By David Codrea

We knew it would happen. You don't create a pro-gun website without expecting to get hostile feedback. What I hadn't expected was for the section we have no control over to be one of the most telling and provocative parts of the site.

Perhaps I should explain.

Several months ago, some friends and I launched the internet site GunTruths.com. Our goal was to create a resource where everyone, from hard core gun rights activists to people who don't know much about them, could get the truth about guns.

When they first access our home page, we give visitors three options to choose from:"I believe in gun control; I'm not sure; [and] I believe in self-defense."

Depending on what they select, visitors are routed to the appropriate page (no, we don't have a "hell" page for people who pick the first option).

We've tried to be pretty comprehensive. We have a "myths" section, to give people rebuttals to common arguments advanced by gun controllers. We have a "posters" section, where we have developed graphics and supporting text to focus on the moral and rational implications of the right to bear arms. We have a "correspondents" section, where my friends and I can rant– er– wax poetic (and otherwise) through essays and articles that promote this right. We have book reviews, facts you can use, a kid's page, quotes from the Founders, links, and a lot of other stuff that we think is both relevant and cool.

And then we have the "comments" page. This is where visitors can say anything they want.
Anonymously.

Naturally, I love to read messages from people who agree with us and say nice things about our work. I'm kind of like my sister's dog that way–give me a pat on the head accompanied by a "good boy", and I'll be your attentive friend for life, or at least until somebody else offers me a belly rub or a treat.

But what really grabs me, makes me laugh, infuriates me, is the raw stuff, the flames (internet slang for hostile correspondence and put-downs).

This is probably because these are visceral missives that people write from the gut. Unlike a work that reflects the benefit of rewrites, this stuff is more like the old days of live television; the commentators are acting in real-time, and once they commit, they can't take it back.

I still remember our first flame, verbatim. We had received several very kind comments from early site visitors, and then it appeared. Three small words: "Tis page sucks" (incidentally, I'm leaving in the typos to preserve the raw flavor of these posts).

I was instantly enamored, not only because the flamer's aim was thrown off by the mis-key, but also because the comment confirmed something I have observed time and again throughout the gun control debate; the other side cannot refute our facts. They of need resort to insults and disparagement, because they have no moral or logical high ground to occupy. Happily, I copied the flame and forwarded it to my GunTruths collaborators.

As time passed, we received more barbs among the garlands. Some of the complaints were based on the peculiar logic of the writer, and reflected fundamental misunderstandings and lack of critical thinking, as in:

"I think that your web-site is the most one sided site that I have ever visited. You make anyone who supports gun control a follower of Pol Pot or Stalin. I am a supporter of gun control and I am about as far away from those men as you can get. I am a white female who lives in a suburban city who sees no use for a gun at all other than hunting."

So in her mind, providing a forum for our opponents to freely disagree with us is "one-sided." Find such an outlet on, say, the "balanced" Handgun Control, Inc., site. While she does not like dictators, she embraces their population disarmament practices, the universal policy for enabling genocide. And pray to God that she never learns the hard way about the protective benefits a gun can provide to a female, white or otherwise.

Case in point– from a person who was quick to point out what he thought was a mistake:

"I bet it's kinda hard to jog and carry an ‘assault weapon' at the same time."

This was in reference to our analysis of the female Central Park jogger who was gang-raped in the infamous "wilding" incident by about 20 "men". This is a misapplication of a point that we were trying to illustrate–that while the Defense Department defines "assault weapons" as selective fire (i.e., full-auto capable) military rifles, the gun controllers include any semiautomatic firearm that has a magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds. So the unfortunate victim, had her government not forbidden it, could have easily carried a concealable handgun on her person that fit Sarah Brady's description of an "assault weapon".

Still, being called one-sided, or having people smirk over imagined mistakes, does not illustrate the paucity of legitimate arguments among the anti-gunners as much as the outright put-downs directed our way. Consider this close runner-up to our first flame: "This site stinks."

There's a critical analysis for you, but it lacks the superlatives of this next bit of objective commentary: "I think your web site really sucks."

Hey, how do you debate such a forcible, insightful and targeted censure?

And then, there are the in-your-face posts, such as this gem, which begins: "Hey hillbilly jim you do not need a gun we have a standing army to protect us." And to make sure he got our attention, he followed up with an e-mail, with the salutation: "Hey Hillbillies. Is big brother watching you ".

In both messages, he goes into an anti-gun diatribe with several childish, ill-reasoned and grammatically- challenged goads for us to "prove" things that, had he cared to look, are addressed throughout the GunTruths website. This makes it clear that he never bothered to consider any of our evidence, but instead went straight into an attack dive.

These are among my favorite flames, because they reveal the writer's elitist worldview right out of the starting gate, with his assumption that gun ownership is by nature a rural phenomenon , and the implication that gun owners are culturally inferior to sophisticates such as himself. And while he included his e-mail address in both posts and repeatedly dared us to respond, as a peaceable person, I choose to ignore people who taunt and call names. After all, it takes two to argue, and I'd rather not, thank you. By initiating the contact with insults he shows that he is not interested in honest dialog or reasoned debate, so what is the point in replying? Besides, ignoring such morons sends the message that you think they are insignificant, and this usually frustrates them more than any retort possibly could.

It's also rewarding to find that our attackers are not just home-grown, because it means our message is getting out there. One of the great things about the internet is that you can reach people from around the globe. And it seems the most virulent attacks on our position originate from among our gallant European allies:

" as a Europena from Scandinavia it is difficult to understand why is so important for many americans to have totally free acess to all kinds of fire arms If there were some peaceful uses for guns they would have been constructed in a totally different way . If you don`t know anything about European history then stop pretending study some history and you would be wiser."

I guess if you are the dependent of a socialist regime, understanding the rights and responsibilities of free citizens is a bit perplexing. As for "peaceful use", it's fair to say that those of us who own guns and never abused the right have figured out how to do this. And while none of us at GunTruths.com pretends to be an historian, we think it is pretty well documented that all of this century's numerous genocides were only possible because the victims could not defend themselves.

Here's another morsel of Euro-vitriol:

"God bless... the fact I don't live in America. I live in the United Kingdom the country to stand up to Germany in two world wars - several years before you lot decided to get involved. Last year we banned the ownership of ALL handguns...We decided that the price paid by our sporting gun enthusiasts was worth paying to keep guns out of the easy reach of paranoid nutters. Like yourselves."

How do you argue with his first observation? I'm glad he doesn't live here, too. As for the world wars reference, this ingrate forgets why he is not now called "ein Englander." A model socialist, he sees nothing wrong with deciding the appropriate price for someone else to pay. And typically, he resorts to pejorative as the way to score his final point.

And another spot of British cheer:

" when I read a page like this it is obvious that many of you aren't using your own thoughts, you need an organisation like this to feed you the BS..... Keep up the good work America whilst the rest of the world laughs at you You don't even notice when we are laughing you are that far up each others a***s get a life!!!"

Or consider the following, again from a subject of the crown :

"When you broke away 200 years ago realise why we don't think it was as great a victory as you do! There have been lots of events over the years that have shown the US to be less than willing to participate in warfare, and when you do, your preoccupation with firing missiles or dropping bombs from a 'safe' distance means that our guys are in more danger from you Don't get too close you might get your uniforms dirty!"

How do you deal with this? These are people who think that pledging your "lives fortunes and sacred honor" against tyranny is no big deal. These are people who took out ads in newspapers pleading for Americans to "Send guns to defend a British home". These are people who, despite the experience of two world wars in the last eighty years disparage the concept of their being invaded and needing guns, all the while living under the protective shield of a largely American NATO deployment throughout Europe. Tonight, as they sleep, United States military forces will be standing guard in the darkness.

I cannot but consider such unfair and stark ingratitude against the recollection of my boyhood visit to the World War II Sicily-Rome American Cemetery and Memorial in Nettuno, Italy, where, beneath an ordered formation of uniform white crosses, my Uncle Nick is interred. He never grew past his teens, never went to college, never married, had children, a career, or grandchildren. I can only speculate as to the paralyzing horror, the denial, the sorrow, and the helpless, tragic realization of finality that my grandparents must have gone through with the loss of their baby, their laughing, lovely boy, their cherished only son.

Trust me, beneficiaries of his sacrifice, Nick Morrison's uniform got dirty.

This is what it distills into, the realization that freedom requires some to pay so terrible a price. If we are to honor such payment and merit living free, we must draw a line and fight both those who would strip us of our rights, and those who would surrender them out of ignorance or cravenness. This is why we fight this fight. This is where you must ask yourself whose voice speaks for you and then choose sides.

I have chosen mine, and have nothing but contempt for those cowardly and worthless heirs of liberty who are neither deserving of past sacrifices, nor of continued defense, both on the home front and across the water.

To those Americans who snipe at us from the anonymity of the shadows, my poor words could never compare to the eloquence and elegance of Samuel Adams, in his brilliant chastisement:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

And to those Europeans who deem their ways more enlightened than ours as they clamor for our disarmament, I again defer to the words of another, a counter-flamer, if you will, whose anonymous post to our "comments" page touched me for its simplicity and truth, and also made me laugh like hell: