For Gun Owners, Every Day Should Be "Gun Appreciation Day"

Comments

1
Good post, Sarah.
I wonder if the organizers see any irony in using the exact same gun-as-lowercase-"r" image as The Sopranos.
2
When you agree to the same for abortions, I'll agree to the same for my weapons.

Stupid, stupid post Sarah.
3
To make a generalization and say that gun-rights advocates aren't opposed to a laissez faire approach to gun ownership is so stupid it makes my head hurt. This is a typical bullshit way to phrase your argument: unless people are on your side then they clearly don't care about the issues, right?

The number of NRA members accounts for only a TINY sliver of overall gun owners in this country. To use NRA talking points and attribute them to all gun owners is flat out disingenuous. You can't leave this paper soon enough as far as I'm concerned.
4
You had a good grouping there for a while Mirk. You're flinching to the right when you're pulling the trigger. Your finger is probably doing this. Next time you shoot use a .22lr and keep using that until you're getting them into the 7+ ring consistently, then step up to the higher calibers. Those fliers way off target are the start to a bad habit of expecting recoil to hurt you, or you're pulling the trigger and pulling the gun at the same time. You should have no thought of the recoil as you squeeze the trigger, as the recoil will come after the bullet leaves the gun. You’ve got to overcome flinching before it becomes a habit.

Another thing you can try is balancing a penny or another coin on your front sight as you keep the rifle on target and pull the trigger. Try this with an unloaded rifle or pistol, then try it with a loaded rifle or pistol while you’re at the range.

Regarding the laissez-faire ownership, I don’t think there’s much that can be done. No amount of background checks is going to prevent the people who want a gun from getting one. Just look at marijuana. If anything, it’s going to drive more people to breaking laws by purchasing from the black market. Background checks are a good thing for felons convicted by a jury, but I don’t want the state telling a veteran that because they are on disability due to PTSD that they’re too mentally unstable to purchase a gun (the same goes with a victim of a crime). I know a lot of civilians probably think that the government would never say veterans can’t own guns, but the government has called returning veterans “potential terrorists”, and Penn State just released a video about a “dangerous veteran” whose about to commit a school shooting, they’re using this video to train teachers. So, I think my concerns are legitimate.

I like the idea of Gun Appreciation Day, but I’d rather have it on June 19th, and I’d rather have it be a day where people take someone new out shooting.
5
@fidelity: The report actually said that returning veterans who have trouble reintegrating into their communities after returning home are targets for recruiting by right-wing extremist groups. And "potential terrorists" isn't a quote from that report. www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
6
arenit: She didn't say what you're saying she said. She said that gun owners should be against a laissez-faire approach to their ownership. Some already are, which is fine. She never said that most favor a completely laissez-faire approach.
Oh but the angry internet troll who thinks women are liars has a bone to pick with Mirk and is glad she's leaving the paper — HUGE surprise there. It's almost as stupid as Jarhead's tried and true right-wing reaction deployed above: "Oh yeah? Well... ABORTION!"
7
Hey gun owners: contrary to your masturbatory fantasy, owning guns doesn't protect you from either the government or criminals. What owning guns does do is increase the chance that a partner gets shot during a drunk fight, a kid gets shot by accident, or a depressed teenager commits suicide.

And nowadays, it increases the chance that a mentally ill person can raid your little armory to carry out a mass shooting.

Fuck you and fuck your guns.
8
Good post Sarah. You make some very good points.
9
@eldepeche - Dude, page 2: "The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

You are not good at researching things.

Hey gun owners: do you need to victimize someone? Azure is clearly unarmed and defenseless.
10
@fidelity: You say you don't want regulators telling someone suffering from PTSD that they're too unstable to be entrusted with a gun. Too bad that's their call to make, not yours. Many returning veterans suffer from disorders that lead them to kill themselves and/or others. Tens of thousands at least, in the case of vets from the Vietnam War, tragically. It's one of the many seldom-discussed costs of the wars we so "righteously" fight. So where is it written in stone that they should be allowed to obtain weapons and how are your "concerns" legitimate again?
11
Holy shit dude, READ THE BULLET POINT RIGHT BELOW THAT ON THE NEXT PAGE.

"The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of
military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities
could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists
capable of carrying out violent attacks.

-Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans
likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,
as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for
violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and
stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation
of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary
concern to law enforcement.

-Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are
attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to
boost their violent capabilities."
12
@Jarhead. I'm tired of these idiotic ALL OF MY SIDE VERSUS ALL OF YOUR SIDE political arguments. Bill Clinton getting a blowjob doesn't make Obama a bad president. Benghazi doesn't mean we need to lower tax rates.

If you have a problem with abortions, fine. Write your congressman. Talk about your problems with abortion when we're talking about reproduction. Right now, we're talking gun ownership. If you have something not mind-bogglingly stupid to contribute, we're happy to hear it.
13
@geyser – I know this may seem completely foreign to you, but veterans (especially combat veterans) have a particular familiarity and sense of safety associated with weapons. You can imagine where this comes from. The concept and effects of PTSD are still being studied and clinical concerns always evolving. If you start citing PTSD (or any class of mental disorder) as a type of disorder who cannot purchase firearms, then people with PTSD (or any class of mental disorder) will never seek treatment. Moreover, people with PTSD (car crash victims, rape victims, ect…) are not threats to society, even though veterans with PTSD are constantly portrayed that way. It’s a social stigma, totally disconnected from reality, that veterans are uniquely prone to using violence. Intervention by doctors should be done on a case-by-case basis, as the way it is now, there is just few doctors who take the time to report potential users of violence.

@eldepeche – Yes, I’m aware of this report. Are you not comprehending the part where DHS said veterans have a unique potential to become terrorists? I could go on and on about this, I’ve literally given lectures on this topic at PSU – simply understand that governments have long feared and mistreated veterans when they return home because they do not want veterans to gain a foothold in society, only for a short time period was this not the case. Our GI Bill was a direct result of the Bonus Expeditionary Force – a near coup on Washington DC. Following that event, another coup was attempted (Khaki Shirts), and then yet another (Business Plot) – all by veterans. Even George Washington’s men threatened to undo the American revolution and stage a coup. I’m an expert on the history of US veterans social movements, simple take my word for it: the government does not trust veterans, and they do not want us armed, they view us as a threat.
14
Of course PTSD is still being studied. But aside from "PTSD" at its criteria, the fact remains that as many Vietnam veterans killed themselves and/or others after returning home as died in combat in Vietnam.
You said "I know a lot of civilians probably think that the government would never say veterans can’t own guns" Yes, the government would never say anything as stupid and extreme as "veterans can't own guns." Yet another straw-man argument. So what exactly is your point again?
15
I don't know too much about the history here, so I'll have to take your word for it (although now I'm curious to find out more), but on the DHS report, you are totally wrong. The report says that some veterans return from war zones alienated from their prior lives, and that extremist groups seek out veterans to "exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat." That is, extremist groups seek to enhance their capacity for violence by attempting to bring veterans to their cause; to that end, they focus on isolated and alienated veterans because isolated and alienated people are easier to attract to groups outside the mainstream of society.

There is a big difference between "veterans are more likely to become antigovernment terrorists" and "antigovernment terrorists want veterans to become antigovernment terrorists and sometimes they succeed," and the report is pretty carefully worded, despite media reports to the contrary. You are wrong.
16
@eldepeche, I guess you missed that whole "lone wolf" part. Anyways, did you really recieve a college degree?

@geyser, Yes, I guess I positioned my words poorly. The vast majority of the veterans I meet on a daily basis are dealing with acute to large mental health issues, some of which could be categorized as "PTSD" or other issues. Some are extremely mild, and some people seem totally fine until they are triggered by trivial events in their life (military-related disability then manifests), some veterans have nothing wrong at all. The reality is that regardless of the actual issues these veterans are dealing with, their only way to get compensation from the government is to apply for PTSD related disability. There's few other options for people legitimately struggling after their Service. For example, there are non-combat veterans that deal with PTSD, and survivors of military sexual trauma (MST) that receive disability due to PTSD.

I'm concerned that the government could simply throw a blanket of disorders, PTSD being one of them, and due to the negative (and inaccurate) stigma of veterans and PTSD, this would be supported by many people. I’ve never seen the show “Homeland” but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s contributing to this misconception. With this blanket in place, a large portion of the veteran community would be unable to purchase guns. Does that make sense?
17
There are three sections that mention "lone wolf" terrorists, and none of those says that veterans are likely to become lone wolf terrorists. So you can keep trying to insult me, you can quote some other section of the report, or you can admit you didn't read it.
18
@eldepeche - dude, you're hilarious. The sections quoting veterans as potential lone wolf terrorists is quoted twice in this thread alone.

I think you ugly and can't read good.
19
Geyser said: "She said that gun owners should be against a laissez-faire approach to their ownership."

I said: "To make a generalization and say that gun-rights advocates aren't opposed to a laissez faire approach to gun ownership is so stupid it makes my head hurt."

Most gun owners ARE opposed to a laissez faire approach. She made a blanket statement saying gun owners are NOT opposed to it, I corrected her. Please learn basic comprehension skills before attempting to snark.
20
@Geyser - I don't give a fuck about abortion. I only use it as an illustration because many in the the Left view it as the Holy Grail of Civil Rights. Well, guess what - many, many firearms owners view the 2nd Amendment as important as the 1st. It is a simple thing to cite if you the Left to get "all wee-wee'ed up."

@Aestro - What the fuck, over? Who said anything about Bill Clinton or Obummer? Put the bong down dude.

@Azure - The largest muzzle of any of the weapons I own is 45/100ths of an inch wide; That ought to fit you dick rather nicely...

21
@azure: As someone who doesn't own a gun but grew up with guns, you're argument is rather lacking. Not everyone who owns a gun has a "masturbatory fantasy." Many gun owners use them for very practical reasons, like feeding their families (i.e.: folks who kill deer for food b/c there are so many of them, and it's a delicious and sustainable source of protein for people who are too poor to buy grass fed beef). So, it's really not enough to say, "Fuck you and fuck your guns." It might be snappy, but it doesn't get you anywhere.
22
Oh, my. This thread has become a beast unto it's own. All I gotta say is that you really can't liken gun ownership to pot legalization (like @fidelity_axiom did in his original post: "Just look at marijuana. If anything, it’s going to drive more people to breaking laws by purchasing from the black market.") Yes, that may be true, but marijuana isn't a full clip of bullets that can kill someone in a second.

Then the argument just progressed to some kind of argument about veterans and their rights which seemed completely tangential to the point at hand.

What I think, ultimately, is that people should be able to shoot guns and enjoy guns with the proper background checks. I like guns. They are good and useful in a variety of situations.

But do we really need assault rifles that can kill a bunch of people all at once? I think not. And I say this as someone who grew up with guns and who grew up to mistrust the government like a good liberal turned radical. If you want a big gun that can shoot a lot of rounds all at once, then you probably just want to shoot at caged animals on Ted Nugent's ranch. And where's the sport in that?
23
The Founders intent for citizens being armed is to ensure that they had the ability to fight a tyrannical government. Not to hunt, not to target shoot, but to defend yourself against those that would take your liberty.

And, as been explained a couple dozen times here before, AR-15's fire in a semi-automatic mode. They *aren't* "Assault Rifles." For it to be an assault rifle, it has to fire fully automatic. To have a fully automatic weapon you have to have a Class III license from the Fed's and a rather expensive tax stamp for each weapon.

All the AR-15 variants in circulation are "Sporting Rifles." Theres a big differnece between the two.And, no one has "to have a need" to excercise any Civil Right granted by the U.S. Consititution.
24
@arenit. You write, "Most gun owners ARE opposed to a laissez faire approach. She made a blanket statement saying gun owners are NOT opposed to it, I corrected her."

No, she did NOT say that, as I already pointed out. In fact, she didn't say anything about what most gun owners are are for or against. Her comment was about what gun-rights advocates should advocate. But go ahead, quote the blanket statement where she said gun owners are for a laissez-faire approach. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about and lack the very comprehension skills you're ranting at me about.
25
@jarhead: Your comments make no sense and are annoying and irrelevant. No on here is talking about abortion except you, so if you don't care about it, don't bring it up. "The Left" is vague and irrelevant in the context of a national discussion about gun control, and the 1st and 2nd amendments are apples and oranges anyway. The fact that you even brought it up is another pathetic example of trying to score political points via, "Oh yeah? Well... ABORTION!!!!1!!1"
26
Geyser - *One more (fucking) time: I don't give a shit about abortion. It just makes some on the Left have fucking *harmonic tremors* when you mention it. You know...folks like *you*...

Go get yourself laid, it'll do you some good.
27
You brought it up, friend. I'm not having any tremors or asterisk fits. You are.
You also brought it up as an example of 1st Amendment rights. Roe v. Wade was decided on 9th, 13th, and 14th Amendment grounds, not the 1st. Your comments here are so silly that you come across like a liberal troll doing a caricature of an ignorant right-winger.