Not that I should have expected any better from the uber liberal, anti-freedom, anti-conservative, anti-Republican website Gawker, but there’s a post there from some lefty woman distraught over a romantic break-up, and she wants to go to a range and shoot up a can of beans. . . this is just pathetic:

It had been two hours since we’d broken up, and I decided that what I wanted most of all was not a bowl of ice-cream or a beer or three beers but to hold a gun firmly in my hands, steady my aim, and shoot at an upright can of pinto beans. Up to that point, my only concept of guns or gun control was of overweight, balding white men with tiny dicks and smaller brains. I was liberal to the core, a child who’d walked around during Clinton’s years saying, “You know, it’s really Hillary behind all those decisions?” Guns were a problem, guns were an issue, guns should not be allowed in the hands of those who did not know when they did not need them, and yet in this moment, I wanted to hold one—to clutch it, however phallic, and feel some sense of power rush back in, flood my body and every single organ.

Go read it for yourself if you have another five minutes to kill, or just trust me that it doesn’t get any better. She never does hit the target but somehow feels empowered by shooting a gun in anger.

What does that suggest to the liberal audience of Gawker? Why, yes!, pro-gun folks are violently taking out their aggressions by owning and using guns, and (to their sick minds) pleased to act out their disappointments in life by shooting something, or by implication, someone.

A careful read and thoughtful consideration will show that this is just another attempt by liberals to discredit guns and those of us who own them.