Observations on what I see in these forums

[Glassunion]

I have been lurking on this website for quite some time, and only recently did I decide to pony up a few bucks and share my ideas in this forum.

One observation that I have, is that if I used these forums alone to base my decision on whether or not to carry a firearm, I definitely would decide to carry one. On the whole what I see here is a complete lack of validity in the arguments of why guns should be banned or that there should be limited private ownership.

I see comments from people stating that “guns are bad”, that they do nothing but kill people. However when a reply is made about the defensive use of guns, the comment is ignored or the poster is belittled. Now in all honesty, yes guns can be used to kill people. But on the other hand guns can be used to save people as well. To embrace one fact and totally ignore the other is to me a seemingly willful ignorance. I have yet to see a valid argument against the self defense uses of a firearm.

I am a liberal, a gun owner, and a member of the NRA. This is not an oxymoron. I carry a firearm for self defense. I enjoy target shooting, I enjoy the time I spend with a few coworkers on the weekends when we go to the range to shoot. We spend hours at the range, having a good time moving projectiles at paper. My firearms hobby does not make me an evil or unstable person. I have several hobbies: archery, hiking, playing the guitar, camping and kayaking. Do any of these hobbies make me unstable or evil? No, they are just hobbies that I enjoy. They are nothing more nothing less.

During these discussions that I see here, on the pro gun side, I see a lot of posters taking the time to research and post facts to validate their statements and opinions. However on the other side of the fence, I see very little in the way facts or research. They are usually just a bunch of posts, over and over again with some news story of someone that was shot accompanied with a one sentence snide remark over how evil gun owners are. However with no facts or solutions one is left to conclude that the argument is weak and thoughtless.

If you want guns banned and want to take the time to share, why don’t you state why? Why don’t you state what our ideas are on how to do it? Why don’t you state how the self defense argument is invalid?

Again, I carry a gun for self defense. I carry it because if I am ever in a situation where I have no option to retreat, and the life of me or my family is in danger, I want that one last option before I have to lie down and die.

One thing that I would respect is if someone posted in here “The Second Amendment should be repealed, here is why I think so, here is my idea how to do it and here is what I think that the world would be like afterwards.” I have yet to see that by any stretch.

Our society is quickly proving that Americans do believe in private gun ownership. Just look at the numbers of guns that were purchased just last year. Just look at the number of individuals that applied for CCW permits last year. More and more people in this country are embracing the Second Amendment. Why is that? Has the world gone mad? Or are more and more people realizing that they are the only ones responsible for their own protection? Why do polls show an increasing number of people agreeing with the private ownership of firearms? Why do polls show the increasing number of people agreeing with the private ownership of handguns?

Now I am positive that there will be a few drive by posts of one sentence replies picking apart one little piece of this entire post. I’m sure that there are those who want to state that I am afraid, or live in fear. That I am an NRA crony, just spewing the company rhetoric. That I am a reactionary or an insecure individual. I have heard all of these arguments several times, and have replied to them, however they are just ignored thus validating the the other side of the argument.

I think that I just wasted quite a bit of internet ink as I feel that this thread my degenerate quickly, but perhaps we can get a discussion going without a flame war, I doubt it, but lets give it a try.

[Tejas]

1. Welcome to the Gungeon, but a few tests are in order.

AK or AR?


:)

[Glassunion]

2. Actually...

AR and an FNH SCAR among my mid range.

[burrfoot]

44. That SCAR have the folding stock?

If it does, how do you feel about it compared to collapsible?

I've been drooling over LWRC's products for a long time now- I think their REPR would be comparable to the SCAR- but my own AR-style was a piecemeal build (still a lot of fun and a good gun, but nothing like an FN or a LWRC :evilgrin: )

:toast:

[Glassunion]

46. Yes

I love how simple it is. The folding stock also adjusts for length of pull and cheek weld.

I like how it breaks down without any tools. One of the reasons I like Glocks.

As far as my AR, I went with the Daly Defense with the 24" barrel. Shame the company just went under. They made some great firearms.

[Tim01]

7. 9mm or .45 ? nt

[Glassunion]

10. 9mm

[rrneck]

3. That has been my experience as well.

I've owned one sort of gun or another since I was six years old, but I'm not a firearms enthusiast. I'll go to the range once in a while, but I'm not deep into it. When Obama got elected there seemed to be a flurry of public activity regarding firearms so I thought I'd revisit the issue. "Maybe I'm wrong", I thought. I wasn't.

I'm close to three thousand posts on DU, the vast majority of them in the guns forum. I have yet to hear a cogent argument or workable plan for the further control of firearms from the "antis", for lack of a better term. Not one.

And yet, my mind is still open to ideas. But spare me the snark. I've done the dozens on too many loading docks to enjoy it much now.

[Faygo Kid]

4. Looking forward to seeing your posts on other issues.

In my experience, some gun enthusiasts are one-issue johnnies.

Hope you're more diverse than that.

[Glassunion]

43. There are a handful of topics that I feel that I should post on.

Usually they are topics with a bit of controversy surrounding them and they are fun to debate.

Other times, it is just I have an opinion and wish to share.

Just for you:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=109&topic_id=38511&mesg_id=38593

[Lasher]

5. Glad you decided to chime in.

Now prepare for the flamefest.

:hide:

[tularetom]

6. Heroic manly gun owner shoots and kills cowardly criminal

Does that sound ridiculous? It sure does to me, yet there is one individual here that posts things not much different than that multiple times almost every day. So much for the calm factual argument in favor of gun ownership.

But for the most part I'm not arguing with you. Carry a gun if you want to I don't give a rat's ass. But I don't want to hear about it. I used to carry one when I worked repossessing cars in college. And I kept one handy when my brother in law and I owned and worked in a bar. I'm an occasional hunter and a collector of antique firearms

My own opinion is that there should be no restrictions on the ownership and display of firearms. That includes concealed handgun permits. As far as I'm concerned, those permits are a form of gun control and if you favor them you are in the same category as those who would eliminate private ownership of firearms.

And I don't worry about the government taking my guns either. I gave up my NRA life membership many years ago because I got tired of all the hysterical whining about it. I have more guns now than I did then and nobody has ever made a move to confiscate even one of them.

I'm tired of all the emotional bullshit on BOTH sides of this argument.

[Glassunion]

47. As I suspected...

The news posts continue. I just quickly logged in, and of course... There are more posts of tragedy relating to gun violence, however nothing on any suggested course of action other than the every day snide comments.

It seems to me that those who oppose guns here, don't want to pony up and answer a few simple questions.

[protect our future]

8. Thank you for your thoughtful post. n/t

[maxsolomon]

9. "it's WAY too late for gun control in america" - steve earle

i am certainly no expert on this issue, but to me, the "no compromise" position that america's 2nd amendment absolutists hold, on this forum and throughout our culture, is that the yearly holocaust surrounding "illegal abuse" of handguns (pointless male-on-male beef shootings, spouse/family "honor" shootings, mass murder-suicide shootings, and simple suicide) is an ACCEPTABLE COST for the far less frequent, and in most people's lives, largely hypothetical use of a gun to "save lives" from a threat. anecdotal stories of a gun owner thwarting a robbery or assault don't prove that they are necessary for survival today any more than handgun bans prevent gun violence in blighted urban areas.

basically, handguns are built to fire a bullet into another human, not remove one. that they do, in fact, kill more humans in a given year than they "save" supports this simple, but surprisingly controversial, contention.

perhaps my level of fear is less than yours, or the idyllic urban landscape i live in holds fewer threats, but i don't have a gun. when i think about why i would need a handgun, the only reason i can conceive of is the same as yours seems to be: to have a credible threat to brandish and therefore protect myself from other people with guns. or maybe knives or nun-chucks or pepper spray or tasers or throwing stars or pit bulls or hateful words (a woman in Seattle recently shot an off-his-meds transient on a city sidewalk when she perceived a physical threat from a verbal assault - and was acquitted). and, of course, if/when society collapses, i'll need to defend my fig tree with a shotgun full of rock salt.

that said, it's hard to think anything other than that all debate regarding this issue in America is utterly pointless. sure, the rest of the western world has stricter controls on firearm ownership, but you see, AMERICA IS SPECIAL. we're much more free than europe or something. too much money is arrayed on the side of maintaining the status quo, and as long as that doesn't change (and why would it - there's lots of legal money to be made off weapons) and i expect to see no movement in either side's position, and certainly not in the congress or the courts, for the next 40-odd years i have left on earth.

[PavePusher]

22. "basically, handguns are built to fire a bullet into another human"

I suppose you can support that assertion?

Actual facts, please...



"(a woman in Seattle recently shot an off-his-meds transient on a city sidewalk when she perceived a physical threat from a verbal assault - and was acquitted"

If someone is verbally threatening me, advancing towards me, and appears to be a physical threat as well (arms raised/drawn back, fists clenched, etc) it is reasonable to be concerned for your safety and to take preventive measures. You don't have to wait until you have actually been physically attacked before defending yourself. By then it can be too late.

[rrneck]

23. A fair minded response

in a place where that is rare.

I think the point to the controversy has little to do with stastistics, comma placement in the Second Amendment, armchair psycology, sexual identity or arcane references in the Federalist Papers. It has to do with the right of one person to tell another person how to deal the particulars of their lives.

Like you I live in a pretty safe place and although I own guns I don't expect to have to defend myself with them. I would like for everyone in this country to enjoy that luxury, but they won't. And unless I can find a solution for them, they enjoy the freedom to employ their own solutions as best they can.

So actually, America is special. Just as special as Brazil, Sweden, India, or Luxembourg. Each country has a unique geography, history, and way of providing for its citizens. Is our way best? I dunno. But this is how we do it. If we want to change it, those calling for change have to come up with a workable alternate plan and not just squeal about how we're doing it wrong.

[spin]

24. "handguns are built to fire a bullet into another human" ...

Gee, I have been misusing my handguns for years.

Fortunately, I never had to shoot a person, but I sure have put holes in a lot of paper targets.

[X_Digger]

37. Would it surprise you to learn..

.. that even with increasing gun ownership and relaxed regulation surrounding concealed carry, crime is down, even crime with guns, as well as accidental shootings?

Studies vary about how many DGUs (defensive gun uses) occur each year, but even the lowest, most biased number is above the number of crimes using guns each year. A majority of DGUs don't involve anyone being shot, or even discharging the firearm.

[Euromutt]

41. I have some comments and quibbles with your post

First off, if ~30,000 dead a year constitutes a "holocaust" in your book, I hate to think what you'd call the ~45,000 dead killed by motor vehicles. Moreover, given that the actual Holocaust involved the murder of between 11 and 17 million people over a five and half-year period, it rather trivializes the term to use it for a death toll that is several orders of magnitude smaller.

Second, in that death toll you include simple suicides, as if these would not occur were firearms not available. I don't accept that notion, given that the U.S. suicide is unremarkable compared to those of other wealthy industrialized countries. In the rest of the world, instead of shooting themselves, people hang themselves, or jump in front of trains or off bridges and buildings, and that results in a comparable number of deaths per capita.

In two of your examples--"pointless male-on-male beef shootings" and "spouse/family 'honor' shootings"--it strikes me that the cause of the problem is not the availability of firearms, but the culturally ingrained attitude on the part of the killers that their personal honor is more valuable than a human life; when one's notion of honor demands that a slight can only be erased by killing the offending party, the lack of availability of one particular type of weapon isn't going to dissuade the offended party. And that is factor that may explain why the American non-firearm homicide rate is higher than the overall homicide rates of most European countries.

that they do, in fact, kill more humans in a given year than they "save" supports this simple, but surprisingly controversial, contention.

Your argument is logically valid, but not logically sound, the problem being that you present as "fact" your assertion that guns kill more people than they save, but provide no evidence to support it.

Admittedly, there's an inherent problem with determining preventive/deterrent effect, which is that it inherently impossible to prove that an event that did not occur--e.g. a private citizen being killed by an assailant--would have occurred were it not for the fact the prospective victim had a firearm. So we do not know, and indeed cannot know, for certain how many lives are saved by defensive gun use. However, Kleck & Gertz wrote in their study Armed Resistance to Crime (aka "the Kleck & Gertz study" http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm):

If we consider only the 15.7% <of respondents> who believed someone almost certainly would have been killed had they not used a gun, and apply this figure to estimates in the first two columns of Table 2, it yields national annual estimates of 340,000 to 400,000 DGUs of any kind, and 240,000 to 300,000 uses of handguns, where defenders stated, if asked, that they believed they almost certainly had saved a life by using the gun. Just how many of these were truly life-saving gun uses is impossible to know. As a point of comparison, the largest number of deaths involving guns, including homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths in any one year in U.S. history was 38,323 in 1991. <97>

<...>

Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number of lives taken with guns. It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did. But surely this is too serious a matter to simply assume that practically everyone who says he believes he saved a life by using a gun was wrong.

Kleck & Gertz rightly acknowledge that respondents' belief that they "almost certainly" saved a life is not hard evidence that they did, but their point that this result cannot simply be dismissed out of hand is reasonable. Let me reiterate their point: even if only 10% of the respondents were correct, the number of lives saved through DGUs would still outnumber the highest number of deaths by gunshot wound recorded in one year. In light of this evidence (uncertain as it is), assertions that DGUs that result in lives being saved are "far less frequent" than GSW deaths cannot simply be accepted without strong supporting evidence that this is indeed the case.

It also deserves note that the inherent difficulty of proving preventive effect cuts both ways: that is, it also applies to gun control measures. It is impossible to say for certain that an intentional killing (homicide or suicide) would not have taken place but for the absence of tighter restrictions on private firearm ownership. Both murder and suicide predate firearms, and murder rates have been significantly worse in times before firearms were even available. For example, the murder rate in London between 1300 and 1350 CE varied between 36 and 52/100,000; the murder rate in various parts of Germany in the same period varied from 20 to 100(!)/100,000. By way of comparison, the worst ever recorded U.S. homicide rate was 10.7/100,000 (in 1980); in the past decade, it's been more around 6/100,000.

Interestingly, the article I got the German medieval homicide figures from states in the abstract (http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/41/4/618):

The results confirm, first, that homicide rates have declined in Europe over several centuries. Second, the empirical evidence shows, that unequivocal decline began in the early seventeenth century. Third, the data indicate that the secular decline begins with the pioneers of the modernization process, England and Holland, and slowly encompasses further regions.

However, those same western European countries did not significantly restrict private ownership of firearms until immediately after World War I (primarily to head off repeat performances of the Russian and German revolutions of the preceding years). So murder rates declined across Europe even as firearms were becoming more commonly available. There's arguable a stronger correlation to be drawn between prevalence of dogmatic religious belief and homicide than there is between prevalence of firearms and homicide.

Which raises an interesting point: what's another thing that's far more common in the United States than in other western countries?

[fl_dem]

11. I appreciate your views on guns

and responsible ownership. Herein lies the problem, it's the irresponsible legal gun owners who ultimately and unwittingly help put guns in criminals and children's hands. We hear about it all the time; child finds gun, shoots another child, house is robbed, weapons missing. Gun used in crime was reported stolen. I don't have a problem with gun ownership, I have a problem with gun control.

I personally don't own a gun, nor do I live in an area where i feel unsafe, nor do i live a type of lifestyle that would warrant some kind of protection, with that in mind, I don't care if you own one but I do care that you keep it locked up. I'm not disagreeing with you on this topic, its a right to own a gun, albeit I feel an archaic one that in its time had a place, but a right none the less.

And to take a stab at your questions;

More and more people in this country are embracing the Second Amendment. Why is that?

IMO, its because the right wing nuts and NRA et al for the last 2 years have been spewing "Obama wants to take your guns away", resulting in people rushing off to purchase every weapon and all the ammo they can get their hands. I have heard this too many times to count "it's Obamas fault bullets cost twice as much as they did last year", my response....uh, its called demand. Its basic economics, not Obama.

peace.

[Tejas]

12. and........we're off!

I personally don't own a gun, nor do I live in an area where i feel unsafe, nor do i live a type of lifestyle that would warrant some kind of protection, with that in mind, I don't care if you own one but I do care that you keep it locked up. I'm not disagreeing with you on this topic, its a right to own a gun, albeit I feel an archaic one that in its time had a place, but a right none the less.

A resident from the land of unicorns and rainbows has weighed in on the subject at hand!

Someday we're going to find out where that magical place is and all move there.

[fl_dem]

14. its a nice to visit

but I wouln't want to live there.

[rd_kent]

13. The ignorance is strong in this one.

[Paladin]

15. And You're The Guy Who Always Bitches About Drive-By Posts. (n/t)

[rd_kent]

17. Your point? I think that when you write n/t, it means "no thought", right?

[Paladin]

25. Fl_dem's Post Reflected Some Thought And Consideration......

....and she might have expected a thoughtful reply from you in return. I guess you showed her a thing or two, didn't you? Take the rest of the day off, you must be tired.....

[rd_kent]

26. No, not at all. And I di respond to her post, so take your unfounded accusations

back under the bridge.

[fl_dem]

27. thanks Paladin...

I did expect some rapport but not out right hostility...I think he ran out of "thought and consideration" for the week.

[rd_kent]

28. See how disingenuous you are?

I did respond to you down thread and you have yet to respond to that, but here you are accusing me, right alongside you pal, of not responding and being hostile.

AND you ignored my post just above. I think you are just a disingenuous ass looking for a flame war.

Uh huh.

[fl_dem]

32. LOL, I just read your reply to my post...

slow down turbo...I read from the top down. :)

[rd_kent]

35. I'm on fire today!

Watching the baby, puttering around the house, not much to do....I'm all over DU today!

[Tejas]

40. blah loony knuckledragging gunhuggers only cops should have guns blahblah blah

oh yeah - (n/t)

[Paladin]

48. Show Me One Instance Of My Calling For Only Law Enforcement To Have Guns.

Happy hunting, because I've never said any such thing, not once in the years I've been at DU, not once in all the thousands of posts I've made......

[fl_dem]

16. is it that you feel i am being ignorant or is it that

my opinions are in opposition to yours? Please clarify.

[rd_kent]

18. You should just through the guns forum and read some of the threads.

Your opinion is nothing new and you are hardly the first to post something very similar. I recommend going through some of the threads and reading up. Your opinion has been shown to be born out of ignorance and fear and has been addressed many, many times. I, personally, am not going to rehash it with you, so I bid you good reading.....

[fl_dem]

33. If my opinion has been born out of ignorance and fear,

than its nothing new and I am hardly the first to post something very similar many mnay times, no need to rehash.

[Tim01]

20. 1)A self defense gun is useless if it's locked up.

2)Victims often become victims when/because they "feel safe".

3)Obama promised to reinstate the AWB, and said he wanted to do a bunch of other stuff, which caused the run on guns and ammo. He has also tried to get at guns and ammo through other back door approaches. Example: Used military cartridges are sold to reloading companies to be reloaded and sold to civilians. Obama, or his people, said they wanted all that brass to be shredded from here on out so we couldn't use it anymore. We got wind of it and our letter writing got that order reversed.

[fl_dem]

31. I agree,

however most homes are broken into when no one is home, when no one is home said weapons should be locked away and not stashed in a drawer, under the bed, in the closet etc..for thieves to find.

[Glassunion]

42. With that I do agree.

My wife and I, when we are home, a loaded firearm is accessible. When we are not home, there is actually very little evidence that we even own firearms. I had the safe company build a save into a wall into a closet in the house. No combo needed, just and rfid tag on our keys.

But we keep everything in it. All of the firearms, ammunition, accessories and reloading equipment is in there. That way someone breaks into the house, they have not idea that there are firearms in the house at all. That is one fear that I do have, is that in the off chance of a break in, someone can get a hold of one of our guns.

[rd_kent]

45. I think you will be hard pressed to find someone that disagrees with you on that.

[rrneck]

19. Concealed carry laws

have been expanding across the country for decades. While firearms ownership has grown, the growth of CCW laws presumes a concerted effort to codify popular consent. I think it's much more than just a flash in the pan response to one presidential election.

[SteveM]

29. Thank you for your response...

Gun-owners can be irresponsible in not securing their weapons. Thankfully, this trend is lessening.

With regards criminals, according to surveys most get them from family members, others from "the street," others by theft, and some (comparatively few) via gun shows. I don't have the data at hand, but it has been covered in these threads.

Children are evidently "safer" than they were some 15 years ago. The National Safety Council reports that during the 10-year period from 1995 - 2005, guns in civilian hands went from some 190,000,000 to nearly 300,000,000; yet, childhood deaths due to gun accidents actually fell during that time period, and fell much faster than the other measured accident categories (electrocution, drowning, falls, etc.). The drop in deaths was a remarkable 40%. (www.outdoorlife.com SEE: "Gun Talk," May, 2007 issue, p. 12) I'm not sure what you are hearing "all the time," but this scenario is played out far less, now.

"...albeit I feel an archaic one that in its time had a place, but a right none the less." Since gun-ownership is mainly used for self-defense, how is this right archaic? Concerning obsolescence, this is what Alan Dershowitz (former ACLU National Board Member) has to say: "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard... They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." Kates & Kleck, THE GREAT AMERICAN GUN DEBATE, 1997.

Concerning the uptick in gun ownership, certainly Obama's positions on gun-control and the Democratic Party Platform call for a wider and permanent "assault weapons ban" (the original had a 10-yr. expiration date) did motivate many to purchase firearms, creating the demand (and higher prices) for ammunition and some firearms -- notably the medium-powered semi-auto carbines dubbed "assault weapons" by gun-control groups. And those political positions remain TO THIS DATE in both Obama's and the DNC's web sites.

One should not overlook other reasons for firearms purchases. It is quite possible that many left-of-center folks have decided to purchase first-time or up-grade to other arms in the face of a very powerful, hostile, and unyielding right-wing extremism; after all, those coffee house rants about how the far right is "going to take over," "repress dissent," "usurp constitutionally-protected rights," etc., may have finally taken hold. We ain't in Oz anymore. Those guys are serious.

Though you didn't bring this up, the violent crime rate in the U.S. has also fallen significantly from 1995 to present. Does this mean that "more guns = less crime?" Not necessarily, but it is within the reasonable realm of possibility criminals may finally be getting the message that many Americans have guns for self-defense, more so than in the recent past.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

[fl_dem]

36. I can only hope the trend continues to lessen.

You asked, Since gun-ownership is mainly used for self-defense, how is this right archaic? Well, we know longer live in the lawless land of the wild west, and savage indians wanted your women and scalps, we have laws, we have a policing agencies etc..that we did not have in the time the 2nd amendment was wrote (1789).This is my opinion, I'm looking for an agreement.

and yes, the extreme right and their ever escalating fanaticism do make me nervous, I have never said never to owning a gun, and do know I out of the upmost respect of the weapon would be a very responsible gun owner,. thank you for your civil rapport!

[SteveM]

38. Your welcome, and thank you...

Concerning the "archaic" nature of the Second Amendment:

(1) While "we no longer live in the lawless land of the wild west," the amount of crime in that space/time continuum was quite exaggerated; in fact, by some estimates, crime "back east" was significantly higher in the post-Civil War period.

(2) I'm not sure about the relevancy of "savage Indians wanting your women and scalps," but in any case, what ever savagery (and wild-west lawlessness) existed was something the average settler did NOT engage in, but quite possibly felt compelled to defend his/her self against.

(3) True, we have laws and "policing agencies... that we did not have in the time the 2nd Amendment was written," but we still have crime and violent attacks, hourly in this country. One of the mistakes made by some is the belief that the police are charged with your protection. They are not. Though some make the effort, LEOs are charged with enforcing the law by apprehending suspects, gathering evidence, and presenting findings to a D.A. for prosecution. Numerous court cases have held that LEOs cannot be held liable for failing to protect citizens promptly (late 9-1-1 responses), or even at all. In short, the first line of defense for the civilian is and always has been his or her own measures. This alone makes the Second relevant to our times.

[X_Digger]

39. Yes we have more police..

.. yet the police have no duty to 'save' you. (see Castle Rock v Gonzales, DeShaney v Winnebago) If the state has no duty to protect the individual, what right does the state have to prohibit the individual from protecting themselves? You can't have it both ways- either the state is responsible for my protection or allow me to protect myself.

Your safety is your responsibility. Each person has to decide how much responsibility their willing to take for themselves and those they love.

[virginia mountainman]

30. Some minor corrections

More and more people in this country are embracing the Second Amendment. Why is that?

IMO, its because the right wing nuts and NRA et al for the last 2 years have been spewing "Obama wants to take your guns away", resulting in people rushing off to purchase every weapon and all the ammo they can get their hands. I have heard this too many times to count "it's Obamas fault bullets cost twice as much as they did last year", my response....uh, its called demand. Its basic economics, not Obama.

First off, the OP, never ONCE, mentioned Obama.....

Secondly, the renaissance the 2nd Amendment is enjoying, has been going on for far longer than the one year Obama has been president....That statement I quoted from your post, is on it face made completely false by the mear fact I just mentioned.

Now the RECENT increase in gun, and ammunition prices, are largly a product of panic buying, and to a lesser degree, recent very high metal prices. But it is not fair, to blame the NRA for all of it...

Eric Holder's dumb ass comments, fueled the fire, when he stated, in FRONT OF A NATIONAL AUDIENCE, "the administration wants to ban assault weapons"

And a brief Internet search, brings up video, upon video clip, of Obama saying things like that, during the campaign, not to mention his voting record on this very subject.

That being said, he has signed more PRO GUN, legislation than Bush-co did...And that is too his credit.

[fl_dem]

34. I thank you Virginia mountainman

I can take constructive critism with the best of them, I am not a gun buff by a long shot (pun intended) I do however hold opinions on such matters that may not be as well versed as most on said subject. thanks for the quick schooling.

[Paladin]

49. Jesus, Fl_Dem: Look At How POLITE They're Being To You!

Well, most of them, anyway.......:)

[old mark]

21. Rec. Thank you. I have had a PA License to Carry a Firearm for over 15 years, have been

shooting since age 10 and I am a lifelong left Democrat and a former Union Steward.

Welcome, and I am happy to see yet another sane Democratic gun owner posting here.

mark