Posting in Gun Forums

I had an interesting experience of being labeled as a possible danger on a gun forum today. What was the problem? Well, I was asking about the second amendment to the US Constitution. I wanted to know how far this set of pro-gunners wanted to go with the interpretation of this law. What types of arms should be allowed and where?

I was considered suspicious and several forum members were thinking I might be asking in order to bait some of the less informed readers and posters. I can't help but wonder at the paranoia. People need to hear both sides of the issue and make their own informed decision. I don't like it when pro-gunners won't listen to a mother whose child was shot to death and I don't like it when someone says they are anti-gun, but has never shot one. The pro-gunner can say that they don't need to hear the mother because they already know that it was not simply due to privately owned firearms. The anti-gunner can say they don't want to shoot guns because they already know they are evil and don't want to participate in evil activities.

But the truth is that some folks are just scared that they might change their mind.

So far, I've only met people who went from being anti-gun to pro-gun. And most of the pro-gunners that I interact with regularly are not easily intimidated by anti-gunner rhetoric. In other words, they don't get easily offended or rude.

Let me encourage you to refuse to be intimidated by either side, or to think you're a "bad" person for exploring why people on the other side of the issue think the way that they do.

If you're a pro-gunner, please understand that being paranoid and rude only makes you look easily intimidated.

And, if you are an anti-gunner and you've never shot a firearm. . . please try it for yourself at a reputable firing range. Because quite frankly, until you do, you do not have enough experience to be respected by pro-gunners on this issue.

To Militia or Not to Militia?

A friend and I were talking about the recent overturning of lower court decisions that interpreted the second amendment as only applicable to persons who are members of organized militias. GOD bless Robert Levy and the Supreme Court's little hearts.

The second amendment states simply that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

However, most of the people that I know who are against individual ownership of "arms" would be even less pleased if the ACLU's interpretation of the second amendment was strictly enforced.

Regardless of whose definition of "well regulated" was applied, these folks are failing to foresee a growth in the number of groups like the Michigan Militia if the government made an attempt to strictly enforce this interpretation. Find anti-militia information here.

"arms" hmm. does this mean I can have that A-10?

Look here for more irritation regarding possession of guns in the homes of Washington DC.