Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. ^ | 12-28-2002 | Sarah Thompson, M.D.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Inanimate objects don’t kill people, PEOPLE kill people.

Good article.

[paul51]

I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type rescue me

Only a woman who has never been raped or never knew anyone who was raped would say something so stupid.

[EBUCK]

Oh, but animate fears of inanimate objects certainly do.

EBUCK

[elbucko]

Your honesty about firearms is commendable. I think you sell yourself short. Part of marksmanship is kinda "Zen". Therefore, knowing ones self is a big step. As for the rest of your post, I concur. Firearms are a right protected by the Constitution. Until the 2nd. is repealed, I will avail myself of this right. When the 2nd. is repealed, I will become an activist to repeal the Bill of Rights entirely. Starting with the 1st.

[elbucko]

I stand corrected.

[Dimensio]

I think you sell yourself short. Part of marksmanship is kinda "Zen". Therefore, knowing ones self is a big step.

Well, I don't think myself a hopeless cause. If I were to seek gun ownership, however, I would first make sure that I knew how to keep my temper in check AND I would attend gun safety and marksmanship courses.

Firearms are a right protected by the Constitution. Until the 2nd. is repealed, I will avail myself of this right.

I've been meaning to ask someone about this. The 2nd Amendment refers to the 'right to keep and bear arms', but 'arms' is not defined. I certainly don't buy into the liberal bull about 'arms' referring only to flintlock pistols and muskets, but I am curious as to whether there is a large consensus on the limitations of 'arms'. Certainly I wouldn't expect many here to attempt justification of an individual's right to keep and bear nuclear arms, but what of military-grade munitions? I don't mean to start a fight, as I'm not about to argue with any answers to the question, but I'm curious as to what kind of 'arms' most people think are protected under the 2nd?

[Fiddlstix]

Great Post!
Thanks

[EBUCK]

My opinion is that the right to keep and bear arms coupled with various writings of the founders is that we, the people, are to make up the armed forces without actual enlistment in any sort of government agency...a militia by definition.

As such we should keep and maintain most up to date military weaponry available as we are the armed force of record. Doing so would serve a dual purpose. Defense of the nation from foriegn invasion/aggression. And opposition to tyranny. Both purposes are well documented as the intentions of the founders.

EBUCK

[cajun-jack]

all of them!!!!!

[jonascord]

BTTT

[wjcsux]

Sounds like your typical RAT to me. Great article.

[EBUCK]

one more thing...

'[a] well regulated' used to have nothing to do with the government...is was used in reference to the mainaining of equipment..or in this case, in todays words, it would read

'a well maintained and equipped militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'

EBUCK

[Reeses]

People who identify themselves as "victims" harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, whom they perceive as "not victims."

This is a really good article. I would love to see this author get into the minds of Democrats in general.

There are other benefits to playing victim, such as entry and acceptance into many status-bearing social circles. Playing victim can make you many new friends quickly. Probably the biggest payoff in playing victim is that it removes a huge load of responsibility off your shoulders, and earns you the right to complain if things don't go well. This is classic passive-aggressive behavior which women seem drawn to, either through genetic disposition or by social programming by their mothers, or a combination. A passive-aggressive strategy is a poor one long term, usually with far below average results. If women and minorities want to take social progress to the next level they have to stop using a passive-aggressive strategy and start taking personal responsibility for their decisions.

[EBUCK]

This is a really good article. I would love to see this author get into the minds of Democrats in general.

Never happen, at least not in front of an audience. Too risky, letting somone with a few real insights debate say, Sarah Brady, would blow the whole boat out of the water. Not that Mrs. Brady is an actual heavy hitter, just another usefull idiot.

There are other benefits to playing victim, such as entry and acceptance into many status-bearing social circles. Playing victim can make you many new friends quickly. Probably the biggest payoff in playing victim is that it removes a huge load of responsibility off your shoulders, and earns you the right to complain if things don't go well. This is classic passive-aggressive behavior which women seem drawn to, either through genetic disposition or by social programming by their mothers, or a combination. A passive-aggressive strategy is a poor one long term, usually with far below average results. If women and minorities want to take social progress to the next level they have to stop using a passive-aggressive strategy and start taking personal responsibility for their decisions.

Great analisys! And just for the record I'm thinking that the behaviour is taught, as a form of effective manipulation, by mothers to daughters and re-inforced by daughter crazy fathers. I can personally attest to the strumming of my heart strings when my little girl cries victim, "almost" every time.

Any ladies have any insight here?

EBUCK

[aruanan]

Excellent1 Thanks for posting it.

[Reeses]

military-grade munitions

The arms should be suitable for overthrowing tyranny from within over a period of time. Small concealable weapons and sniper rifles might be the best for that. It’s not useful to have bazookas and large battlefield weapons since there probably is no way to organize a besieged citizen force large enough to use brute force.

[Clint N. Suhks]

but 'arms' is not defined

It is because it’s modified by the word ‘bear’ which means to wear. And since you can’t wear a cannon it’s hard to imagine the framers had anything much larger than a firearm, knife, ax… in mind.

[redbaiter]

A keeper! Thanks!

[buffyt]

GUN REFRESHER COURSE A to Z
A. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
B. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
C. Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface.
D. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
E. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
F. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
G. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
H. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
I. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
J. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
K. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.
L. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
M. 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
N. Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
O. Know guns, Know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
P. You don't shoot to kill; You shoot to stay alive.
Q. 911 - government sponsored Dial a Prayer.
R. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
S. Criminals love gun control - it makes their jobs safer.
T. If Guns cause Crime, then Matches cause Arson.
U. Only a government that is afraid of it's citizens try to control them.
V. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
W. Enforce the "gun control laws" in place, don't make more.
X. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
Y. The American Revolution would never have happened with Gun Control.
Z. "....a government by the people, for the people....."

[oldcomputerguy]

Great article indeed and very timely.

Unfortunately I work with someone who thinks people are out to get him. I now understand him better.