Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

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
gunshownation

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Joan Burbick

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

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!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

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

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
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]

» RE: Oh good lord! Posted by: thehousedog
» RE: Oh good lord! Posted by: Ellie1
Guns and the NRA
Posted by: Ulfhethner on Oct 17, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many, here, seem to confuse gun ownership with membership and/or political identification with the NRA. I know plenty of gun owners who oppose the NRA's politics...

Don't confuse the two.

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

» So do I!!!! Posted by: Prophit
From Britain
Posted by: Arvy on Oct 17, 2006 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi, just 2 questions - I'm no expert on either weapons or christianity so I'd like to know:

1) In the USA, how many crimes are prevented by American citizens using their guns (whether crimes against themselves or others) every year?

2) Did Jesus use weapons or encourage their use? If not, then:

3) Should people who put their faith in guns come clean and admit they are not christians, even if they'd like to be.

Thanks.

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

» RE: From Britain Posted by: Ulfhethner
» RE: From Britain Posted by: Arvy
» RE: From Britain Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: From Britain Posted by: Colin
» RE: From Britain Posted by: Arvy
» RE: From Britain Posted by: Ulfhethner
» RE: From Britain Posted by: Arvy
» What about the Blair witch? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: From Britain Posted by: Ulfhethner
» RE: From Britain Posted by: Steve Adair
» RE: From Britain Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: From Britain Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: From Britain Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: From Britain Posted by: binkey
» RE: From Britain Posted by: Arvy
» Speaking of Britain Posted by: YogiBear
» People can't see the future Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: From Britain Posted by: scott@alter
Are you suggesting
Posted by: Ellie1 on Oct 17, 2006 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
gun owners will protect us from rioting Republicans? LOLOL

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

Having been in an abusive marriage for 5 years, I can speak to the issue above.
Posted by: Prophit on Oct 17, 2006 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My first husband beat me brutally many times for over 5 years. He never once used a gun to do so, he used various other weapons that were normal household objects. I wish I had had a gun then, but didn't and its probably a good thing I didn't, but how did I stop the beatings after 5 years???? I will tell you how......

One day, I got so tired of it, that I finally decided I didn't care anymore what happened to me and I was no longer AFRAID. Because of that I had the courage to tell him AS HE RAISED HIS FIST TO BEAT ME AGAIN, that he should wait a second before he hit me because there was something he should know before he hit me. Here is what I told him as he stood with his fist raised..... (this is a direct quote as I will never forget the power I found that day)

"If you hit me again, you better kill me, because if you don't when you go to sleep, I will kill you. Now, go ahead!" Something in my voice made him stop and think...... he held his hand up there for over 30 seconds and put it down and walked away. For a solid year after that he never hit me again. I finally divorced him. He used to chase me with a knife and throw various heavy glass items at me, break bottles and use the broken edge to threaten me at my throat. So I know the story.

I told my second husband, the same thing when he asked me to marry him, and he said he would never lay a hand on me and for 15 years he never did. So "power" is from within, and weapons by an abuser can be anything, guns have nothing to do with it, instead its what is the underlying cause of the actual abuse that matters and everyone wants to gloss it over with the gun issue which is irrelevant. I resent this author for her portrayal in showing she knows nothing about the dynamics of abusive relationships and she trivializes it with this gun issue.

I wish people would learn more before speaking about any of it.

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

Right on!
Posted by: Robba29 on Oct 17, 2006 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live out in the area that the author researched--right next to Moscow, ID--rural, white, and xenophobic. It is mostly these people who glorify their guns (Ruby Ridge, anyone?), yet, they are the ones least likely to suffer some kind of "stranger" crime. National stats: 80% of crimes are committed by someone you know (FBI stat) and in cases of wife or child 85%. We were watching the news the other night and they reported a stat on Idaho's murder rate--last year there were ~55 homicides, and OVER HALF were domestic violence (man on woman). This is what needs to be addressed. The odds that you will be surprised in your home by a criminal are extremely low! This myth needs to be debunked. Whatever you may think of him, Michael Moore did a great job addressing this in Bowling for Columbine.

On a personal level, I used to hunt, still own two shotguns. I do believe there is a place for people owning guns--for hunting (you really want to kill someone--still effective, just not as efficient, oh, well). But there is NEVER any reason to own semi-automatic or automatic assault weapons. It is inexcusable. Background checks and waiting periods should be mandatory!

Ya know, this book could be called Guns and the God Complex--because I think that is the driving pyche: "I have no real power (economic, social, political), but this gun sure makes me feel like I do!"

