[This is in response to a post on Cooking with Dee.]

I’m not sure what you mean by a ‘gun enthusiast’. So let’s take different views and see if we can get there.

You say you like cooking – so do I. I also like good cooking tools. I have mostly Kitchenaid appliances – I like using them because they are fine – well made, pleasing to the touch – and they do the job I want. I also have very fine knives – Sabatier carbon steel. I don’t know that I’m a knife enthusiast – but I want the tools to do the job properly. These knives feel good to the hand, take a razor sharp edge, are comfortable when chopping, etc. In the case of kitchen tools, I not only like them for what they can do, but also for what they are. However, if I did not cook, I would not have pleasure in the tools.

Same for woodworking – I have a whole shop full of tools – most very fine. And I love them for what they are and what they do.

Now then, guns. There are people who collect them simply for what they are as machines. Many are quite beautiful as machines. I feel some of that but I don’t have the money to collect things that are that expensive for no other reason.

You say that you have an emotional fear/rejection of weapons. OK – but that is emotional, not rational. Much like a fear of spiders or snakes or airplanes. Shall we then ban spiders, snakes, and airplanes? Terms like ‘assault weapon’ are purely emotional terms used to evoke a negative response. So let’s look at some other arguments and see if we can get rational.

Hunting – this is a no-brainer. We have been hunters since our beginning. We still are. It might be noted that if we ban hunting then game wardens have to kill excess herds since we have eliminated natural predators. Animals breed to fill all available food supply and then a bit. When the food supply naturally has a bad year, animals die slowly and painfully. We then have to thin them. It might be pointed out that hunters do and have done more for conservation (they invented it) than all the enviro-nuts out there. Restricting hunting to only black powder or bow is the most rank of hypocrisy and will result in a rise in painfully wounded animals dying slowly. By the way, I remember that back in the 1950s there were herd thinnings and I remember film of rangers in choppers mowing down herds with machine guns. As usual, not all were killed, some were wounded and crawled off to die.

Target shooting – there is a whole lot of pleasure in putting holes in a piece of paper. It is not up to you or anyone else to dictate which hobbies someone might like. I despise football, basketball, and all the rest of the violent sports. Since I don’t like them should I impose my will on everyone else? Even if it is for their own good? This has been the favorite argument of totalitarians imposing restrictive laws. You can’t have a drink – for your own good – created the Mafia and organized crime as it is known and loved today. The restrictive attitude of the early 20th century is still with us.

Self-defense – Also a no-brainer, but let’s look at it. A gun is the ONLY way that an old, crippled, arthritic, weak, small person (or any combination) has of defending against physical violence from a younger, stronger, fitter, etc. attacker. All other forms of defense have limitations. Physical defense – like martial arts. OK – I have to have a fit body, I have to learn and practice for many years. And – contrary to Hollyweird – a larger, stronger adversary will win unless there is a fairly large difference in fighting ability. And so on. All other forms of defense, from rocks to cutting to stabbing to bows all require strength, agility, ability, and skill.

But let us get down to what the Founding Fathers really meant (read the writings of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, the Anti-Federalist papers, etc.). The main purpose of an armed citizenry is to keep the powers of oppression by the government in check. We are supposed to be armed, nasty, and free. The first act of Hitler, Mussolini, and many others has been removal of the guns from the hands of honest citizens. Government cannot, will not, and does not remove guns from the hands of criminals and the insane.



The difference between the Jews in Warsaw and everywhere else is that the Warsaw Jews were successful in taking an honor guard of dead Nazis with them because they had guns and used them. This did several things: They died with honor instead of like sheep in a gas chamber – heroes in my book. They also tied up many German troops that the Nazis could not use elsewhere, which saved many Allied lives since the troops that were shooting at the Jews were not shooting at the Allies.

All governments are magnets for those who seek power and wealth. The main difference that I see is that the crooked Republicans want to take your money, but the Democrats want to take your freedom. Remember that in liberal New York you can no longer super-size a meal because someone else has determined that it for your own good. I am a rational adult human. I will determine what is for my own good and anyone else does not have my permission to make life decisions for me. I don’t understand the logic of people who want to treat children as adults while treating adults as children. Anyone who thinks that government can be trusted to make decisions for them is living in a fantasy land. The reason that you are being scared to death with horror stories about guns is that this government (and the lapdog news media) wants to take away your ability to defend yourself.

As far as ‘assault weapons’, whatever they are: if the government limits my ability to protect myself from it – then that it a good reason to rebel, for each limitation is only another step to dictatorship where I have no say in my life. I should like to point out what the news media has NOT in this country. The same day that the kook broke into the school and killed 20 people in this country the news media was full of it. The Chinese government tsk, tsked and said that we should ban guns. No one has bothered to report that the same day a kook broke into a Chinese school and killed 23 people and children with a knife. Are you ready to ban knives? My 12” kitchen knife would make a nice ‘assault weapon’. People have been killed with rocks. Are we now ready to outlaw ‘assault rocks’?

England and Australia have banned guns. Domestic violence is up. Chicago has banned guns. Murder by guns runs about 20 a week. The only people that gun bans benefit are criminals and dictators. When the sheep ban slings the wolves have a field day.

Switzerland has never been conquered. Even the Nazis ignored it – because, by Swiss law, every household is armed. Isoroku Yamamoto, Japanese commander in chief in WWII, opposed war with America, and wanted nothing to do with invasion plans for the US mainland. He had studied at Harvard and told the Japanese high command that every house in America was armed and there was no possible way to conquer the US by force.

The European model: it is of interest that if you really study the European Union, that goal of socialism that every liberal wants to rule America, you will eventually see that what Germany could not win by arms in WWI or WWII, they have finally achieved today. Total domination of the EU council and that major power of legislation equals Germany now rules Europe. Incidentally, one of the fun provisos is that if you commit an action in your own home [in your country] that is a crime elsewhere in the EU, but not in your country you can be extradited to the other country for prosecution.

Oh yeah, I should mention that if some of those teachers had been armed, the kook would have been dead before he killed all the kids. Actually, since kooks are cowards, he probably would have passed by any place that had people who could defend themselves.

Big guy kicking little guy – how long does it take the cops to get there if no one calls them? If someone does call them? Little guy has a gun – kicking does not even start.


4 Responses to “Guns”

  1. turtlemom3 Says:

    [Herself Commenting Here!] Interestingly, Dee did not OK our comments. Looking over her blog, she seems to accept only comments from her personal friends. I posted a response in her comments, and posted the link to this post of Himself’s. So, I thought I’d post my response here:

    “Hi – I thought I’d respond to you on this topic, as I am a woman and may have an understanding of your feelings.

    “Guns are hard to handle – at first. As I have autoimmune arthritis, I have problems at times with the mechanisms of a pistol or rifle when cleaning and loading. However, I take great pride in my marksmanship at the range. I enjoy making holes in targets – especially when I make them with more accuracy than someone else. Even from my wheelchair, I can shoot a rifle accurately. I couldn’t pull a bow, nor aim an arrow with accuracy, but I can squeeze a trigger. I can’t do martial arts from a wheelchair, but I can accurately aim and shoot a pistol.

    “Target shooting is fun for me. It is relaxing. After a while, however, my hands get tired, and I have to turn in my guns at the counter of the range (they rent them). It is important to me to be able to excel at SOMETHING when I am as disabled as I am. This may be the only thing.

    “As for you, only you can decide if this is something you want or need to become proficient at. I believe in self-defense, do you have thoughts about that? Once proficient at something, most of us learn to enjoy it. Perhaps as you become proficient, and learn to take pride in your accomplishment, you may come to look upon guns more positively.

    “Since you apparently are having to learn to shoot for some reason, it would help for you to be able view them more positively. Familiarity with firearms, as an adult, may bring a more positive outlook upon them. I sincerely hope so, because continuing to hate what you must do is no way to live. If you are being encouraged to learn for self-defense reasons, it is most important to become familiar, and proficient with firearms. You will need to be able to use them – instinctively. I send you good wishes.

    See? Not a “bad response, either of them. Not threatening in any way.

    We worked hard on our responses, hoping to help her.

    Perhaps she read them and has thought on them, even if she didn’t want our comments posted for the perusal of others on her site.

    God bless her!

  2. thetinfoilhatsociety Says:

    Excellent response. John Michael Greer, at The Archdruid Report on Blogspot, has a post in which he describes the negative emotions induced by slogans/taglines as “cold pricklies”; positive emotions induced by same are called “warm fuzzies.” He notes that neither emotion is conducive to rational discussion on topics about which we need to have said rational discussions.

    I guess I qualify as a “gun enthusiast.” I have grown up in a family that hunted and gardened for its food and guns have been a part of my life for nearly as far back as I remember. Yes, they ARE tools, important ones for all the reasons you mention. Banning them merely keeps law abiding citizens from protecting themselves, not keeps another Sandy Hook from happening.

    • turtlemom3 Says:

      “Warm Fuzzies” and “Cold Pricklies” were first used by Eric Berne in his books on Transactional Analysis. He was the developer of the theory of Transactional Analysis back in 1964. All others are but johnny-come-latelys.

  3. M Simon Says:

    Republicans have a big problem with plants and plant extracts. They are also prone to following preachers who are notorious for starting “crusades”.

    So they are not the liberty defenders you claim. More so than the Democrats. But they still leave a lot to be desired.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: