Is that they honestly believe gun owners are ashamed at being gun owners.
Publishing the list of gun owners is a danger as it gives out a clear map to criminals where guns are (and on the flipside, where they aren’t). These magazines don’t care about that, what they care about is their belief that nobody wants people to know they’re a gun owner as if being one were some sort of scarlet letter.
I’m trying to remember who posted about being at a gun rights rally one time. She was saying there was an anti who was trying to surreptitiously take her and her son’s picture. She approached the lady and gladly let her take their picture and didn’t realize until later that the photographer was being coy about it because she honestly thought people would be embarrassed to be seen at such a thing.
They hate us, and even worse, they hate their version of us which is generally a strawman of epic proportions. The problem is they cannot face reality where gun owners are women, minorities, or anything other than old, fat, white guys. They cling to that stereotype with a faith so pure and strong that it makes Billy Graham’s views look like atheism.
They’re the ones who should feel shame, but I don’t believe that’s possible for them.
Incoming Fire
Comments
s
Cathy over at Cornered Cat
http://www.corneredcat.com/smile-for-the-camera/
But I am not ashamed to be a gun owner. Prudently not broadcasting it, yes, but ashamed, no.
They want to make gun ownership something that doesn't happen in civilized society. That means a photo of gun ownership, or of being pro-gun, has to become a liability. There are jobs where owning a gun -- even solely at home -- are not compatible with continued employment. There are social circles where it just doesn't happen, because anyone that does and talks about it is no longer part of that social circle. They don't want to risk being corrupted. Worse, they'll do so without actually naming the corruption, in the long run. It's about making behavior unimaginable and unspeakable.
((This isn't the only place this tactic is applied : the progressive movement has done something similar on the matter of gay rights, albeit for a better reason, and the right-wing has had its equivalent matters.))
(If you're carrying concealed, and you see a felony being committed right in front of you, and you draw your gun to get the perpetrator to cease and desist... do you ask first if the victim supports an assault-weapons ban? Of course not. On the other hand, a gun-grabber, watching you do this, would not hesitate to ascribe the most evil motives to you if you make the slightest mistake... and might do so anyway if it suits them.)
The vast majority of American gun owners care about people, including people who fervently disagree with them. But this violates the accepted narrative, doesn't it?

