Non-Stereotypical Gun Owner Interview: Joan

Joan-0293

Joan has lived most of her life in Portland and bought her first gun at age 20. It was a surplus WW2 era 1911 that she still has. Even after many episodes of kitchen table gunsmithing it’s still reliable and she says, “I just like the feel of it.” Her most recent acquisition is a Ruger LCP .380 that she loves, but finds a challenge to shoot accurately. She shoots better with her S&W .45 ACP revolver. “Those moon clips are faster than a speed loader,” she says. A .45 LC cylinder is on the shopping list . . .

She started carrying a concealed handgun after 9/11 and got her Oregon carry permit a few years ago to make it legal. “I like to carry when I travel,” she said, and locally she carries when it feels like she may be going to a part of town where a bit of extra security is comforting. Typically she carries in her purse, but has a collection of holsters available. Driving trips also afford chances to find a deserted spot “and “blast away for a while.” She stopped flying a long time ago because, “I don’t like the way they treat you at airports.” Welcome to the club.

Joan-0294

Joan complains that her Oregon License to Carry a Concealed Handgun “is not recognized hardly anywhere. I believe that’s because Oregon doesn’t recognize anybody else’s license.” She has considered writing letters to politicos about that but never seems to get around to it.

After serving in the Navy during the Vietnam era, she began a career as an electrical engineer and has been enjoying retirement for many years. As you may have guessed by now, she started life as a male and began the transition to female about ten years ago.

A couple of years ago she discovered the Portland chapter of the Pink Pistols which hosts occasional shoots in the hills of the Oregon Coast Range. She invited me to come to an annual range day with a group of cross-dressers and transexual folks. “Their biggest concern is what to wear,” she laughs.

Joan joined the NRA about two years ago and enjoys reading The American Rifleman each month.

Joan-0298

Although she’s a member of the NRA, she isn’t a big fan. “Too much Obama-hate, I really dislike that hate attitude.” She’s voted for Obama twice, but has been pretty disappointed and the recent anti-gun frenzy annoys her. “I think they need to quit over-reacting after these school shootings,” which she notes are a tiny percentage of overall deaths.

Does she ever vote for a politician based on their gun rights position? “It’s a factor, but I look at all the factors. It’s the whole package. You have to take the bad with the good. Sometimes the politicians I would tend to support do have negative stances on gun ownership. That bothers me…the present President had so much promise, but his negative gun stance is one more strike against him.”

I asked for her feelings about the sudden change in the President’s gun control position after the election. “Although I did not expect it, I am not surprised at his anti-gun noises. It seems like a typical sleazy politician move, especially after assuring us folks earlier that he had no plans against gun owners. I hoped that he would be more active on issues more important to us ordinary folks in his second term, rather than using his time riding on the anti-gun emotional bandwagon.”

143 Responses to Non-Stereotypical Gun Owner Interview: Joan

  1. avatarArete13 says:

    Beautiful photos but you might want to completely wipe the EXIF…

  2. avatarJM says:

    Great interview! We need to really work on showing that gun ownership spans every demographic, and this is a really great example of that.

    • avatarPat says:

      Thats all well and good, but……she/he voted for a liberty (gun) grabbing libtard (democrat), and would do so again. NEVER vote libtard (democrat) AGAIN!
      Only the 14′ midterms will get us into a safer position.
      Pray there aint a mass shooting before then.

  3. avatarJPD says:

    One more gun owner that sees the light. Also another example that the Democrat / Republican labels simply do not fit. If we must resort to labels, then the only close to accurate would be pro and anti gun.

    Most also agree with the “hate” remarks and her assessment of Obama and politicians in general.

    Now, I wonder how many “fair minded” followers of TTAG are going to take the low road and make disparaging remarks about her life choices?

    • avatarChas says:

      You must think that people on the left side of politics are somehow “fair-minded”.

      • avatarJPD says:

        No, I just prefer that the group I “run” with have a little class. I know there are always those that take the low road, but the “label” issue is my main gripe. Left, right, Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal. These do not fit.

        I have three liberal Democrat shooting buddies that are rabid pro gun. And I live in Texas!! So go figure. (Liberal Dem is how they call themselves)

        For me, at this time, the only “labels” I care about are pro gun and anti gun.

        • avatarPat says:

          Except that we are having this gun-grabbing battle because of the libtards (democrats).
          Never vote libtard (democrat) AGAIN!

        • avatarDuke says:

          You are the problem. Go away, and let the adults talk, Troll.

        • avatarPat says:

          This entire debacle of gun-grabbing is because there are so many libtards (democrats) in control.
          This cannot be argued, and its NOT a GOP phenomenon.

    • avatarChip says:

      No problems with her lifestyle choices….. that lipstick, however, is not a good color for her.

      • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

        I have never seen criticism of lifestyle choices on TTAG. Plenty of criticism of voting for certain candidates. Get off the victim soapbox.

        • avatarCastle says:

          You don’t really see that kind of criticism in the articles, no. You do see it in the comments, however.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          I will repeat Castle, I have NEVER seen criticism of lifestyle choices in the comments section at TTAG.

          Edit: I stand corrected. Mickey Henry showed up below. I can assure you he is an outlier on giving a crap on lifestyle choices around here.

      • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

        The interesting question a journalist would have asked Ms. Joan is would she vote for Obama for a 3rd term.

        • avatarRalph says:

          She’d vote for him to be King.

        • avatarPat says:

          Anybody who votes libtard (democrat) after this gun-grabbing nightmare is a moron and traitor.
          Clean and simple. I will smash any and all idiots on this forum who can (with a straight face) say they will still vote for the traitors in 14′.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      NEXT: Gay CC Nazis for Jesus.

      Didn’t have to wait long, huh?

    • avatarPat says:

      This entire gun-grabbing nightmare is a libtard (democrat) creation.
      We would not be having this battle today, and only the 14′ midterms will rectify the situation (hopefully before another mass shooting sinks us).

  4. avatartdiinva says:

    Doesn’t seem that non-traditional to me. She is a veteran and like many people who served in the militray still likes to have a gun around. I know lots of women who served in the military who have guns. What makes her atypical is that she is a female Vietnam era veteran who was not in the medical field.

  5. avatarDisThunder says:

    The only judgement I would question is her voting for Obama the second time. Otherwise, I’ve got no beef with her other choices. Especially the .45 over the .380.

  6. avatarSD3 says:

    Why “non-traditional”? She’s been a gun owner longer than me, and I’m pretty dang traditional, dag-nabit.

  7. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Just a suggestion, I think “non-stereotypical gun owner” would be a better tittle than “non-traditional”.

    Good article non-the-less. I would say that if she didn’t realize BO was anti-gun owner before either election she just wasn’t paying attention.

  8. avatarPulatso says:

    I really don’t think there is such a thing as a “traditional” gun owner, just the media created image of the OFWG. I know belly dancing gun owners, transgendered gun owners, gay gun owners, liberal climate scientist gun owners, liberal artist gun owners, Christian gun owners, athiestic gun owners, white, black, hispanic, old, young, and perhaps my most dyed in the wool liberal I know has given me the blessing to take her children to the range. I like the idea of these exposés, I really do, but I don’t think it’s as rare as one might think. And that’s awesome.

  9. avatarChuck Pelto says:

    TO: Whomever
    RE: An ACP ‘Revolver’???!??!?!

    S&W .45 ACP revolver — article

    Is there such a beastie as an Automatic Colt Pistol, i.e., ACP, in ‘revolver’ format?

    I’d LOVE to see a picture of it. It would probably sell for a fortune.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [.45 cal, because it's just silly to have to shoot someone twice.]

    • avatarDon says:

      The Model 625, the M1917, etc. I have a 625. They sell for the same price as other N Frame S&W.

      • avatarChris says:

        There is also the S&W governor, like the Taurus Judge but also allows .45 ACP

        • avatarChuck Pelto says:

          ACP refers to the weapon, i.e., Automatic Colt Pistol.

          NOT the ammo.

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          It tends to work as a reference to the ammunition as well.

          If I missing something? I can tell you a lot about oulde weapons and Russian stuff, but not this.

        • avatarDonS says:

          “ACP refers to the weapon, i.e., Automatic Colt Pistol.

          NOT the ammo.”

          Someone needs to inform Colt of that “fact”. In their 2013 catalog, they consistently use “.45 ACP” as if it refers to a cartridge – just like they use “9mm Parabellum”, “.380 Auto”, “.38 Super”, etc.

        • avatarDon says:

          Chuck, no ACP doesn’t refer to a weapon, it is part of the ammo designation. It is a very important part of the ammo designation at that. Guns are usually referred to by chambering and type and manufacturer, rarely ever only by caliber and manufacturer. .45 ACP is not a caliber or a kind of pistol, it is a name of a chambering and a type of ammo which is .452 caliber and comforms to the specification set for in this case an Automatic Colt Pistol.

          A non-colt pistol or revolver that is chambered for .45ACP still is referred to as a .45 ACP pistol or revolver.

          A Thompson M1 submachine gun is still a .45 ACP submachine gun.

          A non-S&W that is chambered for .40 S&W still is accurately described as .40 S&W pistol because it is chambered in .40 S&W.

          A .308 winchester rifle need not be made by winchester.

          A .22LR handgun need not be a long rifle.

