“You need to pull your balls out of your uterus lad!”
I first heard it when Her Majesty was paying for me to learn the things necessary to guarantee the sovereignty of Canada, our freedoms and the right to exercise them. Doing the honourable and manly thing.
An article in the Calgary Sun reminded me of it. (link is at the bottom of this entry.)
We all make choices about things and form opinions as well. It’s good to acknowledge our humanity and have the character to suppress our less savoury embedded characteristics.
Calling a quandry about “guy things” a moral dilemma is somewhat “annoying”.
Firstly, there are women who tend to share the same traits. So, that article is a backhanded slap to those women. Especially since there are women that made gender gains to serve in traditionally male-oriented roles.
Secondly, I am gathering that the writer may not have ever heard of how ferocious a female can be when her children are endangered. So calling men “aggressive, war-mongering and territorial” is quite questionable. Extending that a bit. I guess he’s never heard of women getting into fights with other women over “her man”. Also, ask any Constable that has ever attended a domestic dispute where a female has turned on and attacked the Constable when she was originally the complainant.
If you were to take a moment and dissect the “…sleek, sexy, killing machine…” comment? You will find someone who’s writing is misleading. You should be angered by his comments. He’s not trying to describe a firearm. He’s selling his article by hanging as many adjectives he can find to portray himself as a guy and turn the firearms-uneducated populace against an inanimate object by “offensive words”.
The article starts off “sympathetic” to men who own and use firearms. It sucks you in and then the delivery of his actual message comes. Right where it’s supposed to. Where it is meant to be be retained by you. At the end. An alternately thinly veiled and open attack on responsible firearms owners.
The writer’s comments indicate a limited knowledge about firearms and using them in a self-defense capacity. “Put one right between the eyes”. Nice subliminal “make gunowners murderous savages” rhetoric there. I could arrange for the writer to get proper training in dealing with such an encounter with a firearm being present and NOT requiring to “…put one between his eyes.” There are courses for men and women who make the adult decision regarding the most intimate decision of their lives; their and their loved one’s safety and the lawful and appropriate incorporation of a firearm in that decision. It seems readily apparent that if an intruder has gotten into the writer’s house; He didn’t take any responsible and necessary steps to prevent that from happening in the first place. Tsk-tsk-tsk.
I encourage people to be responsible for their own safety. Sadly, from what I read, the writer is someone I would not trust with a firearm. There is an apparent lack of formal training on his part. There is an apparent “projecting” of “fantasy” into his writings. Those thoughts are irresponsible and go against what is taught in sanctioned and recognized self-defense courses. The writer is promoting those on the readership and can be erronously influencing. Someone walking away thinking that “…between the eyes…” is what to do might even encourage someone to employ that action, without the benefit of the knowledge regarding the legal implications connected to such an act or the “real-world” wisdom of the suggestion.
Frankly, from reading his article, I form the opinion the writer is demonstrating no qualifications or sufficient education on the subject of firearms and self-defense to comment on the subject he is writing about.
I know a lot of people who are qualified with Concealed Carry Permits. Their character and demeanor is completely the opposite of his writings. They are decent, kind, generous and non-confrontational. There is no “blood-lust”. They are well-adjusted enough to reality to have sought formal education and accepted the responsibility for the welfare of themselves and their loved ones.
Her Majesty provided me with the skills and knowledge connected to firearms in the event I regrettably had to use them. I am grateful for it as well. I am alive today and my family unharmed because of that training. I also didn’t have to “put one between someone’s eyes” as the writer would have you think I might. The “subjects” walked away. Unharmed.
His reference to Jodie Foster alludes to the movie where she played a character that went outside the law. A vigilante. An attempt to portray someone that with access to a firearm will engage in fanciful acts. To cause fear and negative opinion among the general population about real firearms owners. His reference to her is designed to cause an “uneducated” person to draw a direct connection between FANTASY and REALITY. A typical “emotional” tactic used by the anti-gun movement to further their agenda.
Yes sir. Mr. Charlton Heston now has “cold dead hands”. When he was alive, anti-gun people feared him. He is a person that commanded respect for both his acting ability and ability to inspire and motivate right-minded and decent people. That he is derided in his passing and not able to counter these attacks speaks volumes to those who continue to attack him. They couldn’t succeed when he was alive, they won’t succeed in his death. His message and legend is entrenched. Oddly enough, he is attacked for his pro-gun defence, defending the Second Amendment and the US Constitution. Mr. Heston was of the character to stand for things he believed in. I also recall that Mr. Heston stood with black people, like Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., in the 60’s when they were standing for their rights. Ommission of convienience for the purposes of the article? Hmmmmmmm?
I wholeheartedly agree with the writer. Let’s deal with the problem. Attacking the responsible and well-adjusted in their choices isn’t a solution.
The criminals and their origins are the problem. Lies, half-truths and propogating them are the problem. Discriminating against well-adjusted and responsible citizens is the problem. Denying a well-rounded and factual education to our youth is the problem. Socio-economic problems contribute to the problem. The decay of the family-unit is the problem. The ruination of the concept of personal responsibilty is the problem.
Calling the facts and truths “classic lines” is the typical attempt to inject emotional, irrational and non-sensical hyperbole into the argument. No matter how many times a firearms owner says the “classic lines”? It is the same thing. The truth doesn’t change.
Those facts are an “inconvienient truth” to the far-left spectrum of Canada. It is easier for them to deny it and sneer at the facts about firearms and their place in society. The anti-gun types will predictably “change” their presentation of their arguments in order to “market” their “by-product”. Hoping that the “uneducated” will pick up that “by-product” and blindly parrot it without realizing the “by-product” as the deception for what it is.
If you are reading this and quietly realize that you find yourself among the “uneducated” about firearms? Below are some links I strongly encourage you to visit. Spend a few minutes and immerse yourself in them. Consider the facts they present and decide for yourself.