Waiving the bloody shirt
Cartoon by Joseph Ferdinand Keppler - Scan of cover, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54658372
Previous Post
Next Post

As Don Henley sang, it’s interesting when people die. That said, people die all the time, for all sorts of reasons: heart failure, cancer, medical malpractice, automobile accidents and yes “gun violence.” Let’s face it: death from gunfire is way more interesting than most other ways people kick the proverbial bucket. It’s sudden, violent and there’s always a great back story.

Oh, and it’s rare. No really. Take suicide out of the mix (it’s so depressing) and firearms-related fatalities don’t even make it to the top ten in The Centers for Disease Control‘s causes of death list. So it’s no surprise that the media exploits/reports “gun violence” so prominently. The problem for The People of the Gun: we’re losing the context war.

Gun control advocates have a natural advantage when it comes to capitalizing on firearms-related tragedy. They can wave the bloody shirt while claiming that their disarmament agenda can stop firearms-related violence from ever happening again. How can we as a society of caring people allow guns into the hands of people who create this . . . carnage! They’re selling their anti-gun agenda with a combination of morbid fascination and moral superiority. Now how much liberty will you sacrifice?

Gun rights advocates could take the exact same tack. They could point to the violence and ask how can we as a society of caring people leave innocent people defenseless in the face of this—THIS! That’s the strategy that Alan Gottleib and the Second Amendment Foundation attempted to deploy by scheduling Guns Save Life day for the first anniversary of the Sandy Hook spree killing. It backfired because of a natural human response to violence: schadenfreude.

Schadenfreude is German for taking joy in other people’s troubles; Schaden (damage) and Fruede (joy). Mind you, the word “joy” is a bit misleading. Schadenfreude requires revulsion. That could have been me! Thank God that wasn’t me! More charitably, there but for the Grace of God go I. Humans need to be fascinated with violence so that they can learn how to avoid it. Preferably, more enjoyably, from a distance.

There’s your trouble. Gun rights advocates decrying the lack of armed defense for victims are talking about confronting violence with violence. The vast majority of people are hard-wired to avoid violence. They’d rather someone else take away the criminal’s gun than have to think about shooting a criminal in self-defense. That’s the message the anti-gunners are selling. Support us and this doesn’t have to happen.

Even though Joe Q. Public knows (in some part of their mind) that criminals will always get guns, some of them think why not pursue the gun control advocates’ avoidance strategy? What’s the downside? If it saves one life . . . Gun control laws don’t affect them. They don’t carry a gun. (Waving the bloody shirt for civilian disarmament won’t work on someone who carries a gun; they’re ready, willing and able to use violence for self-protection.)

So how should gun rights advocates deal with the civilian disarmament industrial complex’s bloody flag waving? By carrying, of course. And encouraging as many people as possible to do the same. Equally, we should go with the schadenfreude. Sandy Hook was a terrible tragedy. That could have been any of us! Anyone who wants to protect themselves and their loved ones from this unimaginable horror, to help all of us avoid it by deterrence, should carry a gun in their defense. Just by carrying a gun, not even using it, a gun could save your life.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. This won’t work.

    Why?Because were dealing with an entire SOCIAL CONSTURCT which says any form of violence is wrong, no matter the moral justification.

    Some of you reading this are mentally floored that people believe that swill.Yet, here we are.Let me break down what the advice of “carry a gun to prevent death” sounds like to a typical Chicagoan

    “Oh mygawd! Does this nutcase seriously think that carrying a gun will STOP violence? Two wrongs don’t make a right!Vive La Disarmament!”

    Most people, even folk who live in violent urban cesspools ,are not exposed to crime.Since lawful use of firearms is expensive, heavily regulated, and socially reprobate (you own a GUN??!! Ugh…he’s one of THOSE) there’s no voice of common sense .In that environment, a culture of anti-gun belief becomes a common civic truth.That’s why bystanders call the cops if you have an object which LOOKs like a gun, and why sheeple continually elect anti rights douchebags .

    You can no more walk into a Boston coffee shop and suggest armed self defense is a good thing then you can enter a Texas rodeo advocating animal rights.Even if your suggestion of self defense is a good idea, you’ll be tossed out for insulting a civic cultural norm.

    What we must do is take the fight to the opposition:and we do that by dismantling the anti gun civic culture.Once we associate the RKBA with being a hip, cool member of society, the rest of our problems fall like dominos.

    So ,lets get to work.

    • The moral construct is more like a house of cards. How many games of Call of Duty do these people play day in and day out? How many CSI / NCIS episodes do they watch? The good guy with a gun thing is a permanent fixture in our culture that can be built upon.

      • You may be right to a point, the first time I’ve ever “seen” a dgu by a civilian was on some movie. The guy was protecting his house from gangbangers.

    • You can no more walk into a Boston coffee shop and suggest armed self defense is a good thing

      Actually, you can. I have. I was stunned at how little pushback there was.

      Every “urban cesspool” is different. The reaction to gun advocacy ranges from “I used to shoot with my dad!” — which I’ve heard from a lot of Massachusetts women — to “eeek! A gun!” Which I’ve heard from a lot of so-called men from New York.

      • This is the benefit of open carry by normal people. When I enter a bank or store with my slacks on, polo shirt, nice shoes and belt, and my Sig P226 on my hip:

        A) I’m surprised how many people don’t even notice I have a gun, because other than a piece of steel on my hip nothing else stands out about me. I look…wait for it…normal. I once had a conversation with my (admittedly pro-gun) neighbor for about 10 minutes before her eyes got a little wide and she exclaimed “Oh my gosh, you’ve got heat!” 🙂

        B) People treat me normally, because (aside from the gun) I’m….wait for it…NORMAL

        C) People seem confused, because the picture of a…wait for it…NORMAL…person carrying a gun openly, who isn’t required by their job, does not square with their vision of gun owners. It forces them to question their inner beliefs.

        Now I only open carry when necessary, but I’ve never had a negative experience. Normalization is they key here, no need to be insidious. Just be a person, someone who loves their family, works hard on the job, likes a vacation here and there, and carries a gun. Nothing to see here.

      • I agree, I have as well in Chicago. There is nothing more convincing to some anti gunners than a kind face and a firm conviction. My record at my former Starbucks in Lincoln Park stands at 3. Not many I know but a small number compared to others I have met throughout the city.

    • “Why?Because were dealing with an entire SOCIAL CONSTURCT which says any form of violence is wrong, no matter the moral justification.”

      Unless it’s sponsored by the state… Then the moral justification is simply “the State” which is always justified…

  2. The social construct is our elected representatives loosing their minds and forwarding bills that stop citizens right of lawful self defense. Local, state and federal government conspire to murder its citizens and keep criminals revolving through a system they created. Continued employment for police, corrections, judges, jails, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and bail bonders.

  3. The problem with gun control advocates is that they rarely, if ever, address the myriad of socio-economic factors that contribute to domestic violence in the overwhelming majority of cases. Putting the blame on guns distracts low-information voters (and journalists) from the reality of the situation; the squalor of inner cities was directly caused and exacerbated by liberal/progressive social and economic reformation programs. Violent crime of all kinds is a byproduct of much deeper problems that no one with a chance of being elected to public office in these areas is willing to address directly.

    • You can’t (or won’t) focus on the deeper issues responsible for violence if you and your buddies are the ones who created and continue to vouch for those policies. It would, in a roundabout way, be an admission of fault, and the entire party platform would fall down on top of them. See: Detroit. See: Oakland. I really hope that people begin to see that the policies of the progressives create a cycle of downward momentum, and that this cycle MUST be broken. The forsaking of individual rights and personal responsibility in pursuit of ‘The Greater Good’ cannot possibly end well for American citizens because it discourages capitalism and the American Dream, and encourages dependency. This idea that government is good is absurd. There is no possible way that a government who desires to control 300+ million people can possibly have the best interests of you, the individual, at heart. Government is a necessary evil, no more, no less, and they should fear their citizens. Because Guns.

      • There’s a good resource on Netflix outlining some of these problems in a documentary about a housing project in St. Louis that had to be torn down after less than 20 years in operation. http://www.pruitt-igoe.com/ It opened my eyes to the nuances regarding inner city crime, particularly how poverty and social welfare systems impact and even contribute to it. Since the 1950s, the feds have basically been telling entire swaths of America’s population that having a two-parent household and looking for a job aren’t proper objectives in life, all the while completely undermining their constitutional rights.

  4. “The problem for The People of the Gun: we’re losing the context war . . .”

    I disagree. What the problem is, is people who think there’s any value in even entering into a “context war.” When arguing with a lunatic or a traitor, don’t let them entrap you into their game.

    The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a God-Given Right, protected by the Constitution.

    Hunting is irrelevant.
    Crime control is irrelevant (except, of course, the crimes of the usurpers.)

    Advocacy of any infringement on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is treason against the Constitution.

    It’s just that simple.

    • No, it’s not just that simple. Yes, the Founders wanted us armed to be able to resist our own government if necessary. But do you really think that Granny Smith carries her .380 to fight off the 101st Airborne? Or that the local shopkeeper has a Glock behind the counter just in case the Blue Helmets try to take over his store? C’mon, man. Is that why you have a gun?

      Having a firearm represents the ability to live long and prosper in a dangerous world. That’s something that most people can understand.

      • Ralph, fact is, that granny smith’s gun is part of the deterrence to tyranny our founders were concerned with. She may not envisage it, and she may not be the one wielding it, but her firearm being out there, along with a few hundred million others, is part of the deterrence.

        It all adds up

      • Yes to both of you.

        It really IS that simple…in principle. In practice, self-defense — having the ability to defeat the everyday tyranny of violent individuals — is where the 2nd Amendment’s rubber meets the road.

      • The ‘rifle behind every blade of grass’ deterrent is as much Granny’s .380 as it is our EBRs. It’s spot on to say that it’s not what an individual thinks about their gun being as the fact that they and their gun exist skew the values for anyone who wishes to usurp power. This doesn’t change whether the usurper is a thug who wants your money or the government who wants your liberty. Privately owned guns, all of them collectively, are a massive deterrent to government tyranny and individually a deterrent to common criminals.

        It may not make the best argument to covert a fence sitter, as using a gun for personal protection is, while still uncommon, far more likely than using it to fend off a tyrannical government. However that doesn’t mean that the enemies of liberty, foreign and domestic, don’t consider and find formidable the fact that a usurpation of American liberties might well be met with 3-6 million men armed with rifles and organized as a militia and another 3 million individuals who may play ‘one shot paddy’ a time or two.

        The combined result is that there is no foreign power who could even hope to secure and pacify occupied territory in the US, and not even the full force of the US military establishment (never minding such could never be fully brought to bear on the citizenry) could so much as hope to avoid annihilation at the hands of an active and armed militia, let alone succeed in suppressing such an uprising.

        With reasonable estimates putting 9 million armed militia in the field, the much vaunted US Army would find it’s self outnumbered over 8-1. You find an officer who has been to War College who thinks facing a guerrilla force which out numbers you 8-1 is a winnable proposition I’ll show you someone who has left the realities of warfare far behind.

        The single most powerful military asset in the entire world is the armed populace of the United States. From the most tactical operator to the guy who just has a rifle for taking deer once a year we make up the largest, most capable armed force in the world, bar none. All it takes to activate it is a clear and present threat to liberty and without officers, without formal logistical support and without prompting the largest army in the world rolls out to fight.

        It’s a proposition so daunting that both the Nazis and the Japanese made no plans to invade the US, and it’s kept domestic tyranny at bay for a record breaking 200+ years.

        Never count the American people out of the fight, doing so would surely lose any campaign you might envision.

        • 8-1 ratio….the number is correct, however suggest reading “On Killing”. US military now enjoys a 95% active shooter rate. You would be lucky to get 1 in 8 to aim and fire their weapons.

        • You do realize that Admiral Yamamoto never made the “rifle behind every blade of grass” argument. Right?

        • Yamamoto was wise, but No foreign power occupies the US due to logistics not because citizens have guns.

        • I do know that Yamamoto never said that, Ralph, but it’s still a line I like quite a bit and It’s illustrative.

          Mike10108: I’ve read both On Killing and On Combat. I think the shooter rate would be far lower against other Americans, and I also think that there would be mass desertions if the military were ever called to wage war on the citizenry.

          However, given that the US military cannot function without well over a million civilians who are not likely to show up for work in the event of revolutionary war, and the ease with which refineries and the power grid could be disabled, this would soon be an infantry on infantry war where the militia had the support of the people and knew the land while the military lacked support and had to fight where the guerillas chose.

          Being outnumbered 8-1 by a popular guerrilla force fighting for their freedom on the terrain of their choosing is a losing proposition. I doubt that there is a senior officer in the US military who would not report that using the same to subjugate the populace was suicidal and undoable. In fact, the only clear method of survival for the military under such circumstances would be surrender, a hasty retreat from the CONUS or joining the revolutionaries. Conceivably they could remain neutral and resolve only to defend from foreign invasion. Any attempt to face down such a force as to be expected would result in annihilation.

