Paranoid gun shop customers want a president without so much vagina.

[Deep13]

You know, I like shooting at the pistol range. It has everything I like except being outside: technical points, personal skill, concentration, a lot of noise and bits of metal going faster than sound. How cool is that? I bought my first gun at age 37 in the second week of November, 2004. Living in a county that went 60% for Dumbass, I was becoming afraid of my neighbors. I didn't exactly keep our preference a secret.

Anyway, for some reason when socially conservative--and by "conservative" I mean bat shit insane--talk in a gun range they always assume that everyone there agrees with them. I had one guy tell me that Pelosi is waiting for a D president to become the next Hitler. How does one even argue with logic like that? I didn't bother pointing out the laundry list of illegal and unconstitutional acts by Dumbass.

Yesterday, I got to hear some pretty nasty, misogynist things about HRC. It went something to the effect that two old white guys would not fuck HRC with each other's dick and made references to hygiene. They didn't have anything nice to say about O. either, but I did not hear any racial remarks about him.

Listening to the shop owner talk some more, it became clear to me that with HRC, gender really is the issue. He painted a story of an idea society where the state takes the role of a strong-perhaps abusive-father figure and that Judeo-Christian "morals" were missing among city-dwelling blacks. Now, I did not bother pointing out fuck-up Judeo-Christian morals really are or that for the Judeos have borne the burden of Christian "morals" for going on 200 years. The only reason they don't hate Jews now is because first the communists and now the Muslims are scarier enemies. In this societal model, women do not rule, they are ruled by their fathers and husbands. Naturally this makes the authority held by Pelosi or maybe by a future President Clinton unnatural, the modern equivalent of witchcraft.

Of course pointing out that some Black teenagers commit violent crimes is the end of the discussion. Once a R. decides he can blame victims, it is no longer necessary to find a solution. Now, I'm not a person who finds excuses for criminal behavior. Nevertheless, I know damn well the length of the shadow that slavery and then segregation has cast onto this country. I also know that the NRA has got their members so wound-up about the prospect of being murdered by criminals (especially the Black ones the local news likes to put on TV) that they will never think about any comprehensive solutions.

P.S. I should not be surprised that rascism is part of the basis of the NRA's success. I always thought it was a little suspicious that it was formed during Reconstruction.

P.P.S. I post this for two reasons. The first is to remind us of the vast gulf in thinking between us and the conservatives. Second, I want to vent my own annoyance of hearing this. There is no way I could have talked to these guys about this in anykind of rational manner because I would first have had to refute the assumed (and wrong) ideas they have.

[Mythsaje]

1. It's a bit like having a conversation with a pack of rabid pit bulls...

Pretty damn pointless. These people are completely unreachable by anyone remotely sane.

[Bluestar]

2. I find your post revolting

Yes, there are crude good old boys out there who don't hesitate to degrade women (and especially Hillary) every chance they get. But why repeat it here? I find your use of the word "vagina" in your headline especially disgusting.

[Deep13]

3. Sorry you feel that way.

I am of course just venting. It pissed me off when I heard it, but there was no point talking to them about it. So I'm getting it off my chest here.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. I don't, and I'm not for Hillary. I'm an Edwards supporter. nt

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

10. Hehe...you're gonna get yer ass kicked for that :)

:hi:

[karlrschneider]

15. I've learned to enjoy the pain.

:P

:D

:hi:

[Hoof Hearted]

9. The OP is accurate. If your delicate nature is offended perhaps the Disney forum would offer the

level of discourse you seek.

What you should be disgusted by is the attitudes of some of these ass-hats.

[casus belli]

12. That's your problem

No one can choose to offend you, you can only choose to be offended. For you to suggest that a better thing to do when faced with misogyny and racism would be just to shut up and not speak about it elsewhere because it may offend, is actually more offensive than anything she could have said. In fact, I'd like to suggest that shutting up and not exposing bigotry whenever and from whoever we hear it is far more offensive.

[demigoddess]

18. I am not revolted, just because we hide our heads in the sand doe not mean that

there are not those people out there. You see it every time you see a man who will murder his wife and/or children rather than allow a divorce. The fact that so many men will never vote for a woman pres is just less violent.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. True

"Nay-nay" is the correct term.

[knitter4democracy]

65. So, vaginas are disgusting? Ummm . . .

That's weird. You're upset about the word vagina but not dick? So, exactly what kind of thinking goes into that?

[Jamastiene]

101. Looks like I missed a erroneous memo.

Wow, "Ignored" sounds like a real jerk.

[Djinn]

89. why does the word vagina

offend you? does the word leg or arm?

[K8-EEE]

107. I have a va-jay-jay and I like this post!

Just sayin'.....I thought it was an interesting observation.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. Of course it is. Part of the issue is that she's female......

... I'm female. You think I don't notice the glass ceiling? The way women are sexualized in all ads? The fact that most police shows are about a psychopath that skins women alive while raping them? This is still a sexist country. It is also racist. However, it's become a sin to even say that this is a sexist country. LOTS of men don't want the term, "sexist" uttered. :(

[Deep13]

7. The problem with sexism is that it is not obvious...

...to people who grew up in a certain culture. Blacks and other ethnic minorites are distinct and identifiable. But every group includes women.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. EXACTLY! You're so right. What pisses me off totally is the fact that....

.. mention the word, "sexism" and you hear a zillion men complaining, as if someone had said, "F YOU ALL!!!"

I understand the fear of not keeping status quo, but my gosh, why not give a little leeway you know??? Let's discuss exactly why the word sexism is being mentioned once in a while. Let's introduce the term again and see if the world does NOT implode through its use.

[aquart]

35. Good point.

[NastyRiffraff]

8. Although more subtle, there's lots of misogyny about HRC going around.

The "cackle," the cleavage non-story, being called a "witch," to name a few. Of course there's the meme that she needs Bill to even be a viable candidate, when after his recent missteps the opposite is true. And this isn't from wingnuts or Fox News, it's from the so-called liberal media (SCLM).

Thankfully, except for the true nutcases, there's a taboo against racism. But anti-feminism still has a long way to go; misogyny, subtle and overt, is still accepted.

[aquart]

36. The latest is "The Clintons."

HER candidacy is never referred to. Hillary is disappeared. Suddenly, ever since Obama said "I don't know who I'm running against," his biddable supporters refer only to "The Clintons." They've realized that attacking Hillary makes women angry and they vote for her...but attacking "The Clintons" is seen as "fair play" because Obama, after all, is just one guy they're ganging up on.

It's viciously insulting and insidiously demeaning but everybody who has adopted it thinks it's a clean way to attack. And their audience agrees.

[Joyce78]

13. Funs & Gun

I was in a gun store over the weekend ... I've never seen so many mouth-breathers. It was frightening to see young sons holding up these firearms and trying to sight something ... I was happy to see they weren't an aiming at me!

[SecularNATION]

17. Frightening?

A primary reason there are so many right wing gun owners is Democrats. The Democratic Party and many Democratic voters back gun control and will have nothing to do with guns. That's unfortunately and short sighted. If the Party would drop the gun control issue and stop demonizing guns and gun owners, you'd see a more representative cross-section of the public in gun stores. The Democratic Party would win many more elections, as well.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. One, welcome to DU. Two, when was the last time the Democratic Party pushed gun control as a

national issue? :shrug:

Please. Give me a break. Personally, I support the right to responsible firearm ownership, but I'm a little tired of the pseudo-freudian terror of gun owners convinced, beyond any sort of rationality, that "they're comin' teh take mah gun away, maw!"

No, they're not. Unlike, say, the right of people to use birth control, the right to own a gun has never been in any serious jeopardy at any point in recent years. If gun owners really want to talk about constitutional rights being pissed upon, they should speak to the cancer grannies sitting in prison for smoking a joint.

I tend to agree that gun control is a loser issue- far more sensible, to my mind, would be for our party to adopt an across-the-board personal freedom agenda; including the rights of people to control their own bodies, getting government out of consenting adults' bedrooms and bloodstreams- if philosophical consistency on that demands that we drop whatever lingering commitment to "gun control" we have as a national party, so be it. But if rabid right wingers want to believe, against all evidence to the contrary, that the democrats want to sneak off in the night with their big, shiny, steel penis subsitutes, there's not a lot we can do to disabuse them of that delusion. Let them continue to support the party of Theocratic Totalitarianism, that wants to put women in prison for taking oral contraceptives, and believe that they're fighting for "freedom" in the process. :eyes:

[SecularNATION]

33. The Last Time?

"when was the last time the Democratic Party pushed gun control"

Two Weeks Ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q6ptnATYs4


Yes, some in the Party have recognized it's a loser issue. However, others still speak of nonsense like reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban. That's not good enough. ALL Democrats should STFU about guns and say to voters, "We've been wrong on the issue". Also, you can blame citizens all you want, for having false perceptions, instead of putting the blame squarely where it belongs. In the mean time, we'll continue to lose elections we could have won.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. Is it the right to own a gun? An AK-47? A shoulder-fired anti-tank missile?

How about an ICBM?

I'm sorry, but like I said, while we spend $40 Billion a year trying to keep Willie Nelson and chemo patients from smoking a harmless plant, protecting your right to stockpile as many automatic weapons in your basement as you want is kinda far down on my list.

Yes, I know some here think any law banning the SALE of any assault weapons translates to a full negation of their right to own any firearms, at all. I disagree. Feel your rights are infringed upon by the assault weapons ban that no longer applies? There are women who go to pharmacies to get their oral contraceptive prescriptions filled, and get lectures about Jesus, instead. Get in line.

[SecularNATION]

71. Automatic weapons?

"protecting your right to stockpile as many automatic weapons in your basement as you want"

Is that what you think this is about? What's an "assault rifle"? Tell us your definition.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. No, see, I'm really not interested in getting in a debate with you over the assault weapons ban

a law, by the way, that doesn't even apply anymore.

I realize you may think that the right to purchase an AK-47 takes precedence over absolutely fucking everything else taking place on this planet right now, but I don't.

I support the right of responsible firearm ownership. I could give a fuck about people's guns. But your weaponry fetish isn't my problem. And the idea that the Democratic Party wants to take your gun away is ridiculous, whiny hyperbole.

[I work for workers]

78. Clinton, Obama and Edwards all came out to support the AWB.

Every time a Dem mentions the Assault Weapons Ban, a GOP candidate gets a vote. Remember that.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. The Vast majority of Americans are pro-choice, yet the GOP wants to outlaw not only abortion

but the birth control pill as well.

Funny, I don't see them pissing in their britches just because they happen to have a stance that is WILDLY FUCKING OUT OF STEP with where the majority of Americans are...

I'm not saying I support the AWB. But I think it's humorous (to say the least) to see how agitated it makes some erstwhile defenders of "freedom", when they've got a helluva lot more freedom in this country to walk into a store and buy a firearm than many women have in bible belt counties to get their birth control prescriptions filled, or than adults in Alabama have to purchase sex toys (maybe if someone made a sex toy that doubled as a weapon, there might be a constitutional right to have one?) or than a cancer patient has to walk into a co-op and get some fucking THC to alleviate the nausea of chemo.

Really, did the AWB make your life that much more unpleasant? Honestly?

[I work for workers]

90. That's because they have a reliable base of voters who support them on that issue.

I've yet to be convinced there is a significant number of single issue voters who are against the Second Amendment. If they exist, they are wildly outnumbered by single issue pro-gun voters who flock to the Reps.

The Reps gain votes opposing abortion. It's a winning issue for them. We lose votes opposing gun ownership. The law in question is nonsensical and unlikely to be passed again. It's just that simple.

[zanne]

129. No, you lose us votes because of fanatical gun advocacy. nt

[benEzra]

130. The Senate was turned blue in 2006 by anti-AWB Dems...

The Senate was turned blue in 2006 by anti-AWB Dems, who defeated repubs in swing states where gun ownership rates are quite high. Jim Webb, Jon Tester, and Bob Casey come to mind immediately. The same thing happened on the gubernatorial front (Ted Strickland winning in Ohio, for example).

President Clinton admitted that the 1994 Feinstein non-ban cost at least 20 House seats, and gun owners have gained seats (both Dem and repub) in Congress in every national election between 1994 and 2004.

Your problem is that you don't understand how sweeping some of the gun bans before Congress are (H.R.1022 is a prime example). Proposing to ban the most popular civilian target and defensive guns in America is hardly a modest proposal, and opposition thereto is hardly extreme.

[SecularNATION]

79. You don't get it

I asked you a simple question. What is an assault rifle? To answer that would have taken less time than what you posted. Refusing to answer, is a strong indication you don't know what one is, and like many Democrats, don't know WTF you're talking about. Prove me wrong.

What you, and many like you, don't understand is; if Democratic Candidates would completely drop the gun issue, and stop saying things like 'I'll do everything in my power to reinstate the AWB', enough people would come over to our side, to possibly get the things you care about accomplished. That is the point.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. How, specifically, did the AWB negatively impact your quality of life between 1994-2004?

That's a simple question, too.

[SecularNATION]

84. Answer the question. What is an assault rifle?

Don't ask me a question when you won't deign to answer mine.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. I'll do what I damn well please. How did the ban negatively impact your life?

Answer it, don't answer it, I don't give a shit.

I never said I supported the AWB, I never said it was a particularly good law. I only said I didn't think it was such a momentous, Earth shattering deal- and I don't think that mere mention of the AWB translates into a hostility to gun ownership in general- in fact, the Democratic Party has gone out of its way in recent pres. elections to remind jittery gun folks that, no, we're NOT coming to take your gun away.

The argument elsewhere in this thread seems to be that the AWB didn't accomplish anything, didn't ban anything, and was an idiotic law. That may be the case, but then it doesn't explain why it supposedly makes so many people mad.

Beyond that, maybe your dog listens when you issue orders to him, but I sure as fuck don't.

[SecularNATION]

87. Re-read post #79

"I only said I didn't think it was such a momentous, Earth shattering deal"

The point I've been trying to make is, it doesn't matter what you or I think. What matters is, what people who presently vote GOP but for the gun issue, think. You believe "the Democratic Party has gone out of its way in recent pres. elections to remind jittery gun folks that, no, we're NOT coming to take your gun away". Obviously those folks don't believe that. The Dems need to do much more. Unfortunately, they foolishly have not.

And again, don't expect me to answer one of your questions, when you won't deign to answer mine. The fact you won't is extremely telling.

[benEzra]

114. "it doesn't explain why it makes so many people mad." Here's why.

The argument elsewhere in this thread seems to be that the AWB didn't accomplish anything, didn't ban anything, and was an idiotic law. That may be the case, but then it doesn't explain why it supposedly makes so many people mad.

Because it is an attempt to outlaw the most popular civilian rifles in America, that's why. Taking H.R.1022 as the operative definition, considerably more people lawfully and responsibly own "assault weapons" than hunt, and that's not even counting the attempts to roll magazine capacities back to the 1800's.

And for what?

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

Small-caliber, non-automatic rifles with modern styling are not a crime problem in this country and never have been, but they ARE currently the most popular civilian guns in America, and anyone who promises to ban them is promising to take guns away from tens of millions of law-abiding voters with squeaky-clean records. That's the problem, and that's why even the 1994 Feinstein non-ban was such a lightning rod.


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[Der Blaue Engel]

97. "...you...like many Democrats, don't know WTF you're talking about."

Interesting.

[SecularNATION]

99. And True

First, I refer you to post #67. And second, it is true, many Democrats don't know a thing about firearms. There is no question about that. They don't know what an assault weapon is, let alone what the assault weapons ban was about. That's just for starters.

[Der Blaue Engel]

100. You're not going to "win friends or influence people" with that kind of argument

If you said "many proponents of gun control don't know a thing about firearms," you might have a point. Posting broadbrush assertions about all Democrats, however, is an instant turnoff.

[SecularNATION]

102. ALL Democrats?

"Posting broadbrush assertions about all Democrats"

That is something I did not do. I never said "all Democrats". I challenge you to prove otherwise.

[Der Blaue Engel]

103. True, you just insulted "many" Democrats, not "all"

My point still stands if you care to address it.

[SecularNATION]

104. The Truth

"you just insulted"

Is saying, many Democrats know nothing about firearms, an insult? I think it's just stating the truth. The incontrovertible fact is, when it comes go guns, many Democrats DON'T know WTF they're talking about. If you think that is an insult, I don't know what to say, other than it's probably because you're one of the Democrats of which I speak.

[Der Blaue Engel]

105. And now you've taken it to the personal level. Color me surprised.

n/t

[derby378]

73. Obama and Clinton can make it all go away...

All they have to do is promise to uphold our Second Amendment rights. No ifs, ands, or butts. No going after rifles with pistol grips. No confiscating magazines that hold 11 shots instead of 10. If they do that, they win. If not - best of luck to them.

[I work for workers]

80. The problem is they already promised not to.

The only hope we have to dodge the gun issue this year is if the Supreme Court rules against DC. That gives our candidates the chance t sidestep the issue and say "yes, I supported such gun control, but I no longer have the power to do so."

[krispos42]

57. The 2004 Presidental election

Right there in in the party platform it is stated that banning so-called "assault weapons" is a goal.

And in 2007, HR1022 was introduced and received over fifty co-sponsors, all Democrats, to drastically expand the definition of "assault weapon" to whatever arbitrary characteristics the Attorney General wishes to use.




And regarding the mandatory shiney metal penis comment... well, I guess I'll be off in the corner polishing my Mannlicher...

[Mojorabbit]

135. I hate when people call guns penis substitutes

and I am speaking as a woman who grew up with guns and has an extensive collection as well as being a crack shot. Guns have nothing to do with penises dammit.

[derby378]

28. There's a little website that I think you're gonna LOVE...

Amendment II Democrats

You can find the blog here.

[goodgd_yall]

109. The Democratic Party HAS dropped the gun control issues

The NRA has won. Where have you been these past 25 years?

[benEzra]

116. The DLC is still pushing the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, hard...

...presumably as a way to appeal to right-leaning "law and order" types; it's the DLC's analog to the War on Terrah.

The "assault weapon" issue, and proposed restrictions on lawful handgun ownership, are the crux of the gun control issue in this country, not hunting (only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners is a hunter). The "assault weapon" BS would ban the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in America, plus pretty much anything with a post-1861 magazine capacity.


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[goodgd_yall]

118. So, are you saying...

the use of the words "assault weapon" is kind of a a catch-all term that's not specific enough so it ends up banning many recreational and defensive-type weapons? See, when I hear "assault weapon" I think AK-47. Do you believe in ANY restrictions on gun ownership, for instance, licensing requirements, background checks, etc?

I've come to the conclusion, as many liberals have, that it's a no-win trying to toughen gun control laws, but it seems some basic registration restrictions and sales restrictions might be in order. Isn't there anything along those lines that gun owners in general support, or, at the least, could accept?

Thanks for the links by the way. I'll try to read them.

[I work for workers]

120. An AK-47 isn't an assault weapon.

It's a fully automatic firearm, the ownership of which has been heavily regulated since 1934. The Assault Weapons Ban banned semi-automatic guns that looked like AKs, M-16s, etc. It banned cosmetic features that had absolutely no effect on the weapons function. This educational video will do more then I can to explain just how stupid the AWB was:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9cDbA8O9-c

Watch the whole thing, particularly the latter half where he converts the banned rifle into a legal rifle and vice versa.

The most noteworthy thing the AWB did was make gun lovers run to the Republicans with open arms.

Most gun fans aren't opposed to minor regulation. We are opposed to stupid regulations that take our freedom for absolutely no good reason.

[I work for workers]

121. This is why it's important to educate ourselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

I'm by no means a fan of Tucker Carlson*, but he makes McCarthy look like an absolute fool in this clip, which is VERY popular in pro-gun circles. When gun voters see things like this, it colors them against the Dems in a bad way. It doesn't matter that McCarthy made some less ridiculous points in the rest of the interview (wrong IMO, but less ridiculous), they just see a Democrat who want to take their guns despite not knowing what the law she wrote applies to. It doesn't help that Republicans play this up more then the pro-gun Dems on this thread have.




*Ok, I'll admit it. In this one case, I'm a fan.

[Paladin]

125. Golly---A DU Gunny Swooning Over A Right Wing Douchebag

What are the odds? :)

[SecularNATION]

128. Where?

Where did he swoon? He said he's no fan of Tucker. However, as they say, a stopped clock is correct twice a day. The point is, the woman didn't even know what she was proposing. That makes Democrats look bad. And, more importantly, it loses votes.

[Paladin]

131. I Know A Gunny Swoon When I See One

I've witnessed hundreds of them since I came to DU years ago, 99% of said swoons being predictably to the far right. And Democratic Congresswoman McCarthy may not be able to field-strip an assault rifle, but she damned sure has plenty of experience with the destructive effects of guns in the wrong hands in this country. I'd refrain from criticizing her; you're not in her class, in any number of ways (always fun to give good advice to an adversary, knowing damned well it won't be followed).

[SecularNATION]

133. It doesn't matter..

..whether I'm in her class, or not. The fact is, the woman didn't know what she was talking about and made a complete fool of herself on national television. As I said, that makes Democrats look bad, and, more importantly, loses votes. Insulting me, or any other 'Gunny', may make you feel better, but it won't change reality.

[benEzra]

122. In the context of legislation, the term "assault weapon" means ONLY civilian guns,

So, are you saying the use of the words "assault weapon" is kind of a a catch-all term that's not specific enough so it ends up banning many recreational and defensive-type weapons? See, when I hear "assault weapon" I think AK-47.

Yes. Actually, in the context of gun-control legislation, the term "assault weapon" means ONLY civilian guns, e.g. recreational and defensive-type weapons. That's because military automatic weapons are already tightly controlled by Federal law, i.e. the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, and hence there is nothing for new legislation to cover except non-automatic NFA Title 1 civilian guns.

Basically, under current law, possession of an actual AK-47 or M16 (or any other automatic or burst-mode weapon) is a 10-year Federal felony outside of law enforcement or military duty, unless you first obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4). Obtaining a Form 4 requires a squeaky-clean record, lots of Federal paperwork, a four to six month wait, your local chief law enforcement officer signs off on your application, the weapon is registered with the BATFE, the government gets to inspect your paperwork once a year, you can only purchase the weapon from a specially licensed Class III dealer, and you can't take it out of state without written Federal authorization. FWIW, that's the same restrictions that govern possession of 105mm howitzers, 500-lb bombs, shoulder-fired missiles, M203-type grenade launchers, "silenced" firearms, hand grenades, over-.50-caliber weapons, and what have you.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt

The McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986 closed the BATFE Title 2 automatic weapon registry to new registrations, meaning that post-1986 automatic weapons of any type are totally restricted to police/military/government and their suppliers. Because pre-'86 civilian-transferable weapons are so rare and collectible, you will pay about $15,000 for a civilian-transferable NFA-registered AK-47 and $15,000 to $75,000 for an M16, depending on model and condition (the $75,000 figure was for a genuine mint M16A2, one of very few that made the 1986 cutoff).

You can, however, own a non-automatic civilian AK-47 lookalike that functions like an ordinary pistol or target rifle (e.g., fires once and only once when the trigger is pulled and will not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time), and these are very popular with civilian shooters. My primary target/competition carbine (IPSC/USPSA) is a non-automatic civilian AK lookalike, a 2002 Romanian SAR-1. It's identical in every way to a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle (same ammunition, same rate of fire, same range of magazine capacities) but is more durable and IMHO better looking. Both rifles are about half as powerful as a .30-06, if that provides a point of reference.

The most popular civilian target rifle and defensive carbine in America right now is the AR-15 platform, a non-automatic, extremely accurate centerfire .22 that looks (but does not function) like an M16, and the most common rifle of any type in U.S. homes is the SKS. H.R.1022 would ban both, plus hundreds of other models, including this one:

Do you believe in ANY restrictions on gun ownership, for instance, licensing requirements, background checks, etc?

I'm OK with the restrictions of the National Firearms Act (tight controls on automatic weapons, over-.50-caliber weapons, sound-suppressed firearms, explosives, sawed-off rifles and shotguns, etc.), as well as most of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (ban on possession by criminals and the mentally incompetent, tracing requirements). I am also OK with the point-of-sale Federal background check requirement passed in the late '90s, the 1986 ban on ammunition designed to penetrate body armor, the requirement that guns be detectable by X-ray, and miscellaneous other requirements.

I am OK with requiring a license in order to carry a gun, as long as the licenses are issued fairly and according to statuatory rather than arbitrary criteria (e.g., "shall-issue" rather than "may-issue"). I hold a North Carolina carry license that is recognized in ~33 states, and to get it I had to pass a Federal and state background check, a mental health records check, have my prints run by the FBI (clean), take a course on self-defense law using a state-approved curriculum, pass a written test on same administered by the sheriff's office, and demonstrate competence with a handgun on a range, live fire.

I am not, however, OK with the requirement of a license in order to merely own a gun, based on the history of how such laws have worked out in the UK and elsewhere. Once a license is required, it is all too tempting to keep ratcheting up the requirements until no one can own much of anything, as in the UK or (now) Australia. Licensing also hasn't had a very good track record in this country. Nor am I OK with registration of guns in the current political climate, as the lack of a "who owns what and should we let them keep it" list is the single biggest obstacle to the banning and confiscation of handguns, "assault weapons," or whatever the scary item du jour is.

I've come to the conclusion, as many liberals have, that it's a no-win trying to toughen gun control laws, but it seems some basic registration restrictions and sales restrictions might be in order. Isn't there anything along those lines that gun owners in general support, or, at the least, could accept?

See above. The thing is, there is a whole litany of restrictions on lawful ownership that we gun owners have given in on, until we now find our backs against the wall. We literally have nothing left but non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed civilian guns under .51 caliber that meet the barrel length, overall length, and other requirements of the NFA and the GCA of 1968. The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch is an attempt to take most of what we have left, and leave us pretty much where the Australians are now.

There is common ground to be found, but it is to be found in legislation aimed solely at criminal misuse, not at further circumscribing lawful and responsible gun possession and use. So we can talk about things like more aggressive tracing of guns used in violent crimes, more aggressive prosecution of straw purchasers and smugglers, opening the NICS background check system to include private sales (sans registration), and so on. But no further restrictions on what law-abiding adults with clean records are allowed to own.

FWIW, I'm not sure if I posted this upthread, but there is absolutely no rational basis for going after rifles if your goal is reducing violent crime, since rifles of any type are so rarely misused.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

[karlrschneider]

20. Mouth breathers? ?? ??? Someone from Ohio has the balls to say this?

:eyes:

[MercutioATC]

22. Hey! I'M from Ohio!

Now I'M gonna be the one kickin' yer ass :)

[karlrschneider]

27. Oh, shit...you mean broad-brushing peeps is -not- acceptable?

eeeeeeeeek



;D

[cgrindley]

49. Actually, you're full of crap... there's no safer place to be

than a gun range or a gun store surrounded by ultra-law abiding people who have had to pass a zillion hurdles to own a firearm. You're safer in a gun store or at a gun range than you are in your own home.

[EstimatedProphet]

63. Are they mouth-breathers just because they were in a gun store?

Because I think I might take offense to that.

[Swamp Rat]

14. I bet my mother can shoot straighter than those dumb fucks.

All the women in my family (ranchers) can out-shoot the average knuckle-dragging, ditto-head man.

[kineneb]

31. hell, I can shoot straighter than them

last time I was plinking with the guys, they took the gun away 'cause I was making them look bad.

Oh, and Mum can shoot straighter than they can.

[alarimer]

16. I think you are correct, unfortunately.

Sexism is still acceptable in this country. It is okay (in may quarters) to make blatantly sexist statements and to discriminate against women in the workplace- although it is still illegal to do so. Not to mention all the sexism in ads, movies, TV, etc. And if we complain about that? "Come on, it's just a movie, game, TV show ,etc". The subtext is that you are a bitch if you complain about it. I STILL have to deal with coworkers who tell dirty jokes, although they no longer tell them around me. They tell me to leave so that they can tell each other the jokes.

Anyway, I believe the majority of the hatred on the right towards Hillary Clinton IS sexist. Right-wingers do not want women to "rise above their station." There are legitimate reasons to criticize here and we do that here all the time. What I am talking about is the same thing you are: the absolutely disgusting displays of sexism on the part of the right. Any Democratic woman running for office would get the same treatment.

[SecularNATION]

19. Foolish Democrats

Deep13, when the Democratic Party abandons gun owners to the GOP, don't be surprised when you come across this all too common situation.

[Zorra]

21. The more conservative a person is, the bigger the asshole that person is.

There is a direct correlation.

It is simply a natural law.

[Deep13]

44. Ain't that the truth.

Someone once said, I forgot who, that conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but that stupid people are necessarily conservative.

[ileus]

23. guns are mean...

[EstimatedProphet]

64. Mean?

Like, average?

Because that makes as much sense as prescribing emotion to inanimate objects.

[Redstone]

26. Yeah, you're right; those bozos would be mouthing off about "them Jeeeews" if they didn't

have the easier targets.

You're a gun guy who doesn't like the NRA? You're a rarity, and I like the way you think.

Redstone

[Irreverend IX]

29. The NRA was founded by former Union generals in New York.

They observed during the war that many of the drafted Union soldiers lacked the basic level of firearms knowledge that many of the Southern troops possessed, so they founded the NRA as an educational organization to make sure that future generations would be trained to shoot. Somehow, I don't think those guys were harboring Confederate sympathies. The NRA didn't do any gun rights lobbying until well into the 20th century.

[Deep13]

40. Thanks for that information. nt

[AlCzervik]

30. My Dad is a gun owner, lots of them but he hates the NRA and he told me he would

vote for Hillary in the GE, i just about fell over. He thinks the gun grabber business is bullshit "I've owned guns for 45 years honey and never once has a democrat come to my door demanding i turn them in".

[B Calm]

32. That's what I tell the guys I work with. Then I also add the right

for a citizen to own guns seems like a liberal idea..

[Xenotime]

34. Please use "Va-Jay-Jay" instead of vagina next time.

[aquart]

37. ANOTHER word we can't say??????

Add it to the fucking list.

[Deep13]

41. Sorry, I don't do baby-talk. nt

[Lorien]

56. Please don't. I have a good friend named Vijaya

(she's of Indian decent) and she's not happy about that cutesy euphemism.

[-..__...]

72. Oh puh-leeze.

Try having a name like Dick Johnson, Mike Hunt or Harry Sachs. Do you hear them complain?

[krabigirl]

61. why?

[knitter4democracy]

66. That term's revolting. Let's all use the right terms here.

Oh, and his use of the word "dick" was fine with you? Vagina's not okay, but dick is? What does that tell you?

[Xenotime]

95. It tells me you don't watch Oprah or The Soup

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX2m0oZv1rc

[knitter4democracy]

112. I am on a couple of knitting boards where some use that term.

Doesn't make me like it.

[mudesi]

68. TWO people here who don't like the word "vagina"?

Is this new?

It's the proper term. What's the problem?

[derby378]

74. Vagina

First Amendment. So there.

[Der Blaue Engel]

98. .

:rofl:

[Buns_of_Fire]

38. You talk politics at a pistol range?

You, sir, are a braver man than I... :patriot:

[Deep13]

43. No, I don't. I just hear it.

Truth is it doesn't happen very often, but when it does it is truly disgusting.

[VotesForWomen]

39. no surprise; misogyny is not a myth. nt

[I work for workers]

42. Can you blame them for hating Dems?

Crazy Christians and fleet footed black teens aside, let's just talk about guns.

Sure, there are many good Democrats who respect our Second Amendment rights. Unfortunately, they don't make headlines. The face of the party regularly spits on the Constitution so far as gun owners are concerned.

Look at the last debate:

Clinton: "I respect and support the Second Amendment except I think we need a national database of all guns and gun owners, and a return to the Assault Weapons Ban."
Edwards: "I'm the most pro-Second Amendment Democrat there is, except I support the return to the Assault Weapons Ban."
Obama: "I fully support the Second Amendment, except I'd like to ban the private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons, and of course return to the Assault Weapons Ban."

Richardson was the only candidate who could possibly get support from a large number of gun voters, and he has been gone for weeks.

We all better pray DC loses Heller at the Supreme Court and takes gun rights out of play. Otherwise this might be a much closer election then it needs to be.

[zanne]

46. Yup. You're a gun guy, all right. nt

[I work for workers]

48. You're right, I am. I'm scared about what this issue is going to do to us.

You would be surprised how many people I know who won't be voting for the Dem next November because of the candidates anti-gun politics. Some of these people aren't even particularly right wing, but they like their guns and rightly associate Clinton, Obama and Edwards with gun grabbing. As a result they (kinda wrongly) associate ALL Dems with the vocal minorities' desire to disarm them.

It's bad for the party and it's bad for the country. Like I said, pray Heller is decided in favor of the people over the government, because that is the only way we can side step this issue come November.

[zanne]

50. Well, if you hang around with gun people, then of course.

"I won't believe how many people"? You mean the people you know. You're a gun enthusiast using scare tactics.

[I work for workers]

51. How many gun enthusiast do you know?

Recent history has shown us there are a lot of them, and that they mobilize for gun issues very effectively. I cringed when I heard Clinton say we need a national database of gun owners, both because of the idea itself and because I know what that does to a big segment of the population. Obama and Edwards are no better. The only saving grace is that few people watch the debates at this point.

We should have this in the bag. This issue doesn't help us at all, and it hurts us a lot. Elections are about mobilization. After the past eight years, Republicans are going to have a hard time getting their voters out. This makes it much easier for them. All we need is for the right wing gun nut who doesn't want to vote for a Mormon to decide he has no choice but to do so because the Dem wants to take his rifles away.

[zanne]

52. There are less and less all the time...

As the big conservative House of Cards falls down, gun ownership decreases, as always.

[I work for workers]

53. So does union membership, but we still comprise a powerful voting block.

Don't kid yourself. Gun owners are a powerful and motivated force in American politics. Every time our candidates mention the Assault Weapons Ban, they send another few votes to the Reps. This election is as much about keeping Republicans at home as it is about bringing Democrats out. The last thing we need to do is give them a strong issue to motivate the base with.

[derby378]

75. Try not to use the term "assault weapons," for starters

It's a big VPC/Brady Campaign frame that they use to scare people into supporting bans on firearms that we've legally owned for a hundred years.

[I work for workers]

77. I agree. Anyone who has read the AWB and still supports it

is either an idiot, or is working to advance an anti-gun agenda. It banned nothing, but it sounds pretty to people who haven't read it.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. If, by your own estimation, the law did NOTHING, who gives a shit? Why does the mere MENTION of it

supposedly have millions of voters streaming out of the hills, chomping at the bit with smoke coming out of their ears like fucking Yosemite Sam?

:shrug:

[I work for workers]

91. Let me rephrase that. It DID successfully limit our freedom

for absolutely no gain in safety. It created a ridiculous standard for a nonexistent class of firearms. More importantly it created a strong and dedicated block of pro-gun voters who embraced the Republicans as payback.

[krispos42]

58. Yet more guns were sold last year in the country than people born.

So there goes that idea.

[Lance_Boyle]

59. Wha?

"As the big conservative House of Cards falls down, gun ownership decreases, as always."

Wishing it was so, or saying it on DU, does not make it so. Show me statistics re: decreasing gun ownership.

[zanne]

60. I've shown those statistics before, in the gun forum.

You guys just countered with your own statistics. It's useless to show graphs and percentages when both sides have their own conflicting information. You won't believe my statistics and I won't believe yours.

[SecularNATION]

67. And?

I'm a "gun guy", as well. A "gun guy" who votes Democrat. There would be many more of those, if it weren't for people like you.

[zanne]

45. This just reinforces my opinion of gun fanatics...

What kind of stimulating political discourse did you expect to hear at a gun store?

[Deep13]

54. Unfortunately, I expected what I got.

That's not why I was there.

[cgrindley]

47. You do hear some crazy RW chatter at gun ranges

very true. I've never heard anything about the candidates, but I have heard some anti-immigrant stuff. Yeah... I think some racism was present as I am a Canadian immigrant and people were pretty quick to say: "well, I'm not talking about folks like you."

As far as gun range people being anti-Obama... I think that's a class issue more than anything else. He is the candidate for the middle and upper middle class... a lot of people who hang around gun ranges tend to be working class or working poor.

[krispos42]

55. The dislike of Hillary is very irrational

Yeah, she's a politician, so she has that working against her. And the "it's unnatural for a woman to lead" shit is nicely explained in "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff as the "strict father model". The strict father model cannot accommodate a woman in charge, and that is that.

But she's also perceived as being far more liberal than she actually is. I mean, yeah, she's liberal on social issues but that does not translate into being liberal on economic issues. She's not for universal single-payer, for example, and I doubt she's going to break up the monopolies and trusts. But people don't care to realize that.

The impression that I get is that people think she will get what she wants done because she's an effective politician, but what she wants to get done does not appeal to a lot of people.

And being burdened with her "assault-weapon" banning husband isn't going to help either. She's committed to the concept of banning "assault weapons" (again), and gun owners don't like that because they rightly think it's another step on the path to virtually total prohibition. But they think that she'll get Congress to put it on her desk.

I refer you to this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2661959

The national impression of Hillary Clinton was made a decade or more ago, and for most people it's burned into their brains.

[VotesForWomen]

69. they're afraid she's going to cut their thing off. nt

[EstimatedProphet]

62. I hear ya

It's no fun living in hillbillyland. I really am afraid that we're going to blow this election, because the Retarded Right hasn't gone away yet. they may have been griping a few months ago about how things have ben going, but deep down they are really pissed off that Bush isn't as much of a bully as they want him to be.

[Paladin]

83. You Know, There's A Poll Down In The Gun Dungeon, Now......

....asking how important guns are in the upcoming election. Far and away the largest number of responses---46%---are those who say they are willing to cross over and vote Republican on the basis of their guns. Let that sink in a little; damned near half of the respondants are ready to walk away from the Democratic Party, based on the single issue that seems to matter to them. I personally think the actual percentage of our resident gun obsessives who feel that way if probably 75% or more. All of which leads to the inevitable question: if that high a percentage of gun militants hanging out at DU feel that way, why should we real-world Democrats pay any attention to them?

[derby378]

92. Maybe that means that Democratic candidates should listen more to gun owners

If you don't want voters to turn single-issue, don't antagonize them into doing so.

In the meantime, I do my part by letting Democratic candidates for the House and Senate explain how they'll vote on gun issues. Observe:

http://www.a2dems.net/campaign2008/index.htm

[I work for workers]

93. Awsome website, thanks for posting it!

[derby378]

94. You're welcome!

Always happy to help. And as soon as more candidates weigh in, their responses will be posted there as well.

[goodgd_yall]

111. Democrats have been listening more to gun owners

What more do you want from them? A free gun to every home?

[derby378]

113. The only Presidential candidates who have been listening were Richardson and Gravel

That's two more than 2004, which is progress in itself. It would have been three more if Feingold had joined the race.

As it is, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have decided to turn a deaf ear to gun owners, insisting only that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to hunt instead of to keep and bear arms. Big difference.

[Paladin]

124. It Means Exactly What I Said It Meant

It means that, despite the unspeakable depths to which the Bush regime has taken this nation over the last few years, half your fellow DU gun militants are nonetheless on record as being willing to walk away from the Democratic Party and cast their votes for Republicans, based on the idiotic notion that Democratic politicians are going to take their precious guns away. How dark and profoundly twisted does your gun mania have to be, that you would represent yourselves as Democrats, in a Democratic site, and yet be willing to vote for John McCain or Mitt Romney, rather than Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton? If that big a percentage of you DU guncentrics openly expresses a willingness to sink to such a traitorous level, again I ask: why should we bona fide Democrats give the least little shit about you or your endless whining about the one issue you care about? Particularly, when given proof that a substantial portion of you are just going to vote for the other side, anyway.....

(Insert standard It's All The Democrats' Fault response HERE.)

[SecularNATION]

126. Ranting won't win elections.

"why should we bona fide Democrats give the least little shit"

I'll tell you why. Winning elections. Putting Democrats in office instead of Republicans. Democrats who can accomplish all the things care about.

You can rant and rave from your "bona fide Democrat" pedestal about traitors, till hell freezes over. Meanwhile, elections will continue to be lost. What's more important to you, bitching about gun owners or putting Democrats in office? Wouldn't it make more sense for the Democratic Party to drop gun control once and for all? Was that issue worth getting George W. Bush?

Remember, a substantial number of voters are independents, neither Republican or Democrat. Many of those would vote Democrat if it weren't for gun control, as well. If Democrats were smart, they'd drop it. Unfortunately, they're not.

[Paladin]

132. The Only Ranting I See Around Here....

...is from gun militants like you, obviously frustrated that firearms policy is a non-issue in this election, and trying your very best to put it on the front burner, whatever the consequences. The Democratic Party has backed off guns far enough, for anybody not toting around a big, NRA-approved agenda.

And don't lecture me or any other real Democrat here at DU about losing elections---not when half of your associates--and maybe you--are ready to vote Republican. You've lost all standing to issue such warnings...

[SecularNATION]

134. Not at all.

I'm not frustrated about that. I wish firearm policy were a non-issue. Unfortunately, it's not.

Paladin says: "The Democratic Party has backed off guns far enough"

That is the where the argument lies. And that is where the evidence is against you. Yes, we may win the Presidency. We may make gains in Congress. However, if the Democratic Party and candidates would just have sense enough to completely drop the issue, our chances and gains would increase significantly.

[derby378]

137. So, answer me this...

If the Democratic Party were to suddenly drop support for gun-control measures, would you run off and join up with a Republican who promoted gun control?

This whole "real Democrat" angle of yours has just been disproved. Some real Democrats do own firearms, and they're not afraid to speak up in defense of their rights.

[Mojorabbit]

136. I imagine that a lot of Dems

would leave the party if the nominee were against the right to choose. Everyone has their line in the sand.

[goodgd_yall]

110. One-issue voters

Guns---more important than Iraq, health care, the economy, etc etc. All the more reason to dislike the 2nd-amendment-obsessed if they are willing to give up our country to the republicans so they can feel happy with a warm gun. I suppose we have gun maniacs to thank for 8 years of Bush.

[benEzra]

115. You can thank the gun-control zealots for that, IMHO...

half of U.S. gun owners are Dems and indies. Antagonizing tens of millions of voters into leaving parts of the ballot blank or voting third-party is hardly a wise strategy considering the numbers.

2006 showed how to win on the gun issue, namely stay the hell out of people's gun safes and make the election about those issues you consider more important. The Senate was won in 2006 by pro-gun Dems, lest you forget, who beat repubs in important swing states.

[goodgd_yall]

119. I think restrictions that are reasonable are good for the country

I don't see over zealousness in gun control proponents. In the 70s there was a clamor for very tight restrictions and the Democrats have backed away from that. Sensible gun owners need to realize that horrible crimes are the catalyst for gun control legislation. It's not a conspiracy to disarm Americans. I just don't understand why gun owners are so adamant about having no rules whatsoever on ownership and possession.

[benEzra]

123. I have no problem with truly reasonable restrictions.

I think restrictions that are reasonable are good for the country. I don't see over zealousness in gun control proponents.

I have no problem with reasonable restrictions. I have a big problem with attempting to prohibit the lawful use and ownership of guns with post-1861 magazine capacities, or outlawing the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in America, when rifles of any type are so rarely misused.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

Please explain to me how banning the most popular civilian target and defensive rifles in America is "reasonable" in light of the above.

BTW, I would also characterize those currently defending the District of Columbia's absolute ban on possession of any functional firearm inside your own home as "overzealous."

I just don't understand why gun owners are so adamant about having no rules whatsoever on ownership and possession.

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I am OK with the National Firearms Act, most of the Gun Control Act, the armor-piercing bullet ban of 1986, the NICS point-of-sale background check, prohibition on ownership by criminals and those adjudicated mentally incompetent, requiring a license (based on non-arbitrary criteria) in order to carry a weapon, strict limits on the justifiable use of force, etc. I am NOT OK with slapping asinine restrictions on rifle stock shape and post-1861 magazine capacities in an attempt to triangulate right-leaning authoritarian types. That is not reasonable at all.

Since only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners is a hunter, the attempt to ban nonhunting-style guns is guaranteed to alienate most gun owners. But it's not hard to get the issue off the table, as the 2006 elections showed (when anti-AWB Dems turned the Senate blue).


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[OmahaBlueDog]

88. I work in the upper Midwest...

When I'm outside the friendly confines of places like Omaha, Sioux Falls, Lincoln, & Des Moines -- I hear a lot of this. No guns are involved, and I'm visiting people in a professional capacity. Like with your experience, they assume I think just like them, and they start spewing.

Brilliant, if frightening, post.

[yardwork]

96. It's one reason I'm now supporting Hillary Clinton.

In a country full of offensive behavior, I decided that her handling of the constant barrage of attacks based entirely on her gender indicates that she's probably able to handle anything anyone could throw at her.

[K8-EEE]

106. Really interesting post.

Kick! Hillary is my third choice and yet, the blatant sexism I read on these "conservative" (batshit insane ) sites like FR, it just floors me.

[goodgd_yall]

108. I appreciate your reality check

Sometimes we tend to travel in circles of people with the same values and lose sight of those who are diametrically opposite ours. Shooting is a good hobby to keep you in the loop on what's going on in the heads of "the other side."

[Supersedeas]

117. wow, talk about wearing it on your sleeve

[R_M]

127. The hate for women, especially from...

right wingers is vile and should disturb all.