More Accessories For The Gun Fetishist

I once posted on the many great accessories available to those who love their gunzzz so much that they must have accessories to go with them in their everyday activities.  But there's no shortage of others, and it is high time I posted some more....

Flower Shell

Let's say you've just returned from a long week occupying a federal refuge area and just need to take it slow.  What better way than gardening?  And the ONLY way any self-respecting gun guy should garden is by using guns, of course!  Just purchase some Flower Shells, shotgun shells loaded with flower seeds, and start blasting at the ground!  It's easy!  You could shoot at the ground to plant some poppies, or just aim out over the soil to scatter some wildflowers.  Boom!

Shower gun safe

After all that hard work in the garden, you'll need to take a shower.  Since you never know when a druggie/rapist/robber/terrorist will jump out at you from behind the shower curtain, be sure to put your handgun into the shower gun safe, right there next to your lavender conditioner.  Careful your soapy fingers don't slip on that trigger!

"open carry" tee shirt

As you get dressed, be sure to put on your gun-holster yoga pants and stick a second pink gun in your gun-holster bra (careful not to shoot yourself in the eye like this Michigan politician did).  And just to play it safe, in case you can't openly carry your piece in public, put this "open carry tee shirt" on.  Looks like the real thing!  But be sure to follow the advice of the maker and don't put your hand on the "gun" on the shirt, for fear police will think it's the real thing and shoot you!  You'll want to accessorize that outfit with an actual, working pistol ring on your finger and some bullet earrings.

iPhone case

Walk out the bathroom, pulling the gun door knob on the way, and then pull out your phone to call your liberty-lovin' militia pals to come over for some pistol-packin' fun.  Careful, though, don't let the police think that gun-shaped iPhone case is the real thing.  You might regret that it looks so realistic.

Assault rifle forks

After your pals and you shoot up some good, old-fashioned, women-shaped targets that bleed, you can sit down at the dining table and enjoy the fruits of your latest elk hunt on your favorite gun motto plate, eating your meat with assault rifle forks and musket-shaped cutlery. Don't forget to set plates for the kids, such as the one that says "G is for gun."

Playing "Ca$h 'n Guns"

After dinner, why not play a fun game of Ca$h 'n Guns, where you can have lots of laughs by pretending to shoot each other.  As one fan of the game put it, "Often personal vendettas have more to do with what happens than making the best move.  The game involves pointing a foam gun at people."  Fun!  Careful not to confuse the foam guns with the real ones on your hips.

Shotgun shell shot glasses

Be sure to pour you and your buddies some nice, stiff drinks from your pistol decanter into your shotgun shell shot glasses (complete with bandoleer), or maybe some gun drinking glasses with some bullet-shaped ice cubes, too.


Once your pals leave, and you stumble off to bed, fluff up your gun pillows, pull down your camo sheets, and put your gun into the bed holster.  No lock needed!

Bed holster

Oops, you drank too much, thought you heard a noise in the middle of the night, and unintentionally shot yourself to death?  Well, no worries.  Your love of guns can see you off to the afterlife, too.  Just have your pals pack your cremated remains into shotgun shells and shoot you to Heaven!  Nothing says "Freedom" more than going out in a puff of gunpowder!

There's simply no end to the ways you can feed your gun fetish, night and day!  

The Growing Movement Of Gun Owners Against The NRA

The NRA was once a respectable organization.  Founded just after the Civil War, it existed to advocate for hunter training, marksmanship, conservation of nature, and gun safety.  It was a sportsman's organization which existed almost solely on membership dues and did not dip much into politics.  But all of that changed in 1977, when extremist members of the organization hijacked the sportsman's organization and converted it into a political lobby group intent on fighting any and all gun regulation.  As the Washington Post put it:

The Old Guard was caught by surprise. The NRA officers sat up front, on a dais, observing their demise. The organization, about a century old already, was thoroughly mainstream and bipartisan, focusing on hunting, conservation and marksmanship. It taught Boy Scouts how to shoot safely. But the world had changed, and everything was more political now. The rebels saw the NRA leaders as elites who lacked the heart and conviction to fight against gun-control legislation.

And because their focus shifted away from the needs of their members, and more toward ideological and legislative goals, the NRA leadership has forgotten their own followers.  Oh, they still talk the good talk of safety and hunting, but the truth is far from it.  Their only concern is money.  As I blogged before, follow the money!  And they've created a "circus of fear" to raise the ideological paranoia of their membership.

Time and again in my work with the community, in forums and public events, I talk with gun owners, hunters, and veterans who disagree with the NRA's stances.  Even some NRA members have expressed to me that they simply disagree with the organization and are actually closer to me in their beliefs on gun regulation.  Sometimes all it takes to make this conversation work is to get around the NRA talking points and to ask them about specific regulations.

Background checks are a good example of this.  At every turn, the NRA has fought each and every attempt to create and then strengthen the background check system, pouring millions of dollars into the pockets of politicians to buy their votes.  And even though a background check takes on average less than five minutes, and there are far more licensed dealers to go to for the check than there are Starbucks stores (see an interactive map, HERE), they nonetheless argue that that minor inconvenience somehow infringes on the right to bear arms and is a prelude to an all-out total gun confiscation (expanding background checks, by the way, used to be something the NRA approved of, and now heavily oppose, just to illustrate how extreme they have become).  And yet, polls repeatedly show that around 72% of NRA members support universal background checks for all gun sales (or 85% of all gun owners).  So who does the NRA really represent?  Again, follow the money.  They represent the arms dealers who line the pockets of the NRA leadership.  The same split goes for many other proposed regulation.  Despite the NRA line against such changes, the majority of gun owners also support a ban on semi-auto assault rifles and high-capacity ammo magazines, support child access protection laws, mandatory training for gun owners, prohibitions for gun ownership by domestic violence offenders, and many other laws.

With this in mind, it is little wonder that more and more gun owners are renouncing the NRA.

An early and well-publicized example of this was the senior George Bush, a lifelong gun owner and hunter.  In 1995, he sent in a "letter of resignation" from his lifetime NRA membership after the NRA's Wayne LaPierre called the government "jackbooted thugs" shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing.

And remember, back in 2013, when longtime Guns & Ammo writer and TV host Dick Metcalf dared to write that regulation should be considered and that it didn't infringe on the Second Amendment?  He was immediately fired, but not because gun owners disagreed with him.

In recent years, particularly after the Sandy Hook shooting and the NRA's extremist solution to arm all schools, gun owners have woken up to the fact that this isn't their father's NRA anymore.  

That was the event which turned one gun owner's opinion around.  She's a hunter and grew up in a gun family.

Ultimately, the people that are advocating for looser gun laws or less restriction end up making responsible owners look like idiots. Personally, I don't want to be associated with them, and I don't want to be lumped together. Some of us understand that keeping our children safe is the priority. We have too much gun violence in this country to ignore it anymore.

She was so fed up with the NRA and the pro-gun activist movement that she left the NRA and even joined Moms Demand Action Against Gun Violence in America.

One avid hunter recently turned his back on the NRA, tired of their ceaseless fearmongering:

The biggest problem in this entire issue is the NRA. People who buy guns and are interested in hunting or target shooting are not the problem. The problem is an organization that convinces them to join based on fears of the government, fears of other races, fears of invasion, fears of the police; FEARS. That’s their agenda. 

Once you’ve paid your dues to join this despicable organization, they are free to use that money however they see fit. And overwhelmingly the way that they see fit to spend it is through propaganda, advertising, and lobbying.

Another hunter, from Oregon, explained why the NRA doesn't talk for him:

I don’t belong to the NRA. The kind of hunting that I do faces its greatest threats from habitat loss, not gun control. During an election, I’m more likely to consult the League of Conservation Voters’ candidate ratings than the NRA’s. .... 

None of these restrictions prevent me or other hunters from enjoying the tradition. On the contrary, the rules keep us safe and protect the wildlife populations that must thrive if we are to continue to responsibly cull them.

After the Charleston massacre, another gun owner and hunter came out against the NRA after hearing a robo-call insinuating that President Obama was plotting to turn over the USA to the United Nations:

[The NRA] has successfully positioned itself as the singular representation of gun owners. For decades they’ve worked to defend and expand access to firearms in spite of polls showing that most Americans, including gun owners, favor laws that would limit access in various reasonable ways (even three-quarters of NRA households favor background checks prior to private gun sales). But when a U.S. congresswoman was shot in the face, the NRA made certain that no law was passed that would have made her safer. There’s no doubt that the NRA does have some grass-roots support, but it’s smaller than we think. The NRA does not represent all gun owners, and it certainly doesn’t represent me.

One Nevada legislator and lifelong hunter has turned his back on the NRA, as well, fed up with their inflexibility and tired of seeing so many people killed by gunfire in his years as an emergency responder, along with his own personal family history of gun suicide and domestic violence:  

“That, coupled with seeing Congress’ inaction [on gun control] made me say, ‘I can’t do this anymore,'” Oceguera told ThinkProgress. “I still own guns for self-protection in my home, and I’m going to teach my kids gun safety and have already started doing that. But I now think there are some people — who are criminals, who have mental illness, who are on the watch list — who shouldn’t have guns. It’s as simple as that. And I think that if law-abiding NRA members and gun owners like myself don’t stand up and say, ‘Geez, enough is enough. Let’s do something,’ then nothing is going to happen.”

A large group of gun owners recently took a trip to Washington to convince legislators to finally take action to enact universal background checks.

There's even a lifelong gun owner, trainer, and gun store owner who has turned his back to the NRA and the pro-gun extremists out there.  Michael Weisser, or "Mike the Gun Guy," has written books on the subject, and regularly writes on his blog site.

And gun owners have even joined together to form organizations to represent their interest in both gun ownership and reasonable gun regulation.

For instance, here in Oregon, some of the gun owning families who lost loved ones at the Clackamas Town Center shooting formed the organization Gun Owners For Responsible Ownership.  That organization then joined the Oregon Alliance For Gun Safety and helped to pass Senate Bill 941 for universal background checks in Oregon.   GOFRO's mission statement:  

We envision an America where all are safe from gun violence, and where responsible gun owners take the lead to promote safe gun ownership and sensible laws and regulations.

And they aren't alone.  Here are some other like-minded organizations and Facebook groups of gun owners:

American Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership
Citizens for Smart Gun Ownership
Gun Owners Against The NRA
Gun Owners For Commonsense Laws
Gun Owners For Reform
Veterans for Responsible Gun Ownership

It is moderate gun owners who will make the biggest difference.  Don't let the NRA and other extremist pro-gun organizations speak for you!  Call them out for their extremism, and renounce your membership.  Help enact the sensible gun regulations that you support, and let's make a new trajectory for our communities away from gun violence.

