Found it in the Facebook.
Author Mark Karlin rants in his article filled with a lot of $5 words, but the title is halfway right: We are interested in being seen as dangerous and it is for Self-Defense.
The Gun Control extremists/fiends/radicals/extremists (I can use a thesaurus too!) have formed this mental picture that self-defense is only applied if a gun is shot and a bullet impact on a bona-fide bad guy and kills him. This narrow field of vision leaves a wide field in which to accuse us of all the problems of our modern world. They fail to comprehend the criminal mind and the fact that if they see somebody that looks dangerous or willing to put up deadly resistance, they will choose somebody else. In the immortal words of somebody wiser than me: “If you look like food, you will be eaten” so yes, we don’t mind exuding the appearance of danger if it leads to a human hyena passing us over for fairer morsels. Contrary to the Antis’ expectation we ain’t looking for a fight, we are just looking to remain safe and sound.
But what really ticks them off is that political predators also fear us. It is hard to impose the “guidelines for living as we dictate” of the “Superior Intellects” when the intended recipients can say “No thank you” and mean it.
We are wildcards. We do not listen to their “reason.” We refuse to “have a conversation” where they do all the talking and expect we do all the submission. And worse, we are not intimidated easily so their thugs have no power to change minds via violence.
Back in September of 2011, Longshoremen in Portland were protesting with “signs” like this:
Yes, that is a baseball bat and yes, those are cops in the background. If I am not mistaken, the use of that “sign” against somebody in any state of the Union would be considered attack with a deadly weapon. SEIU thugs are no strangers when using intimidation and violence against those who have a different political view than the ones dictated by their masters. But you see, they must become polite and play by the rules when violating the “addressing of grievances” by the use of brute force may result on violence visited upon them in return. And like in the case of the 1199 SEIU which planned to “attend” a Gun Owner’s rally at Albany, NY against the Cuomo overreaching New Gun Control Law, they decided not to go on with the counter protest. They cannot play well with others in an even field; I don’t think they even know how to do so.
Michael Bane had it right when he said that the Gun Control “advocates” hate us. We represent an independence of thought and acts they long relinquished for the “safety” provided by a benign State and they want us to also toe the line because misery loves company. But above all they hate us because we are a palpable reminder they are spiritually, morally and mentally emasculated.
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein.
Gun control advocates do hate gun owners. Every time Newtown, CT is brought up, they only remember the 26 people killed at the school, but never mention that gun owner that was killed so that her guns could be stolen.
As far as they’re concerned she was a co-conspirator in the murders, since she had no ‘need’ for those weapons.
Well of course I’d rather “look” dangerous than have to “use” a gun in self-defense. If I “look dangerous,” then that reduces the likelihood that anybody’s going to try something while I’m around, which means I don’t have to shoot anybody!
Sorry, NGVAC, but I can’t seem to hear you over the sound of that obnoxious chihuahua’s yapping. Oh wait, that WAS you.
They think ‘looking dangerous’ is asking to be victimized. If you’d just meekly comply they’d never hurt you. Funny how that sounds like the advice they give women to avoid being sexually assaulted. It’s like blaming a woman for how she was dressed.
The parallel argument here is I want a weapon, like a firearm, that I can reasonably be assured will get the job done of stopping an attacker. Given my penchant for shotguns, the likelihood that any home invader is not just neutralized, but also torn asunder, is a fringe benefit in my mind.
If they cannot achieve total disarmament, the gun control idiots all want us to have at the maximum, a two shot .22 caliber gun, and to fire at least one warning shot. My shotgun looks just as imposing and deadly as it is, so that I will hopefully never have to use it.