I Am A Gun Owner by Dan Zimmerman | Jan 18, 2013 | 153 comments facebook twitter linkedin email Greg Camp Please send your “I Am a Gun Owner” statement photo to email@example.com with the word PHOTO (all caps) in the subject bar. Let me know if you want us to use your name, a screen nic or remain anonymous. comments BlinkyPete says: January 18, 2013 at 13:07 I’m with him on everything but Canada, and I really think stuff like this could help improve our image in the eyes of moderates and people on the fence who wouldn’t otherwise care about restricting our rights. Reply Brad says: January 18, 2013 at 13:15 Ditto – No Canadian Health Care please. I used to live in Wisconsin and my Dad worked at the Med College of Wisconsin (Milwaukee). Some of his soap box speeches to us weere about the problems of socialized medicine. His evidence was the long line of Canadians coming there to get the “elective” procedures they couldn’t get in Canada. Health Care in this country sucks, it needs an overhaul and Obamacare was not the answer. Reply Matt says: January 18, 2013 at 13:20 In Ron Paul’s book ‘The Revolution’, he discusses how medical care in this country was affordable until the government got involved with HMO’s. The goverment messed it up, and messes it up further trying to fix it. Typical. Reply Brad says: January 18, 2013 at 13:35 I agree Matt – when the GOV tries to “fix” something, the law of unintended consequences usually applies, and they wind up making it worse. Dept of Education? We’re #26 in the world – http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2012/feb/03/jim-whelan/united-states-ranks-26th-school-performance-world-/ Dept of Health and Human Services? We don’t even have a city in the the top 10 list. In fact we don’t start until #28. http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2011 Dept of Commerce? Dept of Labor? We’re 7th in the world for competiveness and dropping. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/us-slips-in-world-economic-forums-competitiveness-rankings/2012/09/05/22eda50e-f77f-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_blog.html I am about tire of being over regulated, micro managed and lead by people who know far better that me what is best for me. Ivy Mike says: January 18, 2013 at 15:38 Just a reminder, it was the Republicans (Nixon) who brought in the “private enterprise” HMOs because of “private incentives toward less care.” Nixon Launches the HMO’s – What a SICKO TheSleeperHasAwakened says: January 18, 2013 at 17:57 Who cares if it was Republicans or Democrats, it’s government nonetheless. Milsurp Collector says: January 18, 2013 at 13:37 I’m half Canuck myself and relatives still living there have all told me socialized medicine is not nearly as great as it sounds from the outside looking in. Knowing the track record of our government I guarantee you Obamacare will be worse and cost at least twice as much to maintain Reply Anon in CT says: January 18, 2013 at 13:25 I am from Canada. I moved to the US for a bunch of reasons, including the RKBA and awful Canadian Healthcare. Please don’t make the USA be like Canada – I am running out of options. Reply Grasshopper says: January 18, 2013 at 18:22 +1000: Me, too! Reply pat says: January 19, 2013 at 03:49 Liberals who own guns should do a more thorough job of vetting the freaking anti-gunners who swarm in their packs. Reply int19h says: January 19, 2013 at 15:06 Are you aware of the fact that healthcare in Canada is controlled by the provinces, not the feds? All provinces today have it, and they all participate in a money pooling scheme that’s run by the feds, but it’s all voluntary – any province can withdraw from the scheme, or drop healthcare altogether. That’s because their constitution specifically says that regulating healthcare is a provincial power. Now, if you’re a conservative American, why would you be against individual states deciding for themselves whether they want public healthcare or not, and for those that decide they want it pooling money together? Reply Gyufygy says: January 18, 2013 at 13:18 Heh, didn’t recognize you without the hat and duster. I also agree with everything listed except maybe the healthcare part, and that’s because I don’t know enough about how it works. Reply QWL says: January 18, 2013 at 13:20 You really should have these cross posted on your fb page. Reply Ducky says: January 18, 2013 at 16:25 I agree. They’ll get shared a lot more readily that way. Reply Peter says: January 18, 2013 at 13:24 Why do i think he voted for obama? Just a hunch…. Reply Joe Grine says: January 18, 2013 at 13:30 +1 “I have met the enemy and it is me.” Reply blinkypete says: January 18, 2013 at 14:53 I’m going to be voting Republican for the first time in 2014 (I’ve always stuck to Libertarians), and I’m not pleased about it. I don’t blame people who voted for Barry over Mittens in the last election. Skin color was the only real difference, and don’t think for a second Mitt wouldn’t cave if congress handed him an AWB. He’s done it before, he’d do it again. Reply C says: January 19, 2013 at 03:56 a vote for a third party is just a vote against the main party candidate with whom you most agree. Or, with whom you disagree least, if you prefer. Reply blinkypete says: January 19, 2013 at 08:34 That’s untrue. Using Nader’s 2000 run as an example for all third party campaigns is essentially a fallacy. For example, in the last election all third party votes combined were less than the number of votes separating Barry and Mittens. Further, there’s no proof that people who regularly vote third party would vote at all without that option. In short, I don’t believe choosing the lesser evil’ is a sane or moral tactic. Even if Johnson had lost Romney the election I’d still be happy and proud of my choice today. Jake says: January 19, 2013 at 10:20 A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote for, you guessed it! Evil! daveR says: January 18, 2013 at 17:41 Do you REALLY think that Romney would have protected your rights here? Reply AlphaGeek says: January 18, 2013 at 17:48 It doesn’t matter. The election is over, we’re not voting on ANYTHING this year. Worry about that in 2014. 2013 is about fighting legislation, supporting court action, and speaking out as individuals. TL;DR: Don’t waste time arguing about 2012, get something useful done in 2013. Reply Chuck in IL says: January 18, 2013 at 13:27 And because you believe in those things, did you also vote for the politicians who believe in all of the those except the last two? Serious question. Reply mountocean says: January 18, 2013 at 13:30 Hey, we’re trying to showcase our broad demographic here, not eat the young and outnumbered. And besides, being against English is like being pro-cancer. Reply blinkypete says: January 18, 2013 at 14:54 Huh? Reply Chuck in IL says: January 18, 2013 at 15:03 My point being that if you vote for the gun grabbers, you are part of the problem, not part of a broad demographic. If someone votes for Obama or Pelosi or Schumer, how can they get indignant when those people take action to disarm them? And Global Warming? Seriously? Reply BlinkyPete says: January 18, 2013 at 15:15 I was referring to the English and cancer comment, but… You can’t blame a gay person who voted for a democrat who will protect his rights over a pub that will take them away. The same goes for women, hispanics, marijuana users and anyone else that ‘pubs don’t find worthy of personal freedoms. Also, as I’ve already said, you don’t have to accept that more state control is the solution to climate change, but denying hard scientific evidence is entirely counter productive. That’s what I think, anyway. mountocean says: January 18, 2013 at 15:21 My point was despite the fact our country has many problems most of us folks on this site (I assume) come here to address a specific problem, gun control. Continuing to phrase the issue as a D vs R (or L vs D+R etc) and harassing those with other views on other topics does not lead to cohesion. I do appreciate that your honest question was far less devisive than some of the comments that came after yours, I just think we should keep the “I Am A Gun Owner” posts as “Kumbaya” as possible. BlinkyPete says: January 18, 2013 at 15:27 I agree with you, but I am also actually pretty impressed with the response. We don’t agree with one another on everything, and that shows what a diverse, and not divisive group we are. Most of the comment seem pretty polite to me. tdiinva says: January 18, 2013 at 16:57 Please, what right were the Republicans going to take away from gays? If anybody needs access to firearms it’s the gay community. Gays are subjected to violence from gay-haters and from within the gay community where there is a lot abusive behavoir. The right to protect yourself supercedes the right to get a piece of paper. blinkypete says: January 18, 2013 at 19:02 Marriage. Tax benefits. Dignity. Just because something is less important to you doesn’t mean those priorities are shared by everyone. Not trying to be contentious, but a lot of the pro gun leaders are on the wrong side of history on a lot of things. We don’t want to be. Pulatso says: January 18, 2013 at 13:29 I disagree with him on everything except gay marrage and guns…but I’d welcome him to any gun association I was a part of. The right to protect yourself should not be political. Reply Malache says: January 18, 2013 at 13:46 “The right to protect yourself should not be political.” I could not have said it better myself. Reply LSUTigersFan says: January 18, 2013 at 14:14 Can I use “The right to protect yourself [and your family] should not be political” on my picture post? Reply Pulatso says: January 18, 2013 at 14:21 Feel free! While I don’t remember reading it elsewhere, I’m sure I’m not the first to say it. gloomhound says: January 18, 2013 at 13:32 I agree with him on guns. Reply AlphaGeek says: January 18, 2013 at 17:50 He shoots! He scores! Gloomhound resoundingly demonstrates that he gets that ONLY ONE THING matters in this discussion. That’s 100% pure win, right there. Reply 16V says: January 18, 2013 at 22:51 I’m with you, but I think there is more. Here’s the thing. Human nature is evolutionarily driven to associate with other (theoretically) like-minded folks on a variety of issues. Were I free to expose a couple of academic-scholarship-masters-degrees-in-hardscience females that I know (from the school with the coolest marching band) to be pro-gun, pro-2nd, and pro CCW, one would have more leverage with teh “educated media elites”. It’s hard to sell that white Stanford female grads are just illiterate rednecks who don’t understand science. Sadly, the politics of their positions require they stay in the closet when it comes to guns and the 2A, at least as far as me “outing” them. Reply Jake says: January 18, 2013 at 13:47 Accept the science of climate change? You mean that the “sun” is “hot”? And that the Earth throughout recorded history has followed the activity of the sun with it’s mean surface temperature almost perfectly? Oh right that is science, as opposed to the malarkey they use to feed the folks lining up at the corporatist trough for “green” projects. Canadian style, so you support stealing from citizens in some ways, but not in others? I wish people like this were capable of realizing the level of hypocrisy that they have attained, and how much they have helped the grabbers over the years by supporting them but “disagreeing” with them on gun control. But they somehow interpret it as the moral high ground simply because these are the things believed now. We also used to believe that evil spirits in your blood caused disease, because