Non-gun Owners...

[DBW]

... please post a "gun free zone" sign in your front window of your homes to show your support for this idea.

[AJMD429]

Or just move to a nice, safe place like Chicago, DC, or some other 'enlightened' community...

...better yet - how about Romania, or China?

[J Miller]

That's right. Alienate the non gun owners. You know not all non gun owners are anti-gun don't you?
Many people are not gun owners simply because they don't own guns. Nothing sinister to it. They are not anti-gun, they just are not gun oriented folks. So please, do your best to pee them off and turn them against us.

J e

[Pisgah]

My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and one that others have expressed as well, is that "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" we are actually REQUIRED as Militia members to own firearms. Now, I'm willing to compromise, here. If, philosophically, you do not want to own a gun you may apply for, and be automatically granted, a waiver. This transaction, of course, will be public record and as such available for anyone to examine. Alternatrively, you may pay a fine.

[AJMD429]

Not trying to 'alienate' the non-gun-owners, but one of the BEST ways to analyze a situation is to switch one variable and see if it still passes the smell-test (the put-yourself-in-the-other-person's-shoes approach).

For instance, 'hate crimes' laws are seen for how ridiculous they are if you re-state the law as "Normally you'd be sentenced to twenty years for murder, but if you kill a white person, and they're male, we'll reduce your sentence by ten years."

I think what we're expressing here is the wish that the non-gun-owning people who are anti-gun would pause a moment and 'walk in our shoes'. Of course it won't happen; they're hateful, ignorant bigots, and won't change their ways. You're RIGHT in that the non-gun-owners who are pro-gun are not hateful, ignorant bigots - so alienating them would be not a good thing to do.

Fortunately, the non-gun-owners I know who aren't anti-gun are few in number (most wind up buying guns), and would understand our frustration and not be 'alienated'.

[Ysabel Kid]

... please post a "gun free zone" sign in your front window of your homes to show your support for this idea.

If you don't, you are not only a parasite, but basically admitting that guns are crime deterrents.

Logic sucks, don't it!

[DBW]

The point of the post was, as AJ mentioned, to turn the tables and let them see the double standard. Not so much against those who don't own guns (my best friend is Pro-2A but has no desire to own). The anti sect insists that guns only cause crime and require that public places be gun free. So why not post a sign in their homes?

[J Miller]

"I" see your point, non gun owners may not.

So why not post a sign in their homes?

Privacy. Would you like somebody to post a sign in yours saying: "Gun Owner Lives Here"? Didn't think so.

A lot of folks from all different walks of life have access to computers. With Leverguns.com being monitored by Google, Yahoo, and other search engines, you never know who might just drop in on us. Many of us know each other and understand when we are being facetious or sarcastic. But an outsider that doesn't know us won't know this and might just go away thinking were a bunch mouthy jerks.
That's why I made my remark.
We are in a propaganda war. Have been since 1963. WE ARE LOOSING faster than winning. We as gun owners need to be careful what we say so we cultivate our allies, not drive them away.

Joe

[AJMD429]

Yes to DBW's comment - the point is that 'non-gun-owners' are a drain on society, consume more-than-average police resources, and in general -

a) render our streets less safe, by decreasing the risk of violent crime, and

b) render our society less stable, by decreasing the risk of tyranny.

BOTH of the above concepts are far from theoretical, but have been proven time-and-again both domestically and internationally, for the past two hundred years or more.

ANTI-gunners are parasites who don't deserve safe streets or a stable society; non-gun-owners are merely 'free-riders' who may or may not be evil (i.e. anti-gun) in intent, yet indisputably do receive street-safety and social stabilty in excess of their contribution to same. That doesn't make them 'evil', but they SHOULD be mindful of where comes their luxury of freedom and stability - widespread, anonymous, GUN ownership. Often a 'polite' society enjoys the luxury of safety and freedom due to the efforts of others who take risks and use tools like guns to protect the 'sheep'. It isn't bad to be a 'sheep', but the point is, it isn't bad to be a 'bear', either. Or something like that.

I do know what you mean, Joe, but we've been bending over backwards to appease the 'politically correct' crowd, and not offend the 'non-gun-owners', for several decades now. They seem to enjoy the residual safety and security our nasty 'guns' have provided, yet they don't exactly rise to our defense.

[DBW]

Geez Joe. Lighten up.

I doubt that there are a lot of non-gun owners in our midst on this forum. There is a heck of a lot of other "negative" comments scattered around this forum than this post. I'm not one to tread lightly around those who are intent on descriminating on my rights because they may not share them. They don't give a darn about what we think of them. Political correctness is everywhere and it's a sad day when we are the ones required to cater to them on a gun forum.

