Reply #171: I really don't fucking believe this

[iverglas]

Hath no one any humour?

Let's start from the beginning.

You said:
... and I am a strong Second Amendment-supporting gun owner. (Never mind that I believe in handgun registrations, background checks, waiting periods, and outlawing assault weapons.) Guess that makes me a neocon.

I said:
perhaps an oxymoran?

You actually seem to have thought this was an insult. To start with, it was a contemporarily-relevant kind of play on "oxymoron". Do we all know what "oxymoron" means?

"A figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction." You know ... "military intelligence" ...

(The on-line personal ad I met my current co-vivant through 6 years ago started out "anti-social socialist, funny feminist, atheist in search of soulmate" -- supposedly oxymorons, see? -- and requested that no non-oxy-morons reply.)

A "strong second-amendment supporting" person (gun owner had nothing to do with it) who believed in handgun registration struck me as an oxymoron. That's simply neutral, and I have no idea how it could be seen as insulting.

Well, I've guess you've learned today that gun owners are not all cut from the same cloth.

Well, I guess I've learned today that I can expect presumptuous assumptions from absolutely every quarter.

**I** have never said anything about all gun owners being cut from the same cloth, or anything that would justify any inference that I think such a thing. Two of my close friends (out of, say, a hundred close adult friends over the last 3+ decades) owned guns. One was my lover for a while, the other I kind of wished was. Of course, the first one's son had killed himself with one of those guns at the age of 13.

My curiosity had nothing whatsoever to do with you being a gun owner and supporting, e.g., handgun registration. **I** have consistently and repeatedly said that many gun owners support the kinds of firearms controls we have in Canada, for instance.

That's certainly not my interpretation. I understand that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" depends solely on the condition of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

Well, you see, that's exactly what I was asking about. At first glance, your statements appeared to be oxymoronic. In fact, I'm quite sure that's exactly how you intended them. You do not interpret the second-amendment right the way most people who describe themselves as "strong second amendment supporters" do.


I said:
(I wouldn't expect you to know, so here's my own Coles notes version: I regard firearms acquisition and possession as just like any other human activity -- an exercise of a right to liberty, and in some respects and situations the right to life, although I'm actually talking about things like subsistence hunting, not toting pistols in one's pants to ward off chimerical bad people. Just as eating pizza for breakfast is an exercise of the right to life and liberty. And, accordingly, subject to the same limitations as any other human activity -- that is, limitations that are rationally connected to an important public objective, that do not disproportionately interfere in the exercise of the right, etc. etc. Limitations pretty much just like we have right here in Canada. ... Hmm, funny thing, that. We don't have any Pink Pistols up here.)

You said:

Did I just get slammed here? Why wouldn't you expect me to know what I think? Never mind...

While it's obvious you're making fun of me with the above quote, I'll just say yes, you've pretty much got it. I suppose I've just walked into some sort of trap by saying that, but I'll (optimistically) hope you're not trying to set me up to make a complete ass of me.

I really have no idea why you react so defensively to what I say.

I wouldn't expect you to know what MY position on what "right" there is to own firearms would be -- so I told you. The reason I wouldn't expect you to know that is that you don't hang out in the gun dungeon.

And no matter how many times I make plain my own position on the right to own firearms, and the justifiability of various forms of firearms control, *I* am constantly subjected to presumptions false assumptions about what I think. The fact that I support the firearms controls we have in Canada (which focus on training and licensing users, registering possession and transfers of firearms, and requiring safe/secure storage and transportation) makes me a "gun-grabber". And all sorts of weird and wonderful beliefs and personality problems and political ideologies are ascribed to me, and false assertions made about my positions, on a weekly basis.

I was attempting to head that off -- by not leaving any second or third meanings open in what I said (the way you had done).

All I was doing was explaining that I believe there is a "right" to own firearms entirely independently of any second amendment -- just as there is a right to own anything else. And that the right in question is just as subject to limitation and regulation as any other right. Coles Notes are the Canadian equivalent of Cliffs Notes.

I really don't know what there could be in a description of *my* position that could have been read as intended to insult you, or set you up, or anything else.

Why would you respond to
I wouldn't expect you to know, so here's *my* own Coles notes version: *I* regard ...
by saying
Why wouldn't you expect me to know what *I* think?
Who was talking about what *you* think??

I'm not sure what your point is about the lack of Pink Pistols in Canada

Well actually, I guess I just threw it in because it came into my head. The point, if there was one, was that gay men and lesbians don't seem to feel a need, or think it a wise idea, to organize posses up here -- or, to set aside hyperbole, to arm themselves.

In other words, if handgun ownership were outlawed in the U.S. tomorrow, I would have no alternative but to turn mine in. I wouldn't like it one bit, but I'm not a Charlton Heston "cold, dead hands" gun owner. And I don't like anyone assuming I am.

(Of course, such a law could never be enforced "across the board" in the gun-crazy U.S., but that's another tangent altogether.)

Oh, I'm aware of that. 10,000 deaths a year, but oh well -- take away handguns from the law-abiding and only outlaws will have them, and yada yada. No other response could be expected; I too have no doubt of that. The longest journey starts with a single step, but it's a step that won't likely be taken in the US in our lifetime.

I just don't see why it's so difficult for some people to understand that not all gun owners are wild-eyed fanatics holing up in some underground, off-the-grid bunker.

And, you see, I have no idea why you inferred that I don't "understand" this -- if I can infer from this that you think I don't.

Which brings us back to the original point that irked me to no end: Never let your own biases lead to the assumption that anyone is just like any other member of a group, or shares the same "values" as the majority of that group.

And I'm afraid I'm going to have to say: ditto.

You've seen the results of doing just that, right in this thread; i.e., labeling all gun owners "neocons."

And certainly, don't assume that because one member of a group says something, all members think it.

I know I never do that.