Exactly who is the unhinged one in this discussion?

Once again, our favorite Pacific Northwest bigot and hatemonger, David Neiwert, shows his true colors.

The gunosphere, myself included, linked to this almost favorable story from last weekend on the topic of open carry. We showed surpise, and even a little disbelief at its appearance across the national news wires.

Neiwert showed none of these things. After giving up a couple of qualifiers, his father is an amateur gunsmith or some such (though in past conversations I remember him saying something about his dad working for Colt), and that he too is a gun owner, though only of display pieces/mementos, he goes and recto-cranially impacts himself in high style.

You hear a lot of this kind of nonsense from the gun lobby whenever there is some kind of horrendous massacre involving guns: “Oh, if only the victims had been allowed to carry guns openly, somebody could have stopped this from happening.”

Besides having watched too many bad action movies to understand the realities of gun play, none of these geniuses seem to have stopped to think about what a culture in which people openly and casually carry guns would look like. Every interpersonal conflict would take on life-and-death dimensions because of the constancy of the implicit threat of guns becoming part of the human equation. If you think we’re paranoid now, just wait.

“Open carry” advocates strike me as gun fetishists, people who are so enamored of the things that they lose sight of their humanity. Let’s be frank about what guns really are: you can dismiss them as mere tools that can be misused, but the fact is that they represent the ultimate power — the power to end another human being’s life. And when you hold that power in your hands, dispensed with the mere squeeze of a trigger, it can be a very seductive thing, especially for someone with a grudge against a world that has disempowered them.

More to the point, since guns inhere such power, they also invite their use. People who fetishize guns are never content, in the end, to simply own them. At some point, they feel compelled to wield the power they hold in their hands.

Yes, you read that correctly: Gun owners might actually take their guns out to the range and practice with them. Imagine that! Read down at the link a little further, and he insinuates that all law abiding gun owners are potential Columbine shooters, and makes the standard prediction of blood in the streets (that oddly, never actually come true).
We are the unhinged ones, he projects elegantly. We, the ones who have taken professional instruction on the use of our firearms. We who know just how much of a burden owning a firearm is, both legally and possibly emotionally, upon a citizen. We who have had our life’s history read by agents of federal, state county and city governments. We are the ones who need to be watched out for.

Not ol’ Dave, who has, as of the writing of this post, written two pieces for one of the most popular left-wing blogs stating that he is absolutely positive some “rightwing” nut job will assassinate Mr. BigHopeyChangey. Here is a quote from the latter of the two.

In any event, a pattern is already developing, ranging from the Klan fellows who promise that Obama will be shot to the white supremacists who are actually rooting for him to win because they’re certain he will fail. We’re hearing a lot of language from the racist and “Patriot” right indicating that they expect a Democratic president to enact policies (particularly regarding gun control) that will inspire “civil war.” Which means they are looking for excuses to act out.

As always with these folks, there’s a lot of projection going on here. Because even if a President Obama follows only the most moderate of liberal agendas, the far right will look upon those policies as cause for “civil war.” That was how they responded to Bill Clinton, after all — a white male Southerner with generally conservative leanings. One can only imagine how a liberal black man from Illinois would fare.

Do notice, according to Neiwert, if you believe that there is no such thing as “sensible gun control”, then you are an extremist. Also, even if you have just general knowledge of the Democrat Party being the party of gun control, you are not only an extremist, but probably also a racist.

As I said last week, I do hope that, if elected, Obama is a complete failure as a President.

I hope that none of his policies are signed into law. I hope that he embarrasses himself on the world stage, repeatedly. I hope that he is such and unsuccessful President that in the 2012 election, he loses just as America’s worst President in modern history, Jimmeh Cahtah, did in 1980. I also hope that Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, becomes the 2012 Republican nominee and that she picks Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal to be her VP.
Aside from those bits of hope, I hope that Obama finds the job too demanding, and resigning before his second year is up, handing off the Presidency to his VP, who I suspect will be not only more experienced than himself, but also more reasonable in policy.

None of this is done out of hate. No one else who I know hopes similarly does it out of hate either. We merely disagree on policy issues with the man and wish for him to not be successful.

David and his sycophants, on the other hand, have always been hateful little creatures whose only wish is for the destruction of all things they consider “conservative” (you’d be surprised by their list too), which they see as a disease that must be eradicated from the face of the Earth so that pleasantness may reign in their utopia.

Unlike the bumpersticker slogan, Liberalism/Progressivinsm is not, in and of itself, a mental disorder. But you do have to have a mental disorder to join the club. Minimally, you must have a deep seated sense of victimhood paired with a hatred of the success of those around you, topped off with a undying need for retribution from those who believe differently.