I'm a proud knife owner

[Uzair]

Does that sound silly to you?

How about, I'm a proud grenade owner. I'm a proud crossbow owner. I'm a proud bazooka owner. I'm a proud mace owner. I'm a proud sword owner. I'm a proud nunchuck owner.

Do you gun lovers realize just how sick you sound when you blubber on about your lethal weapons? They're inanimate objects designed to kill people. They're not tools, they're weapons. They're not special, you have no fundamental right to have them, and your vice is enabling the deaths of 30,000 people a year.

Grow up.

[99th_Monkey]

1. Great point. +1000

[sarisataka]

3. Good one

[pintobean]

2. You appear to be proud to exercise you 1st amendment rights.

[Paladin]

9. Get back to us when a DU post wipes out a room full of kids, and we'll talk. (nt)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. What about books?

[mac56]

46. Godwin much?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. You're saying that book *hasn't* inspired mass-murder?

Or is it because it happens to be Mein Kampf it's an easy out?

Fine. Let's go with Mao's Little Red Book and The Communist Manifesto.

[Cleita]

79. Oh really, Godwin again?

There's much to learn from history and particularly THAT history. "Mein Kampf" actually lays in part Hitler's plan for taking over the communications of that time, which he does successfully, to spread propaganda. He claims to have learned his propaganda techniques from us and the Brits. Does Godwin know that? It seems that our present day media through Fox, and various print and broadcast media would have made the old boy proud.

[Pelican]

147. Fair enough...

How about...



or...

[Dash87]

58. Mein Kampf didn't kill anyone. Hitler did.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. A distinction that makes no difference.

[Dash87]

64. One is a book and one is a human. That's a pretty big difference.

Mein Kampf is just a collection of words. Words cannot possibly physically kill someone.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

72. Hitler didn't physically kill anyone either. He used his word, spoken and written,

to get others to kill on his behalf.


Everyone who was inspired by Mein Kampf, raise your right hand!





Tragically, those they hunted down were told they were not allowed to own guns and I suppose if they said they wanted to own guns anyway they would be shouted down as anti-government, child-murder loving, barrel-stroking paranoids with delusions of heroism.

[Cleita]

80. Oh, but he did. First Eva Braun and then himself. n/t

[Dash87]

106. Many murderous monsters in history didn't physically kill anyone, but

ordering your subordinates to kill is the same thing. It's minor semantics.

[Hekate]

110. They also burned great piles of books from personal libraries and public libraries

I call BS on the guns.

I have seen photos of book-burnings, but not gun-burnings. What would it have been -- a thousand murdered books to each gun taken? A hundred-thousand murdered Jews and Gypsies to each hundred guns taken?

Gimme a break.

The Nazis were far more afraid of the ability to THINK than they were of anything else.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

116. He used the book to kill millions -- after he had them disarmed.

On any given day on DU we can find endless screeds about how voting against gay marriage is the moral equivalent of endorsing anti-gay hate crimes, how Christianity inspires hatred and violence, about hate radio and stochastic terrorism. Over and over and over again people claim the words of the political opposition are inspirations to physical violence.

And now, the anti-self defense faction comes flooding forward with defense after defense after defense of Mein Kampf and how it could not possibly be held responsible for the atrocities of WWII because it's just a book.

No person ever picked-up a gun and had that gun tell them to kill Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals. No gun ever commanded armies to invade nations. These were the ideations of a murderous man who also committed his ideas to printed word and published and distributed those words to inspire others to do his bidding. The lie cannot be repeated often enough to become the truth unless it is printed and broadcasted. Hundreds of millions died in the 20th century over Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto and Mao's Little Red Book and yet our right to speak freely and openly is -- properly -- sacrosanct.

And yet, somehow, to retain the power to resist those who are inspired to murder by these books we are told is an act of hate towards our fellow citizens.

[Crunchy Frog]

143. Hey wait a minute. If they were armed in the first place,

then they should have had the capacity to defend themselves against being disarmed, and protect themselves against the regime. That's ultimately what gun rights are about isn't it? Defending yourself against tyranny? Seems it wasn't so effective.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

150. Perhaps, but that means a civil resistance and perhaps conflict in opposition to

any law that infringes on ownership.

Any such suggestion is greeted on DU with hoots and cat-calls that those fundie RW Teahadists are anti-government terrorists who should be disarmed and/or craven cowards who will curl into a fetal position if federal troops confront them.

[ET Awful]

148. Ummm. . . Hitler didn't disarm the populace. In fact, the only legislation passed under his regime

regarding guns eased restrictions set in place prior to his coming to power.

Try again.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

149. The Jewish population of Germany was disarmed by the Nazi regime

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

[billh58]

193. Sorry to burst

your little right-wing bubble, but this has been debunked numerous times:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

I know, these are all NRA-banned, Rush Limbaugh-debunked, left-wing, Liberal, anti-American sources, but facts are facts, so it boils down to whether you want the truth or a NRA-promoted myth.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

195. Your first link addresses a specific quote that I never cited

The second link notes that while the 1928 law was meant to keep the Nazis and other paramilitary groups disarmed the Nazis were elected into power and once in power maintained the law once targeted towards them.

This does nothing to dismiss the assertion that the Nazis used gun control to disarm their enemies. It doesn't matter if they passed the laws. Another red herring the article throws out says the populace was controlled by the Gestapo. Well, yes, that is true but that's the point, isn't it? An armed populace is harder to push around with an apparatus such as the Gestapo.

The final red herring is to say the Jews weren't heavily armed before the genocide commenced. This too does nothing to refute the assertion that armed populaces can better resist tyranny.

As for the salon.com article, it actually proves my point --

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not. These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns don’t kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide).

As a matter of fact I read this article at the time it was published.

After the section I emphasized the article descends into red herrings engorged on straw men. The fact remains, the Nazis allowed their own to possess guns but they imposed gun control on those they intended for mass slaughter. Ditto African slaves in America; the whites were allowed to own guns but slaves were not. Nobody wants an intended victim to be easily armed.

And then it descends into baseless supposition --

Besides, Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he told Salon.

Oh, well, then it futile so they should just passively be herded off to the camps. What rot!

Meanwhile, the even more modern US military was given a run for its money in Iraq by 40,000 insurgents and suffered through The Tet Offensive. Libya overthrew its dictator and the Syrian rebels -- not that I root for them -- encroach on Damascus perhaps even in the teeth of chemical attacks.

One minute we're told fighting guerrillas is futile and then the next minute we're told fighting as guerrillas is futile. it sounds more like a matter of personal agenda than any accounting of the facts at hand.

[billh58]

198. Again, your right-wing paranoia

is showing. What you are claiming is that our system of government is so weak that it would be vulnerable to a dictator taking over and disbanding the Congress and the SCOTUS. That is ridiculous, and we ALL know it.

You, and your "cold dead hands" NRA apologists go on to assert that only you and your AR-15s can prevent such a takeover. Your assertion that the German Jews could have prevented the Holocaust if only they were armed is as disingenuous as it is preposterous.

The reason that hardly anyone in America takes you people seriously is that you run around spouting such inane bullshit, and dragging Hitler from his grave to make your wildly outrageous points. And please don't give me that NRA-standard slight-of-hand that you speak for ALL American gun owners, and that they vote as a bloc. You don't, and they do not. The claim that we need to kiss the collective asses of 20% of American voters (gun owners) is bullshit, because at least half of them agree with gun control -- including registration -- as shown by recent polls.

Go on and have the last word, but the NRA-inspired myth that Hitler was able to kill so many people because he disarmed the Jews is just that: an NRA-inspired myth aimed making people afraid and suspicious of their government in order to sell more guns.

See ya Bubba...

[frylock]

82. do you conceal carry books for your "protection?"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. Guns can used for protection from people who read Mein Kampf.

[Dash87]

105. Some people read Mein Kampf for an insight into history as well.

The book itself is not evil, just the man who wrote it (and the ideas within it). The book is just a piece of paper with words on it. It's main purpose is not to destroy, and therefore can't be compared to something which has destruction as a purpose (gun)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

114. "The book itself is not evil, just the man who wrote it (and the ideas within it)"

Yes, well, obviously I could never have meant the ideas within it; I just meant the cover -- obviously.

Good grief.

[Dash87]

123. You called the book itself bad, but whatever. You compared it to a gun.

Comparing ideas to a gun is even more absurd. I was just responding to what you said.

If you need to get snippy and sarcastic, you've already lost the argument.

[Crunchy Frog]

144. When?

And I'm talking about individual gun ownership, not militaries armed by states.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

151. The Warsaw ghetto uprising comes to mind.

[bobclark86]

159. Yup... they killed 17 of them Nazis...

...and lost 13,000 themselves.

Yup, that worked really well...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

167. Feel free to walk obediently to whatever fate decided for you

but that doesn't give you the right to tell others they must accept the same.

[bobclark86]

168. Wait...

I point out the fallacy that small arms protect people from tanks and dive bombers, and you interpret that as... what? That I support Nazis?

Yeah, I'm not even going to dignify that with a real response other than this: Ignore.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

178. "...what? That I support Nazis?"

Not even close. I noted that such a mindset leaves one to passively accept their fate. One need not support the Nazis to give a resigned shrug and tell their victims that resistance is pointless. They fought for their lives and their families. That alone is to be commended even if they ultimately lost the fight.

And if small arms are so useless against modern military weapons then what of all the insurgencies we've seen? What of the Libyan and Syrian civil wars?

[pintobean]

91. Some might.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uLt7lXDCHQ0#t=117s

[Hekate]

112. As a proud book owner I carry a book with me wherever I go.

Concealed carry, open carry -- in your face! In public!

[frylock]

127. you book toters are just starving for attention, aren't you?

what, you too good to carry a backpack?

[JVS]

129. Concealed books? You mean like "book learning"?

[Fearless]

154. Mein Kampf is a book not a gun.

[Thor_MN]

93. Of all the people that died during WWII, I doubt any of them were killed with a copy of ANY book

I suppose you could kill someone by hitting them repeatedly with a large book. Maybe stuff it down someone's throat. Of course, that's not what books are designed for, so it's a pretty damn inefficient way to kill someone, not to mention they are going to get a chance to fight back...

[BainsBane]

95. +1

[Nuclear Unicorn]

115. I've never seen so many people work so hard to be so obtuse.

[Thor_MN]

121. Obtuse?

You replied to
"Get back to us when a DU post wipes out a room full of kids, and we'll talk. (nt)" with "What about Books?" and a picture of "Mien Kampf".

Believe me, it was not hard at all to point out how ridiculous that assertion was. The fact that several people have done likewise lends an air of credibility to the whole endeavor, doesn't it?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

125. No, it just points out how many work so hard to be so dull-witted.

Obviously words lead to mass-murder and war. No gun ever killed anyone but itself. A gun can only be used for unjust war and murder if the people holding them have the idea to use them for war and murder. That is what Mein Kampf did; but you know this and so does everyone else pretending so hard to not see the obvious point.

Who would you rather have as a neighbor -- a man who idolized Mein Kampf or a man who idolized Gandhi? If you were surrounded by a nation that idolized Mein Kampf would you want to be unarmed?

[Thor_MN]

133. I'm thinking you may need a mirror...

One could kill with an encyclopedia as well as Mien Kampf, neither are designed specifically for that purpose, unlike a firearm, which is expressly designed to kill.

Words COULD lead one to commit murder, but the actual murder is committed with a weapon, be it a firearm, edged weapon, bare hands, etc. I'm not sure how a gun could kill itself, that just plain doesn't make any sense. A gun can be used for suicide or used to accidentally kill a child or family member without any rational thought or words used at all. Your entire premise that firearms are the innocent victims of words is ridiculous.

I do not fear my neighbor's thoughts. If I did, I would probably move to a remote area and booby trap the hell out of my property, as well as maintain and fondle an arsenal, just in case they did come for my best friends... it's hard to find individuals of their caliber.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

152. "Words COULD lead one to commit murder, but the actual murder is committed with a weapon"

No weapon ever committed murder. It's wielder first had the idea to commit murder. Without the idea the weapon is just a thing that lies there unable to move on it's own.

I do not fear my neighbor's thoughts. If I did, I would probably move to a remote area and booby trap the hell out of my property, as well as maintain and fondle an arsenal...

Do you fondle your car's seatbelts?

[Thor_MN]

156. Where did I say that weapons commit murder?

I said that murder is committed WITH a weapon. You quoted me, so please don't claim that you misunderstood. I know that you know the word obtuse, you used it in a previous post.

You are choosing to ignore suicide and accidental death, it's kind of hard to claim that books lead children into shooting their siblings or themselves, that books lead people into the depression that causes them to take their own lives. Drunken fights that lead to death are rather difficult to lay at the feet of the published word as well. Firearms were killing long before literacy rates approached even 50%. Misfires have killed people with absolutely no thought of actually pulling a trigger.

As previously pointed out, your notion that firearms are the innocent victims of evil books is laughable.

Seatbelts are a really odd non sequitur in the discussion of your theory of books causing murder and death. I'm not going to bother answering nonsensical questions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

163. I never maintained books were the mechanical means of killing

and yet I find myself deluged with posts saying you can't use a book as an effective weapon.

You are choosing to ignore suicide and accidental death, it's kind of hard to claim that books lead children into shooting their siblings or themselves, that books lead people into the depression that causes them to take their own lives. Drunken fights that lead to death are rather difficult to lay at the feet of the published word as well. Firearms were killing long before literacy rates approached even 50%. Misfires have killed people with absolutely no thought of actually pulling a trigger.

I am not ignoring them. I am not obligated to account for every facet of a discussion in every single post. This sub-thread started when it was pointed-out -- correctly -- that people who choose to safeguard their right to self-defense are no different than those who safeguard their right to free speech. It was commented -- erroneously -- that words do not cause mass-murder; I illustrated plainly how this was not the case.

But if you insist making false accusations and asserting topics not a part of the original discussion into your effort to revive your argument then I will not shy away.

Accidental deaths would be greatly mitigated by not treating weapons as the taboo never to be discussed. De-mystify them and make education on how to deal with firearms the norm. Yet, those who fear guns contribute the problem as assuredly as those who fear human sexuality contribute to the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies when they assert ignoring the problem will make it go away. Teach children, "DON'T TOUCH THE GUN! Leave and report it to a responsible adult. Teach teens and adults that all guns are to be assumed loaded at all time, keep your finger off the trigger and never point it at anything you aren't prepared to destroy."

You want help for the mentally distressed? Then do it. Disarming them isn't help if you leave the underlying malady untreated. If they were relieved of their mental illnesses then owning guns, knives or whatever wouldn't be an issue as people who are not metally ill do not have homicidal or suicidal ideations.

If you want to discuss alcohol and substance abuse then by all means, let's discuss it. Let's discuss why there is this mania to ban semi-auto rifles that claim fewer than 300 lives a year but alcohol alone is prevelant in 3 MILLION crimes annually. But guess what? People who don't have substance abuse issues tend to act responsibly around firearms.

It looks like we've come full circle. One side asserts its right to defend itself from tyrants, murderers and the violently unstable. The other side asserts that the tyrants, murderers and unstable can be left as they are so long as those who are not tyrants, murderers and violently unstable are disarmed while refusing to address what makes people tyrannical, murderous and violently unstable.

That's an interesting recipe for, A Better World.

[Thor_MN]

174. Wow, just wow...

"pointed-out -- correctly -- that people who choose to safeguard their right to self-defense are no different than those who safeguard their right to free speech."

The comment you replied to asked when a DU post has ever killed a roomful of children. You leap in to defend firearms, saying that poor little weapons are the mere plaything of evil powerful words. The only thing you illustrated was a picture of "Mein Kampf". I need nothing to revive my arguement, we are discussing your fantasy that weapons are the innocent victims of words. People defending their First Amendment rights tend not be very good at doing it with bullets. People defending their Second Amendment rights tend not to be very good at doing it with words.

Holy false equivalences Batman!!

I'm still not sure what you meant by "No gun ever killed anyone but itself" or that comment about seatbelts... the wild ass topics that have been brought into the discussion have not come from my keyboard...

Firearm education would be a good thing. The notion that it can not occur alongside common sense regulation is asinine.

Likewise, treating mental illness and substance abuse is not mutually exclusive to, yeah, you guessed it, common sense regulation.

People do not need to fear guns to call for regulation.

The only person that has mentioned semi-auto rifles is ...

The "tyrants, murderers and the violently unstable" of which you appear to live in fear, if they even exist, can be addressed as a completely separate issue from common sense regulation of firearms. There does not need to be a complete, total solution that fixes every single aspect of modern society. We can work at parts of the problem, individually. The firearm community has proven itself incapable of self regulation. If those that own and enjoy firearms (myself included, surprize!!) can not keep them out of the hands that would use them for evil, then the government is going to have to do it. If we can't keep innocent people safe, we are going to have to address the things that we can control. We have to start somewhere. Throwing our hands in the air and saying "Books made them do it!! We can't do anything about the poor little guns!!" doesn't solve anything.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

179. What weapon can kill without first having a mind motivated by the idea of killing?

[Thor_MN]

203. Most weapons do not have minds...

I suppose you could say guided weapons have an electronic "brain", but the weapon doesn't actually has a mind. One could create an autonomous weapon and give it the ability to fire on it's own accord, but as far as I know no one has been stupid enough to actually deploy one yet.

If I try real hard to infer what you maybe meant to ask, I would say that a handgun sitting on a bedside table, grabbed by a small child can result in a death, even though there was no evil book that gave the child the idea to kill. A weapon is designed to kill, it is it's intended purpose and there need be no book, nor thought at all for it to serve it's purpose.

(You do know that "Mein Kampf" didn't actually cause WWII, don't you? A rather ridiculous assertion on your part, I haven't brought that up yet. If the book were as deadly as you claim, it would still be killing people today. We should be locking up all copies of the book if it had a miniscule fraction of the abilities that you have assigned to it.)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

204. Good grief

1. I'm not addressing negligience but deliberate acts. That is not to discount negligience but negligience is not a basis for banning legitimate use; to wit --

2. No one said Main Kampf started WW2. That is a fiction spun from your own mind. I said the ideas within Mein Kampf motivated those who engaged in mass-slaughter; a book was used to express and spread those ideas.

But no one would say that books must be regulated even though books were used to deliberately spread the ideas of deliberate murder.

So if a the ideas spread in a book can motivate people to engage in a war that kills tens of millions (and the tens of millions more that died on the altars to Marx and Mao) but still we safeguard freedom of the press then we should not even allow negligience to deprive us of the means to defend ourselves from those who deliberately do harm.

[Thor_MN]

205. Do you ever stop to consider that no one is agreeing with you?

That everyone saying you are wrong might actually mean something?

1, If you are so adamant about protecting the poor little firearms, you own the negligent as well a deliberate acts. You also own all the people that are good law abiding people, until they go and shoot up a scholl. They belong to you, you are defending their rights to obtain firearms

2 "Hundreds of millions died in the 20th century over Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto and Mao's Little Red Book" Your words, not mine.

It must be awful to be so afraid that one feels they must be armed to defend oneself against "Them."

[Hekate]

108. I'm a proud book owner -- got cases and cases of them -- me and mine will be well-defended...

... against the next Dark Ages. At least none of us will have to get into a battle of wits unarmed.

I come from a long line of proud book owners. We wuz pore but proud of our book-larnin' -- in fact I come from about 5 generations of school-marms who would probably thump me with a book for the outrageous use of English in this paragraph.

I was told you should never sit on a book -- that might be because it would make you a smartass.

I guess our family motto might be: Live by the book, live by the book.

So far none of us had died from having books in the house, although we are well-advised to bolt the bookcases to the walls in case of earthquakes.

Hekate

[Hekate]

146. For you proud knife-owners: know that book owners can be sharp witted, too.

That is all.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

98. In theory it could.

Words are the most lethal of weapons in the right/wrong hands. There are countless recorded incidents where one speech or one book, or even just one page in a book has caused great loss of life.

Many people have no idea what the power of words can have, can do.

[cyberswede]

188. Otto...here boy...

lunch time!

[pintobean]

189. Juror #4

didn't pass the IQ test.

[cyberswede]

190. It takes all kinds, I guess.

[Uzair]

196. No other nation on Earth has a "right" to own weapons

Stop changing the subject. This is not about the first amendment, this is about the second amendment. I'm sorry to see that people took your bait. I wish everybody would stop falling into this typical NRA talking point trap. Stick to the issue.

The second amendment is BULLSHIT. It is the single cause of all of the problems regarding this issue. No sane gun law can possibly be passed without it getting in the way. Furthermore, it has created an idiotic gun culture where children are brainwashed into thinking owning a gun is some kind of fundamental human right. This includes you, obviously, and I'm sorry that you haven't yet figured out that becoming an adult usually requires questioning much of the bullshit told to you by your parents when you were young and impressionable.

Maybe instead of harping on this childish notion that you think you have a right to own a gun, you ought to address the fact that an average of 60 people are killed by guns every year in the UK. In Japan, it's close to ZERO. Are you going to contend that Japan has a less violent history than America? Are you going to say they play fewer violent video games and watch fewer violent movies? Tell me, WHAT IS IT about Japan that they have virtually no gun crime?

I'll answer for you. It's because they have tough, regularly enforced gun laws. They solved the gun problem. There is no gun debate. Do what they did, or continue to have 30000 people a year killed by guns.

[pintobean]

197. I don't think I have a right to own a gun

I know I do.

Disagreeing with you isn't childish, nor is it a sign of having bad parents. Resorting to such insults is extremely arrogant and weak.

I'm sorry to see that people took your bait

That's what I've thought about every post you've made in your short history here.

[Buzz Clik]

4. It's the proud part you don't like.

Ok.

[badtoworse]

5. Yawn!!

[premium]

6. Just more of the same.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. You make an excellent point

Welcome to DU, Uzair

[Common Sense Party]

11. He does?

Where?

[premium]

13. At the tip of the knife. nt.

[Common Sense Party]

15. I dunno.

Seems a bit dull to me.

[premium]

17. I agree,

matter of fact, the idea behind this thread is dull.

[Eleanors38]

35. Just checked mine -- it's not there.

[99th_Monkey]

81. Yes he does. Here's where.

The word "pride" and/or "proud" have been bandied about for decades as a suffix
to indicate a deliberate inversion of shame, to de-shame and humanize the social
status of a genuinely oppressed minority, e.g. black-pride, gray-pride, gay pride,
et. al..

The NRA, along with their legions of armed-to-the-teeth dangerously deranged minions,
do NOT -- I repeat do NOT -- constitute any legitimate kind of "oppressed minority",
and there is no reason to be "proud" of any of their role in blazing the sorry-ass bloody
trail of tears and torn bodies created by our collective political failure to adequately
regulated firearms.

[noiretextatique]

92. excellent answer

no way in hell are gun owners, conservatives, teabaggers, christians, etc., remotely "oppressed," despite their constantly whining to the contrary.

[Common Sense Party]

99. Balderdash and nonsense.

I do not see responsible gun owners crowing on the rooftops about how they are oppressed or how they equate their struggle to civil rights. Maybe you do. I'd like to see who here is claiming they are a "proud gun owner".

The rest of your post was the usual derogatory nonsense and name-calling, and does not merit a response.

[Hekate]

113. Oh please, you made me LOL

They're everywhere, even here.

[Common Sense Party]

119. Point me toward some.

[truebluegreen]

132. Well, we're looking at one...

[Common Sense Party]

141. What? In your living room? Don't be daft. nt

[truebluegreen]

155. ?

Daft? Whatevs.

But I suppose you will claim that any gun owners whinging about being oppressed are not responsible gun owners so that what you said was true and not fatuously incorrect.

[octothorpe]

8. Gun owners feel they are under attack by people wanting to take their right to own a gun away....

Not many people want to take away peoples' ability to own knives. So perhaps the difference is similar to why it's often times viewed acceptable for someone to say "I'm a proud black man", but someone saying "white pride" or that they are "proud to be white" is viewed less positively. One the surface, word for word, they are the same, but the meaning/history/purpose/back story is what differentiates the two instances. Which in the case of guns, is the on going debate about how gun owners either are or are not insane anti-social psychopaths who hate humanity. That language isn't too far off from some of the arguments I heard, so I kinda understand why gun owners get defensive and phrases like "proud to be a gun owner" get thrown around (even though I tend to be in favor of stricter gun control)

That being said, I think being proud of owning a gun is strange and doesn't make any sense. However, I also find a lot of things that people claim they are proud of doesn't make sense to me.

[EOTE]

36. Not too many people want to take away anyone's right to own guns.

They DO want sensible regulations in place. Something that the paranoid gun nuts confuse for complete and total banning. Any "proud gun owner" is an idiot. You shouldn't be proud of tools/weapons that you buy, especially when their sole purpose is to kill.

[octothorpe]

61. I find following the gun debates here on DU difficult

because I rarely see any actual debate about what people want/wish. Instead I just see people calling each other names and trying to play the whole "haha I gotcha" type game. To be honest, I don't get why DUers are so hostile toward each other about gun control. I figured most Duers are in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals via background checks and registries... In fact, I haven't seen any pro-gunners argue against any such regulations/rules (although I don't read every post on DU)

I have a seen a few posts advocating complete banning of all guns by private citizens and some very hostile tone against anyone who owns a gun. At that point it seems to become more of a religious battle vs an actual debate. So you get those weird statements about people being proud to own guns (Which I interpret as unashamed to own a gun)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

97. Gun owners aren't ALL "insane anti-social psychopaths who hate humanity"...

Some of them are using their guns as an extension of their penis.

.....just sayin'...

[FreeEmily]

184. Just sayin...

Can I use a gun as an extention of my vagina? Just askin?...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

187. Depends on the caliber....

You don't want to aim a huge hole at someone.

[haele]

104. I can see "proud of being a good shot", but I agree "Proud of owning a gun" is odd.

Owning a gun is not an activity that should make one proud anymore than owning a really nice clawhead hammer, a 55lb pull yew longbow and two dozen store-bought arrows, or even owning a car is.
A gun owner hasn't any major adversity or overcome odds by going into a store and plopping down a couple hundred dollars (even if the store owner checked for a criminal background), or getting something passed down to him or her.

Unless the person making such a statement wants to suggest that having a gun is a symbol requiring status respect or something that others should aspire to have? I've heard the "proud gun owner" statement used many times in these forums and IRL to imply "All you non-gun owners are losers with a capitol L and don't know S**t about how great I am to be protecting you from..." - well, whatever it is that those "proud gun owners" are supposed to be protecting the rest of us from.

Sort of like saying "I'm a proud patriot" often conveys expectations of some sort of extra-special citizenship rights to the person making that claim.

I don't know. Proud you're a good shot, I can see that. Proud you are actively practicing safe gun ownership - I can sort of see that. Plenty of people out there with guns that think a gun makes them larger than life and swagger around waiting on trouble.
If you know that a gun is a tool created only to cause holes to be made in objects at a distance and are responsible in the way you store and handle that tool, then I'd certainly grant you a reason to feel proud.

But just proud because you have quick access to any gun - or number of guns - whenever you want? Unless it's a hand-made one of a kind model, or can multi-task by turning into a pup-tent, a fire-starter, and a tire-inflation device, I'm not sure that "proud" is the right adjective to describe the feeling of having it.

Haele

(Hey, I'm proud I got a marksman's ribbon in 1980 when I qualified for my ship's security force - having never shot anything but bow and arrow previously!)

[Boom Sound 416]

183. Well said nt

[Common Sense Party]

10. What's a nunchuck? Some sort of catapult for Catholic sisters?

Yes, you do sound silly.

I'm not a "proud" gun owner any more than I am a "proud" shovel owner, fire extinguisher owner, or kitty cat owner.

It is my choice--not yours--for me to own a gun, which is my right as a citizen. It is no vice, and my guns don't kill anyone, nor do my shovel, my fire extinguisher or my lazy cats.

If this is the type of "civil discourse" you engage in on a regular basis, then I suggest you take your own last line advice.

[badtoworse]

19. Nunchuch - Hilarious! I agree with the rest of your post.

[Eleanors38]

37. I guess his "civil discourse" is par for the GD/META course.

[hack89]

12. Your entire post sounds silly, not just the title.

grow up.

[pintobean]

24. "There is no gun debate"

said the OP in another thread. Yet, talking about guns is all I've seen from him/her.

[Blue Owl]

14. A powerful NKA lobby sounds even dumber.

[we can do it]

16. I love my cat

[one_voice]

18. .

[spooky3]

138. I'm a proud owner of two non-killer kittehs. Does that count?

[we can do it]

194. I'd say so

[Cali_Democrat]

20. Jury Results

I'm a proud knife owner
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022748384

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This new member of DU is writing increasing antagonistic OPs that appear to be directed at DU gun owners. We can talk about this issue at DU without being uncivil toward one another. I ask to hide this OP because I see him/her being increasingly disruptive on DU and so that MIRT can take a look at this new member.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 24, 2013, 04:30 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Par for the course for the anti-gunners. They have never read "How to Win Friends and Influence People." While this is of course antagonistic and childish, I can't really justify hiding it. Better to engage this low-count poster in dialogue and show that gun owners are not thin-skinned hot heads.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: While nearing the "line" it doesn't look like the poster crossed it in my opinion - recommend monitoring the poster for future complaints/alerts to his/her posts.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This post is awesome. Gun nut alerter needs to take a hike.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The poster is being neither disruptive or uncivil, simply examining an issue from another angle. He/she does not violate any community standards.

I get the impression that the person who sent the alert is making this a personal issue and/or project.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: I think the direct attack using "you" is antagonistic. re: "Do you gun lovers realize just how sick you sound..."
The message could be expressed more objectively. Since new member it is important for them to learn the rules.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Eleanors38]

40. "Par for the course for the anti-gunners." Right on the nose...

And there is little to suggest stuff like this will be hidden. As long as it is from a controller/banner.

[Cali_Democrat]

47. " little to suggest stuff like this will be hidden"

Because this is DU....a Democratic and Progressive message board. I'm sure if someone posted this same post on Free Republic, it would promptly be hidden and the poster would be banned.

Just sayin'



BTW...I like juror # 3

[Eleanors38]

66. Nothing progressive about being anti-gun...

"The Constitution of the United States guarantees to you the right to bear arms…You have the unquestioned right, under the law, to defend your life and protect the sanctity of your fireside. Failing in either, you are a coward and a craven and undeserving of the name of man.” — Eugene V. Debs

Maybe his "progressivism" is a little strong for you. Maybe Gandhi... oops, you don't want to go there.

Just sayin'

[Cali_Democrat]

74. You're the one complaining about DU posts.

The problem for you is that the overwhelming majority of Progressives believe in gun control and common sense gun laws...and that goes for a vast majority of DUers as well.

Perhaps the gun huggers would be more comfortable on another message board where posts like the OP's are promptly removed. Free Republic, Red State, etc.

Posts like the OP's are quite prevalent on DU. Get used to it because the same sentiment exists on Kos and other left of center websites also.

Don't like it? Too bad.

You certainly won't be changing any minds 'round these parts and that's a good thing.

[Eleanors38]

83. Now, Cali, from one progressive to another...

My complaints are about the uncivil, mean-spirited, hateful posts. Unless you believe otherwise, they have no place on DU (or in normal social contexts).

You have set up a number of small straw midgets: I don't know of anybody on DU, or even in the "gungeon" who doesn't believe in some form of gun control, esp. with regards to criminals and possession. You would agree?

Actually, I'm comfortable right here. And Cali, I intend on staying right here.

