"It is a good thing for a young man to know how to use firearms, and to be as expert as possible with them..."

"Pistol-Toting."

   Some of the Southern papers are engaging in a crusade against the "pistol-toting" habit. This is a habit which is altogether too prevalent in many parts of the country, though possibly the peculiar characteristics of Southern civilization have made it particularly common there. But it is a bad habit and should never be encouraged. Men who really need to carry pistols for their own protection will always be allowed to do so without protest from anyone; but such men are comparatively few. The average "pistol-toter" fondles his revolver because he has an idea that it is a sign of manliness, and sooner or later the revolver and his idea of courage, between them, are likely to get him into serious trouble.

   It is a good thing for a young man to know how to use firearms, and to be as expert as possible with them. They are to the nineteenth century what the sword and rapier were In the eighteenth, or the lance in the age of chivalry. They are weapons whose proper use must be reckoned among manly accomplishments, and, on occasion, they may do valuable service even in time of peace. It Is also a good thing for a young man to be an expert boxer and wrestler, to be as strong as his weight and inches will allow him to be. to be quick of eye and movement. But he can do all these, and, generally speaking, will be able to take care of himself and his family in any emergency, without sticking a pistol in his pocket whenever he goes abroad. There is little excuse, economically speaking, for the pistol-toter.

   The great evil of this custom is that it breeds disregard for human life. So long as an angry man instinctively strikes first and thinks afterward, so long will it be unsafe for the average human being to carry a pistol about with him. This habit gives a fatal ending to many a trifling quarrel, and eventually causes human life to be held cheap in the place where it is prevalent. If anyone thinks that it is desirable to have state of society in which a woman is never quite sure whether her husband will come back to her alive, or without the blood of an acquaintance on his hands, it would, be interesting to hear the reasons for such a belief. It is difficult to see why, in a civilized state of society, it should be considered heroic or meritorious for two men to shoot at each other because both love the same woman. Common sense would dictate that if the woman has clearly expressed her preference for one man, the other should behave in a courageous and generous manner, and relinquish his claims on her affection, instead of trying to murder the man she has preferred, and make her miserable for life. Such a performance is atavistic. An Indian squaw might calmly await the issue of such Conflict, and give her affections to the victor, but a civilized woman's feelings ought to be, and generally are, somewhat different from those of the savage.

   The only possible excuse for the carrying of a pistol is the presence of dangerous characters who are liable to attack the owner, his family or his property; but even then it is to be doubted whether this weapon is as efficacious, as might be supposed. Some of the pluckiest and best hated of men have gone about among ruffians accustomed to the use of firearms, with only a stout stick for protection. Most roughs will hesitate about attacking a man of undoubted courage, who is quick with his fists and nimble of wits. There is something about pluck which intimidates a coward, and about three-fourths of the bullies in this world are cowards. [Yeah, but what about the other 25% percent that are not?]

[The Evening Times, Washington, [D.C.] Saturday, July 22, 1899. Number 1242. Pg. 4]

    And yet again we see a prime example of how the news media took part in the concerted attempt to destroy our Constitutionally secured right. Although, this article comes right out and admits it. Though I'm unsure that is a wise thing. (Coming out and publicly admitting that one is engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to deprive people of an all important right). Yet it was obviously effective, as is evidenced by the current predicament we have with our right. It is also rather obvious that many of the authors of tripe, as that seen above. Were quite adept at employing [supposed] "common sense" justifications in their push for tyrannical usurpation. As well as utilizing the now standard tear-jerking emotionalism routine.

   It sure seems like the vast majority of authors, which spewed forth tripe such as that found above. Had a desire to live in a idealistic world totally devoid of reality. And that by playing make believe, it would actually bring it about. In addition to being utterly dismissive of the evil present in fallen human nature. Of course these people will never admit that that which they seek. Will never come to pass in this present worldly system. Or, that those that are prepared to meet and put down the evil found in this world. Are actually the ones that are truly living in reality.