Gunowners Are Not Paranoid; They Listen to the Anti-Gunners
October 1, 2005

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

“Why can’t gunowners be reasonable?” You hear that question asked by many journalists, politicians and most people who push new and stricter gun laws.

Depending on who asks that question, it can be a mere smokescreen or it can demonstrate how clueless most anti-gunners are about what the anti-gun movement really has for an agenda. That question also demonstrates that many in the media have already bought most of the anti-gun agenda.

The truth is: gunowners are not unreasonable, or paranoid; they just pay attention to what the leading anti-gunners say and write.

While even the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control Inc.) likes to claim that it is not against all guns, it backs every anti-gun proposal that comes along and supports total handgun bans in northern Chicago suburbs like Morton Grove, IL, and virtual bans such as those in Chicago or Washington, DC.

I haven’t seen a statement from the Brady bunch yet on the San Francisco referendum this Fall that would ban all guns and gun dealers, but I am sure they will be for it.

The Brady gang always tries to soften their gun prohibitionist image just like Americans for Gun Safety and the newly organized American Hunters and Shooters Association. You will note that the latter two groups even claim to be pro-Second Amendment while supporting every gun grabbing proposal in the federal and state legislative hoppers.

This masquerade is characteristic of the “superior intellect” syndrome exhibited by most anti-gunners. As with many in the media, they consider themselves intellectually superior and more civilized than the average person. Like the illuminati, who have through the ages supposed that their real or imagined superiority gives them the right and obligation to direct the public policies that govern average mortals, the anti-gunners also believe that they can lie, steal, cheat and otherwise bend the rules to gain their objectives.

Thus they will say they support the Second Amendment, but seldom say what they really mean. If you catch them in debate, they will avoid fundamental questions, just as former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis did in his losing presidential race when faced with a question of wanting to have access to arms to defend his wife while she was under attack.

Anti-Gun Dishonesty
Dukakis hesitated in his answer because he was trying to use his superior intellect to figure a way around the question. More honest anti-gunners will say no, they don’t want access to arms even against the most desperate personal threat.

The average citizen of “lower intellect” but greater wisdom doesn’t hesitate when asked such a question. And the average citizen knew by his hesitation that Dukakis was not really one of them. Perhaps it is baser, more atavistic instincts that guide the average person, but they see through the shams of politicians like Sen. John Kerry no matter how many times he disguises himself as a regular person.

The imagined intellectual superiority of the anti-gun crowd who seem to have a lofty answer to every public problem also endows them with a towering arrogance. Unwilling to debate issues in real world terms, they will avoid debates, sneer at the arguments of their opponents, and even attempt to ridicule those who disagree with them. They seldom admit it, but what they think is that if you are not smart enough to accept what they say, you must be stupid.

If you are in agreement with them, you are being reasonable; if you oppose their positions, you are unreasonable.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and his junior colleague, Hillary Clinton, will send letters to constituents that profess support for the Second Amendment, even as they tell you that they are voting for every anti-gun bill, and against every pro-gun measure. Perhaps they think that their mental reservation about what the Second Amendment really means will go unnoticed. Perhaps they assume that by professing support for moral and constitutional rights no one will know what they really want to achieve.

Clearly, they want to disarm all citizens. They want to take away all guns. Not just so-called Saturday night specials. Not just “assault weapons.” Not just .50-caliber “sniper rifles.” They want them all, but they are willing, like the global gun controllers at the United Nations, to let you have a low-powered single shot for “sport.”

No Self-Defense
To them, “sport” means formal, controlled target shooting and hunting. Self-defense is not a legitimate reason for an average citizen to own a firearm in their minds. And certainly, the idea that people should have the means to act in a unified way to repel invaders, terrorists and oppressive governments is totally inconceivable.

Most Americans can see through this charade by the anti-gunners. And pro-gunners certainly know that waiting periods, one-gun-a-month laws, and other slices of the freedom pie are just a dodge before the elitists grab all the guns and impose their enlightened tyranny on every citizen.

The anti-gunners always deny that they want to take away all guns, but then they push for registration and databases that will give them the information they need to come and confiscate them. It’s happened in different parts of the US. It’s happened in different parts of the globe—usually with the result that some other “superior intellect” will order the murder of thousands or millions of his countrymen.

While pro-gun, pro-self- and community-defense people may seem unreasonable or even paranoid to those who would impose ever stricter gun controls, that opposition is entirely reasonable and rational. That’s because people do pay attention. They do read. And do listen to gun-grabber politicians who, like a venomous snake creeping ever closer, hope to snatch all the guns.

Feinstein’s Admission
Should there be any doubt about what the anti-gunners intend, you can find the answer in the words of a leading anti-gun figure in the US Senate.

Shortly after the Clinton gun ban was passed in 1994, Sen. Dianne Feinstein admitted on national television that the gun and magazine ban had little practical value, and that it was all symbolism and cosmetics. She told CBS’ Leslie Stahl that she didn’t have the votes to do anything more, much as she wanted to.

For the first time on network television, a flustered Feinstein admitted that her real agenda is to ban and confiscate all guns.

“If it were up to me,” she told Stahl, “I would tell Mr. and Mrs. America to turn them in—turn them all in.”

But Feinstein is not the only anti-gunner to be so candid about the real anti-gun agenda.

As early as 1968, a leading anti-gun academic, Prof. Marvin E. Wolfgang, told Time magazine that he thought total confiscation of privately owned firearms was the preferred legislative policy.

“My personal choice for legislation is to remove all guns from private possession,” he told Time. “I would favor statutory provisions that require all guns to be turned in to public authorities.”

On another occasion, when a Senate staffer inquired of Wolfgang what he thought was the reason why the public opposed “reasonable” gun laws, the professor responded: “Because they know we are coming to take them all away.”

These are just a few examples of statements that are available in school and public libraries. Pro-gun activists have been reading those words and remembering them. The constantly aggressive anti-gun agenda is what is unreasonable and extreme, not the defensive pro-gun rights position. And we’re not paranoid either. They really are out to get all the guns and to render us all defenseless against criminals, terrorists and tyrants. For them, nothing would be simpler than to confiscate all the guns from all the government databases. That’s why the gun-grabbers love registering guns and gunowners.
Return to Archive Index