HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So who, exactly, is a wha...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:59 PM

 

So who, exactly, is a what people would consider a gun nut.

Apparently, if you're for the Second Amendment, own a few hunting guns, and believe in serious gun control, including a ban on assault weapons and high capacity clips, you're still a gun nut to some. Contrariwise, if you own five hundred guns, are a member of the NRA, and believe that guns are the answer to all of life's problems, some people still don't think you're a gun nut.

So, what is the rational answer on this one?

113 replies, 5394 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 113 replies Author Time Post
Reply So who, exactly, is a what people would consider a gun nut. (Original post)
MadHound Dec 2012 OP
Bjorn Against Dec 2012 #1
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #25
Bjorn Against Dec 2012 #27
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #28
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #33
Bjorn Against Dec 2012 #36
graham4anything Dec 2012 #38
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #39
Bjorn Against Dec 2012 #45
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #56
Bjorn Against Dec 2012 #64
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #80
Bjorn Against Dec 2012 #84
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #93
Bjorn Against Dec 2012 #95
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #99
Bjorn Against Dec 2012 #100
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #102
Hoyt Dec 2012 #67
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #83
Bjorn Against Dec 2012 #86
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #92
Bjorn Against Dec 2012 #94
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #97
Bjorn Against Dec 2012 #98
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #101
Bjorn Against Dec 2012 #103
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #104
Bjorn Against Dec 2012 #106
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #107
Bjorn Against Dec 2012 #108
Hoyt Dec 2012 #87
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #91
slackmaster Dec 2012 #2
LineLineReply ~
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #40
slackmaster Dec 2012 #60
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #62
slackmaster Dec 2012 #66
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #70
hootinholler Dec 2012 #68
slackmaster Dec 2012 #71
bongbong Dec 2012 #3
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #8
bongbong Dec 2012 #29
one_voice Dec 2012 #41
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #51
one_voice Dec 2012 #53
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #90
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #49
2on2u Dec 2012 #4
mostlyalurker Dec 2012 #5
slackmaster Dec 2012 #7
mostlyalurker Dec 2012 #15
slackmaster Dec 2012 #18
mostlyalurker Dec 2012 #30
slackmaster Dec 2012 #65
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #46
slackmaster Dec 2012 #61
uppityperson Dec 2012 #20
mostlyalurker Dec 2012 #32
slackmaster Dec 2012 #63
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #11
mostlyalurker Dec 2012 #16
MadHound Dec 2012 #17
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #22
LanternWaste Dec 2012 #6
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #14
LanternWaste Dec 2012 #42
Hoyt Dec 2012 #72
laundry_queen Dec 2012 #109
JohnnyLib2 Dec 2012 #9
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #34
Posteritatis Dec 2012 #54
tosh Dec 2012 #10
jberryhill Dec 2012 #12
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #13
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #19
ellisonz Dec 2012 #59
renie408 Dec 2012 #21
WooWooWoo Dec 2012 #23
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #24
MichaelHarris Dec 2012 #26
Aristus Dec 2012 #31
Warpy Dec 2012 #35
llmart Dec 2012 #85
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #37
jody Dec 2012 #43
orpupilofnature57 Dec 2012 #57
neverforget Dec 2012 #44
mzmolly Dec 2012 #47
ThatPoetGuy Dec 2012 #48
derby378 Dec 2012 #50
Posteritatis Dec 2012 #55
VOX Dec 2012 #69
llmart Dec 2012 #88
orpupilofnature57 Dec 2012 #52
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #58
Generic Brad Dec 2012 #73
orpupilofnature57 Dec 2012 #113
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #74
gulliver Dec 2012 #75
undeterred Dec 2012 #76
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #79
liberal N proud Dec 2012 #77
Fresh_Start Dec 2012 #78
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #81
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #82
ellisonz Dec 2012 #96
Android3.14 Dec 2012 #89
sanatanadharma Dec 2012 #105
Dems to Win Dec 2012 #110
Dr_Scholl Dec 2012 #111
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #112

Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:10 PM

1. Anyone who advocates shooting others on the basis of the most minor perceived threat

There are sadly a LOT of people like this, people who think George Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin are a prime example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:46 PM

25. Bingo. Just dangerous people. And it doesn't matter if they belong to the NRA or not. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:54 PM

