Do people actually get paid for this kind of "writing"?

After reading (several times) Steve Anderson's blog at the Huff 'n' Puff Post, I still can't figure out why he bothered to write it, or comprehend why anyone would pay to publish it. It seems to consist mainly of a description of his bizarre neuroses regarding firearms.

I hate guns. I recognize their sad neccessity [sic], for law enforcement, and soldiers.

Because only law enforcement officers and soldiers are ever faced with people who would try to kill them, Steve? And if we do bestow a monopoly on force upon law enforcement and the military, do you think that there's not just a teency chance that we will have enabled our own subjugation?

But I have absolutely no comprehension how a human can enjoy killing a creature and call it sport.

Ahh--the old "the only legitimate use for guns is for 'sporting' purposes" argument. I suppose one could make a sport out of self-defense, and the defense of liberty, but I think that such an endeavor would be in rather poor taste. By the way, are you a vegetarian (herbivore, in other words), Steve--or do you hire your killing done, but consider yourself morally superior to those who kill their own meat?

I regularly hear from folks on an email list, many of them conservatives and libertarians, that guns are lovely pieces of engineering and should be appreciated. They prattle on about various loads and calibers. I think they are certifiably insane.

So--an appreciation of firearms is grounds for declaring a person "certifiably insane"? And people wonder why gun rights activists are unhappy about legislation that would expand the role of mental health evaluations in determining whether or not a person may enjoy his Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

All the arguments by people who want to keep guns in their houses fail even casual scrutiny to me.

So you would have us leave them outside?

Statistics, while open to interpretation, show far more danger from those guns than any perceived benefit.

"Perceived benefit(s)" like the ability to survive, and prevail in, an attack by predatory criminals? "Perceived benefit(s)" such as having the means to rein in an out-of-control government?

To me, it's a bit like any addiction: one will torture logic to support the addiction, no matter how harmful. These people just want to have guns around.


I think that's crazy.

Don't worry, Steve--if we do "torture logic," your writings should be quite safe. If our refusal to surrender the means to defend ourselves, our families, and our liberty is an "addiction," don't bother trying to rehabilitate us--we're going to continue to revel in it.

What's "crazy" is condemning people for insisting on retaining the means to avoid going quietly into oblivion, when your tyranny enablement chickens come home to roost.