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

» You hit the nail on the head. Posted by: Cathyblj
» RE: ight on! Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: ight on! Posted by: Robba29
» RE: ight on! Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: ight on! Posted by: Ktflake
» RE: ight on! Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: ight on! Posted by: Robba29
» RE: ight on! (Part One) Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: ight on! (Part Two) Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: ight on! (Part Three) Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: ight on! (Part Three) Posted by: Robba29
» RE: ight on! (Part Three) Posted by: Jack Burton
» I quit reading at "Ruby Ridge" Posted by: YogiBear
A Very Incompetent Excerpt
Posted by: faultroy on Oct 17, 2006 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really have to sometimes wonder where Alternet gets their ideas for presentations.
This article implies that there is a relationship between the gun culture, and domestic violence. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, as proof, please note that the author in the above excerpt gives no statistical information to support this thesis.
As a matter of fact, all of the information is anecdotal.
The reason being that there is no statistical relevance to her assertion.
Also, the author's statement that no pictures were allowed because men were concerned that their wives would be able to identify them for alimony purposes is laughable and
ridiculous!!!
It would be illegal for the courts to even draw any conclusions since they would be hopelessly prejudicing themselves and it would never be accepted by the opposing attorney--he or she would ask the presiding judge to recuse himself or risk being sanctioned upon either appeal or a complaint to the judiciary grievance committee!!
As matter of fact, there are approximately 30 University peer reviewed studies substantiating the charges that women are just as violence prone in domestic violence situations as men.
Given this fact, I am wondering what is the point of this book or the thesis that the author is trying to support?

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

The problem
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 17, 2006 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is that these abusive husbands have the right, as any accused criminal, to a trial by jury and a presumption of innocence. If we could get rid of those aspects of the Constitution and jurisprudence we would all be much better off. Likewise, there is much damaged caused by shrill and racist people spouting their mouths' off. We need to limit speech more and maybe have laws against what you can say. Oh yeah, when people assemble there is a likehood of violence or rioting so we should disallow it. Of course, we will register the address and location of all citizens to ensure that we know where they all live and require them to be able to provide identification documents at will or prior to any purchases or business transactions. And, obvious, we will outlaw guns since, after all, who could trust a citizen the right to provide food for his family, defend himself against the abusive state, or defend himself against a criminal? Really we should all be treated as blacks were in the 1800's and the USA should be a much better place.

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

» RE: The problem Posted by: Ulfhethner
Another reason the far left sucks
Posted by: Soco on Oct 17, 2006 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately guns gave you freedoms you enjoyed until Bush came around and butchered the Constitution. Was the American Revolution settled by a debate. Pleasant conversation over coffee?

The far left can't get it out of their collective heads that not all gun owners are xenophobic, drunken rednecks that abuse their wives. Unstable people kill people. They could do it with a steel pipe. Would you ban steal pipes? Do children that drown in swimming pools mean we should ban swimming pools?

Let's focus these well intentioned but stupid efforts on the greatest priority first. The indiscriminate bombing of people, especially by the US and Israel. Let's take the guns away from the governments of the world, who incidentally make far greater use of guns, warships, bombs and land mines than your ordinary citizen. The Amish have guns, should we take them away from them? Governments are far better at killing than their citizens. Would you disarm them? You would start an ineffective advocacy group to make people "aware" of their suffering, solicit donations from the victims and end up buying executive office furniture with the donations and claim "operating expenses."

People collect guns, beanie babies and baseball cards. True not every needs an automatic rifle, but most don't own them. This is simply being blown out of proportion.

So, America has a population of 300 million now. An extremely small percentage of people commit violent crimes. Out of this number you can most certainly expect something to happen.

What about Switzerland? For starters, this neutral country arms citizens. They don't have the culture of violence we do.

Leave rednecks alone. We are mostly Irish, Scottish, Germans and African-Americans, we built this country and get shit on by the type of rhetoric espoused by feel-good liberal ideology, which is usually nothing but talk. The world is an ugly place and the poor white and black trash bear the brunt of inequality. Lets' tackle education, health care and bringing American Industry back. Foreign labor is bad enough, they don't get paid shit but it's because people are losing jobs here. Desperate people do commit desperate acts. Why don't the true ideals of liberals stay on track with equality and public welfare rather than guns. Solve these issues and guns used for committing violent crimes will drop like failing of a cliff. You'll get far greater results from prevention of these contributing social ills than treating the symptom, gun control.