science and everybody know so. Not so much now. But this is different, now we’re right! Please. Reply Swarf says: January 18, 2013 at 14:05 Scientists predict a localized warming trend in this thread due to a recent sudden release of hot gasses known as an Off Topic Flow. Reply Jake says: January 18, 2013 at 14:12 Hey I took the lateral I didn’t fumble the snap. Don’t want off topic topics addressed don’t bring em up, I say. Reply blinkypete says: January 18, 2013 at 14:57 1 – supporting statist ‘green’ initiatives as the only solution is not the same as accepting demonstrable, observable science. When 99.9% of the experts in any given field make a statement as fact, I tend to believe them. 2 – Swarf is a funny guy. Reply tdiinva says: January 18, 2013 at 17:00 That 99% is just a self referencial number like 40% of the guns bought at gun shows happen without a background check. It’s bull. Al Gore made up the 99% number. A majority of actual climate scientists think warming is due to natural cycles. blinkypete says: January 18, 2013 at 19:10 Care to share a reference for that statement? I ask because my position has nothing to do with Al Gore, it has to do with the fact that not a single scientific body of national or international standing agrees with you, that in every single survey of scientists the consensus (97% or more) is that climate change is indeed real, and in the same surveys at least 82% agree that it is caused entirely by human activity. Again, I don’t advocate a state sponsored solution, but I also don’t ignore scientific fact simply because it doesn’t conform with my political beliefs. 16V says: January 18, 2013 at 22:11 No, that 99.99% is a pretty factual number. Pick a scientific union, and they’ll all have 99+% of their members agreeing with global warming, smart enough to read a trend chart, and well-educated enough to understand solar cycles and the rest of the nonsense the deniers use to inveigle. There’s cretins out there who believe in all sorts of voodoo nonsense. The science of climate change and global warming are irrefutable. The only debate is how bad it’s gonna get and how fast it will accelerate. Anyone with a brilliant “climate change is cyclical” pile from the tools on talk radio can go over to http://skepticalscience.com/ and see every bit of that nonsense squashed with tons of real science like the flat-earth-and-its-6000-years-old crap that it is. Snjohnson says: January 18, 2013 at 14:07 Wot we ‘ave ‘ere is a rare example ov the pro gun liberal in ‘is natural environment. Ain’t she a beauteh. Reply Swarf says: January 18, 2013 at 14:45 We’re not as rare as you think, and we’re getting less rare every day. Reply AlphaGeek says: January 18, 2013 at 15:01 +1 According to an article I saw earlier this week, something like 35% of gun owners surveyed were Democrats or voted predominantly for Democratic candidates. Anyone who thinks we can win this by shyt-talking and marginalizing 1/3 of gun owners is deluded. This is not about politics. It’s not about who someone voted for in the last election, or what football team they cheer for. This is about coming together as Americans united in our support for our Second Amendment rights. Whether you’re a 21-year-old black man living in inner Baltimore, or a 64-year-old white guy living in the Arizona desert, your rights are under attack. If we don’t set our differences aside and work together, we will all end up disarmed — it’s just a matter of when they get to the OFWG in Arizona, not “if”. Reply AlphaGeek says: January 18, 2013 at 15:12 Wow, I managed to be racially inclusive but still sexist. In my defense I meant to write “64-year-old white woman” but that fell apart when I realized that nobody would know what OFWW meant. Ted says: January 18, 2013 at 16:12 +1 – Count me in as a pro-gun liberal. Unfortunately for the Democrats, exactly none of them will be getting my votes in the mid-terms. Looks like I’ve finally jumped to the Libertarian party – not out of choice, but as a last resort to protect the remaining rights we have. Reply CentristGunGuy says: January 18, 2013 at 23:18 +1 int19h says: January 19, 2013 at 15:11 +1 I’m actually left of this guy on economy – I don’t only support a public healthcare system, but I think that we should start experimenting with guaranteed minimum income (Canadians already did, with splendid results – look up “Mincome” on Wikipedia). I’m solidly libertarian on all social issues – gay marriage, pro-choice, legalization of soft drugs etc. And I’m also pro-gun. Why? Because I believe in a right of people to defend themselves and others, efficiently and with minimal hassle. And also because I familiarized myself with the numbers, and, if anything, they show a mild correlation between gun ownership and reduction of violent crime. Reply arsdall says: January 18, 2013 at 14:12 So he supports the taking of innocent life via abortion, but is all for innocent lives being spared by being armed here? I’m just trying to follow this train of thought Reply LSUTigersFan says: January 18, 2013 at 14:25 Sometimes things are not clearly black or white. I have been conservative and voted Republican since I could vote, and I still struggle with the pro-choice issue. My struggle is one of government involvement in our lives. I have a problem with fighting to have the government stay out of my life while arguing that the government has the right to tell someone else what they can do with theirs. And please, and no offense, I am not interested in debating with anyone. This is my internal struggle, and although I can agree with this guy on only a few of the things he said, I can respect him for believing in something rather than just towing the “progressive” line. And I not standing on a soapbox. I am standing on two .50 cal ammo boxes!! Reply blinkypete says: January 18, 2013 at 15:02 A person with the opposing views could easily counter with “so he wants to protect women’s lives by allowing them to choose, but not children’s lives by allowing them to live free of gun violence”. Both are logical fallacies and largely rhetorical. I respect your opinion on abortion, and at times I share it, but the opinion is yours and shouldn’t be forced on others anymore than anti’s opinions should be forced on us. Reply LSUTigersFan says: January 18, 2013 at 15:23 Sorry if I seemed to be judging others. That was not my intention. I just struggle at times in seeing things in black and white like some others. In a way I am a little jealous. I just wanted to point out that we can all believe in different things and still believe in each other’s right to believe as they do. That’s why I love my country, and why the press and our president hates it. It’s been a long day, so I apoligize if it was unclear or preachy, or if this post is unclear or preachy. Reply BlinkyPete says: January 18, 2013 at 15:31 I don’t know if that was directed at me or not, but I did not take your comment as preachy or judgmental, and I hardly view the abortion debate as black and white. Frankly, I think it’s one of the most complex and difficult topics today. I was merely telling you what my opinion on the matter is. Amen on the long day thing. TGIF! Tim says: January 18, 2013 at 16:39 The fact that you are seriously going to attack a guy for stating his diversity of opinions even though he firmly believes in 2A is astounding. You have been drinking the NRA coolaid for wayyyyy too long sparky. Reply blinkypete says: January 18, 2013 at 19:12 I don’t think it was an attack… he didn’t call him names or anything. I don’t see anything wrong with debating other political beliefs. Reply int19h says: January 19, 2013 at 15:13 >> So he supports the taking of innocent life via abortion Like most of us pro-choice folk, he does not believe that fetus qualifies as a person, and therefore its life is not a human life. You can dispute this assertion, but it’s a subjective thing either way – it all depends on your definition of “human” and “person”. Reply Esh325 says: January 18, 2013 at 14:12 It’s rather an ignorant assumption to say he’s a Liberal or an Obama voter. Reply Not Jimbo says: January 18, 2013 at 14:17 I thought the purpose of this is to establish 2nd Amendment rights as a common ground for otherwise diverse people. If that’s so, then all negative comments are counterproductive in this case. Just sayin’. Reply Ralph says: January 18, 2013 at 14:24 +1 Reply jwm says: January 18, 2013 at 14:30 Exactly. The more split and fractured we are the easier for us to lose our freedoms. Reply Silver says: January 18, 2013 at 14:44 While you’re right, and indeed gun rights do affect and are appreciated by a diverse group of people, it’d also be counter-productive to ignore the fact that there are some traits that would get a person to vote for a rabidly anti-2A politician on the ground of other beliefs. It doesn’t matter how many progressives like their guns if they keep voting in politicians who take them away. They have to recognize that the 2A is connected to the basic idea of personal liberty, a value not shared by the politicians they elect. That said, that’s a discussion for another time, when the rights of all gun owners aren’t so threatened on an unprecedented level. In war, any allies are of value. Reply Paul W says: January 18, 2013 at 14:54 And, you’ll never get everyone to value guns as much as you do. I’m not a single issue voter, even on stuff I care a lot about (such as guns). sometimes I vote republican, sometimes I vote libertarian, once in a while I vote democrat–even when they’re not pro 2A, if they align with me more closely on other issues. I’m not going to tie my votes exclusively to one issue, even an important one. Reply blinkypete says: January 18, 2013 at 15:05 Then we need to stop voting for politicians who take other’s rights away. History generally demonstrates that people will fight harder to keep something than people will fight to take it away. Reply AlphaGeek says: January 18, 2013 at 15:14 That’s a discussion for election season, i.e. 2014. It’s 2013. Time to fight this in the legislature and the courts. Worry about ideological purity in 2014. Reply BlinkyPete says: January 18, 2013 at 15:22 All about it. Sadly 3/4 of the congressional representation in NH seems to be on board for whatever DiFi or Barry put in front of them, so I’m already planning for 2014, particularly because all three seats are up for grabs. int19h says: January 19, 2013 at 15:16 >> It doesn’t matter how many progressives like their guns if they keep voting in politicians who take them away. They have to recognize that the 2A is connected to the basic idea of personal liberty, a value not shared by the politicians they elect. The idea of personal liberty is not shared by most pro-gun Republicans, either. They just want to restrict different liberties (liberty to one’s body, liberty to have consensual sex with anyone, liberty to marry anyone, liberty to consume substances of my choice etc). Many progressives would vote for a pro-gun politician that wouldn’t try to take away the other rights they treasure. Unfortunately, it’s a very rare thing in this country. And many progressives would argue that people voting for Republicans solely over guns are also part of the problem, when those Republicans they elected then pass bullshit like PATRIOT Act, or steadily expand DHS to become the secret police, or pass meaningless wars. Guns are not some magic uber-important issue that trumps every other. There are a lot of important things, and people try to seek a balance between them when they look for a candidate – something that is made extremely hard by the ridiculous two-party system that US has