The Pussification of the Western Male

I have to reproduce this 2003 essay in whole from a blog I regularly check out called The Other Side of Kim rather than just throwing out a few snippets. That wouldn't do it justice.

Even if you don't agree with it (and I mostly do), at least you might find his lengthy rant entertaining:


The Pussification of the Western Male

We have become a nation of women.

It wasn’t always this way, of course. There was a time when men put their signatures to a document, knowing full well that this single act would result in their execution if captured, and in the forfeiture of their property to the State. Their wives and children would be turned out by the soldiers, and their farms and businesses most probably given to someone who didn’t sign the document.

There was a time when men went to their certain death, with expressions like “You all can go to hell. I’m going to Texas.” (Davy Crockett, to the House of Representatives, before going to the Alamo.)

There was a time when men went to war, sometimes against their own families, so that other men could be free. And there was a time when men went to war because we recognized evil when we saw it, and knew that it had to be stamped out.

There was even a time when a President of the United States threatened to punch a man in the face and kick him in the balls, because the man had the temerity to say bad things about the President’s daughter’s singing.

We’re not like that anymore.

Now, little boys in grade school are suspended for playing cowboys and Indians, cops and crooks, and all the other familiar variations of “good guy vs. bad guy” that helped them learn, at an early age, what it was like to have decent men hunt you down, because you were a lawbreaker.

Now, men are taught that violence is bad—that when a thief breaks into your house, or threatens you in the street, that the proper way to deal with this is to “give him what he wants”, instead of taking a horsewhip to the rascal or shooting him dead where he stands.

Now, men’s fashion includes not a man dressed in a three-piece suit, but a tight sweater worn by a man with breasts.

Now, warning labels are indelibly etched into gun barrels, as though men have somehow forgotten that guns are dangerous things.

Now, men are given Ritalin as little boys, so that their natural aggressiveness, curiosity and restlessness can be controlled, instead of nurtured and directed.

And finally, our President, who happens to have been a qualified fighter pilot, lands on an aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit, and is immediately dismissed with words like “swaggering”, “macho” and the favorite epithet of Euro girly-men, “cowboy”. Of course he was bound to get that reaction—and most especially from the Press in Europe, because the process of male pussification Over There is almost complete.

How did we get to this?

In the first instance, what we have to understand is that America is first and foremost, a culture dominated by one figure: Mother. It wasn’t always so: there was a time when it was Father who ruled the home, worked at his job, and voted.

But in the twentieth century, women became more and more involved in the body politic, and in industry, and in the media—and mostly, this has not been a good thing. When women got the vote, it was inevitable that government was going to become more powerful, more intrusive, and more “protective” (ie. more coddling), because women are hard-wired to treasure security more than uncertainty and danger. It was therefore inevitable that their feminine influence on politics was going to emphasize (lowercase “s") social security.

I am aware of the fury that this statement is going to arouse, and I don’t care a fig.

What I care about is the fact that since the beginning of the twentieth century, there has been a concerted campaign to denigrate men, to reduce them to figures of fun, and to render them impotent, figuratively speaking.

I’m going to illustrate this by talking about TV, because TV is a reliable barometer of our culture.

In the 1950s, the TV Dad was seen as the lovable goofball—perhaps the beginning of the trend—BUT he was still the one who brought home the bacon, and was the main source of discipline (think of the line: “Wait until your father gets home!").

From that, we went to this: the Cheerios TV ad.

Now, for those who haven’t seen this piece of shit, I’m going to go over it, from memory, because it epitomizes everything I hate about the campaign to pussify men. The scene opens at the morning breakfast table, where the two kids are sitting with Dad at the table, while Mom prepares stuff on the kitchen counter. The dialogue goes something like this:

Little girl (note, not little boy): Daddy, why do we eat Cheerios?
Dad: Because they contain fiber, and all sorts of stuff that’s good for the heart. I eat it now, because of that.
LG: Did you always eat stuff that was bad for your heart, Daddy?
Dad (humorously): I did, until I met your mother.
Mother (not humorously): Daddy did a lot of stupid things before he met your mother.

Now, every time I see that TV ad, I have to be restrained from shooting the TV with a .45 Colt. If you want a microcosm of how men have become less than men, this is the perfect example.

What Dad should have replied to Mommy’s little dig: Yes, Sally, that’s true: I did do a lot of stupid things before I met your mother. I even slept with your Aunt Ruth a few times, before I met your mother.

That’s what I would have said, anyway, if my wife had ever attempted to castrate me in front of the kids like that.

But that’s not what men do, of course. What this guy is going to do is smile ruefully, finish his cereal, and then go and fuck his secretary, who doesn’t try to cut his balls off on a daily basis. Then, when the affair is discovered, people are going to rally around the castrating bitch called his wife, and call him all sorts of names. He’ll lose custody of his kids, and they will be brought up by our ultimate modern-day figure of sympathy: The Single Mom.

You know what? Some women deserve to be single moms.

When I first started this website, I think my primary aim was to blow off steam at the stupidity of our society.

Because I have fairly set views on what constitutes right and wrong, I have no difficulty in calling Bill Clinton, for example, a fucking liar and hypocrite.

But most of all, I do this website because I love being a man. Amongst other things, I talk about guns, self-defense, politics, beautiful women, sports, warfare, hunting, and power tools—all the things that being a man entails. All this stuff gives me pleasure.

And it doesn’t take much to see when all the things I love are being threatened: for instance, when Tim Allen’s excellent comedy routine on being a man is reduced to a fucking sitcom called Home Improvement. The show should have been called Man Improvement, because that’s what every single plotline entailed: turning a man into a “better” person, instead of just leaving him alone to work on restoring the vintage sports car in his garage. I stopped watching the show after about four episodes.

("The Man Show” was better, at least for the first season—men leering at chicks, men fucking around with ridiculous games like “pin the bra on the boobies”, men having beer-drinking competitions, and women on trampolines. Excellent stuff, only not strong enough. I don’t watch it anymore, either, because it’s plain that the idea has been subverted by girly-men, and turned into a parody of itself.)

Finally, we come to the TV show which to my mind epitomizes everything bad about what we have become: Queer Eye For The Straight Guy. Playing on the homo Bravo Channel, this piece of excrement has taken over the popular culture by storm (and so far, the only counter has been the wonderful South Park episode which took it apart for the bullshit it is).

I’m sorry, but the premise of the show nauseates me. A bunch of homosexuals trying to “improve” ordinary men into something “better” (ie. more acceptable to women): changing the guy’s clothes, his home decor, his music—for fuck’s sake, what kind of girly-man would allow these simpering butt-bandits to change his life around?

Yes, the men are, by and large, slobs. Big fucking deal. Last time I looked, that’s normal. Men are slobs, and that only changes when women try to civilize them by marriage. That’s the natural order of things.

You know the definition of homosexual men we used in Chicago? “Men with small dogs who own very tidy apartments.”

Real men, on the other hand, have big fucking mean-ass dogs: Rhodesian ridgebacks, bull terriers and Rottweilers, or else working dogs like pointers or retrievers which go hunting with them and slobber all over the furniture.

Women own lapdogs.

Which is why women are trying to get dog-fighting and cock-fighting banned—they’d ban boxing too, if they could—because it’s “mean and cruel”. No shit, Shirley. Hell, I don’t like the idea of fighting dogs, either, but I don’t have a problem with men who do. Dogs and cocks fight. So do men. No wonder we have an affinity for it.

My website has become fairly popular with men, and in the beginning, this really surprised me, because I didn’t think I was doing anything special.

That’s not what I think now. I must have had well over five thousand men write to me to say stuff like “Yes! I agree! I was so angry when I read about [insert atrocity of choice], but I thought I was the only one.”

No, you’re not alone, my friends, and nor am I.

Out there, there is a huge number of men who are sick of it. We’re sick of being made figures of fun and ridicule; we’re sick of having girly-men like journalists, advertising agency execs and movie stars decide on “what is a man”; we’re sick of women treating us like children, and we’re really fucking sick of girly-men politicians who pander to women by passing an ever-increasing raft of Nanny laws and regulations (the legal equivalent of public-school Ritalin), which prevent us from hunting, racing our cars and motorcycles, smoking, flirting with women at the office, getting into fistfights over women, shooting criminals and doing all the fine things which being a man entails.

When Annika Sorenstam was allowed to play in that tournament on the men’s PGA tour, all the men should have refused to play—Vijay Singh was the only one with balls to stand up for a principle, and he was absolutely excoriated for being a “chauvinist”. Bullshit. He wasn’t a chauvinist, he was being a man. All the rest of the players—Woods, Mickelson, the lot—are girls by comparison. And, needless to say, Vijay isn’t an American, nor a European, which is probably why he still has a pair hanging between his legs, and they’re not hanging on the wall as his wife’s trophy.

Fuck this, I’m sick of it.

I don’t see why I should put up with this bullshit any longer—hell, I don’t see why any man should put up with this bullshit any longer.

I don’t see why men should have become feminized, except that we allowed it to happen—and you know why we let it happen? Because it’s goddamned easier to do so. Unfortunately, we’ve allowed it to go too far, and our maleness has become too pussified for words.

At this point, I could have gone two ways: the first would be to say, “...and I don’t know if we’ll get it back. The process has become too entrenched, the cultural zeitgeist of men as girls has become part of the social fabric, and there’s not much we can do about it.”

But I’m not going to do that. To quote John Belushi (who was, incidentally, a real man and not a fucking woman): “Did we quit when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?”

Well, I’m not going to quit. Fuck that. One of the characteristics of the non-pussified man (and this should strike fear into the hearts of women and girly-men everywhere) is that he never quits just because the odds seem overwhelming. Omaha Beach, guys.

I want a real man as President—not Al Gore, who had to hire a consultant to show him how to be an Alpha male, and french-kiss his wife on live TV to “prove” to the world that he was a man, when we all knew that real men don’t have to do that shit.

And I want the Real Man President to surround himself with other Real Men, like Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, and yes, Rice (who is more of a Real Man than those asswipes Colin Powell and Norman Mineta).

I want our government to be more like Dad—kind, helpful, but not afraid to punish us when we fuck up, instead of helping us excuse our actions.

I want our government of real men to start rolling back the Nanny State, in all its horrible manifestations of over-protectiveness, intrusiveness and “Mommy Knows Best What’s Good For You” regulations.

I want our culture to become more male—and not the satirical kind of male, like The Man Show, or the cartoonish figures of Stallone, Van Damme or Schwartzenegger. (Note to the Hollywood execs: We absolutely fucking loathe chick movies about feelings and relationships and all that feminine jive. We want more John Waynes, Robert Mitchums, Bruce Willises, and Clint Eastwoods. Never mind that it’s simplistic— we like simple, we are simple, we are men—our lives are uncomplicated, and we like it that way. We Were Soldiers was a great movie, and you know why? Because you could have cut out all the female parts, and it still would have been a great movie, because it was about Real Men. Try cutting out all the female parts in a Woody Allen movie—you’d end up with the opening and closing credits.)

I want our literature to become more male, less female. Men shouldn’t buy “self-help” books unless the subject matter is car maintenance, golf swing improvement or how to disassemble a fucking Browning BAR. We don’t improve ourselves, we improve our stuff.

And finally, I want men everywhere to going back to being Real Men. To open doors for women, to drive fast cars, to smoke cigars after a meal, to get drunk occasionally and, in the words of Col. Jeff Cooper, one of the last of the Real Men: “to ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth.”

In every sense of the word. We know what the word “is” means.

Because that’s all that being a Real Man involves. You don’t have to become a fucking cartoon male, either: I’m not going back to stoning women for adultery like those Muslim assholes do, nor am I suggesting we support that perversion of being a Real Man, gangsta rap artists (those fucking pussies—they wouldn’t last thirty seconds against a couple of genuine tough guys that I know).

Speaking of rap music, do you want to know why more White boys buy that crap than Black boys do? You know why rape is such a problem on college campuses? Why binge drinking is a problem among college freshmen?

It’s a reaction: a reaction against being pussified. And I understand it, completely. Young males are aggressive, they do fight amongst themselves, they are destructive, and all this does happen for a purpose.

Because only the strong men propagate.

And women know it. You want to know why I know this to be true? Because powerful men still attract women. Women, even liberal women, swooned over George Bush in a naval aviator’s uniform. Donald Trump still gets access to some of the most beautiful pussy available, despite looking like a medieval gargoyle. Donald Rumsfeld, if he wanted to, could fuck 90% of all women over 50 if he wanted to, and a goodly portion of younger ones too.

And he won’t. Because Rummy’s been married to the same woman for fifty years, and he wouldn’t toss that away for a quickie. He’s a Real Man. No wonder the Euros hate and fear him.

We’d better get more like him, we’d better become more like him, because if we don’t, men will become a footnote to history.

Zumbo Dénouement

This is the end. I promise. No more talking about Jim Zumbo after this. If you need to be caught up, read what I wrote here, and here, and here.

Since his career suicide, Mr. Zumbo has vowed that he has seen the error of his ways and will join the fight against illogical gun control that is based solely on superficial firearm cosmetics rather than actual function.

In a Gun Week exclusive, Mr. Zumbo says:

“I’m an idiot. I’m ignorant. My words obviously have come back to destroy my career.” Thus was the observation of outdoor legend Jim Zumbo, who told Gun Week in an exclusive interview that he harbors no ill feelings toward the legions of angry gunowners whose backlash has possibly cost him his livelihood, and perhaps his reputation. “I did it to myself,” he said. “I have nobody to blame.”

“I used the word ‘ban’ which I should never have used, and I used the word ‘terrorist’ which I should never have used.” … Instead, Zumbo is going to use this experience to become what he hopes will be the worst nightmare that gun-grabbing politicians and gun control activists could imagine. “I want to join the fight, do whatever it takes,” he said in earnest. “Let’s educate the other dumb people like me who didn’t know about AR-15s. I will lead that charge.

I just wanted to post this because even if Mr. Zumbo is lying and still thinks I'm no better than a terrorist, this whole incident has had a hugely positive effect. It has shown politicians (let alone other people in the "gun culture") that they need to keep divisive thoughts to themselves since gun owners are sick of forfeiting their rights.

Even if others in the firearms community still erroneously feel the same as Mr. Zumbo in that a differently shaped grip or a stock that is adjustable for different sized people is evil, I bet no one's going to come out and say it any time soon.

Flip-flopping

I always said that I didn't want to just reproduce stupid shit on this blog.

Well... screw that policy.

England to Use Thought Police on All Children

OK, so that is the title I came up with for this story. You can see their title below. I'd say mine is more appropriate.

You know that I love looking at the UK since many policies in our country are leading us down the path that they took. Please tell me this scares the bejeezus out of you:

Children Could be Monitored for Signs of Criminal Behaviour

All children could face compulsory checks to discover if they are at risk of turning into criminals, the Prime Minister announced today...

The Government's plan to prevent crime said: "Establish universal checks throughout a child's development to help service providers to identify those most at risk of offending...

"Service Providers"? What the hell does that mean? How would you identify if an eight year old is "at risk of offending" and on the verge of becoming an axe murderer? Tiny waterboards? Ink blot tests?

Government Child Pre-Crime Specialist: "SUZY! WAKE UP! [splash of water in her face] TELL ME WHAT YOU SEE!"


The article finished up with this:

The review also appeared to advocate further expansion of the DNA database when it suggested including "all suspected offenders who come into contact with the police".

Currently anyone arrested for a recordable offence in England and Wales must give a DNA sample - which remains on record even if they are not charged, or are acquitted.

Read that last sentence again...

They want to expand the DNA database even though they can already enter people who were never even charged with a crime!

That's England for you! I don't know about you, but I'd like to stick with privacy, individual responsibility, and small government, thank you very much.

Playing God is baaaaaad.

That's what you'll be hearing from a lot of people about this recent development:

Now Scientists Create a Sheep That's 15% Human
By CLAUDIA JOSEPH

Scientists have created the world's first human-sheep chimera - which has the body of a sheep and half-human organs.

The sheep have 15 per cent human cells and 85 per cent animal cells - and their evolution brings the prospect of animal organs being transplanted into humans one step closer.

It's now only a matter of time.....

I'm Back, Tribesmen

As we all know, the Erie Warriors had what some have called a disappointing season in 2006.

Bullhockey, I say. It's not their fault. I'm convinced their less than championship results were the direct result of me taking the first "baseball break" of my life. I have probably watched/listened to an average of 145-150 Tribe contests each year since '96..... except for last year.

Don't worry all you Fans of the Feathered. I'm back in it. And I'm in it to win it.

First, I hope that everyone has seen this recap of the Impossible Return. Nick brought up the game on his blog,

Next, here are just a few things that amused me when I did a quick search on YouTube for the Tribe. Enjoy.

Cleveland Rocks:


Tribute to Tom Hamilton:


Eat this Detroit. Your pyrotechnics absolutely blow:

Giuliani Can Not Win in '08

In my own humble opinion, and the opinion of many others, the Republican Party absolutely can not win with Rudy as their man in 2008. The GOP needs to re-evaluate what true Conservatives want and run from the colossal mistakes that have been made recently in increasing the size and spending of the government to unprecedented levels, trampling on the Constitution and the protections that lie therein, and thinking they should be legislating Christian morality.

Instead of returning to the ideals set forth in the Constitution and their "Contract with America" that led them to sweeping victories in the 90's, they apparently want to put forth middle-of-the road candidates. That will never work. The GOP will never draw enough liberal-leaning voters to their side to make up for everyone (like me) that simply can't vote for non-Conservative Republicans.

Getting back to one of the central issues discussed on this blog:

It is almost universally recognized that Clinton's AWB and other gun control measures significantly helped the Republicans re-gain power. Al Gore himself is on record saying that gun owners defeated him in 2000. This is why you won't hear anything from the Democrats on this issue until after the Presidential election.

I'm not a one-issue voter (although millions and millions of gun owners are). I look at more in a candidate's platform/history than just firearm rights. However, how a person feels about gun control is an excellent first litmus test for their position on several other key issues.

Below is Rudy Giuliani spewing forth utter foolishness in saying that “the single biggest connection between violent crime and an increase in violent crime is the presence of guns in your society . . . . the more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less guns you take out of society, the more it is going to go up.”

Statistics time and time again prove this isn't true. If this were a fact, then why has Washington, DC been the murder capital of the world even though they have a complete and total handgun ban (at least until a couple weeks ago)?



Sorry, Rudy, I know that you've said, "I understand the 2nd Amendment and my policies don't affect hunters."

That bit of hogwash hasn't fooled anyone that isn't already anti-gun.

Capitalism vs. Government Controlled Economy

"In this corner, weighing in at 4 trillion tons of oppression, hailing us from the concepts of feudalists and dictators... the Joseph Stalin of stompin' on the fallen, the bringer of dread while you stand in line all day for stale bread... the owner of everything in your countryyyyy.... Government Controlled Economies!

...And in this corner, standing at just over 230 years old, originally from Philadelphia, PA... the ever-so-hot melting pot, the liberty brawler for those that lift themselves out of squalor... the undisputed best economy in the history of the worrrrrld...... AMERICAN CAPITALISM!!!"



In talking with many people about the benefits of our capitalist society and how it made us into the greatest nation on Earth, a lot of people have said to me, "free market economics sound good in theory, but not so much in practice." This always confuses me, given our history. I would like to ask the blogosphere the question that I always use to follow up that conversation:

What services/products does government provide that are better than the private sector?

You've heard me acknowledge a few that I know the private sector could not (or should not) try to pull off: coining money, raising an army, providing national defense. So there are some good answers out there. I look forward to reading yours.

An Example of Government Healthcare

There has been a lot of talk lately about the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Hospital. Obviously, our veterans deserve a lot better care than that facility was trying to provide.

Now, I haven't read every single article about this, but I have yet to see one mention of the fact that Walter Reed is run by the government. It is the government healthcare that so many people (socialists) are demanding.

Do you think that private hospitals and doctor offices would stay in business if their facilities were in such terrible shape? Of course not. Patients would choose to go to another hospital. The free market is a necessary mechanism for all segments of our economy. Competition raises standards and lowers prices.

Let's look at our neighbor to the north and see how they're doing. The efforts of Canada's socialized medicine bureaucrats has made the average wait time for MRI and CT orders of magnitude longer than free market alternatives in other countries. (I can't verify the exact number, but I believe I read somewhere in the news that the average wait is eight months.) Read this heartwrenching article about a mother that says her four-year-old son is at risk due to these disgraceful red-tape waiting periods. As you could logically conclude, the government wait lists for elective surgery is much longer than that.

Close your eyes and think about your last visit to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. How did you feel about your experience? Were you satisfied with the government service you received? Keep that in your mind's eye when folks are talking about bringing even more government regulation to our healthcare system.

From their own mouths...

Below are just a few documented quotes from those that formed our government discussing the intent and need for the Second Amendment. I mentioned to Nick that I would throw a few of these out there, as thousands exist.

It's true that these words are just the opinions of men. However, if we want to honestly learn how to interpret our Constitution, it's important to know what the authors motives were when they wrote it.

If you don't read them all, skip down near the end and there are a couple that I hand-picked that talk about personal self-defense (rather than the broader defense of liberty).

Since I mentioned to Nick recently that I should compile such a list so you guys don't have to take my word for it, here we go. Let's pay particular attention to the first one...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322

"The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. … The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." --George Washington, address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress

"Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." --James Madison

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson

"A free people ought to be armed." --George Washington, Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." --Patrick Henry

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? . . . If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to use, as in our own hands?" --Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, p. 168-9

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." --Samuel Adams

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." --Alexander Hamilton, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." --Noah Webster, 1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." --Thomas Jefferson, T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." --Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights

On personal self-defense:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. --Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." --John Adams, in a defense of the Constitution of the US

Swift Response from Violence Policy Center

The Vilence Policy Center, one of our country's largest organization for anti-gun zealots, had the following reaction to the DC gun ban decision I described in the previous post. You have to hand it to them. They know how to turn "following the Constitution" into "Your children will die!"

Please, VPC... People are smarter than that.

Following today’s decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the case of Parker, et al v. the District of Columbia overturning the District of Columbia’s handgun ban on Second Amendment grounds, the Violence Policy Center released the following statement:

Today’s split decision by the Court of Appeals to overturn the District of Columbia’s handgun ban is not only contrary to the overwhelming weight of legal authority, but will certainly increase gun death and injury among District residents and increase the risks faced by the law enforcement personnel who protect all residents and workers in Washington, DC.

If the ruling in this case is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, it has the potential to lay the groundwork for literally every local, state, and federal gun law in America to be challenged: from the federal ban on gun possession by felons, to the ban on carrying guns onto airplanes, to the ban on the manufacture of fully automatic machine guns for civilian use.

While today’s decision is a dream come true for America’s gun lobby and gunmakers, it may mark the beginning of a long, national nightmare from which we will never recover as nation.

D.C. Handgun Ban Found Unconstitutional

Wow.

This is perhaps the biggest news to hit the firearms community in a very long time. No one is sure of all the implications yet, but it's pretty much guaranteed that this will head to the U.S. Supreme Court.

From this initial source:

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. appeals court struck down a three-decade-old District of Columbia law that bans residents from keeping a handgun in their homes, saying the Constitution's Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Washington also threw out a district law requiring registered firearms to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock.

It's the first time a federal appeals court has struck down a gun-control measure on Second Amendment grounds. Nelson Lund, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University in neighboring Virginia, said an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is "very likely.''

"This is clearly an extremely significant ruling,'' Lund said. "The District of Columbia had some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country.'' The appeals court said it didn't consider whether the district can bar people from carrying handguns in public or in cars.

If you really want to get technical, you can find the official (and lengthy) court ruling here.

Below is a sub-section of that document. Much of the ruling ties in closely with things we've been talking about here recently. I added emphasis in those places.

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

Britain to Ban Samurai Swords

You know how I love talking about the United Kingdom's ineffective and asinine "crime policies". I do so because research into the history of parliament and the policies they have pursued over the last hundred years shows that we are headed in the same direction.

You've previously read and hopefully visited the source I provided that showed how Britain's "gun crime" skyrocketed by more than 40% after they banned all guns in their country. Their violent crime rate is still rising. Whatever is Britain to do to combat all of this violence? Tougher sentences on criminals? Actually allow their subjects to defend themselves?

Nope.

Samurai swords face bans after attacks
Richard Ford, Home Correspondent

The sale and hire of samurai-style swords could be banned after a police warning that they have become the weapons of choice for some criminals.

Ministers are also to consider outlawing the sale of decorative sci-fi “fantasy” knives, which some young people carry to gain street credibility, although they admit that it may prove too difficult to define them...

Vernon Coaker, a Home Office minister, said: “Samurai-sword crime is low in volume but high in profile...

Read that last sentence again. I'll wait........

"Samurai-sword crime is low in volume but high in profile". That sums up a lot of the needs that drive legislation, doesn't it?

What happens when that doesn't magically cure evil people and stop them from killing others? I just pity the poor souls who own historical country cottages. They'll be left homeless when sticks and stones are outlawed.

To: Nick, Re: NRA, Bill of Rights, Gun Control, Pencil Dicks

Damn I'm long-winded aren't I? I started responding to some of Nick's comments from the last post and I realize my own comment would make people scroll forever. Plus I wanted to add an image that I saw somewhere... so I apologize yet again for transposing to here.

On to my ramblings...

(Nick said what's italicized)

the NRA might carry too much political muscle... and I'm not here to take it away because it's simply my opinion.

I can relate to you on this one. I definitely don't like some of the agendas pushed by political powerhouses like AARP and Natl Org of Women (not that I have anything against chicks or geezers). However, I'm with you in that I wouldn't want to silence them.

There is a difference between the First and Second Ammendments... Quills couldn't kill people...

Well, I have two things that popped into my head when I read this. The first is that there actually isn't anything different at all between these two issues in the Bill of Rights (or any other for that matter). If we read our history, we'll see that they are a list of some (not all) rights that the Constitution writers felt were innate, preceded government, and could not be touched. Each was just as important as the next to everyone that called for the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. Our Constitution was not going to be ratified without all of them. Some states tried to remove some and failed.

The second thing I thought of is that you're 100% right. It is true that firearms can kill. That's actually the point. The founders wanted to ensure that the people had the means to keep their new government in check. Citizen militias just got done beating the best army in the world to start our country. Americans are supposed to have guns to resist tyranny. This is indisputably the intent of the creators of our government. It sounds strange in today's world, but it doesn't make it any less important.

I don't think gun control has to be an all-or-nothing issue.

Neither do I. I support sensible gun control. Criminals and the insane should not have legal access to firearms. Also, non-self-defense shootings should be severely punished. Sentences today are a joke if you look into them. The average time spent in jail for attempted murder is six years. So, apart from making it illegal for a criminal to even be in the presence of a gun (which is a law), what else are we really trying to do? There are around 30,000 gun laws on the books, and criminals still illegally get guns and shoot people. I'm definitely not saying that a repeal of all gun control laws will make all violent crime vanish. All I'm saying is that gun control laws certainly aren't helping (and I've shown stats/anecdotes elsewhere on here that suggest they may be hurting).

is carrying a revolver any less effective at stopping a criminal in the act than an uzi?

Definitely not. I carry a revolver sometimes and feel perfectly fine. This one, to be exact:

Smith & Wesson Model 642

No law-abiding and sensible person would carry an uzi on the street for protection for many reasons that I won't go into (size, control, etc). I have much more powerful firearms at my disposal right now than a snubby .38 revolver, but I don't carry them down the street. By the way, you want us to carry revolvers for protection? You can't do it in Toledo or any other city in this country that has a "Saturday Night Special" law. Yep, my little revolver is too small for them.

Remember, guns can't be too small. They can't be too big. They can't shoot big bullets. They can't shoot little bullets. You can't buy a muffler for the sound, but cities shut down outdoor ranges because they're too loud. You can't have steel bullets because they're "cop killers", but don't worry, the government will force you to install very regulated and expensive ventilation to get lead out of the air since you can't shoot steel bullets and lead are a "health hazard". Etc, etc, etc, ad nauseaum for 30,000 laws.

Do we really need weapons with the capability of causing such mass terror?

I fear you're looking at this the wrong way. Good people won't cause mass terror. It should be (and is) illegal for criminals to have firearms. Your question goes back to the indisputable intent for the Second Amendment. If it were up to the framers, they would encourage every citizen to have the same weapons that a personal soldier in a standing army would have. We're not talking nuclear bombs. We're talking personal weapons. Anti-gunners say, "citizens only had smoothbore muskets in the 1800's." Well guess what? That's all that the British had too. This concept isn't unheard of today. Switzerland issues every man over the age of eighteen a fully automatic machine gun and they are required to have at least 1000 rounds of ammo at all times and pass a yearly marksmanship qualification. They must pay much higher taxes if they fail that qualification. Switzerland's violent crime rate is very, very low. So the availability of guns does not cause crime. Guns are just tools. It takes evil and criminal intent to make them kill. Now here's the image that Google helped me find (courtesy of Oleg Volk at A-Human-Right.com).




Again, I am not an advocate for forcing people to have guns like they do in Switzerland. But I am against people telling me "because Joe Gangbanger is killing people illegally, you can't have the choice". So, to try and summarize a long-winded response to what you originally asked... people wouldn't walk around with a "Minigun and a rucksack of ammo" for personal protection.

As an aside, just in case some don't know, any law-abiding citizen can buy a fully automatic machine gun right now if they wanted to submit themselves to the paperwork and an exhorbitant tax stamp that has made the price of machine guns skyrocket. The reason why the majority of shooters don't have machine guns isn't because they are difficult to get. The majority of shooters don't have them because they're friggin' expensive to get. The cost is about $20,000 thanks to government regulations. That's the legal price. It is a documented fact that law enforcement officers say that full auto guns on the black market go for somewhere between $300-500.

...being filled so full of lead that he'll be using his dick for a pencil.

El Guapo: "What does that mean?"
Lucky Day: "I don't know."

Hilarious. What a classic. See Nick, I think we could be friends if this damnable typing wasn't so easy to misinterpret at times as sarcasm or dickheadishness when we never mean it to.

Even More Zumbo!

Are you sick of this yet?

I know, I know, it's just one guy. It's just one isolated story. For some reason, I'm continually drawn to it. Maybe it's because I originally became interested in firearm issues because I saw it as a perfect microcosm of the rest of the political climate in our United States. Now this Zumbo story is a perfect microcosm of the politics of firearms.

Anyway, I ran across another excellent example of anti-gun drivel that accuses the pro-gun side of obscuring facts and playing on emotion when only the opposite is true:

NRA is a Force for Destruction

By DAN K. THOMASSON
Thursday, March 01, 2007

... the victories by the forces of destruction over those of common sense and responsibility are too numerous to count. This is a land where the right to traffic in firearms, no matter how dangerous to law and order, is protected by constitutional language designed for a militia carrying muskets and enforced by a self-appointed virulent lobby called the National Rifle Association. It purports to represent the nation's sports shooters, but in reality is the arm of the manufacturers and importers who profit handsomely from the carnage.

That's rough language, but to emphasize just how unforgiving are those who subscribe to the NRA's opposition to any restraints no matter the threat to the public welfare, one should consider the case of Jim Zumbo.

Until a few days ago, Zumbo was a revered figure in hunting circles, probably the best-known sports rifleman in America. Hunting and non-hunting enthusiasts alike avidly watched his television shows and read his columns about big-game treks and the wonders of the outdoors. Then Zumbo foolishly ventured the opinion that semiautomatic assault weapons really had no place in hunting. Moreover, he committed the sin (unforgivable in the eyes of the NRA and its members) of linking these weapons with the "T" word...

