The Difference Between Gun Owners And Gun Nuts

ted-nugent-gunsThere are fundamental differences between responsible gun owners and gun nuts. I have friends and family members who own guns. They hunt, they shoot for sport, and they own one or two firearms. Those firearms are locked away when they are not in use, never kept loaded, never left lying around on a counter top or shoved under a bed. I have friends who collect rare and antique firearms, and those are also locked away, unloaded. I consider these people responsible gun owners. And the majority of them support background checks, believe we need better gun laws in general, and would never engage in the type of behavior gun nuts do.

A gun nut is someone who reacts poorly to the idea of following the “well-regulated” portion of the Second Amendment. Gun nuts are angry, vitriolic, slightly (or not so slightly) paranoid, and believe the government and liberals are coming to take all their guns. They hoard guns and ammunition, like they are preparing for the zombie apocalypse, and think anyone who supports better gun laws are the zombies.

A few weeks ago, Moms Demand Action learned that Lamar Advertising, the largest billboard purveyor in the country, had accepted an ad from a Texas-based company called Slide Fire Solutions. One of the billboards is next to I-55 in Chicago. The ad features a photo of a baseball mitt, an apple pie and a semi-automatic rifle, with accompanying text reading “PURE AMERICAN.’ At the bottom of the ad is the company’s logo, along with an Ichthys, or Jesus, fish. That’s right. According to Slide Fire Solutions, guns are as American as baseball and apple pie, and WWJS (Who Would Jesus Shoot?).

The Chicago Tribune ran an article on the billboard, allowing comments on their website. A woman named Evangeline wrote how upsetting the billboard was to her, and asked how many more kids need to die. In response to Evangeline, a comment appeared that was so deeply offensive, and so heartless, it could only have been written by a gun nut. Here is a screenshot of Jordan Zoot’s comment to Evangeline.

chicago-tribune-zoot

Read it again. Yes, he leaves out the word “be” in his sentence telling a woman her kids deserve to be shot, but the message is very clear. Agree with me, or someone should shoot your children. This is the SOP for gun nuts; you better see it my way, or else. Look at Ted Nugent. Nugent, during a concert, told Barack Obama to “suck on his machine gun,” called Hillary Clinton a “worthless bitch,” Obama a “piece of shit,” and told attendees at an NRA convention that if President Obama was reelected he, Nugent, would either be dead or in jail. Rational people don’t do that. Rational people do not tell a presidential candidate to suck on a machine gun, or make incendiary comments that garner them a visit from the Secret Service.

As I write this, Dana Loesch is preparing for her guest co-host gig on “The View.” The first time I heard of Ms. Loesch was when she came out in defense of Todd Akin’s legitimate rape comments. I was horrified, as were survivors all over the country, both by Akin’s comments, and by anyone defending those comments. Remember, this is the moment when President Obama had to publicly state “rape is rape.” This past Saturday, I learned Dana Loesch is also a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, except the “well-regulated” part, and her fans? Rabid, frothing, angry gun nuts.

Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand, asked her friends and followers to begin Tweeting Dana Loesch’s beliefs on gun legislation to “The View” Saturday afternoon. As a supporter of Moms Demand, I logged into Twitter, and started re-Tweeting relevant articles, making some original contributions to the discussion, and adding my voice to the thousands already participating. While on Twitter, I also kept an eye on Shannon’s Facebook page, in case she shared another name or hashtag for us to use. Other Moms began posting screenshots of the Tweets they were receiving from Dana Loesch’s fans. Tweets like this one, from someone calling themselves “The Grey Cutlass”:

twitter1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wishing suicide on a person who disagrees with you. Hoping a person who simply wants to protect our children ends their own life. No responsible gun owner I know would ever Tweet that, much less think it. That’s irrational. That’s a gun nut. Then threats of sexual violence allegedly began and having seen some of the horrible and violent things people write to her, I didn’t doubt her for a minute. Of course, there was the obligatory calling women “c*nts,” like this:

twitter3

 

 

 

Finally, I present Cocheese:

twitter2

Cocheese believes, as most gun nuts do, that Hitler “took away” all the guns in Germany. What Hitler actually did was loosen gun laws for Germans (except Jews) and lower the age one had to be in order to purchase a gun. Hitler did disarm the countries he conquered, and the people he wanted to kill, which is what dictators do. President Obama is not a dictator, because if he was, we wouldn’t have any gun nuts; they would either have been executed or arrested the first time they ever screamed/typed all in caps “OBUMMER IS A DICTATOR!”

The difference between gun owners and gun nuts is gun owners are not paranoid, delusional, hateful Americans who think it’s okay to tell a woman her children should be shot, or tell a member of Moms Demand they should commit suicide. Gun owners understand world history; they realize Hitler did the opposite of what gun nuts think he did. And they understand no one is coming for their guns.

I’ve lost a friend to gun violence, I support stronger gun laws, and I respect responsible gun owners. Owning an arsenal, hoarding firearms, and waving those firearms around while you bellow about Hitler and tell people like me our children should be shot is not responsible gun ownership. Simply owning guns does not make you a responsible gun owner. That makes you a gun nut.