          One has to remember that the US military is well spread across the country and while dominant where stationed they cannot possibly deploy in such a way as to prevent a severance of the power grid and of the pipelines that supply refineries.
          Then, with total power outages and rapidly decreasing fuel reserves they must mobilize through hostile country in the face of snipers, IEDs and ambushes to even get to where they might find larger militias to engage in combat.

          The situation is so hopeless than not even a dreamer believes they could win. Thus the founding fathers vision is preserved; we cannot be subjugated by the standing army.

        • You might reevaluate your assumptions…the oath is all enemies foreign & domestic and what a military has over a militia is discipline and ability to follow lawful orders. In our history every instance when militia rose up against the government…it failed. In addition, regardless of what people think, infantry doesn’t fight for cause or ideas, they fight for one another. Also note Iraq was a counter insurgency war and our military went from 2 raids per month to 30 a day. No militia can withstand that tempo of operations.

          Our fight is not in the media or gun education, our battlefield lay in the vote, the overwhelming onslaught on our legislators and when they fail, we replace them. It’s the ONLY thing they understand. Are you ready to knock on 200 doors and speak about lawful self defense? How the people elected to office prevent you from exercising your rights. You ready to get doors slammed in your face? If your not up to it then there is no change.

        • To say armed civilians are not a deterrent tyranny is like saying the first amendment is not a deterrent to tyranny.

          They are massive deterrents.

          And local tyranny has already occurred in the US, most notably in Jim Crow south. Many may not know this but several of the largest civil rights groups, C.O.R.E. and the Student Non Violent Coordinating Committee both advocated keeping and bearing arms as a deterrent to local tyranny from authorities and quasi authority groups attempting to suppress their rights. Non violence does NOT mean being disarmed once you understand deterrence.

          As far as a rifle behind every blade of grass, no matter who said it, the Japanese had successfully invaded a whole lot of high population countries where the civilians had little to no arms. Japan’s biggest difficulty in pacification was the Philippines, where there were significant numbers of armed civilians

        • “It’s a proposition so daunting that both the Nazis and the Japanese made no plans to invade the US, and it’s kept domestic tyranny at bay for a record breaking 200+ years.

          “Never count the American people out of the fight, doing so would surely lose any campaign you might envision.”

          Bravo! Hear, hear!

          Dude, this is inspirational! Thanks!

  5. —“Take suicide out of the mix (it’s so depressing) and firearms-related fatalities don’t even make it to the top ten” —

    Actually with over 60% (some estimates are 80%) of gun murder victims involving felons or criminals, if you are not a criminal, firearms murders don’t even make the top 50.

    Moreover they are dropping

    • Most gun murders are criminals shooting other criminals.

      And the number of gun deaths also includes criminals shot by law enforcement, and criminals shot by innocent people in self-defense.

      Subtract those, and suicides, and what is left, is the number of non-criminals shot dead by other people. That should be the significant number in looking at gun violence.

      Would that even make the top 100?

      So I would like to see a statistic, number of innocent people killed by guns vs. number of innocent people defended with guns.

  6. Here’s the problem as I see it- most people fundamentally don’t live in the same world as we all do. They live in condition white all the time, unless something terrible happens and then they switch straight to condition black. Fundamentally, they don’t believe evil exists. If you ask them, they won’t agree, but they will only understand it as a nearly abstract concept, from newspapers or history books.

    They will tell you about evil things, like slavery, Hitler, and George W. Bush, but they will only be able to provide examples other people told them about (this is the reason they can be so easily convinced gun owners are evil). They may become physically ill when even visiting museums illustrating the true nature of the Holocaust. They don’t really, truly, believe anything that could remotely be described as evil could happen to them. Evil, as a part of human nature that you can see in front of your face, at the point of the knife or the muzzle of a gun, doesn’t seem _real_ to them.

    This is what Grossman meant when he spoke of sheep.

    The Israelis understand that evil exists because for decades, it came to meet them. On the battlefield, in the streets, in the cafe, in the schools. This is why they are so ready to face it. Yes, I know that the government there is trying harder lately to control civilian gun ownership. Is it a coincidence that the last few decades there have been less dangerous in terms of war and successful terrorist attack than the first few of their history? Not completely safe by any means, but the more anyone wins, the less they fear losing.