ADDENDUM (1/19/16):  The recent executive actions by President Obama to strengthen the background check system are also very popular with gun owners, at 63% approval, despite the NRA opposition to them.  From the article:

Also, though it is from 2012, here is a very good opinion piece written by an NRA member who was outraged by the NRA stance after Sandy Hook and demanded to immediately cancel his membership.

ADDENDUM (4/29/18): A great article about gun owners wanting increased gun regulation.  

“I honestly believe that God-fearing, gun-owning Americans should be leading the debate on gun laws,” Dr. Haring said in an interview on Monday, after learning of another shooting, which killed four people at a Waffle House a few miles from his house. “It just makes sense to me that if I own weapons, I should be the first one to be advocating for safety with those weapons.”

.

"Open Carry" Backfires

(UPDATED -- See below)


I’ve been shaking my head lately at the antics of “Open Carry” extremists.  They seem to think that showing up in force at restaurants and other public venues, with handguns on their hips and assault rifles slung over their back, is somehow going to “educate” the public or “normalize” guns in our society. 

Naturally, the normal folk who are there to eat or enjoy a family outing are alarmed to see a large bunch of stern men with loaded guns come stomping into the room, proudly proclaiming their extremist views.  Police are called. Families flee.  It’s a sad sight.  But so blind are these men to their fetish that the simply can’t understand why everyone’s alarmed and the restaurants boot them out.

They keep trying though.  And it keeps backfiring on them.  Consider the following….

Texas Roadhouse:  This week, a group of Nebraska Open Carry activists intended to invade the local Texas Roadhouse restaurant in Omaha.  Alarmed, people called the restaurant to complain, and calls were even made to the police.  With all the unwanted attention, the Texas Roadhouse manager told the activists to go elsewhere.  

Backfire! 

“I want to feed people — not have a circus in here,” [restaurant manager Steve] Jackson explained. …

Travis Doster, a national spokesperson for Texas Roadhouse, told the World Herald that the company’s policy had nothing to do with gun rights, and everything to do with being a successful business. …

But after getting calls from the Papillion Police Department, Shadow Lake’s property management and Nebraskans Against Gun Violence, the company concluded that having a group of people toting firearms in its restaurant was “not good for business.”

“I know they have their agenda. I really like to stay neutral. This thing is not a neutral issue. It’s not good for business,” managing partner Steve Jackson noted.

Naturally, the activists simply couldn’t understand.  In their minds, their “rights” were infringed by not being able to haul out their assault weapons when they get their ribeyes.  In the words of the organizer of the activists:  “It always seems like the anti-gunners always get their way instead of the pro-Second Amendment people,” he added. “That, to me, it’s getting old.”

No sir, it’s not “anti-gunners” who get their way, it’s the general public – who understand that more guns don’t make us safe. 

Chili’s and Sonic:  Also this week, some members of Open Carry Texas uploaded (and later removed) videos of them carrying assault rifles into a Sonic restaurant (see video HERE).  When the manager of Sonic told the group of 10 men that they weren’t welcome with their rifles, one gun guy complains, “That’s the second time in a row!  Man, we can’t do nothin’!  I feel like I’m a kid again; my mom won’t let me do anything!”  Another, with a little girl in hand, comments “I’m going to tell my daughter it’s not safe to be here. 

Later, they decided to go into a Chili’s restaurant and filmed it, too (see video HERE).  One of the patrons, a mother, confronted the armed men:

When a young woman approaches the group in Chili's and expresses her dismay, a guy with an assault rifle strapped across his back offers her a flyer. "Um actually, there's children here," she replies, "and you're a dumbass." As she walks away one member of the group comments mockingly, "Yes, I'm a dumbass," and then says of her, "must be Moms Demand Action," referring to the national gun reform group.

Apparently she wasn’t a member, but is now.

Now, both Chili’s and Sonic are considering a policy against guns in their stores (also here).  Backfire!  Backfire!   -->  UPDATE! BOTH HAVE NOW ANNOUNCED A BAN ON GUNS.

"Open Carry" extremists at Chipotle's

Chipotle’s:  Last week, more members of Open Carry Texas decided it would be a swell idea to carry loaded AK-47 and AR-15 assault rifles into a Chipotle restaurant in Dallas.  They took pictures, then spread the pictures all over the internet.  Customers were rightly alarmed, and complained, prompting Chipotle’s to release a statement, banning the guns in their restaurants.  

Backfire! 

Here is an excerpt (read the full statement HERE):

Recently participants from an "open carry" demonstration in Texas brought guns (including military-style assault rifles) into one of our restaurants, causing many of our customers anxiety and discomfort.  Because of this, we are respectfully asking that customers not bring guns into our restaurants, unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

Historically, we felt it enough to simply comply with local laws regarding the open or concealed carrying of firearms, because we believe that it is not fair to put our team members in the uncomfortable position of asking that customers refrain from bringing guns into our restaurants.  

However, because the display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers, we think it is time to make this request.

Extremist Delcampo allowing a
child to hold his assault rifle.

Turns out those activists broke the law.  It’s illegal to openly carry rifles into establishments that serve alcohol, in Texas.  Seems they only respect the laws that favor their extremism.  Just another example of how gun activists are pro-criminal.  See the extremist on the right, in the picture (right)?  His name is Alfonso Delcampo.  Turns out he’s the worst sort of person.  Posts from his Facebook page clearly show his racist, chauvinistic nature, with pictures of him showing off his weapons, toting them around in public, and even letting a small boy handle his assault rifle.  Now those activists intend to target the BLM.

It’s a good thing Chipotle’s learned its lesson before someone gets hurt by a gun-toter.  Earlier this year, a Chipotle’s patron unintentionally fired his gun in the restaurant in Sandy, Utah. He was carrying legally too.  So, of course, he wasn’t cited.  Oopsie.  Can you hear the “freedom?”  Luckily no one was injured.

Jack in the Box:  In early May, a group of “Open Carry” activists  in Fort Worth, Texas, carried their assault rifles into a Jack in the Box restaurant, proudly announcing their “rights.”  What followed was mayhem, with scared customers fleeing and the employees locking themselves in the freezer.  When police showed up in force, the activists finally left, but there weren’t any charges.  Open intimidation of this sort isn’t illegal, unfortunately.

Jack in the Box immediately learned their lesson and released a statement prohibiting the carrying of guns in their stores.  Jack in the Box released a statement, saying, "The presence of guns inside a restaurant could create an uncomfortable situation for our guests and employees and lead to unintended consequences.”

Backfire!

Starbucks:  And who can forget how, after the tragic Sandy Hook school shooting, gun activists nationwide targeted Starbucks stores for “Open Carry” demonstrations.

After the activists decided, in their truly blind, thoughtless, and unapologetic manner, to target the Starbucks restaurant in Newtown on the anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting, that store closed its doors for the day, then the company issued a statement telling gun owners not to bring guns into their stores.  From the statement:

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

Backfire!  It was a move that was supported by the general public, of course, according to a poll. 

Naturally, since gun activists are pro-criminal, some have commented that they will carry concealed guns in Starbucks anyhow.  “I dont care what their sign says, I carry anyway but keep it concealed under my shirt. Are they going to frisk me or put in a metal screener ??” said one.  “If someone wants to live with the illusion that nobody would ever bring a gun into Starbucks I am willing to let them continued to fool themselves,” said another.  "I carry where I want (concealed) and will continue to do so,"  said a third.  (see HERE and HERE for comments).

Other restaurant chains that have prohibited the carrying of guns in their stores, because of “Open Carry” demonstrators, include Wendy’s, Smashburger, and Applebee’s.  Backfire!  Backfire!  Backfire!

Open Carry Texas has finally learned their lesson (sorta), releasing a notice to its followers to cease the open carry of rifles into restaurants.  But it’s too little too late.  Their extremism has been on display, and it isn’t winning them any supporters.  And they still don’t really get it (they still advocate the carrying of black powder revolvers, which aren’t covered by the state law against open carry of handguns). 

I know if I saw someone openly carrying a gun where I and my family were eating, I would leave immediately and call the police.  There is simply no way to know what that person’s intentions are or if they have any training with their weapon.  Gun toters have yet to stop a mass shooting, even in very lenient states like Arizona, but there have been plenty of incidents of them unintentionally discharging their weapons, sometimes injuring or even killing others in the act.  That, of course, is the ultimate backfire – at the cost of innocent lives.

Addendum:  And let’s not forget this Georgia “Open Carry” activist, who strutted around a little league baseball game with his openly-carried handgun, announcing to frightened parents, “See my gun? Look, I got a gun and there's nothing you can do about it,” prompting panicked calls to 911, the cancelling of the game, and the fleeing of families with their crying children. But it was totally legal, thanks to our lax gun laws.

UPDATE (5/31/14):  Both Chili's and Sonic have now announced a ban on guns in their stores.  Backfire!  Backfire!  When will the gun guys learn?  Personally, I hope they keep showing up with their guns.  They help our cause immensely with their shows of extremism.

UPDATE (6/1/14):  Even the NRA has denounced these "Open Carry" extremists!  In a statement released by the NRA, the NRA uses words to describe the armed invasions of restaurants that include "weird," “downright foolishness,”  “not neighborly,” and “counterproductive."  From the NRA statement:

As gun owners, whether or not our decisions are dictated by the law, we are still accountable for them. And we owe it to each other to act as checks on bad behavior before the legal system steps in and does it for us.  If we exercise poor judgment, our decisions will have consequences. ....

Yet while unlicensed open carry of long guns is also typically legal in most places, it is a rare sight to see someone sidle up next to you in line for lunch with a 7.62 rifle slung across his chest, much less a whole gaggle of folks descending on the same public venue with similar arms. 

Let's not mince words, not only is it rare, it's downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself. To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one's cause, it can be downright scary.  It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates. ....

... the freedom and goodwill these businesses had previously extended to gun owners has been curtailed because of the actions of an attention-hungry few who thought only of themselves and not of those who might be affected by their behavior. To state the obvious, that's counterproductive for the gun owning community.

HERE is a related article, from Mother Jones magazine, on the NRA rebuff of Open Carry Texas's actions.

