I think I'm beginning to understand why many anti-gunners hate all gun owners...

[spin]

Many anti-gun people don't understand people who own and enjoy firearms. They live in a movie fantasy land and this is how they view all legal gun owners:











While this post is an attempt at humor, I suspect there is a lot of truth in it. I should explain that I have known a lot of gun owners over the years and none resembled the people in any of these pictures. Such people may exist, but such people are rare. There are eighty million gun owners in the states. They resemble your co-workers, your minister, your plumber, your kid’s teacher, your college professor, your doctor, your banker, your stock broker, etc., etc.

Note: this may not apply if you live in gun unfriendly states but take a visit to Disney World in Florida and you will find yourself in a state where the above description is very accurate. Many of the cars you pass or pass you in Florida (tourists drive slowly) have legal loaded firearms inside. Some of the people you encounter if you travel around Florida and visit places like the malls will be carrying concealed firearms. You might possibly encounter an old fart with a bad limp and a Pittsburgh Steelers hat. That might be me. I carry.

Millions of people visit Florida each year and enjoy the experience. If gun owners were so terrifying, they would never enjoy the tourist attractions and the beaches.

We are not paranoid and we don't all have small penises. We are not afraid. We are realistic and we realized that sometimes bad things happen to good people. We often have fire extinguishers in our house and wear seat belts when we drive.

We don't consider ourselves either vigilantes or cops. We don't go looking for trouble, because we are smart enough to realize that if we do trouble will find us. We often use our firearms for a variety of activities such as hunting or target shooting or just plinking at soda cans. We don't love or fondle our firearms but merely use them for legitimate purposes and simply clean oil and maintain them. You won’t find us setting around the living room playing with our firearms while we watch TV.

Some of us collect firearms for pleasure and for investment just as some people collect stamps or coins. A few of us who are very extreme run around in the woods playing soldier with camouflage outfits, preparing for an evil dictatorial government who plans to haul gun owners off to concentration camps. While these people exist, they are represent an extremely small number of our group and are shunned by most gun owners as nuts.

But we do vote, and we consider our right to own firearms as a privilege that might be taken away by those who pander to liberals who don't understand us for political profit. In close elections our votes often make the difference.

Often the anti-gun politicians realize they have no real inexpensive solutions to the problem of violence in our society and merely pass "feel good" laws that do little or nothing or order to get reelected. The problem of violence in our society is complex and involves far more factors than the availability of firearms. These factors include education, discrimination, and availability of well paying jobs and true opportunity for all. Overcoming these problems is extremely difficult and costly. It’s far simpler to pass laws that are merely words on paper and cost basically nothing. The liberal voting base and the Brady Campaign will cheer in joy.

But not all gun owners are Freepers or Republicans. A good percentage of us are Democrats who oppose the ultra conservative, ultra religious philosophy of the Republican Party. To be fair a lot of us who would vote for Democrats simply refuse. These people are single issue voters. The draconian approach of the Democratic Party to gun control has alienated these voters. Effectively, the party has shot itself in the foot.

Somehow, the Republican Party managed to snatch the truly liberal and progressive idea that is the Second Amendment away from the liberal faction of the Democratic Party. This always amazes me as gun control is basically a racist idea designed to keep firearms from "those people" and allow this privilege only for the rich and influential. Firearm ownership was very important in the civil rights effort. The KKK enjoyed running roughshod over minorities until these unprivileged were actually permitted to own firearms and formed armed groups ready to oppose the KKK. Bullies in white sheets make good targets in the dark. The night riders decided that it was a bad idea to attempt to terrorize armed individuals.

Gun owners are very similar to those who don’t own firearms. We are often very well educated and hold professional jobs, but we represent a wide cross section of society. While we are not angels with wings, we are basically law abiding, good citizens who oppose gun violence in our county. We understand firearms and with that knowledge we often find fault with foolish gun control ideas. If they actually worked, we would support them.
But I believe we can work together to reduce crime and violence. First we all need to turn down the rhetoric, stop the insults and stop treating the problem like a game played by two football teams in the Super Bowl.

edited for fat fingers

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Good post. I don't hate gun owners - I just don't understand them.

What I hate is guns. And I know we can't turn back history, or get rid of them all. I know it isn't realistic. But thanks for a very nicely stated post that helps to build bridges of understanding.

[spin]

18. If I had never owned firearms and never learned the enjoyment of target shooting...

I might have held your opinion.

Many people have great difficulty understanding the attraction of firearms. Target shooting a handgun is extremely challenging and no matter how much you practice it remains challenging. I would compare it to playing golf. Tiger Woods is the best player in the world but often he makes bad shots and throws his club down in frustration. He has good days and bad days. Thee were days that I would go to the range, fire 20 shots and just pack up my handguns and go bullshit in the lobby. Some days you're hot, some days you're not.

But there are at lot of other uses for firearms. I just finished eating a meal that included venison. It was fantastic and in my opinion far better than store bought meat. (Crock pots can work miracles.) Right now, because of the economy, finances are tight in my household. One of my daughter's best friends started dropping off venison and wild boar meat for us. The people in her family love hunting and often have more meat than they can consume. They have no problems sharing with others.

I may decide to take up hunting this year, but my bad hip limits me. My daughter, however, has plans to learn how to hunt with her friends. Deer are far too common around here, and I know several people who have had car accidents involving deer. Feral hogs do a lot of damage to the environment and are breeding so fast hunters can't keep up with their population. (Let me tell you, hog is TASTY.)

I don't collect firearms, all my weapons are shooters which limits their value. But I've known people who do collect firearms for historic interest or value. One fellow I knew loved collecting old Colt 45 cal Peacemakers. One he picked up for a very reasonable price turned out to be extremely valuable. He was very proud of it.

But firearms can be used for self defense. This doesn't happen often but many lives have been saved by the display or use of a firearm. My daughter stopped an intruder who was attempting to break into our home by pointing a large caliber revolver at him as he was forcing a sliding glass door open. He probably wasn't planning a simple burglary as an alarm was sounding and a 60 pound black lab was in the house. I an very thankful that I often took her to the range and she was a very good shot. Fortunately, she didn't have to fire her weapon, but the fact that she was unafraid and confident probably convinced the intruder to run.

[OttavaKarhu]

45. Very confusing

You don't understand people whom you lump into a class because they own an object you hate.

Do you understand knife owners?

Car and truck owners?

Fire starting implement owners?

Rope owners?

All these implements are used to commit homicide.

Cars account for far more deaths of that sort each year than guns. But you don't claim to hate cars, and you don't claim to "not understand car owners." (I'm willing to bet you've faced more actual threat or harm from vehicles than firearms in your day to day life.)

I'd say that you are lumping me in with 80 million other people for a totally spurious reason precisely so you can then claim not to understand us.

Of course you don't understand us. You apparently don't understand yourself. I'd say that if you got out to a range with one of us, you'd find your fear of the things you call guns much exaggerated, and you'd start to understand a lot of things.

But maybe you like turning tens of millions of other Americans into some scary, mysterious terrain from which you can hold yourself apart?

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. You owe me a new keyboard

Those pics......

:rofl:

[Fresh_Start]

3. grew up with guns have guns in safe at home right now

don't hate gun owners. Hate gun owners who minimize the risks of guns and think that thousands of people that die from guns every year are an acceptable cost for their gun freedom.

Enjoy your guns. I just want every single one of them registered with a marker so when someone is injured or dies by gun, that person that owns that gun is accountable for his/her irresponsibility

[spin]

21. There are those who favor confiscating all firearms...

and think that that will solve the crime and violence problem in my society. I get tired of listening to them.

I don't spend a lot of time reading the propaganda from the pro-gun media either.

Both sides have extremely loud and irritating voices.

[iverglas]

40. voices in your head?

There are those who favor confiscating all firearms...
and think that that will solve the crime and violence problem in my society. I get tired of listening to them.

Maybe you should change the channel. I wouldn't know where to find these "those" if I wanted to.

Like I wuz saying ...




If you want to get really tired of listening to something, try being me for a day and reading the utter crap spewed in this forum by gun militants.

[OttavaKarhu]

46. You're only here because we fascinate you

[iverglas]

53. oh look

A new fan club member.

I hope you won't be telling me I need my vision adjusted.

[NewMoonTherian]

87. Where do I sign up!

And why wasn't I told there was a club? You're maddening, but you know we all love you. :loveya:

[backwoodsbob]

68. do you EVER get tired of

freshman debating?

your muddying of the water gets old

[Mist]

4. Thanks for your post, Spin. You said everything I'd say, but you said it better than I could! nt

[xchrom]

5. so the states with the highest rates of suicide are where again?

you cannot simultaneously promote 'sane' usage and ownership of fire arms and talk about reducing violence in society.

they are incompatible -- with the possible exception of brief periods of time.

i will never ever make 'peace' with gun owners.

you have the upperhand -- for now -- but people who want a gun free{er} country have to work much much harder to bring it about.

[Jeramy]

11. Availability of firearms has no bearing on suicides

Suicide and Firearms

The USA has a lower suicide rate than Japan where firearms are just not available nor socially acceptable, and marginally higher than Australia and Ireland where gun control is absolute. Suicide itself is the issue that needs to tackled not the means of completion.

Suicide rates per 100,000 by country, year and sex

Country Year Males Females
Japan 04 35.6 12.8
Finland 04 31.7 9.4
France 03 27.5 9.1
Switzerland 04 23.7 11.3
United States 02 17.1 4.2
Australia 03 17.1 4.7
Ireland 05 16.3 3.2

Suicide is the 11th leading cause of death among Americans. (1) More people die each year in the U.S. from suicide than from homicide. A firearm is the most commonly used method to commit suicide (54%). The firearm suicide rate has remained virtually unchanged over the past two decades. (2)

Source-<http://www.americanfirearms.org/statistics.php#9>

In France gun laws are a good deal stricter than the US. And in Switerland it is damned near required to own a gun.

Edit-Edited for clarity of chart

[spin]

20. Suicide is always tragic, but there are many means to commit suicide...

Firearms may make it simpler but it's also easy to overdose on medicine and merely fall asleep. Some use cars to commit suicide and endanger others. Some hang themselves.

If all firearms disappeared overnight, the suicide rate might fall but that's hard to say. Other countries that have banned firearm ownership still have high suicide rates.

[Euromutt]

29. I can tell you where the countries with the highest suicide rates are

Japan has a remarkably high suicide rate, much higher than the US's. And yet, it has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership of any country, developed or otherwise. France, Germany and Sweden all have higher suicide rates than the US as well.

The entire former Soviet Union has higher rates of both suicide and homicide than the U.S., the Baltic republics included (NATO and EU membership notwithstanding). They all have more stringent gun laws than the US too.

There's simply no correlation.

[gorfle]

38. People with guns are free(er).

ou have the upperhand -- for now -- but people who want a gun free{er} country have to work much much harder to bring it about.

A person with a gun is more free than a person without one.

[Blu_Statr]

85. States where they don't want to be alive

"Sane" gun usage discourages "insane" gun usage. Any whack-job that wants to go on a shooting rampage will be far less effective if one or more of the intended victims can shoot back. It happens more than you'd think, the media doesn't seem to like to report it as it tends to prove that the anti-gun propaganda they tend to favor broadcasting is counter to reality.

And why aren't you "at-peace" with gunowners? Most of them are pretty peaceable, whether you choose to believe it or not.

[SteveM]

86. So, you are at war with perhaps a third of the nation?

[Hello_Kitty]

6. I'm not anti-gun but I find many gun enthusiasts to be as annoying as Ron Paul supporters

9-11 Truthers, conspiracy nuts, Scientologists, and fundies.

IOW, one track mind annoying bores.

[PavePusher]

10. You paint with a very broad brush. Just sayin'... n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

16. Just callin' it like I see it. eom

[OttavaKarhu]

48. You need your vision adjusted

[Chemisse]

7. I don't hate guns or gun owners

In fact I may buy one someday (and I damned well better be able to!).

I just hate that people who are mentally ill or criminals can buy them without too much trouble. There should be better restrictions and checks, waiting periods on the purchase (for those who are in a homicidal rage and want to make an impulse purchase) and more safeguards to protect children.

I see that as a sensible middle ground on the issue.

Really funny pictures!

[spin]

8. These are the types of gun control laws we need to work on...

there is a sensible middle ground.

[GreenStormCloud]

33. Waiting periods serve no useful purpose.

It is a "feel-good" law to make ignorant people happy. In reality, people do not get into homicidal rages and go to a gun store to get a gun. It just doesn't happen that way. A person who is that violent will have already had a criminal record and won't be able to buy a gun because he will show up in the NICS check. If he has a gun it will be from the black market, and by definition it will be illegal already. So what good does still another law do?

In domestic shootings, there is ALWAYS a history of previous violent abuse. You just don't have normal people suddenly blow up. That is a gun-grabber's myth.

What is wrong with an impulse purchase of a gun? I already have several, and if I happen to see one that I like, and have the funds, why should I have to wait?

[spin]

52. One big advantage of a concealed carry permit in Florida...

is that I can walk into a gun store and walk out with a new handgun. I show my permit, fill out the paperwork pass the NICS background check on the phone and away I go with my purchase.

Otherwise I would face a three day waiting period unless I was trading in anther handgun.

[iverglas]

64. and meanwhile

One big advantage of a concealed carry permit in Florida...
is that I can walk into a gun store and walk out with a new handgun. I show my permit, fill out the paperwork pass the NICS background check on the phone and away I go with my purchase.

your neighbours are bringing you food because times are so tough?

Exactly what is this "advantage" whereof you speak? The advantage of knowing that if you happened to have the money and the whim, you could get yrself a spanking new gizmo, no waiting, if you felt like it? Even though you don't have the money, or would have to choose between a new gun and vegetables to go with the neighbour's meat ...

Wow.

Strikes me as kinda like me saying: the advantage of living in Canada is that I'm so much closer to the North Pole than if I lived in Florida. Can't afford to go there, have no need to go there, but hey, I'm closer to the North Pole than you are.

[spin]

65. Did I say I was buying new handguns?

I said it was an advantage when I did buy one. I haven't bought a new handgun for myself in years.

But let's say the economy improves and life is good and I now have some spare cash. I happen to travel 30 or 40 miles to do some shopping in a near city. While there, I stop at a gun store and see a handgun I want. If I have to wait three days, that means I have to drive back - pick up the handgun and return.

The original law was designed to provide a cooling off period to enraged people who only wished to buy a handgun to immediately shoot someone. People with concealed weapons permits have went through training and an average three month wait for the license. The overwhelming majority have a handgun. Making them wait three days is stupid.

[GreenStormCloud]

69. In Texas, nobody has to wait. And CHL holders don't have to do an NICS check.

Just put down the cash, fill out the 4473, and leave with the gun(s).

I am thinking of going to a gun show (There is one every weekend in the DFW area.) on the 31st and pick up a Hi-Point .45 handgun. For those who don't know, it is a semi-auto. They are only $170.00 before sales tax.

I would like to get a holographic sight for it too, but I don't know if it will accept one without a gunsmith having to work on it. I will have to ask a dealer about that.

[iverglas]

70. hurray

for something, I'm sure.

[GreenStormCloud]

74. Thank you for the cheer. We do have greater freedom regarding guns in Texas.

But we still have to catch up with more progressive states like WA and VT.

The legislature is moving towards open-carry and allowing CHL carry on campus. It was defeated last time and some state politicians are now running on platforms that include greater rights for gun owners.

[iverglas]

75. well hey

We do have greater freedom regarding guns in Texas.
But we still have to catch up with more progressive states like WA and VT.

Not to mention really really progressive places like Congo.

Freedom's just another word for ...


Y'all free not to lose you house / die if you get really sick down there yet?

[GreenStormCloud]

76. What does one have to do with the other?

Y'all free not to lose you house / die if you get really sick down there yet?


I'm sorry, but I really don't understand the relevance of gun freedoms to lack of a complete government health care program.

FWIW - I do support universal health care, in principle. Details need to be worked out, but that is a topic for a different forum.

[sam sarrha]

82. the transport laws here n NC are very vague. how do ya separate weapon and ammo in a hatch back.? i

got a carry permit just to eliminate the chance of prosecution. i do not want to leave a gun in plain sight in my car.. how stupid is that.??!!

i got the Beretta Tomcat http://www.pearcegrip.com/beretta_photo.htm because you don't have to rack the slide to load and cock it. you put the clip in and pop the barrel chamber up, drop in a bullet. snap it down and pull back the hammer. fires, ejects and cocks the hammer, single action to double action auto.. pretty nifty if you only have one hand. i can rack the slide on my Bretta 92 with my work hook with rubber tubing on the tongs, but couldn't budge a Ruger LCP slide.

[calimary]

9. I do have a question. Sincerely and no harm meant here!

As I understand the Second Amendment (and I don't claim to be The Ultimate Expert, either), there's this part about a "well regulated militia." That at least suggests that the originators believed in private gun ownership that was well regulated and overseen so it would be responsible.

What do I have wrong about that? It just seems so self-evident - that such a right (described as well-regulated) shall not be abridged. I don't have a problem with well-regulated gun-ownership. I prefer it.

BTW - phone activists from the NRA have been trying to call our house and talk to my husband for a couple of weeks now. I've answered the phone every time. Finally, one of them decided to stay on the line and talk to me. She asked if I would listen to a message from Wayne LaPierre. I did - I wanted to hear the message.

AMAZING!!!!! What was played for me was about two minutes of the most ridiculous, paranoid, unhinged, shrill, shrieking hysteria I think I've ever heard outside the ramblings of michele bachmann. UNBELIEVABLE! Basically it boiled down to two breathless, screeching minutes of "The UN!!!!! is CONSPIRING!!!!! with HILLARY CLINTON!!!!! to TAYKE AHR GUHNNNNNZZZZ!!!!"

Oh for the love of GOD!!!! I was absolutely gobsmacked! What. The. Fuck!?!?!?!?!??!? What The Fucking Damn Hellzapoppin' Fuck???

A different voice came back on the line after the message - that had left me gazing wild-eyed and mouth agape at my phone in utter disbelief at what I'd just heard. They asked if I'd listened to the message. I said yes. They asked what I thought. And I began to say that I thought it was absolutely ridiculous and that I believe in the U.N. and I have GREAT faith in and admiration for Hillary Clinton and ...

And they hung up on me.

Help me understand the mentality here. Because I DO see an awful lot of "Deliverance" every time some gun advocate pipes up. ESPECIALLY after this rather astounding and troublesome encounter.

Because what I was about to say before they hung up on me was - "what bothers me most is the thought that someone who sounds this deranged should be allowed to own ANY kind of firearm at all." It shook me up so much that, by now, my attitude is changing to - "I hope TO GOD somebody DOES take away YER GUHNNNNZZZZ!!!! Whether it's the UN or Hillary Clinton or Captain Kangaroo!!! For the sake of the safety and sanity of all the rest of us!"

So as I just said - please help me understand this better. You've gotta know that there's a huge element of people purportedly on your side of this argument who do NOT represent it, or you, well at all.

[Tim01]

14. The supreme courd doesn't agree with your interpretation of the second amendment.

And neither do I.
Also, a well regulated militia will not help me when some gangster tries to rob me at the 7-11. A handgun comes in a lot more handy at that time.

Recently in Richmond Va a badguy came into a convenience store and started waving a gun around in broad daylight. He shot the store owner, shot at the customers, and then put the customers against the wall and told them he was going to execute them. One of the customers was a friend of the store owner and he was open carrying a colt six shooter. He got into a gunfight with the badguy. The first shot didn't even affect the badguy, he continued walking around the store threatening people. A couple more bullets put him down.

The badguy was a felon, he was banned from having a gun.

[X_Digger]

17. Three things..

"well regulated" at the time, and in this context meant 'well functioning'-

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf

In Item 1, Anne Newport Royall commented in 1822 that Huntsville, Alabama was becoming quite civilized and prosperous, with a “fine fire engine” and a “well regulated company”. I suppose one could make the case that the firefighters were especially subject to rules and laws, but the passage is more coherent if read, “They have a very fine fire engine, and a properly operating company.”

William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible.

Secondly, let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

And finally, let's look at the second amendment itself-

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Grammatically this can be broken down into two clauses- a prefatory clause and an operative clause. Similar wording can be found in other writing of the time, though it's fallen out of favor these days. For comparison, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..". That construction- '{reason}, {statement}' exists today, but we usually swap the clauses- "I'm going to the supermarket, I'm completely out of soda." or we add in a 'because' or 'since'- "Since I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the supermarket." or "I'm going to the supermarket because I'm completely out of soda."

So with the point from the first section, the second section in mind, and rearranging the clauses per the third would yield a modern restatement of the second amendment as-

"Because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security, the government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed."

or

"The government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security."

Nothing in either of those statements says that arms are only for militia service, rather the ability to raise an effective militia is _why_ protecting the right to be armed is protected. Since we know from the preamble (and the 9th/10th amendment) that the bill of rights is not exhaustive, we have to look outside the bill of rights itself to see if the founding fathers expected this right to extend beyond militia service.

State analogues of the second amendment that were adopted in the same timeframe give a clue-

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm (sections rearranged by me)

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution.<15> It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791.<32> Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union.<55>* Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."<56>

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."<89>**

So from analagous documents created by many of the same founding fathers or their peers, the individual right unconnected to militia service is fairly well laid out.

* Admittedly, not analogous in time to the others, but still demonstrates the point.
** same

[chibajoe]

80. Thank you for that

It is one of the best explanations for the prefatory clause that I have read.

[X_Digger]

83. Happy to help- I need to bookmark it so that I can refer to it again! n/t

[Jeramy]

19. No, that was not the intention.

The first part is a just a preamble to the second. The use of a preamble was common back when the constitution was written. It was used as a reason why they thought the right was essential. Just one of many reasons, not the only one.

If thats not enough for you how bout we let the founders speak for themselves.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms-Thomas Jefferson

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property-Thomas Paine

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms, that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state-George Mason

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms....To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young how to use them-Richard Henry Lee.

[Hoopla Phil]

24. While I won't be able to give as excellent a response as Digger I do have .02 to add.

I would really suggest you read (I know it is VERY dry) the Heller decision along with all it's foot notes. They did an excellent job of researching the intent and context of the 2A. For as short as it is there is lots and lots of information on it from those that wrote it themselves. (From the horses mouth so to speak)

Well regulated: As I'm sure you know some words have many definitions. Some definitions of some words are used much more than others. "Regulated" does have several definitions and the primary definition has changed in the last 200 plus years. "Regulated" in the context of the 2A means of like and common use/manner. Basically in this context it means the militia are supposed to keep the same type of weapons so that there is common use. It would be a bad situation indeed if the militia was called up and they all showed up with different weapons that used different types of bullets. That is the "well regulated" means in this context.

The militia: Who are they? Well, in the day of the constitution's writing there were two types of militia. The organized militia and the unorganized militia. The 2A says "militia" as meaning both in it's context. The organized militia is very obvious as they are the "regulars" that are the professional soldier. The argument surrounds the "unorganized" militia. In Heller SCOTUS looks at this very closely. They finally determined that the unorganized militia is made up of all people in the U.S. Stating that "the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans."

Why? It makes since after you look at it objectively. Should there become a reason to call up the unorganized militia, what good would they be if they mustered without the arms needed to fulfill their duty? If the militia is called forth they need to show up with their own "well regulated" arms ready to do what is needed. As such they need to be able to have these arms at home, at the ready.

Again, I really urge you to read Heller AND the notations. It goes into a lot of detail on these points quoting the authors of the constitution and the 2A.

I hope this helps.

[spin]

25. First, don't EVER answer a phone call from the NRA...

I belong to the NRA and I never answer their calls. One time they called me five times in one day. In the last two weeks they appear to have finally given up.

When you read the Second Amendment you have to realize that it was written for a different time and place. It's concise, unlike laws and bills written today, and doesn't benefit from a list of definitions. It's complicated to understand and much depends on grammar so I will quickly recommend a fairly short dissertation that illustrates some of the problems at this link:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

One of the biggest problems in our country today is that we all seem to be spending our time shouting and insulting each other rather than working together to really solve our problems. I'm getting too old to enjoy that game. I want to see some real solutions as I have grandchildren and I am concerned that the country they will live in will be far worse than the one I have so fortunately enjoyed during my life. During my life we did make some headway, but much is left to do.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. So only those whom who agree with politically have rights? N/T

[gorfle]

41. On militias.

Firstly, thank you for your civil question.

As I understand the Second Amendment (and I don't claim to be The Ultimate Expert, either), there's this part about a "well regulated militia." That at least suggests that the originators believed in private gun ownership that was well regulated and overseen so it would be responsible.

You are suffering under some common modern misunderstandings concerning the second amendment.

First of all, let us look at the text of the second amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

First of all, you will note that it is the Militia being regulated, not "the people", nor the "arms".

Second of all, in the 18th century "regulated" meant "in good order". For example, a "well regulated" clock would be a clock in good working order. It did not mean, as today, something that is subject to regulations.

Third of all, the Dick Act of 1903 federalized the Stated Militias and created both the Organized Militia (the National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia, which is all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the National Guard.

Finally, the founders did intend for there to be militias - State controlled military forces decentralized and divorced from the central government so as to prevent that central government from having the military means to enforce a tyranny over the people. These militias were to be made up of citizens of the States, and led by officers from those States, in the hopes that they would be beholden to the interests of the States and not the central federal government. It is probably not a coincidence that the founders wrote the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, and NOT the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, because they knew that the institution of the militia could be usurped, as indeed it was in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act. The People are to have the final recourse in defense of liberty, and as such it is their right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
Fourth of all, the recent Heller Supreme Court decision has determined that the second amendment conveys and individual right to keep and bear arms regardless of affiliation with any organized group, such as a militia.

[OttavaKarhu]

49. "No harm meant"? "Sincere"?

Then what's the racist classist rural-bashing crack about Deliverance?

Just because you're afraid of or hate people who talk or dress or live a certain way, you get to be judgmental, dismissive, smug....but it's no harm meant?

Don't you realize that when most people see a gay couple they think, I dunno, Sodom and Gomorrah or Tom of Finland?

How is your comment different?

If you spent more time with RKBA people of ALL stripes, you would find that many of us are NRA members only because they managed to keep RKBA and 2A alive through a time when the rich of ALL political parties decided to disarm Americans. Starting with black Americans, as was the intent of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

If you don't believe me, go to YouTube and search on "No guns for Negroes." Read Kenn Blanchard's web site, Black Man With A Gun. Find the essays detailing the racist roots of gun control in this nation.

When I bang my head into the desk because of NRA's excesses I remind myself of one important thing:

When white politicians were out there disarming blacks in the Sixties, and liberal Democrats were saying NO to that, loudly, I wasn't paying attention. I didn't pay attention till much later. I got caught up in Liberal Democrat bullhonkey about polarized politics, and I felt so mighty. So damn mighty. Putting down all those people, feeling superior. It didn't mesh with my life as I knew it, but I wanted to be part of that JFK-family-type thing. Everybody rich and pretty and playing football on the lawn and Saving The Earth and later having economic booms and flipping houses.

While the schmucks did the dirty work. I was one of them. But surely Ann Arbor and Austin were better than, I dunno, where those DELIVERANCE people live, right?

I didn't realize till it was too late that RKBA and 2A were left in the hands of people I didn't like, and who didn't like me. But goddammit, they stood up for the Constitution, just as I was standing up for 1A which they were bashing.

And I had to grow out of my mediated stupor to realize that I let myself be the dupe of party politics up till the day Clinton took office.

The only way you will "understand this better" is through your own efforts. Don't try palming this off on us. I suggest you start by going to the most rural, poor, white, scary (to you) place you know...and challenging your own perceptions. Walk yourself up to some good old boy with a rack in the truck and ask him how come he's NRA. And you shut the hell up and listen. Treat him like a human. Observe your reactions.

If liberals can't do this, this nation is doomed. Not because of the NRA. Not because of Deliverance. But because we are failing in the first and foremost job of liberalism: to set aside our likes and dislikes, our emotions, our arrogance, and really listen to what people care about. To side, in other words, with the least of our people. If the NRA is in charge of the discussion it's because liberals have ceded it to them. And then stood back and felt superior.

We're going to get mashed in '12, and I can't say I'm sorry.

[PavePusher]

51. Wow. Awesome.

The best weapon against hypocrasy is... a mirror.

Thank you for the inspiring words.:thumbsup:

[iverglas]

55. love the patronizing, uh, hypocrisy

I suggest you start by going to the most rural, poor, white, scary (to you) place you know...and challenging your own perceptions. Walk yourself up to some good old boy with a rack in the truck and ask him how come he's NRA. And you shut the hell up and listen. Treat him like a human. Observe your reactions.

Of course, the good ol' boys don't need to do this -- don't need to shut up and listen to what people in urban communities have to say about anything.

Why? Because they're too stupid to understand, and so it falls to the effete liberal intellectuals to do all the heavy lifting, and humbly endure the abuse heaped on their heads by the rural / southern folks who are just too ignorant to actually participate in the dialogue and too ill-willed to give a shit anyway?

[PavePusher]

57. Someone has to be first. Why not "us"? n/t

[iverglas]

58. stopped beating your dog?

In order to answer your question, I would have to accept the premise that people living in urban communities in the US are the stereotyping bigots you all want to pretend to believe they are.

Sorry. Nope. False premise, loaded question, the answer is: Mu.

[spin]

59. Great post and very good advise.

If some so called liberals decided to broaden their horizons and instead of taking a vacation to Disney World in Orlando Florida, to take some time traveling through the deep south they might come back with some interesting stories and maybe even a changed attitude.

But to really understand the culture who have to actually live in the culture. If you meet the people straight on with an open mind, you will find them very friendly and generous. Unlike a big urban community, people actually know their neighbors and often look out for them.

For example, when my daughter mentioned how the economic downturn had caused our financial situation to become very tight, her best friend showed up with enough venison and wild hog to fill a freezer. We offered money, but she just laughed and said the meat only cost a couple of bullets. When we run low on meat, she brings more. My daughter plans to take up hunting this season. Her friends are more than willing to teach her the ropes.

Since our family has lived in North Florida we have developed close friendships with many of the people in this community. They have done us many favors and often we have managed to return these favors.

In the end you may learn that appearance, money, profession and education don't make the person. It's what is inside that counts.

[iverglas]

61. really?

In the end you may learn that appearance, money, profession and education don't make the person. It's what is inside that counts.

Who's this "you", then?

The urban dwellers, all of whom are apparently rich, hard-hearted, self-centred, snobs?

If you weren't saying that, why would you go to such lengths to sing the praises of the poor downtrodden disrespected rural southern folk?

Goodness me. Which group is doing the stereotyping in this thread?

First you offer us an utterly moronic depiction of firearms control advocates, as all being ninnies who can't tell the difference between Charles Bronson and a rural hunter.

Now it's urban dwellers / northerners / whatever who all need lessons in neighbourliness from their betters.

I've spent a fair bit of time in the deep South. Not long stays, but quite a few of them in all the states from Texas to Florida, including Alabama, Mississipi, and the entire southeast. Including some family events (not my family) - a wedding, a funeral - and including small-town Florida. I talk to people everywhere I go. The one feature of the people I met - the white people - that stands out in my mind is their racism. And their complete lack of curiosity, but that's not unique to the south.

Interesting how it's quite obvious that the good folks we're really talking about here, those good old rural southerners, are really the white population. I seem to recall there being a lot of people of colour around when I was there.

I've also seen rural poverty in the northeast -- in very white Maine, for instance. Being a good neighbour sort of person, I once picked up an older woman hitchhiking on the back roads of Maine. I was just driving, so I offered to take her the couple of miles off the two-lane highway to her home; she was carrying a turkey she'd been to town to buy, for dinner with her grandchildren. Before I came along, apparently the response she'd been getting was mostly good ol' boys in pickup trucks trying to run her off the road. She tried to give me a couple of dollars for my gas/trouble -- I really was just driving, and of course I brushed it off, but I said I'd trade the lift for the use of her bathroom. Well, when we got there, I didn't press that point, since the tarpaper-covered structure in the woods that had apparently once been a trailer obviously didn't have one.

Ever read The Beans of Egypt, Maine? Rural poverty in the US isn't confined to the south.

And good neighbours don't all live in the sticks.

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. "Ever read The Beans of Egypt, Maine?". Here's part of an 'interview' with the author:

AN INTERVIEW WITH CAROLYN CHUTE

Originally published in New Democracy Newsletter, March-April 2000.

http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/chute.htm


This is an interview with Carolyn Chute, secretary of the 2nd Maine Militia and Border Mountain Militia. In the Southern Poverty Law Center's Spring 1997 Intelligence Report, the 2nd Maine Militia was listed, along with the Center's exclamation that "Patriot groups pose continued threat" and the statement that the Patriot Movement is "the fastest growing segment of the anti-government movement—radical, violence-prone religious separatists."

Carolyn is real. The two militias she works with are real. But the interviewer here is not. This piece is written by Carolyn, who insists "the interview style is much more interesting than essays or articles, but real living, breathing interviewers fudge everything—therefore what they write is fake." The fictional interviewer is a representative "institutionally educated" urban-valued, nondescript so-called liberal person who will be known as IUNLP. Carolyn, an uneducated redneck novelist, will be known as CC.

....IUNLP: Well, I myself don't approve of guns. They kill. We need more gun control.

CC: I always find it interesting that liberals or leftists, or whatever it is the Professional Class calls itself, fear guns in the hands of Americans, but have no problem with guns in the hands of Zapatistas or the Peruvian M.R.T.A.

IUNLP: Those people are facing injustices.

CC: Urban blacks aren't? Mid-western farmers aren't? American Indians aren't? The prohibition on drugs has only increased street drugs and street crime. Not to mention big bureaucracy and a big organized underworld. It's even increased the misuse of guns. A prohibition on guns will only increase street crime and big bureaucracy and a big underworld and misuse of guns. But aside from that, even if you could disappear all the guns and pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails from America, what about the hand that shoots the gun? What about the hand that triggers the bomb? Shall we cut off all Americans' hands to keep them from inventing something else?

IUNLP: Don't be silly.

CC: Behind all those urban killings are people created by the Great Progressive Society. These people are not revolting against the Great Progressive Society. They are raw imitations of the Great Progressive Society. We are led to believe that the professional middle class are the winners, the working class are the losers. You'd probably say this in fancier words, but you'd express this belief. You yourself suggested I should "better myself " a few moments ago. As I see it, class is about values, dependence and ways of communicating. The working-class person values place, interdependence, cooperation, the tribe. Rural working class especially values land. Many of us would kill to keep our land, our home, which for thousands of years was not considered a crazy thing to do. Middle-class professionals are into "success" and they are a dependent people, happily dependent on the consumer system for everything. You call it independence. But if you lost your electricity, your service people, your access to stores, you'd see how independent you are! Working-class people have become dependent on these things, too, but working-class values resent this dependency.

IUNLP: (Gulps tea)

CC: Also, the classes communicate differently and our social skills aren't the same. Working-class people aren't big on formal introductions and small talk. We use much more body language and humility. Among us, we share a lot of local history and experience, so there's much we don't have to say to each other. We tend to mumble and say "you know" a lot. We aren't usually talking heads. Self-deprecation is often our way of exercising a work-group, working toward cooperation and trust. It's a very tribal thing. And home. Home is not a street number, not a building. Home is another word for community, for the tribe ... faces, hands, voices, mumbles and shared work.

IUNLP: So tell me about the 2nd Maine Militia and Border Mountain Militia and the No-Wing Militia Movement.

CC: The No-Wing Militia Movement is not really separate from the Right-Wing Militia Movement. We attend each other's meetings, hang out together, do business with each other. We are neighbors and family. We have the same values, same fears, same dreams. But two basic differences. One, the No-Wing militia movement doesn't warm to the idea of a theocracy. We don't stress religion other than the Constitutional right to have freedom of it. We aren't into the idea of a Big Punishing Dad in heaven or in government. But you know, if you study the biblical scholars, most of them agree that Jesus' prime message was unconditional love, unconditional welcome. In that sense, you might say our militias are the true Christian militias. One of our homemade bumper stickers says "Have you hugged your favorite militia person today?" But I like to hug 'em all. (Chuckle) The other basic difference is that the Right-Wing Militia people have gotten their political education straight from the McKinley anti-Populist, anti-democracy "Progressive Society" era and McCarthy era. And, of course, they’ve learned a lot of junk in school, just as we all have.

IUNLP: And where does the No-Wing Militia Movement get its education?

CC: Articles from all sources and books circulated and a lot of hanging out together. The greatest part of a person's education is who you become, not just the info you absorb. Schools create arrogant system-loving "leaders," an obedient system-loving middle mediocre group, and losers. Most of us were school losers, feeling outside the system, feeling ineffective. And we were the rebels, asking smartass questions, not behaving. Often kicked out of school. Some of us got "good" grades and "behaved" but were shy and reclusive. Our militias empower us, both right wing and no wing... we are empowered by the militia. But much of the No-Wing Militia's info comes from Noam Chomsky and Richard Grossman and....

More Carolyn Chute here:

http://www.friedchickenandcoffee.com/2008/10/some-musing-and-some-discussion-of.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Chute

Carolyn Chute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Carolyn Chute (born June 14, 1947) is an American writer and populist political activist strongly identified with the culture of poor, rural western Maine.

Chute's first, and best known, novel , The Beans of Egypt, Maine, was published in 1985 and made into a 1994 film of the same name, directed by Jennifer Warren. Chute's next two books, Letourneau's Used Auto Parts (1988) and Merry Men (1994), are also set in the town of Egypt, Maine.

Her 1999 novel Snow Man deals with the underground militia movement, something that Chute has devoted more of her time to in recent years. She was the leader of a group which was known as the Second Maine Militia and is a fierce defender of the Second Amendment, keeping an AK-47 and a small cannon at her home in Maine. <1> Chute also speaks out publicly about class issues in America and publishes "The Fringe," a monthly collection of in-depth political journalism, short stories, and intellectual commentary on current events. She once ran a satiric campaign for governor of Maine.

In 2008, she published The School on Heart's Content Road, which deals with a polygamist compound in Maine under scrutiny after an article on them goes national. The project was originally a novel of more than 2,000 pages, which has since been broken up into a projected five-part cycle.

Her job career has included waitressing, chicken factory worker, hospital floor scrubber, shoe factory worker, potato farm worker, tutor, canvasser, teacher, social worker, and school bus driver, 1970s-1980s; part-time suburban correspondent, Portland Evening Express, Portland, Maine, 1976-81; instructor in creative writing, University of Southern Maine, Portland, 1985....

[iverglas]

71. fascinating

And Eric Blair was an informer.

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. And the "Law Of Association" is invoked

Said law being:

"If someone I agree with about something makes a questionable statement or has a questionable association, you are misinterpreting it.

If someone I disagree with about something makes a questionable statement or has a questionable association, it's proof
they are of like mind"

See: George Orwell/Eric Blair, Margaret Sanger and eugenics,Marija Gjimbutas, the Mitford sisters,the (Canadian) New Democratic Party and their votes in agreement with the Conservatives and against the Liberals, Ted Kennedy's sabotage of Jimmy Carter's re-election and his support of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Discuss

[spin]

67. If you noticed, in the OP that started this thread...

the title was"

"I think I'm beginning to understand why many anti-gunners hate all gun owners..."

This should obviously show that I was targeting a narrow group of people, anti-gunners and only a portion of that group. Your term, "Firearms control advocates" to me would describe a group I would describe in my terms as gun control proponents.

Note: this is not an excuse for any comments I made. Many people who oppose gun ownership hate guns, not gun owners. However, you might notice that some posts made here by people who are anti-gun are disrespectful. These people use a broad brush to paint gun owners with insults such as uneducated, illiterate, rednecks, paranoid cowards, men with small penises who attempt to make up for their lack of masculinity owning firearms etc, etc. These people may well believe that the pictures I posted are representative of some, if not all gun owners.

I was born and raised in a very rural area of Ohio, lived in the urban area that is the Tampa Bay area for 37 years and now live in a small town in North Florida. While I have met good people in both urban and rural areas, I've found people in small towns more friendly and helpful than those in the urban areas. One exception is when an urban area suffers through a natural disaster such as a flood or a hurricane. When that happens, neighbors leave their homes and help others they really had never met who only live a few doors from their house. Friendships are formed for a short period of time but often quickly disappear after things return to normal. They may wave when outside and they see the people they helped and helped them, but conversations rarely happen. Life in the urban areas is often fast paced and stressful. Little time remains for casual acquaintances. Life is rural areas is more laid back, there are far fewer people to meet consequently it's easier to take the time to form a true friendship.

You mentioned racism and indeed it does exist both in the urban and rural areas of the south and I understand in all areas of the United States. I find the level of racism among the whites in this north Florida town about the same as existed in the Tampa Bay area. My daughter and her husband feel there is less racism here than in south Florida. My son in law has told me that there is far more racism in the big cities of the northeast.

We personally have both white and black friends. Our three nearest neighbors are black and one is a friend who has often helped us out. My daughter recently had a job that took her into many diverse neighborhoods. She found people overall to be friendly but the people in the black neighborhoods to be far more helpful and polite.

My daughter’s favorite holiday is Halloween. She spends a lot of time and effort decorating our house and we always throw a party on the porch and provide some scary entertainment for the children. Usually my son in law and the black next door neighbor I mentioned, dress up as Michael Myers from the movie Halloween. Two years ago a black paramedic stopped by to play Leather Face from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. We provided a chainsaw for him to use (made save by removing the teeth). If he is off duty, he may show up this year. We fire up a fog machine for effect. The first year we used it, someone called the fire department thinking that our house was on fire. Recently, several people have asked my daughter if she plans to do the same thing this year. Some have asked if they could stop by to watch the fun or play different characters from scary movies.

Usually the posters that the original post was directed towards are “drive by” posters who post insults and disappear feeling superior and satisfied. If they read this thread, they know who they are. The posters who are willing to take the time to formulate intelligent replies fit in a different category. They come here for an intelligent debate, although sometimes the debate degenerates into name calling.

You are unique. Frequently you come here to annoy and frustrate posters with your deeply convoluted logic. Sometimes you stop by with a well thought out post that is informative and greatly contributes to the discussion. You have your own sense of humor and because of that I always enjoy reading your posts.

[iverglas]

72. yeah, I did

"I think I'm beginning to understand why many anti-gunners hate all gun owners..."

Still don't know who these alleged "anti-gunners" are, and why I or anyone else gives a shit what they think or what you think about them.

[SteveM]

88. Yep, I hear you. I grew up in Gainesville (Class o' 70) and hunted...

the area. I now live in Austin and hunt this area. Up to now, I hunted because it was in me to do so, and I enjoyed it. Now, with more folks out of work and "crashing" into more dense housing, I here of increasing hardship. Just as my parents did, I will be on the lookout for more game for these folks.

Hunting is no longer about "sport." This year it will be serious.

[iverglas]

60. oh, and btw

Then what's the racist classist rural-bashing crack about Deliverance?

Huh. What's the effort to portray your interlocutor as having done something she didn't do?

Oh, right. Par for the course, hereabouts; that's what it is.

It made a nice launching pad for your tiresome tirade. Too bad it was made of




We're going to get mashed in '12, and I can't say I'm sorry.

Huh. Starting early?

[katandmoon]

12. Your equation of gun CONTROL with gun CONFISCATION puts you smack dab in that unphotogenic camp you

Seem to think you're oh so superior to.

[Tim01]

15. Yay! katandmoon is here. I so enjoy talking to her.

Why do you go away for so long? You make things so much more interesting. I hope you have been well. Are things ok?

[spin]

30. You feel that I feel superior to those who favor draconian gun control...

I feel that you feel superior to those who own and use firearms legally.

You don't understand me and I don't understand you.

We both want to improve the country we live in. I feel there are reasonable laws and ideas that if enacted might make a real difference.

Why not work together?

[customerserviceguy]

13. Don't forget one big reason that many are anti-gun

During the 1960's, JFK, RFK, and MLK were all killed by guns. Couple that with the guns used in the Vietnam War, and you have the basis of what many who remember that decade irrevocably associate with guns, even today.

[spin]

26. A good point...

the Vietnam war was a tipping point in our history.

I lived during the sixties and remember those tragedies. I still wonder if individuals were behind those crimes or possibly a larger conspiracy. Even today we have to fear the big corporations and the government industrial complex is running our government. Today we have the medical insurance industry spending money that could go to treat their members to lobby Congress and post endless commercials filled with lies on our TV channels.

Note: I don't buy into all the conspiracy theories. The simpler explanation is most often right.

[madrchsod]

22. i owned guns,never hunted,and my father in law hunted all his life

the only problem i have is how to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not own or possess them.

[Jeramy]

23. Either a gun safe, or on your body. Can't get much safer than that.

[spin]

28. Wecome to DU. (n/t)

[spin]

27. Well laws such as the assault weapons ban will not...

make a big difference.

If it would have been a great success it would still be in effect.

I favor enforcing laws we currently have, requiring the sales of ALL firearms to be subject to a NICS background check (including private checks), and targeting drug gangs as they commit a large percentage of the shootings on our streets.

[iverglas]

31. I will never understand why people go to such lengths to post

I should explain that I have known a lot of non-gunowners over the years and none resembled the straw people in your post. Such people may exist, but such people are rare. There are about 225 million people in the US eligible to own firearms; if 80 million own firearms, that means some 145 million don't. They ARE the MAJORITY of your co-workers, your minister, your plumber, your kid’s teacher, your college professor, your doctor, your banker, your stock broker, etc., etc.

Note: this may not apply if you live in, uh, certain states.



The other day, as the c.v. and I were lounging on the chesterfield watching the news and a firearm-related story came on (about the going out of business of the original AK manufacturer, I believe), I launched into one of my firearms dissertations, explaining the ins and outs of it all to him in detail.

Then it occurred to me to ask him: How does it feel to be married (not) to somebody who knows everything about guns?

He replied: It's kind of creepy, actually.

I agreed.

[spin]

32. Good to see you back, hope everything went well...

I'm sure we will get to enjoy some of your firearms dissertations in the near future.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Many of the non-owners are married to a firearms owner.

Most estimates that I have seen say that about half of American households have at least one gun in them.

However, those have been based on telephone polls, and I think the estimate would be low as many people would be hesitant to tell a stranger on the phone if they had guns and how many.

[iverglas]

36. so?

What that really means, of course, is that many women are married to men who own firearms.

Let me turn that around.

The huge overwhelming majority of women in the United States do not own firearms.

I think I'll take that as my norm, ta.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. That does not mean that it is over the woman's objection that the man owns guns.

I would suspect that most of those families would consider the guns as being jointly owned. My point was that the statistics are not that reliable and caution should be used in drawing any conclusions from them.

[iverglas]

39. and that does not mean that I said it was

Hey ho.


I would suspect that most of those families would consider the guns as being jointly owned. My point was that the statistics are not that reliable and caution should be used in drawing any conclusions from them.

While your suspicions, of course, are the things to take to the bank.

[GreenStormCloud]

42. Did I say that you said it was?

Not me. Oh my goodness, No. I didn't say that you did.

My suspicions? Oh yes, I have, in a sense, taken them to the bank before. Or more precisely, I developed a suspicion, investigated and gathered the evidence, presented it to the client, and got paid.

[iverglas]

56. so ... you said it because ...

Maybe you just clicked on the wrong post to reply to. That must be it.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. I said it because I felt it should be pointed out. N/T

[iverglas]

73. to me?

Wrongo.

[GreenStormCloud]

77. To whomever it may concern.

You are not the only one who reads these posts.

[OttavaKarhu]

47. Paperwork names ain't simple

In one household I know the hetero male has his name on most of the firearms paperwork. That's in case of seizure by government; it gets traced to him. He's a poster child straight white male Republican veteran.

The queer woman in the household bought most of her firearms undocumented via private sales. The view in that household (three poly adults and the het guy) is that the queer woman will always need arms more, and will have more to lose if the grabbers get their way. Also, she has a number of misdemeanor charges from anti-globalization and BGLT rallies. (Peaceful.)

All firearms in their household are considered jointly owned by all four--the three life partners and their housemate. The two who didn't purchase these weapons are skilled with their use. Polyamorous families are constantly at risk of violence. The het guy taught them firearms skills as a wedding gift.

This is a far more nuanced thing than the nut grabber antis can understand because it doesn't fit into their simple tantrum models of how the world works. Or their implicit support of those who victimize queer families.

[iverglas]

54. awwww, look

Some of your best friends are "polyamorous". How cute.

And they engage in straw purchases of firearms. Aren't they just darling?

[GreenStormCloud]

63. I don't think that qualifies as a straw purchase.

The purchaser lives as the resident where the guns are. He still has ownership of them. The others there have access to the guns on the property.

I think you would have a real hard time prosecuting this one, if you were a prosecutor.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. That's not a straw purchase.

A straw purchase requires that you knowingly purchase the gun for another person who is ineligable to purchase a firearm.

When I bought a pistol for my wife for her birthday, since money did not change hands (I bought it FOR her, not for her, if you take my meaning) and I know she can pass a background check on her own (we have several times, as a matter of course for adoption), it couldn't possibly be prosecuted as a straw purchase.

Now, if one of the people in that family gave the purchaser the money, and the purchaser knowingly bought the gun for that person, for the purpose of evading the background check, then that's a straw purchase. The BATFE has issued several clarifying rulings on this. At one point in the past, they might have had some 'splainin to do, but that sounds perfectly above-board.

Welcome back.

[spin]

50. When I was married...

My ex-wife and my daughter often spent an afternoon together at the range shooting handguns.

I had a Ruger .357 Security Six Bicentennial Security Six stainless steel revolver that my wife fell in love with. It was her handgun as the sights were adjusted for her. She was an excellent shot with it and preferred it over all my other handguns. It was similar to this firearm except the .357 model.



My daughter loved my S&W Model 25-2 45 acp target revolver.



When we divorced,my ex-wife took the Ruger with her and when my daughter left the nest she took the S&W target revolver with her as well as a S&W .22 cal Kit gun.



So often women appropriate and own firearms that their husband or father bought.

[SteveM]

89. I have a similar-looking Ruger Police Service Six in .357...

I put on Hogue grips because I felt the kick back to my elbow. Nice gun.

[Katya Mullethov]

43. What about the good old fashion way ?

It is in my experience that it makes them feel better , no matter whom is being hated for what .

[JonQ]

44. I just don't get all these rightwing gun nuts

Crazy.

[Retired AF Dem]

78. Where did that photo of Charles Bronson come from?

I can't remember him ever carrying a Ruger GP-100. And if he did, good choice. I own three of them.

[sam sarrha]

81. i picked up a Bretta Tomcat 32apc at the Gun Show to keep my 92fs Inox company, i was really very

about the Obama Bashing.. it was deplorably Venomous. they just make up shit about him.. really mindless.

but i really didnt want to get caught up in an Apriori Loop arguement with a Moran with a lot of guns. the just amplify and focus that hate on you..