    Even a school shooter in modern America is an abstract concept to most people. This is why they don’t want armed police, armed teachers, or God forbid, armed parents ready to defend the lives of children. They would have to admit that evil exists, and can touch them where it hurts the most.

    If you work backwards and illogically, this makes sense. Fact- we don’t need any armed people in school because everyone should be able to feel safe there. Theory- based on that, we should pass laws to prevent people from having guns there… or maybe anywhere. Conclusion- magically, the problem is solved. You have to be willingly blind to believe this, and many people are.

    • To expand on what you wrote:

      “They live in condition white all the time, unless something terrible happens and then they switch straight to condition black. Fundamentally, they don’t believe evil exists. If you ask them, they won’t agree, but they will only understand it as a nearly abstract concept, from newspapers or history books.”

      Watch the Documentary “Worse than War”. It is a study of genocide. The filmmaker goes around the world trying to understand why genocides happen. He even goes so far as to interview a guy who participated in the Rwandan Genocide.

      He doesn’t seem to want to try and figure out what all those genocides throughout history had in common, in an attempt to prevent them in the future.

      –All those people spoke different languages, lived in different locations, have different religions. The one thing they all had in common was they were disarmed. The filmmaker never mentions that inconvenient fact.–

      When he was interviewing the scum (who was in a prison work-camp) who hacked people to death in Rwanda, he never asks: “If the person you were attacking turned around and pointed a Glock in your face, would you have felt pretty stupid for bringing a Machete to a Gun-Fight?” Nor does he ask: “If someone with a rifle chambered in .308 or .223 started shooting everyone holding a machete from a distance, how quickly would you have thrown your machete to the ground and run?”

      It was almost like he didn’t want to think about it: That an armed populace is a lot harder to exterminate than an unarmed one…

      • This is an extremely important point as well. I was just at a public hearing about something related to firearms and self defense laws. One woman stood up and stated how we must stop being violent to criminals … how we just need to talk to people rather than bring firearms into the mix. She has absolutely no idea the depths of depravity that consume some criminals. She assumes that all criminals are just as “reasonable” as she is. And since she assumes that all criminals are as “reasonable” as she is, they are simply having bad days and we can talk them out of their life of crime.

        • It’s even worse than that. . . There are some few depraved criminals who cannot be reasoned with, however there are other people, outwardly fairly normal who may, while intoxicated or enraged become unreasonable and potentially dangerous.

          Then there are dogs, some percentage may attack, and they certainly can’t be reasoned with.

          What this ridiculous woman is really doing is attempting to cover her position, based solely on emotion, with a veneer of reason.

      • The theme was not why did they kill, but why the world stands by and allows the murder of innocence. Western Governments allow it. Syria the most recent example. The parallel is our government condones the murder and terrorizing of its citizens, by denying them the right of lawful self defense. Substitute a tyrannical dictator with elected representatives bent on restricting every aspect of gun owners 2A rights and you get slow burn genocide. Chicago is this country’s Rwanda. No coin collection with black on black violence but plenty of legislating for feel good words that does nothing to solve the slaughter.

  7. “Even a school shooter in modern America is an abstract concept to most people. This is why they don’t want armed police, armed teachers, or God forbid, armed parents ready to defend the lives of children. They would have to admit that evil exists, and can touch them where it hurts the most. ”

    I think you have this wrong. The problem is with your use of the term “most people”. The polls that I have seen do not include “most people”. They include a minority of uneducated people that have been indoctrinated by the MSM.

    They might make up 35-40 percent of the population that vote, or 40-50 percent of the population overall.

    When those people make even the most minimal effort to understand the arguments, that percentage drops to perhave 25 percent of voters and 35 percent of the population.

    The problem has always been one of information control, and we are slowly winning that battle, on the internet and in the new media.

    • I hope you’re right. In many parts of the country, I think you are already right, but if you go into many large coastal cities and the surrounding counties, you find people like I described. I have yet to hear of a school district succefully implementing a program where anyone besides a single police officer is armed, though.

      And yes, where this has been proposed, I have yet to hear of a case where it was shut down by anything other than some governmental agency, but I’ve also never heard of a public outcry against the government for stopping it. Not in enough numbers to make elected officials fear for their seats, anyways.

