Unsure and looking for answers


PDA






Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 12:16 PM
Last night my fiancee and I got into a pretty big discussion about the second amendment debate, which led me to finding this site. Essentially, this is how the discussion went down:

My fiancee and his family are big pro-gum advocates, and they all own at least one. They have decided to boycott places that do not support the right to own and carry a concealed weapon with the proper permits.

When he asked me how I felt on the topic, I responded by saying that I wasn't sure where I stood, since I had never really thought about the implications of gun ownership and had never even pictured myself owning a gun. He goes on to tell me that "It's people like you [said to me] who are ruining this country." What he heard was that I was not a pro-gun advocate; what I was really saying is that I am just unsure of my stance on the topic.

I am fine with people owning guns, despite never picturing myself owning one. In fact, I have only shot two real guns in my life at a shooting range a few years ago. He [my fiancee] is really upset that I don't know where I stand, and I have no idea of how to handle this situation. Since last night, I have done some reading on both sides of the gun control debates but I think I am more confused now that I was before. I'm worried that this could become a big issue between my fiancee and I, and I am not sure how to handle our potential difference of opinion. Help!

We are both young [22] so I know that we have a lot of time ahead of us, but it seems as though me not knowing where I stand is going to cause some problems and I don't want the last 2 years to be thrown away just because I am unsure of my stance on guns/gun control.

Edit: Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the discussion. Your input has been very helpful and has allowed me to think critically about what I believe regarding 2A. Your words made me think in ways that I had not thought of before, and many examples were used that made a lot of sense to me personally. My road to understanding this topic has just begun, but I appreciate how this site handles itself in a professional and non-judgmental manner. :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Unsure and looking for answers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
stumpers
April 15, 2013, 12:20 PM
Despite what may follow from others, I would read the Second Amendment and decide what it means to you, taking into consideration the big Constitutional picture, including relevant Supreme Court cases.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 12:23 PM
Thanks for such a quick reply. I actually did spend some time this morning reading the second amendment, including different websites and wordings, as well as court cases and I am still not sure where I stand. My fiancee did not accept the fact that I am unsure, and kept trying to guide me into thinking the same way he did.

mljdeckard
April 15, 2013, 12:24 PM
I would hope that any gun owner would be smart enough to put his wife/fiance in front of political differences. It would be really stupid to give up something good over something like this. Especially since you're not saying 'no', you're saying "I need to learn more". If you are saying you need to learn, he should look at it as an opportunity to teach.

We don't insist that everyone like or own guns. What we don't want is people telling US that WE can't like or own guns.

MErl
April 15, 2013, 12:27 PM
I think you have the majority opinion in the nation. It isn't an issue to you either way (or wasn't)

Sounds like it is something that you do need to think about now though.

Tempers are going to be short when discussing this issue right now. There have been alot of (verbal) hate attacks directed at gun owners as a group, lumping us along with criminals. That doesn't lead to positive discussion.

What are the areas you are confused on which we could help clarify?

Yo Mama
April 15, 2013, 12:27 PM
Hello, and welcome to the forum. You'll definately find alot of information here. I'd say it's a great thing that you are speaking about this with someone you plan to spend the rest of your life with. It actually sounds like you're fine with people owning guns, but that it may not be something you're personally ready for.

In terms of ruining the country, I think you're ok. We have many more threats to our freedom than you not knowing where you stand.

For many of us, gun ownership is a right that we hold dear.

autospike
April 15, 2013, 12:31 PM
At first blush, it would seem your fiancee is a little immature. But I'm guessing that you're both fairly young and you have to keep in mind that this can be a very emotional subject. So, let's forget him for a bit.

What do YOU want to know / ask about 2A? What's got you confused?

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 12:32 PM
And that was what I was trying to tell him. I am unsure of a lot of political things, just because they are so complicated and I tend to see things I agree with on both sides. The second I said I wasn't sure, I felt like he had stopped listening and switched to convincing instead.

CSG
April 15, 2013, 12:34 PM
To clearly understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment, explore what the founders wrote about what a well-regulated militia was comprised of and what keeping and bearing arms meant. This is all contained in the Federalist papers.

Also ask yourself, why this guaranteed right is second only to the 1st Amendment.

You don't have to be a gun owner or lover to understand what the anti-Constitutional crowd is trying to achieve.

bigdaa
April 15, 2013, 12:34 PM
Go with your fiance and get a 22 rifle in our hands at the range and punch some holes in paper or chase a soda can around with it.

Nobody is going to help you but yourself if you feel "dirty" about the idea.
That attitude usually comes from listening to people who've never used a gun but have used plenty of talk against gun ownership.

There is a basic tenet that people have a right to self protection and protection of their family and assets. How else would people protect themselves against a most likely superior adversary?
Ask yourself whom your future husband would want to come home to. Your smiling face and open arms or the memory of you as you were before you were killed by an intruder.

I think you need to fret less and open yourself up to the process of learning what you do not know.

I also think, but only based on your description, that your fiance should lighten up considerably and become a mentor sharing his knowledge and witholding anything but constructive criticism.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 12:38 PM
Are those who are against the second amendment saying that guns should only be in the hands of the government/military?

Why are many restaurants and businesses against the possession of those with concealed carry permits? Will boycotting these places actually change anything, and if so, what?

Is there a way to please both sides of the debate by allowing people to own guns as long as they follow certain safety regulations, provided this does not cross over into complete control?

Yo Mama
April 15, 2013, 12:46 PM
Yes, those against the 2nd want all private gun ownership to be illegal. It's the end game, they will hide and say they don't but the results show otherwise.

Many businesses are either also anti gun, or stupid. Hard to tell the difference. Gun free zones are the most dangerous places on the planet.

There is no way to please both sides. The idea is they need to go after criminals. Every law made goes after the citizen. We have plenty of laws already, they are just not enforced.

I'd encourage you to read about countries where gun ownership was made illegal and what happened to those people.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

Please see my link. The table shows the millions upon millions that have died as a result.

Tinpig
April 15, 2013, 12:47 PM
"It's people like you [said to me] who are ruining this country."

If that's how your fiancee talks to you when he disagrees with you, you might want to reconsider whether you want to spend the rest of your life with someone who treats you so disrespectfully.

He should be pleased that you're open to discussing the issue, and be making the effort to win you over by introducing you to guns in a positive way instead of acting like a jackass.

Tinpig

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 12:51 PM
Obviously, I do not like all of the tragedies that come from guns. Whenever I hear about a mall or school being shot up, it makes me sick. But I am also not one of those who thinks that all guns are bad. The right of gun ownership comes with a lot of responsibility, though, and I think that a lot of people just don't take that seriously.

I also think that adding more regulations will not help reduce the amount of gang violence. Many people who use guns in gangs do not get them legally, so adding more regulations only make it harder for us to protect ourselves if we so choose.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 12:55 PM
Tinpig: It was at that point in the discussion where I just stopped talking. I was really upset when he said this to me, and I did not even know where this anger came from. I was not ready to form an opinion I knew nothing about, and I was looking for guidance from him, but instead I got defensivenss.

I am worried that if we talk about this again, the same thing will happen. Talking politics always involves tensions, but does anyone have any ideas of how to go about this discussion in the future? Given what I have said in this forum, I am not against guns, but I am also not a gun fanatic either, and I just need him to understand that I am just not sure.

autospike
April 15, 2013, 12:57 PM
The second I said I wasn't sure, I felt like he had stopped listening and switched to convincing instead.

OK, let's hold off on that for now at least. Very few of us here are licensed relationship counsellors :-)

Are those who are against the second amendment saying that guns should only be in the hands of the government/military?


I hate broad sweeping statements. And the fact is that none of us here on this board can say what every Anti-2A person has in their mind. But what you stated is certainly one of my concerns. I am concerned specifically that the government would have us give up all firearms and they would only be in the hands of a select few - which they conveniently control. There are degrees to this. Some anti-2A people think it's OK for us to have firearms under certain circumstances. Such as certain types of hunting or certain types of sports. Others would allow them to be kept and used only inside the home for defense but would limit the types of firearms available. Look to Great Britain for examples of this.

Why are many restaurants and businesses against the possession of those with concealed carry permits? Will boycotting these places actually change anything, and if so, what?


Because as a business they are risk averse. And because they want to be on (what they perceive) as the bandwagon. They are very attuned to what is being said in the media. Most are doing what their corporate office is telling them. Can a boycott work? It can and I have seen it. One store here used to have a no firearms sign in the window. After a few phone calls, the store took it down. It didn't matter anyway in this state: The sign holds no weight of law and all that could ever happen if a weapon was spotted was to ask the person to leave or risk being charged with trespassing.

Is there a way to please both sides of the debate by allowing people to own guns as long as they follow certain safety regulations, provided this does not cross over into complete control?

Well, here's where it gets really complicated. What regulations would you personally like to see put into place? Think about being able to put those regs and laws into place while still preserving what is literally a Civil Right; that is, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Compare it to the other amendments and imagine how you could regulate those but keep their intended function.

MErl
April 15, 2013, 01:00 PM
Are those who are against the second amendment saying that guns should only be in the hands of the government/military?
Some are, especially the more vocal or active.

Why are many restaurants and businesses against the possession of those with concealed carry permits? Will boycotting these places actually change anything, and if so, what?
Misinformed liability? Not wanting to deal with customers getting upset because there is someone with a gun (if seen)? I would think the majority are not because the owners do not like guns but more because they do not trust gun owners. The perception of the hothead vigilante has been ingrained too deeply.
Boycotting wont change anything except in very rare cases.

Is there a way to please both sides of the debate by allowing people to own guns as long as they follow certain safety regulations, provided this does not cross over into complete control?

Therin lies the entire debate. Gun owners are upset because there very rarely has been any compromise, the regulations are always restrictions.

mrvco
April 15, 2013, 01:00 PM
In general "Anti-2A" people tend to believe that we would be better off if firearms had never been invented and that somehow we can stuff that genie back in the bottle. While it is difficult to get them to appreciate the 500+ years of historical implications that would be involved if "firearms had never been invented" (Some people have a romantic perception of peasantry and feudalism) , it is even more difficult to get them to understand that firearms are the great equalizer between "normal folks" and tyranny, regardless of whether tyranny manifests itself as a 250-pound robber/murderer/rapist that just kicked in your front door or a tyrannical dictator/government/police state.

12many
April 15, 2013, 01:01 PM
I agree with Tinpig. Your both too young to get married and he may not be the right guy for you. Undecides are not ruining this country. It is the strong anti's taking the bad action. Good to learn about it all on this web site. The key is to think for yourself. There are many lies out there by the people who want to ban guns.

beatledog7
April 15, 2013, 01:02 PM
Mandabear,

I suggest you focus your research and study on the overall concept of what it means to be a free people vs. a controlled people. That's what the Constitution's drafters did, and what 2A is all about.

A person who opposes gun ownership is, whether he or she will admit it or not, opposing freedom generally. 2A is the freedom that supports and provides back-up to all other freedoms, and compromising it lets the control genie out of the bottle.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 01:05 PM
OK, let's hold off on that for now at least. Very few of us here are licensed relationship counsellors :-)



I hate broad sweeping statements. And the fact is that none of us here on this board can say what every Anti-2A person has in their mind. But what you stated is certainly one of my concerns. I am concerned specifically that the government would have us give up all firearms and they would only be in the hands of a select few - which they conveniently control. There are degrees to this. Some anti-2A people think it's OK for us to have firearms under certain circumstances. Such as certain types of hunting or certain types of sports. Others would allow them to be kept and used only inside the home for defense but would limit the types of firearms available. Look to Great Britain for examples of this.



Because as a business they are risk averse. And because they want to be on (what they perceive) as the bandwagon. They are very attuned to what is being said in the media. Most are doing what their corporate office is telling them. Can a boycott work? It can and I have seen it. One store here used to have a no firearms sign in the window. After a few phone calls, the store took it down. It didn't matter anyway in this state: The sign holds no weight of law and all that could ever happen if a weapon was spotted was to ask the person to leave or risk being charged with trespassing.



Well, here's where it gets really complicated. What regulations would you personally like to see put into place? Think about being able to put those regs and laws into place while still preserving what is literally a Civil Right; that is, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Compare it to the other amendments and imagine how you could regulate those but keep their intended function.
I am also not a fan of broad, sweeping statements (I am a sociology major, so you can figure out why). I am just trying to figure out, in general what each side believes. :-)

Hokkmike
April 15, 2013, 01:07 PM
As a married man of over 40 years (same wife) my advice to you is simple. If you think disagreement over gun ownership will side track your relationship don't do it - don't get married.

The minimum is that I would expect that a person who doe not embraces the Second Amendment such as yourself must be to at least to tolerate a spouse's positive view of gun ownership. He, likewise, must be willing to tolerate the fact that you may have no interest in or use for guns.

Marriage has to be bigger than this.

And, you are not ruining the country. But you knew that!

Good luck.

Telekinesis
April 15, 2013, 01:10 PM
Why are many restaurants and businesses against the possession of those with concealed carry permits? Will boycotting these places actually change anything, and if so, what?

The reasons usually range from insurance, to a lack of knowledge of the law, to a hostile view of anyone who would wan to carry a gun. In my experience, most of the stores want the sign to mean "no illegal guns", but that's not what really happens because if someone is illegally carrying a gun, they're not likely to follow a law that says they can't carry in a particular place.

Is there a way to please both sides of the debate by allowing people to own guns as long as they follow certain safety regulations, provided this does not cross over into complete control?

There's not really a way to appease both sides at this point. Compromise usually entails both sides giving up something so that they end up with, if not a better position for each group, at least something that is tolerable for each. But firearms restrictions have been slowly but consistently passed since 1934 with so little compromise that the presupposition now is that when new laws are proposed, we're only going to be talking about how many more firearms are going to be illegal, and not what will either appease both sides of the issue or make our country safer. Making the country a better place seems to have fallen by the way side somewhere between 1968 and 1986, and any solutions to the actual event that reignited the gun debate have mysteriously been left out of any discussion.

Tinpig: It was at that point in the discussion where I just stopped talking. I was really upset when he said this to me, and I did not even know where this anger came from.

I'm not positive about this, but seeing as you're in Colorado, it may be a result of the recent legislation that was passed making him feel a little defensive. Its no excuse to say that to you, but it may give you some insight into what he's feeling right now.

tyeo098
April 15, 2013, 01:10 PM
Vermont and Arizona have the least strict gun control laws.

NYC, DC, and Chicago have the most strict in the nation.

Let the homicide rates speak for themselves.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 01:11 PM
I agree with Tinpig. Your both too young to get married and he may not be the right guy for you. Undecides are not ruining this country. It is the strong anti's taking the bad action. Good to learn about it all on this web site. The key is to think for yourself. There are many lies out there by the people who want to ban guns.
As a side note, we have been together 2 years and are not planning the wedding until 2015, but thanks for your input. :-)

As for the rest of your post, I am trying to do exactly that. I am very happy that I decided to join this group and start this forum. I was a bit concerned that there would be those who would bash me for being undecided, but at least I am trying to learn about the issue, unlike many others in my generation.

Arkansas Paul
April 15, 2013, 01:13 PM
The second I said I wasn't sure, I felt like he had stopped listening and switched to convincing instead.

I will admit that we men are bad about this. Myself included. I think it's the way we're wired.

The right of gun ownership comes with a lot of responsibility

I couldn't agree more.

I also think that adding more regulations will not help reduce the amount of gang violence. Many people who use guns in gangs do not get them legally, so adding more regulations only make it harder for us to protect ourselves if we so choose.

It sounds like you do indeed have a position on the issue. You just haven't realized it yet. :)

Arkansas Paul
April 15, 2013, 01:17 PM
I was a bit concerned that there would be those who would bash me for being undecided, but at least I am trying to learn about the issue, unlike many others in my generation.

We're a pretty laid back group around here and we focus more on education about guns than putting people down. We realize that everyone did not grow up with them as a part of their lives. Indeed, many of our members are newer gun owners.
I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that we are thrilled that you're not just making an emotional decision, but istead are actually trying to educate yourself on the issue.
That's what mature people do. It sounds like you're ahead of your fiance in the maturity department.

You also mentioned that others in your generation aren't open minded and trying to actually learn abou them. You couldn't be more right. I'm only 10 years your senior, but the differences are vast, at least where I grew up.

Oh yeah, welcome to the board. We hope you find the answers to your questions and stick around a bit.

Sapper771
April 15, 2013, 01:21 PM
My significant other had never been around firearms. Being from NY , her family is very liberal and completely against firearms. She was on the fence as well.

I told her up front that I supported the 2nd Amendment and I owned a lot of firearms. There was some debate at first, but she was very open. I took her shooting and she loved it. Especially knocking around tin cans and busting balloons with my 22 cal rifles.

Once she understood the allure of my hobby, everything else slowly fell into place. After talking to her and putting things into perspective, she supports the 2nd Amendment and understands its importance and its REAL meaning.

I am sorry about the tension between you and your fiance. I would engage him and ask him questions. Explain to him that you want to learn and that you would appreciate it if he would be patient with you. You dont have to like guns to respect the 2nd Amendment. I have a lot of friends who are not "gun people" who still respect our rights as Free Americans.

Welcome to The High Road. There are a lot of good folks on here that can assist you.

HankR
April 15, 2013, 01:24 PM
My wife went from ambivalent to a strong RKBA proponent over the course of our marriage (so far). "The deal" was that I didn't care how lukewarm about some of my hobbies, so long as she didn't try to talk me out of them. I insisted that she know how to pick, clear, and safely store several different types of gun in case she came across one when I wasn't around. I did not push her to come and shoot or to come and watch me compete.

Shortly after our son was born she became very interested in knowing how to shoot for self defense. I travelled some and our neighborhood was starting to go downhill, but mostly I think it was the responsibility for the defenseless child. Running away was no longer an option.

We've since moved to a free state, and she no longer worries about self defense (Funny that, many more people legally have guns here, but she is not nearly as concerned with our new armed, polite, society). We live out in the sticks, but the son is now old enough to dispatch a critter if needed. I did ask her (gently, for several years) to get her CCW just to give us a little bit of cover in certain situations (travelling, out of our free state but in a state we go to frequently, I leave gun in car but I am not in the car, etc). She thinks I'm too extreme when I boycott various businesses. I ask her to support me/us but don't go ballistic when she doesn't. We (kids and I) ask her to shoot with us for fun sometimes. She comes and watches, maybe runs a couple of rounds a year through a shotgun or .22. Won't write or call her congress critters (so I do it twice as often...)

Many of us in the RKBA community are a little peeved at the fence sitters right now, hopefully once you articulate a position the two of you can decide if it's a deal-breaker or not. Do not get married until you get it sorted out, and don't pretend to be somebody you're not thinking it will work out. It will not.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 01:26 PM
I told her up front that I supported the 2nd Amendment and I owned a lot of firearms. There was some debate at first, but she was very open. I took her shooting and she loved it. Especially knocking around tin cans and busting balloons with my 22 cal rifles.

Once she understood the allure of my hobby, everything else slowly fell into place. After talking to her and putting things into perspective, she supports the 2nd Amendment and understands its importance and its REAL meaning.

I have shot a couple hand guns before and really liked it but haven't done it in years. I am fairly certain that I could never hunt, but that does not affect the 2nd amendment debate. So, what is the REAL meaning behind it, in your opinion?

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 01:30 PM
It sounds like you do indeed have a position on the issue. You just haven't realized it yet.

I think I just needed somewhere to talk about it that wasn't so tension filled. It was really hard to think last night when he was so upset about the whole thing. Someone else commented that his anger may have come from recent events in Colorado, and I hadn't even thought of that until it was said.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 01:47 PM
Through this discussion, I have realized a few important things/have been able to articulate them:

1. I do not think adding more gun purchase regulations will reduce the shootings that come from illegal guns that end up in the hands of criminals, because they will continue to get their guns from illegal sources. All this will do is make it harder to people to protect themselves and their families if they so choose.

2. However, I do think that certain safety regulations should be put into place, such as gun training and safety classes so that those who own guns know how to handle them properly. With this right comes responsibility and if someone is going to take on the responsibility of owning a gun, they also need to know how to handle it responsibly.

3. Those who own guns who ensure that their guns are safely locked away to prevent accidental shootings, such as when a child inadvertently comes across a gun.

Sapper771
April 15, 2013, 01:49 PM
I have shot a couple hand guns before and really liked it but haven't done it in years. I am fairly certain that I could never hunt, but that does not affect the 2nd amendment debate. So, what is the REAL meaning behind it, in your opinion?

In my opinion, It is our defense from a tyrannical government. It guaranties us arms in the event our Government turns on us and/or becomes oppressive. I know this sounds outlandish, but if we look back in history, we have seen oppressive government in this country and others around the world (I.e. American Revolution, Nazi Germany, Russia, China etc). The framers of our constitution also stated this is the reason for our right to keep and bear arms.

I hope and pray that it never comes down to another civil war. There have been many brave Men and Women who gave their lives for our freedoms.......I pray that we won't have to fight for our freedoms again.

Admiral Yamamoto(sp?), in World War II, stated that a mainland invasion of the US would be suicide. He said that there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. So our 2nd Amendment right also can be seen as a deterrent from invasion by another country.

Ramone
April 15, 2013, 01:49 PM
forget (for the moment) the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Do you believe that there is a basic Human right to defend one's self against an attacker?

That that right is the right to meet force with equal force?

Do you believe any law will stop a criminal from using the deadliest weapon they can acquire in commission of a crime?

The 2A doesn't really address this- one does not defend one's self as the member of a Militia. I suspect that the Founding Fathers considered it to be *so* self evident that the didn't even think to mention it.

They had just fought a rebellion against a legal government- because they won, we call it a Revolution- had they lost, they'd have been hanged. The Second Amendment clearly signals that Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander, that if their Noble experiment in Democracy should go awry, the people retained a right to overthrow it by force.

Strong, brave men we had in those days.

MagnumDweeb
April 15, 2013, 01:51 PM
Glad to have you here. This is my favorite forum. It's The High Road for a reason. Needless disrespect and insults are not tolerated here.

Being undecided and wanting to learn more is what we need more of in this country. Too often we find that the undecideds are too quick to walk lock-step with the anti-gunners. I've found that after I have educated a person, they seem to follow my way of thinking some, not completely, but they get where I stand.

You SO is a part of a class of people that just got slammed by anti-gunners. Tempers are going to be high unfortunately as your SO was just told he couldn't be trusted not to be a mass murdering whack job and that his rights had to be severely restricted to serve the efforts and interests of the anti-gun crowd. That's very insulting and demeaning. So give him a second chance and approach him about his position and interests.

For you two being in a relationship, he needs to take you shooting in a safe and educational environment. I couldn't imagine my fiancee not shooting with me at least once a month. We always have a good time then get Philly Cheese steak sandwhiches.

Telekinesis
April 15, 2013, 01:54 PM
2. However, I do think that certain safety regulations should be put into place, such as gun training and safety classes so that those who own guns know how to handle them properly. With this right comes responsibility and if someone is going to take on the responsibility of owning a gun, they also need to know how to handle it responsibly.

I agree that someone who has a gun (and especially carries it) should have some sort of basic training and knowledge, but look at the "requirement to get training" in the same light as literacy tests for voting, or poll taxes if you are required to pay for the class. Yes, it's a good idea to make sure that people know how to safely handle their guns, that they can actually read the ballot they're voting on, or that the polls are adequately funded, but when a requirement like this starts, it can easily lend itself to abuse by those so inclined.

Who's to say that a basic gun safety class shouldn't be 8 hours a day for 5 consecutive days just to exercise the right of owning a gun? Or that the class should cost $5,000. Yes, a very extreme example, but we know that this has happened in the past in order to prevent certain "undesirables" from voting in the south. It's great in theory, but can fail miserably in practice.

tyeo098
April 15, 2013, 01:56 PM
2. However, I do think that certain safety regulations should be put into place, such as gun training and safety classes so that those who own guns know how to handle them properly. With this right comes responsibility and if someone is going to take on the responsibility of owning a gun, they also need to know how to handle it responsibly.

When the government starts mandating things, its no longer a right. Its a privilege.
Personal responsibility is severely lacking in this generation and the last one. Its painfully obvious just by looking at current suits in the court system. I'm only 21 and I can painfully see this.

3. Those who own guns who ensure that their guns are safely locked away to prevent accidental shootings, such as when a child inadvertently comes across a gun.
Given the number of gun in the US, and the amount of times a child has simply 'come across' a gun, its rarer than the media drum beats says it is. This is for a different conversation though, but I will say that when you make things taboo to children ("Dont touch the cookie jar", etc) they tend to go for it even even more ferocity. Thats the last thing you wand around children and firearms.

The best way isn't to kid-proof your guns, its to gun-proof your kids. Watch tha NRA's Eddie Eagle program on Youtube. Its a bit dated based on the animation style, but its geared toward very young kids and what to do IF they come across a firearm.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 01:58 PM
Do you believe that there is a basic Human right to defend one's self against an attacker?
Yes, I do believe that if your life is in danger, you should be able to defend yourself against an attacker. Sometimes this does mean taking lethal force, but if it's your life or theirs, it's not much of a choice. I hope I never have to make this decision, because it would still mean that I had killed someone, though.

Do you believe any law will stop a criminal from using the deadliest weapon they can acquire in commission of a crime?
I don't believe that any law will stop someone so determined on committing a crime. Let's hypothetically say that guns were completely outlawed in the United States. If someone was bound and determined to murder someone, this would not stop them. They would simply find another tool to complete the job.

Tinpig
April 15, 2013, 02:05 PM
Mandabear3109-

For what it's worth, I've been married for 45 years. My wife has never been a shooter or a fan of guns in general. She's a registered nurse and has spent her whole working life seeing the devastating results of the misuse of guns. I respect her opinions and her reasons for them, and she accepts the fact that my sons and I love guns and use them safely. In return, we don't flaunt them around the house.

There are many possibilities for disagreement in a long marriage, and we both work hard to minimize them, and keep the discussions calm. Not always easy.:)

I apologize for saying your fiancee was acting like a jackass, that was probably out of line. But as others have said, you are not ruining the country by asking questions. You sound very open-minded.

Oh, and last year I finally got my wife to go shooting with me and she had a blast and was very good at it.

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc91/ccanhamjr/Guns/IMG_0576.jpg

Tinpig

LevelHead
April 15, 2013, 02:08 PM
My wife used to be vehemently anti-gun. She's come around for the most part, but still thinks certain things based on what the media barks at her. She's entitled to her opinion, and I wouldn't dream of trying to force her to think differently. With a rational person, showing them proof is usually good enough. Proof has changed her mind on many aspects of gun ownership over the years. Proof like the police taking 27 minutes to show up after calling 911.

If you'd like to have a quiet, rational conversation about this outside of a public forum, feel free to PM or email me.

MachIVshooter
April 15, 2013, 02:10 PM
Welcome aboard!

You've received some good replies, but I'll throw in my $0.02 anyway.

What he heard was that I was not a pro-gun advocate; what I was really saying is that I am just unsure of my stance on the topic.

We are in defense mode right now. I'm not excusing his attitude, but suggesting that you try to understand that the gun rights crowd has been under attack for a very long time, and severely so for the last 5 months. Naturally, he wants his better half to be on the same side, so it was probably very frustrating to him that you were/are ambiguous. He should take this golden opportunity to provide you with thoughtful, articulate argument from his side to counter the constant mass media bombardment of sensationalism and misinformation so that you may make an informed decision, but we all suffer from the human condition (especially at 22), and sometimes our emotions get the best of us.

As I see it, you having no interest in firearms should not be a deal-breaker in a relationship. It's always nice for us shooters when our SO partakes, but for many, that is not the case, and we're fine with it so long as our views on guns aren't diametrically opposed. That said, I can appreciate his concern; for many of us, constitutional rights, and especially the second amendment, are paramount. I've dated non-shooters, but would NEVER be with an anti-gun person. It just wouldn't, couldn't work. If this subject had not been discussed until now, your fiancée is probably very concerned that you will oppose him on this (to some of us) very salient issue.

I'd say just talk to him, remind him to be calm, and stress that you're not anti-gun. If you love him, just make him understand that his interest in firearms may not be shared by you, but will not be an issue between you on your end. He should be able to accept that, and you two can move forward with building your life together.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 02:10 PM
I agree that someone who has a gun (and especially carries it) should have some sort of basic training and knowledge, but look at the "requirement to get training" in the same light as literacy tests for voting, or poll taxes if you are required to pay for the class. Yes, it's a good idea to make sure that people know how to safely handle their guns, that they can actually read the ballot they're voting on, or that the polls are adequately funded, but when a requirement like this starts, it can easily lend itself to abuse by those so inclined.

Who's to say that a basic gun safety class shouldn't be 8 hours a day for 5 consecutive days just to exercise the right of owning a gun? Or that the class should cost $5,000. Yes, a very extreme example, but we know that this has happened in the past in order to prevent certain "undesirables" from voting in the south. It's great in theory, but can fail miserably in practice.
You bring up a good point. I guess when I said having some sort of mandatory class, I was thinking along the similar lines as driver's ed classes. I don't know about you, but I was expected to do driver's ed before getting my licence, just so that I could learn and understand the basics. I don't know if something like that would work for guns or not, but there is still the issue of who would determine how long or how expensive the class would be?

mljdeckard
April 15, 2013, 02:18 PM
(Let me say thank you for stating that you understand that the Second Amentment is not affected by hunting. With this understanding, you are already ahead of most politicians.)

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 02:18 PM
The best way isn't to kid-proof your guns, its to gun-proof your kids. Watch tha NRA's Eddie Eagle program on Youtube. Its a bit dated based on the animation style, but its geared toward very young kids and what to do IF they come across a firearm.

I immediately went to watch this video, unsure of what to expect. I felt that it was a very well done video and it sends a good message. But I do not think that this is enough. A child should know what happens if a gun is left out, but it is my personal opinion that it shouldn't be left out in the first place. If a family has guns, they should explain this to the child as well as show the video, but they also need to go one step further and keep them in a safe place out of the reach of children. Even with the video, accidents could happen, though you are correct that they don't happen near as much as the media says. :-)

autospike
April 15, 2013, 02:21 PM
You bring up a good point. I guess when I said having some sort of mandatory class, I was thinking along the similar lines as driver's ed classes. I don't know about you, but I was expected to do driver's ed before getting my licence, just so that I could learn and understand the basics. I don't know if something like that would work for guns or not, but there is still the issue of who would determine how long or how expensive the class would be?

I personally think it would be great if you got an equivalent of Driver's Ed while in school. Wouldn't it be great if our tax dollars went to fund "Shooter's Ed" as well as sex ed, driver's ed, and everything else we fund? I'm afraid though that this solution would be too logical and not serve the government's purpose.

If you have a moment, please read this: Guns & Education - Clicky (http://acivilright.org/2013/02/27/guns-and-education/)

tyeo098
April 15, 2013, 02:22 PM
If a family has guns, they should explain this to the child

BINGO!

Thats called personal responsibly. No government intervention is needed. So silly laws, and no random felonies.

mljdeckard
April 15, 2013, 02:29 PM
Every household has to decide what level of safety and trust is appropriate for THAT household. If you're childless, and you never have any children in the house, you don't need to protect children from them. I keep my defensive guns available and unloaded (but quickly loadable) because the kids that are in my house most of the time are well-trained and conditioned to guns, they aren't curious, because they know what they do. I have other children and step children frim mine and my wife's previous marriages that aren't as solid, and when they do occasionally come around, I lock everything up. You have to know what the people in YOUR household can be trusted with.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 02:29 PM
Reading that Guns and Education article gave me chills because I feel that is exactly how the government thinks. If they really did want to be safe and secure, they would take steps to reduce the already low number of gun-related deaths per year.

Isn't it true that we should not fear our government, but that the government should fear us? All of these controversial debates lately, including the debate on the second amendment, make me think of the movie V for Vendetta. I love that movie, and it holds a lot of truth in today's political times. Does anyone else get the feeling that something big is going to happen in the not too distant future that might look something like the revolution in V?

mljdeckard
April 15, 2013, 02:30 PM
I also compare it to V For Vendetta, but people on the opposite side of the aisle think it workd the OPPOSITE direction.

creitzel
April 15, 2013, 02:32 PM
Welcome to the High Road Mandabear3109.

You are in very good hands here, this is a very well educated group when it comes to all things firearms.

I started out, very much in your shoes back in 2006 or so. I wasn't anti-gun, just never really had much experience with them, or had been around many folks who owned them. I got interested in firearms, and started researching them, because I was concerned about being able to protect my wife and kids. We had a vehicle stolen from our house, and it got me thinking that the bad guys were basically only 10 feet and one wooden door away from potentially harming my wife or children.

Anyways, I ended up finding the High Road, and this group has done a great deal to educate me, and now I am firmly in the Pro-gun group (in fact it can be quite addictive, and I now own several hand guns, and a couple long guns as well) :-)

I agree, It sounds like your fiancee is probably reacting to the recent, very anti-gun legislation that was basically ramrodded through the legislature there in Colorodo. He shouldn't be taking it out on you, like he did, that's for sure. But as a man, and a husband, I can tell you that it isn't always easy for us to refrain from doing that kind of thing, especially when it is in reference to something we hold dear (like or 2nd amendment freedoms). I'd say cut him a little bit of slack, and give him another chance (that is what marriage is after all, a lifetime of learning to forgive one another, and love each other in spite of your faults) :-)

Anyways, just wanted to welcome you to the forums, guess I got a bit long-winded. Good luck on your search for knowledge, and by all means have your fiancee take you out shooting, there's no better teacher than experience. :-)

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 02:36 PM
Every household has to decide what level of safety and trust is appropriate for THAT household. If you're childless, and you never have any children in the house, you don't need to protect children from them. I keep my defensive guns available and unloaded (but quickly loadable) because the kids that are in my house most of the time are well-trained and conditioned to guns, they aren't curious, because they know what they do. I have other children and step children frim mine and my wife's previous marriages that aren't as solid, and when they do occasionally come around, I lock everything up. You have to know what the people in YOUR household can be trusted with.
Two things:

First, I think it's great that your children know what to do with a gun if they ever need it. As I stated earlier, people should have the right to defend themselves and that is not just limited to adults. Their knowledge leading to their lack of curiosity ensures their safety.

Second, I also like the fact that if there are children in your home who are less familiar or comfortable with guns, you take measures to make sure that they are properly put away.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 02:46 PM
I wasn't anti-gun, just never really had much experience with them, or had been around many folks who owned them.

This is very similar to how I was raised. My family did not really talk about many of the current debates that are found in the media, and I have had to develop my own opinions about almost everything. Though it is a good thing to form my own opinions, I am often on the fence about the issues. This is complicated by the fact that so many people are trying to change the minds of others, and the facts tend to get lost. I think this is why I am so undecided on many controversial issues; it's not that I don't care, it's that I don't know what to believe and what not to believe. I am the type of person that can see beneficial things from both sides of most arguments, so that does not help either.

fanchisimo
April 15, 2013, 02:50 PM
MandaBear,

I think your fiancee is overreacting but I see that you're in Colorado. A lot of unfair laws were just imposed in your state so there is a lot of frustration he and gun owners are going through. That's not an excuse for what he said, but he is probably still ticked about it.

creitzel
April 15, 2013, 02:55 PM
This is complicated by the fact that so many people are trying to change the minds of others, and the facts tend to get lost.

This can be especially true in the gun debate. I have seen some very outlandish claims from both sides of the argument. In general though, I believe facts back up our position. And in fact, I have seen the other side of the debate often misrepresenting the facts, or skewing data to try and support their agenda.

One of the things that I love about the High Road, is that the facts are the priority. In fact I've often seen members called out for not providing citations to back up claims. etc. This is a great place to educate yourself on the firearms topic. :-)

geekWithA.45
April 15, 2013, 02:57 PM
Howdy, Mandabear.

In my view, the 2nd amendment is some of the way down a chain of reasoning, not the beginning of it.

This chain, incidentally, answers a lot of other questions along the way, such as "who owns me, my work products, what are rights, and where doesn't government get any power to begin with?"

The 2nd amendment is all inextricably bound up in all that, and it's really hard to get all the nuances worked into a few pithy paragraphs.

--==|==--

My chain starts all the way at Taking Notice of my own Existence.

I exist.

I find inherent in my existence, (and as some would assert, "endowed of my creator") the absolute right to my own life, liberty, and justly acquired property.

No one has ever brought forth any argument that held water to the contrary, asserting that any other person or group had a higher claim on these things than me.

No one and nothing has any just right to interfere in this, and this forms the boundary and limitation of my own liberty, that I have no right to interfere in anyone else's, except in the defense of that which is rightly mine.

The 2A branch of the argument basically states that I have the right to any and all means and tools for such purpose.

Carrying on with the main thrust of the argument, if no individual has a just right to interfere with my prerogatives, there is no reason or justification that any collection of individuals, by virtue of their assembly, (or any other reason) has any claim either.

Now, as to government: The powers of government are formed of the delegation of my own just powers, and only for the just purposes of assisting me in the preservation of my own prerogatives. Government has no powers not granted to it, nor may I grant powers unto it which are not justly mine to begin with. For example, since I have no just power to enslave, I cannot grant that power to government, and any claim I make, a government makes, or any group of people make to the contrary is inherently fraudulent. (Not to mention evil.)

That's the *very* short course in the matter.

In general, the more some philosophical justification for a power varies from this, the greater your suspicion of it should be.

Check your own premises! What are your axioms? What magic does government posses?

Would you tolerate someone taking your tree cutting tools from you, because they baselessy feared you might go all axe murdery on them? And if one person hasn't the right, then why should some group have the right, just because they said they did? How is that any different from "might makes right"?

0to60
April 15, 2013, 03:04 PM
The first thing you're going to find about the gun control debate is that on the pro-gun extreme, if you're not for them then you're against them. A lot of folks here see in black and white, and if you're in the grey area, good luck getting through to them.

Its ok to not know where you stand on this issue. It wouldn't be a national debate 200 years after writing the constitution if it were a cut and dry issue. Both sides have sensible points. The country has gone back and forth on this for a long time, and that's a sure sign of very complicated topic.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 03:07 PM
One of the things that I love about the High Road, is that the facts are the priority. In fact I've often seen members called out for not providing citations to back up claims. etc. This is a great place to educate yourself on the firearms topic. :-)

I am very much in agreement with you on this, and feel that I have gotten very well informed responses from people without all of the hate that I was worried I would get. These issues are not as black and white and many people think, but learning about the issues is a good start.

tyeo098
April 15, 2013, 03:13 PM
Also, if you have some free time, I recommend looking over this PDF:
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.2/gun-facts-6-2-screen.pdf

Basically it contains all the facts about anything related to guns. With sources and cites such as the FBI/DOJ.

The Brady Campaign HAS been called out multiple times for fudging numbers. The most famous case is the one where they claimed some ludicrous number of children were murdered 'by guns' (not people, the guns did it on their own).

Turns out in the study the defined a 'child' as anyone under the age of 28.

holdencm9
April 15, 2013, 03:15 PM
Mandabear,

You are definitely on the right track, and based on what you are saying, it seems like you sort of fall on the pro-gun side of the fence more than the anti-gun side.

As you said, it is NOT about hunting.

As you said, more laws will NOT prevent criminals from getting guns or committing crimes.

As you said, it IS somewhat like V for Vendetta. The people should not fear the government, the government should fear the people.

When was the last time you heard someone refer to the government as our government? That's what it is supposed to be. For the people, by the people. Yet certain individuals feel compelled to try to control the tiny fraction of a percent of evil-doers, by regulating the masses. Some may have good intentions, but many are just using gun control as a means to an end: control. People like Bloomberg literally think they are above the rest of us, and they need to control us for our own sake. I am against that, on principle, just like I was against the gum ban in second grade, because some kids just couldn't resist sticking it under the desk! Even back then I thought, why all kids should be subjugated to these restrictions when it is just a few who commit the act. Why not punish those individuals better? It is a direct correlation to all these gun control regulations.

They want us to give up rights, and then criticize us for "not compromising." It is absurd. They say we have to do SOMETHING...for the children! They play on emotion. They scoff at the slippery slope argument against them, saying no one wants to take away your guns, but yet we can see the slippery slope in action in NY, CT, and CO, among others.

allaroundhunter
April 15, 2013, 03:16 PM
Mandabear, from one college student to another (albeit different genders), do you carry some form of protection when you are around campus, especially at night? Pepper spray or anything of the like? How would you feel having that taken away by politicians saying that you don't need it, you should just call the police instead.

Girls in college are targeted far more frequently than others to be victims of crime.

One Colorado's own representatives made the comment to the extent of women might not even know when they are actually being raped and used that as justification for not allowing the carrying of handguns for personal protection.... I don't know about you, but there are no girls that I know who would have trouble understanding when someone crosses the line.

There are very few things that can help a 115 lb woman turn the tide against a 220 lb attacker; but a firearm can.

In my opinion, the government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot use to protect myself, my family, and my friends from criminals.

Your fiance is going about "convincing" you the wrong way, but one of the reasons that he is so vehement about his 2nd amendment rights is so that he can protect you if he ever needs to. Those of us who carry don't do it to get the "macho" feeling, it is so that we know that we can protect ourselves and those we care about if (god forbid) we ever have to.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 03:21 PM
Also, if you have some free time, I recommend looking over this PDF:
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.2/gun-facts-6-2-screen.pdf

Basically it contains all the facts about anything related to guns. With sources and cites such as the FBI/DOJ.

The Brady Campaign HAS been called out multiple times for fudging numbers. The most famous case is the one where they claimed some ludicrous number of children were murdered 'by guns' (not people, the guns did it on their own).

Turns out in the study the defined a 'child' as anyone under the age of 28.
Thank you for sharing that article, and I will definitely look into it.

As far as the other half of your post, the idea that guns fire on their own accord is ridiculous. That's like them trying to say that knives stab people on their own. If someone responsibly takes care of their right to own a gun, there shouldn't be any mishaps. The study defined children as those under the age of 28, which is also ridiculous to me because according to the law, you are an adult at the age of 18 (or 21, if you include the right to drink in that as well).

Arkansas Paul
April 15, 2013, 03:25 PM
I am fairly certain that I could never hunt, but that does not affect the 2nd amendment debate.

You are far ahead of the game.
One of the things we get so angry about is when politicians equate hunting with 2nd Amendment rights. It never mentions hunting, because that's not what it's about. To already understand this at your early stage in researching the facts is outstanding.

tyeo098
April 15, 2013, 03:25 PM
As far as the other half of your post, the idea that guns fire on their own accord is ridiculous. That's like them trying to say that knives stab people on their own.
Thats why we detest phrases like 'gun violence' because it does not make sense to call DUIs or hit-and-runs 'car violence' not beatings and such 'blunt-object violence.'
Guns are specifically targeted because they easily scare people and therefore make very good scapegoats.

The study defined children as those under the age of 28, which is also ridiculous to me because according to the law, you are an adult at the age of 18 (or 21, if you include the right to drink in that as well).

But those results did not fit with the answer they were looking for.

So they fudged the numbers to get the answer they wanted.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 03:27 PM
People like Bloomberg literally think they are above the rest of us, and they need to control us for our own sake.

I actually just watched the advertisement created by Bloomberg to advocate stricter gun laws, with the guy holding his gun while sitting on the back of the truck, on the NRA website. And it looked at the video from a much different perspective. The response to said commercial said that Bloomberg should give the man gun training instead of wasting the money on the video because his finger was close to the trigger and he was holding the gun wrong while children were around, and I realized that I agree with this assessment.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 03:35 PM
Mandabear, from one college student to another (albeit different genders), do you carry some form of protection when you are around campus, especially at night? Pepper spray or anything of the like? How would you feel having that taken away by politicians saying that you don't need it, you should just call the police instead.

Girls in college are targeted far more frequently than others to be victims of crime.

One Colorado's own representatives made the comment to the extent of women might not even know when they are actually being raped and used that as justification for not allowing the carrying of handguns for personal protection.... I don't know about you, but there are no girls that I know who would have trouble understanding when someone crosses the line.

There are very few things that can help a 115 lb woman turn the tide against a 220 lb attacker; but a firearm can.

In my opinion, the government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot use to protect myself, my family, and my friends from criminals.

Your fiance is going about "convincing" you the wrong way, but one of the reasons that he is so vehement about his 2nd amendment rights is so that he can protect you if he ever needs to. Those of us who carry don't do it to get the "macho" feeling, it is so that we know that we can protect ourselves and those we care about if (god forbid) we ever have to.
Yes, I actually do have pepper spray on my key chain at all times. My fiance got it for me soon after we got together because we lived in different cities and I usually got home from his house late at night. I am a student at a university that has a high rate of sexual assaults, and I would make sure that it was in my hands already before approaching the door. I can see how the comparison between this and the greater defense of a handgun makes sense, and I would not feel safe if my pepper spray were being taken away, much like they are attempting to do for guns. When looked at from this perspective, I am definitely pro-guns.

The fact that one of my state's own representatives said that a woman may not know she was even being raped is a terrible thing to say, and it offends me greatly. Not only is he saying that women are stupid and oblivious, but that we, as humans, do not have a right to protect ourselves from danger.

Jungo2
April 15, 2013, 03:39 PM
Mandabear,

I'll try not to wax 'redundancy' over what has already been proffered repeatedly in this thread. That said, upon reading your initial post, my first instinct was to comment on your fiancée's rather uncourteous reaction to your undecided position on the 2nd amendment. Admittedly, as you were uninformed about the subject, you wisely chose not to offer an uninformed opinion. Subsequently, I find your fiancée's response not only inappropriate, but quite ironic as the vast majority of gun-control advocates obviously lack any such wisdom. I find your candid honesty in this regard quite refreshing and I admire your decision to become more informed on this very important subject.

Kindest regards and best wishes

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 03:55 PM
This is what one might call "extreme fishing," discovered on reddit.

leprechaun50
April 15, 2013, 04:25 PM
Mandabear, I come from a background where my father had a few guns, a .22 rifle, a 16 ga shotgun and a .32 pistol. All of his guns were always loaded. The rifle and shotgun were kept in the toolshed on our farm and the pistol was in his dresser drawer. My brother, sister and I knew where they were, that they were loaded, and until we were old enough to have permission to use them on our own, we were not allowed to touch them unless my father was with us. My father gave us shooting lessons when we were small enough that he would have to help us hold the while we shot.

My wife of 34 years came from a similar background. We have always owned at least one gun and bought more as we could afford them. We also raised our children as we were raised, the only concession was our guns were kept in a locked cabinet.
My wife and I have a great enough respect for each other that neither of us would have gone off on the other as your fiance did to you. Regardless of any differences we have had we have always talked them out reasonably, and come to a mutual agreement.

I think your fiance is a bit too immature at this stage of his life, and you should be looking at his actions and treatment of you and think, Could I live my life in happiness with this person? Just how much does he RESPECT me and my opinions?

One thing you may want to give some thought to is to seek out a good basic firearms training class on your own. Don't tell him anything about so that you can form your own opinions on firearms without any input from him.

Whatever you decide to do just be sure it is what YOU want. Best of luck to you.

P.S. I am not ashamed to say that my wife can outshoot me with almost erery gun we own!

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 04:42 PM
My brother, sister and I knew where they were, that they were loaded, and until we were old enough to have permission to use them on our own, we were not allowed to touch them unless my father was with us. My father gave us shooting lessons when we were small enough that he would have to help us hold the while we shot.
Were you ever tempted or curious to touch the guns, even though your dad said not to?

The only concession was our guns were kept in a locked cabinet.
I assume that this was a mutual decision on both of your parts, but I am just curious on how you came to this decision given your backgrounds? Did you ever consider not locking up your guns as your dad did when you were growing up?

One thing you may want to give some thought to is to seek out a good basic firearms training class on your own.
Between reading posts of this forum, I also did some looking into basic firearms training classes, as well as local shooting ranges, that would give me more experience with guns so that I can be more comfortable with them.

leprechaun50
April 15, 2013, 04:53 PM
Mandabear, No we knew better. My dad would have "taken us to the woodshed" so to speak. Not something you would want to happen.

We made a joint decision after a co-workers daughter was accidently shot and killed by one of her brothers. Until this happened my guns were not locked up but our daughter couldn't reach them. We later had two more children, bought a small locked cabinet. All our children were taught to shoot at an early age. Now with 3 1/2 grandchildren and more guns we have a gun safe.

Arkansas Paul
April 15, 2013, 05:04 PM
Were you ever tempted or curious to touch the guns, even though your dad said not to?

I grew up in an environment similar to leprechaun50. Except in my case, there were guns all over the house, and most were loaded.
And to answer your question, no, I was never tempted to touch them. When my dad said to not do something, doing it never crossed your mind. We had a healthy fear of him. Don't get me wrong, he was a caring father, but when he gave orders, he expected them to be obeyed, and it didn't take long to see that his way was the easiest.

Another reason why I wasn't tempted to play with them when he wasn't there is because I knew that I could see them any time I wanted to. All I had to do was ask.

Now, that being said, I don't prescribe to his practice of leaving loaded guns all over the house. The guns are in a locked cabinet, with the exception of my nightstand weapon and my wife's nightstand weapon. I would rather err on the side of caution.

leprechaun50
April 15, 2013, 05:08 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
What he said

BullfrogKen
April 15, 2013, 05:09 PM
I'd say that the angst and anger your fiance is feeling is likely due to the onerous laws Colorado just passed. The past several months have caused both sides of the debate to entrench as the push for more gun control - whether it's reasonable or not - stems from a highly emotional event that has circumvented the normal deliberative process most laws go through before being passed.

Colorado's recent political events are a prime example of that.


I'm not a relationship counselor. But he's young, you're young. He was probably looking for you to be a little more on "his side" when the conversation came up, and got angry when you didn't see things the same way he did. That's typical among young people who have some unrealistic expectations from the person they expect will be their partner through life.

Regarding the boycott . . . Yes, for some people it's very offensive. Some people see the "no guns allowed" signs on businesses and react the same way as if they saw a "no coloreds allowed", or "no Jews allowed" on the business. After all, the sign is a reflection of a prejudice that people with guns with them couldn't have them for a good purpose. 20 years of the right to carry movement has shown that's just not true.


Anyway. I hope the two of you find a way to have a debate without the emotional undertones getting in the way. It might be helpful to simply say you're not opposed to the things he believes in at all, but you don't feel passionately about it either. Which sounds like that's the truth.


My wife wasn't when we first met, either. But after 15 years of being together she sees it as a civil rights issue. I didn't beat her over the head with it, she simply came to adopt that point of view through her own exploration of the issue.

leprechaun50
April 15, 2013, 05:15 PM
Mandabear, You might want to check out this site.
www.corneredcat.com

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 05:43 PM
Regarding the boycott . . . Yes, for some people it's very offensive. Some people see the "no guns allowed" signs on businesses and react the same way as if they saw a "no coloreds allowed", or "no Jews allowed" on the business. After all, the sign is a reflection of a prejudice that people with guns with them couldn't have them for a good purpose. 20 years of the right to carry movement has shown that's just not true.

That is another comparison that I had never thought about, and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. My in-laws are the type that will boycott places because they do not support the second amendment, and they will tell us to do the same. Though I have realized that I am a supporter of guns, I don't know if I am so to this extreme, and I think this is another thing that bothers my fiance. I don't know which part bothered him more, me being on the fence, or the fact that I don't necessarily believe in the boycotts like he and his family do. :uhoh:

Edit: His entire family is very libertarian when it comes to political issues, so much so that I have had to reduce the number of posts that I receive from them on Facebook. My other beliefs are similar to this, in that I do not feel prepared enough about many of the hot topic issues to have a solid opinion on them. I tend to be a fence-rider simply out of lack of knowledge, and I worry that other topics will come between he and I now that we have discovered our differences on this particular issue. I guess my question is this: what are the chances of a couple working out if some or many of their political beliefs are different, and how will this affect our kids if/when we decide to have them?

leprechaun50
April 15, 2013, 06:02 PM
I guess my question is this: what are the chances of a couple working out if some or many of their political beliefs are different, and how will this affect our kids if/when we decide to have them?

If he and his family can't accept you as you are there will be problems. Trying to solve them after marriage is a recipe for disaster. If you can't resolve these issues now it is time to end the relationship.

BullfrogKen
April 15, 2013, 06:10 PM
Well, again I'm not a relationship counselor. Like many married couples, my wife and I often have our disagreements and the struggles people have when going through life as a couple.


Some couples who come from different religious backgrounds are never able to reconcile their differences. And it really presents itself when the children are born.

Understand that there are some people who don't see politics as just politics. To some, it means as much to them as religion does to the devout. That's not necessarily a bad thing, because it's people like those who accomplish things like the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's. Only people who see such things as so distasteful will go through the ordeals it takes to change public opinion and civil rights violations that are institutionalized into law.


Perhaps your future in-laws are those kinds of people. I don't know. But it would be a good idea for you to find that out now, and see if you can come to terms with it.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 06:26 PM
leprechaun50: If he and his family can't accept you as you are there will be problems. Trying to solve them after marriage is a recipe for disaster. If you can't resolve these issues now it is time to end the relationship.

BullfrogKen: But it would be a good idea for you to find that out now, and see if you can come to terms with it.

Both of the statements really made me think, and I appreciate your insight. I do get the feeling, at least from our short discussion last night, that this is a bigger issue than I might have first thought. It could end up being a deal-breaker for him. One thing I can be happy of is that we are having this conversation now instead of after we are married (in a few years), but that does not really make it any easier.

allaroundhunter
April 15, 2013, 06:37 PM
Amanda,

While I am not engaged, I have been in a relationship with the same girl for over 3 years now. It wasn't until about a year and a half into our relationship that the topic of firearms came up. Now, she knew that I had them, but she didn't know how many. She knew that I went out and shot them regularly, but did not know that I kept several loaded for defensive uses. When "the talk" did come up, she was a little confused as to my reasoning for some things but I told her what I thought and left it at that. She did not grow up around guns, and had never fired one before I took her out to my family's farm. She was not really scared of them, she just didn't know anything about them.

The best choice that I made was to take it slow and let her form her own opinions. I taught her how to shoot a little, but I didn't push it on her. I let her ask me questions about them or about gun politics in general whenever she wanted, but I didn't demand that she get up to date on everything gun related that our politicians were debating.

I think the biggest turning point for her was when she was walking up to her apartment and a man started running toward her. She pulled out her pepper spray but forgot to unlock it... Thankfully, just presenting herself as a fighter made the man run the other direction. After that, she decided that even though pepper spray may have stopped that attack, she would rather be able to defend herself with a gun.

Now she is my shooting partner, hunting buddy, and we pretty much share the same views on all things firearm-wise. She is still trying to determine her stance on the background check legislation that is being debated, but I have confidence in her ;)

Firearms are a big deal to me, and I knew that it could be a potential deal-breaker in relationships.... I guess I just got lucky.

I do wish you luck, and as evidenced by this thread, if you need any other help we're here to do what we can.... But very few of us have the qualifications to make us the next Dr. Phil :o

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 06:45 PM
allaroundhunter: That last post of yours really helped to clear up some things. It's nice to see that although you two do not have the exact same beliefs, you are able to have a relationship that supports your opinions. I hope that mine can be that way as well, though after last night's conversation, I'm not so sure. It almost turned into a full-blown fight, but I held my tongue until I had enough information to debate effectively. If he does want someone who beliefs exactly as he believes, then that may no be me because I only like to make opinions of things after hearing some from both sides, which makes me come across as agnostic to any controversial topics at first.

Edit: I don't want to be bullied into anything that either he or his family believes just because that is what they believe. I want to form my own opinions from my own research, and I want him to be open to the possibility that I may come to a different conclusion without seeing it as a personal attack.

BullfrogKen
April 15, 2013, 06:53 PM
It could end up being a deal-breaker for him.

Or perhaps you might wind up mellowing him out a bit.

I know I was far more absolutist in my opinions in my 20's. With maturity, I still hold that there are lines not to be crossed, but I do have more tolerance for opposing views and don't seek to persuade everyone in my life to agree with me.

His parents . . . hey, only you can say whether his family is one you want to marry into. Many young people don't look beyond the two of them and their intense love when getting married. The family you're both marrying into will become a factor once that wears off and the two of you are deciding how you'll live your lives.

I love my wife's family, and they enrich our marriage.

Some in-laws do just the opposite.


I'm just sayin'. You need to find that out for yourself.

BluesDancer
April 15, 2013, 07:35 PM
Hello,
I sort of just breezed through this thread, but I wanted to say that it is not a bad thing to not have an opinion on a topic that you don't know much about.

I think that having no opinion or no stance can be more mature than taking a stance on something based on incomplete information or taking a side when you haven't adequately thought about or researched a given topic.

For example, I do not have an opinion/haven't taken a side on whether or not the Palestinian's deserve a state of their own in the middle east. It's not that I don't care, but I simply do not know that much about the issue and I feel that having an uninformed opinion is worse than having no opinion.

Hope this helps...

Byrd666
April 15, 2013, 07:39 PM
I understand where he/they are coming from. In a very simplistic form, they are standing for, and fighting for the WHOLE Constitution. Not just the Second Amendment. If Obuma and his cronies get their way, and do find some way to repeal the Second Amendment, what's next? The First, the Fifth, etc. And unfortunately I and quite a few others I know, both Republican and Democrat, and more than one Liberal see that as a real possibility. Being a responsible gun owner and carrier my self, I also choose not to frequent or support those businesses that ban or dis-allow concealed carry. I believe it is a small but, very loud voice of millions saying to the government and those business owners that We, The People believe in our Second Amendment Rights and will stand and fight for them and not let a "Hitler" destroy our country.

floydster
April 15, 2013, 07:46 PM
Dump the idiot, teaching and logic are not his forte, you are trying to learn, he is telling you, you are a traitor--it will only get worse from here, don't take the chance.
Believe me, I have been around the world many times--good luck, everyone deserves to be happy, and this is not where you are going.

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 07:47 PM
I understand where he/they are coming from. In a very simplistic form, they are standing for, and fighting for the WHOLE Constitution. Not just the Second Amendment. If Obuma and his cronies get their way, and do find some way to repeal the Second Amendment, what's next? The First, the Fifth, etc. And unfortunately I and quite a few others I know, both Republican and Democrat, and more than one Liberal see that as a real possibility. Being a responsible gun owner and carrier my self, I also choose not to frequent or support those businesses that ban or dis-allow concealed carry. I believe it is a small but, very loud voice of millions saying to the government and those business owners that We, The People believe in our Second Amendment Rights and will stand and fight for them and not let a "Hitler" destroy our country.
I do see how it could be expanded to his defense of the whole constitution. If they take away one right, they will try to do the same for the others. But as BluesDancer above you said, it is better to not have an opinion than to have one based on false information.

I could go one step further and say that part of the problem behind people being for or against topics such as 2A (though one could replace this with any other big ticket item in the media) is the two-party system that demands that one must choose between one choice or another choice without acknowledging all the variation in between. Even if I am on the pro-2A "side", I can still have different views than another person on the same "side."

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 08:11 PM
Dump the idiot, teaching and logic are not his forte, you are trying to learn, he is telling you, you are a traitor--it will only get worse from here, don't take the chance.
Believe me, I have been around the world many times--good luck, everyone deserves to be happy, and this is not where you are going.
Though I appreciate your relationship advice, that is not really the question at hand. One difference of opinion does not mean that we are doomed, and I can excuse some of the things he said to me given recent events in our state of residence.

barnbwt
April 15, 2013, 08:26 PM
I'd say that the angst and anger your fiance is feeling is likely due to the onerous laws Colorado just passed.

-Gun enthusiasts are as close to their hobby/cause as teeth to lips; it is a major part of who they are
-Gun owners are under assault in the form of blunt political action and libel that preys on the uninformed majority

Therefore, gun rights supporters feel we are in the midst of a somewhat existential crisis where our very way of life is under coordinated attack --and yet you said you are on the fence about it.

That's not to say you are wrong to speak your true feelings on the matter, or that his reaction is necessarily unwarranted. Mainly its a sign that he has been afraid to bring up what is obviously a deeply personal issue to see your opinion on the matter. I'd work that front when you choose to bring up the topic again. Gun-guys are typically shy to bring up the topic with lady-friends (especially if we have grown to accept "radical" views) since women (and the general public) are typically uninterested-to-revolted by the topic. It's easier to avoid it until an awkward argument arises :D (that's thinkin' like a man!)

But keep in mind that this topic is extremely dear to him, and if you give him the impression you do not respect that importance, he will take it as a personal affront. Hopefully you can get him to realize you are not unable to form an opinion, but only that you wish to learn more about the subject first; ask him to take you shooting, and keep abreast (as much as you care to) with events in the shooters' world.

It's possible, especially seeing as you are in Colorado, that he was offended that you seemed to have an ambivalent attitude to what is a grevious injustice in your state government. Sort of like how many hot-heads would have reacted on September 12th if you had said you were unsure of the terrorists intentions, and that you needed more time to determine if their cause was evil. Even if that assessment is accurate, it is still frustrating/infuriating to those who's minds are more than made up.

One difference of opinion does not mean that we are doomed
Yeah, there are far more important parts to any relationship than this one issue (you, for example :D). I think you'll be okay if you go into the topic with him again, since you now know how important it is. That's the main source of strife I've had whenever contentious topics come up; one side doesn't percieve the gravity of the discussion, and the other sees it as insult. Approach the topic knowing it will be a "heavy" discussion, and all should be well (unless of course he actually is a jerk --I kid, I kid...;)). Be clear from the get-go that you will not tolerate intimidation in the discussion (we often mistake that for being "persuasive" and need to be reminded).

Let us know how "Round 2" goes.

TCB

(Gunnies tend to be running faucets when we wax philosophical, so it may be easiest to tell him you support his cause, and never speak of it again :D;))

Mandabear3109
April 15, 2013, 08:32 PM
Therefore, gun rights supporters feel we are in the midst of a somewhat existential crisis where our very way of life is under coordinated attack --and yet you said you are on the fence about it.
I was in no way saying that I was against guns, despite this being what he heard. I was just trying to get him to see that I am unsure on the issue. I would rather upset him by saying that I am on the fence than tell him something that could potentially be false and have it come back to bite me later.

Gunnies tend to be running faucets when we wax philosophical, so it may be easiest to tell him you support his cause, and never speak of it again
My comments on this relate to what I said above about not wanting to declare an opinion before having all of the information necessary. Just because it may be the easier option does not make it the better option in the long-term.

Sambo82
April 15, 2013, 09:15 PM
MandaBear, welcome to THR.

I know alot of people are knocking your fiance for his behavior, and that may well be deserved, but it's important to remember that to alot of progunners, their Second Amendment rights are civil rights. And people can get funny when they feel their civil rights are under attack.

I've heard recently that asking someone why they need an AR 15 is akin to asking Rosa Parks why she needs to sit at the front of the bus. One would have to wonder if the "national dialogue" would be calm and reasonable if Congress were dabating say, reinstituting segregation or taking franchisement away from women.

So even to those who don't view gun ownership as a civil right, I think it's important for them to realize that millions of Americans do, and how that might affect the conversation. Maybe that perspective will help you understand your fiance's behavior a little better.

leprechaun50
April 15, 2013, 09:36 PM
Mandabear, You have gotten a lot of advice from a lot of the members here and it is an awful lot to digest at one time. Judging from your coming on this forum shows that you are willing to listen to all sides. Also judging by your replies you are a very levelheaded person and I feel confident that after reflecting on your situation you will make the choice that is right for you. I think that it is safe to say that we all wish you all the best.

danez71
April 15, 2013, 09:38 PM
Mandabear

Me and my wife have been together for 20 yrs now. When we 1st met, she wasnt anti gun but was visably nervous around them and for the most part, didnt think any but cops should have guns but understood and accepted the 2A. She knew I had a couple at the time. Accepted it. But didnt embrace it... and again, visably a little nervous if I ever took one out of the safe.

Personally, I think you do have a pretty good take on guns. You have your opinions and you are also willing and able to be open. And I comend you on searching for info/fact rather than blindly making a less-fence-sitting opinion.

Your fiance needs to be a little more like you. Open. Willing to discuss.

My wife now has a concealed weapons permit. She doesnt carry... well, rarely. She does know how to shoot; now. Guns arent really her thing. And I'm fine with that. But she'd use one if she needed to and occassionaly just for fun.

We were both open and accepting.

Keep going down your path. You'll be fine.

BullfrogKen
April 15, 2013, 09:44 PM
Sambo, to be fair that's like a white kid from Boston in the 60's asking a black person from Birmingham why a black person in the south would make such a big deal giving up a seat on a bus.

She has no context why the fight matters.

It's a little presumptions for gunnies involved in the civil rights movement over guns to expect a non-gunnie to feel the emotion of the fight, let alone even have an opinion yet.

It's a real art to get someone who doesn't own a gun, and never really thought about the issue of gun rights, to see your point of view. The fact she's neutral on the matter speaks a lot to her character given the anti-gun sentiment of pop-culture.

miller.lyte
April 15, 2013, 09:47 PM
Manda,

since this thread has largely been very informative and respectful towards you and your fiance, perhaps you may want to show him this thread so he can see for himself where you and other gun enthusiasts really stand. That may give him some perspective he may not get elsewhere.

Just a thought. Good luck to you both.

MistWolf
April 15, 2013, 10:01 PM
It's more than a 2nd Amendment issue. Allowing them to infringe on our Second Amendment rights allows them to infringe on nearly everything else.

When we are young and passionate, it's easy to have a knee jerk reaction to the world around us. In a way, that reaction helps us feel more secure in an uncertain world. It's not always right, it's not always the best way to handle things but it's what humans do.

He has a right to his feelings. You are not responsible for those feelings, nor does he have the right to act on those feelings especially in an inappropriate way. That said, if you love him, think about how you would want him to respond if the situation were reversed and apply that to your choices.

When I was 22, I passionately loved my liberties and freedoms and I too had my knee jerk moments. The passion isn't any less but now I try to act rather than react and I've gotten much better at it. But it's taken decades of practice and I still don't always get it right. Fortunately, I have a loving and caring wife who accepts me the way I am, yet still see the good in me.

Take time to study the issue and develop your own testimony of what our liberties mean to you, to your future progeny and the future of our nation. Tell your fiance that you need to do this and that you must own the answers you find.

You're a smart, discerning woman. You'll uncover the truth

larryh1108
April 15, 2013, 11:06 PM
I don't want to be bullied into anything that either he or his family believes just because that is what they believe. I want to form my own opinions from my own research, and I want him to be open to the possibility that I may come to a different conclusion without seeing it as a personal attack.

These are your words. It was what I was thinking in your original post. You have to consider many things, going forward.

He and/or his family may be of the kind of people that feel either you are on "their side" or you are "the enemy". This goes way deeper than the gun debate.

You will come upon many issues in your relationship.... who you will vote for, abortion, religion, how to raise children, and many other topics that are touchy and personal. Some people, male and female, feel that their partner has to feel the same way about something or they are a traitor. It's called control. Some people have to control. If this type of "opinion" goes further than the gun discussion then you have to ask yourself if you wish to be married to a person who has to control how you act, think and feel or if you are "on his side". The fact that his family is as strong-minded as he is tells me he grew up in an environment like this. Just be wary. I see red flags all over the place.

BluesDancer
April 15, 2013, 11:11 PM
I could go one step further and say that part of the problem behind people being for or against topics such as 2A (though one could replace this with any other big ticket item in the media) is the two-party system that demands that one must choose between one choice or another choice without acknowledging all the variation in between. Even if I am on the pro-2A "side", I can still have different views than another person on the same "side."

Very good point Mandabear. I really couldn't have said that better myself! In my opinion one of the real problems in this country. You can have different views than another person on the same "side"; unfortunately, many don't see it that way. Or, many don't want to see it that way.

The ability to be a free thinker is one of the great things about this country. The ability to figure out what you believe, what you value, having opinions about issues of importance (economic, social, political) and being able to clearly define how you arrived at those opinions based on beliefs/values/logic, etc is a wonderful element of a free society.

Unfortunately I think too many people have opinions but couldn't give you a good argument why or even how they came to that opinion. Hardly in line with the whole idea of an "informed populace" as a basic tenet of our republic. As Ben Carson said, to educate is to liberate...

FROGO207
April 16, 2013, 12:10 AM
Mandabear
Welcome to our corner of the world.:)
I am sure that it took a lot of courage to hit submit reply on that first post--for that I commend you.

After seeing the things that happened in Boston this afternoon it has to be even more obvious that the individual is absolutely responsible for their own well being and personal protection. I want every tool I can obtain to allow this to happen. I also want you to have that same choice if you so desire. That is why I support the 2ND amendment and try to stop all further infringements to it always! I am sure a free thinking person, as you seem to be will draw your own conclusions and support what you believe to be the best answer---or for that matter blend of answers.

It seems all decisions based on emotions end up being poor at best. The anti's are good at that.

Indifferent
April 16, 2013, 12:36 AM
I don't if anyone else said this, but I think its awesome you are going the distance and searching for yourself and for answers, even if they are or are not of the same opinion I am.

JTHunter
April 16, 2013, 12:47 AM
Hello Mandabear and welcome to THR.

Good for you in your search for information. Remember - "Knowledge Is Power."

So "enlighten" yourself.

Here is one point for you to consider. Many people moan about how the Second Amendment wasn't meant to cover fully-automatic machine guns (true "assault rifles") or even the semi-auto rifles like the Ruger 10/22 and the AR-15 style of weapons. The Second Amendment's wording is a little ambiguous and for good reason. It states "to Keep and Bear Arms" without specifying what they meant by "arms". The writers were smart enough that, with technological advances, "arms" would change over time.

Their concern was that "We the People" would be on a par with the government (we no longer are) considering the battles for independance they had just fought. They didn't want a government to become so powerful that it could put "We the People" back into subservience and slavery. They wanted the people to be a "free" people and to do that, "the People" MUST be able to defend themselves.

Self-defense is one of the most basic tenets of Life. All organisms fight to defend themselves and Humans are no different in that respect. Our over-riding difference is that we can choose to give up our lives to defend someone OR something else, be it a place, another person, or an idea. (Think about what YOU would do if someone was trying to hurt you child.)

You may never have to USE a gun to defend yourself but, as I said earlier - "Knowledge Is Power" - at least you will have the ability should the need arise.

There are other forums where you can find more information as well as other opinions. These include: OpenCarry.org; GunRightsMedia.com; and Gunsnet.net. Good luck in your quest for "knowlege".

justice06rr
April 16, 2013, 02:49 AM
Welcome to THR and glad you found this site for advice.

It defitely seems you have a good grasp on things and have a very level-headed approach to the issue. Many issues can be very sensitive, like politics, religion, and guns. its actually a good thing that this came up now so you can get yourself informed and decide for yourself where you stand. You are still young and impressionable, and from what you already posted regarding the issue of guns, it seems you are on the right track.

Good luck in your continued search regarding the 2nd Amendement.

Something to think about regarding the subject: do you rather have a gun or a bat to defend yourself and your family if that burglar breaks into your house at night?

Mandabear3109
April 16, 2013, 08:39 AM
FROGO207: I am sure that it took a lot of courage to hit submit reply on that first post--for that I commend you.
Definitely. Not only that, but it took a lot to start this page as well. For the most part, I have gotten nothing but support in my search for facts and knowledge, and for that I am grateful.

justice06rr: Something to think about regarding the subject: do you rather have a gun or a bat to defend yourself and your family if that burglar breaks into your house at night?
We actually do have a baseball bat sitting next to our front door. Chances are, we would hear someone coming before they even got to the door because our front door is on the second floor, but we have it there just in case.

Arkansas Paul
April 16, 2013, 10:25 AM
I guess my question is this: what are the chances of a couple working out if some or many of their political beliefs are different, and how will this affect our kids if/when we decide to have them?

The chances of a couple working out differing political views are very good IMO. My wife and I have been married for nearly 11 years now, and our political and religious views neither one line up perfectly.
I am very fiscally conservative and very socially liberal, while she leans towards being conservative in all aspects. Religion is another thing that divides many relationships. I won't get into our views, as this is not a religion based forum, I only brought it up to point out that we differ in those ways as well, and have a wonderful relationship. The key for this is to respect each others opinion instead of getting up on a high horse and thinking you're superior to the other. It sounds like you've got this down, and while he may need a little work on it, I don't think it's time to give up.

As far as children, we have that issue as well and I'll tell you how I handle it. Whether or not it makes sense to you, well, we'll see. :)
My daughter will be 10 next month and she's asking all sorts of questions. My goal is not to teach her what to think. My goal is to teach her HOW to think. If you do that, I believe they will be much better off. Let them make up their own minds, and support them whatever they decide. I think it's rather egotistical and shallow to try and force your views onto your children.

shafter
April 16, 2013, 10:38 AM
I highly doubt that open minded people like yourself (OP) are ruining this country. Do please continue your research and keep us informed of how your opinions evolve. It seems to me that people who take the time to do their research generally come to the correct conclusions.

If there is anything we at TheHighRoad can do to help answer your questions we are more than happy!

TheOld Man
April 16, 2013, 10:44 AM
I have been married to a non-gun person for 50 years come November. She and my in-laws are from the Northeast, mainly New Jersey. Her entire family freaks out when they see a gun. I showed my new deer rifle to my brother-in-law who lives in GA. The others sitting around saw it and started screaming. "He's got a GUN!" "Who yuz gonna shoot wit' dat t'ing?" My answer was "Bambi" Nobody laughed. My in-laws are convinced little sister is married to the mob. :D She doesn't do guns, I don't wear makeup. We have managed to stay married for 49 years so far.
If that's your only difference, you should have a great marriage.

mgkdrgn
April 16, 2013, 10:51 AM
Thanks for such a quick reply. I actually did spend some time this morning reading the second amendment, including different websites and wordings, as well as court cases and I am still not sure where I stand. My fiancee did not accept the fact that I am unsure, and kept trying to guide me into thinking the same way he did.
Simple question:

Do you believe you have a god given right to defend yourself, your family?

Or do you believe you should depend on someone else to protect you and yours?

THAT is the message of the 2nd amendment. An armed person is a citizen, an unarmed one is a subject.

OldCavSoldier
April 16, 2013, 12:27 PM
I've been married 30+ years to a gal who understands firearms (she grew up with a father who was an avid hunter) and supports my firearm ownership and activities with firearms. She loves shooting skeet but will never go hunting with me. She loves shooting my .22LR pistol, but does not want to get her carry permit. She never hassles me about buying a new gun or ammo or anything that supports my firearms related hobbies.

When we married, she understood the Constitution and the meanings of and reasons for the Bill of Rights, and she supported the Constitution and BoR. She was just more interested in and concerned with raising a family and providing a good home.

One thing I NEVER did was to try to "convince" her of anything gun related or browbeat her into participating with me. She always knew that if she wanted to go shooting, she was more than welcome to go with me.

She and I raised some very good kids. Both know how and love to shoot. One owns a pistol, rifle and shotgun, loves to shoot (but not hunt) and has a Carry Permit. The other loves to shoot (and shoots VERY well), does not own any guns but often asks to go with me to the range or clays field.

As a bona fide OLD GUY, I recommend that you possibly re-think the idea of staying with someone who does not respect your opinions and who does not give you the space and time you may need to put your head around the idea of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment to come to your own conclusions. There are plenty of gun-guys out there who would love to present all sides of the discussion, engage you in true conversation, and not try to run rampant over you.

Good luck!

Queen_of_Thunder
April 16, 2013, 12:32 PM
My suggestion is to read the Declartion of Independance first then the Second Amendment. Once you understand ones civic duty you will understand the Second much better.

OldCavSoldier
April 16, 2013, 12:44 PM
My suggestion is to read the Declartion of Independance first then the Second Amendment. Once you understand ones civic duty you will understand the Second much better.
Absolutely the best advice for ANYBODY!! Well done, Queen of Thunder! (Now, why didn't *I* think of that?........Senior Moment!!)

r1derbike
April 16, 2013, 12:55 PM
I recently got back into firearms after over 30 years of not owing them, because of an attempted home invasion, involving 4 people; one at the door, and 3 waiting in the van outside, that my wife thwarted with some very quick thinking. She slammed the door instantly.

She wasn't too keen about me becoming armed again, but we discussed this for hours, and now she wants a revolver when I'm away, for her own protection. She cannot handle a semi-auto.

Our discussion turned heated several times, we really fought this one out, as she had a bad experience with an ex. We have been together 12 years, and it nearly separated us, so don't think an issue like this may not have some permanently damaging consequences.

I now have a CHCL, and a longarm, capable of defending myself, my loved ones, and my property. It is a God given right, upheld by the second amendment, and nobody is going to take that right away from me. Nobody.

The fact that this issue nearly caused a divorce, and now my wife feels unsafe at home without me, and is going to get a revolver/training with my help, should tell you things worked out for the better. I still sense her fear and reservation, but hope her going through the training process will push the incident with her ex further into oblivion. She loves to shoot my pellet rifles, but her first indoor range trip with me was a bad experience for her, because some police and myself were target practicing with some large caliber sidearms. The noise and concussions (even though her hearing was protected) was too much. She did become accustomed to it, and shot some sidearms herself, to pick-out the one she wanted.

You're young, and very wise to discuss this with him. You sound like a very smart, independent thinker, and I'm sure you'll come away better informed about not only why we own firearms, but why we are so adamantly involved about the politics surrounding them.

Good luck!

Noah
April 16, 2013, 01:10 PM
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

bandur60
April 16, 2013, 03:00 PM
First I'd like to re-highlight Leprechaun's suggestion to visit www.corneredcat.com . I've gone through this entire thread and it's been a good one; but was surprised it took so long to see Kathy's site brought up.

I don't do much posting but follow several interesting threads on this and other forums, have picked up a lot of information helpful in my NRA/4H/Hunter's Ed courses. You seem like exactly the type of (younger) person I love going to the range with. My youngest (of 5) is 22 tomorrow, and most of the 5 have or have had friends with an outlook similar to yours. When the subject comes up, either the kids or I have asked if they'd like to try it and if so, it's .22 time!! That's included college exchange students from Germany and Spain, and last summer three businessmen from Germany and one full day with eight nuns replete with full habits. The guys went all the way through the 44 magnum and 45ACP, the nuns enjoyed taking turns with several .22 rifles and handguns; to each their own.

I suggest finding a qualified uninterested party, male or female, limiting yourselves to 50 rounds or so of ammo, and getting acquainted with a .22 rifle and/or handgun at a range someplace .... doesn't have to be a secret, but it'd be something to surprise the fiance with, especially if you found out that you had fun doing so. I'm sure there are a lot of members here besides me that would volunteer to be the one if we were close enough.

Kudos on opening this thread!!

Mandabear3109
April 16, 2013, 07:09 PM
First I'd like to re-highlight Leprechaun's suggestion to visit www.corneredcat.com . I've gone through this entire thread and it's been a good one; but was surprised it took so long to see Kathy's site brought up.
I have actually taken a look at that website, and I like what it has to say. I bookmarked it so I can go back and read it in more depth later. I especially like the sections relating to children, because that will be something I need to think about in the future.

Once again, I appreciate all of your helpful and constructive comments. All those who have posted in this thread have opened my eyes to the complexities of 2A that I had never thought about before, and made the topic much more relatable. :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Unsure and looking for answers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!