Anti Gunner Wears Glock For Thirty Days

[JSDinTexas]

First question is, how is it a Texan is reading Ms. Magazine? No, just kidding. :biggrin:

I didn't find the article too spectacular: we read this junk all the time. But what was interesting were the comments that show total ignorance of many anti-gunners as to what guns are all about. I can see how easy it is for Bloombozo types to take hold.

I always encourage the anti's, for their safety, to go live in China; there only the military have guns, and they will defend you.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

My concern is the fact that so many responses on her "blog" are from females who think that a majority "vote" on the 2A over rules a Constitutional Right.
This "next" generation are being taught to surrender their rights in the name of public safety. That my friends is what truly scares me.


Sent from behind enemy lines.

 

[S&W645]

I suspect your question is rhetorical, and it's not really relevant to the subject of the thread. So at the risk of being "moderated" I'll answer any way.

No.

Regards
Michael

Yes, you took it how I meant it. Once safe gun handling is learned, most people will not forget it in their lifetime. Hence, why Florida accepts the DD214.

 

[BluesStringer]

Don't quite get where I said or implied I don't believe in the 2nd amendment, or why you thought that I thought calling my post "drivel" was a compliment. That word is actually quite offensive (if you look it up).

That one word should be no more offensive to you than your entire first post is/was to those of us who believe in the full width and breadth of the 2nd Amendment.

There have been I think three posts regarding my original post. They all indicate some level of misunderstanding, but to go into it would sort of derail the original topic.

I don't think there's been any misunderstanding of what you opened your participation in this thread with, and I also reject the notion that it's off-topic to take note of and further discuss it. You were more sympathetic to the gun-grabbing activist in the OP than you are to a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment. Just a hint here, but when you join a gun forum that is dedicated to supporting a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment, and then take a sympathetic, supportive stance with an admitted anti-gun activist, you're going to get noticed, replied to, and that stance will always receive a fair amount of push-back.

To the topic, what I was trying to say was:

1. While it is the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms (and I support that)...

You may well support your own version of a "right" to keep and bear arms that includes whatever caveats you and Ms. Yewman wish to place on that "right," but you clearly don't support the 2nd Amendment as-written. What part of "...shall not be infringed" don't you understand? And if you've got a good answer for that, rather than citing a line by Justice Scalia out of a 2008 SCOTUS ruling, how about you cite a single word that is consistent with that line from Jefferson, Hamilton, Jaye, Franklin, Madison, Adams or a gaggle of other of their contemporaries circa 1787 when it was written? Had these memes been promulgated by anyone in government back then, they would have been tarred and feathered and run out of office on a rail at best, yet now, so-called 2nd Amendment "supporters" can talk about infringing on the right to keep and bear arms with impunity.

....I would like to see some tightening in laws regarding training for concealed carry, particularly in states such as hers which seem to have none.

There are many on this board, myself included, who believe that the permission-slip (concealed carry permit) system is a blatant violation of the intended meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Piling more regulation on top of that violation is not going to be well-received on any gun forum you may visit.

And as to this part of your post, surprise! I live in Alabama, a border-neighbor of your state. My brother in law lives in Palm Coast and we travel down there every now and again. FL and AL have a full reciprocity agreement in effect, and both my wife and I carry whenever we're there. AL has zero training requirements for a permission slip. Would you have your state government prohibit your law-abiding citizen-neighbors from being able to defend themselves while visiting and spending money in your state because of a lack of a training-requirement law in our state?

This subject comes up fairly often around here, as forum members from TN, NC, SC and FL have spewed the same...harumph...drivel from time to time before, that states that don't require training before a citizen is allowed to exercise their unalienable, God-given rights, must be filled with gun owners who are irresponsible, dangerous, and that those states must be fraught with backlogs of cases of accidental and/or negligent shootings causing injury to masses of people. Let's face it, that is exactly what your wish for stricter tightening of carry laws is intended to avoid, right? It's not just hyperbole, unless you think that tightening laws around the exercise of a God-given right would be prudent or needed if all that wasn't happening, right? Well, guess what? We, in Alabama, are no more likely, statistically-speaking, to have a negligent discharge or accidental or irresponsible shooting than anywhere in the entire country, including where the laws are as tight as they can possibly be, like NYC, MA, CT, CA etc. etc., so the question is literally begging to be answered, what earthly reason or rationale do you have to wish more gun control laws on law-abiding citizens simply exercising their rights? And another question that is begged from reading your first post is, if more training than you received in the military 40+ years ago should be required of concealed carriers by law, why, pray tell, didn't you enforce those same restrictions on yourself before getting your permission-slip? Does that make you just as irresponsible as you apparently believe all the law-abiding citizens in WA State and Alabama and other states that have no such requirements to be? It's really rather an elitist position to take in light of the fact that you readily admit to having gotten your permission slip without the added training that you would impose by law on all those who came after you.

Coincidentally, I got my DD214 in '74 and moved to WA State in '78, where Ms. Yewman is conducting her phony, agenda-driven "experiment" from right now. I had my permission slip within a couple weeks of moving there, just as I did when we moved here in '92. More than 30 years of concealed carry with no requirement for training in any jurisdiction I have been allowed to exercise my God-given rights in, and I have not so much as broken leather and brandished a weapon against another human being, much less actually shot one. Am I an anomaly of human nature or what? Are WA's and AL's gun-crimes-statistics representative of an anomaly of human nature? Would it surprise you to learn that our stats are much better than the most restrictive jurisdictions in the country? Why on earth would a 2nd Amendment "supporter" desire a move for more of the country to be like CA, MA, NYC, CT, MD and on and on and on?

2. Though it's not part of her agenda, I think the article points out just how easy it is, in some states, to legally carry a lethal weapon with no training in public. I think that's not a good thing.

That is precisely her agenda! She wants to pass laws that are completely counter to both the words and intended meanings of a fundamental, unalienable, God-given right, and apparently, so do you. Many, if not most of us, don't think that's a good thing.

While you can disagree with a post, calling it drivel is a judgment that I do find offensive.

There is no statistical, constitutional, or moral justification for your position. That's why it was referred to as drivel, not just to be offensive or otherwise confrontational.

So there!

Indeed.

Blues

 

[The_Outlaw]

"OoRah" Blues!!!!!!!

 

[Sir Diealotz]

"OoRah" Blues!!!!!!!

I concur! I like papa smurf LOL

 

[gejoslin]

We don't need no stinking permission slips!
Link Removed Link Removed

 

[FTG-05]

Don't quite get where I said or implied I don't believe in the 2nd amendment, or why you thought that I thought calling my post "drivel" was a compliment. That word is actually quite offensive (if you look it up).

There have been I think three posts regarding my original post. They all indicate some level of misunderstanding, but to go into it would sort of derail the original topic.

To the topic, what I was trying to say was:

1. While it is the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms (and I support that), I would like to see some tightening in laws regarding training for concealed carry, particularly in states such as hers which seem to have none.

2. Though it's not part of her agenda, I think the article points out just how easy it is, in some states, to legally carry a lethal weapon with no training in public. I think that's not a good thing.

While you can disagree with a post, calling it drivel is a judgment that I do find offensive.

So there!

Michael

The part that's bolded is pretty much the definition of a gun grabber. You "support" the 2nd amendment but want more gun control laws while providing zero evidence that states that require gun training before enjoying a natural born right to self-sefense are any more safer than states that don't require any training. What part of "shall not be infringed" is not clear?

Another attribute of a gun grabber: Making decisions and opinions based on emotion instead of facts.

Please provide evidence that states that require training before carrying a gun are safer in terms of gun accidents etc. than states that do not require training.

Go ahead, I'm waiting.

 

[tricolordad]

Link Removed

She even travels to schools to scold them for considering arming guards and/or teachers as a way to protect school children.

She is a graduate of Columbine High School. She graduated 13 years prior to the shootings there, but still considers herself enough of a "victim" of the shootings that launching and sustaining a life-long staunch anti-gun campaign is justified in her hoplophobic mind because her basketball coach was actually one of the victims.

As a Brady Bunch'er, she lies with impunity about the "gun show loophole," and uses her young son as a prop at organized protests against 2nd Amendment rights.

And in another Ms. Magazine blog post, she identifies another one of her biases in the title:

"Too Many Victims of Gun Violence Are Women"

In other words, not enough men are victimized by gun violence.

By the way, this is a duplicate thread. In the other thread I pasted a comment that I posted to the blog post, and noted that at the time, it was "awaiting moderation." A couple of hours later, it wasn't awaiting anything. It was dumped. As of this writing I have the following comment awaiting moderation:

"The truth is censored on this blog."
​

It's likely that truth, too, will be censored, but I had to try.

This chick gets mixed reviews even from her feminist sisters. She's not making much headway in her crusade against fundamental God-given rights. I will forget all about her insignificant self a few minutes after I hit the "Submit Reply" button.

Blues

I am a victim of gun violence. I have been shot several times actually, though the last 3 were in the line of duty. My very first time, I was 5 years old. I was shot in the chest with a .22 short by a schizophrenic menopausal lady for changing the TV channel. For some reason, she missed the second time. She was my adoptive mother. I remember meeting my own mother in the time between passing out in the basement, where I drug myself to hide when my dog took her down, and waking up in an ambulance. Back then, it took the police an hour to arrive, then the first thing they did, was to shoot my dog, Sammy, an ancient sheepdog with only a few teeth left.

Considering that I was a 5 year old who was shot by his mother, then whose dog was shot by police, you'd think I would be the Brady poster child...well, I have nightmares about it, but I am not such a freak that I would try to disarm law abiding citizens because I was a victim. I actually fully appreciate the gravity of being unable to defend myself and now am never too far from a gun.

This woman, who graduated 13 years prior to the Columbine Massacre, claims to be a victim. No, she is not. Unless you have experienced the terror of being shot and felt your legs and arms go numb while you drowned in your own blood, you cannot possibly be a victim.

 

[AndeyHall]

Make a comment in her blog that contains no profanity and simply counters her point in a sensible way. I've made 2 short ones and they have been deleted. Apparently the moderator only allows comments from their point of view.

 

[tcox4freedom]

I am a victim of gun violence. I have been shot several times actually, though the last 3 were in the line of duty. My very first time, I was 5 years old. I was shot in the chest with a .22 short by a schizophrenic menopausal lady for changing the TV channel. For some reason, she missed the second time. She was my adoptive mother. I remember meeting my own mother in the time between passing out in the basement, where I drug myself to hide when my dog took her down, and waking up in an ambulance. Back then, it took the police an hour to arrive, then the first thing they did, was to shoot my dog, Sammy, an ancient sheepdog with only a few teeth left.

Considering that I was a 5 year old who was shot by his mother, then whose dog was shot by police, you'd think I would be the Brady poster child...well, I have nightmares about it, but I am not such a freak that I would try to disarm law abiding citizens because I was a victim. I actually fully appreciate the gravity of being unable to defend myself and now am never too far from a gun.

This woman, who graduated 13 years prior to the Columbine Massacre, claims to be a victim. No, she is not. Unless you have experienced the terror of being shot and felt your legs and arms go numb while you drowned in your own blood, you cannot possibly be a victim.

man tcd,
Your story has my heart aching. I'm sorry you went through that brother.

-

 

[Bigcarlover]

Make a comment in her blog that contains no profanity and simply counters her point in a sensible way. I've made 2 short ones and they have been deleted. Apparently the moderator only allows comments from their point of view.

I think initially they were letting some pro-owners post comments because they wanted it to appear unbiased. Then once her Brady friends (see my earlier post in this thread) were outnumbered, then they stopped. I think they don't realize the extent that people do not support their view, so they stick their head in the sand when it happens.

Quite frankly, we are the last country that has the freedoms that we do. I really wish that those who oppose our Constitutional Rights (any of them) would simply move to another country that don't have them. They have somewhere else to go where the laws fit their views. I, on the other hand, do not. Move to Australia, London, Canada... the choices are endless. Leave my country alone.

 

[Gallstones]

You're right, that story was extremely painful to read. I think I can sum up her attitude in one word...Moron!

I'm not sure which state she resides in, but can attest that here in my home state of NC, there is nothing "easy" about legally obtaining a firearm and CCW permit.

Steps involved:
1. Must take an 8 hour class from a NRA certified handgun instructor. This class involves in depth discussion of NC laws pertaining to handguns and use of deadly force, as well as practical demonstration and familiarization of different types of handguns, revolver vs. semi-automatic. Safe handling of a firearm is stressed throughout the class. At the end, participants must take and pass a written test. Cost for this ranges from $75 to $100.
2. Must go to the range with the instructor and safely fire the weapon on a 3 position course at the 3, 7, and 25 yard range. Thirty shots are required, of which at least 21 must be within the target boundaries. Once you pass this, you get your certificate.
3. With certificate in tow, appear at the Sheriff's office to pay a $95 dollar non-refundable fee for the application. This includes fingerprints, photographs, and a release of medical records consent form.
4. In addition to your personal Dr. the medical records must be received from every hospital group and mental health facility in the area, whether you have ever been treated there or not. The cost for these records is $10 to $15 per record. In my case, I had to have medical records or a statement that I had never been a patient from 8 different providers.
5. Once the medical records are added to your file, the Sheriff will then do a final review and make sure nothing is indicated that would prevent the issuance of a CCW.

This chick obviously has an anti-gun agenda, and is really just demonstrating her own ignorance.

What a joke!

You place a lot of conditions on a right.
What preconditions should we then require of those who would exercise the First, or the Third, or the Fourth, or the Fifth or the Sixth or the Eighth or the Fourteenth?

 

[ezkl2230]

My comment is awaiting moderation:

Interesting. No news about week 2 yet. First post dated 6/12/13, today's date 6/21/13. Could it be that she was unable to go 30 days? Or perhaps she has had to re-think her position. After all, it is an article of faith among the gun control crowd that a person with a gun is just itching for the chance to plug someone and is an inherent danger to all around them - especially children. Yet, according to her first posting, she successfully entered a Starbuck's in which children were present and managed to leave without shooting anyone - either accidentally or on purpose. We're waiting for an update....

 

[AndeyHall]

My comment is awaiting moderation:

Interesting. No news about week 2 yet. First post dated 6/12/13, today's date 6/21/13. Could it be that she was unable to go 30 days? Or perhaps she has had to re-think her position. After all, it is an article of faith among the gun control crowd that a person with a gun is just itching for the chance to plug someone and is an inherent danger to all around them - especially children. Yet, according to her first posting, she successfully entered a Starbuck's in which children were present and managed to leave without shooting anyone - either accidentally or on purpose. We're waiting for an update....

Mine have been "waiting for moderation" for a day or 2 but there have been 2 or 3 comments posted just in that time.

 

[S&W645]

My comment is awaiting moderation:

Interesting. No news about week 2 yet. First post dated 6/12/13, today's date 6/21/13. Could it be that she was unable to go 30 days? Or perhaps she has had to re-think her position. After all, it is an article of faith among the gun control crowd that a person with a gun is just itching for the chance to plug someone and is an inherent danger to all around them - especially children. Yet, according to her first posting, she successfully entered a Starbuck's in which children were present and managed to leave without shooting anyone - either accidentally or on purpose. We're waiting for an update....

Or maybe she is in jail. We could only hope.

 

[Bigcarlover]

Ok, well here's the talking points as to why it stopped.

Op-Ed Columnist - Joe Nocera's Blog - NYTimes.com

They couldn't keep up with the censoring, supposed "payback" (the blog just stops short of calling them "threats"), and the posting of her address.

Well, first off, if they were actually inclined to allow all people to post opinions, then they wouldn't feel "overwhelmed." But since they felt it necessary to keep everything one-sided, of course the majority overwhelmed them.

Secondly, what does taking down insults and vituperation do? Does that magically change the people's minds who wrote them? And if that's truly what they were (we'll never know, since we didn't get to see them), then why not leave them up, as it only takes away from their credibility?

Finally, I really don't know what the purpose of someone putting her address out there was. Maybe a liken to how owners are treated in certain states who release their information? Or maybe it was because many people wondered what state she lived in that she claimed to have gotten so quickly, easily, and with no background check. Regardless, anyone with internet access (and this is blog, so you have to have that to see her article in the first place), can find that information in about 30s.

Frankly, my original theory (before I saw the above reference), and I still believe it has some merit... is that she jumped the shark in the first blog. She pretty much wrote all she could. By limiting her exposure with this "I'm going to do the minimum" rule, she couldn't take this any farther. No going to the range to practice. No personal interaction with pro-carry people. The only thing to be written was 3 more blogs of the same paranoid drivel. And she even justified her original conclusion right in the first article, so you could believe there was no hope she would modify it in the least or even come up with some profound new conclusions (whether they supported her original position or not). I really wondered if the blog would possibly last the full 4 weeks with such little content to go on, and it didn't even get to week #2. In this case, I say... good.

 

[Nightmare45]

A DD214 works for me, do you have one?????

 

[gunnerbob]

Ok, well here's the talking points as to why it stopped.

Op-Ed Columnist - Joe Nocera's Blog - NYTimes.com

They couldn't keep up with the censoring, supposed "payback" (the blog just stops short of calling them "threats"), and the posting of her address.

Well, first off, if they were actually inclined to allow all people to post opinions, then they wouldn't feel "overwhelmed." But since they felt it necessary to keep everything one-sided, of course the majority overwhelmed them.

Secondly, what does taking down insults and vituperation do? Does that magically change the people's minds who wrote them? And if that's truly what they were (we'll never know, since we didn't get to see them), then why not leave them up, as it only takes away from their credibility?

Finally, I really don't know what the purpose of someone putting her address out there was. Maybe a liken to how owners are treated in certain states who release their information? Or maybe it was because many people wondered what state she lived in that she claimed to have gotten so quickly, easily, and with no background check. Regardless, anyone with internet access (and this is blog, so you have to have that to see her article in the first place), can find that information in about 30s.

Frankly, my original theory (before I saw the above reference), and I still believe it has some merit... is that she jumped the shark in the first blog. She pretty much wrote all she could. By limiting her exposure with this "I'm going to do the minimum" rule, she couldn't take this any farther. No going to the range to practice. No personal interaction with pro-carry people. The only thing to be written was 3 more blogs of the same paranoid drivel. And she even justified her original conclusion right in the first article, so you could believe there was no hope she would modify it in the least or even come up with some profound new conclusions (whether they supported her original position or not). I really wondered if the blog would possibly last the full 4 weeks with such little content to go on, and it didn't even get to week #2. In this case, I say... good.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!! She folded! LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[FTG-05]

The magazine's bookface link appears to still be open to comments. My quick perusal shows about 95% are progun; look for your self and if you do bookface, comment away!

https://www.facebook.com/msmagazine/posts/10151646907808540?comment_id=26941293&notif_t=like