Surprised by a Gun Owner
- Thread starter LibShooter
- Start date
- Status
VirgilCaine
Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 617
True, I have heard more women are getting into hunting and shooting.
Hardtarget
Member
Actually, hunting is a privilege. Constitution doesn't talk about hunting.
Mark.
Mark.
wuchak
Member
No need for it to mention hunting. They believed in property rights so if you owned the land you owned what was on it including the game and they were yours to hunt as you wished, when you wished. Hunting on public lands is another matter. That is a privilege because you are using a shared resource. Now even hunting your own land has become a privilege because, thanks to property taxes, you never actually own your land anymore. You just own the privilege of paying taxes on it.
memphisjim
Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,265
i think she wants you dude
starkadder
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 111
I am sure that some of you will take offence to this, but I want you to really think about it before you decide to get upset. I whole heartedly agree that we as American citizens have the constitutional right to bear arms and I will be the last person to tell any one that they do not have that right "but" not every person "should" own a gun, just because you are given a right as an American that does not automatically make you responsible enough to exercise that right.
A gun is in my opinion a tool just like any other tool, it has several specific purposes, hunting, shooting sports, self defence, investment, and is some cases just for collecting, but from it's first conceptions it was designed to kill, and without proper training in it's use and knowlage of it's potential lethality it can be as dangerous to it's user or unintended victims as it is to it's intended target.
I have been a hunter and an avid shooter all of my life and I can tell you from experience that some of the people that I have had the misfortune of shooting with may have had the right to own a gun but certainly not the proper training, diciplin or mental ability to be trusted with a firearm, and most of you who read this have "been there".
An example of this would be, your teenage son who is gung ho to go into the woods and help his dad cut fire wood, and he thinks that he is ready to grab that saw and get to work, now bear in mind that he has never used or even handled your 30" chain saw before. So you hand him the gas can, show him how to start it and tell him that you will be in the truck and for him to call you when he is done, now some kids would go to it like a duck to water and would mabey even realize how powerful a tool they are using and try to be as careful as possible, but what of the ones are not ready.
I know a lady who was given a hand gun for "protection" by her father and just as above was shown how to load it and he put it in her dresser drawer. Several years later she had broken off a relationship and one night the ex-boyfriend who had threatened her and her four year olds life decided to make good on his threat and broke into her house. She did as she was told and pulled her gun but did not know how to disengage the safety, as a result she was sexually assaulted in front of her daugher and they were both shot. They did both miraculously survive this ordeal but she is a quadrepledic and her daughter is for lack of the PC term a vegetable.
Just because we are given something does not mean that we are ready, willing, or able to use it as we should.
This is this! It's not something else, it's this
Don't pull it if you don't plan to use it, and don't use it if you don't plan to kill!
ALWAYS REMEMBER OUR MEN AND WOMEN OVER THERE.
A gun is in my opinion a tool just like any other tool, it has several specific purposes, hunting, shooting sports, self defence, investment, and is some cases just for collecting, but from it's first conceptions it was designed to kill, and without proper training in it's use and knowlage of it's potential lethality it can be as dangerous to it's user or unintended victims as it is to it's intended target.
I have been a hunter and an avid shooter all of my life and I can tell you from experience that some of the people that I have had the misfortune of shooting with may have had the right to own a gun but certainly not the proper training, diciplin or mental ability to be trusted with a firearm, and most of you who read this have "been there".
An example of this would be, your teenage son who is gung ho to go into the woods and help his dad cut fire wood, and he thinks that he is ready to grab that saw and get to work, now bear in mind that he has never used or even handled your 30" chain saw before. So you hand him the gas can, show him how to start it and tell him that you will be in the truck and for him to call you when he is done, now some kids would go to it like a duck to water and would mabey even realize how powerful a tool they are using and try to be as careful as possible, but what of the ones are not ready.
I know a lady who was given a hand gun for "protection" by her father and just as above was shown how to load it and he put it in her dresser drawer. Several years later she had broken off a relationship and one night the ex-boyfriend who had threatened her and her four year olds life decided to make good on his threat and broke into her house. She did as she was told and pulled her gun but did not know how to disengage the safety, as a result she was sexually assaulted in front of her daugher and they were both shot. They did both miraculously survive this ordeal but she is a quadrepledic and her daughter is for lack of the PC term a vegetable.
Just because we are given something does not mean that we are ready, willing, or able to use it as we should.
This is this! It's not something else, it's this
Don't pull it if you don't plan to use it, and don't use it if you don't plan to kill!
