The power of one image. (NSFW)

This is not gun-related but at the same time it is a teaching moment. Take a look at this pic:
femen-bishopAnd the story for context from Hot Air:

A group of naked women bum-rushed Belgian Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard while he was speaking in Brussels and doused him with water from bottles shaped like the Virgin Mary on Tuesday.

The women were reportedly feminist protesters from the Ukranian-based FEMEN group, which is known for organizing topless protests against the Catholic Church and others.

According to AFP, the four protesters charged the archbishop during “a debate on blasphemy and freedom of expression held at the Brussels’ Free University (ULB) campus Tuesday evening, baring their breasts and squirting water at Archbishop Andre Leonard as they accused him of homophobia.”

Photos of the event show Leonard patiently sitting quietly with his eyes closed and hands folded in prayer as the women empty bottles of water on his head and clothes.

Powerful image. The hate displayed in the faces of the women and the passive posture of the Archbishop resonates deeply. No matter how good or truthful the message the women were trying to publicize or even if the Archbishop is a true hater, the guttural reaction one gets is that hate came topless to that occasion. Those women lost control of the message and a ton of points among the regular people.

Why do I bring this? We are now revving up for a new round of Gun Control efforts. We Gun Owners will be vilified like never before and with the full force of the Main Stream Media supporting the efforts. They will set us up and try to make us look like brutes, inbred morons that cannot be trusted with such dangerous artifacts. We are to be the Negroes of Jim Crow legend, the wearers of Yellow Stars and Pink triangles in old Berlin, suspected Japanese in the interned in camps on the West Coast of Franklin Delano times. We cannot afford to give them a chance by losing our cool no matter how much they poke at us.

But we are not naked. Technology now places a video camera in almost every phone where we can gather evidence and upload it to the never-ending webs before the TV crew makes it back to the station. (I do need to get me a darn smart phone) We can fight back and we can use the most powerful of weapons: The Truth.

Just be cool and smile, don’t fall for their tricks, probes or pokes. They are looking for a bad reaction to display during the nightly news and have a bunch of politicians and gin grabbers say “See! Told ya so!”  We carry, we own and we have learned to be patient, that alone will drive them nuts; being polite will unhinge them…and that is when we get our pics and videos.

Anyway, I hope you guys and ladies had a nice rest ’cause we are facing another round of stupidity by the Antis.

UPDATE: I guess I did not make myself clear enough in here and in the comments and they degenerated into a Gay Marriage argument that was NOT the intention of the post.

Comments are now closed for this post.

20 Replies to “The power of one image. (NSFW)”

  1. Yep, gays never hurt anybody. Right?

    Fun fact: most violence against homosexuals is perpetrated by… other homosexuals.

    Also I’m of the opinion that the “straight” and “gay” labels are stupid and making the whole issue worse. There’s no “heterosexual” or “homosexual.” A man who finds other men sexually attractive is no different, in my mind, from a man who finds women with red hair sexually attractive.

    And men who happen to be attracted to red-haired women don’t get some special right to marry them just because they’re attracted to them. The woman in question may be too young, already married, or simply not interested. I personally find it offensive that some people think they should get to marry whoever they want just because they have an odd fetish. Kind of like fursuiters.




    0



    0
  2. “And men who happen to be attracted to red-haired women don’t get some special right to marry them just because they’re attracted to them.”

    Men that marry redheads are a special kind of victims and should have our pity. 😉




    0



    0
  3. The problem with your reasoning, Volfram, is that a man with an attraction to red-haired women isn’t given special access to marriage… but a woman with an attraction to red-haired women is denied that same access.

    A marriage contract is a contract. As long as all parties are consenting, what fraking business is it of the government? In a truly free society, government should only become involved in a marriage contract when it would in any other contract — when their is a dispute that requires an impartial, civil court to resolve. So, divorce and probate, basically.

    I don’t want some petty ministry in Washington telling me what kind of food to eat, toilets to buy, guns I can own… and I certainly don’t want them tellingme what kind of sex I can have. The stuff inside my waistband is no concern of anyone — be it my “wedding tackle” or my revolver — as long as I don’t harm anyone with either one.




    0



    0
    1. A woman with an attraction to red-haired women still has the same rights as any other woman to marry a man whether she loves, likes, or is remotely attracted to him or not, and she still has the same rights as any other woman(or man) to find a consenting red-haired woman and engage in wild and vigorous fornication.

      While I don’t think he’d be pleased about the comparison, voice actor J. Michael Tatum is an example. He and his boyfriend have been together for upwards of ten years, living in the same house, and I assume they care deeply for each other, and have a lot of sex. They are not married. And I don’t really have a problem with that.

      Marriage is, and has always been, a RELIGIOUS construct, regardless of what politicians and other people would like to say. As such, only churches have any business defining or recognizing it. I would argue the fact that a marriage is a politically recognized contract at all violates separation of Church and State, and that a lot of the privileges married couples enjoy should either be eliminated or made much more general.(For example, the oft-mentioned hospital visitation rights. I argue “family” shouldn’t just up and be allowed, but a patient should be allowed to create a list of individuals they would like to give those rights to.)

      Granting people with only a particular fetish the right to marry whoever they want is, in my opinion, abusive to members of another fetish: If you are not going to forbid marriage between individuals based on the sexes of the individuals, it is WRONG to forbid marriage between individuals based on age, species, quantity, or living status.

      That is, gay marriage is a social WRONG if you don’t also support pedophile marriages, beastial marriages, polyamorous marriages, incestuous marriages, and necrophiliac marriages. I also think nonconsentual marriages should be allowed.




      0



      0
    2. the problem with your reasoning is that it excludes historical context. Without exception, every society that embraced homosexuality as normal life style fell, and fell horribly. That would include Rome, and Greece to mention two of N. All you have to do is look around at the parabolic decline of morality, honesty, and integrity, and it is directly linked to perverseness of the American sexual culture.
      So it is the business of the people to attempt to keep societal destruction from happening, if there are enough moral people willing to stand against it. The problem are a majority of people that wrongly think like you. As Sodom and Gomorrah went, so will America. Count on it.




      0



      0
    3. The pervasive belief as marriage being about love is false. Marriage is about labor. In particular the man trades his excess of production and labor for the nine months of reproductive labor of the female. It is impossible for there to be a contract of marriage between homosexuals since reproduction is not possible.

      If we are to make changes to a civilization, we must first be willing to undertake the long term efficacy of any changes. Too often gay marriage is not considered on lines of its consequence to marriage itself, which is and always has been, a statist convention. Instead the argument is one of moral virtue with a complete lack of consideration for the social ramifications.

      To view morality as superior to logic is foolhardy. Instead, let’s consider that marriage, if made gay, will have the long term consequence to dilute the definition of marriage even further, to erode the population, and to effectively end marriage in any meaningful way. To state it bluntly, if men perceive marriage to be gay, straight men won’t do it.

      Civil unions? Yes. Inheritance rights? Certainly. But to marry? Can we so certain of the result?




      0



      0
        1. Do you also advocate allowing marriages between people and animals, men and young girls, close family members, people and corpses, and one person with a person who hates and/or is terrified of them?

          Because otherwise that’s not equal, you’re singling out homosexuals and giving them extra and special rights beyond what heterosexuals have.




          0



          0
          1. I advocate letting consenting parties enter into contracts with one another, without bias. You keep ignoring my use of the word “consenting.”

            Animals cannot consent, children cannot consent, the dead cannot consent, a person who is under duress cannot consent.

            I don’t care if its a contract to sell a parcel of land, provide landscaping services, or on how to divy up property and childcare. A contract is a contract is a contract.

            The only role for the government, in a free society, when it comes to contracts is acting as a neutral arbitrator when a dispute arises. That’s the core minarchist philosophy, and I cannot help but see most of our current marriage laws as violations of the nonagression principle. Using the force of the state to compel behaviors from people because you find those behaviors icky is aggression by proxy.

            If you are a regular reader of this blog, you probably agree with me that using force of law to deny people the right to effective self-defense is evil. You probably also agree that using force of law to censor unpopular politics or religion is evil. You probably don’t give a rat’s ass about what people drink, smoke, eat, etc. so long as they don’t hurt others while eating it… am I right?

            I go that one, tiny step further. In my libertopia, polyandrous gays get to defend their marijuana fields with fully automatic M4s while drinking 44 oz. sodas.




            0



            0
    1. It would appear that your post was swept up in the zeitgeist of the times and your true intent for your publication was lost. If I contributed to that, I apologize.

      Image is important to gun ownership. If our argument is stated clearly and we present ourselves with sophistication and poise, I fear the jackals will only ignore the argument.

      The image you posted is powerful. As feminism becomes unmasked it is clearer each day to see the hatred and violence at its heart which motivates it to what can only be described as madness. Though they may seek a better world, their culture has left them powerfully unprepared to exist within that better world as madness so often does.




      0



      0
  4. That’s not what “guttural” means. Not even close. A lot of people think wrongly that it’s related to “gutter”, but you’re the first I’ve ever seen who thought it was related to “gut”.
    Look it up, please. Don’t use words you don’t know.




    0



    0
    1. Awfully sorry… I did? I thought it made me growl, grunt and just piss the hell out of me.
      But I apologize since keeping three languages in check gets busy.




      0



      0
  5. They are killing the wrong pig. It is Islam that they need to fear and loathe. Christians are toothless tigers in this modern age.




    0



    0

Comments are closed.