    • After some thought, I’m not sure I can agree with you on one thing- I don’t think we’re winning the information battle, at least, not yet. I think this battle can’t be limited to just information about guns, because I think Jay1987 is right, we are facing a culture war. And for every new gun owner in one survey, you will find at least one new food stamp or housing assistance recipient to match in another survey. Not that receiving assistance is an inherently bad thing, but I think it fair to say that entitlement programs are used by one side of this debate as a means to make as many people as possible dependent on the government. Is it a coincidence that the same party pushing disarmament is the one pushing social welfare spending?

      We haven’t lost, though. We’re making great progress, but so is the other side. The Colorado recalls were successful. The law hasn’t been changed, though. Maybe it will after the next election, maybe it won’t. There’s no sign that California will become a free state in my lifetime based on the electoral preference of the public there. Many of our victories have come through the courts. When the majority of good gun news starts coming out of the legislative bodies nationwide, because more people than not voted for someone promising more liberty and less government, that will be the day we can truly say we’re winning. And even then, I’m sure the fight will go on.

      • “… that will be the day we can truly say we’re winning.”

        For some reason, this brings to mind the “100th monkey effect,” or whatever it’s called Even though it’s been debunked, I have to believe there’s some sort of threshold where suddenly it’ll be OK, just like recently happened with gay marriage.

        “And even then, I’m sure the fight will go on.”

        Well, I kinda hope not. I fantasize about the “Liberty Movement” being such a success that we could actually cut the FedGov down to what the Constitution originally defined: 435 representatives, 100 senators, one president, one vice president, and nine judges.

        And they should all be volunteer jobs. 😉

        If you want to play with this fantasy, don’t forget that a whole lot of infrastructure is already in place. A couple million more unemployed would cause a spike in the graph, but the freedom from the excessive government bureaucracy would foment an upsurge of prosperity and employment like the world has never seen! The glitch would be healed by the Mother’s Milk of Liberty within a year or two.

  8. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again till someone smarter than me figures out better wording and finds positive proof. This is a CULTURE WAR not context not a debate not discussion over safety, a full blown low intensity conflict the likes of which hasn’t been seen for a long long time. Look back shall we WWI most men joined the military as it was seen as a way to have guaranteed income and many gained familiarity with firearms as a result so few actively campaigned for total disarmament, this pattern continued for the most part up until the Vietnam conflict when public opinion for the armed forces and war floundered. Since then our culture has gotten increasingly liberal and increasingly distant from the type of men that founded and expanded this nation and those the stood against tyranny in all its forms. Now we have people that honestly believe the U.N. can stop wars and human rights violations through economic means (nevermind that most are the poorest nations on Earth anyway) we have become a nation of those that will try to tax and embargo tyranny into non existence much like one would try to starve a bear by clear cutting their forrests and fencing off rivers; in the end, it makes no difference the bear will find ways out as tyrants find ways to afford and purchase weapons and until more folks realize that in order to halt tyranny be it dictators a world away or gangbangers on the corner is to close with and destroy the tyrants through a feat of arms or to stand up against them with firearms just in case they’re needed we will continue to have to fight this battle. People have lost the will to fight for their values they have lost the familiarity with firearms and the knowledge that a gun serves its master whether hero or villian prince or pauper man or woman a gun with no master is an amalgamation of polymer and steel or wood and steel or alloy and whatever else it is merely a tool when a human picks it up the gun merely does that person’s bidding it knows nothing of malice or fear knows not victim or criminal murder or defense. the only thing a gun is capable of is enacting its masters sentiment on another through mechanical interaction of simple machines and chemical reactions producing a force to drive an object out of the barrel. Until we get more people to realize this we will be stuck on defense waiting for the next attack on our 2nd A rights. sorry for the long rant guys.

  9. Keep in mind that many gun grabbers are hysterical and you cannot reason with a hysterical person. I debated a grabber recently. At one point he threw out the old, “Citizens could never be accurate firing a gun in self defense.” I provided a link to a video of a 13 year old girl on a target course who rocked with a full auto machine gun, pump action shotgun, and a 9mm handgun engaging multiple targets at different ranges while moving through the course. The obvious implication, of course, is that if a 13 year old girl can do it, just about anyone can do it with some amount of training. The gun grabber’s response? Her skills did not count because she was just shooting at targets rather than actual human attackers. It doesn’t matter what you say to those types.

    I think where Robert got to the meat of the problem is the gun grabber attitude, “We may not be able to remove all guns but it doesn’t hurt to try.” In that statement they dismiss the fact that it very well could hurt a citizen who indeed wants to be armed and is proficient with their firearm.

    I am personally going to stick to two parallel analogies to illustrate the elite, tyrannical nature of the gun grabber “solution”: the sex analogy that I listed yesterday and now a money analogy. These two analogies are short and sweet and they illustrate the tyranny. At that point I simply tell the gun grabber, “It is my absolute right to defend myself and my family and that requires the best tools and training available. Just as you have no business telling a woman she must have sex with a man or a person must give up their money ‘because it is for their own good’, you have no business telling me that I must give up firearms ‘for my own good’.”

    • You should have than told that anti gun person, lets go to a paint ball, or airsoft range and we can run through some self defense scenarios, and I’ll prove people can be accurate.

  10. You are, of course, speaking about licensed/permitted carrying.
    That is public (in some form). It is measurable.
    What is not measurable is all the people – law-abiding good guys, mind you – who carry sans permit.
    They can’t admit they do. They can’t advertise. But they do carry.

  11. The “root cause” of this Cultural War is that there are people who believe in their own self-determination as free individuals and who accept that Freedom implies acceptance of responsibility for one’s actions, who view other people as having exactly the same Rights as they claim for themselves and who respect those Rights for ALL. Conversely, there are people who believe they have a Right to judge others according to their prejudices, fears and opinions, who do not accept self-determination as a Right for ALL and who believe they somehow have a Right to dictate the terms of freedom for EVERYONE. The first kind see liberty as inherent in the existence of all Humans and the second kind see liberty as a construct of rules subject to their approbation, devised by them and IMPOSED on all Humans.

    Ironically, the first kind holds dear their Right (and means) of Self Defense as individuals, but does not seek to aggress or impose their will on any other Human (unless directly attacked or seriously threatened). The second kind chronically and consistently works to deny and deprive other Humans of their Rights by attack, invective, fear-mongering, deceit and spurious manipulation of hard facts.

    It is a Cultural War being fought on a contextual level. It is to the death. But, again ironically, those who have the means and knowledge to inject death into the fray with overwhelming effectiveness are constrained from doing so by the very depth of their convictions about Human Liberty and Rights and the full implications of their understanding and beliefs about the fundamental nature of Human Liberty and Rights.

    The other side would gladly see the first side forcibly subjected to their will by Agents of The State, not excluding extreme violence and murder. By and large they control the Main Stream Media, presently they have an advantage in the Government of the Republic, they are perverting our children, denying our Religions and Patriotic Expressions, gaining control of more people by Government money giveaways (your tax dollars and borrowed Chinese debt), ruining the greatest economy ever seen on the Planet and intend to ”reshape” The United States by destroying the wealthy classes and down-grading the middle classes to Second and Third World levels (re-distribution of wealth). In short they control the contextual aspects of the fight, and we keep asking, “Who’s winning?”

    IMHO the Mid Term Election of 2014 will be the pivot-point. Decent, Freedom loving Americans (and I think there are still more of us than them) must band together and put a stop to this madness by changing the contextual war, not just for Second Amendment Rights, but for all Rights (The Second Amendment is PART of the context, but only a part). We know what is right and what we want. We are the civilized ones and we don’t have to resort to violence, but we DO have to unite in a hard-minded, deliberately determined, unshakeable resolve to reclaim The Republic at all levels (your household, neighborhood, Public Schools, Town, County and Nation). If we fail to do so, I believe we shall lose this war and there will be no road back.

  12. Death and murder are different things. “…context war . . .”? What am I reading.

    Firearm violence, firearm death and murder, and firearm crime, are simply a resiude of the very existence of firearms. The only issue is the severeity and frequency. A dog barks, poops on the floor, barks, growls, sometimes bites people. Sometimes people are injured or killed by dogs. Same with motor vehicle accidents. Same with industrial accidents.

    This cannot be spun any other way, to try and deny this…foolish.

  13. The libtards control the media, so its an uphill climb through the turds the libs roll down the hill at us. Plus, if it bleeds,it leads, and most successful defensive gun uses work by the mere brandishing (or threat of use) of a firearm, where no blood was spilt. Throw in emotionalism, and the belief in an all knowing Big Gov nanny state, and there you go.

Comments are closed.