His career was as shattered as though hit by a hail of bullets fired from an AK47. Within a relatively few hours, his column was canceled and his cable TV show eliminated. All this occurred despite a profuse apology from an obviously desperate Zumbo.

Would it be out of place here to suggest that this swift and unrelenting attack by the NRA on one of its own proves conclusively that Zumbo was right in suggesting that terrorism is not unknown to the gun lobby? After all, the NRA has been terrorizing its political opponents for decades, winning battle after battle by playing on the paranoia of its followers. As a result, the lobby has managed to foster a national armory of privately owned firearms that exceeds some 300 million, enough for every man, woman and child in America...

Awesome. What a fact-filled piece of journalism. The NRA didn't get Zumbo fired as a sponsor for Remington. The NRA didn't force him to quit his TV show. Those things occurred within a few hours of when he published his now infamous article. Thanks to the power of the internet, thousands and thousands of individuals heard about Mr. Zumbo and contacted those companies on their own. Does this journalist really think that the evil, billionaire, NRA mafia hitmen personally called 6000 people in the first few minutes after Zumbo zumboed himself?

Next let's re-visit this gem:

"is protected by constitutional language designed for a militia carrying muskets"

I get really sick of hearing this "argument". First, let's remember why the 2nd Amendment was written. Saying that government can infringe upon the Second Amendment because the authors of the Bill of Rights were talking about muskets is like saying that the "right to free speech" protected by the First Amendment only extends to the use of quills and not word processors.

New Word: zumbo

zum-bo

-noun

1. A supposed hunting and firearms advocate that I talked about here.

-verb

1. to commit professional suicide by saying something that angers your customers.

Seriously, that verb definition is really gaining steam on the internets. You may be seeing it shortly.

Yeah, somehow I'm still fascinated by this story. I sorta wrote about this on the ol' blog on a whim. If you need to be caught up, check out the link above. In a nutshell, Jim Zumbo was a Hunting and Firearms writer that had columns in prominent gun magazines and had his own hunting TV show. He wrote that he thought perfectly legal AR and AK type firearms are "terrorist rifles" because they look scary even though they function no differently from any other common rifle. There was a large backlash from his customers and he quit the magazine and was canned from Remington.

The pro-gun folks are not the only people commenting on this story. Below is one of many anti-gunner editorials I've seen that decided to stick their nose in this for the sole purpose to try and depict the NRA and gun owners as evil and unreasonable.

He got zumboed

Bang! The response from the owners of such weapons was astonishing in its fury. More than 6,000 e-mails barraged the Outdoor Life Web site demanding that Zumbo be fired. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, Zumbo resigned. Sponsors immediately deserted Zumbo's TV show, which hasn't been on the air since.

But hell hath no fury like an assault rifle owner scorned, and they weren't finished zumboing Zumbo yet. The NRA jumped into the ring like an outlaw tag-team wrestler. It suspended all ties with Zumbo...

The losers lost more than the winners won in this ugly episode. Print and broadcast outlets that should have stood behind Zumbo based on clear First Amendment principles allowed themselves to be brow-beaten by a Second Amendment lynch mob. So much for protecting the Constitution...

Remember when I quoted Outdoor Life's official response? Remember when I quoted Remington's official response? What did they say? "While Mr. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions and has the constitutional right to freely express those opinions, these comments are solely his, and do not reflect the views of Remington..."

So it is the official position of Eugene, Oregon's Register-Guard newspaper (since this is an editorial and not just a letter from a reader) that a private business is not allowed to fire somebody that publicly opposes what they do and effectively alienates their customers? How does that work?

What if Mr. Zumbo wasn't talking about the political topic of gun control and "assault rifles"? Let's say he worked for Honda. Let's say he publicly said something that was as equally insulting as it was false. Let's say his public statement was this:

"I think people should only buy Honda Accords. As drivers, we should push to outlaw Honda Odyssey minivans because only really, really fat people need them."

(Please don't get on me about the above analogy, guys. I'm trying to think of something as insulting as Mr. Zumbo calling me a "terrorist" and admit I'm failing. I'm open for suggestions though.)

Would the Register-Guard criticize Honda for firing this spokesperson after receving 6000 emails in a matter of hours from enraged customers? Or is this editorial displaying some anti-gun bias?

Edit to Add:

OK, I thought of a better (and perhaps more appropriate) analogy. Unfortunately, it doesn't talk to the fact that his employer (a private company) fired him because he called for a ban on their products. It does speak to the importance of the issue. Let's say Mr. Zumbo, as a journalist, made this statement about the rights guaranteed by our Constitution:

"I see no need for the existence of the internet in exercising our First Amendment rights. As writers, we should push to outlaw this means of free speech as it is a tool that terrorists use."

A New Personal Best

You know you care.