I love the recent “op-ad” that highlights Hollywood’s Hypocrisy as it attempts to batter the run-of-the-mill gun owner.
“Demand a plan!” they say.
HA, How I adore the absurd!
This is classic, destined to be super-classic, if you ask me.
I avoid violence, always have. I joined the Peace Corps, not the Military. Never liked any of the Westerns, cop shows, horror flicks, none of them. I had to leave the theatre to vomit and then wait in the car for 1.5 hours at one Quentin Tarantino film. That’s when I gave up even trying anymore. It was a bit embarrassing, but I don’t apologize.
Circumstances have required I become a gun-owner and learn to shoot. The first time, at an indoor range outside New Orleans after Katrina, aimed at a target, I cried. It was automatic. Me, not the rifle. Some people view me as particularly sensitive, but overall there are few, if any, who would consider me wimpy.
Still I used my rifle less than a week ago, for reasons of actual real-life intimidation. It was nearly 3am, the dogs barked, but didn’t chase, an unusual sign. I peeped out the window, there was a car stopped at the end of the drive. I was alone, we are on a dirt road leading no where significant, there is no reason for anyone to be stopped there at that hour.
What to do? I wait and listen. Then I’m certain I hear a girl yelling for help. I flood the yard with lights, open the door to hear better, put on my robe, grab the gun.
What other choice do I have? Call the police? It would take them 30 minutes, bare minimum, in optimum conditions, to arrive here. I’m alone, I could call neighbors, I guess. What will they do? Grab their guns? Call the police?
With training we can overcome these cellular responses that for some, like myself, show up as an innate abhorrence of violence. Should I ever in one breath shun gun-ownership while earning my living glamorizing violence, as in these actors cases, please, shoot me. Seriously.
What a person isn’t willing to do for a fat paycheck. It’s truly astounding. I will remain astounded until the end of my days.
I wonder, are we the people, the wee commoners, really that violent?
Certainly I don’t wish to test the fates in this auspicious New Year, but I can count no less than half a dozen times where I was in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing with the wrong people, and violence broke out only once, and it was exceptionally contained between the violent participants.
What is this constant mass mayhem Hollywood is trying to sell us? Why does our government seem to be appreciating and promoting this cultural policy so much, with their criminal behavior abroad and scandalous behavior in our very backyards?
I demand a plan of my own! Arm yourselves people, to the hilt, because anyone grown up in an authoritarian environment knows, Do as they DO, NOT as they Say.
owning guns is not advocating violence, it’s leveling the playing field.
Believe the ones who have been there and done that, not the talking heads on TV telling you all is as it should be!
If you want a debate on "gun violence" I'm all for that, but understand what we are debating, and who is the enemy.
You know it sister!
Let's start the debate on "gun violence" right here!
Comments are closed or deactivated
Mishelle,
So what happened when you went out in your robe with your gun?
Don’t leave us in suspense.
Once again well said!!!!! Please keep shouting the obvious to counteract the mainstream propaganda machine.
I’m glad you asked, Joey! I’m still not sure what to make of it all, but when I’d gotten half-way across the yard, walking toward the drive in full-light, it took a couple minutes and I kept expecting someone to say something. If they were in trouble certainly they’d announce themselves, but it was total silence. Then a kid said, “there’s a lady coming.” But still no ask for help, so I expected mischief and I shot the gun twice in the opposite direction of the car. Then he said: “we gotta go,” and they pulled away.
thanks KH, will do
Mishelle - coincidentally on SFGate http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Violent-media-poisoning-nation-s-soul-4160035.php
Those of us who support strong gun control are NOT trying to take away guns from someone like yourself. The situation you describe is a legitimate purpose for gun ownership and gun control advocates are not denying that. To brush all gun control efforts with a broad stroke like that is to lower the debate.
Marianne, there is no public debate and there never will be, so how can I lower it? They government will do exactly what it has planned, Aurora and Sandy Hook as well as 911 were False Flag Ops. There is no chance to get a real debate with “I demand a plan” video presentations compiled by “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” . This issue was never about illegal guns, it is not about “lone crazed shooters”, it is not about guns for personal protection or hunting. It’s about the 2nd Amendment and the DUTY of American citizens to take up arms against an enemy, foreign or domestic, including our own criminal government. Please, I urge you to read Naomi Wolf!
Marianne,
If you and those like you embrace “Strong gun control” as a solution or even as a partial solution to what should be the larger debate you’ve missed the point.
That larger debate should be about violence in our society as promoted by our government, media, and economic oppression.
By supporting “Strong gun control” you have allowed yourself to become an agent to the same government whose deeds include giving guns to Mexician drug cartels, killing women and children at Waco, and countless for profit wars.
Be careful of the comany you keep and their real motives.
Marrianne We have 2000 gun laws on the books . The only people that would obey more laws are the law abiding honest citizens that would never use their guns to hurt an innocent person or animal. So now tell me ,what kind of laws would you implement that would target the criminals who pay no attention to the 2000 guns laws we already have?
Michelle,
I have avoided commenting about some of your political statements.
I admire your integrity and your beautiful writing. But, conscience compels me to respond to your statement:
“It’s about the 2nd Amendment and the DUTY of American citizens to take up arms against an enemy, foreign or domestic, including our own criminal government.”
I disagree with you, wholeheartedly. There is no duty to take up arms against our government. That is bullshit. You are making stuff up.
We have an obligation to use the ballot and the court system to hold our government accountable. It is not easy. But, I revere Martin Luther King, who faced far more injustice that you can possibly imagine. He was non-violent and he successfully used the court system and the ballot box to change the awful laws in our country.
Joey, I am not making this up, I promise you, I would never do that. Please read Principle Two of Naomi Wolf’s Give Me Liberty: Personal Risk in Defense of Liberty. Even Ghandi advocated violence against tyranny, look it up. As for MLK, I admire him and non-violence above all. But unfortunately times have changed since then, for the worse–we are not even allowed to march and PEACEFULLY gather as was done then. If this is not about gradually shaving away at our civil liberties, then why are we seeing them rewritten without our consent, one by one? The entire system is bought and sold, the courts are as bound as we are by the Patriot Act, NDAA. We have been trying to change the awful laws, but they are only getting worse, how is that?
here is a good read on the topic of 2nd:
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2013/01/the-true-meaning-of-the-second-amendment-and-it-isnt-for-sport-or-hunting
“There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
“Usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers” — not Bambi, not burglars.”
posted by GraniteGrok.com
Grannie, thanks for your comment and info. I’m shocked! So many laws and still gun violence, and yet, laws on other things, like prostitution, marijuana and drugs and past liquor prohibition are so very effective. It’s so puzzling!
Well said Mishelle. Laws only restrict the law abiding citizen, not the people that would do harm. I am against ANY gun control, there is no compromise. I took a oath to defend the constitution against all enemies and I will uphold that oath at all costs.
How come all of these shootings have taken place in gun free zones? I am waiting for a anti gun person to answer this one simple question. Also how come no one mentions the school shooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas? The shooter was stopped by a principal with a weapon.
Joey you say, “There is no duty to take up arms against our government.” It would seems the founders of this government would disagree. Just a few quotes from a couple of men that saw tyranny in their day: (many more similiar quotes just use google)
■“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” — George Washington
■ “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson)
■“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787)
I agree with you when you further say, “We have an obligation to use the ballot and the court system to hold our government accountable.” However, the founding fathers had the foresight to gauranteed us additional rights (as in the right to bear arms) if our ballots are corrupted and the court system circumvented.