“There is one more thing that Chris likes about his gun. It makes him feel tough. He’s kind of a manly man, and firepower, whether you intend to use it or not, is a pretty manly thing. This is the tiniest part of why Chris is a gun owner, but it’s there, and it’s the part that I don’t like, and that I can’t approve of.” Emily D. Johnson, How I came to accept guns – to a point [via csmonitor.com]
Having guns makes me feel like I have the proper tool for a task. Like having a good screwdriver instead of an improvised one. To me guns are gender neutral.
However if guns, for the sake of argument, are male specific and “manly,” you can’t accept that? THAT is what is disagreeable and unlikable to you? Can you not accept that muscle cars make a guy feel manly? Do you not like that either?
There’s nothing wrong with you buying designer purses and getting manicures to feel girly. I don’t try to take that away from you. Why is it that anything that seems to define a man these days becomes something negative and unacceptable? Stop trying to cut our balls off.
The “manly men” in their high performance cars on 287, the Hutch, Sprain and BRP, with their speeding and weaving are more frightening to me than anything or anyone I’ve encountered on the range…
Yeah, doesn’t make sense to me, either. My wife is a mechanical engineer, but it would seem absurd to me to try to discourage her from exploring her more traditionally feminine side. If that means she buys a ludicrous pink purse or something, so be it… I want her to be happy.
“Stop trying to cut our balls off.”
Great line! Unfortunately, lots of men have already done this (figuratively) to themselves through vasectomies. I don’t get it. It’s like a dog choosing to get neutered.
You realize you still have full functionality afterwards, including testosterone production right? You just can’t spawn any more kids.
That’s why I said “figuratively”, although I think procreation would be included in “full functionality.” Look, I’m not trying to ruffle any feathers. People can do what they want. I was just saying that I don’t understand it. And, especially in the context of the topic, where the authoress is viewing a gun as a symbol of a man’s virility, instead of his ability to sire children.
I think you mean castrated.
Which I don’t believe anybody would do willingly.
Henry,
You are as ignorant of vasectomies as antis are of guns! Men usually get vasectomies after pro-creating. They do so to when they don’t want to father more children. There are many reasons for not wanting children. One is financial. They don’t want the cost or can’t afford the cost of having another child. You are judging their right to do so just like the antis judge those who exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
Like I said to Paul W above, people can do what they want.
Looks like I touched a nerve here with some folks. No offense was intended.
You touched more than a nerve, you touched a…..testicle.
“stop trying to cut our balls off”
I agree, but let’s look at what’s happening in a larger context of tens of thousands of years.
Humans and Wolves co-evolved[1] and tamed themselves into City-Slickers and Poodles. This taming process is called domestication[2], that makes a savage[3] mind (savage merely means dweller of the silva, or woods) into a goddam girlyboy Metrosexual.
I say, that if we aspire to break the bonds domestication has laid on us, STOP BEING DOGS, AND BECOME WOLVES AGAIN. You see, dogs need a master. Wolves don’t.
The Equaltarian/Egalitarian[4] power-sharing our “autonomous and sovereign”[4,5] ancestors took for granted–and is preserved in the Second Amendment–is one way of accomplishing that.
_______________
[1] Wolfgang M. Schleidt & Michael D. Shalter (2003) Co-evolution of Humans and Canids, An Alternative View of Dog Domestication: Homo Homini? Evolution and Cognition. Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 57-72
[2] Peter J. Wilson (1991) “The Domestication of the Human Species.” Yale University Press.
[3] Jack Goody (1977) The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge University Press
[4] Christopher Boehm (1999) Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Harvard University Press.
[5] Service, Elman. (1975) Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York, NY: Norton.
Shall I post a bunch of references to books and studies that show climate change is real and man caused? Wolves did not co-evolve and tame themselves. There are still many wild wolves that are not domesticated. Those that are domesticated are still savage wolves at heart. Wolves did not become dogs on their own. Humans bred them, selecting on less aggression. That does not mean that, if pushed, dogs won’t rip your eyes out. I will agree with you that men in the city have become a little pussified with respect to defending themselves but that is true in the urban areas and on farms as well. The aggression that used to be required for self-defense has been re-channelled in to business. The really girlymen won’t fight. There are plenty of girlymen who are also firearms owners. They will turn their arm in at the first request of the government. My point is that you can be domesticated and still be a savage when required. Also, on some level the city was become the woods and the savages freely roam these woods looking for easy prey.
We know that dogs (and several other species that can tolerate taming) are domesticated. We know that humans themselves are domesticated, and show the typical characteristic of selecting for less aggression — smaller cranial size.* Those facts are well-established, and this latest study, an alternative view, suggests the domestication process was actually mutual. If you want to quibble about that, fine, but argue with actual evidence. These gentlemen are only fine-tuning our understanding of the human domestication process.
I do concur with your opinion of those willing to turn in their weapons to the Standing Army backed hierarchs.
It is possible that this 2A cold-conflict will be the White Man’s Ghost Dance, but I’d rather be under the ground than under the thumb.
__________
* Kathleen McAuliffe (2010) If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? Discover Magazine.
I should have left the first sentence out of my response. I just don’t agree that domestication breeds out the savage. I also believe that to generalize with things like “wolves co-evolved” is wrong. That is an educated belief, not just an of the top-of-the-head belief. Dogs are not wolves and thus can’t be compared. Not all wolves, not even a majority in my experience, allow themselves to be domesticated. I’ve seen really aggressive wolf pups allow contact with humans but I’ve also seen seemingly docile pups become the alpha male in a pack. Domestication does not equal pussification. In humans, Aggressive females can and do seek out aggressive males and the reverse is true. One problem I have with McAuliffe and the underlying research by John Hawks is that they assume that shrinking brains mean we are getting dumber. There is no evidence to back that up. We may not be living up to our potential but that is a whole other problem. The part of our brain where the “savage” lives hasn’t changed for many thousands of years. The other parts have just allowed us to become more civil. Civility does not equal pussification. The fight or flight response is still just as effective has it ever has been.
I also would rather be in the ground than under the thumb.
If we part on the science about domestication, at least we can agree on one thing:
I’d rather be under the ground than under the thumb.
Cheers.
She’s another example of someone having the smarts educated right out of ’em.
Emily D. Johnson works in product development for a New York technology firm. She has an MFA from the University of Minnesota and a bachelor’s degree in geology from Princeton University.
Read the whole article, for those who haven’t. It’s a very non-surprising (but rather level-headed) picture of the pacified urbanite, who has never done any of the “dirty work” of real life. She’s never been on a farm, never grew up with guns, and has never left the warm fluffy marshmallow cloud of the upper-middle. Anything perceived as potentially bad is scary.
Another example of how soft people get when all the basic needs are met and new things are needed to worry about. If life was hard like 100 or even 75 years ago no one would be worried how big magazines are.
This is a plus. When life again becomes as hard as it was 75 or 100 years ago, the soft will not survive. They have no ability to hunt, fish or farm. When the shelves run dry they will be the first to starve. Those who have prepared and know how to hunt, fish and farm will survive.
All close to the truth, but to further sharpen your point, I’ll add a couple minor thoughts:
1. Collapse is actually an economizing process for those prepared. Without elaborating, I’ll refer you to anthropologist Jason Godesky’s Thesis #20: Collapse is an economizing process.
2. Farming is actually the root of the whole problem, the The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race as Jared Diamond writes. A better model for both health and food security would be gardening or permaculture.
Very true, Our pesticide laden, GE seeded, price-supported, monocultural, “industrial farming” is a huge negative. While appearing productive, it has massive inherent downsides, that while inevitable, just haven’t happened yet.
The same people who where freaking out and hoarding after storm sandy. Its also this ingrained 100% risk aversion which causes schools to close at the first snow flake.
It is really scary to think what would happen if we truely had to fight another world war or there was a real major national natural disaster. I work with people who have told me they would literally kill themselves because they do not want to be around if such a thing happened. People are being trained to loose, give up and become victims. This will be the eventual downfall of America over time, lacking the will to fight and take risks.
…says a woman who absolutely must have a new pair of shoes for every occasion or she just … doesn’t … feel … like a woman. This piece of armchair psychology is just pure drivel.
“But here’s the caveat. I know Chris. I have seen him at his best and his worst. I trust him to own a weapon made to kill, and to understand the responsibility that comes with it. I don’t feel that way about anyone else.”
So the solution is simple. Everyone who wants a gun should sleep with Miss Johnson [not pictured] until she knows them well enough to be comfortable with them owning firearms.
Haha well put, that quote flows well into her next paragraph;
“So, along with not trusting other gun owners to handle their guns properly, I also don’t trust them to shake off that feeling of power that a gun gives them – power over other lives. In the end, that’s the real problem with guns – their corrupting force.”
A very nice guilty until proven innocent mentality.
Exactly. Only it’s the guns who are guilty. Guns are evil. Guns make you do bad things. Guns are a corrupting influence. Sure… if you don’t know how to exercise self-control. I do, do you?
Liberals ‘ hoplophobia can be severe enough that it overrides any logic and disconnects them from reality. Hence why they often attribute to guns the supernatural ability to corrupt and control their users.
Based on her stated views, I’m sure you’d get more feedback humping the mattress.
More proof gun control is all about banning them for all those “other” people but not the one’s I’m OK with.
I don’t feel comfortable with idiots like this using their rights of free speech. Guess it’s time to repeal the 1A.
I had the misfortune to click on that link and then read the other article as well about a guy who is giving up his guns (and based on the content, despite his claims, has probably never hunted or fired a firearm). They seemed to be promoting a view of armed pacifism, gun owners who would never use their firearm in self defense, kinda like a homeowner who has a fire extinguisher who would never use it?!? the articles don’t seem to ring true (definitely the second one) and since I have my children and wife to defend, I would respectfully decline the concept of being a victim, armed or otherwise. If someone breaks in and I don’t have a gun handy, everything, including furniture, is a weapon of self defense and will be used as such, and if someone with children or a spouse doesn’t feel this way then there is something seriously wrong with them. You may fail to defend them in times of danger, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try!
Every now and then one of the effete “literary-esque” magazines like The New Yorker, Vanity Fair or Atlantic seems to run a first-person story about someone who “had guns all their life, and upon reflection has given them up.”
I’ve yet to see one about an urbanite who was anti-gun all their life have an epiphany and take up target shooting. Don’t tell me there’s no such thing – the Westside Range in Chelsea keeps filling up their introductory .22 rifle shooting classes.
Those stories are out there, Aaron. They’re not as common, to be sure, but they’re out there. One was posted here just the other day, from a guy who was staunchly anti-gun, but came around to “skeptical of gun control and its efficacy” and eventually all the way to anti-gun-control. I can’t remember if he went all the way into gun ownership, but he definitely went all the way to just short of actually owning one himself.
Matt, just to clarify, I was saying that the elitist literary mags never seem to have stories like that. I’ve come across stories such as the one you mentioned on TTAG and other forums, too.
In fact, I think far more anti-gunners convert to our side, than the other way around.
I’m one of those, grew up in Brooklyn, was ant gun, had the AAP brainwash me further that guns are an unnecessary evil, bought my first gun after moving to Nevada… Own a “couple” now 🙂 and as I tell my wife, just want 1-2 more to complete the collection…
That was me as a young man living in NYC, yet only vaguely, because I had no real knowledge. “Guns are bad”, you know. Years later, as I matured and began to pay closer attention to the rest of the USA, I became interested. Once I learned that NJ’s obstacles to firearms ownership were approachable, I did what was required and became a gun owner, and target shooter, and enthusiast.
Well those stories don’t exactly fit their biased narrative.
I did that. I grew up in the metro DC area and was anti-gun until I went to college. It was the usual combination of ignorance and “OMG no one needs to have that”. Then I took a couple poli-sci classes, realized our liberal masters were idiots, and that guns aren’t really the problem. When I went to work in VA a few years later, a new range opened up nearby. I purchased a .22LR pistol and took a handgun class.
Five years later, I have ten EBRs in my safe (half of them NFA) and have taken even more training. It is a wonderful feeling knowing that if there is ever a major civil disturbance such as a hurricane, I will be able to help protect my friends and neighbors until order can be re-established. I also like the idea that I can protect my family better.
I’m not an NRA member – not impressed with their local help thus far. I have joined the SAF and Maryland Shall Issue. I don’t necessarily agree with everything they all say, but I absolutely have and will exercise my rights as a concerned citizen to communicate with lawmakers about idiotic legislation that bans things protected by the 2A.
Me. I grew up in Connecticut. I was apprehensive about guns, and my parents hated them. I went to West Point and fired my first rifle. It was love at first bang. I realized immediately how stupid we had been. When I was stationed in Texas after graduation I started buying guns of all kinds, and regularly going to the range. A funny thing happened. I went from being a mediocre shot, with the infrequency that the army actually shoots despite what the Brady Bunch says this is no surprise, to being the best shot in my company…as an officer. I believe from that experience that ALL soldiers should own their own firearms and practice with them. The same is true for civilians. On their own, like I did, they can easily be more proficient than the vast majority of “highly trained” soldiers and police officers. I also decided from my experience that it was my responsibility to defend myself and my home. I would love to submit my story, although I’m sure it would never see the light of day.
I agree, but unlike you, all I had to do was read the lines posted without clicking on the link… 😉
I read that one as well and the only reaction I could summon up was “dafuq?” My guns are distantly like some other guns that were used for bad things so I gave them up…confusing chain of thought.
I know this makes me an anomaly but I have no interest in using my firearms for self defense. I will not kill another person on purpose. Hopefully not ever. That being said, I am also fully against anything that would prevent others from defending themselves in the way which they choose or not.
You’re not an anomaly, colby. I, too, hope I will not ever kill another person on purpose. The difference is I still carry a gun, instead of simply relying on hope to protect me, because I know bad things happen to good people. That’s not intended as a criticism; to each their own.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Would you defend your infant? Your wife? Your parent or sibling? Maybe not from robby, but how about rape? Not defending yourself is a personal choice, but it’s harder when you have those dependent on you that you are responsible for…
My wife has already made her decision for herself in regard to personal and home protection. I find her to be responsible and capable in making that decision. If/when we have children then I expect more discussion will be had about what we want to do.
I don’t think any responsible gun owner goes around actually looking for trouble. I would never pull a gun on someone and as a rule I dislike violence. The last thing I ever want to have to do is kill another human being.
But if it’s my life on the line, you can bet your ass I’m using whatever tools are at my disposal to defend it. If that means drawing a gun? So be it.
You’re not an anomaly… sounds like you’re a voluntarist and in good company.
I’m sure there is no one here who would advocate forcing you to own a gun.
I agree, but if some horrible future situation arises and I have to kill someone, it will most certainly be “on purpose”. The alternative is by accident.
This always bugs me:
“Chris has shown me there may be a compromise on gun control: Before you can buy a gun, you should have to be carefully licensed.”
If it requires a license then it’s not longer a civil/human right, it degrades to a mere privilege. Privileges can be revoked. at the whim of those who grant them.
Bingo. And that permission would vary greatly from administration to administration.
Yeah, and you just provided a coherent and realistic point to debate that with. In my experience people like her generally listen to points like that as long as it’s in the context of their political beliefs. ie:
“So you believe a woman’s right to protect herself should be contingent upon a man believing she needs to?”
or
“Shall issue might sound like a good idea, but it also gives cops a lot of latitude to approve or deny permits based on race, religion or gender. Good thing there aren’t any racist cops, right?”
I assume you meant “may issue?”
You mean “May issue” rather than “Shall issue”, don’t you?
Yes to both of you; my error. You can’t spend 30 years in Massachusetts without it messing with your head.
Meh. As long as she’s basically on our side I don’t care how condescending she is.
She’s not basically on our side. She’s just not rabid and frothing anti-gun anymore; there’s a big damn difference. I mean, I’m GLAD she’s moved a bit on the spectrum, but it’s not like she’s suddenly pro gun.
I wrote a longer response to this and I don’t know where it is. In short, she no longer wants to magically disappear guns. That’s the biggest move forward we can make, because we all know it’s the actual cornerstone of the “gun control” agenda.
Interesting… having a gun makes me feel more American. I come from generations of military service, and actually believe in all that patriotic stuff. I’d be military if not for the cancer. When I think about firearms, I don’t feel manly… I feel a sense of history and responsibility.
Owning firearms for me also make me feel more American. Like I’m continuing one of the great traditions of freedom. I don’t feel anything special when I carry a firearm. It’s much like having insurance. It’s just something that there if I need it.
Most of these stories are just little fables to shape public opinion on gun control. The friends are as imaginary as Manti T’eo’s girlfriend. This is a standard PSYOP/ propaganda technique enabled by the internet.
My counter-PSYOP response to Ms. Johnson remains “would you rather face a rapist with your bare hands or holding a Glock?” While the her story is about a fantasy friend mine is a hypothetical that is real possibility.
+1000
And agree about the purported paper by the classics professor who is a hunter but is giving up his guns. His description of hunting smacks far to much of 18th century American poetry, far to little of actual experience. Other little details are weird, too, as others have pointed out.
Damn, I used to regard the CS Monitor as a fairly neutral rag, a decent source of info. These fake narratives disappoint me.
You are correct. She is a sock puppet. Now everybody pick up the phone and call your elected officials again!
Ms. Johnson must feel like such a failure. There’s still the “the tiniest part of why Chris is a gun owner” that wants to feel manly. Send him back to the pussification camp immediately! We can’t tolerate pardners in the family unit who want to feel manly.
I believe the word “tough” is not actually the best choice to describe Chris’ mindset about his firearm. I believe a better description is independence. Chris knows that if a criminal challenges him, he has the means to defend his life, liberty, and property rather than submit to the criminal.
The reason I don’t like the word tough is because it is ambiguous. Some people want to be “tough” so they can bully other people. Still others want to be “tough” so that bullies will leave them alone. In my experience everyone that I know who owns firearms owns them so they can be independent, not bullies.
Yeah, but she says he would never use it in self defense, and that is one of the only reasons she tolerates it. I could live to be 1000 years old, and never understand that mindset.
If Chris really exists and someone bust down their door, I bet the first thing he does is grab the firearm.
Might want to get rid of Chris’ testicles then. What is it with women (and some men) these days. Do you want to marry a man or not? Because right along with all the manly stuff the you do like–the chivalry, the ruggedness, the providence–comes the appreciation of, nay the desire for, firepower. These things are all necessary parts of the man.
Embrace it, or marry a hamster.
Make that a “professional hampster” as in “professional machinist”. Elitist that she is, she wouldn’t settle for a mere hamster. She could use one of his beautifully crafted knives for the castration.
Oh my goodness, I read the entire article. Here is the most important quote from the article. Emily writes,
“So, along with not trusting other gun owners to handle their guns properly, I also don’t trust them to shake off that feeling of power that a gun gives them – power over other lives. In the end, that’s the real problem with guns – their corrupting force.”
Wow. Simply replace the word “gun” with something else like “car”, “gasoline container”, “high heel shoes”, or “power tie” to grasp just how irrational her mindset is.
I have firearms so that people like Emily cannot dictate the choices in my life.
So, I am preaching to the choir here, but we have millions of AR’s in private hands in the US, and a handful of of people are killed with them each year. Millions of people have CC permits, but gun crime by permit holders is almost unheard of.
So many of our countrymen are poor brainwashed sheep. Their lives and beliefs are ruled by fears that simply don’t line up with objective reality. Pacifism is a choice. Her kind of fear is a mental illness (by definition). And this is of course by design.
I’m sorry, I can no longer feel sympathy for the useful idiots who are dragging us down. “Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
a handful of of people are killed
Between gangs and gun prohibition zones–both in Blue City-Statist areas–where else are the scary black rifles used to kill Americans?
This woman is mistaking manliness for evil. It is the nature of men to protect their families and this woman wants to deny this fact.
I like having my gun with me at all times. To leave it at home would be uncomfortable. Same goes for my firearm.
Leaving home without your gun only makes you feel uncomfortable? Man, you must have a high tolerance for pain!
I like the way my grandfather put it. Treat your pistol like your pecker. Keep it clean and ready, but leave it in your pants if you don’t mean to use it.
Seems like our society has forgotten that men have a need to protect and be needed that is every bit as strong at the women’s maternal need. Men protect, women nurture. When a man carries a gun it is a natural and fulfilling act because it supports his need to protect by giving him the ability to protect. This is the feeling many of us have when we have our weapon on us out in public or even around the home. It is having a tool that allows you to protect what is yours. It is very, very satisfying and also not understandable to most women. Guns don’t nurture, they protect. By the way, this is in scripture, and I mean all through it. Examples of both what a man is supposed to do, and quite a few examples of what a man is NOT supposed to do. I find myself falling into both categories and yes, I’m working on that.
I came from a family full of “Ms. Johnsons” which includes most of the men except for a black sheep uncle or two. First, in my experience, Ms. Johnson’s ilk despise guns until they need one. Maybe in the hand of 5-o responding to a call, or maybe in the hand of a son or grandson to kill off ground hogs or coyotes that are causing problems in their gardens.
Manhood has been under attack since the 60’s. I cant wait for the Boomers to fully retire out of power and die off. They are truly the scourge of the Earth culturally and environmentally. Sadly, the “greatest” Generation launched a generation of over indulged pu $$ ies and manhaters which gave birth to a generation of “Emily Johnsons.”
It’s not just manhood, but Americanism, free will, and self reliance in general. Either one of my daughters is more a of “man” than many of the leftist academics with whom I work.
It goes even beyond that. The hell of “progress” stems from the Neolithic Revolution and the rise of Agricultural City-Statism (Civilization.)
“Agriculture creates government.” ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p. 73
“Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home.” ~Stanley Diamond, In Search of the Primitive: A Critique of Civilization, p. 1
“…we chose the latter [agriculture] and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny.” ~Jared Diamond, PhD, (UCLA School of Medicine,) The Worst Mistake In The History Of The Human Race http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race
Look punk, when we boomers pass away the world will be yours and therefore in the hands of people who cannot read, write or count. You guys are the ones who put Obama in office. We Boomers voted for the other guy. Most of us grew out of our adolescent hippy days but the younger Gen Xers and millenials will never mature past a 140 line tweet and video games.
Thus saith the old guy.
Funny, you respond with name calling instead of denying or arguing the hard truth of the damage the Boomers have done. So, answer me this, who educated the generation that can’t read, write or count? For what its worth, I am from the generation between yours and the video game generation you reference. I suppose that I am an early Gen X er. I can read, write, count, compute, and even shoot no thanks to you tree hugging free humpers. I agree that your generation finally came around after 40 years of self indulgence but it was too late. My generation and my children will have to fix everything you and yours have fvcked up. FLAME DELETED
You just proved my point. Whose picture graces the thread?
A Pew poll came out today showing a majority of 18-30 year olds didn’t know what Roe v Wade was about but they were damn certain they didn’t want it repealed.
Without boomers, including a good number of gun owners, Obama would have been a one-term President. Some of the boomers might have voted for “the other guy” but not many. It’s also a shame that the boomers can’t see past an R or a D to see that other candidates would do a much better job of running the country than both Bushs, Clinton or Obama. All four of these people were total shit.
Wrong. It was the under 30 crowd that provided the margin of victory. A majority of the boomer pulled the “R” lever. Go check the demographics.
Tdiinva,
History shows that most young people are liberal early in life. The 31 and above population is greater than the 30 and below. The boomers provided the base of the vote which allowed the youth to fill the margin to victory. But for the many boomers voting for Obama, the youth wouldn’t have been able to fill the gap. Forget that all for a moment though. There are eighty to one-hundred million gun owners in the country. They could elect any candidate they chose to. We wouldn’t be talking about a margin of victory, we’d be talking about a landslide the other way.
U.S. Census Data:
ages 18 – 24: 27,143,454
ages 25 – 44: 85,040,251
ages 45 – up: 96,944,389
Around 53% turned out to vote, which is a shame.
I can’t find percentage by age so I assume equal for all groups.
Ages 18 – 24: 14,386,030
ages 25 – 44: 45,071,333
ages 45 – up: 51,380,526
I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide who has power in voting.
It is a common mistake to work off of the average.
Close elections are won at the margin. Who was the marginal voter this time around? The low information voter, the overwhelming majority of which were under 30
I made no mistake, I only provided data. I didn’t use that data for conclusions. The point I was making is that 25 and above citizens of voting age outnumber, by a good margin, those 24 and under. Same could be said for 30 and below and 31 and above. The fact that only 53% get out and vote is just disgusting. We should not be depending on “marginal” voters to determine elections. Again, 80 million gun owners should understand the Constitution and vote with that understanding. If they did, we would never need to depend on the margins. The problem is that many boomers and gun-owner get checks from the government and as long as they get those checks, they don’t give a damn!
I am afraid you did make a mistake. Here are the exit polls. Romney carried every age group over 45. The older the bigger the Romney margin Obama carried the 25 and under group by 23 points.
Case Closed.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president
Looking at those exit polls, I do see that the below 30s went for heavily for Obama. I also see that the below thirties only make up 19% of the electorate. The above 30s only marginally went for Romney yet they make up 81% of the electorate. I’m not going to do the math right now but when the below thirties make up such a small percentage of the electorate, they really are marginal voters. The boomers make up 44% of the electorate, more that twice that of the below thirties. Yet the boomers only went for Romney by around 6 or 7 percent over Obama. Again, I’m not going to do the math right now but it looks like if just another few% of boomers would have voted for Romney, Obama would have been a one-term president. Maybe the Republican party will pop it’s collective head out of its ass and vote for a candidate that can win. From the exit polls, it is evident that the above 40’s have more Rs than Ds and thus it appears that the this group, which includes boomers put the worthless Romney in the race to begin with. We need an informed electorate. As long as we continue to focus on Rs and Ds and not on informing the electorate, nothing is going to change.
+1…wait until she and those like her are counting down the 20+ minutes until the police arrive to “protect” them, which the supreme court has said they have no responsibility or obligation to do…First time commenter, 3 week reader of this SUPERBLY done website, mainly due to the hysteria over the last major shooting. Keep up your good work; this issue has politicized me as nothing else has…
bdk. You want your parents to die off? Jeebus, you must have interesting family gatherings.
jwm, no, not really. I want them to go play golf in Florida and butt out. I can’t reply directly to tdiinva due to the thread format so here is my response. Beyond some name calling I am not sure what the point of your response was beyond an empty attempt to air out your wisdom. I recognize Mr. Eastwood as a card carrying member of the greatest generation and most definitely not a boomer. FWIW, I agree that it is unfortunate that many 18-30 olds seem to be a bit distracted but I bet they will actually remember their 20’s and get their acts together early. They really don’t have a choice considering the economic situation your generation is leaving that will take generations to get straightened out. I am also certain that their generation, like the Xers, will not adopt the scorched Earth policy of the Boomers.
Eastwood is a member of the forgotten Korean War generation not the Greatest. The reference was to Dirty Harry, you know “Do you feel lucky, Well do you punk?”
About the only mess we have left mess is our sheer bulk. The Ponzi scheme called Social Security was setup and then defended to the death by the so-called Greatest Generation.
Just remember all the fancy toys we are using to have this discussion were created by US boomers.
The meek, cowardly, and morally bankrupt in this day and age always seem to confused confidence with some sort of aggressive “manliness.” The concept of one having the personal fortitude to take responsibility for himself and stand tall is so foreign it confuses and frightens them.
Serious blinders on, and a victim of her own projections. Sad.
“So, along with not trusting other gun owners to handle their guns properly, I also don’t trust them to shake off that feeling of power that a gun gives them – power over other lives. In the end, that’s the real problem with guns – their corrupting force.”
As the late Jeff Cooper once said, the core of the problem is envy.
A gun represents force. A capable man who is armed cannot be compelled to do anything by anyone.That is a troubling thought for someone like the author, as how can everyone be equal in status under a collectivist society when some of them own weapons?
Without firearms, everyone is equally enslaved.
+1
I also have a notion that the reason underlying the modern Progressive’s antipathy towards guns and gun owners is a perverse sense of a lowest common denominator kind of equality. Since gun ownership is a choice it is fundamentally unfair that one person be safer than another because of that choice. The fact that Ms. Johnson chooses to be a helpless victim if faced by a rapist and my wife does not is simply offensive to them.
The Leftist hatred of guns isn’t any sort of “equality.”
“All men are created equal.” ~DoI
Equalitarianism/Egalitarianism means no hierarchy, i.e., Nobody Lording-It-Over Others.
Only in Egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology have anthropologists observed humans to be–and I quote 2 sources:
“autonomous and sovereign”
~ Christopher Boehm (1999) Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Harvard University Press.
“autonomous and sovereign”
~ Service, Elman. (1975) Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York, NY: Norton. online excerpt here: NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf
Here we have a fine example of the Oprah-izing of the American male. Here’s a clue, Emily Johnson: I don’t need you to define my manhood for me. That’s the essence of liberty–we all get to define ourselves as we see fit.
Emily’s complaint about Chris is childish and selfish. She doesn’t like this part of Chris? She doesn’t approve of? Emily will suddenly appreciate Chris’s affection and ownership of guns if she or others she cares about are threatened. Emily likes manly men apparently yet doesn’t want such a man to like guns enjoying the feeling of masculine power and pride that it gives him. Is she for real or just another among the legions of unrealistic, unappreciative, and dumb modern western womyn?
Emily Likes Manly Men in that it gives her the oppertunity to make them gender neutral
True. Your comment sums it up.
Well, that’s the problem with gun control right there. You can’t just get rid of guns – they were made in the fires of Mount Doom; only there can they be unmade.
+1 for the LotR reference!
What is the point, I wonder, of “accepting guns… to a point”? Is she all in, or all out?
You don’t have to be all in or all out. You can like some firearms and dislike others. It matters not what you like or dislike. If you try to force your dislikes on others via legislation is when the problem arises.
I’m beginning to think Emily has created a fictitious Chris to push some agenda personal or political.
I’m fully willing to believe that they’re both real, because I’ve known women so like her that they might as well have rolled off the same factory assembly line.
She has an inherent conflict between the values she has adopted which encourage her to be strong/independent/career-focused versus her innate desire to feel protected by a stronger partner. How to put this politely… in my experience, women like Emily also yearn to be the non-dominant sexual partner and in fact want an actively dominant partner, but have HUGE trouble reconciling this with their belief system outside the bedroom.
In that light, is it any wonder that she feels threatened by her partner’s feelings of self-reliance, strength and independence outside the bedroom?
I wouldn’t bother reading CS monitor RF they been antigun for decades. For many there very job need them to carry a gun as well.
I must admit my curiosity was aroused by the debate Re evolution and civilization, however only the later has bearing. Evolution of the type in question generally occurs at such a glacial pace that it’s unlikely to be a factor in this way. It’s not that there has been a significant change in our brain but rather in the mind. MSM and MS-culture have for at least the entirety of my life have been nothing but a drum beat against individuality and self-reliance. It seems to me that the masculine/macho/power aspect of gun ownership being discussed is in essence the feeling one gets from self empowerment, being an individual and self reliance. This is not a bad thing, but in so many ways we’re told it is that we have become blind to the concept.
This same cultural bias has also resulted in some women adopting the concept that anything that might be empowering for a man is somehow vulgar (since much of this empowerment comes from self reliance et al.)
I won’t perform the research to cite references on this and so only state my own observations and summations here, however it is my belief that the reason the culture moves in this direction is that the producers of MSM are not themselves so empowered, and thus from guilt and fear revile those who are, which causes them to attempt to repress such concepts.
I’m not ashamed to admit a feeling of personal empowerment from being armed. I am not shamed because my empowerment comes not from what I can force upon another, but rather from what they cannot so easily force upon me. You order an unarmed man, and attempt to persuade an armed one. This simply reinforces what a polite and mutually respectful society should be in the first place. What seems to be missing from the equation of armament/empowerment is morality. Mine doesn’t allow for usurping the rights of others, and thus my power is righteous beyond legitimate contempt. I strongly suspect this is true of ever gun owner who doesn’t happen to simultaneously happen to be immoral, deranged or fundamentally dishonest.
Comments are closed.