Erin Nanasi

Erin Nanasi is the creator of The Bachmann Diaries: Satirical Excerpts from Michele Bachmann's Fictional Diary. She hates writing about herself in the third person. Erin enjoys reading, writing, and spending time with family. And wombats. Come visit Erin on on Facebook. She also can be found on Twitter at @WriterENanasi.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Jim Bean

    Unfortunately, even the responsible gun owner will fight against gun control legislation (as NRA membership numbers attest) because they don’t trust the advocates to be satisfied with whatever ‘sensible’ gun control legislation they have on the table at the moment once they get it. This fear derives from critical analysis and the recognition that said sensible legislation is not such that it could possibly produce the outcome the advocates claim to be pursuing nor would it have prevented whatever recent tragedy that spurred them into action this time. This does not infer that the goodness of the advocates intentions are unappreciated, but it DOES infer that the gun owner presumes the advocate realizes these things and, therefore, must/might have ulterior motives.
    I belong to the NRA, own about five hunting rifles/shotguns and have a loaded revolver in the nightstand (no children live in or visit the household). I could and would support a complete ban on assault rifles but instead, I donate begrudgingly to the NRA because I believe that once the assault rifles are under their belts, the advocates are coming for that handgun. Maybe I’m wrong but no one is trying very hard to convince me otherwise.
    If the advocates want to make inroads into gun control they need to alleviate those fears and establish some trust. They also need to be willing to courageously enter the heartland of gun violence in this country and at least engage in genuine discussions regarding how to address it. Currently, the Left is too absorbed in sanctimony to even acknowledge that they know where that heartland is, much less discuss it, even though it is in that heartland where the most lives could be saved and improved.
    Investing energies in the likes of Nugent makes for good entertainment and maybe some emotional gratification but it produces nothing useful or meaningful with regard to tackling gun violence.
    (Note to author: I’m not trying to derail you. This is an important issue and you perform a positive social service by bringing it up. I seek merely to broaden the discussion beyond the superfluous while recognizing that the superfluous is often a good tool for getting people to ‘tune in.’)

    • FD Brian

      FYI, we already had a ban on assault weapons and not one hand gun was confiscated.

      • Jim Bean

        I know. And the ban on assault weapons didn’t seem to have any effect on anything either. That’s why it wasn’t renewed.

      • Brian David

        That’s NOT why it wasn’t renewed. It wasn’t renewed because Conservatives who take money from the NRA controlled the process. There are plenty of ways that many of the recent tragedies could have been prevented. The Colorado theater shooting, the Virginia Tech Massacre and Newtown could all have been prevented if we had laws that to identify persons with mental illnesses and deny them access to firearms. There are also many other accidental shootings that could be prevented if we had stricter laws on the safe handling and storage of firearms around children.

      • Steve

        Try again; When the AWB hit its sunset, Democrats controlled the senate and they still didn’t even try for a vote.

        Don’t blame on Republicans what democrats failed to do.

      • kurtsteinbach

        The GOP controlled and had majorities in both Houses of Congress from 1995 until 2007 when the Democrats won. The Democrats won over 218 seats in the House in November 2006 and took office in January 2007. The Senate had at least 51 GOP Senators from January 1995 until the end of December 2006. The assault weapons ban expired in September 2004, 3 years before the Democratic Party regained the majority and control in either House of Congress. You can look it up if you want. I did….

      • Bang

        Violent crime when up during the so-called “Assault Weapons” ban. Criminals don’t care about laws. Easier to prey on unarmed, law abiding citizens. Libs want control and citizens defenseless. It will never happen.

      • Mrs_oatmeal

        I don’t believe that is not why it was not renewed. I don’t believe anyone is coming for your handguns.

      • Regina

        actually the killings decreased while the ban was in effect. The only reason it was not renewed was political lobbying by the gun lobbies. Please check the facts, and you will see that there were far fewer mass killings while the assault weapons ban was in effect.

      • shutdafrtdoor

        I attribute your stats to a robust economy with people working and able to provide for their families. (The Clinton Years) The “ban” did absolutely NOTHING! A few cosmetic changes and the weapons still sold like hot cakes.

      • Jim Bean

        My facts are correct. Very in-depth studies were done and reviewed in deciding whether to renew or let expire. There was no data that supported a finding that the ban had any measurable impact.

      • Mitchell Tyner

        Yes you are correct, this was the statement by the FBI I do believe.

    • shutdafrtdoor

      WOW! You did an extraordinary job of expressing what I believe to be a “main stream” view that many gun owners hold. I know you picked my brain nearly to the “T”. The only difference would be the “military style” weapons: FD is correct (assault is full auto capable). I hold my views as an US Army Infantry Veteran and believe a well armed citizenry is key to a free nation and bolsters national security. Sorry, took the oath and can’t untake it…it’s engrained in my heart and soul. It’s the one thing that kept Japan from trying to attack the mainland.

      • Jim Bean

        Also the only thing the prevented Russia and the USA from being successful in their attempts to control Afghanistan. Thanks for your service. Thanks for the thumbs up. J. Bean USN 1967-1970

      • shutdafrtdoor

        Likewise!

    • HomeGunTraining

      The gun prohibition movement has proven they cannot be trusted. They won’t stop until only bankers, celebrities, and politicians have the right to self-defense.

  • FD Brian

    Here is the deal, we already regulate the 2nd amendment and we have already passed laws that state which arms we can purchase or have in our possession. The argument lies in to where we want to draw the line in the sand.

    • Matthew Reece

      Who is we?

      • FD Brian

        United States

      • Matthew Reece

        The United States does not exist. Each individual person exists.

      • Nerdsamwich

        Some folks tried to make that argument stick once. What did they call themselves? Oh, right. The Confederate States of America. Maybe you should ask them how that worked out.

      • Matthew Reece

        Might does not make right.

      • Nerdsamwich

        Well, I don’t know about you, but anything that’s gonna kick my ass has to exist first.

      • Matthew Reece

        Individual violent criminals acting upon the idea of government (aka police and soldiers) exist. The government does not exist.

      • Nerdsamwich

        Start printing your own money, then. Only one says you can’t is a figment, right?

      • Matthew Reece

        Why would I print dollars when I can mine Litecoins? Also, counterfeiting is theft. Many of the Founding Fathers understood this, to the point that the Coinage Act of 1792 makes it a capital crime for an employee of the Mint to debase the coinage. If only we had that attitude toward the Federal Reserve today.

        Again, the government does not exist, but there are individual violent criminals (aka police and soldiers) who believe in the idea and do violence in its name.

      • Nerdsamwich

        The Founding Fathers of what? Your claim is that it’s nonexistent. Same with the Coinage Act: whom is counterfeiting theft from, if not the government(and through them, the people)? As long as there are those who consent to be governed, government will exist.

      • Nerdsamwich

        Also, Litecoins? Speaking of things that don’t exist. If mining them were profitable, would the folk who make the miners sell them? Hell, no. They’d plug that shit in and rake in the cash.

      • Matthew Reece

        Mining them has treated me well enough. I don’t know how long this will continue to be the case with the new scrypt ASICs coming online soon, however.

    • Doug Williams

      Actually that is not “the thing” at all, for gun nuts or the NRA (the gun manufacturer’s lobbying arm. “The thing,” for both of these groups is desperate opposition to ANY increased restriction or more efficient investigation of who can LEGALLY purchase a firearm.

  • Pipercat

    You forgot the third category, the irresponsible gun owner. Those who are not nuts, own guns and treat them like toothbrushes.

  • tomjohnson

    What is the difference between Trophy Hunters and Serial Killers who just don’t specialize in humans? They both kill because they enjoy it. They killed animals as kids, they take parts of the kills as “trophies.” Time to evolve, Keeds.

    • Jim Bean

      As a hunter, I can sincerely understand why people might feel that way in todays age. To a large segment of society, hamburger is nothing more than that reddish colored food product that comes in the clear-wrapped packaging tray near the meat counter. To me, hamburger is the product of that helpless unsuspecting critter I led out behind the barn, executed with a bullet to the brain, and then chopped into a thousands of small pieces. As for trophy hunters – if they were hunting for the thrill of the kill, they wouldn’t be passing up dozens of opportunities to make kills in order to wait for that one particularly special opportunity, now would they? (Thinking is becoming far too underrated.) As for the parts of animals taken as ‘trophies’ I’d be wasting my time trying to explain to you why that has nothing to do with the killing aspect. The closest I could come would be to ask you to ponder why Native American Indians saved and cherished parts of the animals they killed. As for evolving, when humans evolve to the point they no longer have canine teeth, I’ll be willing to revisit this with you.

      • Shawn Scott

        I would have to add a salient point about trophy hunters @Jim Bean, I have watched three different BOWhunting shows (one of those disgustingly cutesy couples shows) and saw the hunters kill the prey and only take the trophy; leaving the carcass, hide, etc. One bighorn sheep they ended up shooting repeatedly with a rifle until it finally died, but they were in no way able to collect the trophy, let alone the carcass. They just shot it to make the kill for their televised show. What’s the point again? THAT my friend, is irresponsible trophy hunting. I’m sure my native ancestors would disagree with your assumption that they only kept parts of the animal. They used the entire animal, and since they didn’t have manufacturing plants or a local WalMart I’m pretty sure they used what they could to make decorative pieces, useful tools, shelters, etc. after they used the meat and fat to survive on. An alarming majority of today’s trophy hunters do no such thing. I know, I’ve witnessed it firsthand dozens of times until I finally had to say enough is enough in my circle of influence. Is giraffe meat something they would eat or did the giraffe get shot for a photo opp and a head mount?

