Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Anti-Gun Male


SnyderShrugged

Recommended Posts

http://www.selfdefenseforums.com/forums/printthread.php?t=480

I got a kick out of this one.

***********Please note this is satire********

The anti-gun male

http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- 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.

JWR contributor Julia Gorin is a journalist and stand-up comic residing in Manhattan. Send your comments by clicking here.

Julia Gorin Archives

© 2002, Julia Gorin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PleaseBlitz and rincewind, Please elaborate.

It is meant as a satire, but what in particular do you discount?

Are YOU the anti-gun males?

Yes, i am anti-gun. And this a**wipe questions my masculinity just because i don't particularly care to carry a gun and/or hurt my fellow human beings. What a waste of precious bodily fluids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, i am anti-gun. And this a**wipe questions my masculinity just because i don't particularly care to carry a gun and/or hurt my fellow human beings. What a waste of precious bodily fluids.

Let me start by saying that I respect your personal decision to not carry a gun. I hope that you don't want to force your views on others though.

I think her point was in response to statements like..

"men who carry guns are compensating for small P...."

Why do you equate carrying a gun with hurting your fellow human beings?

What about all the "evil guns" that have saved private citizens over and over from being killed, raped, robbed, etc?

Even though you chose not to carry a gun, do you reject an individual's right to keep and bear arms overall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PleaseBlitz and rincewind, Please elaborate.

It is meant as a satire, but what in particular do you discount?

Are YOU the anti-gun males?

SnV I totally agree with your stance on gun issues but this tactic is kind of lowly in my opinion, though I agree saying men that carry guns are trying to compensate is stupid too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The author undermines her own point about who's compensating for what by equating lack of gun ownership with emasculation.

I support responsible gun ownership fully, but this article fails, in my mind, to make a legitimate case for that right. When she could point out the comparative safety of a well cared for firearm to, say, automobiles, she resorts instead to name-calling and questioning of one's manliness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SnV I totally agree with your stance on gun issues but this tactic is kind of lowly in my opinion, thought I agree saying men that carry guns are trying to compensate is stupid too.

What "tactic" Liberty??

I posted a satire piece from a comedian as something I found funny? She was teasing those who say the whole compensation line.

The only "tactic" I used was to respond to vitriol over the thread topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PleaseBlitz and rincewind, Please elaborate.

It is meant as a satire, but what in particular do you discount?

Are YOU the anti-gun males?

I think that the premise of this article was to say that people that dont carry guns are somehow weaker than those that do.

I dont see how buying a piece of metal from WalMart makes you tough. Just like people that own Harley motorcycles. YOU BOUGHT SOMETHING, you didnt get tougher. I think its just the oppsosite. You need to carry your big bad gun for what? So people dont mess with you? You cant protect yourself without your gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try not to push my opinion on anyone (not saying i don't - i just TRY not to). As for the "small penis" thing - i've never said that and don't believe it, so i take offense to being lumped in with those people; as it is an idiotic stance - same goes for people who claim this is why some men drive sports cars.

I equate carrying guns to hurting because that is there SOLE purpose - i said humans because that was the arguement she was making in this case.

And yes i would love to see gun bans. The King of England ain't coming back and we have no need for militias. Don't get me wrong, i understand the need for protection, but i think we should make more of an effort to get guns off the streets and then there will be no need for them in the home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author undermines her own point about who's compensating for what by equating lack of gun ownership with emasculation.

I support responsible gun ownership fully, but this article fails, in my mind, to make a legitimate case for that right. When she could point out the comparative safety of a well cared for firearm to, say, automobiles, she resorts instead to name-calling and questioning of one's manliness.

OMG!! I can't believe you guys are taking this as a serious article!

Lighten up folks! It was found funny by me and I posted it (maybe in error)

I never intended for the negative reaction!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes i would love to see gun bans. The King of England ain't coming back and we have no need for militias. Don't get me wrong, i understand the need for protection, but i think we should make more of an effort to get guns off the streets and then there will be no need for them in the home.

I think the article was as ludicrous as you do, but gun bans don't keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG!! I can't believe you guys are taking this as a serious article!

Lighten up folks! It was found funny by me and I posted it (maybe in error)

I never intended for the negative reaction!

It didn't really strike me as humor. Maybe you ought to make that a little more clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What "tactic" Liberty??

I posted a satire piece from a comedian as something I found funny? She was teasing those who say the whole compensation line.

The only "tactic" I used was to respond to vitriol over the thread topic.

Not your tactic, but the tactic the writer used, but whatever it isn't a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the article was as ludicrous as you do, but gun bans don't keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

I know its a fantastical view to have - but like i said clean up the streets and then we have no need for guns in the home. I know its not going to happen, just wishful think on my part that humans will one day realize they really don't have to hurt each other.

edit: thanks a lot Vegas - due to this thread i lost my Cooley avatar. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try not to push my opinion on anyone (not saying i don't - i just TRY not to). As for the "small penis" thing - i've never said that and don't believe it, so i take offense to being lumped in with those people; as it is an idiotic stance - same goes for people who claim this is why some men drive sports cars.

I equate carrying guns to hurting because that is there SOLE purpose - i said humans because that was the arguement she was making in this case.

And yes i would love to see gun bans. The King of England ain't coming back and we have no need for militias. Don't get me wrong, i understand the need for protection, but i think we should make more of an effort to get guns off the streets and then there will be no need for them in the home.

Unfortunately, I caused a gundebate by my responses. I apologize.

One hypothetical scenario as to the spirit of the second ammendment.

What if the current administration and/or congress decided that there would be no new elections and those currently in power simply refuse to leave?

What would be the recourse of the people the government is intended to protect?

This question was posted to a friend of mine who has been anti-gun forever.

He really became troubled and called me to talk about it.

It started some really great dialog where we both tried to understand each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know its a fantastical view to have - but like i said clean up the streets and then we have no need for guns in the home. I know its not going to happen, just wishful think on my part that humans will one day realize they really don't have to hurt each other.

So in other words, your support for gun control is purely emotional, facts be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I caused a gundebate by my responses. I apologize.

One hypothetical scenario as to the spirit of the second ammendment.

What if the current administration and/or congress decided that there would be no new elections and those currently in power simply refuse to leave?

What would be the recourse of the people the government is intended to protect?

This question was posted to a friend of mine who has been anti-gun forever.

He really became troubled and called me to talk about it.

It started some really great dialog where we both tried to understand each other.

If our government does something so ridiculously autocratic rights are pretty much thrown out the window anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I caused a gundebate by my responses. I apologize.

One hypothetical scenario as to the spirit of the second ammendment.

What if the current administration and/or congress decided that there would be no new elections and those currently in power simply refuse to leave?

What would be the recourse of the people the government is intended to protect?

This question was posted to a friend of mine who has been anti-gun forever.

He really became troubled and called me to talk about it.

It started some really great dialog where we both tried to understand each other.

That is just as a fantastical example as me saying "take the guns off the streets and then there is no need for them in the home." Ain't going to happen, no need to ponder it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is just as a fantastical example as me saying "take the guns off the streets and then there is no need for them in the home." Ain't going to happen, no need to ponder it.

But you do understand that the intent of the second ammendment wasnt to protect the people from England, but to give the people an option to thwarting an overpowering government, right?

I think this is lost on many people and it's very important to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, not emotions. :rolleyes:

Out of curiousity, what facts are you referring to?

Perhaps he was referring to the fact I alluded to that criminals obtain guns illegally and will continue to do so regardless what laws are put in place.

Enforce the laws better, you say? That's what they're trying to do with marijuana and it's kept the sticky icky out of my hands real well... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiousity, what facts are you referring to?

Countless of studies, from both sides of the political debate I might add. The CDC came out with a report on gun control 2/3 years ago. Guess what the conclusion was; they grudgingly acknowledge that gun control laws were ineffective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...