A Liberal but well written blog "Gun Advocacy and the Loss of Personal Control"

[ccw9mm]

His summary reads something like this: We have all "lost control" (whatever that means), hence we are "failures" in a psychological sense. We have all "lost control", hence we cling to our guns as a metaphor to regain control. Here is the unwritten conclusion: Since we are "failures" emotionally, we are "dangerous" "emotionally" hence we should not be allowed guns, which make us more "dangerous".

Well, he's right in many ways, though I'm sure he doesn't appreciate the manner in which he's correct on these points:

1. We have all "lost control": Hence being armed against violence against us, as a direct, simple and (as it turns out) final opportunity to regain the opportunity to continue to have a life. Worth being branded "controlling" or "compensating" by the ignorant, I'd say.
   
   
2. We are "failures" (in an apparent psychological sense): The only objective "failure" under an upraised knife is to unsuccessfully stop the crime against us.
   
   
3. Clinging to guns as a metaphor for control: See point #1.
   
   
4. (According to R&G, the unstated conclusion is that ...) We should not be allowed guns because that would make us "more dangerous": Well, duh. To the violent criminals seeking to take our very lives, you bet. That's the whole point, to make it far less likely for them to succeed.

So "gun advocate" is a false choice. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they get? Any debate must point out the fallacies of those who attack 2A.

Yup. Psychobabble, mostly. Uh, the psych dude's arguments, that is.

And though he'd also not get this (I'm betting): I'm not a "gun advocate." I'm an advocate of freedom.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Hopyard]

Many years ago I lived with and almost married a Psychiatrist: PhD and all. Met many of her piers over those years. I can tell you from personal experience they are all really nice good & caring people and just about every one of them is a brick or two short of a full load. Guess it proves you have to join them to help them.

Everyone on earth is a brick or two short of a full load. Our astronaut corp, a group which has certainly been
amongst the most tested and vetted of any on earth ever, has produced a couple of uh, eh, looking for the word--
criminals for sure and weird ones too. There is no one walking around who is totally sane. The dangerous folks are
the ones who don't understand that they have shortcomings.

[Maverickx50]

Everyone on earth is a brick or two short of a full load. Our astronaut corp, a group which has certainly been
amongst the most tested and vetted of any on earth ever, has produced a couple of uh, eh, looking for the word--
criminals for sure and weird ones too. There is no one walking around who is totally sane. The dangerous folks are
the ones who don't understand that they have shortcomings.

Everyone but you and me..But, Sometimes I wonder about you. LOL Just kidding. Besides is sane is average and we look around at what passes for average these days I don't wish to be included in that group.

[Rock and Glock]

Hey, we're all crazy! We all recognize and appreciate that! I'm worried about the one that doesn't recognize that.

[l1a1]

To call making a conscious decision to defend you and yours some kind of mental shortcoming is ludicrous to me. To deny that evil exists and at times needs to be met with violence is foolish but people have the right to make that decision. They do not have the right to take that right from me.

[suntzu]

First of all the blogger or shrink has no military background. His family does. And that has nothing to do with gun rights. The about persoanl control I understand. But he has it misplaced here. We all like to be in control. I would rather have someone hit me over the head with a hammer than have to wait in line where I am not in control.

And quite honestly, if the government were to ban refridgerators or you had to go to a class and regisster one to own one you would be just as upset as firearms. The point is we do not want the government controlling what law abiding citizens do.

[Hopyard]

Everyone but you and me..But, Sometimes I wonder about you. LOL Just kidding. Besides is sane is average and we look around at what passes for average these days I don't wish to be included in that group.

My grandfather used to tell me that if one person calls you nuts you can ignore them. If fifty people are calling you nuts
its time to start considering that they might be right.

[Pistology]

So how many are you up to?

Control freaks notwithstanding, too many who attack 2A dismiss the benefits of responsible gun ownership over the evil that stalks the world.

[mano3]

He's right about losing control - the ability for me to take control of a bad situation until the cops arrive...

I don't want to lose that control!

[ccw9mm]

... too many who attack 2A dismiss the benefits of responsible gun ownership over the evil that stalks the world.

And I'll bet there's a sizable percentage of them that would otherwise claim to be willing to walk through fire to save their own children or other family members, if violently attacked.

My question for those types has always been: Yeah ... with what? With what you don't have with you and/or aren't capable of using effectively, even if you're about to lose your only child or your very life?

[Exacto]

Spoken like a true liberal. Loss of control over one's own life = loss of freedom. And history is repleat with examples of governments giving way to tyranny and turning on it's own citizens. Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.