Skip to comments.The anti-gun male
Posted on 01/30/2006 10:00:41 AM PST by Jotmo
LET'S be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable--so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.
A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.
He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can't touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.
Of course, sexual and psychological insecurities don't account for ALL men against guns. Certainly there must be some whose motives are pure, who perhaps do care so much as to tirelessly look for policy solutions to teenage void and aggressiveness, and to parent and teacher negligence. But for a potentially large underlying contributor, psycho-sexual inadequacy has gone unexplored and unacknowledged. It's one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or bear one. But it's another to impose the same handicap onto others.
People are suspicious of what they do not know-and not only does this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn't know the men who do, or the number of people who have successfully used one to defend themselves from injury or death. But he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don't sit cross-legged. That they're able to handle a firearm instead of being handled by it would be too much to bear.
Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the cloister of crowds.
The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies some assertiveness and a certain self-reliance. But if our man kept a gun in the house, and an intruder broke in and started attacking his wife in front of him, he wouldn't be able to later say, "He had a knife--there was nothing I could do!" Passively watching in horror while already trying to make peace with the violent act, scheduling a therapy session and forgiving the perpetrator before the attack is even finished wouldn't be the option it otherwise is.
No. Better to emasculate all men. Because let's face it: He's a lover, not a fighter. And he doesn't want to get shot in case he has an affair with your wife.
Of course, it wouldn't be completely honest not to admit that owning a firearm carries with it some risk to unintended targets. That's the tradeoff with a gun: The right to defend one's life and way of life isn't without peril to oneself. And the last thing this man wants to do is risk his life-if even to save it. For he is guided by a dread fear for his life, and has more confidence in almost anyone else's ability to protect him than his own, preferring to place himself at the mercy of the villain or in the sporadically competent hands of authorities (his line of defense consisting of locks, alarm systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or, should fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase).
In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man's containment.
Excellent. I like those grips.
Thanks, bookmarked for a later read
Thanks....They are Elk antler......got em from
you guys gotta see this
". It's one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or bear one."
I disagree here. In order to exercise one's right to keep and bear arms, one must actually keep and bear arms. I know in some locales it's difficult. Carrying in NJ (unless you're blowing a judge) is damn near impossible.
The small-souled, neutered Left in a nutshell.
The only person this type of male loves intensely is himself. He plans on living forever and fears anything that has the power to end his existence.
Evern notice how we try and make four letter words for things we try to get people to hate?
Guns is the perfect example. We no longer call them pistols or rifles or weapons as they denote a tool or a word deserving respect now those that hate them call them four letter words.
Irresponsible photographer or photoshopped image. Even if the rounds were added to the pic, he's breaking the rule of pointing the weapon.
But, perhaps the camera was set up on a tripod.
Special exception should be made for *really* big guys.
I have a Marine friend who's 6'6", 290, no body fat. Anything less than a Desert Eagle or BFR looks like a child's toy in his hands. He's big enough to conceal a BFR, too.
The unasked and unanswered question is this: to whom does your life belong? To answer that your life belongs to you is to admit to all of the consequences and corollaries of that decision. This is what the moral modgets and craven cowards on the Left fear: personal responsibility and everything that comes with it.
Any other answer to that question opens the gates of hell.
and the kid in the picture has his trigger finger outside the trigger guard. I'm also assuming that the safety is on.
Primary rule: His finger is not on the trigger.
Man, I certainly hope the photographer was smart enough to photoshop those hollowpoints in. Otherwise, that photograph shows the worst irresponsibility toward gun safety in many ways.
Pointed at a target not intending to kill.
Finger on the trigger
A gun big enough to knock junior flat on his butt for starters
Who does your grip work?
Sorry, I stand corrected, finger not on trigger. Bad photo anyway though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.