Skip to comments.The Anti-Gun Male
Posted on 06/17/2002 7:53:26 AM PDT by garibaldi
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.
"Calling Dr. Freud, calling Dr. Freud. See patients Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein in Triage."
Brainwashed with the flakier recent versions of feminism.
Is it "coincidence" that the only regions of the U.S. where male European-Americans support gun control are also the regions where flaky recent versions of feminism are the norm - NYC, coastal Kalifornia, urban Midwest?
Joseph Sobran used to offer his anti-gun acquaintances window stickers that said:
No one ever took one from him. I wonder why?
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Yep. He's a sissy, but won't admit it. To be "fair", all men must become sissys. It's politically correct.
For he is guided by a dread fear for his life,......
Perhaps that is the rub, and I know many like that, not having reached an accomidation with death. Until one does, the fear of death dominates all actions and emotions, turning one in on himself as the only important existence. All else is threat.
1. Afraid to die, but more than average. These men are in serious doubt of their ability to survive war combat or self defense combat.They are really scared and they can't help it.
2. Afraid of Basic Training. The Hollywood version of BCT (Basic Combat Training) scares the h*ll out them. Forced marches, bayonet training, live fire exercises, getting up at 4:00AM scares these men. They doubt they can make it. *
.3 Lack of status. These men were treated like officer class at home. They were mommy'd. To wind up in the army as a buck private is probably the worst immediate fear of all. To police the latrine with the rest of the masses. Bill's momma did not raise Bill to be in a latrine detail, but to be in charge of the latrine detail. These people wanted to go directly in with the rank of Captain and determine tactics though observe combat from a safe distance.
*(who among us that have gone through BCT and have survived these years in decent health, would not go through those eight weeks again, and laughingly know it was really a piece of cake)
That's true. Compensating for not being born with legs fast enough to out-run a bullet. I'd rather fight than 'swish.'
They declined the opportunity. . .
Really? I have heard this discussed in the abstract, but never enacted.
"life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don't sit cross-legged.
"this man does not know how to use a gun, he doesn't know the men who do,..
"he doesn't want to get shot in case he has an affair with your wife.
In short, he is a man begging for subjugation...his freedom lies in this other man's containment.
The real and ugly truth of gun control. It is a Neville Chamberlain movement.
Great posting, garibaldi.
I'll never understand how these sissy men can sit with their legs crossed over the knee like a girl can do it. I tried it one time just to see and it actually hurt to do it.
Either that, or he's just pretending to be anti-gun so he can go to the meetings/rallys and pick up clueless, gullible women.
Either that, or he's just pretending to be anti-gun so he can go to the meetings/rallys and pick up clueless, gullible women.Bleagh. Nuts to that. I'd rather find me an SAS babe. :)
I realize it's a disgusting idea, but not nearly as disgusting as the thought that these guys might actually be died-in-the-wool, Koolaid drinking gun grabbers. Just trying to look on the bright side.
,,, "there's nothing more exhilarating than being shot at, without result" - Winston Churchill.
A long-cogitated thought...
I only saw the movie Deliverance recently. For a long time I had heard about it, and was puzzled at the viceral terror expressed by many men who have seen it. Somehow it seemed the one true horror film for men. Just mention the title, or sing a few a few notes from Deuling Banjos, and watch swaggering officemates shudder in abject fear.
I finally rented & watched it. Yes, it is disturbing - deeply so to the male psyche. But I noticed a difference between myself, the pro-gun male, and the anti-gun males: seems they identified themselves with the buggery victims, helpless and humiliated...while I identified with the Redford character and his "just shoot the b@st@ards" attitude.
Though "gun nuts" may often be maligned by the anti-gun males, 'tis interesting to note the different reactions to Deliverance. Which would you rather be, or want around, when predators pick you? Anti-gun "call 911"? or "front sight, press"?
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.