      • Jim Bean

        I said ” Indians saved and cherished parts of the animals they killed” and you saw fit to pervert that into “your (my) assumption that they only kept parts of the animal.” Consequently, the veracity of everything else you said becomes suspect. Nevertheless, you claim ‘an alarming majority of today’s trophy hunters do no such thing (convert the carcass into food and other products) and you claim to be a witness to dozens of examples of this and have access to video proof. If you are truly at the enough-is-enough stage you’ll be happy to learn that there may be plenty you can do about it.
        Many states have laws that prohibit the practice you describe and lengthy statutes of limitations for prosecutions. (An example from the Missouri Department of Conversation regulations is provide below). I encourage you to report what you’ve seen to the state(s) conservation department(s) and provide them with access to any of the videos you can, and offer to serve as a witness. You will find them to be more than grateful for your responsible assistance. (Note: many states have private, licensed hunting preserves where the owner raises or buys the animals to be ‘hunted’ (to misuse a term). State conservation agencies have less control over what happens there because the animal is private property – like a cow, for example.) Good luck. The community needs more concerned citizens like you.

        Retrieval of game (From MDC Online)

        Anyone who kills or injures a deer must make a reasonable effort to retrieve and include the animal in his or her season limit, but this does not authorize trespass. It is a violation to wantonly leave or abandon commonly edible portions of game.

      • Me

        Not being acquainted with the majority of trophy hunters I can’t really speak for their level of responsibility or otherwise or even why they enjoy hunting trophies. I don’t care for hunting period (I know how I just don’t particularly enjoy it) and have no desire to bag a trophy anything. However, I have a cousin who goes on an annual bear hunt in Canada and I’ve heard him talk about it as an almost spiritual experience in which believes he comes to a great understanding and reverence for the animal he hunts. I cannot even begin to understand that line of reasoning but I also cannot dismiss it out of hand because I know my cousin pretty well and there is nothing about him that anyone could consider irresponsible (unless they simply cannot abide his annual trophy hunt, period). That said, I do not agree with his choice of recreation and I absolutely do not share his point of view regarding the killing of a trophy animal, but I do understand a little about what he gets from it. I’m not defending the practice but I’m not condemning it either. I know a lot of people who hunt deer, some for meat and some for trophies, and I do understand some of what goes into managing a deer herd. As a year-round motorcycle rider, it becomes immediately obvious to me when the deer population in a given area becomes too dense, so while I don’t engage in hunting myself I want those hunters out there both to avoid an overpopulated, starving, diseased deer herd and to keep them out from in front of my motorcycle.

    • Grits.N.Jowls

      In your opinion.

  • matt

    Well liberals are trying to take guns from all gun owners responsible or not . So you can only expect them to get sensitive about the topic since your discussing about taking their property away.

    • real_world_truth

      Making it harder for someone with a violent criminal record or serious mental health issues to purchase a fire arm is not ‘trying to take guns away’, it’s exercising common sense. I am a gun owner and a gun enthusiast who supports deep background checks, required safe handling and use classes for potential gun owners and a federally mandated minimum waiting period.

      GUNS DO KILL PEOPLE!

      • that guy

        I agree with you except guns dont kill people, people kill people. The gun is just a tool, Brits and the Chinese have strict gun laws but they have massive problems with stabbings and people getting the shit kicked out of them. Its not the tool its the person holding the tool.

      • Brian David

        Which is exactly why there need to be restrictions on who can own guns, regulations and mandatory training on how they should be handled, stored, etc….

      • real_world_truth

        I was using the line as a parody on the NRA slogan; ‘guns don’t kill, people kill people’. The slogan was, to my mind, a specious attempt to misdirect and over simplify. Yes persons bent on doing violence will do violence. My argument is that we need not make it so easy for them to do mass violence.

      • Matthew Reece

        Governments caused 260 million murders in the 20th century. If we are going to talk about stopping mass violence, we must start with the state.

      • real_world_truth

        Feel free to try and clear the money changers from the temple without starting with the society that has allowed rampant abuse to occur. As you are not Christ, I don’t imagine you will have much success.

      • Regina

        If the guy who walked into that school in Newtown had knives instead of guns, there would have been a lower body count. You have to be close to someone to stab them, and you can only stab one person at a time. And if all you had was a knife, believe me, someone in that school would have been able to stop the guy from killing all of those children.
        Yes, guns and knives are just the tools people use to cause harm, but, guns can cause a helluva lot more death in a much shorter amount of time. And it’s much harder to disarm a nut with a gun than a nut with a knife.

      • shutdafrtdoor

        And if guns were illegal…he still would have done it.

      • real_world_truth

        That is exactly her point, he would have done it, but with a tool that was less destructive to hand fewer lives would have been lost. You are being both facetious and obtuse. Contribute something real to the conversation,

      • shutdafrtdoor

        Because you don’t agree with me I’m being facetious and obtuse!? My point IS being legal or not does NOTHING to curb a maniacal killer. If you think making guns illegal will make them disappear, you are smoking mushrooms still! So don’t try to sound haughty or uber-intelligent…because you look like a blabbering idiot.

      • real_world_truth

        I did not say guns should be illegal. Try reading before you comment.

      • shutdafrtdoor

        Your rude and pompous behavior has exceeded my tolerance for unnecessary bulllshit. Sooo…go fuque yourself. I’m done with your ignorant ass, you add NO value to this conversation…only an inflammatory diatribe.

