There's a lot of buzz out there about the idiotic newspaper that published an interactive map of gun owners. I will not dignify that garbage with a link. If you really want to find it, you can. Most everything that can be said, has been said and said well. But as with most things, I at least want to say my peace. In particular, I want to focus on one set of comments by the brain-dead president and publisher, Janet Hasson. The New York Times quotes her thusly in an article that ran on January 6th:
“As journalists, we are prepared for criticism,” Ms. Hasson said, as she sat in her meticulously tended office and described the ways her 225 employees have been harassed since the article was published. “But in the U.S., journalists should not be threatened.” She has paid for staff members who do not feel safe in their homes to stay at hotels, offered guards to walk employees to their cars, encouraged employees to change their home telephone numbers and has been coordinating with the local police.
Perhaps Ms. Hasson should consider paying for the hotels and armed guards for the people who were threatened by her paper printing the map. Perhaps she should pay for all of the cost and trouble to change phone numbers for all of these folks. Perhaps she should pay for the relocation costs for the judges who were listed, or the people with restraining orders against violent spouses, or who were (until now) hidden from the criminal they put in prison with their testamony, or... yeah - you get the idea.
More importantly, maybe she should consider paying for all of the NON-gun owners to move somewhere outside of the map region so that the foxes won't know where the sheep live.
I also wondered at her comment that, "... journalists should not be threatened." As with most liberals, threats should only go one way - toward anyone who disagrees with you. Tolerance is only allowed for those things the liberal tolerates.
Proof? The conservative says, "Smoking or not is my choice. It's my body." The liberal says, "All must follow our beliefs. Smoking is bad for you so you should be punished for doing it."
Another? The conservative says, "You have a right to decide if you want to own a gun. It's your choice, not mine, and I will defend your right to make that choice, since it's your body and your life." The liberal says, "I don't like guns so you must give your choice up and do it my way."
One more, since we're talking about choices... The conservative says, "I don't agree with abortion, and will argue against it, but believe that the states have a right to make the choice of what their laws should be." The liberal says, "It's my body. I can choose. You have no choice but to accept that there will be no option. The states rights be damned."
So now they wish to eliminate our choice to defend ourselves. England did this for a while. It became illegal to defend yourself - you had to wait for the police to do it for you. People were put in prison for using 'excessive' force to protect themselves. The law said in essence that it was not permissible to use more force than was being used against you to defend yourself. In other words - if the outcome was anything more than a stalemate, somebody was going to jail and it was likely to be the victim. Thankfully for our brothers and sisters across the pond, that has been changed for the better, at least somewhat.
The point is, that Ms. Hasson has decided that doing this will somehow make people feel like they should give up their guns, and be shamed into submission. I'm not sure, but I kind of think it may backfire on her. Think about it: If you were now identified on that map as a gun owner, would you dare get rid of your gun? I sure wouldn't. What if a marrauding band of liberals came 'a-hunting' with pitchforks and torches because I was a legal gun owner? I'd have to defend myself against the zombies of political correctness intent on stealing my birthright! Oh, and then there's that criminal who wants to rape my wife, steal my gun and pillage my stuff - he might show up as well, so I'd better start carrying it with me everywhere and I'd better get the wife one as well!
In my experience, legal gun owners are fanatical about following the law - a gun related crime is really bad mojo. Most of us are exceptionally careful to follow the law in every aspect of gun ownership because we don't want to lose that right. And trust me - if you break a gun law, you almost certainly won't be in the gun owner class any longer. We carry only where it's legal. We transport our firearms in a safe and legal manner. We don't 'play' with our guns. We DO train. We do go to the range and work on being safe and accurate.
Mark this down, liberals: We responsible gun owners do NOT look forward to the day we have to use our guns for something other than training and sport. I believe I can say this with near 100% certainty: Responsible gun owners pray that they will never have to take another human being's life. Most of us are willing to do what we have to, to protect our families, and will not hesitate if called upon to do the deed; but you must understand that we do not relish the thought of killing.
One other thought... Maybe she should have considered that it was summarily stupid to piss off all of the gun owners in the United States. We're a big group of folks. We have the spare cash to buy expensive items like firearms and ammunition. We read newspapers and surf the web. We are educated and intelligent. We're veterans, office workers, moms, dads, construction workers, executives, maintenance guys, bartenders, stock brokers and everything in between.
Finally, the 'journalists' articles I've read all seem to be so sympathetic of the poor 'journalists' - seems a bit self-serving to me.
Well, the truth is that she gets no sympathy from this quarter… Forest Gump's Mama said it best: "Stupid is as stupid does".