          If you were to refer to a gun by caliber and manufacturer then a .45 ACP pistol by Colt would be called a .452 Colt Pistol and for all you knew it could be a 1911 or some kind of rimmed cartridge autoloader that chambers .45 Colt A .44 Remington Magnum by Ruger would be called a .429 Ruger Revolver and you wouldn’t know if it was a .44 S&W Special, a .44 Russian, or a .44 Remington Magnum. A .38 S&W Special revolver by Taurus would have to be called a .357 Taurus Revolver and you’d have no clue if it was a .38 S&W short, .38 S&W long, .38 S&W Special, or a .357 S&W Magnum, or a .357 Sig revolver cut for moon clips.

    • avatarDonS says:

      My little Ruger Blackhawk came with 2 cylinders: .45 Colt and .45 ACP.

      • avatarbontai Joe says:

        My brother has the same Ruger Blackhawk, came with the 2 cylinders. Easy to unload in either caliber as the ejection rod smacks the empties clear whether they have a rim or not.

    • avatarbernard says:

      moon clips

    • avatarDisThunder says:

      I think S&W is doing new productions on the M1917 too, right? I think their pricing was kinda crazy though, like in the $800 range. I’d love to add one to the .45 crew.

      • avatarChuck Pelto says:

        ACP or Revolver?

        You can’t have both in the same weapon.

        • avatarfoggy says:

          ACP is the name of the ammo. Wrap your head around that.

        • avatarDon says:

          “.45 ACP” is the name of ammo, and specifically with regard to a firearm, a chambering.

          Good luck finding a box of .452 x .898 Rimless Straight Revolver Ammo for your .45 ACP revolver.

        • avatarE. Zach Lee-Wright says:

          Sorry Chuck but the others are correct. You can shoot .45ACP ammo through some revolvers. Also, Ruger manufactured a revolver commonly known as a “convertible” which came with a .357 cylinder and a 9mm cylinder. Imaging that. A .357 bullet, a .38 Special, several different 9mm bullets and a several other .38s can all race down the same barrel.

          So, the next time you are watching CSI and the investigator mentions the holes in the bank window “look like a nine to me” laugh out loud because he or she cannot determine the caliber from the bullet hole of that size regardless of the amount of equipment available, much less by simply looking at it.

      • avatarjwm says:

        Disthunder, revolvers are overpriced. Some of that is because of the amount of hand fitting that goes into a revolver and some of it is just what the market will bear.

        But if you ever get a chance to shoot a 1917 Smith, take it. Then be prepared to shell out for your own.

  10. avatarsurlycmd says:

    She voted for a Chicago politician twice. It is no secret that Chicago politics is considered the sleaziest and most corrupt of all politics. Has been for decades and decades. I hoped she has learned that lesson.

    She has found her path in life and she seems happy. She is probably better off than most. Good choice on the 1911. I too prefer it over my pocket .380 but the option is good to have.

  11. avatarJesse says:

    A) Good for her. B) If the NRA embraced the Pink Pistols and made them a larger part of their public persona we would all be a better off.

  12. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    I guess people must have forgotten Obama’s first term campaign lies about ending the wars and closing GITMO in order to believe his second term campaign lies about not pursuing gun control.

  13. I do not come to TTAG to be bombarded with this sort of cultural Marxism. If Satan owned a gun, would he be featured as well? This self-mutilated abomination is not something we should hold up as “one of us”. The world has become so perverse and our own society so decadent that we revel in the novel, and push the normal to the shadows. We don’t need to hold up degenerates such as “Joan” to gain society’s “permission” for being armed. Truly disgusting.

    • avatarBryan P says:

      So its not okay for the government to tell us what we should and should not do but its okay for you to tell TTAG what they should and should not do? Its okay for you to tell other people how they should and should not live their lives? Nice to see such open-mindedness…

      • avatarprojectiledysfunction says:

        No shit.

        This post bascially boils down to ACKNOWLEDGING THAT DIFFERENT KINDS OF PEOPLE OWN GUNS IS FORCING MARXISM ON ME, AND AS A FUNDIE CHRISTIAN ONLY _I_ GET TO FORCE BELIEFS UPON OTHER PEOPLE.

        The mental disconnect is staggering. FYI, Mickey: your beliefs are only one of many interpretations of one of many religions, most modern Christians would probably be decadent abominations in the eyes of Jesus or the first orthodox Christians, and you don’t know what marxism is

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          Don’t forget that many Fundamentalists are also the most die hard supporters of foreign conquests. Yet they worship the Prince of Peace?

          I’m pretty sure sanctifying the state is at odds with the 1st Commandment.

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          Henry – Please name a foreign “conquest” of ours in the past 100 years (since 1913). Every time we have fought in a country, we have restored autonomy to the people there (and please do not say that keeping a base for defensive purposes in Germany, Korea, or Japan is tantamount to American domination).

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          Well, I predicted you’d say that. It’s too bad that you can’t distinguish actual imperialism (which ranges from benevolent in the case of British control of India to deeply malevolent in the case of the Soviet Union’s control of Eastern Europe) from maintaining defensive bases without interfering otherwise in a country’s affairs.

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          Personally, I suspect that Yeshua ben Merriam would not recognise “his” church.

      • avatarGyufygy says:

        Freedom only applies when you agree with it. Right. Gotcha. Thanks for playing.

    • avatarsurlycmd says:

      You seem a little defensive, Mickey.

      • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

        I suspect Mickey is employed by the gun grabbers to spend his days as an Internet operative. Seriously.

    • avatarBuell301 says:

      Don’t tread on me, don’t tread on her.

      Pathetic. FLAME DELETED pushing your views on other people. You’re no better than the anti-Constitution civilian disarmament crew. It took guts for her to post up and you come and lob insults at a fellow gun owner. We don’t need your kind helping us, FLAME DELETED

      • avatarCastle says:

        Judging by the content of the books in Mickey’s signature, he’s either a troll or very, very religious (and intolerant) Christian. So either not serious, or not going to be swayed by any arguments made on this blog. It was nice to see a ‘traditional’ gun owner make a comparison post, though. Perfect example of what my family, friends and most of the people I go to school with think gun owners are like, and why they have no problem supporting measures to take away their gun rights.

        Of course, I’m a Jew and I’m queer, so I doubt Mikey cares what I have to say at all.

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          A Jew by birth but not by halakhic observance, I take it?

        • avatarCastle says:

          To MothaLova (can’t reply directly):

          Not orthodox, don’t claim to be, but I am observant and follow the Mitzvahs the best that I can. Being queer and following Jewish law are not mutually exclusive. If I happen to break one, I strive to follow the others even more closely.

          So…no. You don’t assume correctly.

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          Castle – It’s true that having the desire is not forbidden by halakha, only the consummation of the desire. So if that is your point, I assumed too much.

      • avatarSammy says:

        “Don’t tread on me, don’t tread on her. ”

        Attention: Buell301

        For the above statement, and with absolutely no authority vested in me by anyone, I here by award you the newly created (By me), “Nut Shell Award”. The Nut Shell Award is presented to you for summing up the essence of what was supposed to be our national philosophy in under 10 words.

        Congratulations.

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          Seconded. Can we have a vote?

          The ayes have it.

          However, he should’ve used a semicolon rather than a comma…

        • avatarTR says:

          I move this nomination to be closed. Also, I move we overlook the grammatical error in favor of the overwhelming correctness of the statement.

        • avatarBuell301 says:

          Haha thanks!!

          And yeah my grammar is terrible!

        • avatarNSB says:

          I support the motion. Fantastic phrasing, and I too care little for grammatical quibbles, unless they significantly inhibit the message intended.

          Again: great phrase.

    • avatarMark says:

      Sounds like you have issues buddy.
      Whatever this person wants to do with their body is their problem, not yours. No one asking you to accept it. All they ask is that you don’t try and stop them from living their life. You know, liberty.
      Just because YOU don’t like it, doesn’t mean shit to them or me.
      Some people like Vanilla, some people like Strawberry, why do you care?

      You see Joan as a freak and a “self-mutilated abomination” how do you think you would be viewed by extremist members of the Taliban? Letting your woman drive a car, not having a beard, not worshiping Allah.
      You’re a freak to them, doesn’t mean, you or they are right.

      What shes doing doesn’t hurt you, and you freaking out like this isn’t helping gun owners. You could have taken the high road and said nothing instead of throwing a hissy

    • avatarJPD says:

      Here we go. Just curious, do you call yourself a Christian? You may want to read the Apostles (Hint: they are in a book called the Bible. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John).

      All about the life journey of a man named Jesus. His main points?

      1.DO NOT JUDGE OTHERS!! That is God’s job, NOT YOURS!!

      2. Do no harm, and help others. What’s your record on this big boy?

      Lastly, who did this Jesus guy hang out with? Oh yeah, prostitutes, pimps (read up on Lazarus, you know, raised from the dead), tax collectors, and blue collar types.

      • avatarHenry Bowman says:

        To be fair Jesus did say to judge the sin, but not the sinner. Judging a person’s actions is appropriate, but only God can judge their true intentions and decide their culpability.

    • avatarDon says:

      You sound as anti-american and anti-individual liberty as a Sharia Islamic Dictator.

      On top of that, you must be a real wimp to feel like you are being attacked by simply hearing about the existence of something you wouldn’t choose for yourself.

      • avatarMothaLova says:

        No, the traditional Christian view of homosexuality is hardly equivalent to the Islamist view. Try not to hyperventilate.

        • avatarDon says:

          It’s not about the religious view, it’s about expecting one religious view whether you believe it or not should be a societal standard. Maybe doing that isn’t un-Christian, but is sure as hell is un-American. If you want a christian society move to the Vatican.

          You have the right to have your beliefs and you can certainly choose to feel offended by whatever you want, but you don’t have the right to shut other people up and force them in a closet to compensate for being so frail and oversensitive handle the reality that a transvestite shares a common interest with you.

          Go ahead, claim victim all you want. She didn’t change your sex. She’s got enough balls to do what she wants and get a sex change with all the haters and insecure people around singling her out for scorn. The haters don’t even have enough balls to not be offended by the fact she exists. That’s pretty weak.

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          Don – I distinguished between traditional Christianity’s view of homosexuality and the view of Islamists – a distinction that is plain to anyone who knows just a little bit about the subject – and in response you throw a hissy fit. Just who is trying to shut up whom?

        • avatarDon says:

          No hissy fit or hyperventalating here. I’m quite calm and pretty uninterested. If I wasn’t compiling a bunch of code today and having to wait I wouldn’t even be responding.

          You’re the dude who brought up a distinction between Islamic and Christian views on homosexuality that was neither the point, needed nor requested. You assumed I don’t know the difference, and assumed I’m up in arms.

          The similarity I drew between Sharia Islamists and this guy who is presumably Christian has nothing to do with the specifics of the religious, beliefs, only the expressed entitlement that one with any particular religious beliefs may set a societal standard to them. Maybe you consider yourself Christian and were trying to defend Christianity. You needn’t. I wasn’t talking about that. You could determine that from my follow ups explaining “It’s not about the religious view.”

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          I don’t see that that was what you were saying, based on your explicit comparison of moral condemnation and criminal condemnation: “You sound as anti-american and anti-individual liberty as a Sharia Islamic Dictator.” Condemning Joan morally is in no way equivalent to imprisoning or executing Joan, which is what an Islamist tyrant would do.

          You raised the point. If you no longer agree with it, great, but you brought it up.

    • avatarMothaLova says:

      I agree with your fundamental moral principle here, but, to take another example, should an adulterer lose all his rights under the law because of his grievous sin? What about someone who dishonors his parents? What about someone who steals?

      • avatarDon says:

        Those people are transgressing against others people.

        Americans only forfeit their rights when they transgress against OTHER PEOPLE. NOT based on transgressing against someone’s specific notion of a moral principle, no matter how many people agree with the principle. That’s what a free society is.

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          If you re-read my comment, you’ll see that I was making a similar point. The questions are rhetorical, with an implied answer of “no.”

    • avatarSammy says:

      I would like to contribute some first had experience with people in Joan’s situation. As I have said before I work in a retail gift store. I have had the experience of waiting on “ladies” that give me a man’s picture credit card for payment. I try to react as little as possible and if I do say so myself, with much success after 25 years behind the counter. What I’m getting at is many of these souls are tortured, for whatever reason, by being in an identity conflict. A little compassion and a lot less judgement, not just for the Joans and Johns of the world, but for all of our brothers and sisters would go infinitely farther to improve not just your own life but society in general. I’m not advocating capitulation of our beliefs, just a live and let live attitude towards nonviolent people that are different than ourselves.

  14. avatarmediocrates says:

    well said. the idiots in Washington evidently don’t care that gun control isn’t even in the top 5 issues for the majority of Americans.

  15. avatarGreg Camp says:

    First rule of Gun Club: Don’t eat our own. As someone whose positions aren’t in lock step with either major party, I sympathize with gun owners who don’t fit stereotypes.

    • avatarChris says:

      Anyone who voted for Obama twice deserves any scorn coming their way ESPECIALLY after she whines about the “hate” towards him.

      Is she writing her Senators to vote against upcoming anti-gun legislation? Doubt it.

      • avatarCastle says:

        Because guns are the only thing that matters, right? Because considering the state of equality for LGBTQs, she should have voted for someone who didn’t support that at all just because they were more likely not to be anti-gun. That just makes sense.

        • avatarMark says:

          I actually don’t like the hate towards Obama because often times it’s nonsense.

          HE’S A MUSLIM!
          WHERES THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE!
          OBAMACARE
          DEATH PANELS

          and other such nonsense distract from the REAL things he’s doing
          - Sent more journalists to jail than Bush
          -Executing American citizens in other countries
          -Fast and the Furious
          and a ton of other issues that really
          -Gitmo is still a thing

          But instead you get fox news screaming about two Ex-Navy Seals working as Mercenaries who were trying to get laser Target a civilian mob so that we could (illegaly) bomb them outside our embassy. And then trying to act like that was an actual news story.
          Sorry we can’t bomb protesters outside our embassy in other countries, anymore than China could blow up people on US soil outside their embassy.

          /rant

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Let’s get something straight. I went through this discussion with int19th and applauded him for his honesty. If you place other issues above the Second Amendment and you vote for people who would take your guns away then you view the right to keep and bear arms as a nice to have and not a fundamental right.

          The Democrats just use these “special protected” classes as props. They care no more about GBLT people than they do about the African-Americans that their policies keep locked up in dangerous urban ghettos. In their view the only way a white male can expiate his sins is to be gay or transgender. Since most Democrats can’t follow through on the practice they have elevated this group to the pinnacle of victim class.

          The Constitution doesn’t guarantee that society must validate a particular lifestyle; it only grants the right to have the subculture.

          By the way classing transgender people with GLB part is highly prejudicial to the TS community. If a person is truly transgender then they aren’t gay. Gay men are very hostile to MtF people. They think they are hiding their “gayness” behind a feminine disguise.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Yeah Mark, all peaceful protesters bring mortars and heavy weapons to their demonstrations. I do, don’t you?

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          Get off the victim soapbox Castle and join the rest of us non-whiners. You ARE as equal as the rest of us.

        • avatarint19h says:

          tdiinva, I disagree with your assessment of my position. I don’t view gun rights as “nice to have”, and I do believe that the right to efficient self-defense in particular is a fundamental right (and that, in turn, implies a right to tools that enable such, which in this day and age are firearms).

          My point was that there are other, also fundamental, rights that are also being encroached upon, and the defense of which I rank higher on my priority list than RKBA. This is not an absolute assessment, because it also depends on the gravity of assault on each of those rights – e.g. it’s one thing if they restrict “high-capacity” magazines, but it’s a whole different kettle of fish if they decide to ban all semi-autos like in Australia (and before you ask, yes, this also applies to all those other rights).

          Speaking of LGBT in particular, it’s not about society “validating” a particular subculture. It’s about the government not discriminating against said subculture, by excluding its members from the exercise of certain rights and benefits that are granted to anyone else. There are different ways to deal with this problem, including withholding said benefits from everyone else (e.g. in the context of marriage, it would mean making the government completely marriage-agnostic, meaning no laws that discriminate based on that status). I do not necessarily see this as the preferred approach, but I recognize that people who do so (such as many libertarians) are fellow freedom fighters.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          I could go back and find the exact quote but you said that you will vote anti-Second Amendment candidates because of their support for other “fundamental rights.” You are trying to have it both ways. You want both rights but you are willing to vote for candidates who will abridge the Second Amendment. I am not criticizing you for your position. I merely stating that you place (for example) gay marriage ahead of the Second Amendment. It would be nice if these rights were cojoined but they are not always so. Your stated voting choices reveal your preferences as lifestyle first, Second Amendment second. In fact you said would be willing to give up latter for the former. Like it or not that places the right to keep and bear arms as nice to have in your preference scheme. Since the right to gay marriage or weed or any particular lifestyle is not specifically stated in the Constitution those are secondary to the right to keep and bear arms.

          As I said repeatedly over the last several months Libertarians have more in common with Progressives than they do with what I called Federalists. You both reject constitutionalism because it is a document about negative not positive rights. The right to social acceptance of your lifestyle choice is a positive right that Constitution neither endorsees or prohibits.

          An appeal to natural law and natural rights is not available to modern Libertarians because true to their Randian nature they, again like most Progressives, they tend to be atheists. No God, no natural law and natural rights. All such concepts are products of man and are merely social conventions. Like a good Rousseauians, Libertarians have implicitly fallen back on the General Will. Gay Marriage wrong 50 years ago because that was a reflection of the General Will. Good today because the General Will supports it. Maybe tomorrow the General Will will end up sending GLBTs to the gas chamber but that is the hazard of substituting positive rights for Constitutional protections.

        • avatarint19h says:

          I am not a libertarian, I am a social democrat (in European terms; no affiliation to US Democrats, and they are too right-wing in their economic policies to my taste). I just happen to be pro-gun.

          I am reluctantly supporting anti-gun politicians, because no matter whom I support, they all seek to infringe on some rights I consider basic; and the ones that I support want to infringe on fewer rights, in my assessment (or at least infringe on them less).

          Yes, I consider the right control one’s own body and one’s own sexual life to be more important than RKBA. That does not mean that I consider the latter non-fundamental; it just means that, when forced to choose between the two, I’ll choose the other one.

      • avatarJPD says:

        Chris:

        You may have missed on the statement she made about his prior lack of a stand on gun rights. Yes, he was do nothing on gun issues for the first 4 years. That is what she was getting at. Why? Because he realized AT THAT TIME, it was a losing issue.

        Get a clue. OBAMA DOES NOT CARE!! About gun rights, the economy, our health, any of it. HE IS A POLITICIAN. It is all about POWER, MONEY, AND MORE POWER!!

        JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN ALIVE ON THE PLANET!!

  16. avatarLoïc says:

    As you may have guessed by now, she started life as a male and began the transition to female about ten years ago.

    If you didnt’ said that I would have never guessed !

  17. avatarAharon says:

    Hey, I wanna see my comment! It’s only fair!

  18. avatarGyufygy says:

    I’m always surprised there aren’t more LGBTQABCCan’tKeepUpWithAcronyms gun owners than there are.

    • avatarbernard says:

      maybe they’re just careful with opsec. keeping the gun or the sexuality in the closet, or on a need to know basis.

      • avatarGyufygy says:

        Good point, although living a the weird neo-hippie/redneck combo area means you never know who’s going to show up at the gun range.

  19. avatargloomhound says:

    If you vote liberal Democrats into office but claim to support our civil right to own guns. You are either lying to yourself or us.

    • avatarGyufygy says:

      It was Hope that he wouldn’t flip and take his party down this road again.

      Yeah, that didn’t turn out so well. Hope got Burned.

      • avatarMothaLova says:

        We need as much bipartisan support for gun ownership as we can get. We need to encourage Democrats to own guns. What kills gun control best is Democratic opposition.

  20. avatarLead Slinger says:

    I couldn’t care less about her lifestyle choice.

    Since she voted for 0Bama twice it is clear she considers the 2nd Amendment a low priority. Move along… Nothing to see here but another 0Bama voter.

    • avatarMothaLova says:

      Most people are not single-issue voters. That shouldn’t be a surprise. Reagan made a number of wrong decisions not least of which was choosing O’Connor for the Supreme Court (she upheld a number of awful and unconstitutional precedents during her career). Should I have refused to vote for him in 1984 on that ground?

    • avatarSammy says:

      I am pissed at them for not seeing the forest for the trees, but a LOT of people were duped into voting for barry. You must admit he had some sweet line of believable B.S. when taken at face value. We have to live with that. But to reject people who see the errors of their ways will only weaken us. Nothing teaches like blunders. We must include those who have seen the light. They may prove to be the more vigilant among us in the future. I refer you to the Who :”We Don’t Get Fooled Again” (If only that we universally true.)

    • avatarPhydeaux says:

      While supporting the 2A and voting for Obama may result in cognitive dissonance for many TTAG readers, the fact remains that there are a good portion of liberals who support the RKBA. As noted they are not single issue voters, but support the overall liberal agenda with some exceptions – one being civilian disarmament.

    • avatarint19h says:

      Why would you expect a transgender person to vote for a party which is run by politicians who would tell her that she’s a freak who’ll burn in hell?

      • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

        When exactly did Mitt Romney or George Bush say that?

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          Good question – but you might want to pack a lunch if you’re waiting on an answer to that one. I think int19h isn’t terribly interested in the actual facts.

        • avatarint19h says:

          Every time they kept going on about how “traditional marriage is under attack” from teh gay. I mean, really, do I need to bring up google search results for “[insert-republican-policitican-name-here] views on homosexuality”?

          It should be noted that presidential candidates usually tone down that rhetoric once the primaries are over. But on state and local level is when this and other similarly retarded positions come out in full force – like Stacey “AIDS came from monkey gay sex” Campfield recently, or Todd “legitimate rape” Akin last year (it should be noted that this is also true for other issues like gun control in Democrat-dominated states like NY; local politics are always more skewed one way or another than federal). But, ultimately, it’s those people in Congress who have the most impact on policy, not the standing president.

          By the way, the only prominent Republican that I know of who has a sane position on the subject (and most others on which I vehemently disagree with Republican mainstream views) is Ron Paul. But then his affiliation with Republicans is more strategic than anything, and in practice he’s a libertarian, so there’s no surprise there. I’d actually vote for him over Obama if that were the only two available choices, even though I think his view of economics is bollocks.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          Again, when did Mitt Romney or George Bush or John McCain say that gays should burn in hel7? Just because one is pro-Family doesn’t mean they are intolerant of other lifestyle choices. Get over yourselves and get on with your lives without bothering the rest of us by voting in Progressives.

  21. avatarMothaLova says:

    Great piece! More like this, please – many, many more.

  22. avatarg says:

    This is why TTAG > other gun blogs. Interesting article.

  23. avatarAharon says:

    Where is my ccommentt about wanting to see a post featuring bbeeaauuttiifull lleessbbiiaaannnss holding their guns?