Why don't you focus on the jackasses who ran Tyco, Enron, Arther Andersen, WorldCom. These are the greatest crooks on the planet. WHITE COLLAR CRIME!

The real problem is both liberals and conservative can't meet in the middle but expect people to follow these stupid ass arguments because they loathe moderates and each carry around the "holier than thou attitude." It's either guns at any cost or no guns at all.

Gun use for self-defense should not be a crime, guns used to commit crimes are and should simply be enforced. This country is harder on drug users than violent criminals, who can kill with anything, in addition to a gun.

Out of all the personal firearms in the US, only a small percentage use them for crimes or violence. Your goody-goody liberal ideology, in the minority, wants guns banned, and if this is in fact a democracy, it's what the majority wants, not the minority.

From one neophyte liberal to another STFU. This is one issue I can't stand within the Liberal mindset.

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

Gun ownership and trash
Posted by: vangogh69 on Oct 17, 2006 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I won't say that people own guns for any one reason, I think that many of the reasons can be traced to fear and feelings of powerlessness. In a society where people have less control over the things that really impact their lives and instead, get to make arbitrary decisions in place of the real ("hm, Wheat Thins or Saltine tonight?"), and are increasingly treated like dumb babies by those in power, it makes sense that more people feel owning a gun gives them some feeling of autonomous power. Additionally, our nation is one of many people who, unfortunately (and yes I'm generalizing so please forgive it), know little about each other, take little initiative to learn about each other, and instead are goverend by fear and ignorance of one another. Again, those in power play us off of each other, keeping us fractionalized, keeping us "feeling safe because we own a gun." (And just for the record, people have more to fear from what's in their food, water, and air KNOWINGLY by their gov. than by someone attacking them and their precious "private property." IMO.)

Another thing...I think our society reaches for guns because one, its a simple solution to a complex set of problems (crime, violence, abuse, etc.), and two, because the effects of a gun have been divorced from the image of a gun. People don't (or maybe they do and are so psychopathic) realize the full effects of a bullet firing through a barrel and shreading skin, muscle, veins, and bones. People are not, en masse, exposed to the effects of a bullet traumatizing flesh, ripping apart the body and reducing it to a mound of unrecognizable pulp, which is why I think people are so gun-crazy. It's out of sight, out of mind, just like the shit we flush down our toilets or the trash we set out to be taken to a landfill: we neither contemplate it's end, nor the process by which its taken there. Similarly, if more people spent time in a landfill or saw, up close, a blown apart human body (with brains blown on a wall or some such scene), they'd be less likely to joyously reach for a gun.

My two cents.

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

» RE: Gun ownership and trash Posted by: YogiBear
Guns cause crime...
Posted by: Sushi on Oct 17, 2006 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Guns cause crime like flies cause garbage.
Guns cause crime like words cause lies.
An angry husband can kill his wife (or ex) with a rock or his bare hands. Banning guns will only make us vulnerable to an out-of-control government gestapo. Remember, the Nazi's grabbed power incrementally, making each case for keeping citizens "safe" by giving up their rights one by one. (Our government is probably keeping our rights in a lock-box like they did our social security...which is now in corporate pockets) One of the first things the gestapo did was to disarm the people so they couldn't fight against getting rounded up and shipped off in box cars. This article is bullshit, probably designed to round up dissenters. See you in the gulags folks!
P.S. I will never vote for a Republican again for as long as I live. (Which might not be too long...)

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

» RE: Guns cause crime... Posted by: techphile
» RE: Guns cause crime... Posted by: edith
» RE: Guns cause crime... Posted by: Topaz
» RE: Guns cause crime... Posted by: Sushi
» RE: Guns cause crime... Posted by: Topaz
» RE:Correction... Posted by: Sushi
» RE: Guns cause crime... Posted by: FNU LNU
It's The Demographic, Stupid!!
Posted by: yellow on Oct 17, 2006 11:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the reasons for the strong correlation between gun nuts and domestic violence is that this has always been the same old redneck demographic that also gets drunk (or not) and beats the wife. I know, I lived in Wisconsin for 14 years and wife beating amoungst these deer huntin' manly men was so extensive and frequent that a prominent state legislator from a northwestern part of the state had to introduce "the beater bill" which gave the family members of the abused women the right to take the law into their own hands and kick the shit out of the abuser if all else failed.

Ahhh...to be civilized and educated!!

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

there comes a time
Posted by: edith on Oct 17, 2006 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when women must have the option of gun ownership to protect themselves from abusive men. We would prefer the police and judges to do their jobs. But they do only sometimes.