[J Miller]

...............oh hell, never mind.


Joe

[DBW]

Maybe you should consider a moving out of Illinois Joe.

[BAGTIC]

My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and one that others have expressed as well, is that "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" we are actually REQUIRED as Militia members to own firearms. Now, I'm willing to compromise, here. If, philosophically, you do not want to own a gun you may apply for, and be automatically granted, a waiver. This transaction, of course, will be public record and as such available for anyone to examine. Alternatrively, you may pay a fine.

Don't be absurd. We individually are not required to bear arms. It doesn't say "A well regulated militia consisting of the entire population being necessary to the security of a free state." Do you believe women should be required to bear arms. Minors? Felons? Illegal aliens?

[OI phones in...]

Ok, my 2p...

My parents are "non-gun" people. They are not "anti-gun", just "non-gun". Call them "conscientious objectors" I suppose. Yet, even though they did not "allow" their minor children to own firearms, on more than one occasion I had one or more in the house, borrowed for my outdoor activities.

Mandating (by force of Government, and without exception) the possession of arms by all non-violent persons is no less an agregious affront to Liberty (the Right to Choose one's destiny) than is the Universal Prohibition of arms (by force of Government, and without exception).

Every soverign individual should have that absolute Right to choose. My "non-gun" parents respected that Right with their children, (in matters of Arms or Military Service) and respect that Right in all others as well. Why should they be targeted for exercising their Right(s)?

Now, as for ANTI-GUN (anti-Right-to-Choose) non-persons... well... I'd prefer it be tattooed on their foreheads... for their opinion is actively evil.

[don Tomás]

[Blaine]

Lot's of non-owners are Pro Gun.....I know a bunch of them. Lot's of them women and really enjoy target shooting, but simply choose not to have one. Joe, IMO, if we can't speak our minds, then "they" have already won the battle.

[DBW]

My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and one that others have expressed as well, is that "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" we are actually REQUIRED as Militia members to own firearms. Now, I'm willing to compromise, here. If, philosophically, you do not want to own a gun you may apply for, and be automatically granted, a waiver. This transaction, of course, will be public record and as such available for anyone to examine. Alternatrively, you may pay a fine.

Don't be absurd. We individually are not required to bear arms. It doesn't say "A well regulated militia consisting of the entire population being necessary to the security of a free state." Do you believe women should be required to bear arms. Minors? Felons? Illegal aliens?

The militia at the time of the Founders were all able bodied men somewhere between the ages of eighteen to forty-five. Stephen Halbrook's book "That Every Man Be Armed" goes in depth of the origins of the militia. With recent Constitutional amendments this would include women and all races.

As far as felons, once the debt to society is paid their rights should be restored upon release from prison. If they are too dangerous to return their rights they should never be released. G. Gordon Liddy would make a fine militia member.

[OI phones in...]

...The militia at the time of the Founders were all able bodied men somewhere between the ages of eighteen to forty-five. Stephen Halbrook's book "That Every Man Be Armed" goes in depth of the origins of the militia. With recent Constitutional amendments this would include women and all races.

Yes, but that "all able bodied men" was NOT a REQUIREMENT OF LAW, and still left room for those who objected on grounds of personal conviction (think Quakers, etc). It did not prevent those who chose to not be a part of the Militia from being looked down upon for that choice, but the Choice was still theirs to take.

As far as felons, once the debt to society is paid their rights should be restored upon release from prison. If they are too dangerous to return their rights they should never be released. G. Gordon Liddy would make a fine militia member.

I agree with you there. The GCA'68 prohibition to "felons" (an absolutely nebulous term defined only by the Government) is absurd. Pick up an Eagle Feather and lose your "Right" to even touch a firearm. Pure madness.

[DBW]

I agree with you on the requirement aspect. For this same reason I find the miltary draft immoral.

[OI phones in...]

I agree with you on the requirement aspect. For this same reason I find the miltary draft immoral.

Yep. Involuntary Servitude. A country full of people unwilling to come to its defense doesn't deserve to exist... (look at how many boys (underaged MEN) volunteered for WWII even after knowing about/remembering WWI...)

[DBW]

I agree with you on the requirement aspect. For this same reason I find the miltary draft immoral.

Yep. Involuntary Servitude. A country full of people unwilling to come to its defense doesn't deserve to exist...

True. For this reason I felt an obligation and a desire to serve at least four years in the miltary to repay this nation for being allowed to become a US citizen. It was the least zi could do.

Now my brother, who is four years older than me also served in USAF as a Canadian. He has since returned to Canada to live.

[Blaine]

I hope the Eagle Squadron is never forgotten.....American flyers that went to England to fight Nazi Germany before Roosevelt found the balz to get in it.....according to history, we made a difference, and that was on top of Lend/Lease.

[adirondakjack]

I don't hold with TELLING other folks what they "gotta" have or do (that leads to tyranny of the largest minority that rallies the vote. Ya got stuff like state-religeons, wars over same, ethnic-based marriage laws, and yes, GUN CONTROL (in many instances, gun control laws were designed to disarm blacks, immigrants, etc) Hey, ya know, it almost sounds like the kinda sectarian tyrants who WE'RE AT WAR WITH.

Nope, I'm all for choice. You wanna have a machine gun, smoke cigars in your own car, play cards with yer friends, even during Ramadan, heck, you can eat pork if ya like, but don't tell me which bits to take from the salad bar of life, and which YOU think are bad FOR ME to have or not have, and I won't insist on no plastic pistols, wood and blue for EVERYBODY, just because that's what I believe in..

Nope, anti is fine, as long as they don't insist I adopt their world view.

[AJMD429]

Nope, anti is fine, as long as they don't insist I adopt their world view.

True. I think what we're sort of trying to say is that since we don't actually require gun ownership, even though there are sound reasons we could cite for doing so, the anti-gunners who don't own guns themselves need to remember they have no right to tell the rest of us we can't own them. The reasons for requiring gun ownership are probably more sound than the reasons some of them cite for not allowing gun ownership. Of course not all non-owners are anti-gun, but they are 'involved' in this hypothetical situation because they would by definition be the ones required to change their behavior if gun owners pushed for 'busybody' laws the way anti-gunners do.

[OI phones in...]

I don't hold with TELLING other folks what they "gotta" have or do (that leads to tyranny of the largest minority that rallies the vote. Ya got stuff like state-religeons, wars over same, ethnic-based marriage laws, and yes, GUN CONTROL (in many instances, gun control laws were designed to disarm blacks, immigrants, etc) Hey, ya know, it almost sounds like the kinda sectarian tyrants who WE'RE AT WAR WITH.

Nope, I'm all for choice. You wanna have a machine gun, smoke cigars in your own car, play cards with yer friends, even during Ramadan, heck, you can eat pork if ya like, but don't tell me which bits to take from the salad bar of life, and which YOU think are bad FOR ME to have or not have, and I won't insist on no plastic pistols, wood and blue for EVERYBODY, just because that's what I believe in..

Nope, anti is fine, as long as they don't insist I adopt their world view.

An anti that "do(esn't) insist I adopt their world view" isn't an anti. The are a Non.

By definition an Anti whatever is someone who is trying to force their position on others.

[Ysabel Kid]

Agreed - many non-owners are not "anti's". If one is a "true believer" that guns are evil, and cause crime, and should all be banned, then why don't they have faith in their conviction and post the sign? I guess they are not as stupid as we think - cowardly, yes; hypocrits, certainly. Parasites - every one of them. But perhaps not quite so stupid...

I have no problem with someone who chooses not to own a firearm as long as they don't try to make that choice for me!

[76/444]

IMO, if we can't speak our minds, then "they" have already won the battle.

More truer words were never written,... if Americans have reached the point of fearing to speak their minds, there is no need to be armed.

[OI phones in...]

IMO, if we can't speak our minds, then "they" have already won the battle.

More truer words were never written,... if Americans have reached the point of fearing to speak their minds, there is no need to be armed.

Actually... that's just about the time folks shoud start shooting - because obviously talking is no longer working...

[Grizz]

my favorite eek&meek cartoon:

panel 1: sir, do you believe in gun control?

panel 2: yes I do.

panel 3: STICK 'EM UP.


Grizz

[76/444]

IMO, if we can't speak our minds, then "they" have already won the battle.

More truer words were never written,... if Americans have reached the point of fearing to speak their minds, there is no need to be armed.

Actually... that's just about the time folks shoud start shooting - because obviously talking is no longer working...

So true!!! But, compared to all those who are afraid to speak politically (even here) ,... to the number of shots fired I have heard lately,.... my guess is most American are hopeless.




just one man's opinion

[Blaine]

I know my place and side, but shooting first will doom the movement. Prolly should be reserved with the advent of another Ruby Ridge or some such thing.