  24. avatarGregolas says:

    It’s good to hear of people with lifestyles that aren’t mainstream who are into guns. The question is one of right to life, regardless of what choices that person has made. Everyone has the right to defend him or herself. I would shoot with the Pink Pistols , instruct them if they wish, discuss differences and welcome areas of agreement. We need to make friends and encourage unity in our movement. By they way, my S&W model 25-2 .45acp revolver is a tack driver!

  25. avatarPhydeaux says:

    Joan is a great example of why civilian disarmament legislation has struggled so in the Oregon legislature this session. There are too many liberal Democrats who support the 2A in Oregon. The only serious civilian disarmament bill to ban “assault weapons” and limit magazine capacity never got out of committee.

    Now we’re down to a half dozen laws that will have no impact on violence or inconvenience criminals, but are an exercise by frustrated and bitter civilian disarmament proponents to poke law abiding gun owners and CHL holders in the eye. Given that it is often politically unwise to poke a portion of your constituents in the eye out of spite, I think there’s a good chance the remaining bills will also die a quiet legislative death.

    • avatarcorvus says:

      “I think there’s a good chance the remaining bills will also die a quiet legislative death.”

      I hope you’re contacting the OR Senate Judiciary to improve the chances of your prediction coming true. OFF’s latest alert on the bills (http://www.oregonfirearms.org/anti-gun-bills-edge-forward) indicates that they’ve been amended to accommodate a few key criticisms, which suggests to me a lot of “moving towards the middle” on both sides. I don’t think they’re anywhere near done poking us in the eye.

      I think the anti-gun lobby is targeting “blue states” as low-hanging fruit to disarm us state by state — the pro-gun strategy in reverse. That’s how it happened in Colorado. We must be vigilant.

  26. avatarEagle1USAF says:

    Surplus 1911? Wish I heard that nowadays.

    And the fact that she shoots more accurate with a revolver proves she’s been practicing with many guns.

  27. avatarNSB says:

    The amount of support for this woman on this thread is simply heartwarming.

    Those who deride her with such blatantly flamboyant language have little in common with the man they say they worship and admire. OY! Transphobe! I know a 6’8″ 275 pound man with a high voice that looks great in heels, and he would love to verbally tear your moronic corpse a few new orifices. I’m a big guy, in fair shape, and this friend could pull my arms out of their sockets, you would love him. He’s also the least violent man I’ve ever met. He won’t hurt you. I can’t say the same for myself, but I doubt you have the chutzpah to fight a man fairly, anyway. Hide behind your keyboard, coward.

    My patience has been expended, what incredible hypocrisy and stupidity, I am glad it is limited to less than a handful of us.

    To everyone else, truly, reading your comments has made me happy, and quelled the vitriol a tiny minority ignited in my mind. You prove that political affiliation or location or religion or sexual preference do not affect the human ability to respect and love those who are different, and those with whom you may disagree.

  28. avatarJoan says:

    Thank you for all the lovely comments. The one really vituperative post was so extreme it was kinda amusing! Just for the record, and some may find this annoying, I voted for Obama this time only because I thought he was least worse than Romney, for many reasons. Some of you will resonate with those reasons, and others will not. Sorry…. I don’t think about politics when I’m shooting, anyway; there are more interesting things on my mind.

  29. avatarRuss Bixby says:

    People learn. Maybe he learned from Heller.

    Closing Guantanamo proved harder than anticipated. It’s not a lie to promise in good faith to do something which turns out to be impossible, at least in the face of the Party of No.

    That said, I’m not exactly pleased with the actions and inactions of Obama lin Biden.

  30. avatarTR says:

    Indeed, and remember when Romney told the truth and the media still called him a liar (specifically on the Rose Garden thing in the debates…then 2 days later they sort of admitted he maybe might have been at least partially correct in his assertion)? Classy.

  31. avatarMothaLova says:

    But isn’t it obvious by now that he did NOT learn from Heller and was simply prevaricating for political advantage, just as he’s done on a number of issues?

  32. avatarRuss Bixby says:

    It’s possible. Even likely.

    However, it’s also possible that while he approves of shotguns and pistols with 7 or fewer rounds, he does not prove of other stuff.

    The two positions are not mutually inconsistent.

    Oh, he’s wrong on magazines, AR-15s and such, but that does not mean that he doesn’t embrace Heller.

    Not my place to judge another man’s mind or heart. Is my place to vote against his picked successor.

  33. avatarMothaLova says:

    TR – Oh yes indeed. And I’m surprised the media isn’t still going on about Abu Ghraib as if it were a Cambodian killing field. I can’t recall their ever pursuing anything like that under Obama for some reason….

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.