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

» That time is here Posted by: VisionQuest
Freud said it best
Posted by: TooDamnCool on Oct 17, 2006 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity... nuff said

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

Here's an idea
Posted by: Topaz on Oct 17, 2006 12:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, for all of you who don't support guns how about you put a big sign in your yard, on your front door, etc. that says basically that you don't believe in guns and you don't own one. Then see how well you sleep at night.

Remember people, the right for us to possess guns is absolutely essential. Not just for personal protection, but believe it or not, our country's protection. Would you invade a country where not only the police and military have weapons, but the citizens too? You'd surely think twice about that. Sure, take away our guns. Only then will we know if there really are terrorists out there because they'll be attacking in droves if they knew we can't defend ourselves anymore. Stop blaming the guns and start blaming the nutbag who uses it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns don't have legs.

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

more I-am-victim weakkneed nonsense
Posted by: LDavistrueblue on Oct 17, 2006 12:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
great, preach more Democrat weakness. Is there no Alternet editor who sees the foolishness of portraying Democrats as weak a few weeks before a critical election? As for the issue, this article reminds me of the pronouncements by Sen. Diane Feinstein a few years back as she led the charge against the rights of gunowners. The Senator appeared to know nothing about the workings of firearms referring, for example, to any rifle with an aggressive frame design as an "assault rifle." None of the guns she got banned was an assault rifle, none was capable of full-auto fire.
If you want to protect yourself in a violent world, learn to shoot. Practice. Protect yourself and your kids and for Christsake, stop whining.

here's a good place to find accurate info:
pinkpistols.org/faq.html

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

What does it say about us
Posted by: darkgrrrl on Oct 17, 2006 2:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Demanding and embracing gun ownership as a core Constitutional right, while at the same time attempting to undermine and rescind women's right to control their own bodies.

The right to ownership of a particular type of object is paramount; the right to ownership of one's own body in increasingly restricted.

Some people believe that abortion is murder. Reproduction is only one capacity of a woman's body; her body is first and foremost the vessel of her own life. The only capacity of a gun is to inflict physical harm or death, or to threaten same.

Yet people want less control of guns and more control of women.

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

» RE: What does it say about us Posted by: Ulfhethner
The REAL problem
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 17, 2006 2:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is this: It does not matter how extensive or how well criminal checks are done, millions of guns in the USA will mean inevitably, and certainly, some will get into the wrong hands. It also does not matter how many years you lock up or jail gun offenders or those who do not properly care for guns they legally can own: some will still find there ways into the wrong hands or the hands of children. The problem, there are millions and millions of guns on the street. So, if you are a proponent of legal gun ownership, how do you deal with this problem.

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

» RE: The REAL problem Posted by: Jack Burton
» Truth and consequences Posted by: YogiBear
» That's a big part of it... Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: The REAL problem Posted by: edith
Thanks Alternet
Posted by: yoursfaithfully on Oct 17, 2006 3:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all the buzz about Foley, I was infuriated to see Alternet not pick up any great pro-gun control articles at a time when the nation is receptive (see how many massacres and near-massacres we've had in the past 3 weeks).

This changes my opinion on Alternet.

However, I read a very chilling letter to the New York Times recently. I went something like "Gun control can't work because there are already too many guns in this country. All we can do is sit back and watch school shooting after school shooting. There is no solution."

I tend to agree. There are so many guns in this country that almost nothing can be done to curb their use and mis-use. Yet I do think we need to try, and we need to convince Americans that guns WILL NOT PROTECT THEM FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

The right to keep a standing militia to keep the government in check was given up when the first battleship was invented. The technology required to effectively combat the United States military has not been made public since the first World War. If Uncle Sam wants every piece of property in Montana, he won't even need to use his massive array of stealth bombers, tanks, and bunker busting bombs. He'll just cut off petroleum, and watch them starve to death. Shotguns and rifles can't possibly protect you from the most powerful army in world history.

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

» It's not Power to the People... Posted by: Aussie Kim
Anyone...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Oct 17, 2006 3:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ANYONE who is against the right to bear arms must not have been paying much attention to the news of late.

Habeus Corpus is, today, GONE.

There is still time for change through the system, and I don't believe any violent revolution is, or should be on the imminent horizon... but I feel a whole lot safer knowing that there is an armed populace.

As for domestic violence... well, sad to say... do you prefer your victims stabbed, beaten to death, poisoned, or shot? That is really the only question. The problem isn't the guns... the problem is the people using the guns.

