maddogs hideaway

The author of this piece, Paul Waldman (an extreme  progressive, needless to say), played on an ad from Bushmaster to the tune  of “Consider your Man Card Reissued” if you purchase one of their rifles.

The implication is that men who take an interest in firearms are compensating  for something they lack. “As we begin a long-overdue examination of where gun  culture in America has gone,” writes Mr. Waldman, “we can’t avoid the way guns  have become so entwined with masculine anxiety, as so many men seek to find  their identity in instruments of destruction.”

I don’t know where Mr. Waldman lives, but I live in the deeply rural  panhandle of north Idaho, sometimes called Redneckistan (that’s a joke, Mr. Waldman). Firearms of all shapes and sizes are as common as pickups. Around  here, even the progressives are armed. In fact, to find someone who  doesn’t own a gun is surprising, and usually elicits the question of  “Why not?” It’s also worth noting that invasive crimes such as home robberies  are notably lower here, because the bad guys know what will happen if they try  to force their way into someone’s house.

So to those of us in rural America, equating manhood and gun ownership is  comical in the extreme. Guns are merely tools, like hammers or chainsaws or  tractors. They are used to keep one’s person and property protected against  those who would violate it. And, like fine art or Elvis memorabilia, some people  like to collect firearms … not as “instruments of destruction,” but as useful  tools that have a variety of functions.

If someone wanted to break into Mr. Waldman’s home (which presumably contains  no firearms), he would have little recourse except to wring his hands and say,  “Oh, dearie me! Dearie me!” as he watched the intruders do whatever horrible  things they wanted – because let’s face it, without the possession of the right  tools, a man is virtually helpless. Fists are useless against firearms.

So why do men like guns?

Men are biologically programmed to be protectors, and protectors need the  proper tools. An armed man is the first line of defense for his wife, children  and home. But progressives view this attitude as retro, primitive and above all  unnecessary. Mr. Waldman has apparently forgotten what a man’s function is.

Mr. Waldman also linked the popularity of 1950s Western movies to male  anxiety. “For the post-war American male,” he writes, “an office job and a house  in the suburbs offered few opportunities to prove one’s manhood, so tales of  two-fisted cowboys wielding six-guns became irresistible.”

Um, Mr. Waldman, the 1950s male didn’t need to prove his  masculinity. He already had, by fighting a war against some of the  worst tyrants in history. Westerns weren’t popular because of six-guns; they  were popular because they depicted men doing what men do best: protecting. Using  the tools of their trade, heroes in Westerns fought the bad guys, defended  homes, protected women and came out ahead at the end. Y’know, the old concept of  “good vs. evil.” Yet progressives view this attitude as retro, primitive and  above all unnecessary.

“It’s not enough to have a hunting rifle over your mantle,” sneers Waldman.  “You need an entire arsenal, just in case the government falls, society  disintegrates and you have to protect your cave – sorry, your home – from the  marauding hordes.”

Let’s see – $16 trillion dollars in debt and rising, gangs roaming the  streets, flash mobs, the knockout game … yeah, obviously we’re a bunch of  deranged lunatics for thinking the government may fall and society is  disintegrating. As for defending our caves, you’re right. That IS our  intent.

But increased gun sales, Waldman implies, are solely because wimpy gullible  men are falling for the slimy sales tactics of gun manufacturers who goad buyers  into thinking they’ll become like John Wayne if only they’d buy a few more  rifles. But let me put it this way: Who’s more secure in his masculinity? The  man who buys the right tools for the job? Or the man who mocks others and wants  to take the tools away lest anyone threaten HIS masculinity?

Progressives are so intimidated by scary-looking guns that they can’t see  them for what they are: tools. Instead, they have to endow them with phallic  characteristics. But as the saying goes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  Sometimes an AR-15 is just an AR-15.

Mr. Waldman and others like him support a powerful government and, by  extension, powerless individuals. By mocking men who own guns, they  cleverly avoid the real reason men (and women) should possess firearms:  that an armed populace is capable of defending against a despotic  government.

Why do you think the men in 1776 personally owned weapons that were equal or  better than those of the British? Was it because they suffered from male anxiety  and were compensating for something? Or was it because they knew they had a job  to do? Because they had the right tools, we (the people) have  a United States. Unarmed men couldn’t have done the job.

People purchase tools commensurate with the job on hand. If you’re building a  house, you don’t use a plastic toy hammer. If you’re hunting deer, you don’t use  a rock. If you’re defending your home against a robbery, you don’t use a kitchen  knife. If you’re fighting a rapist, you don’t whistle. And if you’re defending  your country against an overbearing and tyrannical government, you don’t use  your fists. You use tools commensurate with the task.

So yes, men are “compensating” for something by buying and using Bushmasters:  They’re preparing to defend against an increasingly tyrannical government trying  to restrict the God-given freedoms of We the People.

That’s why men need guns: Because the government has  them.