Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Purely my observations as an old woman. My Dad, Uncle, FIL all fought in WW2. They were shot at, wounded (FIL in the head), and had to kill others in combat. None of them wanted anything more to do with guns when their service was over.
I've know Nam Combat Vets also. Same with them. In fact they were the most vocal against the war back then.
Iraq and Afganistan Vets also among my coworkers and children's friends. Totally against guns and warfare. One Vet, two tours of Iraq, who wanted to be a LEO before serving, is now EXTREMELY Liberal and teaching English in Asia. He has said he never wants to see another weapon in his life.
Pattern? Armchair Warriors are those who want their guns. They have never been shot at, seen their Buddies (or others) killed right before them, or had to actually shoot someone else DEAD.
Talking to my BIL who witnessed a mob shooting as a child and his Dad throwing him under a restaurant table, we both have the same attitude towards guns. We want nothing to do with them having seen people's blood and guts splattered around us as children. How many of YOU gun supporters have seen that? I relived my own experience as a child after Sandy Hook with nightmares. Those poor, poor children. I KNOW how they felt. I will add to that any Combat Veteran also. Armchair Warriors TOP this.
My Dad served 7 total years in combat between Korea and Viet Nam and the tail end of WW2. He started training me to shoot when I was 5. One of my best friends fought in Desert Storm and I made a lot of friends , especially in Spec Ops, who had multiple tours of Iraq and Afghanistan during my years working for DoD. All of them multiple tour veterans of forward (very) deployment who was rabidly against people owning private firearms. Whether they were still in service or out.
Interestingly, I have met people with views like yours, (no combat vets however) and gotten along famously until the subject of firearms ownership came up, then they immediately acted as though I had bathed in dairy dung. All commonality of other interests vanished like a snow flake in a hot skillet. As if I was carrying some incurable and highly communicable infection. That seems to be a common phenomena with rabidly anti firearms people. To immediately dismiss gun owners as an inferior and undesirable element, totally beneath them.
The naked (and highly insulting) contempt they show is really hard to take. The displays of lofty, arrogant moral and social superiority I have encountered over my years. Personally I have had violent crime requiring lethal response touch my life twice. Once myself and the other with the one I loved above all else in life. I have also been in a couple shoot/ don't shoot situations that wound up (thankfully) in don't shoot. I have not seen the battlefield carnage you describe, but my Dad did. I have not seen friends die next to me in a foxhole, or anything like that. But I make no apologies to you or anyone else for that fact. I have seen the aftermath of a hyper violent encounter on someone I dearly love ( and always will). I have experienced having to defend myself with lethal force, or be killed myself. Both experience will always haunt my dreams.
Doen't "top" your stories, but this isn't a matter of oneupsmanship, now, is it? I still own, use and carry firearms. My loved ones encounter didn't involve a firearm. It got much more up close and personal than that. Her experience and what she went through haunts me more than any of mine. Often to the point of unbearable physical pain. And my views on firearms , especially for defensive purposes, hasn't changed. I make no claims to be anyone special. What I did I had to do. I take no pride or good feeling of any kind away from it. I make no claim to be a warrior of any sort, and I'm certainly no "armchair warrior" or armchair anything. The implication is more than insulting in it's high handed moral tone.
All I will say further on that is there are a LOT of people out here who have been through and seen things we wish we hadn't. But still don't share your views. Our reasons are our own, and we need not justify ourselves to you or anyone else. perhaps it would behoove you to save your judgements and stereotyping. Truly, rants such as the above quoted I'm responding to here don't help to strengthen any argument you're attempting to present. By all means share what's on your mind, but think a bit more about presentation. It does count for a lot.
I agree with you mostly, except in this case I don't think the anti-gun "far left" is the entire Democratic Party.
First of all, I don't think all or even most Democrats are anti-gun, not even Obama. Hillary was, being that she referenced the Australian policy which is every American gun owner's worst nightmare. The slippery slope argument that says background checks is the first step on the path to total confiscation holds about as much water as those who say gay marriage is the first step to legal pedophilia and bestiality.
You make a good point about assault rifles. I think the entire thing is political because AR-15 is a "scary looking" gun so banning it would make the anti-gun far left think that something is being done when it really would have minimal effect. AR-15s really weren't even that popular until they started talking about banning them, and then every gun enthusiast had to get one.
I really wish the Democrats would drop this as a political issue. It's one of those issues that energizes a certain segment of their base but overall hurts the image of the party with people whose votes they need.
Never said that it did, I just pointed out Hillary's own words. never trusted her with our 2nd A rights, but then again I do not trust Trump on the matter, he has said and supported limitations that I disagree with.
I have several, funny how people look at my AR15's and AR10's and not realize that the wood stock Mini 14 is every bit the same thing, depends on the mags used and stock. It only shows their ignorance on the topic.
I know as many Liberals as Conservatives that own firearms, but then again I live in Texas where Liberals here would be conservatives in the NE. Guns have their purposes, unfortunately those uninformed and ignorant on the topic often think of only one reason.
I agree that they should drop it as an issue, but they have a base that has fed at the trough of gun control and banning as some sort of safety move and that is simply not true. It all comes down to voters that have been fed something that is nothing more than a Lie, both sides do it. Only We can change it.
My ex-GF used to tell me it was "an NRA fantasy" that some liberals wanted to confiscate the firearms. I pointed her to several articles, including in the New York Times, which suggested otherwise. It's not an NRA fantasy, it's a leftist fantasy held firmly in check by the reality of the situation (including the NRA). So they try to win little battles (common sense restrictions) and take full advantage of every news event that catches media attention.They probably won't find them all. My opinion is that the grandchildren of today's 16-22 year olds -- born in, say, 2045 to 2060 (when I'm 70 to 85 or most likely dead) and raised in a largely automated world where AI does a lot of the decision-making, thoughts are digitized and projected across the internet, privacy is a long-forgotten whimsical notion, and kids identify more with the virtual world than the "real" one -- will want absolutely nothing to do with firearms and will feel righteous and justified in their desire to eliminate the ludicrous presence of guns.
I mean, I certainly don't want to live in that world, and they can confiscate my firearms only after they come and fight me to the death for them. But I foresee tremendous changes we can hardly conceive of in the next 75 years, many times over.I like to drive and I like my independence even more, and I think it's going to take longer than the big "report" that came out last month saying self-driving ride-hailing electric cars will be prevalent by 2030... but come on, 100 years? No, it is not going to take nearly that long.
Having a self driving car and having a self driving car (jeep) that can navigate offroad are two different things to the 10th power. Having an offroad self driving car isn't even on anyone's radar yet. But I can imagine it would be awesome. I can have a beer and cruise around scouting for deer while my car drives
Britain has significantly lower gun deaths than the United States. In terms of being killed or injured by guns, people are better off in just about every single Western nation than the US. 300+ million guns have not made people safer. Anyone with even the barest understanding of probability knows this.
The most ironic thing is that all the calls of "I have guns to protect myself and my family" is literally because the country is full of other people with guns. When you say this, you're basically admitting that gun culture has made you and your family less safe.
Britain has a significantly lower murder rate period compared to the entire US. It's a completely different culture that isn't comparable to the US. If guns are the problem why is Maryland so much less safe than Idaho? There are more guns per capita in ID and yet Baltimore has a murder rate 100 TIMES higher than Boise. You can't say the "gun culture" is making people less safe.
In the US there are over 5,000,000 new guns made or imported every single year and yet the violent crime rate has been dropping for 30 years. Looks like more guns are making the US safer. Anyone with even the barest understanding of the real statistics of the topic would see that.
Guns aren't the problem, progressive policies and tolerance for any and all cultures even those totally toxic are the problem.
He regularly attacks the press, which is part of the 1st.
Trump doesn't attack "the press", he attacks biased, partisan, mouth pieces for the left that don't even have a passing relationship with honest reporting. That's not attacking the 1st amendment, it's attacking the propaganda arm of the DNC.
Trump doesn't attack "the press", he attacks biased, partisan, mouth pieces for the left that don't even have a passing relationship with honest reporting. That's not attacking the 1st amendment, it's attacking the propaganda arm of the DNC.
Yep. And that arm would happily silence all dissent and opposition to their views if they could. All the while claiming unwavering support of the 1st amendment. It's interesting how so many of these groups/movements make their stands on the Bill of Rights, and the power of the people, yet have this take that the 2A does not apply to the people. Even though it clearly says that it does. "RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms". Is that really open for interpretation? If it were, then that opens up what "The PEOPLE" means in every other amendment.
Sounds like thoroughly dangerous ground to me. Imagine the 4th amendment interpreted as the "collective" right the grabbers see the 2A as. It would then read, "The right of the state to determine what the people may possess upon their persons and within their homes that may be illegal or a possible threat to the security and well being of the state the people are hereby subject to search and seizure of any such effects upon their persons or within their homes based upon the assumption by any officer of the state that such effects are present." The people must submit to said search and seizure being as the safety and security of the state are paramount to all else." or some such manner of wording. mmmm,Welcome to the Revolution....Bear in mind it's all for our own collective good.
Last edited by NVplumber; 06-19-2017 at 07:24 PM..
How about you move to France? They don't allow guns there... their president is standing with open doors and welcoming arms to bring you all in...
I moved to Florida so I could practice my constitutionally granted rights uninhibited. That's okay. NY lost a tax payer and I probably gained years on my life without the constant stress.
It shouldn't take moving to a different state to practice what is a constitutionally protected right...
Well you did, didn't you.
BTW- France? Don't allow guns? Guess I can't live there.
I agree that they should drop it as an issue, but they have a base that has fed at the trough of gun control and banning as some sort of safety move and that is simply not true. It all comes down to voters that have been fed something that is nothing more than a Lie, both sides do it. Only We can change it.
Are you arguing that it wouldnt work as a safety measure ?
Or are you arguing the conspiracy theory route that simply Democrats are trying to "take power" ????
Purely my observations as an old woman. My Dad, Uncle, FIL all fought in WW2. They were shot at, wounded (FIL in the head), and had to kill others in combat. None of them wanted anything more to do with guns when their service was over.
I've know Nam Combat Vets also. Same with them. In fact they were the most vocal against the war back then........
Things vary.
One of my mentors and arms dealer was a Vet and UDT in Viet Nam, told us stories of blowing up bridges and watching people fly by in pieces. On quick estimate, he has sold me at least 4 guns.
Dad was a combat Vet as well, 3 tours in Viet Nam and of Korea. His view on guns was interesting. He transferred the family collection to me, of shotguns, a Mauser hunting rifle, a Winchester saddle rifle, and a collection of semi automatic pistols.
With what I have added to the vault, I wonder if he, were he alive, would disown me because his view of the -15 was that one should join the army if they wanted shoot it. I wonder if he would be really upset because of that, because of its larger ancestor or the Uzi I have.
Of course, in all cases, it would be an argument over rifles that are over 60 years old in their basic technology. Granted, Dad made that statement about shooting the -15 by being in the Army in the 70's and he really didn't use that statement to argue against me about getting a personal M-14 in the late 80's.........he just said he didn't think I could write it off in taxes as a professional expense. Perhaps yes, maybe, as an infantry Marine Captain but probably no as a Navy security officer.
As it was, I didn't get one because at the time, I just wasn't in the world I am now.
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 06-19-2017 at 07:46 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.