Since when is being practical, paranoia?

14 Jan
Since when is being practical, paranoia?

I was thinking over the weekend about how often I have needed to use my seat belt because I got into a car accident.  Surprisingly, it was the same number of times I have had to use my gun to protect myself or someone else.

Now, when I wear my seat belt nobody tells me I’m being paranoid about being t-boned, nor do they tell me I have been watching too many car movies like Fast and Furious and am styling myself as Vin Diesel.  Nobody says that I am looking to get into car crashes.  Nobody tells me that if I too scared not to go out in the world without my seat belt on that I should just stay inside.  Nobody questions my manhood for wearing a seat belt nor do they make some allusion to my seat belt compensating for something.

No.  No one tells me that taking the small precaution of buckling up is anything other than a sound and safe action (and in some places the law).  But yet, even though I have needed my seat belt as often as I have needed my side arm, the gun control zealots admonish me for carrying a gun.

They tell me that I am being paranoid, that I am looking for trouble, that if I am too scared to go out in the world without a gun I should just stay home.  Yet, I bet they wear their seat belts.

They will call gun owners paranoid.  In truth we are just realists.  Evil exists in the world.  That’s a fact.  And no law or legislation will eliminate evil.  But that brings up an interesting dynamic.  Isn’t it really the rabid gun control zealots who are paranoid?

I mean, they want to infringe upon the rights of everyone in America just so that they can feel safe, not actually be safe.  If you disarm the lawful then the unlawful have easy targets.  How many “gun free” zone tragedies do we have to see before we realize that evil doesn’t care about the stupid sign.  Are gun control zealots so paranoid of an inanimate object that they would rather delude themselves into thinking that they don’t exist by denying the law abiding access to them?  That is akin to saying that drunk drivers don’t exist in my town because I live in a dry county.

To go back to my earlier allusion, driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal yet people still do it; speeding is against the law but it is done; driving recklessly is also a no-no yet it is done everyday and 30,000 people die every year because of these violations.

Yet the paranoid gun control zealots would have us believe that by stripping the law abiding from their 2nd Amendment rights they would somehow stamp out evil and nefarious intent.  Even in an authoritarian society as China, the absence of guns does not equate to the absence evil.

In the past 2 years a series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People’s Republic of China. The spate of attacks left at least 25 dead and some 115 injured.  I guess we should ban knives, hammers and cleavers too.

Understanding that evil exists in the world is not paranoia.  Just like wearing your seat belt, having home owners insurance and going to the dentist for a cleaning aren’t symptoms of paranoia…just common sense.



Posted by on January 14, 2013 in Uncategorized


28 responses to “Since when is being practical, paranoia?

  1. Mike

    January 14, 2013 at 10:36 am

    despite making perfect sense, you know the gun-grabber’s are going to focus on the typos.

    • Tony Oliva

      January 14, 2013 at 11:03 am

      Stream of consciousness writing does, at times, lend itself to typos. Whoops 🙂

  2. Christopher Logan Cain

    January 14, 2013 at 10:42 am

    I completely agree. I’ve made the same kind of connection with safety belts in an argument before. However, the standard “but seat belts weren’t made to KILL THINGS” argument seems to still apply.

    I’m sure I’m not the only one that’s tired of having to hear that terrible argument. One of the premises of that argument is unsubstantiated (that it actually matters what something is made to do vs its actual use) and it’s exhausting having to continually correct these types of logical errors made by gun control advocates.

    • msalzbrenner

      January 14, 2013 at 11:11 am

      I find the “That Wasn’t Made To Kill People” easy to dismantle. Once they have said it. They have proven my point even further. The very fact that these things were NOT designed to kill people, combined with the fact that they are consistently MORE responsible for doing so, is absolute proof that GUNS are MORE SAFE than 90% of the tools that we use on a daily basis.

    • Rodger Young

      January 18, 2013 at 11:46 am

      You can’t argue logically with emotionally reactive (illogical) people. Spit into the wind, wrestle with a pig, pick your metaphor.

  3. Trevor Sullivan (@pcgeek86)

    January 14, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Great points all around! Liberal scum will never understand these simple concepts. Besides, I like shooting guns for FUN, too! Why do liberals feel the need to judge me for my hobbies? I thought they were supposed to be tolerant? 🙂

    • Mary Anderson (@bigsisterchick)

      January 14, 2013 at 4:16 pm

      If you’re planning on winning people over, calling names is probably not the best course. I carry a gun, and I’m one of those “liberal scum” that will “never understand” your simple concepts. What I will never understand is people who believe “liberal scum” is an actual argument.

      • Tony Oliva

        January 14, 2013 at 4:51 pm

        Not for not Mary, but I doubt you are a Liberal. More than likely you are a misdiagnosed Libertarian 🙂

      • Bill

        January 17, 2013 at 11:55 am

        But it is OK for the antis to call us: paranoid, gun nuts, whackos, rednecks, KKK members, delusional, bitter clingers, criminals, murderers, deranged killers, sick, mentally ill, child killers, etc. I could go on, but, hopefully, you get the point.

      • Bryan

        January 17, 2013 at 12:12 pm

        The Brady bunch sent a bunch of their ‘enlightened followers’ to the GOA Facebook page after reporting pro-gun arguments as hate speech a month back. Gun owners are being treated worse by the media than convicted rapists, being assaulted, and being persecuted by the law where they live.

        According to your average capital L liberal, a gun owner is a ravenous murder-embracing psychopath that is simply lying in wait to kill swathes of people with the ‘machine guns’ we somehow are “able to buy at the gun show”. They have no concept of reality, and are creating a witch hunt that is making innocent, law abiding citizens the target of criminals AND law enforcement for simply exercising their guaranteed rights under the US constitution.

        The Brady Campaign is continuing to outright lie about internet firearm sales, for example; claiming that one can simply order a gun from a private seller and have it shipped to their door–which is a clear violation of EXISTING laws and does not happen.

        Obama claiming today that 900 people have died since the school shooting, somehow implying that it’s the fault of legal gun owners and not the criminals in places like Illinois where only the cops and crooks have guns.

        If the capital L libs want to win US over for peaceful talks, they can start by not lumping every gun owner into a mold that includes mass killers and gangbangers. Until then, most of us are going to call it like we see it, which means that yeah… most liberals won’t ever understand where we’re coming from. They just don’t want to.

  4. Travis

    January 14, 2013 at 11:47 am

    So, I’m Canadian. I realize I don’t belong on a “Gun owners of America” website. I do support gun ownership for the purpose of hunting and self-protection. I do not own a gun myself.

    However, I think this article misses a very important point. Evil exists, yes. But to believe that nothing will eliminate evil is both ignorant and pessimistic. I would argue that a person cannot be a realist if they carry those attributes with them at all times.

    What is my point? Well, in the right hands, guns help protect society. In the wrong hands, they cause destruction and devastation. The same can be said for cars and not wearing seat belts. However, cars are progressively becoming more safe, to the point that seat belts may one day no longer be necessary. If that day comes, then we will have no need to wear them, because your car will drive itself, or it wont allow a drunk driver, someone who is tired, or angry to sit in the driver’s seat and control the car.

    The same cannot be said about guns; they don’t help eliminate the problem of evil, they just help protect against it. They are not a solution. In order to be a realist, you must acknowledge this as a fact.

    • Bill

      January 17, 2013 at 11:57 am

      You are delusional if you really think evil can be eliminated from this world.

      • Travis

        January 19, 2013 at 8:23 am

        The problem has very little to do with evil. And the solution to that problem is not guns. But it is also not banning guns. Like I said, I fully agree that guns help protect people other people, but not from themselves.

        The root of the problem problem is your country, your society, and the way you treat each other. Plain and simple. You might be called the UNITED States of America, but you are anything but united. If your entire society wasn’t so poisoned with hate and prejudice (fueled by ignorance), then maybe things would be a little more peaceful. And maybe then you might just consider that evil CAN be eliminated.

        I believe that guns are one, but many, of the keys towards helping you achieve this. If everyone owns and carries a gun for protection. Then you know walking down the street that you have one thing in common with everyone you see. But you shouldn’t think “I have this gun for my own protection”. No. You should think “I have this gun to perform the duty of protecting public safety”.

  5. Joe Krupa

    January 14, 2013 at 11:48 am

    Very nicely written. Here’s another analogy for you regarding the DUI reference…

    We all know that impaired driving is against the law and while the operator of a motor vehicle can be impaired on substances other than alcohol, it still accounts for a large percentage of DUI arrests. Now of course society never blames the car for the misdeeds of its operator in the same way guns are scapegoated, but there is a way to significantly cut down on DUI incidents through more legislation.

    A mandate that ALL new motor vehicles be equipped with an ignition interlock device requiring the operator to blow into a tube for a breath sample before the engine can be started.

    Now of course the argument would be, “but your treating everyone like a criminal every time they have to drive their car!” And some will say, “but they could just have a sober friend blow into the tube for them…” Well, for starters, there is NO Constitutional right to own or operate a motor vehicle like there is a Constitutional right to firearms and you just simply impose harsh penalties (that are never enforced) for defeating the interlock. To use the logic of the day: “But if it saves even one life…” then we should do it. Right?

    Seems to me that this has more merit than “assault weapon” and magazine bans. After all, way more people are killed or grievously injured by cars than rifles…

  6. Bryan

    January 14, 2013 at 12:40 pm

    Today’s newspaper had a section in the opinion paper expressing the opinion that massacres would be limited by restricting magazine size due to “forcing the shooter to stop and reload”.

    These people do not understand that the sick people that commit these atrocities will practice what they see in entertainment until they can smoothly reload. Nor do they understand that disarming someone is a very dangerous proposition. One does not simply run up to someone and tear the rifle from their hands like in the movies; one must ensure before striking that the direction the weapon points during the likely struggle is clear of others. If the shooter is using tactical reloads, then there’s still a round in the chamber even if the mag isn’t in the mag well.

    The step after a ban would be limiting number of magazines legally allowable because “who needs more than one magazine” will feature prominently when their laws fail, instead of “this didn’t work, experiment over”.

    The best man at my wedding is the black sheep of his family because I introduced him to the ‘evils’ of semi automatic sporting rifles. His mother seems to believe that responsible shooters like us are horrible people because one never “needs” more than one bullet, one doesn’t “need” a repeating arm, and there are cops so one doesn’t “need” to carry to defend oneself. No amount of reasoned conversation will ever convince her or other gun control zealots that there are times where a 1911 is a reasonable solution to an unfortunate problem.

    • msalzbrenner

      January 14, 2013 at 12:53 pm

      This “experiment” already failed. This isn’t about YOUR safety. This isn’t about curbing violence against YOU or the INNOCENT. This is about keeping themselves safe FROM YOU. And ensuring the minimum violence possible AGAINST THEMSELVES. This is about securing their ability to complete their perpetual grab for power and wealth. That is it. End of story. They know that this stuff doesn’t work, but they need to “sell” it to the people, to get it supported just enough, to put it into law. We can’t afford to loose this primary assault like we did last time. We were able to recover our losses the last time around. This time they aren’t going to let anything “expire” nor are they going to let any “exceptions” slip through. They want us defenseless, and they are doing whatever they can to make sure it happens. All we can do is support gun lobbies like the NRA(as much as I hate to say that), NAGR, and GOA on a national level, and whatever gun lobbies you have locally. And we need to do our own part to express our OWN voices about these issues. Hopefully we can overcome this onslaught. But it is going to take an exceptional amount of fortitude. This truly is our generations fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

      • Bryan

        January 14, 2013 at 1:24 pm

        The entire region is its own gun lobby where I live. The state of Idaho, and several other states, have a Firearm Freedom Act on the books which protects people like myself from politicians that believe that they are no longer our equals, but American nobility. Diane “Flintstone” is unwilling to disarm herself (she carries what she calls an assault pistol due to capacity) or her security detail, but expects me to leave my family vulnerable.

        Having received my professional training in the firearms industry itself, I’m well aware that these laws are nothing more than a way to strip law abiding citizens of their legally possessed arms as a power play.

        Illinois has strict gun laws, but gang shootings see bullets fall like rain. California has strict gun laws, but again, gang shootings still happen daily. Idaho has common sense gun laws (no felons, carry open almost anywhere), and we have… drunk drivers, some drug users. No gun crime to speak of in Northern Idaho, because every person around is armed.

        We have a young woman in my town, she moved here with her son to get away from her ex husband, the kid’s father. He showed up with a club one night a few weeks ago. Any big city where “the cops are enough”, both her and the kid would have been lucky to hit the hospital and not the morgue. Our mayor showed up and kept him at gunpoint until the cops showed up, which up here takes over an hour.

        People don’t turn a blind eye to things out here. Evils that are brushed off as “it happens every day” are treated as they are–evils. We take care of each other, and our kids understand that guns aren’t toys or status symbols to flash around.

      • msalzbrenner

        January 14, 2013 at 3:54 pm

        The problem we face is getting others to understand this entire objective is a ruse. But most are hindered with self inflicted ignorance. And I understand, ignorance is bliss (for a while), but when you are already responsible, its very frustrating to watch others sit around in ignorance, and then cling to it for security. Its good that your region has already taken steps to protect you. I only wish I was so lucky. I’m from Iowa and unfortunately its going to be a LONG, HARD fight for us around my way. I’ve already accepted the fact that I may have no other choice than to relocate just to protect myself from the surrounding lunacy, but, I’ve never been one to give up easily or without a fight. All we can do is keep doing what we know is right, even in the face of great opposition. Good luck to everyone that holds the path.

  7. keltec 223

    January 14, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    I thank you for your words of comman sense.Common sense seems to be in very short supply in washington.

  8. Bret

    January 14, 2013 at 6:34 pm

    I totally agree! Even more than this though, is another larger question. What makes these people think they have the right to govern our decisions based on emotional responses to admittedly horrible events? Who are they, be they government, or citizens who seek to inflict their will upon us while flagrantly ignoring the constitution in the process. I, for one, have grown weary of government and liberal activists telling me what is good for me. In your post, you used seat belts as an example, and this example is quite valid; however, I would use seat belts in another example as well. Seat belt laws are not for our protection, nor have they ever been. Seat belt laws are the result of the automobile insurance lobbyists whose bean counters estimated massive savings in payouts if seat belts were required by law. If our government truly cared about well being, they would not have rewarded corporations for off-shoring by providing them with tax credits for doing so. The same is true with anti-cigarette laws, and the general diminishing of smokers as human beings, albeit, this time it is the medical insurance lobbyists who are calling the shots. I am 49 years-old, and I can honestly say that in my lifetime the United States government has never demonstrated that is or was for the people.

  9. ian1775

    January 17, 2013 at 7:41 am

    “That is akin to saying that drunk drivers don’t exist in my town because I live in a dry county.” I love it.:)

  10. Louis Cypher

    January 17, 2013 at 9:42 am

    Silly arguement. Do you have a 5 point harness seatbelt in your car? Probably not. Cause that would be overkill for everyday traffic. Just like having a fully auto machine gun is probably overkill for any sport. Plus no one is going around to schools with 5 point harness seatbelts and strapping down kids.

    There are ALREADY laws to keep regular people from having certain weapons like ( Stealth bombers, surface to air missle, nuclear weapons) Using your logic that everyone should be able to carry weapons then you wouldnt have a problem with North Korea or Al Qaeda having nuclear weapons. Right? Evil exists in their world too.

    The only paranoid people are those who think they are getting their guns taken away. We all know that will not happen, but they do want to make it HARD for criminals to get guns. I assume you are not a criminal so you won’t have an issue gettting your guns.

    When the nation is talking about how to reduce the chances of having another Sandy Hook massacre happen, it’s the people who immediately think “they better not take away my guns” that are assholes. I bet you sing a different tune if your kid had been mowed down.

    • Bryan

      January 17, 2013 at 10:31 am

      Louis, do you have any concept of what they’re banning? My 1911 handgun, a 7 round standard capacity, is now an assault weapon in New York because it has two after-market magazines that accept 8 rounds.

      Owning more than three firearms is a Class D Felony.

      There is no paranoia in recognizing that a sweeping ban with no grandfathering (IE, Flintstone’s bill) is an attack on law-abiding citizens. The 10/22 is mentioned by name by Yee of California, and that is most certainly NOT an assault weapon by any stretch of the imagination.

      Fixing our criminal and mental health situation is the answer, but our President decided that he’d rather attack the 90% of gun owners that have a repeating arm instead because it’s politically expedient to attack the 1% involved in crime, rather than examine that maybe, just maybe, places like Illinois are shitholes specifically BECAUSE only the cops and criminals are armed.

      • msalzbrenner

        January 17, 2013 at 10:42 am

        Well said Bryan.

      • Bryan

        January 17, 2013 at 12:47 pm

        There, had to brush up on some things before giving a more full accounting.

        The new AWB -as proposed- by our love-to-despise-her Diane Flinstone will have no grandfathering, mandatory registration of ALL semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and “assault pistols” in accordance with the NFA (which means a $200 tax stamp, non-transferable, deep background check, etc), and includes nothing that actually effects violence. Turn it in for destruction, register it, or end up in Federal prison. In addition, the new AWB would tighten up regulations on where LEGAL citizens may carry to defend themselves, something we’ve all noticed is so -incredibly effective- when the cards are down and a criminal is blocking the door.

        Since the last AWB lapsed, crime went down noticeably due to firearms owners once again being able to have an easily accessible, scary looking rifle with which to defend themselves against, say… a gang? It protected those left in the aftermath of Katrina, it protected Korean store owners during the LA riots… need I say more? The so-called assault weapon has done more good in this nation than harm–gangbangers don’t go for high end equipment, they’re usually caught with a cheap 9mm trash pistol or revolver purchased from a shady dealer that nine times out of ten has connections with either the Chinese arms industry or indirectly via drug cartels to various Middle Eastern arms markets.

        Let us not forget Kevin, a veteran in California, who was assaulted on his property for asking a group of underage kids to stop throwing beer cans at his house, so he drew and fired in ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS he was to follow for his concealed carry permit. He critically injured one attacker, killed another, the rest fled. The ‘good kid’ that died walked after not only being involved with a white supremacist gang, but being involved in the fatal stabbing of another teenager, and was drinking that night in a clear violation of his parole for -possession and sale of illegal weapons-.

        So tell me. How are the good guys paranoid when we see every day, good honest men and women being attacked and treated like criminals for defending themselves and doing their civic duty?

    • msalzbrenner

      January 17, 2013 at 10:38 am

      One at a time shall we? 😉

      “Do you have a 5 point harness seatbelt in your car?”
      Nope, but then again I don’t agree with a LAW, MANDATING that I have to have one AT ALL.

      “Just like having a fully auto machine gun is probably overkill for any sport.”
      While I agree most “sport” does NOT require a FULL AUTO MACHINE GUN. The VAST majority of rifles in the hands of civilians are NOT FULLY AUTOMATIC. The civilians that DO have a FULLY AUTOMATIC are required to have a CLASS 3 FFL license, pay an extra $200 tax, and register the firearm. Guess what. THERE IS ALREADY GUN CONTROL FOR FULLY AUTOMATIC FIREARMS. So just as you said “There are ALREADY laws to keep regular people from having certain weapons”, but guess what, CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY THE LAW!

      “Using your logic that everyone should be able to carry weapons then you wouldnt have a problem with North Korea or Al Qaeda having nuclear weapons.”
      Damn Skippy “AMERICAN CITIZENS” should be able to carry any weapon they choose! And CRIMINALS that violate the rights of other AMERICAN CITIZENS should be HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT VIOLATION!
      As for foreign countries? From a civilian perspective, I don’t give a RATS ASS what they do. That Isn’t MY country. I have NO RIGHT, NOR INTEREST, to tell them what they can and can’t do in THEIR COUNTRY. If they endeavor to VIOLATE OUR NATION, THEN they will be held ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT VIOLATION!

      “The only paranoid people are those who think they are getting their guns taken away”
      What you call paranoid I consider observation, information, and education. Its only “paranoid” if it ISN’T REALLY HAPPENING.

      “We all know that will not happen, but they do want to make it HARD for criminals to get guns. I assume you are not a criminal so you won’t have an issue gettting your guns.”
      So we pass laws that will make it HARD for the LAW ABIDING people to get guns, and the CRIMINALS that ALREADY DON’T ABIDE BY THE LAW still get theirs just as easy as ever. Talk about naive. That is some seriously flawed logic.

      “When the nation is talking about how to reduce the chances of having another Sandy Hook massacre happen, it’s the people who immediately think “they better not take away my guns” that are assholes. I bet you sing a different tune if your kid had been mowed down.”
      If you assholes weren’t always defiling the memories of innocent victims to push your agenda, AND if you assholes wouldn’t ALWAYS jump RIGHT TO GETTING RID OF GUNS AS YOUR FIRST and often ONLY response to solve the issue. We might not be so quick to defend ourselves as we ALWAYS have to do against your pretentious onslaught of stupidity.

      • Rodger Young

        January 18, 2013 at 11:50 am

        Louis Cypher = Lucifer = stolen from Angel Heart, don’t waste your time.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: