I’m a gun owner and enthusiast. My owning/firing credentials include everything from AK-47, AR-15, SPAS-12 and Dragunov to Barrett 50 cal, an original German Sturmgewehr, pistols, a couple of flamethrowers, and at least one radio-controlled A-10 equipped with a site camera and full-auto BB gun. We called it “The PredaHog.” Call it a byproduct of having been raised in Central Florida, or maybe just a gearhead affinity for machines of purpose — but I do love cool weapons.
PredaHogs aside, I’m also one of the 88% of gun owners who think that our weapons policies should periodically evolve(!) from the peerless Garden of Eden that was 1776. That, the fact that I live dead-center in StandYourGroundsville, FL and the that I write for AATTP brings me into pretty regular conflict with some of the nuttiest gun nuts out there. Case in point, CJ Grisham, of Open Carry Texas.
OCT’s made a bit of news lately, from helping to organize the Alex Jones-attended gun orgy at the Alamo last month, to more recently standing their ground against a few unarmed, female gun reform advocates last week. After having been thoroughly, and rightly, demonized by myself and others for this blatant act of intimidation, CJ posted an invitation to publicly debate Ms. Watts of Mothers Demand Action. Here’s an excerpt from it:
“We will also accept the Texas Chapter President of MDA if Shannon doesn’t feel intelligent or confident enough to handle an open debate. OCT will NOT be open carry at the event so MDA can feel safe and secure in its ignorance and false sense of safety.”
CJ kindly left his email at the bottom, so I decided to take him up on the offer with a recorded, public debate on Skype. CJ, brave and wise warrior that he was, repeatedly dodged the bullet; apparently, he’s not comfortable talking to people who don’t express fear of him. After several exchanges, his ever-changing excuses included:
- “No thanks. Our offer was to MDA since they have defamed our organization with lies.” (as opposed to defaming it with the truth?)
- Then: “We are only extending the offer to anti-gun groups.”
- …And then, of course, “Shall not be infringed.”
I retorted several times that I’ve personally defamed OCT plenty over the last couple of weeks to tens of thousands of people a day, and that the majority of AATTP’s audience (which is about 200,000 times larger than MDA) is as anti-gun as it gets. I practically BEGGED him to openly debate… but, my not being an unarmed woman, he declined.
Aside from getting some laughs at another brave Second Amendment soldier, I mention this exchange to make a specific point. These people only understand fear. Without intimidation, without the illusion of superiority, they’re just firing blanks. They’re brave target-shooters, but suddenly develop wet pants when the target is prepared to fire back.
Below is a list of my most frequently fired shots: the rounds I keep in my chamber for the daily firefight that is being a (somewhat) sensible gun enthusiast. Not all of them are going to take down the target. Half of these people have such thick heads, a 30 mm cannon wouldn’t penetrate. But they’ll at least feel these hits, and that’s usually all it takes to send them running. Some are statistical responses, some are just observations I like to use.
(PS: Last word to CJ Grisham, OCT or anyone else from any gun psycho group: You’re a b****, everyone in your organization is a b****, and real cowboys come from Florida.)
BASIC DOs AND DON’Ts
- DO understand that there are lots of different types of gun owners. Some have them for protection, and some are gearheads who just like them as machines. Some people collect certain types of guns because they’re cool, and others just like stuff that’s loud, spits fire and blows holes in things. Often, a gun enthusiast is some combination of all of these.
- DON’T lump the above gun owners in with the “Second Amendment” crowd. These 2A people own guns primarily because they feel inadequate, and live in fear because of it. They’re terrified of meeting an equal, and will almost always run from a fight if they don’t have a clear advantage going in.
- DO remember at all times that these 2A people live in a state of constant fear, and they resent others who don’t. They’re going to do everything they can do to make others feel the same way they do.
- DON’T bother with the “phallic symbol” thing. They don’t understand what it means, and the “inadequacy” they feel is a bit more layered than that. They might feel inadequate physically, but it may just as easily be mental or emotional. Often, they feel unprepared to compete in the modern world… because they are.
- DO call them out on their fear, weakness and inadequacy…but BE EMPATHETIC. Be SYMPATHETIC about their shortcomings. It’s the one thing they absolutely cannot stand. Especially when you point out that the gun itself only proves their fear, weakness and sense of inadequacy. Make them face their demons, and force them to regard the gun itself as a symbol of their fear. Do that, and they’ll eventually come to hate it on principle.
“Stop harassing the members our peaceful protest. If nobody got shot, it’s a peaceful protest.”
No, they’re not, and no it’s not. There’s nothing “peaceful” about displaying killing tools to get a reaction.
- Definition of peaceful: “1) Quiet and calm: quiet, calm, and tranquil, 2) Mentally calm: serene and untroubled in the mind, 3) Appropriate for peacetime: appropriate for a time of peace rather than war.” Are a bunch of armed militants standing around on a street corner “appropriate for a time of peace, rather than a time of war?” No? Are these people “Mentally calm, tranquil, quiet, serene and untroubled of mind?” Maybe, but only because inspiring fear puts them in a good mood.
- If you must, you could call the protest itself (really more of a “demonstration”) “non-violent,” since nobody got shot at that demonstration. But even then, you’d have a hard time making the case that the people themselves are “non-violent.” Intimidation is in itself a violent act; in fact, courts have ruled “witness intimidation” as an act of violence, and “intimidation” is covered under several Domestic Violence laws. Or, to put it another way — a non-violent person does not feel the need to physically intimidate others.
“Hey, it’s not OUR fault if a bunch of little p****** are scared of our big, bad guns. We’re not doing anything illegal.”
- Actually, yeah, it IS your fault. And you damned well know it, which is why you’re displaying guns in the first place. Put it this way: If a dark-skinned guy who didn’t like you showed up on your front door with a shotgun in his hand, would you put your hand on your concealed .45? Yes? Of course you would, because you know exactly what message he’s delivering, just by being there with a gun. That’s why you own one, because you’re easily frightened. Stop acting offended when the rest of us call you out on exactly the message YOU’RE delivering. You’re not fooling anyone.
- Hide behind all the technicalities you like, you’re still a bunch of cowards and bullies. Legally protected cowards and bullies, but cowards and bullies nonetheless. The legal protection of a status doesn’t change what it is. Hand those guns to the people who don’t like you, and find out who the REAL p**** is.
- Abused people often become abusers themselves. It’s a coping mechanism. You live in a world of fear and inferiority, so you enjoy making others feel fearful and inferior. Don’t act as though you don’t feel that giddy giggle building in your stomach, that sense of power, standing slightly taller, when you know others fear you, or regard you as superior. Your coping mechanism is pathetic, and nobody’s fooled by your playing dumb about it.
- We all know why you resent others living in their sickening “complacency” and “illusion of safety.” You hate anyone who doesn’t live in fear, and you resent the fact that you can’t do the same.
“Shall not be infringed.”
The right to bear arms is ALREADY “infringed” for many, and for very good reason. Here’s a short list of things that could easily happen if we were to give you your way, remove all “infringements,” and completely deregulate the Second Amendment:
- A career felon could walk out of prison, and purchase a full-auto AK-47 from Walmart
- Your psycho ex could buy a sniper rifle and silencer from “some guy” for $100
- A mentally handicapped child could get a pistol from a vending machine
- Known terrorists and those with terrorist affiliations could easily purchase Stinger missile launchers to shoot down airliners, and RPGs to blow up your Hummer
- Any nutjob could walk out of the asylum, buy a grenade launcher and flamethrower, and visit your kids at school.
“The Second Amendment is our only protection from TYRANNY!”
- Well, it’s one of them. Technically, the rest of the Constitution, including democratically elected representatives who represent the will of the people without outside coercion…THAT’S supposed to be our first line of defense against tyranny. Of course, that assumes you HAVE any of those things. You know, rather than try to engineer the fall of a society you can’t compete in, start a new Civil War and rebuild from the ashes, you think we might try making the one we have work first?
- They have drones. They have laser-firing aircraft that can blow up one target every 15 seconds in a 150-mile radius. They have surveillance satellites, nuclear bombs, missiles, poison gas, tanks, aircraft carriers, bombers. The U.S. government beat the THIRD REICH. They beat JAPAN. And that was 75 years ago, with 2,000-mile long supply lines. Seriously, not to be defeatist, but it’s not like they’re going to invade with cotton-shirted police carrying pointy sticks. At least, not before they laser-bomb you from orbit using atomic drones with nerve gas. (The usual response to this is, “Yeah, but they have to HAVE those things and people to operate them first.” The rebuttal is “So, your strategy is to win by assuming they can’t fight back, and that the U.S. Government won’t launch a first strike. Good luck with that.“)
- Even if you believed you stood a chance…get real. You’re not going to bother. A few nutjobs might “make a last stand” here and there, because they’re suicidally tired of living in fear and inadequacy. But the majority are too busy taking the kids to school, waiting for next month’s McRib, buying the new Camaro and holding Walking Dead parties to stage a pointless “revolution” that will almost certainly kill them. That’s life. There are easier ways to deal with things, and most of them don’t involve becoming a martyr before the series finale.
“A good guy with guns is the only protection from a bad guy with guns/We need more guns to protect us/More guns are the solution.”
- That’s true…at least, once the bad guy gets a gun. At that point, a “good guy with a gun” is only one way to stop him. Aside from that, you’ve got 40-foot walls, parapets with boiling oil, missile launchers on top of buildings, land mines, armor-plated cars, diving for cover while you check the mail and never leaving your bunker. Talk about a “slippery slope.” Follow this line of thought, and you end up living in some combination of Rwanda and Hell, a war zone where nobody knows peace, and everyone lives in constant fear. Or, as you might call it, any other day.
“Gun regulations are a slippery slope…GUN GRABBING IS NEXT!”
- The United States passed its first gun control laws prior to the Civil War, criminalizing possession of firearms by blacks. Be honest, what’s your opinion on THAT one?
- Gun regulations have existed in the United States for about 150 years, evolving many times since then to cover machine guns, assault rifles, Saturday Night Specials and undetectable firearms. And you can still carry an AR-15 around with a .45 in your back pocket.
“Everybody who don’t agree with us is a GUN GRABBING COMMIE!”
Listen…very FEW people would really erase the 2A today if they could. And those who do are just your counterbalance on the far left…the 80% of us in the middle (between the nuts on both ends) would just like to get shot at a little less. Just a little less. Sure, some people DO want to ban all private gun ownership. Some people also want to wrestle panthers and ride rocket-powered grocery carts. What’s your point? There will always be a group that wants to do something. But that’s why we have democratic elections: to keep groups of 10% from forcing their will on the 90%. Ahem.
- Gun grabbing Commies? Really? 91% of Americans are gun-grabbing Communists? Does that include the 88% of Republicans, 90% of Independents and 88% legal gun owners who support universal background checks?
- Wanting to regulate and control a certain type of gun or accessory doesn’t mean you want to get rid of ALL guns. About 59% of Americans (41% of Republicans) support a ban on assault weapons, 58% (40% of Republicans) want to ban hi-cap magazines, and 26% of Americans would support a ban on handguns. Only 13% would support an outright firearms ban.
- The percentage of far-left Americans who would support an outright gun ban (13%) is only a little higher than the number of far-right nutjobs (9%) who don’t support background checks.
- No, Obama isn’t and never has been part of that 13%. The closest he’s come to “banning” any gun is proposing reinstatement of the assault weapons ban that Clinton passed in 1994. He’s also proposed a five-fold tax increase on guns and ammunition most commonly used in firearms deaths, and a crackdown on the sales of cheap, disposable “Saturday Night Specials” outlawed in 1968.
“Guns don’t kill people…PEOPLE kill people.”
- Agreed…90% of all murders are committed by people with four or more adult felonies. Which is exactly why we’re trying to keep those people from getting guns.
“Background checks won’t do NOTHING but make it easier fer Libtards to git our GUNS!”
About 61% of Republicans believe that background checks will lead to the confiscation of currently legal guns. Only 32% of Democrats believe that, compared to the 96% of Dems who favor checks. Going by that alone, 64% of Democrats only want gun reform to curb future sales. That’s more than the percentage of Republicans who believe that confiscation is the agenda. That’s a pretty significant disconnect from reality.
What’s even more amazing is that, while 61% of Republicans believe that background checks will cause confiscation of some guns, 88% OF REPUBLICANS STILL SUPPORT THEM. From that, it’s pretty clear that even many on the Right realize that some give is inevitable if you want legislation that keeps up with a changing world.
- Only about 60% of gun sales are through gun retailers currently required to run background checks; the other 60% are private sales. And dangerous felons are TRYING to get guns; 39% of state firearms applications are denied because of a felony conviction. And those are just the ones who bother applying.
- The 2009 Brady Bill alone has led to the denial of over 150,000 gun buyer applications; that’s 150,000 fewer high-risk individuals with guns.
“Yeah, but gittin our GUNS is the ultimate agenda.”
- Sort of, except we don’t want us to have them either. World peace, a world free of murder and hate is the ultimate agenda for most of us. The ultimate agenda is a world where we don’t NEED killing machines at all. The existence of 300 million machines of death in one nation is a sign of failure. Some day, when we’ve changed enough as a species and as a people, we might not need machines made to kill each other. Will that ever happen? Probably not, at least not as long as we continue to be descended from apes, and act like it. But Pandora’s Box has long been open, and we continue to act like talking monkeys, so guns will be an unfortunate necessity for the foreseeable future. Most of us accept that. But, maybe someday… yeah, a world that doesn’t need killing machines might not be such a terrible thing.