which forces you to toe the party line, one of the two available. Reply Joe Grine says: January 18, 2013 at 14:49 Good Point. Perhaps I’m still stinging too much from the election. Reply Paul W says: January 18, 2013 at 14:51 +2. This is a more useful example than the stereotypical gun people, simply because it shows gun owners come from across the political spectrum and from all walks of life. Reply FrankM says: January 18, 2013 at 14:24 :: high fives guy in photo :: It’s nice to know there’s more folks like me. Reply Peter says: January 18, 2013 at 15:03 People that voted for obama? Reply FrankM says: January 18, 2013 at 15:41 I see nothing about Obama on his list. Reply duke nukem says: January 18, 2013 at 20:52 read 12 comments above and youll see what this is all about. Reply TangledThorns says: January 18, 2013 at 14:32 The problem with the guy in the photo is he is more likely to vote for a gun grabbing politician like Obama, I know plenty of gun owners like that already. You have to vote for your priorities I guess. Reply LC Judas says: January 18, 2013 at 14:41 The problem with the guy in the photo is his apparent lack of universal perfection. I could care less his political standing on other issues. His desire to stand with us is all that concerns me and any counterproductive criticism on his lifestyle and beliefs otherwise…really is not only not helping but immaterial. I applaud him for standing up and sending in a compact view of himself and a pic of himself at all. Same accord I will give any of these men and (hopefully) women who dare speak out with their images. Reply AlphaGeek says: January 18, 2013 at 15:04 +1000 To everyone else: It’s not election season. Stop acting like it. The elections are over, and 2013 is about legislation, not elections. If you want to harass people about how they’re going to vote, set a calendar reminder for 2014. It just doesn’t matter this year. Reply blinkypete says: January 18, 2013 at 15:06 Aaaaand another +1000. Reply Old Ben turning in grave says: January 18, 2013 at 14:43 Well, the message from the gentleman in the picture may be especially powerful, precisely because he represents much of the Democratic party base. By the way, I love the active voice, subject-verb-object sentences. Very powerful. Reply Swarf says: January 18, 2013 at 15:03 No, our priority is to convince the Democrats we have voted for in the past are going to start losing votes in large numbers if they don’t get on board with us on gun rights. There is a new generation of people like me who give a shit about social issues and are strong supporters of the 2nd amendment. I wasn’t politically aware for the last AWB and like many of my peers, I only got interested in guns a few years ago. There’s a new zeitgeist in town and it leans left on social issues. The decision you (the collective, not you specifically) face is whether to continue to call us libtards or to welcome us to the fight. Reply AlphaGeek says: January 18, 2013 at 15:16 Bazinga! Reply BlinkyPete says: January 18, 2013 at 15:23 +1. Reply Silver says: January 18, 2013 at 15:26 People can give a shit about social issues and disagree with you on them. Just saying. The 2A is not in isolation. It’s connected to a broader sense of personal liberty. Reply Not Jimbo says: January 18, 2013 at 15:42 Exactly. How I feel about gay marriage, abortion, immigration, and socialized medicine (etc.) is less important than how I feel about RKBA, a well defined, constitutionally protected core value. Reply Tim says: January 18, 2013 at 16:44 Well said Swarf. Reply WA_2A says: January 18, 2013 at 21:46 If you “give a shit about social issues” and support the second amendment Dems are the wrong party. You might like the Libertarian party a little better. (Or a lot better). Here, have a free link: lp.org Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Pro Gun rights. If one of these guys became president I have the feeling this country would be MUCH better. Reply Tim says: January 18, 2013 at 16:43 “You have to vote for your priorities I guess.” No shit. Did you just figure that out? Attacking this guy for his other beliefs when he’s stating he’s pro-2A is a dipshit move IMO. There is no problem with the guy in this photo. I say good on him for speaking up. Reply Silver says: January 18, 2013 at 14:39 I support Canadian-style bacon, is that close enough? Reply blinkypete says: January 18, 2013 at 15:08 Traitor! Reply AlphaGeek says: January 18, 2013 at 15:09 That’s not bacon. In the US, we call that “ham”. Philistines. Reply 16V says: January 18, 2013 at 23:14 +1 for using the term “Philistines”. +2 for using it referencing “Canadian bacon”. Even though technically CB is “back bacon” from the upper rear ribcage of the pig and “ham” is from thigh of the back leg, they are pretty much the same cut of meat. Reply Swarf says: January 18, 2013 at 15:44 Bacon is not round. Reply Paul W says: January 18, 2013 at 15:52 that isn’t bacon. it’s a pale imitation of meat. Reply duke nukem says: January 18, 2013 at 20:53 BLASPHEMY!!! Reply Biofire says: January 18, 2013 at 14:40 Wow, these comment suck. This guy posts his pic in support of gun rights and you guys start criticizing his other politic positions? And you wonder why liberal gun owners don’t post more. Are we in this together or not? Reply LC Judas says: January 18, 2013 at 14:43 +1 Let’s stand together not pick at our allies. Reply In Memphis says: January 18, 2013 at 14:51 +1000 United we stand, divided we fall. We are going through some hard times, lets not screw the pooch. We dont have to like eachothers beliefs but we HAVE to show the country our diversity. If we cant do that and get along we will never prove that we are more than just a bunch of right wing gun nuts and hillbillies. Show your diversity with pride people! Reply William says: January 18, 2013 at 16:51 When you say, “diversity”, you’re engaging in THEIR language. It’s fine if you want to, but I don’t know why you’d want to. Reply In Memphis says: January 18, 2013 at 17:38 Not sure what you call it William so I wont say you are wrong. But what would you call it? Maybe to the grabbers we are all right wing gun nuts and hillbillies and probably always will be but I think we can swing some fence sitters if we prove otherwise. Notice I said grabbers and not the left? Because some of the left can be on our side. Diversity works quite well for me. 16V says: January 18, 2013 at 23:15 +100 Internets to you sir! g says: January 18, 2013 at 16:19 +1 Word. Reply Moonshine says: January 18, 2013 at 16:54 +1000. “The friend of my enemy is my enemy, and the friend of my friend is my friend. The enemy of my friend is my enemy, but the enemy of my enemy? He is my friend.” Reply In Memphis says: January 18, 2013 at 14:43 To the TTAG Staff, After you guys collect enough of these photos, you should (with the owners permission) put together a montage video on youtube. Not sure if that was the original intent or not. Ill be submitting a pic this weekend for y’all. Reply Silver says: January 18, 2013 at 14:46 +1 Reply g says: January 18, 2013 at 16:19 Good idea! Reply Newge says: January 18, 2013 at 14:55 Here is a great opportunity to show the public that we aren’t all “extreme right-wing gun nuts” and that gun owners come from all walks of life. But I’ll be d@mned if the first guy that shows signs of having some liberal beliefs doesn’t get his head kicked in. We don’t stand a chance of winning the fight for our 2nd amendment rights when we can’t unite behind that one common cause. Liberals have representatives in office also. It’s going to take them writing their reps to win this fight as well. You think it’s just going to be the republican, conservative, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-government healthcare, anti-climate change, voters that win this battle? You’re going to tell another pro-2nd amendment citizen to go to hell because you don’t agree with him on climate change, or gay marriage, or whatever? I’ve got news for you knuckleheads, if you lose your guns the rest of that crap won’t mean a d@mn thing. Hey Greg Camp, I don’t agree with some of your positions, but I do agree with you on the most important one and I’m glad to have you on our side in this war. I hope you write your reps and let them know where you stand on this issue. Reply AlphaGeek says: January 18, 2013 at 15:08 +1000 To your point, who do we think is going to get more careful consideration from an elected official: * the citizen who is a reliable liberal/Dem voter, but who could either switch his vote to a different party, or vote against him in the re-election primary * the citizen who already opposes him and is a self-declared opposition voter Food for thought. Reply Paul W says: January 18, 2013 at 15:27 No shit. And people wonder why those of us who lean left on some issues (gay marriage, for example, immigration, whatever) tend to be shy on gun forums. Reply 16V says: January 18, 2013 at 23:22 Especially since the whole “freedom” thing is kinda, well, liberal. Worship a sandcult deity, don’t have an abortion, don’t be gay and if you are don’t marry, whatever. That’s part and parcel of the freedom deal. That someone’s view doesn’t agree with mine is not my business. As long as they GTFO my way to live my life, that’s the system. Reply Whatever says: January 18, 2013 at 14:57 Shill. English professor grammar? Not quite. Reply 16V says: January 18, 2013 at 23:50 It’s a meme. As such, he’s fitting the constructs. Reply Ross says: January 18, 2013 at 15:08 I disagree with him on all but the gun issue, but fully support his right to have a differing view than mine. Reply SCS says: January 18, 2013 at 15:20 This says it for me, also. Reply Tim says: January 18, 2013 at 16:47 Bingo! Reply Patrick says: January 18, 2013 at 18:17 I disagree with him on all but the gun issue, but will not threaten or hurt him, trespass on his property, or generally stir up violence against him or his kind. I don’t or support views other than mine, but I also don’t support kidnapping or armed robbery of those who disagree. Being aggressively violent is not a right of mine (or anyone else), and does not change people’s minds. We have arguments and debates for these purposes. Reply AlphaGeek says: January 18, 2013 at 15:25 Good on you, Greg, for putting your beliefs out there for all to see. Thank you for taking a courageous step to support 2A rights for all of us. To anyone thinks that it’s not courageous: where is YOUR picture and real name, with a list of things YOU believe in, regardless of whether they’re popular among the TTAG Armed Intelligentsia? Reply g says: January 18, 2013 at 16:21 +1 What AlphaGeek said… everyone should be stepping forward! Unless TTAG is just like everywhere else on the internetz… faceless trolls spamming the board. Reply Tommy Knocker says: January 18, 2013 at 16:00 Everything that he believes in breeds the disrespect for individual liberty that gun ownership requires. Trotskyist party members always supported having guns. Why would I want to associate with them? Reply LC Judas says: January 18, 2013 at 16:50 Because he is one of us and we are in this together, like his stances or not. Do you really believe passing judgment on anyone championing the same cause we are and disregarding their support is a luxury you are afforded right now? Or that it is wise? You don’t have to be in love with his personal ideals to respect him and his decision to bare them with his face and real name for all to see. That is all that is stated here. Reply Tim says: January 18, 2013 at 16:52 Seriously, just STFU. I’m sure you’ve heard the old addage about opinions being like assholes….. insert self here. Big props to this guy for stating how diverse the pro-2A crowd is. The NRA would have you believe that this is a Red vs Blue issue, and it’s obviously not. Get over your distaste for the fact that there are liberals who are pro-2A. You are going to lose this battle without their voice to help….. dumbass. Reply blinkypete says: January 18, 2013 at 19:19 Sorry, but help me understand how gay people getting married reduces your freedom. Are they being gay at you? All up in your kitchen? Did you have to call someone to remove an infestation of queers in your house? I know I’m being snide, and I’m sorry. I just don’t understand how anyone could bother themselves to be bothered with who someone is banging. Reply AlphaGeek says: January 18, 2013 at 19:22 You should probably stop now. But that was extremely funny. “infestation of queers”… heh. Reply blinkypete says: January 18, 2013 at 23:14 I know, but some times I can’t help myself. 16V says: January 18, 2013 at 23:24 My well centered gay friends would be amused. blinkypete says: January 19, 2013 at 08:42 I hope so… sexual preference doesn’t affect sense of humor. William says: January 18, 2013 at 16:50 DUDE! “Climate change”? REALLY? Here’s the thing: IF IT NEVER CHANGED, WE WOULDN’T CALL IT “CLIMATE”. We’d call it, “same ol’, same ol’.” Or some such. Reply Matt in FL says: January 18, 2013 at 16:53 See here’s the thing about that list: Agree with him, disagree with him, whatever. But if you remove the right to bear arms, your ability, at its ultimate resolution, to prevent someone else from unfairly imposing their will on you with regard to those other issues, is gone. For that reason, right now I am allied with most anyone else who fights with me in the struggle to prevent incursions on the 2A. Reply Azimuth says: January 18, 2013 at 17:06 Wow, for a second there, I thought this was a serious article and….what,…wait, you mean it is a serious article? Is this supposed to be helping us? What else does he support? Does he support gun registration. Ammo registration? An “assault weapons” ban? Curiously missing was “I support the 2nd amendment.” Hmmm? Reply Matt in FL says: January 18, 2013 at 17:07 Where’s your picture and list of things you believe in? Or is it just that you only believe in casting stones at others who are willing to make a public statement? Reply Azimuth says: January 18, 2013 at 23:39 If his public statement didn’t read like a laundry list of liberal top 10’s, I might be inclined to be more generous. We’ve got 5 of the top 10 list BEFORE he says he has guns, and all of them are government or liberal-centric. Him stating he has guns doesn’t give him an automatic pass with me. I have liberal friends who have guns too, and they voted for Obama….twice. They also support another AWB. My picture and list are not required. Why? Because no one questions my conservative, Constitutional bona fides, and furthermore, my support for the 2nd amendment would be numero uno on my list, not ranked somewhere below 7th and 8th, or worse, left completely unsaid. In this guys world, his fealty to government is listed first, his ownership of guns comes second. Hence, my casting doubt,….not stones. Reply Matt in FL says: January 18, 2013 at 23:53 See, I didn’t read it as an ordered list. It’s not enumerated. I read it as “x, and x, and x, and x, and oh by the way i’m also a gun owner.” It was not an afterthought to add that, it was a written that way in an effort to emphasize the incorrectness of the stereotype. At least, that’s how I read it. blinkypete says: January 19, 2013 at 08:47 With the exception of Canadian style healthcare all those points are Libertarian talking points as well. Taken at face value this is a list of socially liberal topics this gun owner believes in, which could serve to demonstrate we are not the gun crazed Neanderthals the media has made us out to be. Any other attributions made on your part is nothing more that straw man pontificating, and those kind of exclusionary tactics don’t help. int19h says: January 19, 2013 at 15:23 You’re totally missing the point. It’s not a list of items ranked by importance. His list starts with liberal positions to showcase that, guess what, he’s a stereotypical liberal. That gets the liberal audience listening to what one of “theirs” have to say. And that’s precisely when he moves onto guns. So now they have to reconcile him being liberal with him being pro-gun – a cognitive dissonance. If you start with “I’m pro 2nd Amendment”, a lot of the liberal crowd won’t even bother listening to the next thing that you have to say – they assume that you’re a Bible-thumping ultra-conservative or somesuch. duke nukem says: January 18, 2013 at 20:56 youre delusional. heres a man willing to stand up with us on the 2A despites his beliefs and you are willing to critize him because of that. shame on you. we are all in this toguether. dont the bickering from the likes of you tear us appart. Reply blinkypete says: January 19, 2013 at 09:53 I recently played DN3D in its entirety. Brings me back… Reply okto says: January 18, 2013 at 17:32 I’m not the only one! Reply John Fritz says: January 18, 2013 at 17:38 Greg, Thanks for sharing your photo and viewpoints with our group. John Reply TheSleeperHasAwakened says: January 18, 2013 at 17:58 I don’t agree with anything Greg stands for except Guns and that’s enough for me! Guns unite and that is one of the reasons the Elitists want to ban all guns. Reply GA EMT says: January 18, 2013 at 18:24 I would consider myself far from Liberal, but I’m for all of this minus using America’s Hat as an example for healthcare reform. Reply btvanna says: January 18, 2013 at 19:24 Someone submits a photo of themselves stating their beliefs and its not ok to discuss them? You had best believe that anyone who does that will be the subject of discussion. What did he/ttag expect? The best way to state that gun owners don’t fall under a stereotype with these types of photos is not so muchwt the person loosays on a piece of paper, but to show the person(s) themselves with a piece of a paper similar to the one shown, but instead of stating political beliefs, state a little bit about them and how they would not be the stereotypical gun owner. Show a gay couple showing their support for the 2A. Show some minorities, some women, etc. And let everyone else draw their own conclusions about their political beliefs. That’s how this should be done, not just some individual holding a piece of paper stating all their political beliefs and then at the bottom “oh yeah, and I support the 2A”. Do it that way, by letting their appearance tell the story, instead of it being wrote down on a piece of paper. Then their will be no discussion about all the other things on the paper. A picture is worth a thousand words…. Reply arsdall says: January 18, 2013 at 19:21 Someone submits a photo of themselves stating their beliefs and its not ok to discuss them? You had best believe that anyone who does that will be the subject of discussion. What did he/ttag expect? The best way to state that gun owners don’t fall under a stereotype with these types of photos is not so muchwt the person loosays on a piece of paper, but to show the person(s) themselves with a piece of a paper similar to the one shown, but instead of stating political beliefs, state a little bit about them and how they would not be the stereotypical gun owner. Show a gay couple showing their support for the 2A. Show some minorities, some women, etc. And let everyone else draw their own conclusions about their political beliefs. That’s how this should be done, not just some individual holding a piece of paper stating all their political beliefs and then at the bottom “oh yeah, and I support the 2A”. Do it that way, by letting their appearance tell the story, instead of it being wrote down on a piece of paper. Then their will be no discussion about all the other things on the paper. A picture is worth a thousand words…. Reply AlphaGeek says: January 18, 2013 at 19:41 The whole point is to show that we look different from each other, and have different beliefs — yet we are united in our support for gun rights and the protections of the second amendment. Personally, I think if you look at a picture like this and see it as an invitation to attack, excuse me, “debate” a fellow 2A supporter’s beliefs, well… I think that means you’re missing the point altogether, and possibly being a jerk about it. Reply Silver says: January 18, 2013 at 19:51 Why be afraid of discussion? Wouldn’t a discussion, even perhaps a slightly heated one, that ends with both parties reaffirming their joint respect for the 2A and the right of each other to believe what they want actually aid in the perception of our people? It would show our enemies that though we’re diverse in even some deep beliefs, we’re still united to fight them. It’d also blow their minds to see what real tolerance looks like: e.g. respecting others’ rights to believe what they want without attempts at controlling them. Reply AlphaGeek says: January 19, 2013 at 00:03 When the discussion rapidly devolves into, literally, religious issues? No, I don’t see that as productive or adding value to the cause. There are few things I’m afraid of, and obviously, discussion is not one of them. I simply don’t share your optimism that this kind of attack on someone’s values will result in everybody metaphorically grinning and shaking hands at the end. See some of the recent “debates” on this site regarding abortion as a prime example. blinkypete says: January 19, 2013 at 08:50 I see where AG is coming from, but there are going to be discussions. Perhaps we could simply try to be civil with one another during discussions, something I think the majority of us have been but some of us (sometimes myself included) could do better at. LC Judas says: January 18, 2013 at 19:59 Exactly. These posts are not asking for opinions or approval. They are saying “This is me, I own guns despite what others say or believe. I put holes in paper and don’t have to be the bloodthirsty, uneducated stereotype the media purports. I am not an ex-cop or soldier and I enjoy firearms; I am the 99%” Think that every time one of these posts comes up and imagine shaking hands with them for being so bold. Shooting these people down, considering all the other opponents we are facing, is truly a waste of time. Reply Matt in FL says: January 18, 2013 at 20:19 I’m particularly a fan of how you posted the same comment, word for word (complete with misspellings), under two different names, 3 minutes apart, and (as of now) immediately adjacent to one another on my screen. Reply Swarf says: January 18, 2013 at 21:14 Funny that, no? Reply Brent says: January 18, 2013 at 21:38 I just hope if the shit hits the fan the gun owners will stick together. Put aside other differences and focus on the task at hand. Reply btvanna says: January 18, 2013 at 21:43 I have been having problems with my autofill an my phone and posting on this website in general, give me a break. Requested deletion, hasn’t gone through.. Kept saying “comment not posted” and I had retry. So yes, its the same guy on both posts. I have been caught lol. Reply Matt in FL says: January 18, 2013 at 23:49 It’s ok, honest mistake. For future reference, if your comment isn’t showing up on a pc browser, clear your cache and refresh. If you get the “message not published” notice on your phone, ignore it, at least until you refresh to verify. Easily 50% of my comments get that message, and I really don’t remember the last one that actually failed (and I comment a lot). Reply Write a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.