27. I am not just talking about people who are a direct danger

I am also talking about the people who may not shoot others, but advocate others use "self defense" against people who do not pose a true deadly threat. Those who cheer on George Zimmerman are a prime example of people who are gun nuts, people who think George Zimmerman acted responsibly clearly don't understand responsible gun handling and I don't want them owning guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #27)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:57 PM

28. I understood where you were going and I agree. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:08 PM

33. Ah, so only a tiny percentage of gun owners, then.

Glad to get that straightened out...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:13 PM

36. Actually it is a pretty big percentage

George Zimmerman has a lot of fans, anyone who would advocate for the kind of "self defense" practiced by murderers like Zimmerman is a gun nut and there are far too many of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #36)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:18 PM

38. The same people idolized G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #36)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:21 PM

39. I would argue that the number of gun owners...

I would argue that the number of gun owners who "advocate shooting others on the basis of the most minor perceived threat" is in fact a very tiny percentage, indeed. Given that there are tens of millions of gun owners and about 10K gun-related killings and bout four times that many woundings per year. Surely there are far more cases in which "the most minor perceived threat" woudl be there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:36 PM

45. I see them all the time, there are even some at DU

Other message boards are worse, the George Zimmerman love fests that happened on nearly every right-wing web site were frightening.

Note that I am not only talking about the gun nuts that actually shoot people, but the ones who advocate shooting people such as Trayvon Martin as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #45)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:25 PM

56. Yes, I realized your assertion had two components.

I elected to address the first. As for the second, yeah, there are a lot of blowhards in the world, especially online. I can't argue with ou about that. But I care a lot less about that than about what people actually do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #56)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:31 PM

64. So you ignored the bulk of the people I was referring to so you could call it a "tiny percentage"

I am more worried about what people do than what they say as well, the problem is you don't know if they are going to do something until they do it. George Zimmerman fans are clearly stating they believe gun violence is a good thing and I don't want those people carrying guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:58 PM

80. Hey, YOU put the first group in the headline...

...and the second in the message body. I figured the first were the real point you were trying to make.

In any case, we approach our concerns so differently that I don't really see much common ground for a discussion. I'll stick to what the numbers show actually <i>happens</i>., not what someone bloviating on the Interwebz says. YMMV...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #80)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:05 PM

84. No, I put the second group in the headline. I will post my headline again for you...

I wrote in the headline "Anyone who advocates shooting others on the basis of the most minor perceived threat".

Advocates. Read that twice before you shout "YOU" at me in all caps.

Even if you were right, which you are not, you can't pretend that the definition has to fit into the 50 character limit of the subject line and ignore the text of the message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #84)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:43 PM

93. Except that's not what they were advocating.

This is going nowhere, though...so feel free to have the last word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #93)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:48 PM

95. It sure as hell is what they were advocating

They were advocating confronting and shooting an unarmed black teenager. Try to pretend otherwise all you want but you know it is true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #95)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:08 PM

99. Don't presume to tell me what I know, pal.

Seriously.

Even if every idiot Zimmerman supporter actually was advocating that (and they weren't), they damn sure wouldn't constitute a big portion of tens of millions of gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #99)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:10 PM

100. Fine, I will just presume you are ignorant then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #100)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:16 PM

102. Works for me. I'll happily reciprocate.

I presume we'ere done, then...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:38 PM

67. If you walk out door with a gun prepared to play jesus, judge, jury, executioner,

you are a danger. If you practice shooting people, you are a danger.

If you buy weapons for stopping power, number of shots, etc. . . . . .

More later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #67)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:03 PM

83. And the millions of shooting deaths and injuries per year prove your point.

Oh, wait...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #83)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:12 PM

86. No there are "only" about 9,000 deaths a year

Now go ahead and roll your eyes at the real number of deaths, the rest of us will mourn the victims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #86)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:42 PM

92. I don't disagree that it's too damn many.

It's when they're used to try to justify vacuous blanket statements about tens of millions of people that I have a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #92)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:45 PM

94. Who made a statement about tens of millions of people? A real person or a strawman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #94)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:02 PM

97. Hoyt did.

You know, the person to whom my post was a reply?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #97)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:07 PM

98. No he did not.

This is not the first time I had to correct you in this thread by posting the text of a previous post for you, but here is the full text of Hoyt's post...

"67. If you walk out door with a gun prepared to play jesus, judge, jury, executioner,

you are a danger. If you practice shooting people, you are a danger.

If you buy weapons for stopping power, number of shots, etc. . . . . .

More later."


I sure don't see any blanket statements about tens of millions of people, do you care to point it out for me?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #98)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:14 PM

101. Tens of millions of gun owners...

...practice shooting weapons that are carried for personal defense. That means they are "practicing to shoot people," with the exception of those that carry for defense against wild animals. Those weapons are selected, in part, for things like stopping power.

How's that foot taste?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #101)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:21 PM

103. Time to quote you...

This is now the third time in this thread I have had to repost words for you because you can't seem to remember what was said from one post to another. Here are the words you responded to Hoyt with...

It's when they're used to try to justify vacuous blanket statements about tens of millions of people that I have a problem.


So I ask again where is the blanket statement about tens of millions of people?

I think you are the one who should be describing the taste of foot right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #103)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:37 PM

104. I just showed you RIF.

As I just demonstrated to anyone with even a barely adequate grasp of the language, two of the statements Hoyt made apply to tens of millions of gun owners:

If you practice shooting people, you are a danger.

If you buy weapons for stopping power, number of shots, etc. "


Tens of millions of people do these very things. Derp.

In any case, we're done. I've realized for several posts you were just being disingenuous, seeing how long you could string this pointless bullshit out. I have no use for semi-literate game players. Welcome to ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #104)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:50 PM

106. He did not make a blanket statement, and your response to his statement was sickening

You can put me on ignore though, better than having to worry about having your bullshit challenged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #106)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:03 AM

107. Of course it's a blanket statement.

I was going to wait to put you on ignore, but after a statement like that, which is either profoundly disingenuous or staggeringly ignorant, why wait? As for having anything I say challenged, your cringeworthy performance here makes it obvious you ain't the one to do it, pal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #107)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:07 AM

108. Says the person who used the eye roll icon to mock the number of people killed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #83)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:12 PM

87. Ah, another who says it's just price we have to pay. . . . . .

Enjoy your guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #87)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:41 PM

91. Oh, I said that, did I? Wait...I didn't.

If you have to put words into people's mouths in order to have something against which you might actually argue successfully, that's singularly pathetic.

Enjoy your fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:11 PM

2. The only rational answer is potato

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:24 PM

40. ~

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

"The only answer is potato." This is a cultural reference to mentally handicapped children. It has no place here. See: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-can-count-to-potato “I Can Count to Potato” is a controversial catchphrase that is meant to indicate a lack of intelligence and usually paired with photographs of people who appear to have been diagnosed with learning disabilities. The phrase is sometimes used in image boards and forums in reacting to comments that are deemed unintelligent. Due to the insensitive nature of the meme, it has been criticized for perpetuating ableism, a type of discrimination against people with disabilities.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:22 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alerting poster is making a big assumption: that the offending poster is aware of this being a discriminatory reference. My impression is the offending post was meant as humor. The alerter would do well to ask for clarification, before making a negative assumption and alerting.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Dumb question deserved a stupid answer. Please! stop the stupid, people. You are making my head hurt.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Can we tombstone the person who sent this alert? An insult that requires two Google searches to find is a little too esoteric.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Quite a stretch there.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:28 PM

60. Wow, the alerter is rather pedantic.

 

Juror #1 got it right.

I'll refrain from using the expression again on this forum, because someone somewhere might take offense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:29 PM

62. although I wasn't #5 -- I approve of that message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #62)


Response to slackmaster (Reply #66)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:42 PM

70. what is that saying? Discretion is the better part of valor, I think is how it goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:41 PM

68. I guess you should have said patahto n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #68)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:43 PM

71. People in my family are more likely to use the term "turnip" or "filter feeder"

 

As a pejorative reference to someone lacking in common sense or who is ignorant.

Being of German descent we regard the potato as rather noble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:12 PM

3. Gun Nut

 

AKA Delicate Flowers. Somebody who buys a gun out of fear. Since statistics prove you're more likely to be hurt by a gun if you own a gun, you're making yourself less safe by buying a gun.

Insanity is doing something that actually causes your situation (in this case, safety) to get worse.

One of the many meanings of "nut" is insane.

QED, a gun nut is someone who has a gun without a job or wildlife-related (i.e, rancher) reason to own it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:23 PM

8. " gun nut is someone who has a gun without a job or wildlife-related (i.e, rancher) reason to own it

So, you believe all gun owners who don't ranch or who are cops are gun nuts.

I hope Stinky sees this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:59 PM

29. So, you have Strawman fail

 

Obviously - I hope - I was painting with a broad brush.

But my explanation was clear, altho probably not to Delicate Flowers, whose religion precludes clear thought about their Precious.

If you buy a gun out of fear and/or for safety, you're doing something that will make you more fearful and/or less safe.

That's one of the loose definitions of insanity.

I did type this explanation slowly for the Delicate Flowers, although I can't guarantee that will ensure they will understand it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:25 PM

41. Why do you have to be so...

condescending and insulting? "delicate flowers' and 'their Precious"

It's people like you that make any attempt at any rational and meaningful conversation impossible. It's your way or insults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to one_voice (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:10 PM

51. To that poster, I am a gun nut

Because I own guns. It doesn't matter that I am very liberal, or that I loathe the NRA, or anything else. All he does is piss off people, on purpose it seems.

I also don't know how it was a strawman fail when I quoted his post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #51)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:20 PM

53. I've been reading your posts on...

this subject. I saw you taking heat--no pun intended--last night from another poster who talked about running and driving on long stretches of highway etc.

You certainly are not a gun nut and anyone saying otherwise isn't paying attention. I think it's rude an unnecessary for the 'delicate flower' comments I see being thrown around here. It's unproductive.

Some people don't want to have a real discussion about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to one_voice (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:22 PM

90. Thank you, I really appreciate it

I disengaged from that discussion last night. I answered in honest and good faith, and the reaction was just shocking to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:08 PM

49. Proved my point

You have no desire to have any type of legit discussion about this. Very obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:17 PM

4. Someone who has replaced breathing with firearms. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:17 PM

5. I have been thinking about this

My own opinion is anyone who does not hunt or have a documented stalker and owns a gun is a probable gun nut. Anyone being stalked who has more than one gun is a gun nut. Anyone who does hunt and owns any guns not used for specific hunting (birding or deer or whatever) is a gun nut. Anyone not in a law enforcement or security job who has a concealed carry permit is an absolute gun nut. It's probably due to my life experiences but except for hunting, being stalked (and you should have a restraining order) and working a job that requires it there is simply never a really good reason to have a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mostlyalurker (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:21 PM

7. Target shooting and collecting are perfectly good non-nutty reasons for owning firearms

 

I'm a history buff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:37 PM

15. I think I would lump in target shooting with hunting.

I am very on the fence about collecting. I can see the historical aspects but once you get to a certain amount, keeping them secure for people who would misuse them becomes a problem. I suppose you could render them un-fireable and just for display. Of course I feel that anyone who collects deadly weapons (guns, knives, antique cannons, you name it) without serious security has a screw loose. Again that just me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mostlyalurker (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:40 PM

18. I keep my collection locked in a safe that weiged 1,200 pounds empty

 

That is bolted to the concrete floor of my house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:59 PM

30. That seems absolutely reasonable to me.

I would want the lock to be pretty impervious to anyone other than yourself as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mostlyalurker (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:34 PM

65. Sargent & Greenleaf Series II dial combination lock, just like on safes used for money

 

Something like this, with an added key lock so the dial can be locked. That adds an extra layer of time needed to crack the safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:57 PM

46. Don't forget the ever present active biological deterrant


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:29 PM

61. Yes, my two highly trained Attack Cats.

 

I just fed them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mostlyalurker (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:41 PM

20. What do you mean "knives"? I've a lot of knives around my house, without serious security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:07 PM

32. I mean knives not used for your daily living like kitchen or utility knives.

I am sorry I wasn't clear. As an example I would use my very frightening gun and knife nut of a brother. He has many, many knives of the Crocodile Dundee style as well as jack knives, stilettos all to go with his various guns. He carries t least one knife and gun wherever he goes. He loves Ted Nugent and I refuse to go anywhere near him. Last time I saw him was in 1997 at our grandfathers funeral and yes he was armed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mostlyalurker (Reply #32)


Response to mostlyalurker (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:28 PM

11. Welcome to DU and I hope you enjoy the site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:37 PM

16. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mostlyalurker (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:39 PM

17. So if you live in a crime infested area,

 

Buy a gun for self defense, yet have no "documented stalkers", you're a gun nut.

Alrighty then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:44 PM

22. Or own a ranch

That's okay with another poster: be a rancher or a Leo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:20 PM

6. I consider a gun nut in the following way...

I consider a gun nut as this: someone who believes that the deaths of 20 six year old school children this past Friday are merely part and parcel of the price we pay to maintain the 2nd Amendment. It's a large group...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:36 PM

14. Realistically speaking...

 

There are perhaps 4 people on the planet who would honestly believe that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:29 PM

42. I've spoken to more than four who believe that...

Realistically speaking, I've spoken to more than four who believe that... that was only on Saturday. Sunday again brought an additional amount more than four.

Hence, my posit. And yes... they honesty believe it, as it was initially stated as such, and when posed with the question, the answers were in the affirmative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:43 PM

72. Check out Gungeon for more than four.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #72)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:47 AM

109. You don't even need to go there. I think I've seen 4 hint at that position here in GC since Fri. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:24 PM

9. I think it's a useless term, for starters.


Seems to be used for both offense and defense, sort of like redneck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyLib2 (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:09 PM

34. +1

It's just a way to denigrate and thus dehumanize one's opposition in an argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyLib2 (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:21 PM

54. Yep. It identifies the speaker's stance and very little beyond that. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:27 PM

10. Your first case is NOT a gun nut

and your second case IS, according to tosh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:29 PM

12. Anyone who wonders if they might be

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:33 PM

13. Someone for whom Happiness Is A Warm Gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:41 PM

19. If you found yourself arguing in favor of guns last Friday

You're a gun nut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:27 PM

59. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:43 PM

21. If you ever find yourself saying that the answer to gun violence is MORE guns...

you are a gun nut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:45 PM

23. I know gun nuts, and I know people who just happen to own guns

and the two are really easy to tell apart when you know them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:45 PM

24. Anyone with more guns than you is a gun-nut... anyone with less or equal is not.

 

Like everything else, gun-nuttery is a relative state of being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:51 PM

26. easy

If you pay dues or membership fees to an organization that spends millions against progressive causes and politicians. If you belong to an organization whose sole purpose is to put as many firearms on the street as possible then you're not only a gun nut your a blithering idiot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:02 PM

31. Anyone who is unwilling or unable to relate guns to gun-related crime.

Thanks to President Andrew Shepherd for that one...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:11 PM

35. I know hunters and ranchers who are gun nuts, and gun owners who

do neither who are not.

If you hear "gun control" and interpret it as "gonna git all my guns," you are a gun nut.

If you think the answer to the unacceptably high level of gun violence in the US is more guns, you are a gun nut.

If you have skimped on your housing, your kids, and yourself in order to buy more guns, you are a gun nut.

If you are unable to see past "I like to see targets blown apart by assault rifles" to the larger issue at hand, you are a gun nut.

If it takes a gun on your person to make you feel safe enough to go to a Wal Mart, you are probably a gun nut.

If you see a gun as the solution to life's petty problems, you are definitely a gun nut.

I'm sure people can add to this. It's not about the number of guns, the occupation of the owner, or most other factors. It's about being a nut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:07 PM

85. Great list......

I'd like to add:

If you spend more time with your guns than your wife or kids, then you're a gun nut.

If you caress your guns more than you do your wife, you're a gun nut.

If you can't leave your house even to go up to the corner ice cream stand for a cone without strapping on a gun, then you're a gun nut.

Well, we could go on, couldn't we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:17 PM

37. It's a term like "communist sympathizer" or "fellow traveler."

 

It's a term of disparagement, one for a broad-brush smear.

If you believe in freedom of speech and open dialog whether you own a firearm or not, you can be called a "gun nut."

If you don't belong to the NRA but support liberal causes and don't mind certain people like Michael Moore being members of the NRA, you can be called a "gun nut."

If you know that the Democratic Party's continuous control over the House of Representatives for about 50 years ended in 1994 after certain anti-gun legislation was passed, and if you are opposed to further politicial damage to the Democratic Party by repeating such action, you can be called a "gun nut."

If you don't approve of mindless statements on DU such as "Fuck the NRA," you can be called a "gun nut."

If you are a liberal and value traditional Democratic principles, you can be called a "gun nut."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:34 PM

43. Good unanswerable question. Another would be what is an "anti gun nut". One definition might be

 

"unjustified fear of weapons".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #43)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:26 PM

57. What's a justifiable fear ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:35 PM

44. Anyone who is paranoid about government takeover, hordes guns and ammo for doomsday scenarios, and

believes in an absolute right to own any gun and take it anywhere.

Did I just describe Larry Pratt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:06 PM

47. People who don't believe in any logical restictions on

the type of weapons sold, and/or who they are sold to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:08 PM

48. Recognize a disease by its symptoms.

* If you cheered George Zimmerman's murder of Trayvon Martin, as many on DU did, then you're a gun nut.

* If you completely and unquestioningly believe that guns = freedom, then you're a gun nut.

* If you unhesitatingly announce, as many on here have, that you are willing to massacre any number of duly-appointed legal officials rather than release your gun, then you are a gun nut.

* If you hold the Constitution as the greatest of all documents, and yet you would fight against a government that amended the Constitution to prohibit guns using Constitutional means, then you're a gun nut AND a hypocrite.

* If you think Black communities simply aren't mature enough to make their own determination on the proliferation of instruments of death, then you're a gun nut AND a racist.

It goes on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:10 PM

50. I own a single AK with a few 30-round magazines

My only other gun is an old hunting shotgun.

Apparently, the one AK is enough for some to label me a "gun nut," since I don't see any logical reason why it should be banned, let alone outlawed.

I realize that we are facing a crisis, but I hold out hope there are ways to fight it without stripping Americans of their rights - or endangering the Democratic presence in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #50)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:23 PM

55. The shotgun's probably enough for some people to think that

Hell, I own zero firearms, have no interest in zero firearms, and would probably be considered a gun nut by some people simply because I find the things interesting on an abstract level. (I'm sure they wouldn't be thrilled by the fact that I'm saving up for a rapier, either.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #50)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:42 PM

69. Is there any logical reason for you to own an AK + hi-cap mags?

If it's for protection, you're probably overequipped. If it's just for fun, and if you keep live rounds in the house, there's a chance it could get stolen or otherwise misused.

I'm a former gun owner, but many years ago, my girlfriend refused to move in with me until I sold the pieces back to a gun shop. My love for her was greater than my need to have weapons in the house, so the choice was easy for me.

That was more than 20 years ago, and I've never felt the need or desire to get another gun since... I collect vintage baseball cards instead. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VOX (Reply #69)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:13 PM

88. I commend you.

Your girlfriend is a very lucky woman and you are a very smart man

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:14 PM

52. A person that interjects guns into every conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:27 PM

58. According to some posters if your own a gun you have blood on your hands and have a mental illness

A more rational discussing is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/117293860

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:46 PM

73. Ted Nugent = Gun Nut

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Generic Brad (Reply #73)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:09 AM

113. +1000

Don't forget Chickenhawk, Pedophile, and paid for his daughters 3rd grade class to fly to Washington to see Shrubs 2nd inauguration .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:48 PM

74. you are more likely to get struck by lightning than use a gun in self defense

i'd say anybody who needs to shoot more than 6 bullets in 30 seconds or thinks they will ever use a gun in self defense is a little weird. there are less than 500 justifiable homicides a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:49 PM

75. Just call them nuts. Save a word.

Or assholes. Or both.

I don't think people who like to hunt are nuts or assholes for having hunting guns. If someone has a pistol, it makes me think twice about them, but I understand a rare need for self-defense. I understand target and skeet shooting. No problem.

After that it's all downhill. The rest of these folks are just plain, simple, nuts and assholes.

If you carry a concealed weapon into any building, you are a nut and an asshole.

If you have any rifle that looks like an assault weapon. Nut. Asshole.

If you have large capacity magazines or unusual ammo. Nut. Asshole.

Legal, illegal? Maybe. Asshole, yes. Nut, yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to undeterred (Reply #76)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:58 PM

79. anyone? I have a feeling some will take issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:53 PM

77. A gun nut is some one who acts like a right wing whack job only over guns.

Like the right wingers, you cannot have a civil conversation wit a gun nut. Their focus is mainly on the right to own as many guns as possible and that if everyone had a gun we would be safer.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:53 PM

78. I'd nominate anyone who rushed out to buy guns after Friday

because the lesson from Friday is that someone's guns can be turned against them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:59 PM

81. I don't own a gun, never have,

but for pointing out 99.9999% of gun owners never shoot someone a couple DUers called me a psychopathic gun nut. Nice, huh? Just goes to show how prevelent mental illness is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:00 PM

82. Nope if you are for the awb and strict magazine limits you're not a gun nut.

Until Friday, nobody from the gungeoneer club was taking that position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #82)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:55 PM

96. +1

In fact, they were vehemently and callously opposing such legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:17 PM

89. This ought to be fun

If you name your gun after a woman, you might be a gun nut.
If breaking down an assault rifle and reassembling it provides you with a sense of family pride, you just might be a gun nut.
If your recent fashion statement consists of a mullet and openly carrying a pistol at a political rally, you might be a gun nut.
If you consider the use of armor piercing bullets with an automatic weapon in order to kill a herd of wild pigs as an example of pest control, you might be a gun nut.
If you buy a weapon because you are unhappy that a majority of voters elected the other guy, then you are probably a gun nut.
If you feel uncomfortable buying tampons at the local Walmart, but adding ammo to the grocery list inoculates you from cooties, then you might be a gun nut.
If you have ever rubbed a firearm against your genitals, then you are probably a gun nut. If someone else rubs a gun against your genitals, your probably going to eventually need a restraining order.
If a family outing involves a visit to the firing range, then you are probably a gun nut, and you probably should sterilize yourself...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #89)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:49 PM

105. Love it, a whole new genre of "if you, you might be..."

.. a gun nut jokes.
Move over Jeff Foxworthy, the new comic in town is Newt Narworthless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:29 AM

110. Anyone who owns a gun but doesn't truly need it

Police, military, people with bears for neighbors, need guns. The rest are gun nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:43 AM

111. I would be considered a gun nut to most people on this forum.

 

I own an AR-15 (a very nice Colt), along with 4 other guns, including 2 pistols. I go target shooting at least once a month and I'm an avid hunter. I'm not an NRA member or anything, I just enjoy hunting and shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:17 AM

112. "For the Second Amendment" is rather glib, honestly.

It completely ignores several issues regarding the historical context of said amendment and the ways in which society has changed in the past two hundred and twenty years, and allows only a single interpretation: that the Second Amendment represents an absolute individual right to gun ownership. This is problematic because it focuses on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to the utter exclusion of "a well-regulated militia".

Historical context: the militia, historically, represents the body of subjects or citizens trained in the use of arms and liable to service if called upon. The militia has its origins far back in English history, with the medieval requirements that all yeomen train with the longbow. More historical context: this was not something required of everyone; a yeoman was a small farmer who had his lands in return for service and allegiance to his feudal lord...usually, the lord of the local manor, who in turn held his estates in return for service and allegiance to a greater lord, usually a baron, who in turn held his for his allegiance to an earl, who held his in return for allegiance to the king. The body of yeomanry trained in the use of arms alleviated the king of the expense of maintaining a standing army, and in the context of feudal society secured the loyalty of the lords and barons who would have in any case been fearful of an overly powerful royal authority.

Fast-forward a few hundred years, to the colonies, where the idea of the militia was based on the history and experience of same in British and specifically English history, and where there was the recent example of the disarming of Scotland and the abolishment, de facto, of Scots militias--the militia under common law, in practise, was raised by order of the Lord Lieutenant of a county; Lords Lieutenant were appointed by the privy council of the realm. The Scottish Privy Council was abolished with the 1707 Act of Union, and a bill for the re-establishment of the militia in Scotland was the last to receive the royal veto, in 1708.

In the context of the constitutional arguments of the early United States, there were two sides: the Federalists, and anti-Federalists. The Second Amendment, by guaranteeing to the several states the right to their respective militias, was a concession to anti-Federalists, fearful of an overly powerful central government in much the same way that those aforementioned medieval barons and earls would have feared a standing army loyal only to the king. Given this historical context, the reasons for the Second Amendment seem generally to be now rendered obsolete; we now have a standing army, the militia as such is now replaced by the National Guard, in its military functions, and by organised police forces, in its peacekeeping functions. Society has changed dramatically in the intervening 220 years and there is no longer any practical reason for a citizen militia, nor is there any practical reason to require every able-bodied man to own a gun and be trained in its use.

Given all of this historical context, I have to say that the presentation of the issue as "being for the Second Amendment" shows a genuine lack of understanding of what the Second Amendment represents (as well as an apparently wilful ignorance of the divergent legal schools of thought on its interpretation as representing an individual vs a collective right, and as representing a right of the people as individuals vs a right of states).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread