Ban Men, and Guns! By John Steele
I have said this before; gun banning is really a form of symbolic castration, and will ultimately lead, in the mad bad world of lunatic liberalism, to banning men, or what remains of them:
“Speaking of authoritarianism, The Mary Sue features a Leftist’s most recent plan to neuter the Second by banning the biggest user group of firearms: Men. Literally. It gets even better. The arbiter of this craziness admits she isn’t even from the United States (her after-story bio says she lives in the U.K.): While some of these men may have had mental health issues, as is often discussed in the aftermath, all of these men exemplify toxic masculinity—just think of how many of them also have a history of domestic violence. Indeed, I believe that most terror attacks are influenced in some way by it, and we are greatly underestimating the threat it still poses. If you gather from that nonsense that “all men are terrorists or at least terrorists in waiting,” you’re perceptive. That appears to be the general sentiment. It gets better, though. Not long after that passage, the writer – who is complaining about violence caused by “toxic masculinity” – writes this gem:
In contrast, examples of healthy or positive masculinity are protecting the ones you love, standing up for what’s right, punching Nazis, and Terry Crews. And who might the ‘Nazis’ be? Of course; anyone who supports POTUS Donald Trump. Then and only then is masculine violence okay. The bottom line is this: The writer isn’t arguing for gun control as much as she’s arguing for “man control” (that’s in quotes because that’s in her story headline). What is that supposed to mean? What I need you guys to do, though, is look around you and notice those men who get a little too angry if they lose, who react especially negatively if a woman disagrees with them—maybe you’ve even noticed bruises on their girlfriend or wife. If you feel strong enough, pull them aside and have a talk, man-to-man, about their behavior, especially if you know they have access to guns. Oh. Thankfully, she gives us her idea of what ‘model masculinity’ amounts to. Men who are “worried about hurting even a fly” (like her husband). Men who “talk about watching ‘The Great British Bake-Off’” just as giddily as they talk about sports. And, presumably, any man who never gets angry, ever, for any reason, and who shuns firearms as though they were the plague.”
These sorts of libtards are the product of over-civilisation, of living in the protective womb of a society where behind the scenes, men with guns protect them from dangers that therefore allows them to mouth off such nonsense. Place these people in any of the danger spots of the world, or even in the bush, and watch the results. The fact remains that the entire system, the rule of law and all of that, is intrinsically based upon the threat of violence by the agents of the system ready to use lethal force, anytime, anywhere, as Jack Donovan argued in a now iconic essay:
“All governments — left, right or other — are by their very nature coercive. They have to be. Order demands violence. A rule not ultimately backed by the threat of violence is merely a suggestion. States rely on laws enforced by men ready to do violence against lawbreakers. Every tax, every code and every licensing requirement demands an escalating progression of penalties that, in the end, must result in the forcible seizure of property or imprisonment by armed men prepared to do violence in the event of resistance or non–compliance. Every time a soccer mom stands up and demands harsher penalties for drunk driving, or selling cigarettes to minors, or owning a pit bull, or not recycling, she is petitioning the state to use force to impose her will. She is no longer asking nicely. The viability of every family law, gun law, zoning law, traffic law, immigration law, import law, export law and financial regulation depends on both the willingness and wherewithal of the group to exact order by force.
When an environmentalist demands that we “save the whales,” he or she is in effect making the argument that saving the whales is so important that it is worth doing harm to humans who harm whales. The peaceful environmentalist is petitioning the leviathan to authorize the use of violence in the interest of protecting leviathans. If state leaders were to agree and express that it was, indeed, important to “save the whales,” but then decline to penalize those who bring harm to whales, or decline to enforce those penalties under threat of violent police or military action, the expressed sentiment would be a meaningless gesture. Those who wanted to bring harm to whales would feel free to do so, as it is said, with impunity — without punishment. Without action, words are just words. Without violence, laws are just words.
Violence isn’t the only answer, but it is the final answer.”
The feminist and pc gun banners, conveniently forget this when it suits them, but remember it when it does, for they always have their own private army of armed guards to protect their precious selves:
Isn’t amazing that a college age kid has the money to be able to pay for such protection. What’s that George?