ALWAYS REMEMBER OUR MEN AND WOMEN OVER THERE.
tasco 74
Member
hardtarget is right... the 2nd amendment is NOT about hunting......
tasco 74
Member
i can't remeber which forun it was on but someone had found a pic of chuckie shrumer shooting some sort of automatic gun...... i'm sure he's one of the people that thinks hes entitled to own a gun but the unwashed masses aren't good enough........
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...
Sixtigers
Member
StarkAdder, I have to disagree with you. I think your position smacks of elitism. Who decides? Who gets to tell you that "Sorry...you're just not quite good/safe/smart/healthy/politically connected enough to own a weapon"?
2nd Amendment. Of the Constitution. Of the United States of America.
The Constitution didn't give us rights: It merely stated those rights that they believed already existed, that were in fact God-given, and let the country know that Yes! We believe nobody has the right to take these rights from you!
I feel sadness for the lady and her daughter in your example. I really do...but you seem to misunderstand something: Your point seemed to be that some people--for example, that lady--should not be allowed to own a gun because she couldn't use it well. I can see how that would look like a basic truth...but the fact is, that lady has the right to self-defense from an attacker, and that gun was her best chance. No police officer was going to be there in time. Had that woman taken her choice of self-defense a bit more seriously, that whole horrible situation might have turned out differently--or it might have happened exactly as it did. There was only one "wrong" thing here, and that was the attacker. The criminal.
That woman and her daughter were harmed, not because of her stupidity, or inability to defend herself with a firearm because of a lack of practice and familiarity, but because a criminal attacked her. And that's it. In effect, you are blaming the gun, and that's a tactic that the antis use! Don't fall into that trap! I submit that those who would do us harm are the issues that need to be addressed. We do not need to be creating further restrictions designed to deny Citizens their God-given right to self-defense.
I value your opinion, though...and thanks for the offering of it. I just disagree.
Respectfully offered, Sixtigers
2nd Amendment. Of the Constitution. Of the United States of America.
The Constitution didn't give us rights: It merely stated those rights that they believed already existed, that were in fact God-given, and let the country know that Yes! We believe nobody has the right to take these rights from you!
I feel sadness for the lady and her daughter in your example. I really do...but you seem to misunderstand something: Your point seemed to be that some people--for example, that lady--should not be allowed to own a gun because she couldn't use it well. I can see how that would look like a basic truth...but the fact is, that lady has the right to self-defense from an attacker, and that gun was her best chance. No police officer was going to be there in time. Had that woman taken her choice of self-defense a bit more seriously, that whole horrible situation might have turned out differently--or it might have happened exactly as it did. There was only one "wrong" thing here, and that was the attacker. The criminal.
That woman and her daughter were harmed, not because of her stupidity, or inability to defend herself with a firearm because of a lack of practice and familiarity, but because a criminal attacked her. And that's it. In effect, you are blaming the gun, and that's a tactic that the antis use! Don't fall into that trap! I submit that those who would do us harm are the issues that need to be addressed. We do not need to be creating further restrictions designed to deny Citizens their God-given right to self-defense.
I value your opinion, though...and thanks for the offering of it. I just disagree.
Respectfully offered, Sixtigers
Last edited:
CoRoMo
Member
You're wrong. The OP's example is quite ready and willing to take up the responsibility.
From just the skint of info we've received, it is evident that she knows the purpose of the tools she is interested in acquiring. This is not some Fudd trying to get a SCAR just to spray some lead in the woods. She has a serious need (home defense), and she shows commendable insight if she's determined that a firearm would make for an effective tool for that need.
That horse you sit atop, is mighty high.
rscalzo
Member
In some context I agree. I don't think anyone should purchase a firearm with the intent on protecting themselves without some training in the area of operation and the use of force.
Last week a homeowner who purchased a handgun to protect herself from an abusive husband drew it in protection of her life and was promptly disarmed.
A few hours of training is not unrealistic when it comes to protection of your life and that of your family. I saw way too many come in for a firearm application and not have a clue concerning the basics of firearms operation. Fortunately some took my advice and attended a local course in basic firearm's.
noskilz
Member
Good point. The girl-shooter in the OP never said anything about the woman not having the "right" to get a gun, just that she "shouldn't." This probably has a lot more to do with the relationship between those two girls. This thread is really about cat-fighting, not RKBA. 
Shucks, just tell the gal to practice up and challenge her nemesis to a little shootin' match. That ought to resolve things in the office.
Shucks, just tell the gal to practice up and challenge her nemesis to a little shootin' match. That ought to resolve things in the office.I'll agree that if she is going to let her gun be taken away loaded, she shouldn't bother getting one. Someone who doesn't want to get a gun because she isn't committed to protecting themselves - in that case a lucky rabbit foot works just as well as a talisman to ward off evil.
Deanimator
Member
In the '90s I was on the Cleveland Coast Guard pistol team. It was mostly civilians, since they couldn't get enough Coasties to shoot. A number of us from NASA Lewis, government and contractors shot on the team. One of the NASA people was a morbidly obese female. One night at a match, she started waxing "ignorant" about banning "assault weapons". I replied, "You mean like that Ruger MkII you're shooting?"
DHJenkins
Member
Are you sure she was generalizing?
Maybe the bookeeper knows the girl better than you, and thinks she's not the type that could pull the trigger.
Maybe the bookeeper knows the girl better than you, and thinks she's not the type that could pull the trigger.
theotherwaldo
Member
Another elitist gun owner: "We good people mustn't encourage the wrong kind to have guns - they'll just hurt themselves."
Current edition of the Jim Crow types.
Current edition of the Jim Crow types.
starkadder
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 111
No, elitism is the fartherest thing from the truth. I am just a simple southern boy that grew up around stupid people that had the RIGHTto own a gun but had no business with one because of ignorance and total lack of basic firearm safety and diciplin.
No where did this person ask where and how could they receive any training on the safe and proper use of a gun, they asked him what they should buy. I get this question quite often and my first reply is have you ever used a gun?
Handing a person a gun that has never fired one nor has any idea of the possible dangers invoved is like handing someone that has never driven a car the keys to a Laborghini, the results could very well be dissasterous.
No one should ever decide who should own a gun aside from the basic checks that are already in place when you purchase one, I never said that someone should decide, that is our right and I will defend it until my last breath. Our rights are non negotiable, but they can be a two edged sword. The first amendment gives us the right of free speech, but you can't threaten to kill some one, our rights were gaurantied for us by very intelegent and enlightened people, but that does not mean that the all of us who enjoy that right are either.
It is a persons right to own a gun for protection and or home defence but just because you thought an SKS was cool and the guy at the gun shop said this would be a great for home protection so you got it for that purpose and you live in an apartment complex, then the reason for it arises and you open fire on your attacker and it does exactly what it was designed forexcept that the rounds penetrate through the walls into the next apartment and kill an inocent person, then we have another log to stoke the fire of the anti gun establishment.
This is this! It's not something else, it's this
Don't pull it if you don't plan to use it, and don't use it if you don't plan to kill!
ALWAYS REMEMBER OUR MEN AND WOMEN OVER THERE.
bottom shelf
Member
Hmm. This is interesting. This lady is a hunter. Of the 10 or 12 hunters I know, NONE of them are interested in firearms for HD/SD. Or in HD/SD training. They only use them for hunting, and I would guess are not very skilled gun handlers.
On THR here are gun enthusiasts who, for the most part embrace training, and nearly all are interested in firearms for HD/SD. Some are hunters as well. Makes me wonder how skilled the AVERAGE hunter is with firearms, keeping in mind that THR people are not average gun owners. Average gun owners don't visit forums, or else this forum would have closer to a million or so members I would think.
CoRoMo
Member
I'm going to make an assumption and say that LibShooter may have a better grasp of both of these ladies' abilities and potentials than any of us. Therefore, HIS response to the interested woman's inquiry was the correct response, as opposed to the response of the closet-anti. I'd even go as far to guess that he is more educated and/or skilled in firearms than both of them put together.
To browbeat an interested newbie is just wrong. I even believe that if you know for certain that an individual isn't the type you'd like to see with a daily carry gun, your first reaction should not be to condemn their thought. Instead, the training/education should begin immediately after they ask their question.
It is one thing to tell this girl, who's concerned about her own security, that she shouldn't pursue the firearms end of home defense, because she'll just get shot with her own gun, than to expand her question into a discussion of home defense and the use of firearms. The latter appears to reflect the actions of LibShooter.
To browbeat an interested newbie is just wrong. I even believe that if you know for certain that an individual isn't the type you'd like to see with a daily carry gun, your first reaction should not be to condemn their thought. Instead, the training/education should begin immediately after they ask their question.
It is one thing to tell this girl, who's concerned about her own security, that she shouldn't pursue the firearms end of home defense, because she'll just get shot with her own gun, than to expand her question into a discussion of home defense and the use of firearms. The latter appears to reflect the actions of LibShooter.
I don't think starkadder's post was elitist at all. For the most part, I agree. 2A is a right, but we have to decide for ourselves if we are up to the responsibility. Not everybody should have a firearm, but that means we have to decide for ourselves. Some people honestly couldn't/wouldn't use a firearm if need be, some will.
With freedom, there is responsibility.
What I want to know is what the first lady decided.
With freedom, there is responsibility.
What I want to know is what the first lady decided.
- Status