      • Mitchell Tyner

        I also believe that he would have done the same thing with a knife if he
        had it. I also don’t believe that it would have been just as easy to
        “stop” him. For instance, I seem to recall a couple of planes being
        hijacked, 3 to be exact, by men with box cutters. There were I think
        3-4 on each plane. Even after learning that they were going to use
        those planes to fly into a building and blow up, the people on two of
        those planes still didn’t try to “rise” up and take the lowly weapons
        away from their captures and save their own lives. Different situations
        yes, but probable outcome of the both.

      • Regina

        You are comparing apples to oranges. (by the way, it was four planes, not “3 to be exact”). After the first three planes flew into buildings, the people on the fourth plane heard what happened with the other planes and did “rise up” and prevented the plane from reaching it’s target, thus the crash in Pennsylvania. I don’t think that the people on the first three planes knew what was planned. That being said, on the planes, there were a total of 19 hijackers, which is more than you recall. If there was only one hijacker with a box cutter, it would have been easier to disarm him. There were 4-5 hijackers on the planes, so yes, that would be harder to stop than one person, but the fact that the people on the fourth plane were able to prevent the plane from reaching its target, disproves your point. Sadly, the plane still crashed, but, the people did “rise up” . . .
        Also, keep in mind, there were 4 or 5 hijackers on the planes. The shooter in Newtown (and in most of these mass shootings) acted alone, and thus would have been easier to disarm if all he had was a knife of some sort. I’m sure if I were there, I’d have at least tried to whack him on the back with a chair. With the firepower he had, not many people would have tried to get close enough to whack him with a chair.

      • Nerdsamwich

        That doesn’t make the passengers on the first three planes any less sheep for letting themselves be hijacked with box cutters when they outnumbered the hijackers at least 20 to one.

      • Jim Bean

        🙂

      • Guest

        I also believe that he would have done the same thing with a knife if he had it. I also don’t believe that it would have been just as easy to “stop” him. For instance, I seem to recall a couple of planes being hijacked, 3 to be exact, by men with box cutters. There were I think 3-4 on each plane. Even after learning that they were going to use those planes to fly into a building and blow up, the people on two of those planes still didn’t try to “rise” up and take the lowly weapons away from their captures and save their own lives. Different situations yes, but probable outcome of the both.

      • Mitchell Tyner

        huh? did someone copy paste my comment on the same thing… wow

      • Matthew Reece

        I am all for making it harder for someone with a violent criminal record or serious mental health issues to get a gun. Let’s start with soldiers and police.

      • real_world_truth

        Or we could try having a serious discussion on the issue instead of simply trying to ‘score points’ and stir up emotional response.

      • Steve

        Ironic coming from a person that wants an “assault weapon” ban…

      • real_world_truth

        I have said nothing about assault weapons at any point in the conversation nor have I advocated banning any weaponry.

      • kurtsteinbach

        In truth, many veterans coming back from wars do suffer from PTSD. Some don’t even know it; others hide it, even from themselves. Most don’t want to be labeled. At what point does someone become too mentally ill to own a gun, and who decides that, a therapist, a counselor, a psychologist, a psychiatrist, or a team and then at what point does the team meet to make this determination?

      • shutdafrtdoor

        Stirred me up assshole…

      • Doug Williams

        Why be an ass if you can easily avoid it?

      • Matthew Reece

        Why grant some people exceptions and not others if you can easily avoid it? I try to hold every person to the same standard, regardless of the costumes they wear or legal fictions they claim to serve.

      • Nerdsamwich

        No one has a harder time accessing a gun than a soldier. If you own one, it has to be kept in the arms room with all of the “work rifles” and any time you want to even clean it, you need permission from your commander to sign it out for a few hours. Getting to actually shoot your own gun once in a while is a whole other ball of red tape. The same goes for knives. And by “knives” I mean anything with a blade over 3 inches long. I got extra duty for my regular, plain old Buck knife.

      • Jim Bean

        Just a note to your comment: anyone who has a violent criminal record has been convicted of a felony. ALL felons are already prohibited from possessing firearms for life. When they want a gun, they’re going to obtain it outside any registration-controlled process. (There has been some discussion of changing this law for non-violent felons as the list of non-violent crimes that are added to the felony list grows.)

      • real_world_truth

        You know Jim, I owe you a quite sincere apology. I had written you off as a nutjob troll, but I see now that there a common areas of agreement we share. And thank you for pointing out what I should have mentioned in my comment. (I was not ignoring the facts, by the way, merely trying to keep from going on ad infinitum.) As for non-violent felons and gun ownership, there is indeed much work that needs to be done within our justice system.

      • Jim Bean

        Amen and tks. It made for a lively discussion.

      • Jim Bean

        And since you seem to on an even keel, lets touch on the mental issue. I agree with you but with a nervous caveat. Most people who have serious mental health issues will be plenty smart enough to know that seeking treatment could cost them their gun rights, should such kind of laws be put in place. I’m not saying there aren’t any possibilities there but, brother, that is a mine-field if ever there was one.

      • real_world_truth

        Actually, having a family member who is indeed mentally ill, I agree it is an area of concern. A blanket ban would be unnecessarily harsh and no ban at all will lead to more tragedies that might have been averted. A sensible solution must be found.

