Not Just A Novelty Item: Get to Know the Americans You'd Least Expect to Fancy the Firearm

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://www.good.is/posts/good-magazine-feature-not-just-a-novelty-item-get-to-know-the-americans-you-d-least-expect-to-fancy-the-firearm

Not Just A Novelty Item: Get to Know the Americans You'd Least Expect to Fancy the Firearm

by Sarah Stankorb

Illustrations by David Schwen

------

My shooting instructor shows me how to control my breathing.

“Like in yoga?” I ask.

She responds with a nod, a chuckle, a shrug. Breathe in, breathe out, wait a beat. Fire. I see a yellow flash spark over the blackness of the XDm 9mm semi-automatic’s slide. I can feel the pistol recoiling in my hands, but not the terror I expected to feel. My shot lands well inside the target’s center square—a guileless sheet of paper printed with a vaguely human form now has a bullet in its chest.

“Congratulations! You just fired a real gun.” The sweet-faced and aptly named Amy Shotwell, my instructor at Ashburn, Virginia’s Silver Eagle Group, grins....

A good read, with members of the Liberal Gun Club heard from

[Common Sense Party]

1. There are no liberal gun owners.

I was told so right here on DU. So it MUST be true.

[tumtum]

2. Aha.

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a voice for gun-owning liberals and moderates in the national conversation on gun rights, gun legislation, firearms safety, and shooting sports. We serve as a national forum for all people, irrespective of their personal political beliefs, to discuss firearms ownership, firearms use, and the enjoyment of firearms-related activities free from the destructive elements of political extremism that dominate this subject on the national scale. We also actively develop and foster a variety of programs for the purpose of firearms training and firearms safety education, for both gun owners and non-gun owners

[Common Sense Party]

3. Sorry. They don't exist. That's a fictional group. A figment of someone's imagination.

Someone here on DU told me there are NO liberal gun owners, so obviously these people don't exist.

[tumtum]

4. You must be right,

a member of the other group told me that they're no better than the NRA.

[DonP]

6. You mean the group that spends far more time ...

... discussing who to throw out for being a "gungeoneer" and NRA shill ... and violating their ToS by not being pure enough ... than they do actually discussing how to reduce gun violence or doing anything?

That group?

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. They're also cackling that those they've purged aren't responding to them.

[beevul]

9. You must mean this...

Last edited Fri Aug 16, 2013, 07:35 AM - Edit history (1)

You must mean this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12624133#post5

Or did you mean this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12623921#post31

Wait, no, that was another one that wants to "delete" the second amendment, my bad.

Maybe you meant this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12623921#post11




They make a group, carefully craft it with an SOP that can be selectively interpreted and enforced, make it clear more than once that they don't want pro-gun posters posting there, block roughly 1200 percent more posters than this group ever has...

Then complain that we aren't playing in their fair and balanced sandbox.

Aww, now isn't that cute?

And they wonder why we don't trust them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. Let's not forget the ever-popular (and mostly evidence-free) CT:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12624133#post14

Remember, they are at heart a fearful bunch and the NRA is their Illuminati/New World Order/Freemasonry.

At the core of it for too many of them, anyone who disagrees with them is an NRA operative.
"God-botherers" gotta have Satan, and antigun-botherers gotta have the NRA....

[beevul]

11. What really sealed it for me, is...

What really sealed it for me, is this simple fact:


One can agree with their stated goal - to reduce gun violence - but that's not enough. To post in their little enclave without being blocked, their little castle, require that you agree with their methods.

I have never and will never post in that group, unless and until their "fair and balanced" protocols are no longer in effect.

[BainsBane]

13. Posters there just need to support DEMOCRATIC Party gun control reforms

You know, the ones advanced by our DEMOCRATIC President and Vice President, which you all clearly do not. So no, it's not the place to talk about how more guns suddenly transforms homicidal people into pussy cats. You can indulge in that fantasy all day long in this redoubt.

You sure do whine a lot about being denied one little corner of the interwebs where you can't spread propaganda. You spend a lot more time worrying about us in a day than the thought we give to you in an entire year. I look in here about once a month and every time I do you're gossiping about that group. Sounds to me like you really need to find a hobby or something. Shooting guns evidently isn't cutting it. This constant self-pity is just sad.

[oneshooter]

14. Please list for us the "DEMOCRATIC Party gun control reforms"

You know, the ones advanced by our DEMOCRATIC President and Vice President. All I have seen is the party platform.

[BainsBane]

15. Do you not read the newspaper?

The ones President Obama and Vice President Biden announced early this year.

[oneshooter]

17. So you don't know them either.

[BainsBane]

28. SMH

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

It wasn't exactly top secret. All you had to do was pick up a newspaper.

[oneshooter]

37. So you do not agree with the Democratic Party platform

on gun control?

[beevul]

34. No, thats NOT what the SOP means.

You know, the ones advanced by our DEMOCRATIC President and Vice President, which you all clearly do not.

No, thats NOT what the SOP says.


Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.

If that "means" what you say it does, it ought to actually SAY what you say it does.

But it doesn't.


Your little group is focused strictly on gun control. It leaves no room for discussion of ways of reducing gun violence outside of gun control, and it has been creatively interpreted more than once in blocking someone. Not only that, but I don't see you guys blocking those that want the second amendment deleted either. I guess its hunky dory for some of you to ignore the party platform to a much larger degree than any of us do when it suits you huh? I'll buy your excuse that we just need to support Party gun control reforms in order to post there, when you guys start blocking people that want to delete amendment 2, or rip it from the bill of rights, in clear contradiction of a major plank of the DEMOCRATIC Party platform.

I wont hold my breath though.



"You sure do whine a lot about being denied one little corner of the interwebs where you can't spread propaganda."

No. We were discussing how You folks were complaining that we weren't responding over there, after blocking most of us from posting there.

Go ahead, ask me to cite it.

"So no, it's not the place to talk about how more guns suddenly transforms homicidal people into pussy cats. You can indulge in that fantasy all day long in this redoubt."

Pro-gun posters are not even allowed to correct misinformation in your protected little group, so don't come to any of us talking about "spreading propaganda", while being a part of a group that actively emits it in a protected environment.

[Duckhunter935]

26. I love that

and they can not figure out why people do not respond in their "safe area"

[BainsBane]

29. People respond

People who agree with the SOP of the group. I have never once lamented an absence of gun nuts in there. We already know everything you have to say. It never changes. Last time I tried to engage Hack in a substantive conversation he ran away.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. People respond People who conform with the articles of faith of the group

FTFY
Please don't insult our intelligences by pretending it's some beseiged bastion of rational thought
and high-minded discourse.

If you don't reflexively agree that guns are bad, their owners are morally bankrupt, and 'NRA' is another name for Satan you'll get the boot.

[Eleanors38]

5. Great post. This should be in GD, frankly. A touch of reality.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. Agreed. I'll repost it there.

[BainsBane]

16. You folks are the only ones who think you are representative of gun owners

The rest of us know there is a big difference between a gun owner and a gun evangelist.

[Jenoch]

18. In most of your posts

you seem to lump all gun owners together, at least it seems that way to me. Are you now making a distinction between a gun owner who is a pro-RKBA person and a 'gun nut'?

I am in favor of universal background checks, as long as the law is reasonable (meaning I can buy a gun from my brother who is a cop and I can loan a gun to my BIL who is a dentist, for example) and the cost for the NICS check is not too great (say $25 per check).

I am not in favor of an AWB because they are not effective and would cost too much political capital. As to gun registration, that too would take up too much political capital and besides that, a federal gun registration database is currently illegal.

[Eleanors38]

19. So, you speak for the "...rest of us...?"

Sorry, a moment of MIRTh.



On edit, you may wish to review Post 12, second shaded quote.

[BainsBane]

20. I wouldn't dream of it

I couldn't begin to imagine what it's like to be you. I can, however, read your words.
The attack us and you attack all gun owners meme is a tactic designed to distort and distract. It's complete bullshit. Most gun owners on this site won't come near this group. Some prefer the Gun Control Reform Activism Group.

[Eleanors38]

21. Oh, you are missing a truly WONDROUS experience!

But I'm glad you are left wondering.

[BainsBane]

30. no, more like not caring

[Eleanors38]

24. I'm confused. What group are you speaking of, Bansalot? May be a reason for that?

BTW, does Bansalot still draw material from the GOP-founded, GOP-led Brady Center? I try to keep my sources non-Republican.

[BainsBane]

25. All sources are attributed in the OPs

Since you spend so much time nosing around there, you should have no doubt where the articles come from.

GOP funded, from you. That's rich.

[Eleanors38]

27. Like I said. Thanks for finally agreeing with me.

Did you read that quote from the Good article I referenced?

Betcha I'm more liberal than you are.

On edit, I'm bored and it's past time for

[BainsBane]

31. I'm sure you are

I don't consider myself liberal. I'm a leftist. I don't have the faith in capitalism that liberalism entails.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. And yet you have enough faith in capitalism to be willing to let its managerial arm...

AKA the government, have a monopoly on violence...

[beevul]

40. Say Bains...

Say Bains, if I posted these in response to those threads in your group calling out pro-gun DUers...you know, the ones that make the not so subtle implication that none of us are "reasonable"...do you think I'd be blocked from your group for it?







Inquiring minds want to know.

[BainsBane]

41. If you don't want to be called out for gossiping, the solution is simple

Don't gossip. You aren't invited over to someone's house to play. Deal with it. I'm sure we're not the only people on the planet who don't enjoy your company. Do you similarly obsess about everyone else that doesn't invite you over? Seems like a fruitless way to live one's life.

[beevul]

42. LOL. Among other things, I note...

LOL. Among other things, I note that you did not answer the question.

On edit: Even though the question was almost the entirety of that post, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and decide you must have missed it:

If I posted these in response to those threads in your group calling out pro-gun DUers...you know, the ones that make the not so subtle implication that none of us are "reasonable"...do you think I'd be blocked from your group for it?



The hypocrisy, the double standard, and the way you lot take advantage of it not infrequently...

Its almost as if you believe nobody can see it.


"Don't gossip."

Will you pass that advice on the those in your little protected enclave who themselves, engage in it?

Or is that behavior acceptable for some, and not so much for others?

[BainsBane]

43. I don't gossip over there

I am responsible for no one's posts by my own. This weekend I made my first comment ever about pro-gun DUers, while you all sit here and whine constantly that you can't disrupt that group. (When someone is actually participating in a thread, that is another issue since I'm directing my posts toward them). I think it's unfortunate that you all here have so little of substance to discuss that you spend so much time gossiping about people who don't care for your views.

DU has safe havens with specific SOPs. If you don't like the way the site works and feel like your pro-gun propaganda should invade every corner of this site, take it up with Skinner.
I can say quite unequivocally that nothing you have to say would be welcome in that group, or in my home for that matter. Deal with it. I understand the self entitled have trouble coming to terms with the fact that that can't control absolutely everything, but them's the breaks.

From what I can see, there is quite little commenting about Gungeon folk. I simply don't think about any of you enough to even want to gossip. I can think of a couple of threads recently by other posters that could reasonably be interpreted that way, but in general the gun control group discusses policy and events. Now it's entirely possible that some gun evangelists are unable to understand that a discussion about gun policy isn't about them personally, but that is an issue whose resolution is far beyond my pay grade.

[beevul]

44. You misunderstand.

"I am responsible for no one's posts by my own. This weekend I made my first comment ever about pro-gun DUers, while you all sit here and whine constantly that you can't disrupt that group. I think it's unfortunate that you all here have so little of substance to discuss that you spend so much time gossiping about people who don't care for your views."

NO NO NO. Collective guilt works both ways. You have text on your hands. You are responsible for the gossiping about pro-gun posters to exactly the same degree as pro-gun posters are responsible for the dead kids at new town. Or had you forgotten "blood on their hands" comments posted all over referring to pro-gun people. Need me to google it for you? On top of that, if you decide someone over here is gossiping, boy howdy, you break the sound barrier getting over here and pointing it out. Over in your little enclave, on the other hand, not so much.

You look the other way when its an anti - based on a single issue.

Hypocrisy - Check.

"DU has safe havens with specific SOPs. If you don't like the way the site works and feel like your pro-gun propaganda should invade every corner of this site, take it up with Skinner. I can say quite unequivocally that nothing you have to say would be welcome in that group, or in my home for that matter. Deal with it. I understand the self entitled have trouble coming to terms with the fact that that can't control absolutely everything, but them's the breaks."

Rofl self entitled. Says a member who trots out the "your gossiping" card, of a group who is basically protected from being responded to, when they ...gossip. My original communication to you, a few posts up, was to point out to you, that you have those in your midst in your protected group, who also gossip, and to point out to you that everyone here sees it, and also sees that its just hunky dory to you.

To put it simply, you don't object to gossiping because gossiping is bad, you object to pro-gun posters gossiping because of who they are and what they believe on this topic alone. If the reverse were true, you'd lecture your buddies like you tried to lecture some of us...but you don't.

Hypocrisy - Check.

Its like the punchline to a bad joke, only its real.

And you misunderstand, I don't have any desire to post in that group:

"I have never and will never post in that group, unless and until their "fair and balanced" protocols are no longer in effect."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=130299

Did you really think I asked you the question you seem to be working so hard to ignore, because I really wish to post over there? At least I know you can't have missed being asked that question now, and that you and I and everyone else knows that an honest answer to it, leads to that word being applied again. And knows that the answer is being studiously avoided for just that reason.

Hypocrisy.


When such blatant hypocrisy rears its ugly head as regularly as it seems to these days, particularly with a number of those on your side of the gun issue, you really just can't expect people not to point it out. If you lot don't want words like Hypocrisy to describe your actions, or lack there of, don't be involved in actions, or lack there of which can be described as such. I understand that its not fun having someone point out your hypocrisy, but its not against DU TOS, or against this groups SOP, but them's the breaks.

Don't engage in hypocrisy. Sounds a little like ""Don't gossip", doesn't it?

[Jenoch]

32. Does this post mean that you believe

most who post on the pro-RKBA forum are 'gun nuts' and not just DUers who own guns and wish to protect that right?

[petronius]

12. A very good read, thanks for posting! I really admire people who try to

explore new ground, as this author did, and there's a lot of food for thought. Two segments that definitely resonated were when one of her interviewees said:

“I find it very odd that I have to make a political choice between people whose politics support all of the other civil liberties, or people who support gun ownership as a civil liberty, but none of the others. I mean it’s a very odd political divide that doesn’t make a lot of sense, isn’t it?”

and where she acknowledges:

My own rhetoric had become a shorthand in which merely owning a gun threw a person into a camp of those who were cavalier with deadly weapons, whose personal rights trumped public safety, and who were politically alien to me.

But following from that second quote, if I was to criticize the article I'd say she actually gives short-shrift in a way to pro-control advocates - the interview with the Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America person isn't really fleshed out, and she doesn't quite make clear that a lot of gun control advocacy (much of which we liberal gun owners actually support) falls short of "ban 'em and grab 'em." While it wasn't really the focus of the piece, a little discussion of what reasonable, broadly-supportable policies might look like would have added to an already good article...

[Eleanors38]

23. Your criticism is appropriate. In a sense, the "Moms Demand" group may be getting short shrift...

from the louder, more extreme controller/banners who end up dominating the dialogue, esp. in MSM.

Perhaps she would consider a follow-up on your suggestion?

[petronius]

33. I think I phrased that a bit badly: I have no idea whether the "Moms Demand" group

advocates what I would call 'reasonable' or not, just that that particular interview was used solely for an emotional kick and we were left with no idea what "Moms Demand" actually calls for. In addition to giving Moms Demand a bit more space, I think a separate and more thorough discussion of 'reasonable' policies would have been an improvement.

But more generally, you're right I think - people who promote reasonable, empirically-supported control policies are often drowned out in a loud flood of bad ideas, or do-anything-no-matter-how-inane ideas (my state Legislature being a prime example of the latter half of this equation). And so we stagnate, with divergent and entrenched positions (was it you that used the word Balkanized in GD?). But just as we know that all/most/many gun owners are not killers in training or any of the bizarre epithets that get tossed around here - a point the article does a good job of exploring - I would say that the article could have given a more nuanced perspective on control advocates in the middle, reasonable, ground.

That said, this article seems to be a rare example of someone who actually tried to engage with a differing opinion. The entire gun debate - from DU on up - seems to be largely populated with people who make absolutely no effort to hear/read what others are saying, let alone actually think about those things...

[Eleanors38]

35. In the final analysis, the Gungeon regulars have been most reasonable...

in the DU debate, even as they labor under a peculiar "jury system." Hopefully, other DU members can cut through the very open campaign of stigmatization & baiting and see this.

[petronius]

36. Complete agreement... (nt)