I generally try to make a point of jabbing my opponents whenever the opportunity presents itself... you never really know when your next chance will be, and you never really know if that one jab might be the terminal one. A good example of this would be the email I sent to Laura Washington a while back, concerning one of her hoplophobic opinion columns. Yeah, I was a little flippant, and, yeah, I was a little sarcastic - but she was out of line on all of her primary points (and outright offensive on the last), and it got under my skin a little. No excuse, I know ("He who loses his temper first, loses."), but an explanation.

This time around, I had to wait until all of the appropriate little ducks were in their cute little rows, but once that was said and done, I shot this email off to her a few days ago:

Professor Washington,

You may remember me from my email I wrote to you concerning your "Gun lovers disarm control advocates" column you wrote back in late August. If not, no big deal - I am quite sure your columns generate a fair bit of feedback, and my email was probably one of many.

This time around, I am writing concerning your recent article in "In These Times". It may come as a surprise to you that I am, in fact, not writing to attack your column, or its points, or what you wrote at all.

Instead, I am writing to congratulate and thank you. Through the course of your article, you used the phrase "People of the Gun". I may be completely off-base, but I think it can be relatively safe to say that you used this phrase in a less-than-positive light.

What you were not expecting, I am willing to wager, is the response of gun-owners around America. I would invite you to take a look at the following webpages:

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2007/09/people_of_the_gun.html
http://www.cafepress.com/brownphilosophy/3747902
http://www.peopleofthegun.com

I wish I could claim responsibility for the last one, but someone with slightly more disposeable income than I reserved the domain. His plans are to put up images of gun-owners, with their firearms, from all over America, as examples of the "tribe" you unknowingly created. However, yes, the first link, as well as the CafePress store, are products of my work - that one weblog post accounted for over 500 hits yesterday, and the store has already made a few sales.

However, let me make something explicitly and completely clear: neither the "gun lobby", nor the NRA, nor anyone even remotely related to either of those organizations, has paid me to write my weblog, has supported my weblog, or has provided me any money whatsoever. In fact, I *pay* the NRA myself to remain a member. This "People of the Gun" movement that you unwittingly launched is not supported by the NRA, a nebulous "gun lobby", or anything else, either. It is the solely the product and responsibility of a group of grass-roots firearm-owners who were amused at your choice of words, and disgruntled by your column, and who wanted to make a statement.

Once again, thank you for the inspiration you accidentally provided by your words, and congratulations for providing such an interesting impetus for the gun owners throughout America. While none of us particularly appreciate your columns in general, we are almost universally behind this new "People of the Gun" fellowship. Thank you once again.

Sincerely,
Linoge.

Just now, I received a response. Considering how long-winded and content-lacking her columns are, Laura can be remarkably taciturn when she wants.

Dear Linoge,

Thanks for alerting me to this. It's very interesting and it reinforces my point that the pro-gun folks are much more savvy than their opponents. All best,

Laura

=================================================================
Laura S. Washington
Ida B. Wells-Barnett University Professor
DePaul University
Contributing Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times
Senior Editor, In These Times
DePaul Humanities Center

That it does, Laura, but you completely miss all of the other things it does. It demonstrates that we are, in fact, not "made up almost exclusively of white men from suburban and rural areas". It shows that we are not supported by the "gun lobby" "plunking down plenty of cold hard cash"... though I certainly would not turn down a check from the NRA if it were to show up on my doorstep. As it stands now, I pay them. It is beginning to indicate that the hoplophobes are not the majority (and never were). If you looked at the weblogs listed on People of the Gun, you would find that the "progressives" are working to "harness the Internet"... and are using it for the side of the Second Amendment. The testimonials found there show that we are, in fact, not being suppored by a "juggernaut of a website that networks gun advocates from hither to yon", supposedly created by the NRA. It makes it evident that women need no encouragement to "get behind a keyboard" and support their rights to bear arms and defend themselves. Finally, the ladies have already organized themselves... and, you are right about one thing - you had better "watch out".

Now, come on Laura, we all know you are not stupid - your excessively-sized email signature ensures people are reminded of that on a daily basis. As such, all of this could not have escaped your attention... Can anyone say "denial"?

Face it, Laura - you are out of your league. Yeah, I know you are a "Professor" - whatever little that may or may not mean these days. Yeah, I know you are an "official journalist" - ditto. Yeah, I know you are a "senior editor" - congratulations. But not a whit of that matters the teeniest, tiniest, eensiest little bit if all you do is write emotionally, write "from the heart", write to sway the hearts, and not the minds, of men, write without the slightest bit of factual, real-life evidence to support you. As it stands now, you are nothing more than a propagandist - a propagandist who hopes she is writing to the somehow silent majority, but completely unaware of the fact that they are silent because they simply do not exist. Statistics are not on your side (as much as they are useful to any side), reality is not on your side, the majority is not on your side... All you have are atrociously erroneous, preconceived notions, grandiose and meaningless emotional pleas, and a misplaced sense of moral superiority... and one hell of a propaganda support network in the form of the Brady Bunch, PUSH, VPC, and the rest of those "if we repeat it enough times, it has to be right!" organizations. Speaking of...

Since you leveled the charge against us, I consider it only fair to return the favor: considering that your hoplophobic articles have the completely unavoidable tone of someone who does not have the faintest clue what they are writing about (and your writing itself reveals a marked ignorance on the topic), they remind me a great deal of some of my sponsored posts here on my own weblog. As such, how much is the hoplophobic/anti-gun/anti-rights/anti-self-defense combine paying you to write them? I mean, everyone has to pay the bills somehow, and what better way than write anti-rights screes... when it is not your rights that you are suggesting we abridge. After all, Willis Player was dead on the money when he said, "A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake at the moment."