        You do know these statements in support of gun owners rights will, no doubt, cause me no end of grief from those of my fellow progressives who adamantly support banning guns. 😀

      • matt

        Having background checks makes sense and gun safety education since everyone probably knows some fool 18yr old who just bought a long gun and Is a idiot with it. And back to my prev comment libs and dems like Dianne Feinstein are trying to take away guns . She is very adamant about it same with the gov of NY

      • Steve

        Fine; Let’s teach firearm safety starting the same year we teach sex ed. Guns are going no where, and teaching “abstinence from firearms” is just stupid.

        And just to make both sides happy, let parents opt to have their kids take it at a place of their choosing, such as an NRA class at a gun store, to avoid any complaint of “incorrect teaching from schools”.

      • real_world_truth

        I said nothing about abstinence from fire arms, nor did I advocate ‘just say no’ to sex, drugs or rock n roll. As a matter of fact, Steve, being raised in the South, we had a state run hunter’s safety course in middle school (that was 7th grade at the time). I found it boring since I had already learned everything they went over from my father and uncle. And surprise, surprise they held it the same year that we began taking sex ed. Learned more about that from my parents also.

        I don’t know if you’re playing goad the liberal Democrat or if you’ve mistaken me for a liberal to moderate Republican (Do liberal Republicans even exist anymore?). Just to be clear, I am a progressive liberal on most issues and worked locally for both Obama campaigns. I am for peace, social justice, a fair minimum wage, immigration reform that makes sense, and the abolition of both wild card play and the designated hitter rule.

      • Jim Bean

        Are you sitting down? I hope so because I’m going to treat you to another real-word-truth. The NRA has an entire division dedicated to (firearms) training law enforcement officers. They have trained thousands of law enforcement officers from smaller communities and law enforcement educational entities that don’t have the resources to use more expensive options. They’ve trained millions of hunters so they could get hunting licenses. They have programs for women. They currently have 97,000 instructors and range safety officers. (And here you thought they were spending all their time and money trying to figure out how to take out a class room full of fourth graders.)

      • Nerdsamwich

        I miss the days when that was the public face of the NRA. Why is it that every group of people nowadays seems to have been taken over by their lunatic fringe?

    • HF

      “liberals are trying to take guns from all gun owners responsible or not”

      WHERE ON EARTH ARE YOU GETTING THIS BS. Please give me just ONE example of “liberals trying to take guns” from you. I am so, so, so, so beyond sick of this BS propaganda that morons like you repeat ad naseum, regardless of the the UTTER LACK OF ANY KIND OF SOURCE for this crap.

      • matt

        I have a personal exp . I am stationed in NY . I owned a few semi auto sporting rifles . After the safe act they are no longer welcome in the state . I owned a pistol when I first reported here. Not knowing I had to have a license to own pistols I brought it. Upon arrival I was forced to ship it away to my home state. They might as well been taken and I’m not the only one with this exp.

      • Rhonda Painter

        Doesn’t that fall under the category of states’ rights?

      • HF

        So, you tried to transport guns across state lines without doing the research you needed to figure out what you had to do to legally move them with you. That’s your personal responsibility.

    • Doug Williams

      “Well liberals are trying to take guns from all gun owners responsible or not .”

      Nowhere in the article is the author discussing taking anything away from anyone. Period, full stop.

      Wrong again Bob.

  • Thank you.

  • worrierking

    We should be honest enough to admit that we all know responsible gun owners, who know how to use, secure and acquire firearms legitimately.

    But we should also admit, that most of us know that one guy who should be nowhere near any kind of firearm. He has every legal right to own one, but you wouldn’t want him anywhere near your family when he’s carrying.

    No one is trying to take away guns. The right to vote has been limited in more than 30 states, even though it’s our constitutional right. The right to speak freely is not absolute. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. The right to assemble has been shown to be non-existant in some cases, as has the right to a speedy trial, the right to an attorney and the right to face your accuser.

    I don’t believe that we should deny anyone their right under the 2nd amendment unless they’ve proven to be irresponsible with firearms. I don’t even begrudge Nugent his right to carry a gun even though he refused to carry a gun and serve under the flag that he never gets tired of waving.

    • Gidawdah

      Copy that.

    • shutdafrtdoor

      Ditto!

    • HomeGunTraining

      and you have no problem with the right to an attorney and a jury trial being abridged?

      • worrierking

        Where did I say that? The people who do have a problem with those rights are usually the same ones who see the 2nd Amendment as absolute. But not the rest of the Bill of Rights.

    • Fairy Larry

      Thats brilliant buddy.

  • shopper

    Now that we have Facebook, etc., it appears that the ‘nuts’ are increasing. So many lies are being passed around and there are always those who believe what they read without bothering to check anything, that we are developing almost a cult of gun lovers. Scary – and if they revolt (as they seem to think is necessary) that will be the end of the USA. Sorry but I blame the tea party group for all the weird things I see happening.

    • Nerdsamwich

      No, it won’t. Revolts have been put down before.

  • Michael Siever

    How about expanding universal background checks to gun shows and online gun stores, since that’s where most people buy guns to sell for profit on the black market? Oh, wait, we did try that, and the NRA and their puppet Senators killed it…of course.

    • shutdafrtdoor

      …not unreasonable at all. My perspective has always been…”Update the software…leave the hardware alone”

      • Bruce Veasey

        I can totally respect that. Now get the hardcore nutjobs to get on board, and let’s get something done. Why are moderates so quick to let ourselves be overwhelmed in the chaos of the debate?

      • shutdafrtdoor

        Agreed! I try to use this analogy in every firearms or Second Amendment conversation I engage in.

    • Mitchell Tyner

      last time I purchased a rifle from a gun show… they ran a background check on me. That was around 6-7 years ago. Where is this “gunshow loophole” people keep talking about??? I think most people are clumping “private sellers” in with the gunshows. For instance if I wanted to sell my rifle to X, I can sell that rifle with no paperwork. But that is because I’m a private citizen, not a business. Booths at gunshows are business and required by their FFL’s to do the background checks and also the keep track of their stock via serial numbers. Also, with online gun stores, to ship a firearm anywhere you have to send it to an FFL licensed dealer and they have to do the paper work and background checks on you. You won’t find an online dealer that will ship you a gun directly unless you are in the FFL database and have a current and legal FFL. The problem that I’ve seen the most is the use of Mules, yes exactly like the small meth business, where people who want something illegally will get a person that can get it no problem to get the said item then give or sell it to them. Just how the meth producers will send in people to buy a couple boxes of meds so they can get the material to cook the meth with.

      • Rhonda Painter

        That’s because you were in a state with a state background check law. Not all states have them.

  • Gidawdah

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    • shutdafrtdoor

      I believe the responsible gun owners of this nation ARE the militia of this country. With that being said…we need to keep up with technology for national security. And NO I’m not insinuating “The Government” is out to get us.

      • Mitchell Tyner

        Every gun owner in our great states are the militia, not just the responsible type as they put it. Also, if and when the s.h.t.f. those “gun nuts” who own many firearms are going to be the ones arming the “guns are bad” people to fight back whatever the situation might be. I do agree with your comment on another thread though, that the citizenry owning weapons was the only thing that kept Japan from invading mainland America. “It’s impossible, there is a rifle behind every blade of grass”.

      • shutdafrtdoor

        Actually…I agree with your statement more than mine! LOL!

      • Nerdsamwich

        The National Guard are the militia of this country. That said, I am a fan of guns. They are very good tools for their intended purpose, and are just plain cool.

      • shutdafrtdoor

        I have to disagree… The National Guard is an entity of the government. NOT the people, that’s why I state “the responsible gun owners of this nation ARE the militia” The National Guard is bound by the governments direction and orders. IF the government were to turn on it’s citizenry…we the people would be responsible to wrest control back.

      • Nerdsamwich

        That’s a dangerous fantasy. No way in hell are a few civilians with sporting rifles going to even meaningfully deter a tank brigade with air and artillery support. I doubt a similar number of civilians could even hope to discourage an infantry company. If highly trained and equipped federal troops couldn’t handle a citizen’s uprising, there’d be no point training and equipping them.

      • shutdafrtdoor

        That’s exactly why the government shouldn’t have the power to regulate what type of weapons we can own! Winner winner chicken dinner!!!

      • Nerdsamwich

        Except that the only people who could afford to purchase air and artillery support would be the super-rich, and the only ones who would use their money that way would be the nuts. Do you really want Joel Osteen and Michelle Bachmann to have their own private armies?

      • shutdafrtdoor

        I had not thought that deeply into it…I was referring to more commonly held weapons. But the answer is they CAN buy that type of arsenal with the proper paperwork.

      • Nerdsamwich

        But under your plan, wackjobs like Ted Nugent, or any of his fans, could mount a .50 cal machine gun to the roof of their car. Every redneck in Alabama could–and would, I know rednecks–have an anti-aircraft gun set up in the back of his pickup. It would mostly be used for shooting empty beer kegs, but the collateral damage would be just ridiculous. And then when they inevitably get drunk and decide they don’t like the color of the neighbor’s trailer…

      • shutdafrtdoor

        No sir…there are stringent laws to regulate what you speak of. Please stop reading more into what I’m saying.

      • Nerdsamwich

        There are, now. But you said that private citizens should be able to buy any piece of military hardware. I’m just walking through the implications of what you proposed.

      • Nerdsamwich

        Also, “militia” means irregular troops, as in not the professional standing army. They are traditionally placed under the command of a regular military officer in times of need. Like the National Guard. “Militia” does NOT mean paramilitary personnel who do not answer to their lawful governing body.

  • Matthew Reece

    In the 18th century, the term “well-regulated” meant “functioning properly.” It did not refer to government interference with individual liberty.

    • Rhonda Painter

      So, please restate for us what you think that term well-regulated militia means.

      • Matthew Reece

        “Well-regulated militia” simply refers to the people who were/are not part of the state military who are capable of defending themselves with firearms.

      • Rhonda Painter

        And where do you get that definition?

      • Matthew Reece

        Logic combined with period-correct definitions of other terms.

      • Rhonda Painter

        So, in other words, you just came up with that yourself.

      • Matthew Reece

        You say that as though it can invalidate an argument. Find any argument that was not originated in such a manner (by a person thinking of it himself/herself).

      • Nerdsamwich

        The States DID command their militia, and those people who were part of it drilled at least every other week in military tactics. The only appreciable difference between the old-timey militia and the National Guard is who owned the equipment.

  • Regina

    I agree that there is a difference between “responsible gun owner” and “gun nut”. I know there are a lot of responsible gun owners out there. My beef with them is that they have let gun nuts take over the NRA, who then prevent any rational discussion on how to deal with the ever-increasing mass shootings. If the responsible gun owners are worried about all the negativity towards the NRA, they should take back control of the NRA from the “gun nuts”. Think about it. As a responsible gun owner, you have the capability of rational thought. I would love to see some common sense discussions on how to prevent these mass killings from happening. How many responsible gun owners need to have the kind of weaponry sitting around that killed all those children in Newtown? As a responsible gun owner, if you feel the need to have those high-capacity rifles, maybe the ammunition could be stored somewhere else? Or the guns could be stored somewhere other than at your home. You obviously don’t use these high-capacity magazines near your house (that would not be responsible). And background checks. Let’s be honest. The guy who killed those children in Newtown should not have had access to all of that weaponry. He was known to have psychological problems. Yes, his mother was the owner of the guns, but she should have been made to agree to keep them out of reach of her son. Of course, given what I read about the family, letting the mother own all of that weaponry is an issue I’m not informed enough to comment on.

    I understand people wanting a handgun handy in case of a break-in. I understand wanting to keep it handy for those emergency situations. But, these high-powered guns and their high-capacity magazines should never be left unlocked. That is irresponsible.

    I personally would not want a gun in my home, but, I do not begrudge others that right, as long as they are responsible. I would like for responsible gun owners to see that even people who do not wish to own guns themselves are capable of discussing this rationally, and sanely, and with compromises.
    So please, responsible gun owners, take back control of the NRA from the gun nuts so that a reasonable conversation can be held that does not rely on fear (from either side!)

  • Michael Siever

    To those who are so paranoid and think the government is out to get you, my response is this: If the government wanted to “get” you, they would go after your food and water supply, not your guns…

    • Mitchell Tyner

      They already are going after our food and water…

  • Mitchell Tyner

    I’m curious though, as a history buff (also take into effect I hate the “Hitler” argument) in my studies I’ve found that Hitler did in fact disarm the public. I wish I still had access to the schools library so I could pull the source for that but I remember doing a paper on almost this very thing about the rise of power and dictatorship of the Nazi party for one of my masters classes.

  • HomeGunTraining

    The gun prohibitionists say the same thing about wishing gun owners’ kids would get killed all the time and limousine liberal set doesn’t say a peep.

    • Rhonda Painter

      Where? Show a link or it didn’t happen.

  • Tom Moran

    “Assault weapon” is a stretch on words and the truth. Your use of this incorrect phrase shows your bias. Real assault weapons(fully automatic) are already illegal for the masses. Real assault weapons are used by the police and the military. The weapon that the billboard pictured was a semi-automatic rifle, which is the majority of hunting rifles sold in the USA. The color of the rifle and its appearance doesn’t make it more or less lethal. Mini-vans kill more children than semi-automatic rifles do but no one in their right mind would outlaw black mini-vans with a sporty look.

  • WineAtTheBeach

    It was only about 6:30 pm when I left work to go to my car in the outdoor public parking lot and on my way through the lot I was confronted by two thugs asking for my money. I said sure and gave them my wallet but then they started shoving me and cursing at me and I am much much weaker then they were so one of them threw a punch at my head and I was out. I was in the hospital for about a month due to concussion and lost my income too. Today I carry a concealed handgun and I can’t figure out which category above i would fall in to? I am not a gun nut and own one handgun but I also would never collect antique guns either (why collect death tools?). Is there no room for self defense? Am I suppose to just be scared and stay at home all day?

  • mark, gunn

    bottom line, guns are as American as apple pie. tyranny does sneak up on you and disarming so called gun nuts will never happen in this country.

    • Nerdsamwich

      What tyranny? If we really had it, you’d have been disappeared for saying that.

  • Evans

    Gun rights activist faces felony charges

    By Bill Smith on July 3, 2014 – 1:25pm

    Jordan Zoot

    Gun rights activist Jordan S. Zoot is facing felony firearms charges after Evanston police raided his apartment at 617 Grove St. Wednesday.

    A police spokesman says officers from the department’s Neighborhood Enforcement Team accompanied by officers from the Cook County Sheriff’s Gun Unit and agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives executed a search warrant for guns at the apartment and found three handguns and two rifles along with about 1,800 rounds of ammunition and other firearm-related items and equipment.

    Police say Zoot, 53, had once had a firearms owner identification card, but that it had been revoked.

    Zoot was taken into custody and charged aggravated possession of firearms and possession of ammunition without a valid FOID card.

    Zoot received a $50,000 recognizance bond and was scheduled for a pretrial services psychological evaluation.

    From Evanston Now

  • RageInEden606

    Zoot is indeed a genuinely unhinged individual. He makes similarly vile comments on other matters as well. A very sick man.