Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
The story of how the court can seize a person’s guns based on one quip alone is bad enough, but I have two more thoughts:
When the cops seize your guns, do they run the serial numbers to see if they’re stolen; or test-fire them and run ballistics to see if they were used in a crime? If not, why not; and if so, what happens to the value of your never-fired-new-in-the-box John Wayne Peacemaker when they fire it and who makes good on that?
Second, assume the Liberal psychological explanation is correct – gun owners are compensating for having a small penis. In that case, taking away my guns would be physiological castration. If I were a gun owner considering seeking mental health treatment but the price I’d have to pay would be castration, you can forget about it.
“But it’s for your own good.” That’s what they told the tomcat. He didn’t like it either, but he had no choice. I do. If you want to reduce the number of men killing themselves with guns, you must find an incentive for them to accept treatment. Loss of manhood is not it.
Joe Doakes
Put it another way: even back in the seventies, psychologists (in general) knew that telling homosexual children to not act gay was profoundly psychologically damaging; telling someone “don’t be what you are” is an invite for decades of misery.
Fair enough.
“Defend myself, those who depend on me, and my community” is as we discussed the other day a primary evolutionary imperative for men, and firearms are almost always the best way to do that. Forget about japes about penis size – those are for people who are compensating for lousy comedic chops. Disarming someone is an attack on what evolution tells them to be.
What could go wrong?
From the WaPo article:
When does the right to public safety eclipse the right to bear arms?
There is no “right to public safety.”
A very sad case. Man in his 70s lost his wife a few years after losing his only child, a daughter. He had recently been diagnosed with melanoma himself. In the the anguish of grief, he tells a health care aid he might burn down his house & blow his brains out. So they take his guns away from him (this was in Connecticut).
Seems to me it would have better to have a social worker visit him, or call him on the phone & chat.
Lack of access to a gun collection won’t stop a person from killing himself. In several countries and possibly in parts of the US, he can sign on the dotted line for euthanasia. If his cancer was terminal, he could opt for palliative care only and down 10,000 milligrams of Roxonol. That would do the job.