionate about what they preach. I believe the true driving force behind their policy is that is a hot button issue to use against their political opponents. They really have no stake in the game because they are not gun owners nor is there life ever affected by gun violence. The other thing I think they worry about is an armed insurrection against them and their “good ideas.” They want to know they can hold on to power eternally.

    • Agree with both of these. The anti-gun issue provides another angle on the tried-and-true “make them afraid, then sell yourself as the answer.” It drags yet another little voter group into the swarm, people (such as white suburban housewives) who might not agree with the rest of your agenda, but who can be persuaded to fear all guns and all ‘fighting back.’ Yet, there is certainly a larger agenda, which is that ruling a populace via mass media and armed state force is much easier if those who object to the growing state intrusion do not own effective firearms. This is especially true, I would guess, when you control the opinions of most people, the urban, but control roughly none of the food, petroleum, guns, water, and transportation routes.

  9. Cowards? Yes. Plus they idealize cowardice. They idealize victims. They demonize those who refuse to be victims. And they are just about totally in control of the information and entertainment industries, enabling this attitude to run rampant with little vocal dissent allowed.

    • Whatever they may think, they want YOU to idolize cowardice and ‘non-violence.’ Of course! These are the same people who teach you that MLK +non-violence advanced the civil-rights agenda, as opposed the anger, riots, and fear…which is really what it took to get the US to wake up: “They’re angry and they’re justified.” These are the same people that want you to believe that India’s throwing off of the British Raj yoke was a matter of Gandhi preaching non-violence, rather than the real force that paralyzed the British ruling class, which was the success of the Indian National Army in causing the Sepoy to become disloyal to the British. There’s a theme here. “Disarm because you don’t need arms when only pacifism wins political debates!” Except it isn’t true, which is why they keep so many (uniform-borne) guns.

  10. They say the same thing about us, though. We’re paranoid crazies because we want to carry our guns everywhere we go. We imagine strangers bursting into our homes and fear getting attacked in parking garages. They roll their eyes whenever we talk about the Knockout game and mumble about overwhelming odds. I always wonder if the gun-grabbers really feel that way or if it’s a form of whistling past the graveyard. Are they really comfortable in the idea that they’ll never be attacked? Or if they are, that the police will save them? I don’t understand the psychology of that. Bad things happen to good people all the time and the anti-gun folks know it. So how do they manage to cling to their personal philosophies on the matter?

  11. I think cowards is the wrong term. It implies that they are scared to fight back in the face of an imminent threat, which I do not believe to be any more true of gun-control advocates than anyone else. I think it would be more accurate to say that they believe it’s inappropriate for people to defend themselves, and that it should be the job of law enforcement. Of course, the validity of that belief is predicated on the idea that law enforcement’s job is to provide security to everyone, which is absurd even on its face.

    The answer to your question is simple though: you don’t. If they want to believe that people should rely on the police for 100% of their protection, that is their right, and if they choose to live consistently with that belief, that is also their right. The only issue for “us” is making sure that their beliefs do not influence anyone’s ability to exercise their civil rights.

    • I agree with Kyle. Coward is the wrong term. I like using this definition of coward:

      “someone who is too afraid to do what is right or expected : someone who is not at all brave or courageous.”

      I think they almost all believe they are doing what is right and expected and they believe they are being brave and courageous by doing so. They just don’t have the same view of what is right as I do. They also don’t agree with me on what an individual’s role is in society and government’s proper relationship to those individuals.

      • Also wanted to add:

        By labeling them as cowards we are dismissing their arguments not based on logic or reasoning but on mis-perceived personal failures. This is the same thing I despise when I hear the term gun-nut. On the other hand, I am in no way approving of their tactics to control others and suppress civil discourse. That in my opinion is a correctly perceived personal failure it just doesn’t qualify as cowardice.

        • This is the other thing SAS 2008 about the whole PC thing; “Oooh, you can’t judge me by your beliefs; because everything is relative; my beliefs are just as valid as yours”; wrong.

          The definition of cowardice has been the same through all of history; those that run away or surrender without even attempting to fight to protect themselves or their fellow citizens from predators have always been judged as cowards; it’s just the twisted attempt by the statists to change what has always been the accepted norm.

          This is also when they try to redefine what makes for a free individual; this is the right to KABA.

        • ThomasR –

          You are reading way too much into my post. I am not saying you can’t judge people based on their beliefs. I am just saying their beliefs being different doesn’t make them cowards and that calling names in either direction just pisses people off. In many cases their beliefs and how the try to impose them on others expose them as self-righteous, condescending statists.

          As for their beliefs being valid, who the heck gets to decide what is valid? We all make our points and political moves and the groups that do that best wins. The gazelle’s desire to live and the cheetah’s desire to eat are both valid but someone is going to win. It has nothing to do with validity and everything to do with survival.

        • Is it not their right to run away if they so choose? It’s certainly not my choice, and I can’t think of any good reason to believe what they do, but that decision has no bearing whatsoever on my life. So long as their opinion does not infringe upon anyone else exercising their own beliefs, be my guest. Of course that’s not what’s happening.

  12. That would be a resounding YES. That aside why are we even trying to have a conversation with them? The Constitution backs gun owners ,not them. Sorry but my feeling is the best defense is an OVERWHEALMING OFFENSE.That means ,politically,media wise ,educational and public support. They get away with blaming gun owners every time a nut gets a gun. Their solutions are redundant and simply DO NOT WORK as proven over and over again.Gun owners need to support lobby groups and shut these ignorant antis up once and for all.Hey if you don’t like the Constitution and it’s Amendments, get the hell out of America.For ALL YOU ANTI S-CHILDREN SHOUD BE SEEN AND NOT HEARD.If you are not willing to educate yourself on the topic of which you speak,then SHUT UP!

  13. They are cowards in that they refuse to have open and civil debate on the subject. They push their emotions, and project hate onto others and objects. They don’t care about what you think or believe, they don’t want to hear about facts, and statistics. All they want to do is push an ideology, and ferment the divide.
    Shannon Watts lives in a nice home with security I am sure. Bloomberg even though not in office has a full time security detail, with guns.
    The anti gun folks have been in an uproar over the R.I.P. bullets, saying they are so dangerous and they try and sell them to women.. How horrible! I had to educate one such person on the subject of ballistics. This person also felt the NRA was pushing armor piercing bullets on the market. I was shocked, because we know armor piercing bullets for handguns are illegal, and a standard 30-06 can go through light armor just by it’s very nature. So I had to educate the mother of a law officer on what type of vest her son wears, and why rifle rounds go through it etc.
    They feed off emotion and hysteria. That is what they do. They fill themselves in an echo chamber, yet the numbers don’t add up. Literally.

    • I still don’t understand the level of arrested development in these people. It’s a kind of Peter Pan Complex.

  14. Short answer: YES.

    Q. Abso-fucking-lutely yes. Why else would they obsess, in their minds at least, over our supposed “cowardice”?

    A. They rely on the notion that they can not only intellectually project their deep personal and emotional flaws onto us, but a misinformed public (cultivated in large by them) will buy into it.

    Q. Why else would they obfuscate, confuse, mislead, deceive, lie, project, twist, spin, skew, and gerrymander literally every word of every argument (from both sides) to make it all fit into their idealized dystopian world-view?

    A. Because when people think for themselves, they see the utterly indefensible insanity of a position that goes against literally everything in Human nature, and the civilian disarmament industrial complex must shed the blood of its serfs in their “Gun-Free” Zones to slake their thirst for power.

    Q. Why else would they instead of honestly and openly debating it [the keeping and bearing of arms], pit us all against each other and have their sock-puppet underlings do all the heavy lifting?

    A. That’s racism, sexism, and classicism at its finest. An unholy trinity of schisms that are almost guaranteed to save them from having to defend their views and make sure the truth never gets into the mainstream. That’s what they do best: misogyny and race-hustling.

    They literally live in their own little world. That explains how they’re so utterly disconnected, because they’ve never had to fight for their lives or have been in any appreciable way ever effected by the unintended consequences of their asinine and ass-backwards policies. Not in their sheltered, affluent little enclaves, gated off from the rest of the rabble they see us as. All they’ve ever seen are the unstained stucco of mansions surrounded by vast and lush manicured lawns through their rose-tinted lenses.

  15. I think the main mindset is one of self superiority.There are two or three sub-theories I have about the views that leftists hold when it comes to armed self defense.
    1: They don’t think THEY could properly handle a firearm for any reason, and since they consider themselves intellectually and morally superior that means we couldn’t, either.
    2: They hide behind private armed security, provided by their wealth or our taxes (neither of which registers on their radar), and the police give them special attention based on their status. So they are content with their security arrangements and again, if they think others safeguarding them is good for them, it’s good enough for you.
    3: Some think they can create utopia. They can do what it takes to eliminate crime, poverty, etc and then you peons won’t need guns.

  16. For the most part, politically active gun-grabbers are progressives /liberals who are dedicated to the power of the State above everything. They want to control others. There may be a small minority of pacifists among them.
    As for the rank-and file hoplophobes, they are mostly deluded about firearms and by the pacifist “tradition” in some Christian theology, even though pacifism is not taught in the Bible. All pacifists, however, are not cowards, best shown by the heroic pacifists that served as medics in America’s wars. Also by the pacifists who were prominent in the anti-slavery movement and the Mennonites who volunteered in WWII to undergo supervised starvation/feeding experiments in order that military doctors could safely feed and recuperate starved US POW’s and concentration camp victims. Also recall the pacifists who served in the Civil rights movement of the 60’s.

  17. I think it’s far more complicated than a simple “yes” or “no.”

    We shouldn’t forget that there are people who are first anti-gun and later convert to a pro-gun position. There is no reason to paint all proponents of gun control with a wide brush in the same way that they paint all of us as lunatics waiting to explode in a fit of rage. Neither side name-calling the other is fair or appropriate.

    Some people are against guns because of a bad personal experience (or an experience had by a friend or family member) and it has clouded their judgement. Some people have been conditioned to believe that guns should only be held by the police and military, either by their family or by outside influences. Some have been brainwashed by the news media and/or Hollywood.

    And some have eventually learned that they were wrong, and changed their position.

    Those who are unwilling to entertain an opposing viewpoint, and simply repeat their mantra unthinkingly? Yes, they are cowardly. Those who have never been exposed to an alternative viewpoint, and could be willing to learn? No, they are not. They may be wrong. But that doesn’t mean they’re a coward.

    Shannon Watts, who appears to be so intimidated by gun owners that she ironically refers to proponents of guns as “bullies” – when she herself attempts to bully others into accepting her viewpoint – deserves the “coward” label. Others who behave in similar ways have also earned the title.0

    The mothers and fathers who would be unwilling to defend their children by killing an intruder? They are cowards too.

    The poor soul who grew up in NYC and has been exposed to nothing but anti-gun propaganda their entire life? I’m not willing to label them a coward … yet. If they refuse to even consider the possibility that they may be wrong … then that could change.

    • “The poor soul who grew up in NYC and has been exposed to nothing but anti-gun propaganda their entire life? I’m not willing to label them a coward”

      I think the term coward still applies. I believe the age old phrases “ignorance of the law is no excuse” and “if your friends jumped off a bridge would you?” hold weight here when coupled with the fact that ANYONE can research ANY topic in mere minutes since the advent of the internet. Humanity is capable of critical thought and should be responsible for a certain amount of reasoned doubt about any views/beliefs we’re fed. My Grandfather used to tell me….”God gave you a brain boy, use it.”.

      It’s the same with the propagation of utterly false meme based garbage on the internet/facepage/mybook. When it’s faster to find the facts than it is at times to read the offensively false meme and you pass it along anyway…… you look like an asshat.

  18. “The deeper truth: gun control advocates don’t believe in fighting back with lethal force, personally. That’s law enforcement’s job. Or, in the case of the elite, bodyguards. What’s up with that?”

    They are the same people that would end hunting because “it’s cruel.” Yet they enjoy their steak, chicken, ham, etc. As long as someone ELSE is doing it… out of sight….. that’s “different.”

    • As a hunter, I get this from some people, but can’t wrap my mind around it…

      Also, I would like to add even if everyone on the planet doesn’t eat meat, it would still be necessary to kill animals. Without hunting, animal communities would over populate and begin to devastate our crops, much as feral pig already do.

      Whether you eat meat or not, killing animals is just a fact of life.

  19. “How do we get them to (pardon the sexism) man-up?”

    We should promote the theme of gun ownership/carry as part of our civic duty and continually ask them why they’re shirking their duty as a citizen.

    • I like the way you are thinking…change the perception to a sense of duty. Not sure though, that I’d want people to feel pressured into owning/carrying a gun, so let’s keep thinking how to go about this. I simply want them to leave the POTG the F#%K alone. If WE so choose to exercise a right, what right is it of theirs to try to stop us. I know, I know, that’s not going to happen, so let’s keep thinking on how we ‘change the perception.’

      • Owning firearms is part of being a good citizen. This is a major part of my reasoning for my boomsticks.

        The militia defends the people and their territories –> good citizens are part of the militia that defends the people, from enemies foreign and domestic –> militias require guns (as cool as it would be to still fighting with suits of armor and such) –> good citizens own firearms.

        Logic can work wonders.

  20. Yes I believe they are. These are people to cowardly to protect themselves and their families and also to cowardly to see the results of their God Given Right to protect themselves.

  21. LAST week TTAG got its feelings hurt because someone called you a gun nut. This week you call those who disagree with you cowards. Get a grip, man. That’s no way to encourage a meaningful discussion.

    • There ain’t gonna be no “meaningful discussion” when the left controls 99% of the media. “Open discussion” is just a lying buzz-phrase of the left. The Left has declared a war on the 2A so the gloves are off. And besides, the left being charged as cowardly is valid…goes at least as far back as to the “Make love not war” ramblings plus all the anti-war American left of WW1 and WW2.

  22. Since most of them will never go door-to-door demanding people turn in their guns and instead want to use the cops and military as their bagmen/hatchetmen, yes, they are cowards.

    Each time they succeed in getting a new restrictive unconstitutional law passed they erode their own power just that much more and they’re too stupid to even realize it. People who were law-abiding become criminals and suddenly they don’t give a **** about the rigged corrupt government anymore nor respect its decrees.

    We’re slowly becoming Argentina, where the politicians pass laws and no one listens to them. They all do their own thing and ignore the thieves in power as best they can.

    The problem with that is, until things are set right again, the nation will never be great.

    • I don’t like responding to myself, but I’m a firm believer in the idea that you should be willing to go all the way for your ideals. If you want to ban guns but you’re not willing to kick in doors and try to kill or capture people who don’t comply then in addition to being a disgusting lapdog of the tyrants you’re also a coward.

  23. They need to experience a home invasion and wait around for their “heros” to show up to save them. That should change their minds fast.

  24. Cowardice is not a driving factor. Grabbers overwhelmingly tend to be collectivists. The psychology that comes along with collectivism does not account for individuals possessing the will and capability that is common among western firearm enthusiasts. For example, I pride myself on my ability to defend my interests against encroachment and I respect my neighbors’ right to do the same. My neighbor is not me. The collectivist would see it otherwise and would shame me for thinking we are different entities.

  25. Physical bravery is universal; there’s not a mother in the world who won’t run into a burning building to save her baby. Pick up a cornered mouse or squirrel? No, thanks. My measurement for cowardice is what they do when they have a choice, not what they do when they’re in imminent peril. And by that metric I say yes, while not universal, it’s widespread on that side of the street, because to avoid the prospect of confrontation with an assailant they abrogate their protection to police. Worse than that, because of their avoidance of self-defense, they are willing to strip me of my ability to defend myself because they are afraid of being clipped by a stray round.

    • “because they are afraid of being clipped by a stray round.”

      Which thankfully never happens with the police.

  26. Cowards? Not necessarily. In fact, I’m sure that any of them would be prepared to scratch the eyes out of a bad guy’s head as an absolute last resort when begging, bribing, vomiting and urination fail them.

    But gunhaters are definitely lacking in testosterone. Except for some of the gunhating women, who from all appearances have too much.

  27. “Gun control advocates” are not afraid that an armed populace presents a threat to terrorist. This is a specious argument. The unspoken but implied premise of this statement is that these people want to assist terrorists in attacking the United States. What could be farther from the truth? The “gun control advocates” are terrified that the armed gun violence from LA, Chicago et cetera will spill over into their community. They see George Zimmerman chase down and shoot an unarmed man and wonder why that is okay. They see a man shoot a fellow in a picture show whose using his phone and wonder why? They have to go thru a background check at the gun shop to purchase a new weapon but anyone can purchase a weapon at a gun show without the same requirement. Common sense must prevail not inflammatory rhetoric. If we as a gun community continue on the path charted by the current NRA leadership we will lose and we will lose everything. Just because I cannot shout “FIRE” in a crowded theater is no limit on my first amendment right of free speech.

      • Sometimes i get so confused. Is Absood or Barnett trying to take the place of dearly departed rtempleton as our most awesome troll?

        • I like him, he is fun!!!

          With a name like James P. Barnett Jr., I picture him having a thick, British accent, wearing a black, top hat, while carrying a wooden cane, and having a thick, handlebar mustache with monocle, like Mr. Peanut… Oh and, him saying, “Well, I never…” frequently.

    • “They have to go thru a background check at the gun shop to purchase a new weapon but anyone can purchase a weapon at a gun show without the same requirement.” Not sure of the state-to-state differences, but this is not true in PA. All current PA laws and regulations are followed at Gun Shops and Shows. Here’s how this “fact” is being mis-represented to scare people into thinking that Gun shows are ‘just bad’: In PA, you cannot purchase a handgun FROM ANYONE, store or show, without going through a background check. period. if you do, than that is an illegal gun. Under current PA law, I can purchase a long gun from a private seller, be it my brother, neighbor, guy I met on the internet or a seller at a show, without a background check. It’s perfectly legal. (BTW, most sellers I’ve seen will NOT sell to someone without an LTCF, because that’s just irresponsible. Now if I purchase a long gun at a gun store, yes, because they have an FFL they are required to do a background check. See the difference?

    • James I happen to live in the county where the Zimmerman case took place. He did not pursue Martin, Martin attacked him and if you bother to read the facts, Zimmerman was getting the crap beat out of him by a much bigger and stronger individual.

      • At least he called him “a man”, and not a boy, referring to his Doodle Brown pics from when he was 12 yrs old.

    • OK, I’ll bite, you have to go through a background check if you’re buying from a licensed dealer, but if it’s a private transfer, person to person, not person to business, no background check is required in most states- the “gun show”, itself, has nothing to do it…

      Also, you CAN shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, what if there actually was a fire?

      Your assertions cannot stand on their own merits, womp, womp.

  28. You are wrong, and dangerously so. No matter now much we disagree, if we are disagreeable, they will win.

    We need to claim the moral high ground, and resorting to hurling epithets should be exclusively THEIR tactic.

    • Epithets are aspersions hurled at someone that are not true; “your just a gun nut that is just itching to shoot someone; a wanna be tough guy and your compensating for having a small penis” those are epithets. None of which are based in facts; because if those were true; the statistics would show in the high number of shootings judged as murder simply because some one with a small penis shot someone because they were looking for a reason to murder someone; stats show, in fact, those that CC are more law abiding than the norm; and they have been shown in a number of situations have risked their own lives defending themselves and others from mass shooters and robbers.

      So when I say someone is a coward because they refuse to accept responsibility for their self- defense; how many mass shootings has some one out of the dozens if not hundreds of people in an area actually tried to stop the shooter by direct confrontation? The few that did were usually cops. off duty cops or citizens that were carrying a weapon or had access to a weapon. The rest mostly ran away or hid. A few, even without a weapon, jumped the shooter when he was reloading like what happened to Loughner in Arizona. But only a few.

      We aren’t hurling epithets; (untrue aspersions) we are simply telling the truth; This is why we come to this web site; to get “The Truth About Guns”. and if some statist that visits this web site can’t handle “The Truth”; they came to the wrong web site.

  29. They festishize victimhood. Promoting anytHing that turns a would be victim into someone who can do anything for themselves (without government) is antithetical to their entire way of thinking.

  30. Yes, they are. They also live sheltered lives, isolated from the evil the real world holds. They are paternalistic, self-important loudmouths afraid of standing on their own. Their lives are so filled with triviality that they must invent issues to give themselves purpose. Yes, they are cowards. Simpletons, too.

  31. What frost’s my arse, besides sub zero temperatures and record 15ft of snow in the snowmobile paradise known as upstate new york, is that the NFL and Fox both denied the Daniel Defense ad but I lost track of the number of ads for Fox shows that had people shooting each other. talk about hypocritical.

    • Let’s not even touch the rest of the iceberg below the surface of that discussion that is even more disturbing: the presence of a Scientology commercial.

      …or let’s.

  32. I see it a bit differently. They think we are exactly like them. They think we are incompetant & out of control around firearms with their ouija board mentality(quick jump on the gun before it goes out of control). They think a handgun is not “of this earth” & only rigorous training can allow a person to handle its magnificent power. Yes there is fear, but its hard to call the Sandy teachers cowards when they tried to shield their students. They have a closed mind & a small world, although this doesn’t address willingly being a government slave, laziness might, Randy

  33. There are not cowards, I’ve meet several anti gun folks that shivered at the thought of owning a gun, but admitted to keeping a bat, golf club or whatever behind the door.

    Most anti gun zealots are just misguided and are letting their emotions overcome their logic, they figure if they don’t need it or want it, neither should you.

  34. 1. They are cowards everyone of them
    2. they all believe incorrectly police will protect them
    3 they are all racist or Uncle tom’s at heart, How many KKK believed in equal Gun Control!
    4. they are atheists, they do not believe in religion especially the part about an Eye for an Eye, and you can protect yourself and kill them if they enter your house after Dark
    5 The Democratic Party to which most of these advocates belong has done more too destroy our country in the last Forty years than any one else!
    Vietnam, Benghazi, Health care. robbing Social Security under the Johnson Administration too fund the Great Society and finance the Vietnam War.
    They are rich and want all the common people too kiss their ***!
    6. Most of the politicians Are willful Toady’s too the people like Bloomberg, gimme money and I will sell you
    my mother!
    7. It is the intent of the Democratic party too establish a Nazi like dictatorship! Armageddon is fast approaching.

    • And people think that the mass murder instigated by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the wanna be mass murderer Professor Bill Ayers; formerly of the Weather Underground; (one of the mentors to Obama; that planned to murder 25 million Americans that refused to be re-educated in a Marxist revolution here in the US), couldn’t happen here in the US.

  35. The real reason why gun control advocates will not engage their opponents is simple. They do not want to out themselves openly as totalitarians and fascists. If the public at large found out their hidden agenda, groups like MDA and CSGV would be marginalized to the far fringes. Except for the hard core left,no one wants to associate themselves with groups that attack the Constitution at large.
    Look at the efforts MDA made to have Dana Loesch removed from guest hosting the View. That should be chilling to anyone who supports freedom of expression and thought,much less right to bear arms.

  36. “How do we get them to (pardon the sexism) man-up?”

    We don’t. We stand firm, at the bulwark of the Constitution, and let their feeble attempts at control fall by the wayside.

  37. “A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” John Stuart Mill

  38. I wouldn’t say they’re all cowards, primarily because some are much worse than that. Others are combination coward and something else. Others are just something else. What they all have in common, though, is a detachment from reality.

    Some think the government will always save them and never turn on them. Others think that weakening everyone will bring everyone down to their own level and violence will be made moot. Others think they don’t have it within them to commit violence in self-defense; either because they doubt their abilities and are not up to violence, or they fancy themselves ultra-civilized and beyond violence.

    Then there’s a whole category who dream of imposing illimitable dominion over their fellow man, all the while cloaking themselves in the self-deluding mantle of legitimacy known as busybody, do-gooder government.

    All of these people are detached from reality, albeit in different ways. Whether they’re nostalgic for a pax humana utopia that never existed, or regard themselves as the vanguard of one that will never exist, it’s all basically the same. Whether they simply substitute emotion for reason, or vanity for honesty, the result is about the same.

    The details of these people’s breaks with reality is interesting from a human psyche standpoint, but probably doesn’t yield much in the way of countering them that simple confrontation with Life wouldn’t. Driven by necessity’s lash, people have a tendency to get their minds right. The trick is to quit insulating these people from the consequences of their poor decisions.

  39. They are cowards and it is all part of their refusal to accept personal responsibility for anything. It is always “somebody else’ problem, or responsibility”. Of course, it is hard to do any fighting when your spine is made of Jello…

  40. I don’t want to call them cowards, because that label is too conveniently dismissive. It excuses us from any kind of understanding and grants us license to assert the superiority of our position because we are not cowards. It’s a sidestep, and it’s not really any more accurate or productive than them calling us “bullies.”

    Most people I know who believe in gun control consider themselves pacifists. They place great value on the ideals that all people are equal and that most people are generally good. They’re educated, and they avoid stupid people, places and things. They live relatively risk-averse lifestyles, and generally feel pretty safe. A lot of people here might call their reality a “false sense of security,” though they would likely disagree based on their own assessment that their risk of suffering a violent attack is vanishingly remote. They’re content to relinquish their personal safety to “professionals” and tend to give little to no thought about what might happen if something really happened.

    Calling that cowardice might fit better if these people actually recognized a need for armed defense of self and others, then dismissed that need out of a desire to avoid placing themselves in harm’s way. The truth, however, is that most of them do not even recognize that such a need exists; it’s a job for police that is fairly adequately handled by police, and that’s as much thought as they give it. The idea of an armed citizenry is alarming because they do not understand it. They’re grossly ignorant of firearms and even basic gun safety, and will naturally fill in the blanks with general notion that even good people sometimes do dumb things and if everyone around them has a gun that’s a lot of chances for accidents to happen. It’s FUD.

    I see the solution as a matter of education and normalization of firearms. The POTG would be wise to realize how powerfully helpful it is to demystify guns and gun owners in the least threatening ways possible. I work with some kinda rabidly anti-gun people, and my approach has been to invite them to a gun show, invite them shooting, teach them the rules of gun safety, inform them about gun laws, educate them on different types of firearms and how they work, etc. A little at a time. And with respect for their opinions and no expectation that they change their minds. Because, I’m confident that pulling back the curtains and using facts to erode their fears will at least help them see through the BS in the news and from politicians who attempt to exploit low information voters.

  41. Anyone ever see a nature video of a fox chasing a rabbit? Right at the end, just before the fox (or hawk, or whatever) catches it, the rabbit hunkers down and stops. Because it is prey, because it has lived its whole life in fear, and it has accepted the inevitable.

    They hate guns because they are equalizers, because a gun removes the excuses. With a gun as an option, they could not submit without guilt. “What could I do, he was bigger/meaner/tougher than me?”. And deep down, in that primitive animal midbrain, so many humans would do anything to be able to justify compliance with any threat. It’s why bullying works, and why punching bullies works. They can’t fight, because they’ve never had to. Everyone just rolled over for them.

    Me? I don’t want an excuse, I want a tool that gives me a chance in any situation.

    • This is why tyranny is the norm in the world; they would rather be a servant or a slave than be free. Because in the end; they are to afraid to get hurt standing up to a bully; whether in the school yard; or the “bully” of a tyrannical government.

      Or in other words; Cowardice, which is what this discussion has been about.

  42. of course they are cowards: they are the rabbits to us wolves, the sheep to us sheepdogs.

    The only solution is to keep sheep in the proper perspective: it takes few sheepdogs to control a large herd of sheep; sheep are always more numerous than sheepdogs and sheep are always scheming how to downgrade the sheepdogs by taking away their fangs and claws.

    The solution is not to get the sheep to convert to being sheepdogs: the solution is to convince the sheepdogs to act like sheepdogs and put the sheep in their place – Using visual cues and language that the sheep will understand.

    once that happens, the sheep will fall into place and those who are able to rise above their station will aspire to become sheepdogs. probably not enough of them that it’s worth it to focus on that as a goal, however.

    • “of course they are cowards: they are the rabbits to us wolves, the sheep to us sheepdogs. ”

      Yeah, I’ve HAD IT UP TO HERE with the sheepdogs eating all the sheep.

      • Exactly, but remember one of the hallmark characteristics of the sheep is that a sheepdog and a wolf seem equally scary and threatening to them. They truly cannot tell the difference.

        What they don’t realize of course is that once they succeed in supressing the role of the sheepdogs, the wolves will have a field day with their sorry selves.

        This is why we need to rise up and be the sheepdogs, remind them of their sheepness and do our jobs to keep them moving where we want them to go – to protect them from the wolves whether they wish to go along with us or not.

        (the rabbit and wolf mention is a hat-tip to the Anonymous Conservative’s imagery 😉

        • It was a remark about the lack of parallel structure; wolves eat rabbits. Sheep dogs do not eat sheep.
          Well, THAT was a freakin’ failure! I have only myself to blame.

        • Nope, I got what you said immediately and realized that I had err’d. You were correct, I was not.

          Hence my attempt at back pedalling by attributing the comparison to AC (but that is his main comparison; I do like the sheep sheepdog wolf one a tad bit better – more appropo to the topic at hand)

        • “This is why we need to rise up and be the sheepdogs, remind them of their sheepness and do our jobs to keep them moving where we want them to go – to protect them from the wolves whether they wish to go along with us or not.”

          That is precisely what the grabbers and all statists say, you and I and other freedom-lovers and Constitutional Loons and stuff are their ‘wolves’ that they’re ‘protecting’ the sheeple from.

          What we need to do is show them that there’s a better way – they don’t have to be sheep, they can be Free! Arm (and train) the sheep, and they can protect themselves from the wolves!

      • Rich: I think you way over estimate the ability and number of folks available to “convert” from being sheep to being sheep dogs.

        I think the number is much lower than you imagine.

        Remember: the American Revolution saw 3% of men (sheepdogs) revolt against Britain (wolves.) The rest were sheep and remained sheep throughout.

        • Okay, I’m a bit taken aback by the level of misunderstanding of my point. Sheepdogs don’t kill sheep, or they’re not sheepdogs any more.

          My entire point was about the lack of parallel structure. That’s all.

        • “Remember: the American Revolution saw 3% of men (sheepdogs) revolt against Britain (wolves.) The rest were sheep and remained sheep throughout.”

          Alas, true, but we DID win! But speaking of sheeple, it only took two years of starvation to convince the Plymouth colonists to let William Bradford institute Private Property and Free Markets which saved the Plymouth Colony’s asses and inspired the First Thanksgiving.

          And the election is only two years away – remember to write in Richard M. Grise in 2016!

        • <long, and a little OT>
          Let me tell you a little story; its author calls it “‘The Train’ Metaphor.”

          “I wish to share a metaphor with you. It is as if all of humanity is waiting in a train station—for a very slow train that seems to never come. This train will take you all to your salvation, some glorious promised land, or so it is rumored. But most of those waiting at the station have long ago given up on any real train, at least in their lifetime. So they have found ways to make the waiting feel worthwhile.

          “Many are raising families so there will be others to continue on their behalf. Some are playing games in the video arcade, or busy with the business of improving conditions in the station. Others are reading and talking, telling stories and taking notes. And of course most everyone is keeping busy doing something to pay the rent on their part of the bench in the station.

          “Among all the waiters is a small group of ‘seekers.’ These are people who feel certain that a train will indeed be coming soon, and they are out actively searching for it. Most are organized behind leading seekers who they believe have good maps and directions and formulas. All true seekers have dedicated themselves to a life of seeking, and not just waiting.

          “However, there is a third group, unknown to the first two groups. This group I call the manifesters or ‘makers.’ The makers are former seekers who had been seeking long enough and hard enough to realize that the train won’t come unless they manifest it. And they have dedicated their lives to making it so, that indeed the train to the Mother’s Dream does come. Among the makers of humanity are those of you who are doing this healing work, and in the process manifesting your own healing into wholeness, and by extension, the healing of all Creation.”

          I’ve put myself in Category III here, and the Mother’s Dream is essentially Free Will and self-determination for everyone. And no wars. And preferably, no insects or reptiles. And this is my Doctoral Thesis in the Metaphysics course I’ve assigned myself at the University of Hard Knocks. 🙂

  43. “How do we get them to (pardon the sexism) man-up?”

    Mandatory military service required to hold ANY political office.

    Simple, done.

  44. I believe the anti-gunners are typically wealthy, over-privileged, and arrogant enough to think that everyone else must have body guards or Secret Service, or should totally rely on their local PD.
    They live in a protected world that we do not. Because of that, they are friggin deluded enough to think they are qualified to tell the rest of us how to live.

    Fact is, the gun owners in this country are almost always perfectly capable of defending themselves more quickly and decisively than anyone else can. If put in a “situation,” I will draw my GLOCK, not my iPhone to call 9-1-1, while someone is pointing a gun at me, or holding a knife to me, or otherwise threatening me with serious bodily harm or death.

    These anti-gun, over-privileged morons just don’t get that. They don’t go through the same places or scenes that most of us do. They’d have to have an armed caravan to do such. And it’s ok if THEIR CARAVAN is armed, as long as they are protecting THEM, cuz they have that privilege and ability, whereas the typical, patriotic, self-reliant gun owner does not.

    Yes, they are cowards. They fear the truth.

  45. IMO there is no way for them to be forced to man-up.

    Night, shadows, and the voting booth are their safe ares.

    They are the, coupled with the lawmakers, killers in the children and unarmed victim scenarios! And they lie by denying it.

    They do not want to stop violence for fear that they may become liable, or some other equally lame attitude.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here