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.
Absolutely. I find that when I go about armed, that I am a much more polite person, and let things slide, that I'd normally not be as willing to do so.
Just when we're starting to have a little fun picking on the nancy-boys, you have to come along and ruin it.
You are of course correct - the difference between sheep, wolves and sheep dogs covered elsewhere - but the antagonism is due not to the reluctance of the sheep to take up combatives, but instead their lack of comprehension and respect regarding those who are willing.
As to the "more danger...otherwise" comment, do you advocate capitulation for those lacking the "fighting spirit", or do you believe having moderate skill predisposes one to seek trouble?
Nowadays, I rely on my Pitbulls (no safety lever there either) as a first line of defense, followed by my Winchester 30/30.
That one I like. Pistol is pointed off to the side a bit, not obviously loaded and most importantly, it is held by an adult. This one also has a public service type message attached. My main gripe with your earlier one, besides the obvious safety issue is that the gun grabber crowd can use it to our detriment.
Here's an idea, post the photo of your son on www.thehighroad.org. See what your response is there. If they give positive reviews, I'll make a loud public apology for calling your photo irresponsible.
Want to know the cold hard truth that every self-defense instructor knows, but won't tell you because it would be an end to his business? If you don't have the will to fight, it doesn't matter. No skill, moderate skill, highly skilled, it doesn't matter. Without that primal brutishness, you're going down the first serious confrontation that comes your way. You can do double jump spinning hook kicks or be the best guy on the shooting range, but if deep down, you can't tear his jaw off or rip big gaping holes in his chest, you'll hesitate on the street.
LOL! I know many adults whom I would never want to see holding a gun. It's a question of personal responsibility, not age.
Thanks for the website, I'd never heard of that one before.
It's not just men. Women should know how to use guns too. Conservatives get it. Reactionaries don't.
What a great post. I love women who can see things the way they really are.
Some men will never learn the lessons of Nazi Germany etc..
I believe the "meek" Christ was referring to are the people who are meek before God, not man. Also, I don't believe that people who practice their 2nd Amend. rights are posturing as "tough guys". I think that might be an unfair evaluation. I consider people who carry as informed and responsible citizens (myself included).
Perhaps the next cretin who plans on abducting a child will think of that picture and realize that not all of them are such easy prey.
Some folks don't tell their children that guns are off limits, rather enable them with the knowledge of how to defend themselves.
Just to be certain, Please don't confuse me with someone who thinks guns are off limits to children. I had my 12 year old at the range with me recently and am teaching an Eddie Eagle class tonight to a bunch of Cub Scouts with another class Thursday.
You'll like THR. Lot's of good gun guys hang out there. Plenty of Freeper crossover too. I'm just a lurker there but they've got some good insight.
You've completely misunderstood everything I've said. I carry, daily. I'm talking about cajoling those who lack the temperment to carry, into carrying.
Not to be picky:
Meek-In its use in Scripture, in which it has a fuller, deeper significance than in nonscriptural Greek writings, it consists not in a person's "outward behavior only; nor yet in his relations to his fellow-man; as little in his mere natural disposition. Rather, it is an inwrought grace of the soul, and the exercises of it are towards God. It is that temper of spirit in which we accept His dealings with us as good, and therefore without disputing or resisting"
I would hope that meekness is something which becomes more characteristic of my attitude towards God on a daily basis; however, I am well armed and would not hestitate to use those arms to protect those whom I love, or even other innocents.
I don't believe the males she is referring to in this article necessarily embody biblical "meekness". In most cases I would guess it is just the opposite.
Hmm, that's nice. He has good form, but it looks like he's going to miss just a bit low and left. It's nice that he's shooting hollow points. Can't decide if it's 357 or 44 mag.
Um, the finger is not on the trigger.
I wouldn't think of it.
Thanks again for the website. I'm going to check it out in a bit.
There are no guns on brokeback Mountain.
"Compensating" is stuffing a sock in your underwear like some rock star. Owning guns is just cool.
anti-gun male is an oxymoron.
similar to modern liberal and intelligence.
I understood everything you wrote. I don't think anyone is trying to cajole those who don't want to carry into carrying. I think they're saying "If you don't want to practice your right, that's fine, just don't tell me I shouldn't be able to practice that same right."
Unless I've missed some posts from people who are saying we should cajole said people into carrying.
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.