What has actually happened is that a rather small group of DUers has decided to legitimize stigmatization, smear and hate speech. It's not prevalent, and imo the majority of folks (pro or con) are tired of hearing it in what has become the de facto META. (I wonder how long this "gun exception" will last? Have any idea?) You can try to excuse this kind of language against fellow progressives, but it is not becoming. Some controller/banners have found a not-so-secret place to act like, well, the idiots who always yell "_________ lovers." Do you support this?

You can hope I won't be changing any minds; I guess anyone who thinks they are changing minds may have a little more hubris than is warranted. But look at the my-way-or-highway "activist" group: They couldn't handle the heat on DU, so they had to form their own tailor-made, brook-no-opposition "group." Why did they do that?

Your hope, and this is worth 2 beers at HH price, is to employ the thin but elitist structure of the gun-control "outlook" in an effort to just get the whole OPEN-DEBATE over guns thrown out, by banning any discussion in GD or in the RKBA group, and allow only party-line posting in the rather moribund "activist" group. This would be a better strategy than smear, animosity, demonizing, etc. since stigmatization is often unsuccessful, and marks a decline in vitality of an outlook.

BTW, I'm glad to see Omaha Steve is back.

[Cali_Democrat]

111. So your complaint is that the posts are mean, uncivil and hateful...

You also accuse DUers of using stigmatization, smear and hate speech.

The one main knock on gunners is that they are sensitive, delicate flowers whose feelings are easily hurt.

Don't feed the stereotype.

Toughen up. This is a message board and you need thick skin.

[Eleanors38]

160. Interesting, it seems the main objective of controllers/banners...

...is dimunition of others with whom they disagree. Nothing new. And here I thought the main objectives were protecting children from maniacs and reducing crime.

BTW, how does anyone "toughen up" when Steve Marche (latest Esquire) has declared the Internet as having reached "peak hate?" I'm still here, the "regulars" are still here... and you are on the downside of the peak.

(That's the problem with synthetic hate: It just gets boring, then irritating to those who aren't involved with the "instant" issue. Gun politics will be back to normally scheduled programming.)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

180. Well said. Thanks for saying it so clearly and forcefully.

[Eleanors38]

181. You're welcome. Speculating here. It seems the stigmatization campaign...

Has some coordination about it.

[frylock]

84. very few people here are "anti-gun"

most are pro common-sense gun laws. some, including myself, actually own guns.

[Eleanors38]

86. I'm referencing the OP in my discussion, though there are some full-blown antis.

[cui bono]

137. "controller/banner"... what are you referring to? n/t

[Skittles]

102. LOL - what a bunch of weinies they are

slaughtered children are just collateral damage but don't be MEAN to us

[DainBramaged]

191. They aren't even Armour hot dogs

They can't win the debate on facts so they try and silence the poster, a typical poser move.

[Ghost in the Machine]

107. "Juror #3 voted LEAVE IT ALONE & said: This post is awesome. Gun nut alerter needs to take a hike"

Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This post is awesome. Gun nut alerter needs to take a hike.

This one thing I don't like about the jury system. With a random, anonymous system like this, you just have to take your chances I guess. As you can clearly see though, it allows zealots to vote to hide, based solely on their own agendas. Even though the alerter remains anonymous, as do the jurors, the alertee is know to the jurors. This also allows for abuse, as you can have a juror who simply just doesn't like you for some reason or another, and will vote to hide whether it is merited or not, just in the hopes that enough other jurors agree and they can lock you out of the discussion.

I have served on juries where the person alerted on was someone I've exchanged words with in the past, or don't always agree with their opinions, but I have NEVER let that influence ny vote. I vote strictly on the content of the post, and always check the context of the post, too.

I urge EVERYONE to go to their profiles, and take advantage of the "jury block list". It allows you to choose up to 15 people, if memory serves correctly, who are blacklisted from ever serving on a jury if one of your posts gets alerted on.

Peace,

Ghost

[DisgustipatedinCA]

122. Oh look. Some whiny little gunboi got slammed 5-1

As the excellent OP says, grow up.

[olddots]

22. I had nunchucks once

thankfully they went away

I hope this is a progress thing like figuring out that slavery wasn't a right .

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. On salads I usually enjoy a vinaigrette.

I'm never really sure what dressing goes with word salad though. Maybe a nice warm cup of bullshit?

[rrneck]

25. Wow.

It's a good thing I don't give a flying fuck what you whining gun ban lovers think.

[snooper2]

26. that's not funny...

This is funny LOL

[Heather MC]

33. "When you're 6'8" and black, you have to play a ukulele"

I need that on a bumper sticker
what an odd audience.

[tclambert]

65. You can get a ukulele without a background check?

What about mentally ill people? Can they have ukuleles? Oh, yeah, that must be true.

Cue up the late great Iz Kamakawiwo'ole:

[pipoman]

27. Almost as stupid as being, "anti-gun"

Do gun controllers realize just how stupid you sound when you blubber on about being "anti-gun"?

"you have no fundamental right to have them"

Seems the people who matter have stated otherwise...nice try though..

[edhopper]

28. Why should anyone have a problem

with something designed to kill people? Who could be anti that?

[Eleanors38]

44. Umm, 75% of the American public, including non-gun-owners?

[edhopper]

48. I was being sarcastic

[Eleanors38]

68. Sorry, usually I have a good radar for that.

[edhopper]

69. That's okay

it's hard on the internets without hearing the tone of voice.

I should have used

[Tommy_Carcetti]

29. You could same the same for people who use the words "gun grabbers"

Or "whining gun ban lovers" as demonstrated by the fine specimen of a DU Poster in Response No. 25.

And a read through of ultra-liberal Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller shows that gun ownership, even if considered protected by the Second Amendment, is far from unlimited.

[Eleanors38]

49. So you agree with "Fat Tony" Scalia?? (Don't worry, I think he's right, too.) nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

53. Broken clock and all, yes. nt

[pipoman]

78. Unlimited? No. Who said that?

Someone who apparently doesn't know what they are talking about stated, "you have no fundamental right to have them". The entire SCOTUS was pretty unanimously the opposite (and in agreement) on that one point exactly, seems to me from my reading of both decisions..

[edhopper]

30. Actually

I am a proud knife owner, great American workmanship

[img][/img]

But i do see your point about guns.

[El Progreso]

31. knives are "designed to kill people", you say

In some cases, as in cases where someone is trying to rob you or hurt your child or kidnap your child, this design purpose would come in very handy.

[11 Bravo]

34. It would be instructive for those newbies scrambling to incorporate the word "progress" ...

as a derivation of "progressive" into their username, to at least know how to spell the word.

[Robb]

41. ...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

52. Dude sure loves his soup.

[barbtries]

67. it's probably correct

en espanol.
anyway a screen name is no subject to spell checking.

[Squinch]

88. Wow, seriously? Your ethnocentrism is showing. And it doesn't look very good.

[edhopper]

39. First of all

Bullshit!!
Wanting registration and background checks is not trying to take away everyone's guns.
So that strawman shit is just getting tired.
Second of all. being safer in a home with a gun?
Demonstrably untrue.

[img][/img]

[El Progreso]

42. I was talking about knives

Not guns. Please read before commenting.

[edhopper]

51. I did

just mistook what you were responding to. apologies.
At least i got to post that cool image.

[Progressive dog]

32. Yes it does sound silly

They didn't deny being gun lovers, did they.
And they don't have a fundamental right to them. We had a right wing scotus overturn 200 yrs. of precedent and still not go to the point that these self proclaimed jurists claim they did.
The ones hyperventilating and whining about your post prove that they are indeed gun lovers.

Welcome to DU.

[Eleanors38]

59. You know, there are a lot of aspersions cast toward gun-owners, but "gun lover"...

should be low on your list, imo. There is just too much connotation with a lot of fill-in-the-blank hate speech involving many groups, ethnicities and nationalities. There are many labels you can use without using this one. Thanks.

[Progressive dog]

77. See the debate clip with the gun lover and Joe Biden

He's the one who called it "my baby'. You are telling me that that is not a term of endearment. So why should it be low on my list, because it bothers the gun lovers? If they are not gun lovers, then why are they bothered.
Gun owners are not necessarily gun lovers, but on DU you can know them by their posts.
When people equate gun ownership to minority status-they are probably a gun lover.

[Eleanors38]

89. Let's be clearer, okay?

I've heard all manner of hateful speech from controller/banners; as you may know, there is a new approach to the politics of guns which is to stigmatize and smear. So, I expect that. But the term "___________lover re-legitimizes the habit of fill-in-the-blank hatreds. As in "Queer _________," "Mexican __________," or "__________ lover." Being white, this has no more personal affect than some of the other smears. But there are many folks who have grown up in that era of mass-demonization, and they seem to recoil whenever the expression is used for any other group. But in the current atmosphere, it's your choice.

I don't understand your minority status "equation," but by now you realize that some minorities use some of the worst aspersions assigned them, but-in house and with more specialized meanings. So it is with some people and their "babies." Some unwittingly name airlines after such practices.

[Progressive dog]

117. They hate me cause I love Corvettes would be more like it

A gun is an tool. It is a tool designed to kill animals including humans. It has no other use.
The gun lovers have attacked the motives and the right to speak of the victims of gun violence.
Someone who acts like this has no right to be called civilized, much less to be given protected status.
I would hope that the reaction to their claims and their actions would cause them to feel shame.

[Eleanors38]

164. Well, we all know the dynamic, Progress: Inflate an

enemy into gas- giant status, imply gun-owners are like that, then invoke a sanctified hatred of gun-owners in hopes that the resulting "shame" will somehow change, or somehow get rid of, millions. The strategy is associated with numerous prohibitionist efforts. Think it'll work?

BTW, who is "...attacking the right to speak of the victims of gun violence?" Any links or names? I don't know how you view DU, MSM, or other web sites, but there seems little attack on your rights over this issue. NOTE: gun-controllers can now post in (1) the "gungeon," (2) the gun-control "activist" group, (3) GD.

wow. some "attack."

[Progressive dog]

166. "Inflate an enemy into gas- giant status"

You are leaving hyperbole territory and entering the "what the hell does that mean" zone.
Or does the gas-giant refer to Wayne and the rest of the non-existent attackers?

[Flying Squirrel]

38. My brother is a proud gun owner.

As the result of a lawsuit brought against him by an overzealous prosecutor for the crime of flipping up a girl's skirt when he was 14, he lost the right to even hold a.firearm for many years. 20 years later, he is still resentful of having had to register as a sexual offender; with the help of an attorney and after spending $7,000 plus, he has had his rights restored. To him, the ability to own a gun is a symbol of something much greater and he vehemently resists any attempt to take that away from him again.

I have very different views from my brother on guns, but I understand that there are reasons for his viewpoint and I don't try to denigrate him for the way he feels. Perhaps other people in this country also have reasons for their viewpoints. The Second Amendment is a fact of life here in the U.S., and it's not productive to simply say it's BS and denigrate those who feel a sense of pride for owning a gun, for whatever reason. If you really want to help make a difference, first you need to stop being disrespectful of the other side.

[pintobean]

45. Nicely done.

[DanTex]

63. Poverty and racism are also "facts of life here in the US".

Just because the second amendment is there, doesn't mean it's a good thing. Like I posted below, nobody every seems to be able to come up with an actual defense of the second amendment beyond "because it's there."

[Eleanors38]

73. Oh, they have come up with defenses, you just don't accept them. nt

[laundry_queen]

126. just like we don't accept there's any REAL controversy regarding the science of global warming. nt

[Eleanors38]

157. In other words, you cannot, will no, must not, open your mind. Nothing new.

[laundry_queen]

162. LOL, projection at its finest. nt

[Eleanors38]

165. I've always thought psychology was the cheap seats of intellectual inquiry. nt

[laundry_queen]

169. Chalk up another right wing point of view with this poster. nt

[Eleanors38]

182. Which, the psych metaphor or the "projection" itself? nt

[Flying Squirrel]

76. Oh, I agree with you (for the most part)

Like I said, I have very different views on guns than my brother.

On the other hand, we're both assuming a future somewhat similar to the past when we advocate for a Constitutional change regarding the Second Amendment.

What about a future where the rich, who already legally avoid paying taxes, are able to legally be the only ones who own weapons? Far-fetched? I wouldn't bet on it. The high rate of gun ownership in this country is the only thing that gives me hope when I think of the dystopian future that is ever-closer thanks to our failed system of Capitalism and Government. Not that I want to be one of the people who does the dirty work of rising up in an armed revolution, I'll be laying as low as possible. But it's nice to know the little guys have weapons too.

[iamthebandfanman]

173. Maybe he should just go vote

and excersise that right intead of clinging to a piece of metal for security.

P.s.

Its sad what happened to your brother,
but just because he was 14 doesn't give him the right to invade someones personal space in a sexual manner.

[KansDem]

43. Just be sure you're not carrying it and $50 cash when you're coming out of a liquor store...

Rand Paul won't care if you're killed by a police officer or a drone.

(I don't understand it either, but that's his quote on the DU home page today)

[MynameisBlarney]

50. I'm a proud owner of a 12 ga.

fully automatic assault machete.

But you don't hear me braggin about it.

(it IS pretty damn sweet though)

[Recursion]

55. I've never been particularly "proud" of owning a gun, back when I did

Yeah, that phrase always seemed weird to me.

[DanTex]

56. It's always funny that, in response to posts like these, none of the NRAers ever seems to actually

be able to come up with a defense of the second amendment other than "because we're stuck with it".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

57. A weapon is a tool

A tool can't think for itself. One of the problems with this issue is that many on both sides are just tools.

sad

[ileus]

62. My firearms are designed to save lives...

At least the SD one's are, the others are either hunting or target/competition.

Where are these "I'm a proud gun owner" posts anyway?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

70. Fancy seeing you 22% of the time. nt

[edhopper]

75. Maybe he is referring to these

[img][/img] [img][/img [img]?color=White&height=460&width=460&qv=90[/img]


Have you really not heard anyone use this term?

[BainsBane]

96. guns are designed to kill

and they do so very efficiently. EMT equipment is designed to safe lives.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

118. Is it too hard to imagine that some people ought to be killed?

As horrible as it sounds it is true.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

120. *Ought* to be killed?

No one *ought* to be killed.

[lumberjack_jeff]

100. No, they're designed to take lives.

Your intent in purchasing may have been to be prepared to take the life of someone threatening yours, but that has little to do with the designed purpose.

My pocketknife is designed to cut things. My intent when buying it may have been more specific, but is immaterial to the designed purpose.

[BlueStreak]

71. A person might say "I'm a proud archer"

Or "I'm a respected chef in a Japanese restaurant."

Or "I am proud to excel in the sport of fencing."

And it doesn't sound strange at all to hear a person boast about their marksmanship skills.

Or if a person is on a S.W.A.T. team, it would make sense for them to be proud of all the training they do to be in a position to save lives.

Bragging about skills is one thing. Bragging about having bought something (especially something that, by itself, has no redeeming qualities) -- not so much.

[oneshooter]

131. What if it something you built?

I have built several rifles, both ML and cartridge. Is it proper to be proud of something you have built, either from parts or from scratch?

[BlueStreak]

140. Yes, if there was some skill, craftsmanship, or artistry demonstrated in the process

But as you know, that is not what most of the gun nuts are talking about.

[Bake]

87. How about a proud Ford owner or a proud Mercedes Benz owner?

They're inanimate objects, too, but people are often proud to own them. OP fails.

Bake

[El Fuego]

136. Don't go dragging FORD into this.

I'm jes sayin'.

Guns kill people. Mustangs make people go "oooooohh".

[Bake]

200. But one might be the proud owner of either. Or both.

Just sayin' ...



Bake

[geckosfeet]

90. Agreed. You do in fact seem silly.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

94. It's an addiction all right....

Listen to them long for their next trip to the range and how they describe the feelings they had when they were there.

They go over their guns like a stoner cleaning their pipes. You should see one when they finally find the box of ammo they lost. It's like seeing a junkie searching through the carpet and finding the rock they dropped.

[Skittles]

101. anyone gushing over an instrument of death

is pathetic

[Go Vols]

139. I tend to agree with this statement

I have over 30 guns and its seldom mentioned.I don't hunt much anymore and don't have a need for all of them,guess my kid will get them when I die.

I have killed 2 coyotes that had a calf and a goat down in the last two months tho.

[rucky]

103. Well, I really do love my Henkels n/t

[Tikki]

109. My husband made his own knife...calls it Baby...we take it in the front seat console when we....

go on vacation. He mostly likes to show it off 'cause he made it.


Tikki

[Flatulo]

124. You're free to be a proud non gun-owner. That's what I love about this country.

Last edited Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:27 PM - Edit history (1)

[Gman]

128. All I know is don't take one to a gunfight

[ieoeja]

186. Shop owner in Chicago took a ballbat to a gunfight a couple weeks ago. He won. n/t

[Gman]

199. Must've been terrible shots

[JVS]

130. Maybe they're proud of having passed a background check.

[El Fuego]

134. National Bomb Association!!!! Yeah!! NBA!!! NBA baby!!!

Oh wait... That's taken.

[cui bono]

135. Okay, but I do have a really nice fork.

And yeah, what is there to be proud about? You paid for something and you took it home. Something I was able to do on my own when I was five years old. Big whoop.

[AsahinaKimi]

142. I am a proud Sword owner..

These have been passed down from generation to generation since the
Edo Period of Early Japan.

These are my own..


for Tameshigiri training which I was once involved in.


Tameshigiri
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Recursion]

158. Nice. I'd be proud of those too.

I suppose if I collected antique or rare guns I'd be proud of those like I am the wine and books I collect.

[ErikJ]

145. Its my God-given right!

But Jesus said "Live by the Sword, Die by the sword",............... so what do I do?

[TheManInTheMac]

153. My Global chef's knife makes

short work of my kitchen prep. My .45 will open a can of beans but it makes a royal mess.

[samsingh]

161. good point

[joanbarnes]

170. I'm a proud gunpowder owner...

[sir pball]

171. Yeah, actually. I have a knife in my hand 8 hours a day and I openly love to promote them.

I have a large bag full of them that I proudly show off to anybody who displays any interest, while going into the design, construction, and use of each one. I own single blades that took months to have made to order and cost more than a lot of people spend on all their kitchen equipment put together. I spend several hours one day a week obsessively sharpening, cleaning, and oiling them.

My knives are literally a focal point of my life. They're beautiful and capable and damn right I'm proud of them, and how well I can use them. You got a problem with that?

[iamthebandfanman]

172. do you target stab with it ? n/t

[Wednesdays]

175. I am a proud lawnmower owner

FWIW.

[Arkana]

176. Proud axe owner here myself.

[Lint Head]

177. I'm a proud owner of nail clippers.

[billh58]

192. Welcome to DU

and be proud that you have drawn out the most vocal of the Gungeoneer "cold dead hands" NRA apologists. It is always a pleasure to see them running around with their hair on fire, and ironically claiming "discrimination."

Keep up the good work...

[HockeyMom]

202. I have over a dozen knives

Eat your heart out, Rachel Ray! Oh, and a nifty PRESSURE COOKER too!!!! Guess I am very well ARMED!!!!!!