UPDATE (6/3/14):  In an interview with one of the Open Carry Texas organizers on MSBC, the spokesman refused to admit that anyone could be scared by a group of men openly carrying assault rifles into restaurants.  Just goes to show how blind they are to the effects of their actions.  From an article:

“Do you think it would scare people?” Reid asked Tov Henderson several times. “I can’t get you to answer a very simple question. Do you think it scares people to see, let alone one armed person, but a bunch of armed people in this day and age when we have so many mass shootings? Do you think it scares people?” 

“I think it has the potential to do anything, to have all kinds of emotions,” Henderson said. “It potentially could have a large range of emotions.” 

When Reid asked Henderson to name the emotions his group elicits during public appearances, Henderson said the response when his group would go to restaurants was positive.

Given the extreme positions the the NRA has taken, on every issue related to guns, I'm surprised by their statement.

UPDATE (6/14/14):  Well, the joke's on us (the American people).  Only a few hours after releasing their statement condemning the Open Carry Texas demonstrations, and after a round of outrage from the Open Carry crowd, the NRA abruptly reversed their opinion, blaming their original position on a staffer who had "expressed his personal opinion."  From an article and video:

A National Rifle Association (NRA) official publicly apologized on Tuesday for a statement the group released criticizing the growing “open carry” movement in Texas for being “downright scary,” Talking Points Memo reported.

“It shouldn’t have happened,” NRA Institute for Legislative Action director Chris Cox said on the Cam and Co. radio show. “I’ve had a discussion with the staffer who wrote that piece, and expressed his personal opinion. Our job is not to criticize the lawful behavior of fellow gun owners.”

Cox’s apologetic remarks followed threats by members of Open Carry Texas in response the NRA’s statement, which criticized the group’s practice of gathering in public places while carrying assault rifles or other long firearms to protest the state ban on carrying handguns openly.

Why am I not surprised?  Common sense is too foreign of a concept for the NRA.  They wouldn't want a handful of extremists to be lost from their flock, after all, given how close their leadership is to them (despite being so far removed from the general NRA membership).

ADDENDUM (6/8/14):  The Daily Show had a funny skit about "2nd Amendment Manners" for all those (white) Open Carry advocates:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

UPDATE (6/16/14):  Whataburger has now joined the ranks of restaurant chains that are disallowing guns in their stores.  See their notice, HERE.  Backfire!
.

“Nothing I Own Is Worth Killing Over”

Here’s a scenario for you:  You arrive to your home, expecting that no one is present.  But when you arrive, you find a thief has broken in and is currently trying to rob the place.  You’re alone, but armed.  They appear unarmed, and upon seeing you, try to run away.  What do you do?

Do you turn and drive away, then call 911?

Or do you pull your gun and start shooting?

I’ve seen this scenario reported from time to time, and all too often the gun guys pull their gun and start blasting.  Consider, for instance, the following newsreport, from Myrtle Creek, in gun-happy southern Oregon:

A man came home to find two men breaking into his home on Dole Road, and the Sheriff's office says he fired a pistol at the men.

Deputies say they were called to a residence in the 2800 block of Dole Road at about 6:00 am, after the homeowner called and said he interrupted a burglary.

Both suspects ran from the scene, and have not been located.  

The Sheriff's office says it is unknown at this time if either of the suspects were shot.

(A follow-up article today confirmed the capture of one of the robbers, who had been shot in the hand by the homeowner.)

My comment on that first article was, “Nothing I own is worth killing over.”

The usual posse of pro-gun guys immediately responded in outrage, with cold statements wishing death to the thieves, an odd statement about the Revolutionary War, and even a threat about coming to rob me:

“You don't feel threatened if someone is in your home trying to rob you???  Can I have your address?” 

“Fortunately the founding fathers of this Country did not have your attitude or otherwise we would still be under British rule.“ said one, as if an isolated property-protection shooting was in any analogous to the Revolutionary War.

“If someone is in my house, you can bet your sweet a** it's self-defense to pull a weapon.  I would not allow an opportunity to be shot at first.  If you are a stranger in my home, I'm scared and it's self defense! Some states have laws that if you are trespassing...you can act in 'self-defense'.”

“Deadly force is justified against someone "committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling." So yep, he has every right to kill someone in defense of his property.”

“And the problem is??? to bad he didn't get one !”

“Too bad he missed. He needs to spend more time at the range.”

"I won't wait, hesitate or ask why...!  BOOM !"

But here was one that I felt truly represented the pro-gun opinion:

“Every single thing I own is worth more to me than the life of someone who would invade my home and try to take my things.”

"Every single thing?"  Really?  Your TV?  Your coffee maker?  Your smelly old houseshoes?

You see this response all the time from the gun crowd.  Consider this statement from one site that sells gun accessories: 

"We don’t want to hear any stories of how one of our readers became a victim, rather we’d like to see a news report on you gunning down a criminal during a home invasion. Nothing warms our hearts more than hearing those kinds of stories on the news."

Warms their heart??  Really? 

Or consider this lady.  She was so incensed when someone tried to jimmy a door lock and then ran off with a yard statue, that she has organized a “Glock block” movement to arm herself and her neighbors and advertise the fact:

Coy Tolonen, 65, said the idea came to her last Thursday after she tried and failed to chase down a thief who ran away with her beloved bronze yard statue.

Later that evening, the grandmother of three said she realized a door to her home had been jimmied open, possibly by the same man she said stole her statue.

"It just made my blood run cold because our grandkids are playing here a lot, and one of them could have been snatched just as easily as the statue," she told ABCNews.com.

"These guys need to know if you're going to pick on a little old lady, then lots of the ladies I know are packing [guns]. They're sweet ladies but if it's their life, I'm sorry you're going to lose yours," Tolonen said. ….

Tolonen began printing flyers for her neighbors to hang in their windows, with a picture of a gun and the warning: "This is a Glock Block. We don't call 911." She said so far more than a dozen neighbors have shown interest.

Sorry, but I don’t feel a jimmied lock and a statue are worth killing over.  But the pro-gun crowd was cheering.  “Bag em and tag em Grandma” said one pro-gun commenter on the page.  “Get rid of cops. We can defend, protect and kill on our own with our own guns “ said another.  “Good for them!” said this extremist blogger.

Naturally, the police are concerned about Mrs. Tolonen’s new “Glock block”:

"What we're really talking about here is property crime ," Sgt. Robert Wurpes told ABCNews.com. 

"We don't think firearms are the answer to this problem. However, we do understand gun ownership is a right."

Wurpes said he and his fellow officers have been on plenty of calls in property crime cases and many times have realized victims hadn't been communicating with their neighbors or hadn't even met them.

"Get to know your neighbors," Wurpes said.

"We understand that it's frustrating when people get things stolen or are victims of crimes," he said. "Our concerns come into play when guns are involved because they're dangerous. "

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I’m not sympathetic to criminals bold enough to break into a home.  They should know they can expect a dangerous reaction, and they deserve to be caught and to do time.  However, unless they are attempting or threaten violence against the homeowner or his family, I don’t feel that they deserve a death sentence for their action, and even then it would depend upon the circumstances. 

Some years ago, before I bought a home alarm system, someone threw a rock through my sliding glass door and stole a TV from my home.  When we got home and discovered it, we felt violated.  But at no time did I wish the person to be killed for their action.

And just finding a stranger in your home shouldn’t, on its own, illicit a kill-or-be-killed response.  Situations happen quite often, where someone is drunk and wonders onto the wrong property, or is trick-or-treating, or just winds up at the wrong door.  Shootings happen all too often under these circumstances.  Did those people deserve to die, too?

Sadly, the number of people buying guns out of fear has drastically increased, despite falling violent crime rates.  From a CNN article:

A national survey published in March by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reported that nearly half (48%) of gun owners say the main reason they own a gun is for protection, up from 26% who gave that answer in 1999. 

Less than a third (32%) cited hunting as the main reason, down from nearly half (49%) in 1999.

The findings make no sense, since violent crime in the country overall has dropped by 48% since 1993, according to Kellermann.

Perhaps even more important -- and less understood -- is the evidence that the benefits of keeping a gun for protection are far outweighed by the risks, he said.

Right now, the trial of George Zimmerman is taking place in Florida, and, once again, the country is debating "stand your ground" laws and whether it is right to kill someone over a perceived injustice without taking an opportunity to evade the situation.

Unfortunately, here in Oregon and an increasing number of other states with “stand your ground” laws, it is perfectly legal to shoot a stranger in your home that you perceive as trespassing.  But just because you have the right to kill doesn't mean it’s the right thing to do.  

This "kill the intruder" talk is the philosophy of the NRA and their gun-selling masters at work.  This is their definition of "freedom."  It’s time to bring a new trajectory to our society away from gun violence, and stop using guns and the threat of lethal violence to solve our problems.

UPDATE (7/2/13):  Some more extreme comments from a follow-up article about the shooting mentioned at the first of this blog post. Once again, in the comments section, I reaffirmed that nothing I own is worth killing over.  Upset at my comment, here is what the gun guys had to say to me (bolding added):

"Your logic has helped many homeowners end up dead because they chose your method. You liberals believe in being victims and creating victims instead of protecting your families. Many of us grew up with guns, joined the military and continued training with guns to keep proficient. We didn't play with dolls or yell for a teacher when ever a kid on the playground took our ball,we beat his ass. We are the most qualified to protect our families and if you step foot in my home I will blow you away, everything in my home, my children and my wife are worth killing for. You don't like guns, don't buy one!" 

"If I were to catch a low life burglar at my home trying to take what I worked hard for, they better be ready to meet my 357 Magnum and I will shoot without hesitation. That's right...shoot first, ask/answer questions later! Cuz if I don't do it first they will...whether it be by gun, knife, baseball bat...etc. BANG!!!" 

"I will without hesitation empty an entire clip at an intruder from his navel to his knees."

.

“Molon Labe” Was Uttered By An Arms-Controlling Tyrant

one of thousands of decals and other accessories
commercially available with the phrase "molon labe" on it

(This is Part II of a two-part series.  See HERE for Part I.)

The phrase “Molon labe” has special meaning to pro-gun extremists, but if they bothered to learn more about the arms-control beliefs of the tyrant who said those words, I believe they would immediately renounce the phrase.  In fact, the saying may not have actually been uttered at all.

When King Leonidas I of Sparta and his legion of 300 Spartan warriors, at the Battle of Thermopylae, were told by Persian King Xerxes I to surrender and lay down their weapons, King Leonidas supposedly said “Molon labe!” in response, which translates to “Come and take them!”  Over the next three days, he and his brave warriors defied and beat back the massive Persian army, with up to 150,000 soldiers, at a very tight pass along the route that the Persians were trying to take to invade Greece.  Defiant to the end, Leonidas and his brave Spartans nearly all died in the battle, buying time for Athens to evacuate to safety.  The war later ended due to superior Greek naval strategy and sea battles, and Xerxes was forced to retreat back to Persia. 

There's no doubt about it: Leonidas and the rest of his army (not just 300, by the way, but at least 7400 including all the other Greeks there) were a model of defensive positioning, and their act was indeed very heroic and altruistic.  They fill a very worthy position in the annals of History.  The defiance of Leonidas and his warriors rightly became a symbol of patriotic defense and self-sacrifice against overwhelming odds. 

The account of the battle fits in well with the pro-gun fantasy of defending one’s home against an invasion of bloodthirsty, drug-dealing gangs or “jackbooted government thugs” 

The translation of “molon labe” (come and take them) also goes hand-in-hand with the simplistic and wrongheaded ideology that any and all gun control proposals are actually a prelude to total civilian gun confiscation.  Like Charleton Heston’s famous “From my cold dead hands!” speech, “Molon labe” evokes the same Leonidas-like defiance against a supposedly tyrannical government intent on complete disarmament of its people.  It’s an ideology pushed hard by the NRA and other gun lobbies, the arms manufacturers who fund them, and anyone who defends them.  The more they push this belief, the more their customers will buy their products. 

And buy them they do!  A huge cottage market has sprung up around the phrase “Molon labe” (like THIS site or THIS site).  You can purchase all sorts of gear with the phrase on it:  hats, shirts, stickers, pens, dog tags, and, yes, gun parts.  There are even bikini thong panties with the phrase across the crotch.  Many of these are sold in combination with anti-Obama themes.  Here’s one that shows Obama’s election logo shot up (no violent implications, I’m sure).  Here's a pro-gun forum named after the phrase, and the name of a small-time firearms dealer.  The gun guys even get tattoos of it, like this one and this one. 

But I wanted to dig a little deeper.  I like to think of myself as a little bit of an ancient history buff, and what I knew of ancient Sparta didn't seem to jive with the philosophies of the modern pro-gun movement.  Though Sparta had a reputation of being warlike (which may be undeserved), it was also a highly stratified society with slaves and requirements to earn honors and titles.  It didn't seem like a place where weapons designed for killing were freely available, able to be carried in public by just anyone, as modern gun extremists would like to see with firearms in America.  Could it be true, then, that the man who uttered those famous words was actually leading a society with (gasp!) strict arms control?

So I contacted one of the world's foremost historians on ancient Sparta:  Stephen Hodkinson, BA, PhD, FSA, Professor of Ancient History and Director of the Centre for Spartan and Peloponnesian Studies at the University of Nottingham.

Professor Hodkinson edited and helped write the book (along with co-author Ian Macgregor Morris) “Sparta in Modern Thought.”  Dr. Hodkinson was even made an Honorary Citizen of the modern city of Sparta in Greece for his academic contributions to the history of Sparta. 

He responded quickly to my email, and wrote a very good, unbiased, scholarly opinion.  PLEASE GO TO PART I of this two-part series.  There you can find his response, un-edited by me. 

What Professor Hodkinson wrote surprised even me....  See some selected quotes below.

The right to possess a weapon in Sparta at that time wasn't guaranteed to just anyone.  As Professor Hodkinson outlines in Part I, there were a number of different castes in Spartan society.  The helots, who were essentially slaves, couldn't possess them at all, outside of a few historical exceptions or farming tools:

Each Spartiate was normally accompanied on campaign by a helot personal servant; but there were strict precautions to prevent these helots gaining access to usable arms. So there is every reason to believe that within Spartan territory helots would normally have been prevented from owning or gaining access to military weapons ...

Other groups had to go through certain "hoops" before they could be granted weapons: 

Returning to the various groups who are attested as fighting as hoplites, did they have to earn the right to bear and own arms?  Again, there is no text that specifies the exact legal position; but there were certain hoops that men from the different groups had to go through. A Spartiate boy almost certainly had to fulfill all the demands of the upbringing, in order to be allowed to join the army at age 20; the same surely also applied to young mothakes. The neodamodeis had to agree to perform military service for Sparta in return for being granted their freedom. As for members of the perioikoi, on reaching adulthood they had to be accepted as legitimate citizens in their own local communities and they probably also had to have sufficient wealth to afford the hoplite equipment – as was the case in most other Greek states.

Women likely couldn't own or use weapons, either:

No women from any of the groups in Spartan society fought in the Lakedaimonian army or had any guard duty roles, so they probably had no right to own or use military weapons.

Is discrimination against women and socio-economic class for gun ownership sound like something the modern pro-gun movement would support?

When it comes to age, here in the U.S. you have to be at least 18 to purchase a rifle or shotgun, and at least 21 to purchase a handgun (though the gun lobby has been trying unsuccessfully to lower those ages), but anyone younger can possess a gun that their parents buy for them, of any age.  Some guns are even special-made for children so young they are still learning their ABC's!  But in the Sparta of Leonidas, you likely had to be of military age of 20, or at least close to it, with military training, before earning the right:

As already indicated, for the Spartiates (and probably for the other groups too) eligibility for hoplite service began at age 20. Whether or not a Spartiate teenager possessed his own weapons before he started hoplite service is not mentioned in any ancient source. It may be that youths in their late teens, soon about to become hoplites, did so, but it is very difficult to demonstrate. In Athens, and possibly in other Greek states, 18-19-year-olds from citizen families who could afford it (families had to pay their teenagers’ costs) could serve as ephebes, being assigned static guard duties inside Athenian territory. Athenian teenagers would necessarily have their own weapons during this period of service. However, no source mentions anything parallel in Sparta ....

The only implied reference to formal military training (and this was for hoplites generally, not specifically part of the upbringing) is to formation drill: coordinated manoeuvres to get the phalanx into the right position before or during battle. It would be reasonable to assume that 18-19-year-old Spartiates were included in this formation drill training in preparation for when they turned age 20; and also that it was probably practised spear in hand, to make it more realistic. However, this is only assumption and it cannot be used to infer that boys below age 18 had access to military weapons.

The pro-gun movement has been very successful in recent years in making it ridiculously easy to legally carry firearms in public, concealed or openly.  Did Spartans carry their weapons around in civilian life, too?  Certainly not:

However, apart from these specific occasions, the Spartiates (and no doubt the other groups who fought in the army) normally went about their daily lives unarmed: i.e. without carrying weapons. ....

Thucydides (1.5-6) says that in certain (less civilised) parts of Greece – he mentions various peoples in central Greece – the old practice of carrying arms still survives because of the continuing danger of piracy. The clear implication is that in more secure and civilised Greek states people no longer carried weapons in everyday life; and this is confirmed when he goes on to say that the Athenians were the first to give up the habit of carrying weapons and also to adopt the fashion of wearing luxurious dress. He then says that the Lakedaimonians (i.e. Spartans) were the first to dress more simply in accord with modern taste. The implications are: (1) that by the time of their shift to simpler dress the Spartans had already followed the Athenian example of not carrying arms in everyday life; (2) that the Athenians and other civilised Greeks then adopted the Spartan example of simple dress, so that by Thucydides’ time in the late 5^th century they all dressed simply and without carrying arms.

And this in spite of the fact, as Hodkinson goes on to point out, that the Spartans were vastly outnumbered by helot slaves and other subordinate groups who could easily arm themselves with tools and other dangerous, non-military implements found in markets or in the course of their labors.

The pro-gun lobby in modern America argues that people need to carry their weapons at all times to protect against imminent threat, even in places like schools and coffee shops.  Clearly Leonidas and his culture didn't feel the same.

Ah, but here's the real surprise that I wasn't aware of:  the utterance of "molon labe" may not have even happened at all!  It didn't appear in extant writings from close to the time of the Battle of Thermopylae.  We know the phrase from the writings of Plutarch, some 580 years after the battle:

Finally, some comments on the “molon labe” phrase ascribed to Leonidas at the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. It does not appear in Herodotus’ account, written in the later 5^th century, which records the witty sayings of another member of the 300, Dienekes. Neither does it appear in accounts of the battle deriving from Ephorus, who wrote in the 4^th century and who himself drew upon a contemporary poem about the battle by Simonides. To my knowledge, the only appearance of the phrase in all the ancient evidence about Thermopylae is in a work by Plutarch, writing in the early 2^nd century AD: the Apophthegmata Lakonika (Sayings of Spartans), which is part of Plutarch’s Moralia. It is no. 11 out of fifteen sayings ascribed to Leonidas.

He later clarified in an email (updated 6/11/13):  

As far as we can currently tell, many of [the Spartan sayings] were probably invented in the late 4^th or early 3^rdcenturies BC, at a time when Sparta had ceased to be a major international power and became instead an attractive source of moral examples for the new and rising Hellenistic schools of philosophy. However, the late 4^th or early 3^rd centuries BC is still 150-200 years after Thermopylae, a long time after the event.

In sum, the historical authenticity of the phrase “molon labe” is uncertain. One cannot prove that it is a later embroidering of the Leonidas legend; but its sole appearance in a late work which is known to contain many other inventions and its somewhat odd context in that work do not inspire confidence that it is genuinely historical.

So what can we make of all this?  The answer is shockingly clear:  for anyone who uses "molon labe" as a rally cry for the pro-gun movement, the joke's on them! 

It leaves me laughing to think that all those people who tattoo their bodies with "molon labe", apply bumper stickers to their cars, or wear hats, shirts, or even panties with the words on them, are likely celebrating a fiction.  The society of the man who supposedly uttered those words would horrify any pro-gun person if the culture of Sparta in the time of Leonidas were applied to modern life, and the saying itself may have been a fabrication to begin with!

But that won't stop these people.  After all, the gun guys cling to myths, based on half-truths, to justify their beliefs -- like the belief that the American Revolution was won by valiant farmers wielding their hunting rifles in militias and picking off the British using guerrilla tactics, ignoring the largest role by the Continental Army and French allies, or that the American West was tamed by cowboys with revolvers, ignoring the fact that guns were prohibited in city limits of the time, and rarely carried or owned at all except for hunting.  Using "molon labe" as a symbol for the pro-gun movement focuses only on the one, defiant sentiment, and ignores all other aspects of the arms-controlling society of the man who supposedly uttered it.