My First and Probably Last Post: An Open Letter

Status
Not open for further replies.
The woman is letting all know her father was on this forum was from Texas died recently, maybe 6 mos or so. Disliked him and hopes that some will know who he is.

I hope it helped her to write to the forum and will be less angry in the future.

Good Luck.
 
(at least until the inevitable point that I am branded a troll and rendered persona non grata) .

Trust me, you will not be branded a troll or defamed in any way here on THR. When we say we are serious about protecting civil liberties, we are serious about it, and despite how you may hate us, I am sure most of us will protect YOUR civil liberties too if you need it. So, keep in mind, we respect freedom of speech here, and that means YOUR freedom of speech as well.
 
Have you thought about this?

I don't understand this post.

Guns are tools. Mankind has been using tools to migrate from caves and into civilization. The tool has no base, it is neither good nor evil, but takes on the persona of its owner. I don't see how anyone can "not like" or "like" guns. They are just tools, and apparently at some point in human civilization someone saw a need for them.

I don't think they should be banned. I may be considered a liberal in some circles, and it surprises me that some liberals are actually anti-gun. Its hard to have freedom of speech without a means to back it up. Yes you can run out of words in the same way one can run out of ammo. Look at Nazi-Germany, China, Cuba, or the madness of Pol-Pot. For pete's sake the man was killing people who read books or wore glasses.

As for that last quip, about being connected, educated, etcetera. I don't see why one would attempt to brag about such things. I have a lot of education but don't brag about, I got some stuff published but don't bring it up to have justification to my theories. Your words should stand on their own.

Life isn't perfect, bad things happen. The quicker you come to terms with this the better off you will be. Maybe everyone gets brainwashed by television or novels that life is simple and goods things happen. If that was the case it would be called heaven, not life.

You seem to have some issues with guns and the gun owner culture due to your father. That's a separate issue and I believe it is clouding your judgment.

If you don't like guns, then fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I have no idea why, and this is my personal opinion, people in San Francisco or California would be against firearm ownership. After all, historically ethnic minorities, homosexuals, or "liberal" people who don't tow the party line have been sought out, persecuted, and executed on mass scales. So it baffles me why such groups would go to great lengths to disarm themselves.

The funny thing about America, is that the people who probably don't need militias and firearms form militias and purchase weapons then train with them. But groups that historically have always been persecuted, tortured, executed will always try to ban all weapons from their communities. Exactly how many years of human civilization will it take for YOU people to realize that you may actually want the means to defend yourself?

I mean, let's think about it. If I was a gay male I would probably be interested in an effective means to defend myself from...I don't know, hate crimes? If I was a minority that is increasingly criticized in right wing media then perhaps it would be a good idea to form a armed neighborhood watch or a militia.

The funny thing is that this concept isn't new. African Americans in the south first realized the importance of arms and then something magical happened, gun control laws were created....and we have been going downhill ever since.

It just baffles me that you, as you say you are, a liberal, doesn't like having an effective means to protective yourself.
 
The funny thing is that this concept isn't new. African Americans in the south first realized the importance of arms and then something magical happened, gun control laws were created....and we have been going downhill ever since.

That is so true.......The first gun control laws were passed to keep African Americans from the means to defend themselves, thus, making them vulnerable to the teeth and talons of hatemongers.
 
Ma'am, your logic states that because your father was a gun owner and was also abusive, others who own guns must also be abusive.


Her post doesn't say that, it says exactly the opposite. She is trying to show us how antis are made.

She isn't advocating gun control, she is sending a message suggesting we smarten up and not alienate people on the fence.

I think Brian Williams and Rachen hit it on the head.

People PLEASE read carefully and try to respond well to this. Some of these posts make us look terrible.
 
Gosh I reserve my animosity for the criminally stupid and those who refuse to think. So I have no scorn for you. Also you are not really a troll either as you seem to indicate your position clearly. How people respond is up to them.

Many in the anti-freedom crowd fall into the category of illogic and willfully ignorant. An unemotional examination of the evidence shows the same thing over and over again. The historical record is quite clear: a repeal of the RKBA to the public leads to a dictatorship and then a genocide more often than not. There are no societies where the RKBA was allowed to everyone where a geoncide has occurred. We are talking about the lives of hundreds of millions of people. We are talking about basic civil rights. To support gun control to me indicates a depraved indifference towards human life. Take it for what it is worth; having your rights does not mean you will survive but it does give you the option to choose.

I don't know what you went through with your father and don't really much care either. There are good people and bad people on both sides of this issue. Supporting RKBA does not automatically make someone a shining Paladin or paragon of truth. The difference is that on this side of the fence the position can be backed by evidence and logic and the other side of the fence comes down to raw emotionalism. Emotionalism and $5 will buy a gallon of gas; if you hurry to the gas station.

There are many more criminals and hypocrites on the other side of the fence as well. At times those who support gun control (including the Columbine Shooters, left out of the movies...) are secret gun owners with violent fantasies. This has been shown time and again as well.

Where you hang your hat is up to you. If you are happy with the status quo I would try as hard as possible to support gun rights. If you want to move towards socialism (with a corresponding loss of freedom) go with the anti-gun crowd. Just keep in mind we are not going away any time soon, and even though you may hate us and what we do... we are working for your rights as well.
 
Hiya Riy,


I just got back from a "refreshing" vaca to the mountains, so I'll do my best to give an answer to your questions/comments.


First let me say this....

OK... you don't care for guns. I can live with that. You acknowledge the Constitutional Right as envisioned by our founding fathers, it seems. Futhermore, you have stated that you are able to understand the difference between a tool and an action.

On top of that, you have stated that you are not interested in banning firearms.

You just said that you don't care for them.


OK. I can live with that. It seems that you can live with me as well. As I see it, we have no issue.

What I don't get really is the point of your post. I get the impression that you have CHOSEN to indentify with activist opponents to our rights.

If you CHOOSE to identify with those who seek to remove rights protected by our Constitution and in the face of our founding fathers, you CANNOT expect to be treated any differently than those with whom you choose to identify.

My advice to you (should you choose to consider it) is to stop identifying with them. From my view, you'd be a non-element in the equation. I'd have no quarl with you, and presumably you'd have none with me.

However, those who actively stand against our rights... well, all bets are off.



At any rate...

Here's my take on your post....


I don't like guns.

I don't have anything against you owning them if you want to, but I don't like them.

Stated above. We should have no quarl... unless something materially changes on your part.


In fact, I prefer that the people around me don't have guns.


Fair enough. I prefer a lot of things as well.


To me, guns are a lot like mass media journalists; they are protected, they cannot be effectively regulated despite anyone's best efforts, they are ostensibly necessary to a free state and their supporters enjoy reminding us of the fact, they are everywhere you look, they are loud and obnoxious, they have potential to be part of a greater good but are just as easily a tool to be used for tremendous wrongdoing, and, like a nasty car wreck, people just seem to fixate on them regardless of their views.


I am still trying to figure out how the firearm that I have in my gun safe is being loud and obnoxious.

I thought you said that you understood that they were TOOLS.


No, my dear... the only loud and obnoxious ones are the journalists that you have mentioned who KEEP SENSATIONALIZING everything.

Why do no journalist go on and on about that car accident? A car is a tool as well.



When I see a gun, I see Nancy Grace; lots of hype, lots of noise, lots of misinformation, hard to look at. That's just me.

Many things are hard for me to look at as well. Aren't we a quirky bunch? But its OK as long as WE know we are.



I say this with both conviction and humility... I am a journalist.

OK.

I come to your site as a member today after having spent the better part of the last year lurking as a guest only. I've read a tremendous number of posts in that time. And, in that time, I've also developed a tremendous fascination with gun culture.

I'm happy that you have taken the time to read. Thanks for that.


I'm not an "anti" but I will readily admit that I am bordering on it.


Why are you bordering on it?

The last time I checked your journalism is a BOR issue as well. Shall we all go "anti" 1st Amendment and shut you up?

See... that's the trouble with rights. We have them, too. When you start looking at infringing on mine, your's are next.

And why would you want to do something like that anyway?

And before anyone should suggest that I find someone to take me out to the range to "convert" me, let me explain that I grew up in a very pro-gun family and was schooled in the ways of the gun from a very young age. In fact, my heritage is in large part the reason that I find myself here at all (at least until the inevitable point that I am branded a troll and rendered persona non grata) .


Again.... Fair enough. I don't want to convert you. I'm quite OK with you leaving us alone and we leaving you alone. I'll not cross that line and I hope the same of you.



My father you see is deceased. He was a decorated veteran, an avid shooter and accomplished marksman, a local NRA leader, a respected community leader, and an apparently well-liked member of this board until his passing. The latter fact determined by my sister and I only upon delving into his personal affairs after his death. Now, as much as some of you might be tempted to offer some form of condolence or other well-meaning expression, please withhold doing so. I have no regret in the fact that my father has passed. Nor does my sister.

The man, despite being revered by virtually all who met him, despite being nearly locally iconic in his role as a neo-classic Texas gentleman rancher, and despite his lifelong devotion to all that is considered sacred by the multitudes of pro-gunners here and elsewhere, was possessed of certain peculiarities of personality that rendered him considerably less beloved in the eyes of those who knew him inside his residence. While I will spare all the burden of a detailed disclosure, let it be known simply that he was not the kind of man that most parents would prefer their children to visit. He was also not the kind of man most parents would wish their daughters to marry. And, despite his public remonstrations regarding gun-control and its' infringement upon responsible, God-fearing American heroes such as himself, he was, as several members of our family might argue, perhaps the last person on the planet that should be afforded the right to own a firearm. I argue that now, as a 38 year-old woman, just as readily as I wish I could have when I was an 11 year-old girl all too familiar with the business ends of my father's various and creatively-employed implements of assault.


Thanks for the background. Considering what you write next, it leaves as many questions as answers, however.

For that reason, I'll stay in the present and address the person here-- and not him.

Yet, despite this, I am able to separate the tools from the man wielding them.

I question this-- considering that you consider them loud an obnixous. But OK.

Despite the horrors inflicted by my father, I managed to find and marry a good man, have a fulfilling relationship, raise two daughters of my own to near-adulthood, and cultivate a successful career as a nationally syndicated writer. Indeed, my sister was not so lucky. Nor was our mother.


OK. Glad and Sad. A lot of life is overcoming our past. I'm glad you did. But I don't understand how this particularly pertains to the question at hand really. Nor do I really see you as being unique in this regard. All of us have histories. I have one as well... but I'll keep it to myself.


Still, and again, I don't like guns.

That is your right.

I don't like them around me.

That is your preference.

But as a borderline "anti" I would like to give gun owners everywhere the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you.

I try very, very hard in fact to do so. Sometimes it is profoundly difficult for me. You see, I would wager that among the ranks of this board there are no small number of self-appointed defenders of individual right who, like my father, wear but a very thin gloss of veneer over the churning internal stink of hatred and depravity that is their true being.


Excuse me? You consider being a "defender" of our right that is CONTINUALLY being attacked as hatred?

I seriously believe that you are unable to seperate us from your father. It seems that perhaps you have some unresolved issues with that.

But I highly resent your characterization of those who are active in standing against the Bradies, Joyces, and VPC's of the world. Can name any organizations that exist solely to infinge on the 1st amendment right that pays your bills and you so avidly use? I just named three of many that are against ours....

I presume that you are not a member of any journalistic societies or organizations then.

I thought so.




But understand that I am a reasonable and rational woman who knows that at least some of you are truly as good a group of people as you proclaim to be, and, as such I do not wish to color all of you with the same crude and ugly stroke of brush with which I am about to obliterate the last remnants of my father's ill and lurid history. Those, you, deserve at least that much from a borderline "anti" like me.

If you chose to characterize any activists in our community in the same distain you seem to hold for your father, then I would question how reasonable and rational you are.

I'd suggest that you revist the notion of firearms after you resolve your feelings towards your father. I don't know him, he's come up as an example of gun ownership a few times in this post.

I'd rather not be measured by a person outside of the sphere of my influence. I'd further prefer that I wasn't measured by a person whom you have issues with.

It would be unfair, and dare I say it... irrational.

But tell me...

Why then, given the fact that "I" am capable of giving "you" that benefit; given the fact that I am able to objectively reason through the illogisms that struggle so hard to compel me to not only write you off, but also commit my considerable energy and resources to supporting, with pen and with pocketbook, the cause of those that would see your rights decimated and ground to shards... WHY THEN do you choose to disparage me and others of those like me?


If you identify with the opponents of our Constitutional Rights, you may well get caught in the net of some disparaging remark. My earlier advice of not choosing to indentify with those comes to mind.

But does it really suprise you that disparaging remarks against people whom such difference of opinion exists-- not to mention the emotional component...

Does it really suprise you that people say things like that?

How many Redneck jokes have you heard? Or how many have you told?

Hillary told a group of people not long ago "Why the Hell would anyone want to live in Mississippi"

Later that week, she told voters in Iowa that she expected them to be better than Mississippi.

And lets not forget that Obama considers us "bitter" and "clinging to our religion and guns."


My dear, marginalization and disparaging comments are far from uncommon in our world.

Don't identify with a group that we have cause to feel that way about if you are not of the mindset of that group. If you ARE of that group, then get over it and quit wondering why.



Why do you call us sheep?

I don't. I have a few names reserved for opponents, but you have stated that you are not one of those.

Why do you assail the fact that some of us, like me, choose to live in San Francisco?

I don't. *I* wouldn't live there-- and I've lived in 5 of the largest 10 US cities within my lifetime.

But likely, you wouldn't like to live where I live, either.


Why does our concern with the environment and healthcare result in invective?

Say what?

Where are you getting your correlations?

I am getting the impression that you have formed a long of your views based upon generalizations.

I talk about the issues with environment and healthcare routinely among my friends. Oh.... and I am a Republican. That ought to knock the sampling out of whack.

You see, there are many, many of us out here who all of you consider "antis' who are not at all.


Wrong. If you are anti-2nd Amendment, then you ARE an anti.

If you are something else, then you are something else.

If I disagree with you on another position, well I disagree with you on another issue. I may do so vehemently. But that doesn't mean I consider you an "Anti- 2nd Amendment" person.



There are some of us who, were we to give in to the temptation to slip logic in kind at the butt of your own tendencies to do so, would have damn fine reason to be "antis", would be very good at it, and would represent a considerable benefit to the cause of your nemeses.

What exactly are you trying to say here? That you'd be good at being our enemy? OK... fine.



We are legion. And our words are mightier than bullets. And we don't run out of ammo.

And likewise, we don't either. You see, WE also have the 1st Amendment. (It was a package deal-- buy one, get the rest free-- while supplies last.)

It may suprise you to learn that we have writers and those trained in mass comm, too. I'm one of them.

So, the next time you feel like hurling wisdom at us, the next time your own brush feels heavy and wanting for a target, consider that there are a few of us who haven't yet decided which ring to throw our dogs in. And our dogs are big. And our dogs are hungry.

Lets cut the crap. I don't like veiled threats.

If you identify with anti-2nd Amendment activist, you get exactly what you can expect.

If you aren't one, then why the hell have you come here trying to threaten us? Or is there more you haven't mentioned...

With regards,

A loud, powerful, logical, well-connected, female and liberal California journalist who really doesn't want to take away your guns, but leans further in that direction every time she sees your lack of personal self-control.


Clearly.




-- John
 
Last edited:
Open Letter

Seems pretty closed to me. You start with not being anti gun but then contradict yourself with everything that follows.

Since you're still alive I doubt that your father used a gun on you as it was meant to be used. My father was abusive as well and never owned a gun so I don't see the connection. If you think everyone that owns a gun is like your father that just isn't so.

The sheep topic has been covered well here. The question is can you defend yourself or not?

As the capitol of California, San Francisco leads the way in removing the rights of all citizens of that state. All politicians that set themselves higher then the rest and remove the rights of the people are traitors. They took an oath to protect the constitution. By passing laws restricting the rights of others they become the problem.

As a journalist you should be able to separate your opinions from the facts but your post shows otherwise. Lacking facts you fill your post with nothing but opinion. Not very professional but pretty much the standard in todays news.

To bad you don't have the professional ethics to stand your ground. Post one thread and being unwilling to stick around and defend your position is childish.

Thanks for your opinion.:rolleyes:
 
As the capitol of California, San Francisco leads the way in removing the rights of all citizens of that state. All politicians that set themselves higher then the rest and remove the rights of the people are traitors. They took an oath to protect the constitution. By passing laws restricting the rights of others they become the problem.

And that, is precisely the reason why we dislike San Francisco's government. When someone violates someone else's civil rights, like the city's extremely elitist and oppressive administration, they shouldn't be surprised when one day, they lose their own civil rights to their own oppressive ordinances. By taking an oath to protect the Constitution, and then violating it, they are committing the very act of treason.
 
Am I the only one confused on what this post is really about? Is it anti gun? Is it a environmental concern? Is she trying to show us something? Is she trying to tell us that she has the power to decimate our 2nd amend.?

Why then, given the fact that "I" am capable of giving "you" that benefit; given the fact that I am able to objectively reason through the illogisms that struggle so hard to compel me to not only write you off, but also commit my considerable energy and resources to supporting, with pen and with pocketbook, the cause of those that would see your rights decimated and ground to shards... WHY THEN do you choose to disparage me and others of those like me?

Are you reffering that all gun owners have no self-control? That would be a pretty steep claim seeing how most of the guns that do crimes are stolen, or obtained ILLEGALLY. I'm sorry little miss "loud and powerful" You couldn't take a gun away from ANY ONE on this forum if you wrote to the president himself. You may be a well-connected female liberal, but, like others, you will fail miserably in your cause, and life.

A loud, powerful, logical, well-connected, female and liberal California journalist who really doesn't want to take away your guns, but leans further in that direction every time she sees your lack of personal self-control.

Why do you come and call this forum out, I'm sure you have ranted on some other pro-gun forums also. Chances are you're not a journalist, or work for anything other than your very local paper, which doesn't see light of day outside your town, and your very small amount of leaders and followers is not nearly enough to even make a ripple in the big pond of those "EVIL GUNS."
 
Rachen said:
We believe that if someone violates someone else's civil rights, like [T]he [C]ity's extremely elitist and oppressive administration, they deserve to have their own civil rights taken away as well.
Like hell "we" do. Speak for yourself, sir. :fire:

If they're convicted of felonies, then that's different.

Edited to add: justin 561, leave out the personal attacks.

EDITED AGAIN TO ADD: Rachen notes below that my response to his post above was to a typo. He's changed his post to read the way that he meant for it to read. I've no argument with his updated statement.
 
That is an interesting letter leading to an equally interesting discussion. However, I can't help but boil her open letter down the the essence.

She openly admits that she was traumatized as a child with a weapon of some sort by a man who had many. From which she argues that this does not affect her view of weapons. That is a tough argument to sell to me.

Then she goes on to say that she is on the fence on gun ownership. She also says that there are many on the fence in regards to gun ownership. She states that we should tread carefully on the anti-gun contingency because, if we don't, the "legions" of people on the fence will, decisively and with unity, turn in favor of the anti-gun side and overwhelm us.

Hmmm......
That would mean that the undecided people would have to an organized group of some sort. I am trying to remember the last well organized group of undecided people I have enountered. Lets see..........nope, can't think of any.

I am very proud of most of the posts I have read in reply to her letter. I know how ugly this topic can get. Most people here were smart enough not to take the bait.
 
OMG people.

She DIDN'T correlate her father's actions with gun owners in general. She indicated that to do so is tempting but would be illogical. She offered her background as an illustration. Then she went on to ask why, if she can exercise logic, others cannot when considering liberals, Californians etc. She is showing us how we look to people on the fence, and how it damages us.

Come on people.


That would mean that the undecided people would have to an organized group of some sort. I am trying to remember the last well organized group of undecided people I have enountered. Lets see..........nope, can't think of any.

The undecided do nothing until you alienate them. Then they drop over to one side or the other. I think that's the point. You've met LOTS of people who were undecided at one point or another. The question is whether we, as gun owners, wish to push or pull people like the OP.
 
Like hell "we" do. Speak for yourself, sir.

ALL RIGHT! I corrected my post. Re-read it now in the original space. Happy?

(Sigh) It's just a typo, otherwise I wouldn't have corrected it!
 
JWarren, that was quite a post for a possible troll.

Lets not stamp names on people unless they have been a real nuisance. That is not the above case. Lets reason with her, and hear her arguments too. Maybe we might learn something from her and stop "excluding fence sitters", like the very, very small minority of gun owners do.
 
JWarren, that was quite a post for a possible troll. I couldn't make it through the whole thing, what makes you think an anti could stomach that?


Big45,

See what happens when I don't post for 10 days?

My appologies if it made your eyes bleed....

:)



-- John
 
"My first and probably last post?

What you did was speak your mind and leave the room...not cool.
 
Riy, If you continue to post here, you will find a diverse cross section of Americana that frequents this forum or others such like the www.thefiringline.com.

From what I've gathered over the last 10 years posting and reading the thoughts and ideas.

#1. They have a great love for this country, and the personal freedoms and responsibilities that go with it.

#2. They are passionate about responsible firearm ownership and usage.

Such a cross section of people will inevitably have individuals whom leanings favor the far right or left, categorizing those who don't fit into their preconceived ideas of "this or that".

Most here are willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but make no mistake, they are a critical audience.

John Kay once wrote in a lyric of a song, "If you fell on a pin you would be blind in both eye's"

Give this place and folks here a chance, you will be pleasantly surprised at the camaraderie, this virtual community is family, it's really that simple.

Pull up a chair to our cyber campfire, there is much to learn and discuss.

Welcome.

12-34hom
 
My First and Probably Last Post: An Open Letter
This is a cowardly approach, showing that you prefer to come here and give us a sermon rather than engage in a constructive dialogue.

...they have potential to be part of a greater good but are just as easily a tool to be used for tremendous wrongdoing...
In this regard they're like many other things you use in day-to-day life, such as cars or kitchen knives. In reality, guns provide the weak an avenue to defend themselves against the strong, for the defenseless to defend themselves against the ugly threats the world presents.

...I would wager that among the ranks of this board there are no small number of self-appointed defenders of individual right who, like my father, wear but a very thin gloss of veneer over the churning internal stink of hatred and depravity that is their true being.
I trust you realize the extent to which you're transferring your father's ugliness to anyone else who happens to own a gun. Sentences such as this make me feel like I bumped into the bargain bin at Adjectives 'R Us.

Why do you call us sheep?
Sheep aren't bad, they simply rely on others for defense. If that's your position, fine. The members here generally prefer to help defend themselves if necessary.

We are legion. And our words are mightier than bullets. And we don't run out of ammo.
As a professional writer myself, I have to say that's part of your problem. Your post is the literary equivalent of the "spray and pray" approach to shooting. Communication is much more effective when it's concise. Surely as a professional writer you're familiar with phrases like, "Kill your darlings" and, "I have only made this letter longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter (Blaise Pascal, 1600's)."
 
I give this thread a page or two before it's locked.

I don't see what good locking this thread would do to us politically. She would most likely report back to her superiors and say that we "civil libertarians" don't really respect freedom of speech either.

Please don't lock this thread. Doing so will give the antis a political argument to use against us.
 
Riy, If you continue to post here, you will find a diverse cross section of Americana that frequents this forum or others such like the www.thefiringline.com.

From what I've gathered over the last 10 years posting and reading the thoughts and ideas.

#1. They have a great love for this country, and the personal freedoms and responsibilities that go with it.

#2. They are passionate about responsible firearm ownership and usage.

Such a cross section of people will inevitably have individuals whom leanings favor the far right or left, categorizing those who don't fit into their preconceived ideas of "this or that".

Most here are willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but make no mistake, they are a critical audience.

John Kay once wrote in a lyric of a song, "If you fell on a pin you would be blind in both eye's"

Give this place and folks here a chance, you will be pleasantly surprised at the camaraderie, this virtual community is family, it's really that simple.

Pull up a chair to our cyber campfire, there is much to learn and discuss.

Welcome.

12-34hom

Wow....... I couldn't have said it better.:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top