Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Wives in Danger from Gun Toting Culture

By Joan Burbick, The New Press. Posted October 17, 2006.


Gun owners say they need firearms to protect themselves from criminals. But what about domestic violence victims who need protection from gun owners?
gunshownation
Gun Show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy by Joan Burbick (The New Press, October 17, 2006).

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Jim Hightower, Raising Hell
Jonathan Rowe

Democracy and Elections:
Are Feds Trying to Aid Republican Candidate's Election?
Tim Kalich

DrugReporter:
A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom
Lux

Election 2008:
The Real Elitist: Video of McCain's Collection of Mansions Reveal He's Not Your Average Joe
Steven Greenhouse

Environment:
Republicans Have Handed Democrats a Winning Election Issue
David Morris

ForeignPolicy:
Blocking a Gazan's Path to an Education
Fidaa Abed

Health and Wellness:
The Misshapen Mind: How the Brain's Haphazard Evolution Left Us with Self-Destructive Instincts
Sasha Abramsky

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Medical Neglect in Immigrant Prisons Reveals America at Its Worst
Kyle Hussein de Beausset

Media and Technology:
What's Going on with the Media's Ballooning Coverage of Celebrity Babies?
Meredith Blake

Movie Mix:
Protest over Use of the Word 'Retard' in Stiller's 'Tropic Thunder' Misses the Target
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Obama Should Pick Hillary
Lanny Davis

Rights and Liberties:
Stop the Execution: Jeff Wood Faces Death Tomorrow for a Murder He Didn't Commit
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
Catching the Wrong John: When Are the Media Going to Talk about John McCain's Infidelity?
Drew Westen

War on Iraq:
How Many More Iraqis Can You Throw Behind Bars Without Trial?
Fatih Abdulsalam

Water:
What If Your Tap Water Is Not Safe To Drink?
Elizabeth Royte

More stories by Joan Burbick

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The following is an excerpt from Gun Show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy by Joan Burbick (The New Press, October 17, 2006). You can read an interview with Burbick here.

He was much larger than I am, and he had a beefy football-player build and short dark hair -- the bouncer type. He was going to get physical if I objected. He was ready to push as we walked quickly past the long row of tables covered with guns and ammo, past the woman collecting money for admission. Talk to him, I said to myself. Talk to him. I kept telling him I didn't work for the newspapers as he herded me to the exit.

"No pictures," he kept repeating.

"No pictures," he insisted one last time as he opened the heavy door and gently pushed me out. Then he closed the door and left me standing outside with my camera dangling from my hand.

A hand-lettered sign appeared outside the entrance: NO CAMERAS ALLOWED.

Thirty minutes earlier I had walked into the public fair-grounds to attend a local gun show in Moscow, Idaho. It was the mid 1990s, and I was taking photographs of abandoned lumber mills and deserted mines in the Pacific Northwest. I was shooting what I thought were the industrial ruins of the rural West. I had also taken pictures of men in gun stores eyeing a new rifle and men hunting during deer and elk season, the ordinary lives of rural Westerners. I wanted to add pictures of men and women at gun shows.

At that point, I wasn't writing about gun culture. I was only taking pictures of daily life in small rural Western towns.

My husband eventually found me outside. We talked about what had happened and decided to find out if it was legal to prevent me from taking photographs at a gun show held at a public fairground. We phoned around and received conflicting answers from city and county attorneys.

The phone system in the small town was working well that day. By the time we came back to the gun show to talk with the organizer, an unofficial compromise had been reached with the relevant public officials. I could come back the next morning with my camera and photograph before the public was admitted. I could photograph the exhibitors and their exhibits if I asked permission first and they agreed.

I was disappointed, of course. What I wanted to shoot was the feel of the gun show. How people held guns, bargained with sellers, traded, and shopped for guns. I wanted to inch closer to why guns were so important to rural Westerners. I wasn't certain what I would find.

I agreed to the conditions. Some pictures are better than none.

Before I left, I asked the organizer why they enforced rules against cameras. What was the problem? Was it a distrust of government? Did they think I worked for the ATF, the IRS, or the FBI? Was it anger against gun-control groups? Did they think I worked for Sarah Brady's handgun organization, or for Cease Fire, a Seattle-based gun violence prevention group? Maybe it was about hunting and animal rights? Or worse, I could be a PETA worker.

There was a long list of possible reasons for the no-camera policy.

The organizer looked at me hard when I asked the question. Why no cameras? He responded with one word: "Alimony." "What?" I asked. Had I heard right?

"Alimony?"

"Yes, alimony." He then explained that the men inside the gun show didn't want their pictures showing up in newspapers where their ex-wives might see them.

I asked him more questions, but he wasn't in a talking mood. It was about alimony, period. I'd have to leave it at that.

Maybe the organizer thought some ex-wife had hired me to track down her husband and prove that he was handing over for a new hunting rifle what should be her cash. Maybe the organizer actually thought that ex-wives scanned the local papers looking for photos of their former husbands to see if they could catch them spending what was legally theirs.

At later gun shows, I started to pay more attention. Were ex- wives and their demands a threat to some guys at the gun shows? I frequently saw books for sale at the shows such as The Predatory Female by Rev. Lawrence Shannon, whose field guide to dating includes a set of tactics to undermine the supposed Gestapo power of women who rule the divorce and child-custody judicial system. In a radio interview, Shannon said that "victims of the predatory female are strewn all over the nation, writing alimony checks, recovering from gunshot wounds, treating cat scratches, trying to see their children, paying attorney's fees, picking through the detritus of their lives, and struggling to recover from ruined years." The Predatory Female is a collection of warnings about women who prey on the feelings and bank ac- counts of unsuspecting men. Female predators have their eyes on one thing alone -- money. They marry and divorce to get alimony. They use emotions of love, trust, and care to undermine the sacred contract of marriage. They are the new scourges of secular life, hunting down unsuspecting men to get bucks and tear out their hearts.

Wives were threats. Girlfriends were threats. Women who talked too much were threats. And women who held public office and wouldn't shut up were the scourge of the land. I have also picked up bumper stickers at gun shows that said: I JUST GOT A GUN FOR MY WIFE. IT'S THE BEST TRADE I EVER MADE. Or, handouts detailing the "Top 10 Reasons Handguns Are Better than Women," ending with the number-one reason, "You can buy a silencer for a handgun." I had also seen some pretty vicious materials on Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno at local shows in the '90s. A new fear floated above some of the gun exhibits: judges, lawyers, and voters were giving women too much power, and the women were using that power to take guns away from their husbands, their boyfriends, and their constituents. A gun-grabber lurked in the heart of the liberated woman.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gun, rights, alimony, show, gun

Joan Burbick is the author of Gun Show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy (The New Press, October 17, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
never
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 17, 2006 12:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have never owned a firearm and do not ever expect to own a firearm. If the USA continues to deteriorate into a bunch of goofy gun nuts and I fear for my life I will simply move to a more civilized nation of which there are many.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: never say never Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: never Posted by: harris
» RE: never Posted by: techphile
» RE: never Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: never Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: never Posted by: Jesse
» RE: never Posted by: Jack Burton
» Pro-choice Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Pro-choice Posted by: Jesse
» RE: Pro-choice Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Pro-choice Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: Pro-choice Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: never Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: never Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: never Posted by: mick669
» Do you know any gun nuts by name? Posted by: velvel of atlanta
» RE: Do you know any gun nuts by name? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Do you know any gun nuts by name? Posted by: longlivecheney
Support the Second Amendment
Posted by: LeftWright on Oct 17, 2006 1:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Guns should be safe, legal and rare.

No one needs semi-automatic weapons. These are not for hunting or legitimate self-protection.

Handguns can be kept in local armories incorporated into police stations. Handguns are much more likely to kill the owners or someone the owner knows and cares about. Handgun violence is an epidemic in American cities and must be stopped.

We must reject the absurd fallacy that gun control will lead to gun elimination.

Target shooting is noisy, but fun.

The truth shall set you free. Love is the only way forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Support the Second Amendment Posted by: Jack Burton
» Dang tricky liberal Posted by: texshelters
» RE: Dang tricky liberal Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: Dang tricky liberal Posted by: Robba29
» RE: Dang tricky liberal Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: Dang tricky liberal Posted by: Robba29
» RE: Dang tricky liberal Posted by: Jack Burton
» High Caliber Posted by: YogiBear
» Support the Second Amendment Posted by: YogiBear
» ..when facts get in the way (part deux) Posted by: LDavistrueblue
» I run, and I'm fast too (LOL) Posted by: LeftWright
» Speaking of facts... Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Support the Second Amendment Posted by: FilthyMcNasty
» RE: Support the Second Amendment Posted by: patriotswrath
this kind of male bashing drives males away from the Left. And it is calculated to do that...
Posted by: mah_favorite_flavor_cherry_red on Oct 17, 2006 3:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
race and gender politics-->how the overclass divides and rules America. The overclass invented the fakeLeft and its Identity Politics, its race and gender politics, just so they could divide the populace up into Identity groups. They support the fakeLeft via nonprofit organizations (see online reviews of Joan Roelofs MASK OF PLURALISM.)

This is article is just another in an endless stream of overclass-friendly propaganda generated by the FakeLeft.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Change the channel Posted by: YogiBear
» Oh please . . . Posted by: VisionQuest
The Constitution especially the Bill of Rights except for the 2nd Amendment is already being BURNED!
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 17, 2006 3:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the primary arguments against gun control was that the right-wingers wanted to be armed in case the balloon went up and the Feds appeared in their black helicopters to trash the Constitution and enforce the rule of the New World Order.

Through years of right-wing radio brain washing, the R's convinced the NRA members that to protect the Constitution from evildoers, we might have to gloss over some of the pesky parts, the Bill of Rights (except for #2), balance of powers, etc. So these red staters are now primed and ready for a major "terrorist" attack to occur (backed by Iran this time), and are more than willing to see the Constitution suspended and the elections of '08 cancelled, with Bush declared de facto Caesar.

So instead of the NRA folks using their firepower to prevent a national coupe, they have been conned into supporting the coupe.

Brilliant!

Democrats will have no say in this seizing of power, since liberals don't own guns, 'cause they're yucky. It will be Limbaugh listeners and National Guardsmen on one side, and well-armed gang bangers and criminals on the other, with quivering tree huggin' hippies quaking in their Birkenstocks and wetting themselves in the middle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nice handle Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Nice handle Posted by: Jack Burton
» so you trust the government to do what? Posted by: velvel of atlanta
In favor of guns, and of the domestic violence laws
Posted by: willie.horton on Oct 17, 2006 3:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My wife and I own several guns, but we don't threaten each other with them. We know that people exist like those described in this article -- real abusers, frustrated by the loss of their guns -- and we have no sympathy for them. Finding them with a gun is just another useful way to get an abuser off the street.
We also have a close friend -- a New Jersey attorney -- who is unjustly victimized by those laws. His ex-wife constantly makes trouble for him, even threatening to falsely accuse him of molesting her daughter (he has that one on tape). Like me, he isn't capable of harming a woman... but that hasn't stopped her from filing a series of complaints and restraining orders against him. His guns have spent so much time in police lockers that he jokes with the cops, asking him to take them to the target range once in a while.

Here in Delaware, concealed carry permits rewuire exensive training and background checks, and are only issued subject to the discretion of a panel of judges... unless the applicant is a woman with a restraining order against a man, in which case they are issued automatically. This makes sense. Giving an abuse victim the power to defend herself, instead of a cell phone to call 911, may save her life... and definitely acts as a deterrent to her abuser, since most wifebeaters are truly cowards who fear having .38-caliber holes punched in their oh-so-manly chests.

As for those who want to take all the guns away from everyone (apparently, they're up early): great idea. Let's hire enough cops to protect everyone in real time, so they won't need to defend themselves. We'll need to deputize, oh, half the population? Bush would love it...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Moreover, ever notice how the entertainment industries & the gun lobbyists make strange bedfellows ?
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 17, 2006 3:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least at one or more times, a federal court declared that the manufacturers of the most popular forms of peer-to-peer file-sharing technology are not liable for copyright infringement committed by people using their technology. Congress immediately sprang into action by taking up legislation to reverse the court's ruling. The goal is to make it clear that p2p manufacturers are indeed liable for copyright violations committed with their products. No doubt many hope this will drive the p2p companies out of business. Technology people across the country are terrified by the idea. They fear that the standard being proposed by this law will force a wide range of technologies to justify themselves in federal court. A recent proposal from the Copyright Office purports to hold manufacturers responsible for "technolog[ies]" that "cause" copyright "infringement," if those technologies (1) rely on infringement for "commercial viability," (2) derive "a predominant portion" of their revenue from infringement and (3) rely on infringement to "attract individuals" to the technology. I'm a strong opponent of this legislation, but not because I support copyright infringement. The technologies being attacked by this bill have plenty of important uses that have nothing to do with copyright infringement. This legislation would effectively eliminate them. But there is a silver lining here, and it has to do with, of all things, a very old technology: guns. For if Congress passes this bill, on what principled basis can it then refuse to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the crimes committed with their technologies? The parallels are unavoidable. Like p2p, firearms -- including assault weapons and cop-killing bullets -- cause harm. But also like p2p, guns -- as the NRA and its followers will tell you -- have "non-infringing uses" too. Thus, the gun lobby says, manufacturers should be exempt from responsibility for the crimes their customers commit. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. But that argument will be much harder to sustain if Congress does to p2p what it has not done to guns. Of course, the same point is true of p2p technologies. It's not Kazaa that infringes Madonna's copyright; people infringe Madonna's copyright. There are differences, of course, but they don't help the gun lobby's argument. While there is considerable argument over how much harm is really done by p2p file sharing, one thing is certain: No cop was ever killed by Kazaa. No kid ever committed suicide with a p2p device. The harm caused by guns is massive and beyond dispute. More Americans have died of gun-related deaths since President John F. Kennedy was assassinated than in all the wars of the last century. Gun supporters may argue that the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution, while the right to commit copyright infringement is not. But no one has a right to murder. At most the Second Amendment means that the abuses of cop-killing crazies shouldn't justify burdening my Second Amendment rights. Yet the same could be said about copyright infringement, given the amendment that stands just before the Second. There are many whose First Amendment interest in speaking, and in spreading their speech cheaply and broadly, will be burdened by banning p2p. So why doesn't the First Amendment at least mean what gun lobbyists say the Second means: that the abuse of copyright-killing crazies doesn't justify burdening my First Amendment rights in response? Well folks, it has become clear that it is all about the money. Those who have the biggest amounts of money along with populism no matter how phoney will be deemed worthy of support. The White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court have done everything to harm the most important industry for growth in the United States by acting against p2p and yet thanks to DIRTY MONEY and its puppet media propaganda managed to give guns a "special" chance".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Part of the little I understand of it
Posted by: JP2 on Oct 17, 2006 3:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I never owned or used a gun in my life. I am always amazed when I read these stories where guns are used like aspirins. I don't understand the American society to that extent, and I wasn't surprised that the case against guns brought by "Bowling at Columbine" was so weak. The documenter himself was a marksman in love with guns that complained about too much violence-- which is quite coherent with an idea I finally had.
I think the relationship it's not the one of the male with the guns oppressing the female (as this article seems to imply) nor the one of the whites with the guns oppressing the blacks or the blacks with the guns oppressing the whites and so forth.
I think the relationship is between paranoia and guns. Paranoia reaches for the gun, and the gun, which is so powerful, creates more paranoia.
Ethics was invented by men who felt they themselves had too much power, and got scared of the too much power they had.
In the relationship between guns and paranoia ethics are usually absent, which is why the feeling of power gets so strong that it always turns into paranoia and never into ethics. Or something like that.

Still, while I always despised guns because I imagined them as tools to kill animals or to commit crimes against defenceless people or to fight unjust wars, I cannot forget that guns, and weapons in general, are necessary if you need to fight your armed oppressor.
Che Guevara had a gun, after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

School Children
Posted by: Abushite on Oct 17, 2006 4:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How do school children feel about guns coming to school ?
Do they understand that the guns are merely coming with militia to protect the constitution ? Don't they understand that this militia was called up in a time of emergency?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: School Children Posted by: binkey
People who hate guns
Posted by: gellero on Oct 17, 2006 4:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a name for people who refuse to own guns -VICTEMS - !! Why do you think cops carry them off duty? To protect us?? - no, dummy, TO PROTECT THEMSELVES !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: People who hate guns Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: People who hate guns Posted by: texshelters
» RE: People who hate guns Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: People who hate guns Posted by: texshelters
» RE: People who hate guns Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: People who hate guns Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: People who hate guns Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: People who hate guns Posted by: tlCampbell
» RE: People who hate guns Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: People who hate guns Posted by: tlCampbell
» RE: People who hate guns Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: People who hate guns Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: People who hate guns Posted by: tlCampbell
An important link is empahsized
Posted by: patagonianomore on Oct 17, 2006 5:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks to Joan Burbick for this informative and much needed story on guns & domestic violence. Her experiences at guns didn't surprise me... among other things too.

Back in 1999 or 2000, Stan Grossfeld, Associate Editor of the Boston Globe and Pulitzer Prize winning photographer did a special report on gun shows and the organizers of this one gun show, let him in and take pictures. It was one of the only times any gun show did such a thing. What's interesting was his wife was the Co-producer of the the Oscar-award winning documentary, Defending Our Lives, a documentary on the Framingham 8. The Framingham 8 were a group of 8 women from Massachusetts living in abusive relationships who murdered their husbands because their lives were at risk. It's a very moving short documentary and an excellent tool for educating anybody on the roots of domestic violence.

Interesting coincidence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oscar Posted by: Donna_Darko
Guns sure don't protect us South Dakota residents from elite business hostile takeovers !
Posted by: SDres11 on Oct 17, 2006 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Out here in South Dakota and in Middle America in general, banks, oil, timber, and other big industries are easily able to throw people out of their lands and/or seize their properties and even all the guns and ammo won't save them. Oh sure, I can shoot the timber motherfuckers but I'll be given the death penalty.

Moreover, notice how the NRA and most of the gun lobbyists OPENLY and SILENTLY work with the commercial dwellers and the bought off politicians to restrict hunters at every angle while at the same time permitting environmental DESTRUCTION !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Small arms vs. tanks Posted by: YogiBear
terrific article
Posted by: Julia Cat on Oct 17, 2006 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thanks, Alternet, for this informative article. Of all the articles on guns and gun rights I've read, this is the only one that talks about the domestic violence piece. It's too bad that some people on the left think women's rights and safety is some weird identity-politics frippery. I guess they liked it better when women on the left knew their place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: terrific article Posted by: questionthemark1
» RE: terrific article Posted by: Cathyblj
» RE: terrific article Posted by: questionthemark1
» Domestic violence Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: terrific article Posted by: jessicajessica
» RE: terrific article Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: terrific article Posted by: maribelle
» In their place Posted by: YogiBear
NRA -- It's the POLITICS, stupid!
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Oct 17, 2006 6:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not understand the NRA. I used to be a member and read The American Rifleman, and I STILL don't understand what those guys are up to. My suspician is that the Gun Lobby evolved from the 'Rifle Club' movement of the Reconstruction South and the higher ranks of the 'legitimate Klan' of the 1920s. There, ultimately the issue is the property rights of landowners, and the supremacy of the State legislatures. Why racism and mysogany are so front and center in Gun Culture ... I can only guess.

My suspicion is that none of it: guns, race, uppish women is really matters to the NRA. These are simply issues that will persuade poorer men with grievances to support richer men with agendas.

It's sure not about protecting my 'right' to own or use firearms. The NRA is spectacularly ineffective at that. Oh, from time to time they use their ENORMOUS political clout to quash a particularly stupid "ugly gun law" ... but when it comes to drafting legislation that would both secure access to guns, and protect society from the more predictable misuse of guns -- the NRA is MIA.

What MIGHT work is the sort of scheme that makes AUTOMOBILE technology available to the broad masses: an elaborate regulatory bureacracy supported by fees and taxes paid by motorists. If the NRA had been a supporter of 'car rights,' a few rich guys would still be driving expensive cars on private motorways and the rest of us would be riding donkeys and bicycles. Instead, there is a working social contract between pedestrians and motorists; because vehicles and drivers are registered, regulated, insured, and kept track of ... pretty much anyone who wants a vehicle can have a vehicle.

Nor oes the NRA promote technological innovation for non-milititary firearms. In fact: the NRA was instrumental in 'persuading' the industry NOT to persue the "one man gun" technology. This idea was to build a gun that could be programmed to fire only in the hand of it's owner. This would be a handgun that could be left loaded in the bedside table, without fear the kids, (or the burgler) would be able to shoot with it.

Part of the problem is that there isn't a problem: local authorities have been enacting gun control laws since the 1820s; by and large these laws have been sensible and practical; citizens have had access to the guns they wanted and needed; the authorities have had tools by which to manage those people who shouldn't be trusted with guns ... and to make a long story short: with more than 300 million firearms in circulation suprisingly few of them are used for crime, domestic abuse, or suicide.

Yet the NRA is a powerful lobbying organization ... but for what exactly remains a bit of a mystery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NRA -- It's the POLITICS, stupid! Posted by: FilthyMcNasty
There's one thing I'm sure of...
Posted by: Steve Adair on Oct 17, 2006 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regardless of which side of this debate you're on, I'm sure of one thing; if the left pursues an anti-gun agenda, conservatives will shoot back up to a 70% approval rating in the polls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Which leaves me to wonder Posted by: catnapping
» RE: Which leaves me to wonder Posted by: aonghus36
» Give them an inch... Posted by: YogiBear
Exactly! How can our Righteous Government ever trust an armed citizenry?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 17, 2006 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah! Wouldn't it be great if we could get all those law-abiding church going rednecks to hand in their Grandpa's shotgun! Wouldn't that show THEM! Wouldn't we feel better about walking over THEIR Constitutional rights!

Wouldn't that help society! Wouldn't we form a modern utopia without all those ridiculous, stupid camo-wearing duck slaughterers.

Woo-hoot! They're either with us or against us! Get me onboard! Where do I sign up?

Not. You folks out there in citizen-control mode are doing your so-called liberal ideals a disservice. Go join your idealological compatriots and picket an abortion clinic or something.

On second thought, I invite you to consider just leaving honest people alone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guns, Violence and Rights
Posted by: Persephone8 on Oct 17, 2006 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not gun owner. I have never even held a gun.
I am a believer in The Constitution The Bill of Rights and our inalienable rights.

The saying that "guns don't kill people. People kill people"
may have a deeper resonance.
This article, while complex, well researched and fascinating
feels like the writer is mixing metaphors.

I am not neccessarily FOR the NRA, and I do not believe in hunting. I do believe that historically, when societies were
disarmed, people lost their rights to properties, civil liberties
and freedom.

The saddest part of all is that people do not need guns to committ domestic violence.When a person is pathologicaly violent- and the intent is to harm or kill - an iron crobar,
broken bottle, knife or hand is as effective as a gun.

If this article is really about domestic violence, then it really isn't just about guns, or who own them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Guns, Violence and Rights Posted by: Jack Burton
Penis Size Syndrome
Posted by: pcushniesr on Oct 17, 2006 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Studies indicate that the predominantly male passion for firearms is directly related to the male’s perspective of his penis size. This is known as the Penis Size Syndrome. Many males feel inadequately endowed in this department and believe their masculinity suffers in some kind of proportional relationship based on how short they fall of some mythical standard. To make up for this percieved shortfall in penis size and masculinity, symbolic penises are used. These take the form of (to name just a few) hot cars, motorcycles, jet skis, stories of sexual conquests that never happened, ownership of large, dangerous dogs, wallets on chains, and, of course, guns. One can hardly imagine a more appropriate phallic symbol than a gun. So, every time you see some guy lovingly stroking a gun and praising its attributes, know that he is not seeing a machine, but a great fleshy sex organ and what you are witnessing is an act of masturbation.

The truth is that manliness is not rooted in the crotch and respect does not come from the barrel of a gun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Penis Size Syndrome Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: Penis Size Syndrome Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Penis Size Syndrome Posted by: TravisABQ
» my study indicates Posted by: LDavistrueblue
» RE: Penis Size Syndrome Posted by: scott@alter
In Addition...
Posted by: pcushniesr on Oct 17, 2006 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... to the above, a passion for firearms is also known to be a sign of repressed homosexuality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Posted by: Prophit
» RE: HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Posted by: pcushniesr
Does the Right to Arms Include Nuclear Weapons?
Posted by: hncarp00 on Oct 17, 2006 7:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have the rights to a musket--that's what the technology of the time envisioned. Today arms are much more complex, deadly, intended for mass casualties, and in some cases detrimental to that which is required for the survival of life on this planet. Automatic weapons are not meant for hunting, or for "home protection" but for the mass-killing of human beings in war. This is unacceptable. Stranger killings account for less than 10% of murders in the United States--it is the enemy at home that is most deadly. We need peacemaking skills, not guns at every corner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's not about hunting. Posted by: catnapping
» RE: It's not about hunting. Posted by: Cathyblj
» RE: It's not about hunting. Posted by: catnapping
» Yup Posted by: edith
» Automatic response Posted by: YogiBear
Oh good lord!
Posted by: catnapping on Oct 17, 2006 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LOL...just cuz some gun owners are republican, racist, and gynophobic, that doesn't mean it's part of the "gun culture." That's some silly logic there...

My husband and I owned several...several weapons...and never in his life did he EVER touch me in a violent manner...or even threaten to.

Consider this folks - it's small arms that are helping Iraq's Freedom Fighters hold off US invaders/rapists.

The second amendment is one of our Bill of Rights. These were additions to the Constitution made to HOLD OFF TYRANNY. If you think Bush has Nazified our country NOW...just think how bad off we'd be if he and his henchmen didn't have to worry about us Patriots out here with our unregistered rifles, pistols, and revolvers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]