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

» RE: Anyone... Posted by: Robba29
» RE: Anyone... Posted by: Ulfhethner
» RE: Anyone... Posted by: Jack Burton
» Go for it, buy a gun Posted by: TravisABQ
Why CAN'T the woman buy a gun?
Posted by: medstudgeek on Oct 17, 2006 3:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, really. Seems to me if anything it would equalize the balance of power between the sexes since you don't need much upper body strength to pull a trigger. Obviously I'm missing something. What?

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

Well. you answered, it the Real Problem Remains
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 17, 2006 5:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regardless of anybody ranting on about the inner city, or whatever, the problem remains. Millions of guns in America got to go somewhere. They went to the kids at Columbine by the way, not just the kids in the inner city. And, by the way, Americas domestic murder rate and accidental murder rate via guns is far higher then countries like Britain and Canada, even if you factor out America's inner-cities. So, argue all you want about the 2nd ammendment, it does not mean a thing. There still are millions of guns floating around everywhere in America, and everyone, criminal or not who wants one, can get one, period.

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

» Chill out dude Posted by: YogiBear
Go ahead and help Bush and the GOP
Posted by: chief of okeefe on Oct 17, 2006 7:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The gun issue is the way the repubs split the old democratic coalition that once included working class white males. Those men will not tolerate being disarmed after everything else has been take from them.

Drop the damn gun grabbing stupidity! Gore lost his own home state because of the gun issue alone. This is why that rich-man's fascist Bush is in power!

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

» Dean was pro-gun Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Dean was pro-gun Posted by: Jack Burton
» RE: Dean was pro-gun Posted by: YogiBear
I used to work in a battered women's shelter
Posted by: deborama on Oct 17, 2006 8:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By FAR the scariest cases were those of women married to cops. These guys were fucking crazy violent, and they had the FIREARMS (not to mention the proclivity to heavy drinking) to make their violent tendencies real. I knew women who were never shot at, but every time they raised an issue with their husbands, that husband (a cop) would put his "piece" on the table in front of him, just to "remind" her of what he could do at any moment, which was blow her brains out in front of her children.

Guns cause a lot of problems even if they're not fired.

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

» Run stupid! Posted by: LtL
» RE: un stupid! Posted by: popsicle67
» RE: un stupid! Posted by: LtL
» RE: un stupid! Posted by: Aussie Kim
» Friefighters, too Posted by: YogiBear
» You speaking to me? Posted by: YogiBear
A view from the darkside
Posted by: popsicle67 on Oct 17, 2006 10:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was convicted for committing domestic assault and lost my right to own a firearm. My victim (ex-wife ) and I have a wonderful relationship now that is built on friendship and trust
( a far cry from our marriage ) but I am still unable to regain my right to own a gun. It actually would not be any big deal save for the fact that my father had two antique hunting rifles
and one model 94 Winchester that I really wanted to have for for displaying(one was over a hundred years old) and I could not find any way to keep them legally. I know you might have trouble thinking of guns as a decoration but they were neat to look at and all the old westerns were full of cowboys carrying the model 94 Winchester and I grew up on them so it was never about needing protection or wanting revenge but every question I was asked was about how I felt about my divorce and ex-wife and that was completely irrelevant. So now the guns are somebody else's and I still have my giant red W for wifebeater blazed on my forehead. Shouldn't society have to forgive me if my ex- wife has? How long does society get to spit on me?

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

» RE: A view from the darkside Posted by: yoursfaithfully
» No scum bag Posted by: LtL
» RE: No scum bag Posted by: scott@alter
Defend yourself
Posted by: TravisABQ on Oct 18, 2006 3:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’ve noticed that elitist big city “journalists” constantly denigrate and insult gun owners. We are regularly portrayed in the mainstream media as being uncouth, uncivilized, criminal, morally deficient and dangerous to the public at large. The same scapegoating has been conducted against Jews, Blacks, and every other minority which has endured systematic oppression, or mass murder.
Consider this.
At least 40% of American households have at least one gun.
The U.S. has an estimated 228 million firearms legally owned by Americans.
A fraction of a percent is used in violent crime.
I just want to ask all you folks who have been indoctrinated all your life by the media and Hollywood to fear guns and HATE your fellow Americans, just how do you propose to eliminate firearms from America. Never mind the legal issues of repealing the second amendment of the constitution, and passing legislation to make possession, and transfer of firearms a crime.
How do you think you can make 40% of your fellow Americans into criminals, and enforce a gun prohibition? HOW?
Do you want the government to prosecute a war on guns? I remind you that will not be a war on “bad scary guns”, that will be a war waged upon your fellow Americans.
All the police and Federal agents can only make a slight dent in the supply of dangerous drugs entering or manufactured in this country. Firearms are a durable good which can be functional for decades, or even more than a century. Making a gun is so simple that illiterate tribesmen in Pakistan or the Philippines can make a gun with scrap metal and hand tools. America is filled with basement tinkerers, and engineers who have access to modern steel, and power tools. It is not like refining plutonium.
Guns are HERE, in abundance. Wishful thinking will not make them disappear, and I hope you are rational enough to realize that instigating a “gun war” would be a bad idea.
Domestic violence is an awful thing. One can hardly avoid the news stories of a woman who is attacked, raped, or killed whether by a stranger or by a violent ex-boyfriend or ex-husband. In most cases the attacker does not even use a gun. Brutal, violent men often prefer a knife, or a club, or a piece of rope. In most cases, it is just a matter of brute strength, and a 110 pound woman has little chance of winning a fight against a 200 pound man.
Unless she has a gun.
There are violent criminals out there; they have no interest in having a “fair fight”. They mean to HURT, and they mean to win. There are EVIL people out there, and to them, you are just FOOD, oblivious and just waiting to be eaten.
You have probably been indoctrinated to think that “violence never settles anything” or you can “talk your way out of trouble” or some such drivel. Have you ever been in a real life-or-death situation? Have you ever been harmed by an ex-lover or victimized by street crime? Are you so convinced that it can’t possibly happen? Do you want a restrictive law to prohibit you from obtaining or using a gun to save your own life, or the life of your child?
You have the RIGHT to defend yourself. You have the RIGHT to lawfully obtain the best tool for self defense.
I have faith in my fellow Americans, I have faith in YOU, and I think that YOUR life is of immeasurably higher value than a rapist who would kill you.
But the politicians with their bodyguards, the elitist reporters for anti-gun newspapers would rather have criminals succeed in raping women, or murdering elderly people, than allow law abiding citizens the best tools to preserve innocent life.
Do you ever wonder why that is?
Do some study, and think for yourself.
http://www.guncite.com/
http://www.gunfacts.info/

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

» RE: Defend yourself Posted by: yoursfaithfully
» RE: Defend yourself Posted by: TravisABQ
» RE: Defend yourself Posted by: scott@alter
Enough already!!!!
Posted by: Againstthewindwalking on Oct 18, 2006 12:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I own guns, I shoot guns, I'm proficient in their use and care! I've taken my SKS apart many times and have modified it for accuracy and ease of use. I truly can't say that it's barrel is shorter than my penis, I can say that about my S&W .44 magnum revolver! I've never been a member of the NRA, and I never will!!

This is beyond idiotic!! What? Everybody wants to defend the First Ammendmant, but ignore the Second? What a crock of shit!!!

Where I live the closest cop is twenty minutes away! My firearms, (all of them!) are twenty inches away from my bed! Why? I"M NOT A FUCKING VICTIM!!!

It's a far better thing to be tried by twelve, than carried by six! And when they come to take ME off to "Camp Halliburton", I'll have something more than stale platitudes and an acoustic guitar to face them with!

If you DON"T have a gun of some sort, then you're not paying attention!!

As far as all the gun-haters out there go; You share 25% of the same genes as an eggplant!! Get over yourselves! If you don't want a gun? Fine! Be a victim!! But don't expect me and my family to!! All because your afraid to face life's challenges as a warrior, and expect the "Boys in Blue" to keep your asses in one piece!

Quit your damned whining! Stand without fear, and YOU WIN!!!

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

» RE: nough already!!!! Posted by: FNU LNU
» RE: nough already!!!! Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: nough already!!!! Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: nough already!!!! Posted by: Soco
Utah man shoots girlfriend/mother of 2 in back today
Posted by: elisabeth on Oct 18, 2006 1:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
linked text

Man, already charged with domestic violence against this woman, shoots her in the back with a rifle in front of her 8 year old child.

Utah is notorious for advocating "gun rights."

linked text

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

» And...? Posted by: Ulfhethner
» RE: And...? Posted by: Ulfhethner
» RE: And...? Posted by: morticia
» RE: And...? Posted by: Ulfhethner
» Ever heard of moderation? Posted by: elisabeth
» RE: ver heard of moderation? Posted by: Jack Burton
The angry young men in rural America
Posted by: zooeyhall on Oct 18, 2006 1:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in rural Nebraska (where I am a farmer). Over the last 20 years, I have noticed the rise of a new class of "angry young men" in my area. They are the sons of dispossesed farmers, the children of parents in the declining little rural towns. They graduate from high school, and there are no jobs available. There used to be plenty of good meat packing plant and manufacturing jobs in my locale. Those jobs have vanished down the hole of cheap illegal alien labor--the kind of illegal immigrant element that Alternet is so often the cheerleader for.

These young men are bombarded by images of affluence in the media. But the reality is they are faced with no hope and no prospects. Rural America is becoming the United States version of the Gaza Strip.

If only progressives would champion the ECONOMIC causes of the middle-class, they could make some headway. Instead, I have too often seen the Progressive movement (including sites like Alternet) hijacked by what I call the "Lexus Liberals". Thus, we get tomes expounding on gender issues, ethnic identity, organic food, global warming, pro-illegal immigrant articles, etc.

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

» Check out the book Crunchy Cons Posted by: JoshuaLudd
You need to research the raw numbers
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 18, 2006 2:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Percentages are not the issue. Look at raw numbers, Britains entire homicide rate is 300 or so per year. The USA is 20,000

Your pants are down.

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

» RE: Duh - learn to count Posted by: Aussie Kim
» Do the math Posted by: elisabeth
Eek Eek Eek
Posted by: BurtonLT on Oct 19, 2006 2:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one more example of feminists going into mass hysteria. Please note the sexist title of the article: it's wives who are in danger. Of course, in the feminist worldview, womyn are always victims, men always perpetrators. Nowhere in the article does it mention the fact that men might need firearms to defend themselves from violent wives--and the best defense is a firearm.

As for Lautenberg Amendment, this is as unconstitutional a piece of legislation as you can get. It deprives people of a basic right, that to bear arms, because of a bunch of paranoid feminists and their manginas in Congress.

How about mass acts of civil disobedience in which gun owners refuse to turn in their firearms? What would femi-nazis do about that? Talk about their vaginas?

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

Eek Eek Eek
Posted by: BurtonLT on Oct 19, 2006 2:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one more example of feminists going into mass hysteria. Please note the sexist title of the article: it's wives who are in danger. Of course, in the feminist worldview, womyn are always victims, men always perpetrators. Nowhere in the article does it mention the fact that men might need firearms to defend themselves from violent wives--and the best defense is a firearm.

As for Lautenberg Amendment, this is as unconstitutional a piece of legislation as you can get. It deprives people of a basic right, that to bear arms, because of a bunch of paranoid feminists and their manginas in Congress.

How about mass acts of civil disobedience in which gun owners refuse to turn in their firearms? What would femi-nazis do about that? Talk about their vaginas?

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

Baloney
Posted by: liberalgunowner on Oct 19, 2006 6:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, I just think the premise that women are at danger because their husbands own firearms is well, baloney. Some might be, granted. But my greatest fear while going through a hellish marriage with my demented ex-wife was that she would perforate me with my own firearms. I eventually Took all of my firearms to a location out of state to feel safer. I could survive the hurled wine bottles, the brandished 16 oz claw hammers, and even the occasional machete.

:)

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

» RE: Baloney Posted by: longlivecheney
» RE: Baloney Posted by: liberalgunowner
» RE: Baloney Posted by: Logic's Edge
the author misses the whole point of Emerson
Posted by: scott@alter on Oct 20, 2006 3:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Emerson was NOT a wife abuser. In a messy divorce he made one comment like thousands (including women) probably had which sounded threatening. At the hearing there was no finding that he was violent or had committed violence towards his wife. Never the less, because the r/o said not to do violence he had to give up his guns. He did not. The wife came to HIS office, he told her to get out and brandished a gun (she claimed he pointed at her but he was later AQUITTED in state court of misdemeanor charges relating to that instance). But he also then prosecutted under the FEDERAL law. Which the appellate court, while saying that the 2nd did protect an individual right, upheld saying the law NARROWLY passed constitutional muster. So now he is a Federal Felon (facing 15 years) for mere possession of a firearm which after the r/o was released (say when the divorce was finalized) would have been legal to own again. That hardly seems like justice, and it does speak directly to issues like due-process (he wasn't informed that under the r/o he was prohibited from owing guns - Felons are told that upon conviction). Women (and men) have used kids before as pawns in messy divorces, now they can use the mere fact the husband owns guns to cause BIG problems for the husband, even if the've NEVER been the victim of any abuse. Thats not right either.

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

2nd Amendment knuckle draggers
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Oct 21, 2006 2:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Talk anything about gun control and we get the 2nd Amendment nut cases with their phony made up history. No, Nazi Germany wasn't the one that passed the gun laws, in spite of those made-up Hitler quotes. It was the previous administration trying to crack down on Nazi and Communist violence. Most Germans outside of the police and the military didn't own firearms, or have any use for them. The "God fearing, red blooded, law-abiding, gun owning" German equivalent of the NRA was the SA, who took to the streets to overthrow the Democratically elected government. (That's what you NRA types advocate isn't it? Use your guns to overthrow the government?)

Hitler didn't have to take the guns away from the SA. He murdered the leadership ("The Night of the Long Knives), and put the rest in the Army.

Now knuckle draggers, don't parade out those phony quotes if you can't verify that they're real.

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

What a joke
Posted by: DirtyDave on Dec 6, 2006 7:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am always amazed that liberals love to make stands on fantasy rights they makeup to further their silly agendas.
Yet somehow seem to think they get to pick and chose what Constitutional Rights we get to have.
Just how can some self righteous TWIT decide what rights are in my best interests to have?
Get a clue people were causing bodily harm to one another long before guns ,the thinking outlawing them is the cure just shows ignorance.

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

Change the System Part 1
Posted by: Smart Woman on Dec 8, 2006 3:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, I will say that I was nearly killed on several occasions by an ex-spouse. I am a gun owner, a female, and proud of it. To make a short story of several years of hell, trying to stay alive and protect my child, I had several of those little pieces of paper, better known as restraining orders, or personal protection orders. I still have one on him as I type this, even tho my nightmare began back in 1997. Yes.. thats almost 10 years ago. 3 years in and out of court, and new worthless pieces of paper usually with some new addition of how and what he was required to do, by law, that he would immediatly violate and get away with. He didnt care, no one was going to tell him when, where and how he was going to see HIS WIFE. He would get arrested.. a new set of rules not to break, and released. Within less than 5 minutes out of the jail, to a couple weeks he would violate the order. I dont think I need to state the obvious here, it isnt guns or any other thing on this earth than can be used to cause harm that is the problem. Its the COURT system. The penalties arent severe enough. Anything on the planet can be used as a weapon. Cars are weapons, knives are weapons, ropes are weapons, a lamp or even pillows, any thing else you could smother someone with are weapons. If a man.. or a woman, I am not going to say this is a male problem alone, because there are alot more battered husbands out there that you never hear about. Men just dont want to call the police up and say.. my woman just beat me up, pulled a weapon on me, etc. So, from my point of view, its not the weapon, or method used, its the persons behavior that needs to be dealt with, and ENFORCED by the court. Not letting them slide in and out of jail and keep doing what ever they choose for 3 years, as was in my case. He was arrested 19 times. My ex launched over the railing at me in court, fully cuffed at wrists and ankles, in front of an entire court room full of people, judge and cops included. He plead the attempted murder charges down to aggrivated felony stalking. The guy has been in trouble with the law on multiple occasions, clear back to his childhood, and smashing out car windows and stealing, and drug convictions. ( And no, you can not call me anything I havent called myself for not being smarter in my choice of a spouse) Plea bargains should not be given out for any type of violent crime. You did it, you pay for what you did. There was no bargaining chips for the victims was there? They werent given the opportunity to have a different crime committed on them. A criminal isnt going to walk up to you and politely say, you have a choice of how I am going to victimize you. So why should the criminal be given any choice? Why does the system continuosly let the people back out on the streets several times, before deciding that some one like that, doesnt listen, or care about what the court imposes. The courts need to evaluate the criminals better, repeated offenses show that they have no respect for the law, or the others who have to live around them. A gun is only a tool , or a knife, or a car, or a baseball bat. If some one wants to hurt or kill some one, there going to do it, guns banned from there possession or not. A piece of paper, is not going to stop the weapon from hurting or killing. The domestic violence laws started out with the right thought in mind. Protect the innocent. Most laws are created for the safety and better of our quality of life. But, it has been abused by far too many women, and men for that matter. You want to get rid of some one, go bang your head and face against the wall a few times, and call the cops. Say your partner did it. Then there marked, for the rest of there lives, by a lie, by something that never happened. You ground your kids, they go bang there head, and say there parents did it. You want to collect huge on your insurance, smash up your stuff, and put in a claim. Steal your own stuff.

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

» Change the System Part 2 Posted by: Smart Woman