Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Growing up without guns

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 11:46 PM
Original message
Growing up without guns
Edited on Mon Jun-15-09 11:59 PM by Statistical
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/06/12/growing-up-without-g... /

While growing up, I knew there were guns and other arms, because the army and police had them. Us, ordinary people didnt need them. The saying was my police protect me. I dont think I ever saw a gun except in movies or those carried by police on the streets. Some people in remote mountain villages had small rifles and a limited amount of ammunition - mainly to shoot predator animals to protect their farm animals. At 13, police were going door to door at night, pointing guns at my family and other neighbors. Later I witnessed how government ordered army and tanks to the streets of my city under the cover of the night, killing dozens of innocent people. Not a very good experience to base your opinion about guns.

When I came to America, I was prepared to see the abundance and wealth, and knew I would need to learn lots of things. As an immigrant, I looked into various laws - those that applied to immigration, employment, and travel. I never looked into the laws about guns. There was not a single drawer in my brain dedicated to firearms; the only knowledge I had was guns are bad. In 2002 there was a sniper on the streets of Virginia, but I never thought about how I could protect myself. I was simply glad the sniper was not frequenting my area, and I stayed home.

In all my searches for good shopping stores, I never even considered that gun stores exist. No one tells you that at the border control at the airport, and unless I came across someone who took the time to talk and explain the facts to me, I still would never have thought any different. I give full credit for my re-education to my husband (boyfriend at that time) who was the first person I would hear to frequently use words, the Constitution actually says , the local rules do not require you to, have you read Common Sense? These were very different conversations from the ones I had at work or with my girlfriends.

So my message to you is this - if you let any society grow accustomed to seeing guns as only for use by police or criminals, if you let just two generations to go on like that, you will eventually have a society in which I grew up. It is a strange feeling when, while carrying open in Virginia, I have to tell people, no, I am not a law enforcement officer, and do not intend to impersonate one, I am just exercising my right. You have one, too, you know? Sometimes this makes me want to double check if I am in America.

If you havent figured it out yet, - I was born in the Soviet Union. It was the largest prison in the world, where the prisoners were either unaware that they were prisoners, or were deeply aware of it and therefore were eliminated by the government.

I have lived in this country for eight years and I am just coming to a point where I cant imagine not having a Second Amendment as the norm. It takes time to turn your whole knowledge and vision of life up-side-down, to pretty much throw away the morals you grew up on. I just finished reading 1984 by George Orwell. We would never be allowed to read this book in the Soviet Union. But when I was done reading it, I knew that for over 20 years, I had lived the life of the next generation after Winston Smith - the generation that did not know that a human is capable to think and to reason. And the Soviet government did not have to torture me to get me to that stage - I was already born in a thought-vacuum my ancestors allowed to be established.

I always point out that Soviet schools had very strong curriculum, especially in math and history. But we never heard Patrick Henrys Give me liberty or give me death speech; history books never mentioned Jeffersons proposed language for the Virginia Constitution - No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. We were slaves, no doubt. Worst yet, we were dead in a sense that we could not live out our lives how we wanted.

Most people at least once in their life said or heard someone say, I wish I could bring my childhood back. I might have said it too. Not now, not anymore. The Second Amendment to me, then, is one guarantee that my past will never become my future.

~ Leyla Myers

About author: Leyla Myers was born in Azerbaijan Republic, former Soviet Union. She came to the States in May 2001 on an employment visa. She currently lives with her husband in Virginia.


This story struck me because it is very similar to an experience I had with a Polish immigrant who lived next door in my old neighborhood. He was fearful of firearms and at the same fascinated by the concept of private ownership of arms. He asked to look at my rifle (M1) and handgun (can't remember which model) but he didn't want to hold or operate them. I told him the history about the M1 and he didn't believe me that it was a weapon used in war. I had to find photo of it in a book on WWII. He never was able to work up the courage to even touch them, even after I showed him they were clear.

He was more interested in the concept that I could own them. I talked to him about the founding father belief in an inalienable right to keep and bear arms and they protected that right via the 2nd. It seemed a difficult concept for him to grasp, "How could they know the citizens wouldn't turn on them". A couple years later he was excited to tell me his son purchased a firearm. He didn't know what kind but it seemed a big deal that his son was actually able to own arms.

Anyways the similarity of this story struck me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. In Soviet Russia, gun shoots YOU
Couldn't resist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. Indeed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwheeler31 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. I grew up without guns , and I like it that way.
What is your problem? You keep telling stories of scared people, are you scared?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. What other stories?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cabluedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. One day every American will grow up without guns around the home. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. That's right after the day that entire human race renounces violence forever, right?
Ah, what a day that'll be. When everyone simultaneously comes to the realization that we should all be nice to each other, and nobody will ever dislike another for the color of their skin, or their religion, or their political stances, and certain people will realize that it's wrong to take other people's possessions, especially by force, or abuse the political power they've been given, or to eliminate competitors by killing them, etc. etc. et mother-loving cetera.

It's just a gorram fluke that violence, oppression and crime have been with us for as long as we've been keeping score, isn't it? I'll tell you what: as soon as the Department of Justice publishes the crime figures for the previous year, and violent crime and burglary is at zero for the entire year, we'll talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. And, hey, once we do that, we can still have guns!
You know, for sports and hunting and stuff. Since nobody will be violent, we won't have to worry about weapons at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cabluedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #10
54. Yes, but you don't need weapons of war to hunt, do you? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #54
59. What's a "weapon of war"?
A Mosin-Nagant m1891/30 bolt-action rifle? Standard weapon of the Red/Soviet Army during the second world war, ergo a "weapon of war."
A Springfield M1903 bolt-action rifle? Standard weapon of the U.S. Army during the first world war, ergo a "weapon of war."
A Sharps 1863 single-shot carbine? Standard cavalry weapon during the civil war, ergo a "weapon of war."
A Brown Bess muzzle-loading flintlock musket? Standard weapon of the British during the Seven Year's War, the American War of Indepedence and the Napoleonic wars. Definitely a "weapon of war."

A semi-auto-only Kalashnikov derivative? A semi-auto-only AR-15? No army would touch them. Definitely not "weapons of war."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dairydog91 Donating Member (520 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #54
61. Many, if not most, hunters use a "weapon of war" to hunt.
Edited on Wed Jun-17-09 09:38 PM by dairydog91
Bolt-action rifles, probably the most popular type of hunting rifle in America today, are heavily derived from the Mauser 1898 design. The Mauser 1898 and its relative, the 1898k, served as the standard German infantry rifle in both World Wars. To this day, it remains a simple, effective, and durable design;it would still be a decent sniper rifle, with a round that can easily blast through soft body armor and is effective out to 800 yards and beyond.

The whole "weapons of war" meme is pretty silly when one thinks about it. Throughout history, most military forces have had: 1. A large pool of money; 2. An interest in things that go bang. Hence, many guns were developed with military purposes in mind. Most guns are at some level derived from military weapons: Bolt-actions from WWI-WWII designs, lever-actions from guns that were used during the Indian wars/massacres, black-powder rifles from weapons used during countless wars during the 18th and 19th century. You'd be hard-pressed to find a gun that couldn't be traced in some way to military designs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #61
68. In addition to which it should be noted...
... that there are plenty of examples of weapons that were not originally designed for military purposes being used for that purpose anyway. Many of the earlier British snipers of the first world war were upper-class hunting types who used the rifles they'd previously used to hunt red deer in Scotland or buntang in India to good effect against German soldiers, to cite just one example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
votingupstart Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #54
62. not sure of the definition? "weapons of war"
could that include lasers? - like the ones used in LASIK eye surgery - a souped up one could cut human skin.

would that include microwaves - like i pop popcorn with - an unleashed microwave could be a terror - (google - US Army active denial system)

Would that include rockets? - like the ones used to go to the moon or launch satellites - we don't really need to explore space anyway

what would a "weapon of war" be? the problem is that any tool or object that people create can usually be used for a couple of different things, either for good or bad. the choice is how we as people use it, not the tool itself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #54
65. My AR-15 is my current favorite hunting rifle.
Compact, accurate, fast follow up shots.

You can remove the AR-15 (assault weapon) from the list of guns that are no good for hunting.

Not that it really matters. All hunting in the united states could be banned tomorrow and not much could be done about it. Hunting is not protected by the constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #54
69. Every single hunting rifle was based on current or previous generation "war rifle"
muskets
flintlock rifles
lever guns
bolt actions
and now semi-autos.

Heres a hint: something that can kill a deer can easily kill a man.

Now the rounds used in military version of AR-15 and AK-47 are a little "light" for hunting.

This is because it was an intentional choice when moving to assault rifles to pick a lighter round (thus allowing more rounds to be carried). Just part of the evolution of war.


The M1 fired a relatively power .30-06 round (7.62x62mm in metric)



It gave way to the M14 firing the 7.62x51mm. Notice is a weaker round but it uses a "modern" box magazine, and was selective fire.



Finally the M14 gave way to the M16/M4/AR-15 family firing the relatively tiny 5.56x45mm



The point is newer rifles have always replaced older rifles but in recent decades the move has been to smaller, lighter, less lethal cartridges. The military realized the .30-06 while a good hunting cartridge was actually too powerful for the battlefield.

So many people are scared of these "evil black guns" they don't know the first thing about them.

The round on top is .30-06. The one on bottom is the 5.56x45 used is many "assault weapons".



You are far less likely to survive a hit from the one on top but since it isn't nortmally used in EBR not a peep about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. Get back to us when you Amend the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cabluedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #19
53. We dont need to amend the constitution. We have a ban on assault weapons here that is unchallenged.
Any state can pass it's own gun laws, unfettered by the constitution.

Go ahead, bring your assualt weapons to CA and wait till the cops
cuff you and stuff you in a jail cell and the attorney generals office
sentences you to state prison.

I hear its a long hard five years in prison if you get busted with one, BTW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. Who is talking about assault weapons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #53
58. Clearly your fantasy is in violation of the Heller decision. Here it is again...
just so we are on the same page. "One day every American will grow up without guns around the home." If that is ever the case it will only be by choice or after a Constitutional Amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment. If it is the later it will take more than 100 years to achieve anyway.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #53
73. " Any state can pass it's own gun laws, unfettered by the constitution."
They can pass them, but increasingly these days they are not getting to keep them,
due to freedom loving activists suing their asses in court. And (usually) winning. And the sting in the tail:

They then have to pay the legal costs of the winners.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cabluedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #19
55. Dont need to. Nowhere are you allowed to own assualt weapons in the constitution. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #55
57. If you could please point to where I said it did. Of course you can't because I didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #55
70. Once again if you could point out where I said that I would appreciate it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
20. If they so choose.
But there will always be the choice. Because millions of Americans will fight for the 2nd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
29. I would assume this is when
YOU are going to amend the constitution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dairydog91 Donating Member (520 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
60. And, presumably, with a Telescreen to receive their daily updates from Big Brother. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. ah., the fear canard
one of the holy illogical blasts from the anti-gunners

see also: the need canard, and the penis canard.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
25. I missed the point where someone mandated that you should do otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #25
36. I missed the part where anybody alleged that somebody had

Funny that, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #36
49. He grew up without guns and liked it that way. Who cares and is telling him to do something else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TlalocW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
4. Eh, sounds like she's traded one form of brainwashing for another
I'm not meaning that gun ownership is inherently bad - or good for that matter, but it sounds like she's just putting too much faith in firearms. I grew up around hunting guns (Dad's) and never cared about them - especially after a recoil knocked me on my ass when he was trying to get me interested in them. A friend of mine just went through a conceal and carry class, and I'll be going with him to the shooting range to see what it's like, but I sincerely doubt that popping off a few rounds will make me want to buy one. I'm 37-years-old, never been robbed or attacked (it helps to be a big guy). Last year, while I wasn't home, some drunk moron walking in the street fired 3 high caliber bullets through my front door. If I had been home, a gun wouldn't have done me any good.

TlalocW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
6. This reminds me a bit of my wife.
She came from a country that has VERY strict gun control laws that only the law obeying public follow. She has recently expressed a desire to get her CHL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 03:10 AM
Response to Original message
7. I grew up in a society with low levels of gun ownership
I'm originally from the Netherlands. Private firearm ownership was not uncommon up to the first world war (the Netherlands stayed neutral, but imports of firearms dried up for some reason) but quite restrictive firearms laws were passed in 1919 and 1920 to prevent would-be revolutionaries from acquiring firearms. These laws were further tightened every couple of decades, and the only guns I ever saw were in policemen's holsters or on the shoulders of the soldiers guarding the army barracks up the road from where I lived. I don't think it was until I was 16 or so that you could even legally own a private firearm, through an arduous licensing and registration process. Even the firearms carried by agents of the state were subject to heavy regulation in their use; Dutch police had (probably still have) to issue a verbal warning prior to drawing their sidearms, let alone discharging them. One thing distinguishing the Netherlands from the Soviet Union was that the Dutch government was very restrained in authorizing the threat or use of lethal force against its citizens.

I was around then that I also realized the storefront with all the bars in the windows around the corner from my school was, in fact, a gun shop. The reason it took me a while to notice was because there weren't any guns on display, and to be allowed in, you have to have a (difficult to obtain) firearms license and make an appointment several weeks in advance.

The first time I got to handle a firearm was at age 22, when I was drafted and in basic training. The weapon in question was an FN FAL, serial number 53577, issued to me from the armory of my training battalion at the start of the third week of training. It was stored in the (locked) company armory when not in use for training. My training unit was a "shake and bake" infantry NCO school, so we also got to handle Uzis, Browning Hi-Powers and FN MAG machine guns (basically the same as the M240), though we didn't get to fire those during training. We'd just had a sergeant-major (equivalent to a US master sergeant) with one of our units in Germany killed by an ND from a 25mm cannon on an infantry fighting vehicle, so every infantry training unit was placing extra emphasis on firearms safety, and I remember those lessons well, even though it's now 16 ago. Then I graduated with a promotion to brevet sergeant, and was transferred to my active duty unit, so I had to give 53577 back.

My active duty position was on the S-3 section (operations & training) of a brigade headquarters, so I think I had my individual weapon--an Uzi--out of the armory twice in 12 months; once for a range trip, and once for a two-week CPX (command post exercise) in which no rounds were fired. I did get to handle and shoot a Glock 17, which being introduced to replace our aging Hi-Powers. While I wasn't very good with the FAL, and mediocre with the Uzi, I found the Glock very easy to shoot; didn't miss the target once at 25 meters.

Ironically, it was in the army that I encountered the first privately owned firearm I'd ever come across. I'd gone over to another section of the HQ to deliver some paperwork, and found only the sergeant-major assigned to it in the office. Sergeant-major Axel Stinis and I got along fairly well because we were the only two people from The Hague on the brigade staff. He also worked on cultivating the image of a "very model sergeant-major" (the model being British): he had a luxuriant walrus moustache and played the bagpipes. As it turned out, he also had a gun collection. When I came in, Stinis welcomed me and asked "Want to see my latest acquisition?" and handed me an M1 carbine. After I'd reflectively checked it was clear, I asked "Erm, this isn't your issue weapon, is it?" (the Dutch government still had a few hundred M1s in reserve stocks, and the gendarmerie providing security at Amsterdam airport still carried them at the time). Stinis answered "No, this one is my personal property." That was a new one on me.

I saw some more privately owned weapons while still in the army. One day, one a route march, we passed some bird hunters in a field, all with over/under shotguns. The major I was marching with eyed them nervously, and told me he was wary about hunters since a few years before, a German hunter had shot two Dutch commandos who were on an exercise. He'd noticed movement in the underbrush, mistaken the shapes for wild boars, and violated rule #4 of gun safety by shooting without being certain what his target was. One of the commandos died.

After being demobilized (and being assigned to the inactive reserves, which I still am, nominally) it was back to life without guns. For the most part. One afternoon, I stopped at the post office to find it closed; it had been robbed not ten minutes before by two guys, one with a sawed-off shotgun and another with a handgun. Another time, the late-night tram that came after the one I had taken was hit by two stray bullets when two drug dealers tried to settle a business dispute in the street. I also heard stories about teenagers in certain parts of town packing. And occasionally, there's be a news story about members of the Russian mob and the Chinese triads, and their local affiliates, being found dead after having been shot by the ex-Yugoslav hit men who did contract killings for both sides.

When I'd come out of the army, I'd been pretty pro-gun control. I knew how dangerous they could be in unskilled hands (of which there were a few too many in the army, alas), and they could be used for criminal purposes. This attitude started to erode somewhat as a result of the above-mentioned incidents, because it struck me that Dutch gun control was doing a lousy job of keeping guns out of the hands of the criminal element. Still, I reckoned at the time, think of the homicides we weren't getting because private citizens didn't have ready access to firearms.

My pro-gun control attitudes eroded further when I got a job at the UN war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. My first job was dissecting witness statements for who was where and when, and did what to whom, and putting that information into a database so the investigators and prosecutors cuold easily find witness statements that supported whichever case they were trying to make. So I read a lot of descriptions of ethnic cleansing, especially from rural areas of Bosnia in 1992, and there was a trend that a week or two prior to a "cleansing" taking place, some local cops and nationalist party members of the ethnic group doing the cleansing would do the rounds of households with registered firearms (shotguns, hunting rifles, the occasional handgun) and confiscate them "to prevent them from falling into the hands of subversives." Of course, it was really so that when the paramilitaries arrived, nobody would be able to shoot back.

Fast forward to 2006. I moved to the US in 2002, brought along by my now-wife, an American woman. I'm still luke-warm at best on private firearms ownership (and as a non-US citizen, the state of Washington requires me get an Alien Firearms License before I can possess a firearm, and I'm not willing to jump through those hoops), when I read in magazine about Castle Rock, CO vs. Gonzales. I am outraged at the fact that Castle Rock PD failed to lift a finger to arrest Simon Gonzales, even though state law explicitly requires them to "make every effort" to do so, and that even so, the Supreme Court rules that they cannot be held accountable for this failure. From Political Science 101 (well, the Dutch equivalent thereof), I remember that "authority is power with legitimacy," and that legitimacy comes from attacking responsibility to that power. Thus, if the government refuses to accept responsibility for my safety as an individual citizen, it therefore has no legitimate right to deprive me of the means to protect myself.

But might gun control be legitimate on the grounds that it renders the populace more safe from private citizens with legally owned firearms? After a lot of research, both on the internet and in my local library, I find that the criminological research indicates that the overwhelming majority of criminal misuse of firearms is not committed by "regular" gun owners. I also come across the various studies on defensive gun use by Kleck et al.

That was pretty much the point that I discarded any support I had left for keeping firearms out of the hands of private citizens who have not been shown to be unworthy of being trusted by a firearm (by committing a violent offense, or being adjudicated mentally ill, et al.). I'm wholly in favor of NICS background checks, the Lautenberg amendment, that sort of thing, but absent that kind of justification, I see no legitimate reason to hinder private citizens from owning firearms.

In September 2007, I gain U.S. citizenship; on the way home from the naturalization ceremony, I stop at my local police department and file an application for a Concealed Pistol License. In November, as a birthday present to myself, I buy a Smith & Wesson M&P40.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Here is the nail in the coffin for firearm registration:
So I read a lot of descriptions of ethnic cleansing, especially from rural areas of Bosnia in 1992, and there was a trend that a week or two prior to a "cleansing" taking place, some local cops and nationalist party members of the ethnic group doing the cleansing would do the rounds of households with registered firearms (shotguns, hunting rifles, the occasional handgun) and confiscate them "to prevent them from falling into the hands of subversives." Of course, it was really so that when the paramilitaries arrived, nobody would be able to shoot back.

This is why anonymous firearm ownership is essential.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. Thank you for sharing that with us. I did not realize
that Washington state required a special license for resident aliens. Here in Texas all it takes is a "Green Card" and alien number.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. The Alien Firearms License just got abolished this year, actually
Heh. "Alien Firearm License"; it still sounds like something you need to legally own a Martian heat ray.

Unlike Concealed Pistol Licenses, the AFL was administered by the state Department of Licensing, and at some point in 2007, the FBI decided that their regulations didn't allow them to conduct background checks on behalf of non-law enforcement agencies. Since the DoL isn't a law enforcement agency, no background checks. So then the DoL suspended the entire AFL program--no new licenses, no renewals--which was fun for quite a few green card-holding gun owners whose AFLs were running out; they had to stash their guns with friends in a hurry.

Well, I'm happy to say there was an outcry, and the state legislature passed a law getting rid of the AFL that went into effect this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. Thanks for sharing.
Your story nailed a lot of important points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
votingupstart Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
63. congratulations (2 years late) - and bravo for exercising your (new) rights. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Israfel4 Donating Member (86 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
9. Great story. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
16. "I am just exercising my right."

no, I am not a law enforcement officer, and do not intend to impersonate one, I am just exercising my right. You have one, too, you know?


No, I am not suicidal, and am not intending to look suicidal, I am just exercising my right to jump off this bridge. You have one, too, you know?

What moronic noise, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. How is she injured by excercising her right compared to your "bridge right"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. who said she was????

What are you yammering about?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Your ridiculous comparison. What else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Davey, Davey, Davey

People get to exercise their rights however they want, right?

My analogy had precisely fuck all to do with anybody getting injured by anything. Gawd, I had forgotten about the shortage of abstract thinking skills around here.


People jump off bridges because they want to, for whatever reasons they might have.

People promenade around with pistols because they want to, for whatever reasons they might have.

The author of the screed quoted said: It is a strange feeling when, while carrying open in Virginia, I have to tell people, no, I am not a law enforcement officer, and do not intend to impersonate one, I am just exercising my right. You have one, too, you know?

People do not do things BECAUSE they have a right to do them. Really. Not sane people. If people did things BECAUSE they have a right to do them, there would be a whole lot more people jumping off bridges.

If you approached someone who appeared to be about to jump off a bridge and asked why s/he was doing that, and s/he replied: "I am just exercising my right", would you not think s/he was a bit of a moron? Would you not think s/he must really have an actual REASON for doing what s/he was doing?

Now, I could try standing over here and we could see how many people get it then ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. I have jumped off a bridge
many a time and will do so again. That does not mean I am trying to commit suicide, it simply means there was a river under the bridge that I was jumping into. It is an old two lane bridge in central Wisconsin with a slow moving, meandering river running underneath. It's lots of fun.

On another note, I walked under that bridge back in january of this year, it was frozen solid and had a foot of snow but right under the bridge the ice was clear and you could hear the water running underneath.

But back to the point, I was exercising my right to jump off that bridge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. uh huh

You jumped off that bridge BECAUSE you had a right to do it.

So why am I not standing on my head and spitting nickels at this very moment? Why are YOU not standing on your head and spitting nickels at this very moment?

You have the right to, you know.



Cut to the bleeding chase.
It is a strange feeling when, while carrying open in Virginia, I have to tell people, no, I am not a law enforcement officer, and do not intend to impersonate one, I am just exercising my right. You have one, too, you know?

Why would someone enquiring about the firearm visible on the person of a person promenading around in his/her vicinity want to be told that said person, and s/he him/herself, had a right to do so?

If I enquired about something someone was doing -- obviously because I considered it, at first blush, to be unwise or unsafe or just really stupid -- and I received the reply that s/he had a right to do it, I'd think that the person in question was a moron or an asshole.

And I think you all would too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. Would you care to specify why you consider...
...open carry of a handgun inherently "to be unwise or unsafe or just really stupid"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Ooh, ooh, I can answer that one..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"In my own opinion, it is careless to have firearms anywhere."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. the iverglas files!

Even when I wasn't here, the fan club was busy.

I think I'll be needing to sign a big new batch of pix for distribution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. You, villager, scout..
no end to asinine quotes. Endless entertainment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. would you care to quote me saying that?

Please do.

I'm bored.


Hint: I wasn't wherever it was that the person quoted in the opening screed made the statement to which I have been referring, I have never met the person, and I have no clue what the circumstances were.

Bigger hint: I expressed no opinion about what that person was doing, and I have never said that I consider open carry of a handgun inherently "to be unwise or unsafe or just really stupid"


Does that help?

Since you're so cute, I'll give you one for free.

I consider "open carry" of a handgun while going about ordinary activities in public, barring exceptional circumstances I could probably think of if pressed, to be something only a total asshole does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #43
51. Forget it; I'm tired of this chickenshit
You sure do talk a fucking lot for someone who never admits to saying anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tortoise1956 Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #43
67. The master of fallacious arguments...
Edited on Wed Jun-17-09 10:14 PM by tortoise1956
rides again!

come on people, get real. You must be aware that Iverglas has little or no skill at debating a subject, which is why the final resort is either snide comments or vicious personal attacks. Relax and enjoy the feeble attempts at biting humor.


Edited to correct spelling of Iverglas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #28
39. Um...
You forgot something, I dare say.

"People promenade around with pistols because they want to, for whatever reasons they might have."


I believe you meant to say:

"People promenade around festooned with pistols because they want to, for whatever reasons they might have."

Just sayin...

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. no, no, no.
Edited on Tue Jun-16-09 08:46 PM by iverglas

Festooned in firearms.

Sheesh.

I wander off for a few weeks, and memory fails you!


And btw, I've been back for over a day, and haven't had a proposal yet.

Just sayin' ...




forgot the html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
50. Ivy, Ivy, Ivy
I missed the part where anybody alleged that people get to exercise their rights however they want. I had forgotten how bitter you were, I guess we are even. Glad everything worked out with your eyes. How are your mom and sister?

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #28
76. Actually
I don't know about you, but I think it's ok for people to commit suicide, if they so choose. In fact, we just voted in a law allowing doctor assisted suicide in this state, last election.

So, I think people do have a right to jump off a bridge, if they so choose, for non-recreational purposes.


As for open carry, I think it's a bad idea, because it puts you in the same position as a police officer, who are often put in a situation where they have to grapple for control of their firearm. But beyond that, sure, I think it's fine if people want to 'exercise' their right to open carry. Just like I think it's ok for someone to wear a 'Fuck George Bush' t-shirt. Maybe poor taste in public, but perfectly within the right of free expression. If someone wants to, because they want to, that's fine with me.

And I am free to think somewhat less of them for their decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Nothing like people from foreign countries criticizing other peoples freedoms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
31. Explain please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Davey explain the false statement he made?

This should be good ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #33
47. Nothing false about it. You routinely criticize US gun policy. You are a foreigner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #33
71. I noticed you failed to respond to my explanation..not false at all it turns out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #31
46. I grow tired of people in foreign countries meddling in the affairs of the US.
Much like people in foreign countries grow tired of the US meddling in their affairs. It's pretty simple actually.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merchant Marine Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. Sorry,
I think I missed your argument though all the static
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
appal_jack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. iverglas, you have my blessing!
I am just exercising my right to jump off this bridge.


I support your right to jump off a bridge any time you choose.














;-) :evilgrin:

I truly hope you are not suicidal, and that the only bridges you jump off are ones located conveniently and sensibly-distanced above cool swimming holes on hot summer days ahead.

OTOH, the sooner your anti-freedom screeds jump to their final resting place the better. I find the stories in this thread of American immigrants discovering and responsibly exercising their Second Amendment rights both inspiring and worthwhile.

-app
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. tsk, you missed it?

And I modelled it so carefully.

I am just exercising my right to jump off this bridge. You have one, too, you know?

Hahaha.


Just for info, here's what we do about bridge-jumping up here.


"Due to its size and the ease with which people could jump over its short railings, <the Prince Edward Viaduct over the Don Valley in Toronto> became a magnet for suicide. With over 400 suicides, the Viaduct ranked as the second most fatal standing structure in the world, after the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. This led to the construction of a suicide barrier called the Luminous Veil. Since completion of this barrier, there have been no suicides here. "


http://www.lostrivers.ca/points/PEViadct.htm

Before:



After:



(It was supposed to be lit up, hence "Luminous Veil", but the fundraising for that bit fell short.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
appal_jack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #26
37. oh, the hugh-manatee!
An un-lit 'Luminous Veil' that impedes your natural right to bridge jumping?!1?

I tell ya, that's just all kinds of wrong. Too bad you Canadians didn't enumerate the bridge-jumping and excessive illumination rights into your Constitution. Oh wait...

-app ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. ah, you're right, we did

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter /

"Mobility Rights"

"Excessive lighting" probably comes under the "Affirmative action programs" subsection of that section ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
votingupstart Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #26
66. and you didn't call for a banning of the bridges..... falling down on the job :)
i had to - it was tooooo easy

i noticed that you put "up here" and referred to our great neighbors to the north, are you actually a canuckistanian. by the way i absolutely LOVED British Columbia - the views are absolutely phenomenal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
75. Yo! Bridge-jumping crew checking in.
Bungee or water, whatever. I'm game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
votingupstart Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #16
64. glad you think exercising your rights is "moronic noise"
i'll bet it wouldn't be so "moronic" if it was your freedom of speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
34. Interesting that so many who are fearful of guns are quick to call 911 so someone will bring a gun
to protect them.

Perhaps it's easier to let someone else take the risk and do the dirty work.

Many countries call such people "subjects".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. interesting that jody's still making up nasty shit about imaginary people

No change here, then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #35
48. and clearly no change in you either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
52. "It is a strange feeling when, while carrying open in Virginia..."
:wtf: Why? Is she expecting a firefight any minute?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merchant Marine Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #52
72. Why not?
It's legal and does not injure the public safety. I would argue armed, trained individuals enhance the public safety.

In any case, criminals don't make appointments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #52
74. Well if she could see into the future she would know when/if she needs it.
As soon as you invent a perfectly 100% reliable method to see the future (hence I will know when/if a firearm is needed) I will accept legislation that prevent carrying firearms except when expecting a firefight.

I also will stop wearing my seatbelt everyday (except for the days your machine says I will be in an accident).

Get working.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Apr 20th 2014, 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC