Question of the Day: Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Screen Shot 2014-06-10 at 11.05.35 PM

Former TTAG commenter Karina writes:

I sincerely wish the other people that also visit this website and comment on it weren’t so unfriendly and chest-thumping. Don’t think I will post comments on this website anymore, despite being pretty sure I share the same opinion.

I’m starting to see why the pro-gun side is so divided. There is no unique sentiment, we all have our own interpretation of why we need gun rights. Some of those views clash with each other. As a Buddhist, I cannot tolerate people who find it acceptable to take another human life, despite understanding the importance and responsibility of being ready to do so. But it seems that fellow commenters advocate and even encourage it. Am I that dismal and misguided? Or could it be that they are this incapable of understanding? . . .

They do not understand what I’ve tried to say. I don’t know if it’s because they don’t want to, or if they refuse to, but it doesn’t matter. The fact that it happened shows there will always be dividing differences in this community, so I will no longer talk there, or anywhere else for that matters. You haven’t lost a reader, but it’s one mouth that will not open up anymore, and this email is my sort of last speech, but I hate to make it sound like it’s grandiloquent, because it’s not.

Until the so-called “people of the gun” have one single view to unite under, this will repeat, and it will always be a problem.

Perhaps you guys should consider talking about this issue. And muse the thought that there needs to be more unity in the pro-gun community. We can be open-minded people and love guns and personal freedom… without having to resort to personal insults (implied or direct), chest-thumping, or other ad hominems, the very things we blame the antis of doing. It has happened before on TTAG, hasn’t it?

comments

  1. avatar Joel says:

    I thought the one single view we were united under was the right to keep and bear arms?

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      Pretty sure I heard that somewhere, yeah…

    2. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

      I understood that also. Second Amendment advocates and protectors. In agreement. Maybe I did not read the same memo as Karina.

    3. This.

      If you’re going to oppose, then you should propose. What’s your “unifying theme”? Because I thought the right to keep and bear arms was it. There’s plenty of reasons for that right.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        apparently she posits that it is RTKB but must not be used to shoot anyone.

        1. avatar Great Scot says:

          Hmmmmm. Something doesn’t add up here. Miss Karina is a person of the gun. Guns are meant to kill people. But they mustn’t? Wow. Maybe it’s not a bad thing that she left the site. Maybe she can hate death on Amnesty International’s blog…
          And yes, we can be unified, we are. Anyone who does not believe in RKBA is not one of us. Those who do are united under that.

        2. avatar JT says:

          @Great Scot: This is what she was talking about…guns are meant to fire a projectile from point A to point B, not necessarily to kill people. Guns can, and are often used for, killing people and/or animals, but the act of killing isn’t inherent to the gun. We are a diverse crowd and it is a mistake to automatically assuming that all gun people are okay with or plan on using their guns for killing things. My guns, even the big bad evil AR-15, are used for the sole purpose of punching holes in paper, and that is all for which it will ever be used. Karina’s choice to use her tools in a manner compliant with her beliefs is just as respectable as anyone’s choice to hunt or keep a pistol in their nightstand for defense. Not projecting our own uses of guns onto others is a laudable goal.

        3. avatar KCK says:

          ” I cannot tolerate people who find it acceptable to take another human life, despite understanding the importance and responsibility of being ready to do so.”
          Meaning, it may be necassary but not a good thing in itself.

    4. avatar CarlosT says:

      Except even that’s not throughly unifying, because there are also the “I believe in the Second Amendment, but…” people who somehow claim to be POTG.

      I don’t see any dimension where all gun owners can be completely unified. We can strive for it, but there are too many different kinds of people in the community.

      1. avatar Joel says:

        CarlosT, I do not see any dimension where any group of people will be completely unified. There are not two people in this world who completely agree on everything, unless one of them is a “yes”man/woman that does not have any original thoughts of his/her own.

        1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          This is a key point. To quote the author:

          “I cannot tolerate people who find it acceptable to take another human life, despite understanding the importance and responsibility of being ready to do so.”

          The difference is that I can tolerate people who have other views. If someone believes that it is always wrong to take life, regardless of the circumstances (and also doesn’t ask others to do so on her behalf), that’s fine. I wish them all the best. All I ask is the same courtesy in return, that I get to do my thing (provided of course, that I continue to leave them alone, as I always have).

          You don’t have to love or accept us. But if you are not willing to tolerate us, then there is no hope for peaceful co-existence. Conflict will continue (and probably escalate) until either we are subjugated to the gun grabbers’ will through force, or the gun grabbers decide to break off their attack and leave us alone. Of course, freedom of choice in matters of self-defense is just one battle in a larger war, but the principle is the same.

    5. avatar Wendy says:

      Well, we should be. But all you have to do is to read the comments to a post by (or about) liberal gun owners (for example), and it becomes immediately obvious that some of us are more than willing to eat our own.

      1. avatar jerry says:

        liberal gun owners. that tickles me as much as pro-gun democrats.

        1. avatar John G. says:

          There are plenty of pro-gun Democrats, Einstein. Deal with it. You don’t have to be a knuckle-dragging T-bagger to own firearms.

        2. avatar Kyle in CT says:

          Oh good … glad that didn’t devolve quickly …

        3. avatar whatever says:

          Does it tickle you as much as anti-gun Repubs? Though they’re laying low now, there have been quite a few hanging out in your reservation over the years. You can claim they’re all DINOs, but your party is no hurry to kick them out.

        4. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          @ John: Knuckle dragging T-bagger? At least the original comment didn’t resort to name calling. I’m surprised you incur Godwin’s law and scream Nazi. You might want to read the article you are commenting on next time.

        5. avatar jerry says:

          @ John G. Sure, there are democrats who own guns. Dianne Feinstein is a perfect example. Owning a gun and supporting the second amendment are not the same thing “Einstein” By the way, I notice you have used the term tea-bagger in more than one post. You have some fascination with that? Must be a hobby of yours. Well to each his own I guess.

        6. avatar TheBear says:

          Well… that escalated quickly.

      2. avatar Another Robert says:

        A certain amount of that is going to happen in any large open forum. And a certain amount of legitimate debate is going to be interpreted as unfair attacks, even as such unfair attacks will indeed occur on occasion. I don’t see that as cause for despairing of the whole situation and quitting altogether.

      3. avatar lolinski says:

        I thought the issue was guns (AKA gats, heaters and a bunch of other names), not what politics we believe in/support?

        Thusly we should cooperate about guns and shut up about economy and other political things?

        1. avatar Anon in CT says:

          You can’t avoid the politics of it. Guns in the USA are a very political issue, which is a lot better than most other countries where all the parties agree that guns are bad.

          The problem with [nominally] pro-gun Democrats is that they still support and elect anti-gun politicians (yes, there are certainly anti-gun Republicans, but at the moment we have them on a fairly short leash).

          Take Joe Manchin (please!) or Lisa Murkowski – they’ll promise that they won’t vote for anti-gun laws, and they might even keep that promise, but they still vote for Dingy Harry Reid to be the Speaker, and he’s the one that will bring that legislation to the floor.

          It’s not personal, I don’t think that everyone who votes Dems is a bad person, but if you are supporting the current Democrat Party, you are working against gun rights in America.

    6. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

      Here’s an even broader principle: You mind your business, and I’ll mind mine.

      1. I like that principle.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Duke of Sharon,

        THAT is the fundamental problem right there. Way, way, way too many people cannot mind their own business. Then mild mannered people tell the busy bodies to “back off”. Nevertheless, busy bodies insist on meddling in other people’s business which creates the tension.

        Take the author of this post. She apparently abhors ending another human life no matter what the circumstances. Good for her and I encourage her to live out her life according to that mindset. But she isn’t satisfied with that. She insists that everyone live according to HER mindset which means letting violent criminals rape and kill our wives and daughters — because she abhors ending another human life of course.

        Notice that I did not insist that the author do anything. Notice that the author does insist that we sacrifice our wives and daughter to violent criminals.
        Newsflash: our wives and daughters take extreme exception to the author’s mindset.

    7. avatar publius2 says:

      Nice try concern troll Katrina. False appeal to authority…”as a buddhist…”
      And maybe you need to double check your Wikipedia reference for yor OFA homework..
      I thought buddhists were all about acceptance, taking responsibility for ones own actions, …
      not Progtard Self Importance “I could not tolerate…”.

      I know you may find this hard to believe, but here in America, we dont all follow One Party Line.
      TTAG is the same, diverse, independent, squabbling, democratic…

      PS: you sure your name is not Paul? I dont see any members named katrina in the TTAG search function, and you sound a lot like him….

      1. avatar publius2 says:

        Oops. My bad.. karina. NOT katrina.
        I went back to double check the search and saw I listook the name with a t.

        Reading some of your posts, I agree with some of your views, and suggest you’ve been around long enough to know the elbows can be sharp here, but certainly no sharper than elsewhere on the inneetubs, and with a certain amount of guidance, and peer pressure, the ad hominems at a low roar, compared to elsewhere.. You were pretty tough on FPSRussia, not that I am defending him, and I thought your reference to dirk and shannon, a little bit… ahhh. Non buddhist?

        So, with apologies, I retract the Paul suggestion. That was a low blow… uh, I mean.
        Not trying to be unfriendly, I mean.

        C’mon back when you get bored with being moderated out of Everytown, or beat up at Slate, WAPO, NYT for yiur moderate gun views…

  2. avatar DJ9 says:

    You actually think a group of, let’s say, 10 or more people could mutually agree on all aspects of gun ownership, personal defense, and related topics?

    That a rural resident of Wyoming would feel the same way about violent crime as a city-dweller in Philly?

    That a hunter would have the same attitudes about guns as a vegan who is worried about personal defense?

    Even that a male military retiree with 50+ years of living and world experience under his belt would be able to find universal common ground with a 22-year-old lesbian, fresh out of college?

    Not likely, and I think you are more than a bit naive to think so.

    1. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

      One day about 20 years into my first and only marriage, my bride commented, “Do you realize we disagree sometimes?” I was somewhat taken aback by that comment and remained silent until I gained the words to reply. Then I said, “Well, that is not unusual. I disagree with myself sometimes!”

      1. avatar lolinski says:

        @SouthernPatriot

        Would not want to be in a relationship where I agree with my spouse 100% of the time.

        Seriously, you gotta fix this site.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          It’s creepy, isn’t it? It took her 20 years to say that? If only our North American culture could realize what insane expectations we have of one another! It’s the cause of most divorces. And it’s been built into our culture, by people like Gloria Steinem, CIA agent!

          It’s intended to destroy the family, our single strong constant.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        😀 Yeah, we all disagree. What’s the big effing deal?

  3. avatar Vendetta says:

    People are not allowed to have differing opinions now? This world is in a serious tailspin…

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Her brand of thought hegemony is a major justification for the RKBA in the first place.

  4. avatar Erin says:

    “Hey, you chest thumping assholes who are too stupid to understand, stop using personal attacks.”

    This is a joke post, right? Right?

  5. avatar Vhyrus says:

    So, all Christians believe in God and Jesus, right? Then why are there literally hundreds of different sects of Christianity? Now realise you are talking about a group that is literally using the EXACT SAME BOOK for their basis of opinion.

    So, a group of people with much clearer guidelines and a longer history to unify a base still has not come together under one uniting doctrine, but we as gun owners should be able to?

    1. avatar TBT says:

      Not to mention the Christian Bible incorporating Jewish texts – and the two groups reaching vastly different conclusions with regards to their meaning.

      1. avatar lolinski says:

        Don’t forget muslims too, just to make it a crowd.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        Or the mohammadans who believe in the Old Testament (Torah) as do the Jews yet they HATE the Jews with a blinding white hot fury (religion of peace you know) and then by association hat Christians.

        1. avatar Muddy Waters says:

          Took less than an hour for a post about RTKBA with a passing reference to Buddhism to be dragged into Islamophobia. I’d say “A new record!” but I know it’s not.

        2. avatar lolinski says:

          Impressive to be honest.

    2. avatar James Miller says:

      Actually the different sects of Christianity don’t use the “exact same book”. Bibles can vary greatly whether you’re LDS, Catholic, Jehovah’s Witness, Protestant, etc. Some have more books, some less. Some have verses entirely missing from books. While, yes, the overall subject is the same; there isn’t 100% parity between the versions.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        And, of course, every single one of them is The One Absolute Truth.

        1. avatar Tietonian says:

          Absolutely, because I (mis)interpreted it from my Bible… *shakes head sadly*
          Observe the fruits of the Reformation, or Roman Catholicism for that matter.

  6. avatar Biofire says:

    She’s not saying we can’t have differing opinions, she’s saying that she wishes people weren’t “so unfriendly and chest-thumping”. You have to admit, when people disagree here, many of them act like jerks.

    1. avatar DJ9 says:

      And yet she states she cannot “cannot tolerate people who find it acceptable to take another human life, despite understanding the importance and responsibility of being ready to do so. ” How the heck do you supposedly understand the need to defend yourself with lethal force, but be unwilling to take a life? Without the will to follow-through on the threat, it is an empty threat, and will be seen as such.

      Another “Adopt my attitude, because yours sucks, even though mine makes no sense” whiner.

      1. avatar lolinski says:

        Trust me, lotta ways to stop someone using a firearm without killing them. Shooting them in the pelvis for instance, if it shatters the pelvis they can’t support their weight (because physics, not fat). They are in a shitty state but not dead, as long as you get them medical attention.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          The “gut shot”? A history going back millennia in Western civilization of NOT shooting/cutting the gut (or back) of an honorableopponent. Now this is your recommended tactic for the passive/aggressive?

          Perhaps just go for the Hollywood hand/gun shot. Knock the gat out of the baddies hand? good plan.

        2. avatar lolinski says:

          Not gut shot, gut shots are reserved as finishing shots for people you hate with blind fury (like nazis or someone who did something personal).

          Pelvis, the fancy 8-shaped (sorta) bone that connects your legs to your body. Shatter that and you physically can’t stand, though you can still crawl in excruciating pain.

        3. avatar TBT says:

          Only problem there is they can still squeeze a trigger.

        4. avatar Jim Jones says:

          Just as an aside, the femoral artery is in the general vicinity of the pelvis. Nick it, and the recipient is likely to die pretty quickly anyways from bleeding out.

        5. avatar Lucas D. says:

          And again, they can still shoot you back in the time it takes to bleed out.

          Look, I’ve never seen this Karina person here before, I don’t know what her major malfunction is, and I honestly don’t give a damn. But here’s one thing I do know: if you’re not able to take a life to protect yourself or the people you care about, don’t carry a firearm.

        6. avatar lolinski says:

          True. Let’s see, what about a double tap or two to the pelvis and while they are falling/#screamingliekalilgirl you run away?

        7. avatar Lucas D. says:

          Despite what Hollywood has taught us, there’s no safe place to hit someone that can completely disable them without also killing them. Shoot him in the pelvis? Great, you just tore through his femoral artery and he’ll be dead in less than a minute. Miss the artery? Great, pumping adrenaline masks the horrible pain he’s now in and he just put a bullet through the back of your head as you turned to run. Shoot for center mass until the threat is completely neutralized, or don’t shoot.

        8. avatar lolinski says:

          I know there is no safe place to hit, just made a suggestion to people who don’t want to kill someone even in defense.

          Also, there is no guarantee that your opponent is armed with a firearm, or that he doesn’t drop the gun after getting shot.

    2. avatar M J Johnson says:

      Yep. That’s what she’s saying. And to prove her point, all we have to do is read the comments on this thread.

      I understand why you made your decision, Katrina, and I accept it. I, myself, choose rarely to post a comment. I’ll be doing even less of that in the future. Meanwhile, I’m glad you’re still reading posts here.

      1. avatar jerry says:

        Even less in the future? what will we do without you?

  7. avatar Joel says:

    For what it’s worth, you and I probably agree on way more issues than we disagree. For example, name calling (commonly referred to as ‘Ad Homium’ round here) does very little to advance the people of the gun. It usually says more about the character of the person making the attack than the person being attacked. I would love to see less of it in the comments section.

    1. avatar AndrewinDC says:

      I couldn’t agree more.

  8. avatar TR says:

    “As a Buddhist, I cannot tolerate people who find it acceptable to take another human life..”

    As a Christian, I agree, especially when the life those people find it acceptable to take is mine or my loved ones’. Which is why I carry a gun. I abhor evil, and to me the taking of ANY human life is evil. The fact of the matter is, however, that if I shoot someone in self-defense, and they die, I did not take their life. They did. Just as surely as if they decided to jump in front of my car on a freeway. I did not seek out an opportunity to take a life. I did not initiate the events that precipitated loss of life. I defended life.

    The responsibility for lives lost in the course of criminal activity is always on the criminal. Even if the life lost is their own.

    1. avatar Ken says:

      “all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” -somebody or another. JFK quoted it though, so it was said by him at the very least…

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      The Commandment states (properly translated) is that one shall not MURDER. Murder is as different from killing, as night is different from day.

      At no point did Jesus command, or suggest, that suicide is required in order to avoid killing.

      I don’t know what Buddhism believes about killing, murder, or suicide but self-immolation apparently is acceptable (and which makes not a lick of sense to me).

  9. avatar Muddy Waters says:

    If I was a Buddhist and I found the killing of anything for ANY reason to be so horrific, I probably wouldn’t own a gun. But I’m not and I do. By purchasing a gun you’re accepting that at some point you may be forced to take another life to save yours or that of someone you love. It’s not something that many of us look forward to, but when you present lethal force you may have to actually act on that threat, lest you lose your firearm and your life to someone with ethics not quite as polished as yours.

    That being said, I have read some rather bloodthirsty comments on here and around internet and that stuff always makes my skin crawl. There are, unfortunately, gun owners out there waiting for an opportunity at a DGU. And when they do get that chance, a lot of them talk like they’re going to execute the perp like Byron Smith. Who killed 2 teenage intruders, wounding the female, telling her she was going to die, and executing her. That is absolutely disgusting.

  10. avatar Daniel says:

    AMEN.
    Value human life above all else, folks. Only when the enemies of humanity and liberty decide to take life should we even consider a like response. Until then, love thy neighbor. This should be your guiding light. Come back to it – you will be a much happier and better human being, and a better American.

    1. avatar DTAL says:

      What if they decide to simply enslave everyone rather than kill them? Dead people are of no use to the government, they want us alive and bleeding our taxes into their pockets, they just want us subservient and docile. I don’t accept that.

  11. avatar jerry says:

    Not going to post again? Somehow I will find the strength to go on living.

  12. People being nasty towards each other will always be around. Either you grow some thicker skin or give up and take your ball home. Seems like you’re taking your ball home. Your call, but you won’t be able to impart your influence by remaining silent.

  13. avatar Ralph says:

    Until the so-called “people of the gun” have one single view to unite under, this will repeat, and it will always be a problem.

    I get it! Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.

    Ein load of bvllshit too. Sorry, little girl, but freedom is messy. Get over it.

    1. avatar Michael B. says:

      +1

      And I have no idea what site she’s commenting on. Ad hominems and flames get deleted.

      This is just a cry for attention that people should ignore.

    2. avatar Tom says:

      Well said!

  14. avatar Shire-man says:

    I don’t get it. Somebody poked fun (or it ws interpreted that way) and now we get a butthurt letter?
    New to the Internet? Two protips for you: 1)yes, it’s full of jackasses and 2)virtually nothing here is personal or sincere

  15. avatar Another Robert says:

    Actually we can go a long way toward getting along by realizing that we are all different on a lot of issues and accepting that fact. And being willing, in an open forum like this, to disregard a certain amount of chest-thumping and acrimony during the discussion of some particularly contentious issues.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Without the chest thumping, acrimony and name calling, it would be boring. And this site is rarely boring.

      C’mon, admit it — calling some douchebag a douchebag is fun. Amiright?

      1. avatar Lucas D. says:

        I, for one, choose to follow the Tao of Ralph.

      2. avatar Another Robert says:

        Must be or it wouldn’t happen so often. I think the important thing is to be able to move on after the dust settles–I’ve done it, most of us here have done it. I don’t think it’s cause to throw up your hands and leave. But if someone does think so–well I guess that’s what they need to do.

        1. avatar Lucas D. says:

          For my part, I will try my hardest to miss them, but I can’t promise anything. I bring my own ball, so if someone decides to pick up theirs and go home, my fun doesn’t have to stop.

          For such is… the Tao of Ralph. *gong!*

      3. avatar DonWorsham says:

        “C’mon, admit it — calling some douchebag a douchebag is fun. Amiright? No, it is a responsibility.

      4. avatar Tietonian says:

        Very true. The funniest arguments and comments I have ever read were on this site.

  16. avatar Kyle in CT says:

    Not to be rude, but it’s the internet. Chest-thumping is pretty much par for the course. That doesn’t make it right, just that I’ve yet to find the internet forum that doesn’t have at least some of that. Any time someone can say something anonymously with no repercussions, you’re likely to get some who will abuse the privilege.

  17. avatar Tim says:

    Disagreement isn’t the problem. Incivility is. For a community constantly under assault from outside, gun people–or rather, some of them–do spend too much time being snarky and demeaning toward each other. That only alienates people and divides those who need a united front.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      More often than not, the accusation of “incivility” means saying something with which the accuser disagrees. Its a code word. Nothing more, nothing less and nothing else.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Mostly, yes. But I do think there is outright incivility, and some of it happens here. Look at the thread following Wendy’s post above. Went from a snarky comment about liberal gun owners straight down to flinging crude sexual references at a conservative. But the thread goes on, no?

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          But the thread goes on

          On and on. On and on. On and on. Which reminds me that down in Jamaica they got lots of pretty women. Steal your money then they break your heart.

          Where’s Stephen Bishop when we really need him?

  18. avatar KarlB says:

    There are times that I share your feelings, especially when it comes to some of the SHTF hyperbole or the claims of whimpification of the American male, but I think it is very important to continue reading and posting on this site. This is truly one of the best forums for the exchange of ideas when it comes to all things gun related.

    I do not want there to be one voice of gun owners–we are a huge and varied country with a wide range of opinions and beliefs. And with the international readers, we are fortunate to get an even greater range of perspectives. If we look at Christianity as an example (sorry, I am very ignorant of Buddhism beyond Hesse’s Siddhartha), we see that there are literally hundreds of different churches and denominations. While in the past this caused bloodshed, today, we are richer for the many different ways Christians can worship. Uniformity is not a strength. Varied (well thought out) opinions make our community stronger and more vibrant . . . as long as we remain somewhat civil and remember we are all People of the Gun.

  19. avatar paulWTAMU says:

    Oh hogwash. No large group will ever agree 100% on everything.

    1. avatar Dan says:

      self defense is a natural right.

  20. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

    Karina – It’s a blog. You’re unfortunately always going to get people that slam you, say things they wouldn’t say in person, or using their real name – and generally act contradictory, argumentative, etc.

    I think we’ve all felt like you at one point. I know I’ve been savaged a few times myself. Everyone has. But it is what it is — A Blog. By and large most people who comment here are thoughtful, highly informed, and in general agreement, but there will always be a segment of ‘contrarians’ and fire-starters.

    I sincerely hope it doesn’t dissuade you from still being one of us.

    I know I’ve even said stupid things that I wish i could take back… Again, just the nature of a blog. Please don’t take it personally, and I hope you stay with us.

  21. avatar ShaunL. says:

    This seems like a heavily worded description of what I would call Absolutism. I think we’ve all seen it here and dealt with it to a degree. I don’t think we need to “have one single view to unite under” as the poster said, just to allow differing opinions without letting the conversation devolve into attacks amongst ourselves.

    We share a common enemy after all, anyone who would inhibit the second.

    @ Karina- Part of that unity you seek needs to come from you as well. Say your piece then CHOOSE not to engage the detractors if you want. For every one vocal detractor on here there are thousands who for one reason or another stay silent. Why focus on only the one?

  22. avatar C says:

    In other news, I NEED that patch.

    1. avatar DJ9 says:

      Click the photo; apparently, they ARE offered for sale (but are backordered right now).

      1. avatar Lou says:

        We are currently backordered on them, BUT the re-supply shipment should be on it’s way to us within the next few days, so the backorders will be sent out within 7-10 days.
        -Lou

  23. avatar lolinski says:

    Ralph made me do it. He is a bad influence on me.

    *points at Ralph*

    1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      Ralph tends to be a bad influence on a lot of folks, just ask my wife!

      1. avatar David says:

        Whoa.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Whoa indeed. Dan, it wasn’t me. Honest. Maybe it was the gardener or the pool boy.

        2. avatar Anon in CT says:

          But Dan doesn’t have a pool. . .

          Bow chicka-chicka bow-bow . . .

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      If only that were so, my young brother lolinski. If only that were so.

      1. avatar lolinski says:

        Then it would been hilarious. I like it how when you say something I always expect it to be somewhat funny (as in at least 80% of the time).

        Now I gotta go study (got an exam), should really be studying more than checking up on TTAG. Anyone got any tips on what I should talk about? One of the themes I can come up in is “American culture and society” another one is “Conflict”, completely blank on what to write about the latter.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          I will encourage you with the words my paterfamilias used to encourage me:

          “Go study or get a job.”

          I studied.

        2. avatar lolinski says:

          Yeah, the problem with being an immigrant from the Balkans means I am expected to do both. Both my brothers pay for their education through the jobs they got while studying.

          So for me, it is; “study then get a job and after that, do whatever you want”.

          Still thanks for the advice.

  24. avatar Ken says:

    “I don’t know if it’s because they don’t want to, or if they refuse to, but it doesn’t matter.”
    You forgot one option. Many people are simply UNABLE to understand how to tolerate another’s viewpoints. This goes for ALL persons and situations, not just the gun issue. Its a level of consciousness thing, as a Buddhist you might wish to look into that. Just search “levels of consciousness”.
    Another thing you might wish to become aware of is the large numbers of antigunners that hang out here and are well PAID(some of Bloomberg’s 50 million hard at work…) to post, just to cause as much trouble as they possibly can.
    In any case, effort to not let the negativity of others get you down. It will always be there, one needs to learn to ignore it. That is part of what higher consciousness is all about.

  25. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    Well Karina, this is why we generally delete posts which, flame, attack, or hurt others.
    Having said that we can’t stop all of it all the time, however…

    Your point is quite valid. There is division among the gun rights groups. We can look at NAGR, and the SAF as an example. As I am associated with numerous groups I can tell you that this happens a lot. We have the Texas Open Carry, and the NRA, who had to back peddle a bit on their comments.

    While I think the value of human life is one that we all share collectively, it doesn’t mean that there are not certain fringe individuals who will spout off about something. Sadly these individuals tend to have a strong voice, and those who support civilian disarmament latch on to those statements and paint the rest of us as knuckle dragging troglodytes. I think most of the people of the gun are in fact open to discussion, and debate.

    We tend to see on both sides, the reiteration of old and tired one liners which do nothing to further the rights or restrictions. It is like two kids on the playground yelling at one another. I agree we need to be united. The separation only hurts the movement as a whole.

    Part of the issue as I see it is structure. We have many small grass roots groups, and a few large groups, like the NRA, SAF, and GOA, to name a few. We need a structure where the larger groups work directly with the smaller ones. The smaller groups need to put aside their own egos and learn to work together, and unite. Each state is different and each town is different. Once there is order, and focus the power of all these groups working together will be a force to recon with.

  26. avatar chris says:

    We need more bullys in school so this kind of selective view of reality could be beaten out of them young.

    1. avatar DJ9 says:

      Yah, sometimes the old ways are best…

  27. avatar EagleScout87 says:

    Even the founding fathers didn’t have a “have one single view to unite under” outside of “we want independence.”

    Taking your ball and going home isn’t the answer.

  28. avatar dwb says:

    Chest thumping? On the internet? No way, whoda thunk it.

    Seriously, if I had a dime for every time a chest thump idiot failed to follow through, I’d be a trillionaire. Easy to be Mr tough guy on the internet, hard in reality. If it bothers you, imagine the chest thumping idiot in their natural surroundings – on the sofa in their underwear. Gotta run, Mom wants me to kill some more tenants. Mother! Oh, God! Mother! Blood! Blood!

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      I do not sit on the sofa in my underwear. However, I do have a recliner.

      1. avatar paulWTAMU says:

        Neither do I. It’s unnecessarily confining.

  29. avatar Stinkeye says:

    What you’ve run up against is commonly referred to as “human nature”. There are assholes, jerks, and idiots in every group of two or more human beings. I’m surprised you haven’t noticed this before, because it certainly isn’t unique to this website, or the “gun community”, or the internet as a whole. The preferred response is not to petulantly take your ball and go home, it’s to ignore the shitheads and carry on.

  30. avatar Charles says:

    We DO agree, it’s called the right to keep and bear arms, but since we are individuals, we all have reasons of our own for exercising that right. Just because the reasons differ, doesn’t make it wrong.
    Should there be insults tossed around because one has a different view? No of course not. We are (for the most part at least) adults and we shouldn’t be stooping so low as to start insulting people for their point of view.
    Unfortunately though as a society, there is always going to be that problem, just as there is always going to be gun violence as long as a single gun exists anywhere on the planet.

    1. avatar Ken says:

      Just as before gunpowder there was sword violence, and before that: sticks and stones violence, fist violence, etc… This is the human condition. Many have hate issues and are violent persons. The only way out of that is to go somewhere without humans. Until that is possible, we need to stand ready to defend ourselves and others from such miscreants.

      1. avatar Charles says:

        Exactly. Well you can still find places in Alaska to go and not see anyone for at least months, but places like that are way too far and few in-between 🙂 As far as computers go though the only way to avoid a disagreement is to stay off the forums, or not even turn the computer on.

  31. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    This is a marketplace of ideas. Not everyone will agree with, or even agree to consider, every idea available. So what? Walk around, kick the tires, test some things out. Maybe it’s for you, maybe it’s not.

    Sure, there are some overwrought and poor debaters here and, sure, there are some capable communicators who hold some fringe views. Compared to the typical Internet forum out there, though, TTAG commenters as a whole are definitely in an upper percentile and not at all vicious by Internet standards; a few loudmouths notwithstanding.

    If you’re not comfortable here, then by all means go seek what will make you happy. However, based on this article and the objections raised, I would not expect you’re likely to find what you’re seeking. Best wishes.

  32. avatar Pashtun6 says:

    I agree, taking another life is something you should never want to do. Granted there are people in this world who deserve a bullet i.e. rapists. However imaginary repeat what Travis Haley said when speaking on the subject. If I ever take a life, wether it be as a citizen during a home invasion, as a soldier overseas, or as a law enforcement officer it will be out of compassion, not out of hate. By compassion I mean love, love for my family as a coke head kicks in the door at 330 am, love for my brothers down range, and love for my fellow man in general. That’s why when it comes down to it, pulling that trigger is pretty damn easy.

  33. avatar Richard in WA says:

    I think very nature of being freedom loving POTG is that while we have the one major issue to rally under (RKBA), we don’t follow the line-item, inforgraphic-driven culture of “this is what you should believe” that I see being propagated by liberal/progressive/agenda-ists.

    So we all differ in what exactly we believe – much like the allusion to the sects of Christianity listed above. All Christians believe that Christ died for man’s sins but how exactly it is practiced can vary. The same goes for being a POTG – a lot of gun owners will say they “Believe in 2A BUT” and then get ostracized for not being “all-in”.

    I think a little more tolerance would be welcome in the community so that we can attract more moderates and undecided voters. If some’s first exposure to the POTG is a hostile or unfriendly response then they are more likely to believe what the Moms are saying about the so-called “gun nuts” and swing their opinion the other way.

  34. avatar danthemann5 says:

    If I don’t like someplace, I just don’t go there anymore, usually without fanfare. There are plenty of times when my comments have been disagreed with and poked at, here and elsewhere. Sometimes, the people doing the poking weren’t nice. It’s the internet, that’s just how it is.

  35. avatar Dev says:

    I find it perfectly acceptable and right to take the lives of murderers, rapists, predators who prey on women and children and those who want to hurt innocent people solely to create terror. We are human beings but we are still part of the natural cycle of life; life feeds on life. It is noble to want to protect the weak and innocent, however some people in this world are so depraved that they present a threat to all other people and they must be eliminated.

    The other issue she raises is that there is no “unifying theme” amongst us. Yes, there is: freedom. Freedom of will, of thought, to live, to be safe and yes, to protect ourselves and others. The wonderful thing about freedom and the human imagination is that we can peacefully and successfully coexist and thrive not despite of, but because of our different opinions, beliefs and perceptions. That is exactly why the United States of America rose from a small group of colonies into the greatest civilization in human history in such a very short time. We were a melting pot of people and cultures and through our differences we found commonalities and strength. This division we are seeing in society now, i.e. prejudices against immigrants or other religions has always existed in our country. The United States has evolved and as a people we have tried to rectify the mistakes made in the past by our ancestors who did not have the knowledge later generations had gained. There was racism and bias against every ethnic group, and yes even amongst the different white groups such as those from western and eastern European descent. We rose above that, we are still trying every day and yes despite the rhetoric used to increase viewership, votership and donations (most especially the money!) we are succeeding.

    If this person wants to excuse him or herself from the discussion because he/she is bothered by the words used or the tone of the people involved, that is perfectly fine. There are more than enough people who are willing to make their voices heard, who are willing to disagree and who are willing to find that we do have a common theme. Let those who lack the skill to speak without rude and vile comments make them, those of us who can reason for ourselves will just tune them out.

  36. avatar John Dalton says:

    Those who talk of taking a life with a firearm; have RARELY, if ever done so! It is the worst experience imaginable, even when the action was in war or legally justified.

    As to the common cause……..yesterday, the President ANNOUNCED his intention to confiscate all guns (read what he really said, friends!)! Our sole goal MUST be the preservation and ENFORCEMENT of the Second Amendment! All other collateral issues, are not the primary mission.

    We, as a responsible capable group of firearm owners, must FIRST do all within our power to resist any erosion of the rights that we presently enjoy. Secondly, we must seek to expand those rights through competent and reasonable means………but this is FAR behind keeping what we have, as a misson goal.

    There is only one means of “gun control” in the minds of the opposition…….and that was revealed yesterday………..TOTAL GUN CONFISCATION. It has happened before, and it can happen here.

    The problem for us is this………once the Second Amendment is repealed or emasculated……whether legally or by executive caveat……….the remainder of the Constitution becomes nothing but waste paper.

    He was right yesterday…….reflect on the situation carefully………and be HONEST about the handwriting on the wall!

    1. avatar dlj95118 says:

      +1…you nailed the “common goal”.

  37. avatar Kurt Schuberg says:

    Guess who said this?

    “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      The Dalai Lama; The reincarnated leader of all Tibetan Buddhists?

      1. avatar Kurt Schuberg says:

        Give this man a see-gar! 🙂

        Yes. Even the Dalai Lama understood that sometimes taking a life is unavoidable.

  38. avatar Gun_Chris says:

    I don’t get Karina’s comments. As others have said our one unifying theme is the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms. I didn’t think that was ever in question.

    Beyond that there are millions of facets that there will be disagreements over; even something as profound as protecting innocent life versus never taking a life for any reason.

  39. avatar former water walker says:

    Sorry we’re all jerks. We will NEVER agree about everything in this world. I DO NOT belong to any other gun/2A internet forum. Everyone I inquired about had restrictive policies. Especially NO anti cop or military comments. TTAG offers reasoned discourse without being stupid. Honestly I follow TTAG for entertainment & after the Illinois a##hole legislators attempted to ban almost EVERY freaking gun extant I decided to get involved. But I will NEVER understand carrying a gun & being unable or unwilling to pull the trigger. Just carry pepper spray or a taser Katrina.

  40. avatar David says:

    In the great words of Harry Callahan, “Nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot”.

    A question proposed years ago by my ethics prof when discussing absolute morals (and go F off Godwin): if you were smuggling a truckload of Jews out of Nazi Germany, and all that you had to do was lie and tell the border guard that the truck was empty, would your absolute prohibition against lying stop you? What if you had to kill the guard to save the group? We’ve already heard your answer, and I am very thankful that not everyone thinks like you do. Absolute morality can be a real drag.

  41. avatar Kevin L says:

    Karina, it’s the internet, so some ad hominem, etc is going to happen, but that doesn’t make it right. It sucks that it happens, but it always will.

  42. avatar BlinkyPete says:

    I agree with her, in the sense that there’s a core in this movement who seem to want to make it more and more exclusionary, and therefore less likely to succeed. If you can’t criticize open carry demonstrators without being called hateful or somehow against the second amendment, then I don’t know how any intelligent discussion on any level can take place. Contrary to what Robert’s said in the past, fence sitters are my friends. If I can take an all out anti and convert them to someone who understands the futility of most gun laws but still supports background checks, I call that a win.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      You’re free to criticize OC people all you want BlinkyPete; you aren’t moderated unless you start using ad-hominem attacks; and even then; people still can use epithets for a while before being moderated.

      But If you mean you should be able to criticize OC and not have people tell you why they disagree with you about your thoughts on OC; then you’re just being intolerant like Karina. and are unwilling to accept that other people think differently than you.

  43. avatar ThomasR says:

    Well Karina; I’m a baptized Christian. I believe that abortion is murder and think that sex outside of marriage is a sin. and that anyone that looks forward to shooting a human predator is a psychopath. Fortunately; 99.9% of the people on this site are sane and respect human life.

    But if I was like you and could not “tolerate” any disagreement with my beliefs; that the only “unifying vision” is what I could “tolerate”; I would by definition be intolerant and bigoted; and an authoritarian tyrant wanna be. Is that something that Buddhism teaches as a positive characteristic?

  44. avatar TITAN308 says:

    I don’t agree with all points he has made, but one thing is clear; his letter proved its point by just reading the comments of this article.

  45. avatar Gunr says:

    Gonna miss you Karina, it was enjoyable debating with you yesterday. Hope you realize were mostly all in this for the same purpose, to keep our second amendment rights. Take care.
    Sir Gunr

    P.S. Thanks again for “knighting” me with the Sir title. Now I can speak at the “round table” with Sir Lancelot, Sir Galahad, and all those other cronies.

  46. avatar bontai Joe says:

    “As a Buddhist, I cannot tolerate people who find it acceptable to take another human life, despite understanding the importance and responsibility of being ready to do so.”

    You have admitted your own intolerance towards other people whose viewpoint is different than yours, and then complain when a few are intolerant of your viewpoint? Hmmmmm….. I read posts on this blog every day that I find a little offensive, and on rare occasions, I’ll comment on one, but usually just skip over it, and read the next one. I have no need to comment on every post, or half the posts, or even 5% of the posts. This being an internet blog, I fully realize that there are probably a couple of 12 year olds masquerading as adults here, some professional trolls that deliberately try to poop in people’s hats to try and still the pot, and a lot of folks that are friendly, sincere, and occasionally have a bad day. My personal pet peeve is the grammar and spelling “specialists” who want to correct every little bit of punctuation, etc. Took me a while to realize that they can’t help themselves, so now I ignore them. Anyone posting on a blog has to have some thickness to their skin, sadly that is the way of the anonymous internet. But if you want to live in a world of total peace and harmony (and really, who wouldn’t) the internet is not that kind of place. For what it’s worth, I do wish you peace and harmony in your life. I wish that for everyone, and maybe someday, it will happen.

  47. avatar Deadeye says:

    Completely unified? No personal insults, chest thumping, or other ad-hominem attacks?
    BORING!

  48. avatar DTAL says:

    I dunno, for a blog about a controversial subject that also has a huge readership, I think this site is remarkably civil compared to the rest of the internet. Go to any left leaning website or antigun website and you’ll lose faith in humanity quicker than you can say “future spree killers.”

  49. avatar Paco says:

    The “pro gun side” is not so divided, and its language like “pro gun” that distort the issue, people who are “pro gun” are much more likely pro individual liberty and freedom than the collectivist, group think bunk we are seeing from posts like this.

  50. avatar GuyFromV says:

    No.

  51. avatar launchpadmech says:

    We are like a family here that’s why I wrote a nice comment using a phone. I have a real hard time expressing myself. I by accident deleted it so STAY!

  52. avatar ensitue says:

    “She’s” against testosterone, Que Pajama boy!

  53. avatar UtahLibertarian says:

    So, let me get this straight. Karina is a Buddhist pacifist who believes in the RKBA, but under no circumstances would hurt another human being. And all people of the gun must agree with this person 100% on everthing, or our cause is doomed.

    Must a be a slow news day at TTAG.

  54. avatar Wolf says:

    “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”

    the Dalai Lama
    Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/dalailama.asp#oruw4KgD2is6UvBo.99

  55. avatar Mina says:

    It’s fun for me to point out that voicing an opinion that Liberals (Leftists, Communists, whatever you want to call them) are the enemy and should be carefully watched does not constitute “hate speech”. It is merely an opinion based on years of research and personal observation.

    Yet the response to this statement is ALWAYS hatred, name-calling, derision, and denigration.

    So you tell me, who peddles the hatred: The ones who wonder about the motives of the other side or the other side who attacks on a purely emotional level with claws and fangs?

    As far as I can say their response usually confirms rather than denies my suppositions. As always: YMMV.

  56. avatar AMOK! says:

    “As a Buddhist, I cannot tolerate people who find it acceptable to take another human life, despite understanding the importance and responsibility of being ready to do so.”

    Youre in a real pickle if evil visits you, heaven forbid.

    Here is the real Dali Lama (big hitter the Lama……) on self defense: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/dalailama.asp

  57. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    “Am I that dismal and misguided?”

    Yes, you are..

  58. avatar PW in KY says:

    In this post we have:

    – A person who does not understand how anonymous internet communities function
    – A person who is taking her ball and going home because everyone won’t agree with her
    – A person who doesn’t even completely understand her religion’s basic response to evil
    – A person who wants to blame everyone else for being unfriendly and is then unfriendly to them
    – A person who cannot get her point across and so assumes this failure is our fault

    How does this post even make it onto the site? Sure it’s “click-bait” I guess but are we going to give every complainer with poor logic and 5 minutes a front page post?

    1. avatar Mina says:

      no, just women who want something published.

  59. avatar Gregolas says:

    Karina, if you’re a Buddhist, what’s the problem with killing a criminal committing attempted murder, assault, rape, sodomy, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, or arson? (those crimes exhaust my state’s justifiable homicide code) After all, by sending the bad guy on, he’s going to get another crack at samsura and another lifetime to get it right. Right?

  60. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Okay, I’ll say it since no one else has said it. Karina values unity above everything else. Of course she only favors unity if it is unity in HER values. That, my friends, is a Progressive. That is the very evil that we are fighting.

    Ever wonder why Progressives harbor so much contempt for good people having firearms? Because Progressives know that they cannot COMPEL good people to unity … unity under Progressive terms of course. Saying it another way, Progressives only support the “live and let live” principle if you live their way.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Edit: I meant to type, “good people who are armed to unity”

  61. avatar doesky2 says:

    Surprising.
    All these posts and nobody has called a Waaaahmublance yet to go pick her up?

    1. avatar Gregolas says:

      Funny, appreciative snorts on that one.

  62. avatar Hannibal says:

    So instead of just quietly leaving to someplace kinder and gentler you have to write a post detailing why you’re no longer gracing TTAG with your presence? O DRAMA!

  63. avatar Burnout says:

    Why does there have to be a hive-mind? Why does there have to be group-think? Should we all have censorship or a Fascist hand to keep control of us? As an individual, I can and most certainly will come to my own conclusions based on my own experiences. I will speak out. I will not, absolutely will not, be told what to think, how to do the thinking, or be coerced into being “tolerant” of anything I am quite un-fond of. This may also come as a shock – but I reject any and all forms of political correctness which is nothing but a fancy term for censorship. People tend to get on the board and complain at least once a week about this utopian consensus that they think we are all supposed to have. What they cannot get, is that what they are suggesting is censorship. Call it what you want, but your admitted intolerance – and then figuratively threatening to take your ball and go home because a group does not comply with what you want them to think, or type the way you want them to type – is simply a veiled attempt at censorship. Isn’t going to work. I suggest you work on your tolerance skills and start looking at other people as individuals who should be shown respect for their own opinions. Individuals do not need peer recognition or consensus to feel confident about their beliefs. Sure, speak your mind, that is what we do. Encourage others to think as you, absolutely, that is a trait of an individual. Lead and others will (may) follow. But do not attempt to coerce, harp, nag, or otherwise attempt to subjugate with group-think. Consensus is what controlled people have. We are not them.

  64. avatar DerryM says:

    Karina, the unifying theme is very simple. You have the right to your life, therefore, you have the right to defend/preserve your life, therefore you have the right to keep and bear Arms to accomplish the former premises. This applies to all Human Beings, which means you have no right to wantonly kill another Human Being for anger or gain, because so doing violates the original premise.

    None of that implies we find it “acceptable to take another Human Life”, but it does imply we may be forced to do so to preserve our own Life and that is the only thing we need to “accept” about Life Taking. You can always make the choice to die, or suffer harm, rather than take another Life precisely because your Life is your own to do with as you will. Similarly, you can give-up your Life to save the Life of another, if you make that choice. That is possibly the ultimate meaning of “Freedom”.

    Given all that, suffering a little bombast and bluster in the course of discussion, doesn’t really mean anything…does it? Hope you settle on an answer that brings you peace.

  65. avatar Anonymous says:

    I don’t know if disagreeing is chest thumping or not.

    As a Buddhist, I cannot tolerate people who find it acceptable to take another human life, despite understanding the importance and responsibility of being ready to do so. But it seems that fellow commenters advocate and even encourage it. Am I that dismal and misguided? Or could it be that they are this incapable of understanding? . . .

    I don’t see anything wrong with disagreeing. Your opinion is your opinion. Others might not be Buddhist and see the next life as you do. Perhaps they see only this life and have logical reasons for desiring to take a life when legally protected to do so. In the end it is not what we disagree on that’s important – but what we agree on that matters. I think we can all agree on TTAG that the second amendment is important to us. Why it is important may differ between us however each individual must reason with themselves the importance of such things. Debate, chest thumping, or disagreement are trival in comparison.

  66. avatar Ian says:

    The keyboard commando phenomenon is as old as the internet and will never go away. You know that when you get on the internet. Complaining about it is as ridiculous as the behavior of the commandos themselves. Don’t feed the trolls.

    As for unifying, I simply thing you are wrong. The POTG are unified behind a common banner in support of the second amendment. But if a farmer from North Dakota has the same reasons for wanting to own a gun as a single mom from Detroit I would be seriously concerned about the mental clarity of one or the other. Neither can claim to truly understand the motivations of the other nor be expected to articulate them. It is a very unrealistic expectation. Not every player on the court has to be able to dribble the ball between their legs or shoot from outside. In the end they all work towards winning the same game though.

  67. avatar William Burke says:

    I had an anti-gun fried who used to ask the same question. His father shot himself (as opposed to, say, a hose from the exhaust pipe, or driving 100 mph into a bridge abutment), and he would always say, when I brought up a gun topic: “Can’t we all just get along?”

    “Apparently not, Frank”, I would always say. He died of Diabetes in 2005. His wake was by far the best one I’ve ever attended, however! In his home, with tons of food, and two girl vocalists, who sang along to tapes he had pre-recorded! Stuff like SATIN DOLL! GREAT wake; thanks, Frank. I’ll never forget it.

  68. avatar Logan says:

    Someone with an individual mindset while also supporting gun rights. I can get behind that.

    While most commenters here, and on this article in particular, clearly missed your message, I praise you for it. I feel like half of the time spent on the pro-gun fight gets wasted on fighting each other over why OUR reason is the best reason we should be able to have guns.

    Very much off point, unlike your post. Thanks for writing it.

  69. avatar Taylor TX says:

    Were not the borg, were all individuals, so while we are guaranteed to have disparate small viewpoints, ideally it is the bigger picture that brings us together i.e. the RKBA.

    Also, adversity breeds character and is healthy for humans, I am sorry you have chosen to muzzle yourself out of frustration caused by the comment section. I agree there are quite a few people who comment very brash and un-thought out things but allowing them power over you in that way solves nothing 🙂

    I hope you choose to revoke your silence as we need every levelheaded voice we can find.

    1. avatar Logan says:

      Well said!

  70. People who rail against intolerance are some of the most intolerant people you’ll ever find.

    Frankly, I’m not moved at all by a whiny, “boo-hoo I’m leaving and here’s my parting shot at all all you people” type messages.

    Stay and debate or leave.

    Makes no difference to me and I doubt most others care either.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      I was getting that same vibe as well. A final complaint and a cold shoulder.

  71. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Karina,
    Go, or come as you please. You are free to do so.
    How is that for one, unified opinion, theory, non chest-thumping agreement?

    As a retired street cop, I read a lot of anti-cop sentiment here. Does it bother me? Of course it does. But I know, in my heart and in my actions, I was not like the police that most of the comments seem to be directed at. I can know, in my heart, that I helped.
    I can hope, that I might, just might, change the mind of one person, that not all cops are trigger happy, donut eating, fat slob, murdering, evidence planting, up-armoring, morons that couldn’t get a job as a janitor so I took a job as a cop.

    Respect people. Respect that they have opinions.
    For in the end, we have free will.
    Thank God. Buddha. Yahweh. Krishna.

    Oh, and ala-Snackbar!

  72. avatar Ryan says:

    The problem is that there are pro gun people aka the “butters” and then there are pro 2A “the absolutists”.

    The butters will do anything to keep their guns, but are willing to appease the yapping mindless idiots I.e. mom’s demand types just to say that they “compromised” but in reality too chicken shit to tell them to FOAD. It’s these people that reduce our rights to the pile of shit they are today.

    The absolutists are those that take no shit from anyone yet, but because they usually don’t look like a politician they get ignored and get shamed by the antis and the butters for simply standing up for the rights as they’re stated. But when they do stand up for rights in protest they’re told to stand down or that they’re weird (Looking at you NRA) for simply using their 1A & 2A rights.

    That’s your “divide” in a nutshell.

  73. avatar Ardent says:

    Others have said most of this above but I’ll reiterate for clarity. There isn’t a single view for the POTG to unite under or any need of one other than the RKBA. If you wish to target shoot and refuse to ever use your gun on a person that’s your right and I’ll fight to support it, just don’t try telling me I can’t use mine for self defense (or to fight for the RKBA).

    As for tolerance, we tolerate all sorts of divisions and differing viewpoints remarkably well for such a politically charged and contentious issue. This is the internet and people are inclined to behave a certain way here that they ordinarily might not, also virtually everyone has access and there are some not very nice people in the world. As long as they don’t stray too far off topic we tolerate them too. We’ll tolerate the occasional intemperate outburst to hear what the commenter has to say of value and ignore the hyperbole and vulgarity attatched to it as best we can.

    It’s almost a unifying creed that we agree to be thick skinned and not take offense at every tiny thing, that we agree not to take some ones inconsiderate statement as meaning much and that we won’t blow a comment out of proportion. People who dislike drama have less of it because they don’t create it, foster it or provide it with fuel.

    The POTG as represented at TTAG are a cross section of the population and a fairly diverse one at that. We’re always going to have disagreements and there won’t always be ‘right’ answers. Sometimes our disagreements lead to finding truth out of opinions and impressions and misunderstandings and sometimes we just have to agree to disagree and every bit of that is good.

    Being a diverse aggregate that reflects the larger population, here there are some very intelligent people, and some very stupid ones. There are compassionate people and some who are virtually psychopathic. There are people on the road to truth and there are compulsive liars. There are people with a passing fancy and there are those who are ready to bleed for the cause. All these are welcome here provided they aren’t too disruptive.

    I’ve been around the internet a long time now and in many forums on a great many topics. This one, despite the charged nature of the topic is pretty tame compared to most and a kindergarten compared to some. I lack statistics but anecdotally most forums of this nature devolve into a acrimonious morass of name calling and insults until eventually everyone who wanted a conversation on the issues has left and it’s nothing but a collection of fools and mean spirited attackers going round and round with each other accomplishing nothing. TTAG isn’t like that, doesn’t appear to be in danger of becoming like that and each time we lose someone who isn’t like that it’s a blow. On the other hand those forums that over censor and allow no dissent and no back and forth become sterile and dry up, losing content and comments until they simply succumb to entropy and stop. TTAG appears to be in no danger of that either.

    In my experience, everyone comes to a forum with some idea of what it ought to be, never with a view to take it for what it is and forgive it’s perceived shortcomings. Sometimes these people become disillusioned and drift away, sometimes they stay engaged and make the best of it, sometimes they find someplace they like better, and sometimes they make dramatic posts about how they are leaving the forum because of this or that. Most of the latter never really leave, the just change names and slog on.

  74. avatar Pavel Petrovich says:

    The division I see is that the gun owners that I remember 20 years ago are not the gun owners of today. The whole makup of what a gun owner is has changed… and not for the better. I used to be able to go out to the gun range, early in the morning, with my grandpa’s old lever action Winchester and set up at my favorite bench and I’d BS with the old timers about guns over coffee. They’d adjust my sights for me on site. Nobody there had AR-15’s or AK-47’s or SKS’s… AR-15’s were so high in price that they were simply unattainable… same with AK’s… Things started turning when the first cheap SKS’s started coming in… Then aftermarket companies were making plastic tactical stocks and magazines for them… Since then, the gun crowd shifted. I fell in line with it all too. I currently own several AR’s an AK and an SKS… Great fun to shoot. Then there were the waves of gun bans or attempted gun bans that caused hording. The worst being “The Great Gun Scare of 2012”. Now every tool that has a paycheck is buying AR-15’s and AK’s… You can’t move at the gun range for noob mafia hitman wannabes with half a dozen AR-15’s with $30 NcStar scopes on them, choking up the firing lanes. You’ve got people wandering around Target with AR-15’s strapped to their backs in protest (of what? open carry handguns?)… It’s really just a play date for them so they can have a show and tell for their toys. They’ve watched too much “Living Dead” on TV and it’s sort of become a redneck cosplay and show off session for people with ego problems. If open carry passes, it will be in spite of the Open Carry groups, not because of them. We’ve gone crazy.

    1. avatar Ryan says:

      Glad to hear you have that “back in my day” syndrome fully engaged. Listen it’s guys like you that make it difficult for fence sitters and new people to get into guns because of that attitude. So what if it’s harder to shoot it means more people are exercising their rights as opposed to obscure hobby position you’d prefer guns to be. In this day and age we need more people to get into shooting so it has a future. Sorry gramps the future of guns is moving on and bigger with or without you.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        +1 It’s new shooters clogging the ranges that secure our rights and lead to more ranges being opened. It’s new shooters who drive innovation up and price down (eventually) in the market place. There is nothing wrong with new shooters but there are lots of great things that come with them.

        I would encourage Pavel to remember those old timers who mentored him, and offer the same to these upstart new shooters. A lot of them, beneath whatever cover they wear, are eager for some support and education. I see them all the time on ranges, at the LGS and I always reach out to them. It’s amazing what offering to engage and provide useful advice while validating their interest in shooting can do.

        1. avatar Ryan says:

          Well said ardent.

  75. avatar Karina says:

    I’ll make ONE exception to what I said on the full email to make the following comments.

    One, I wanted mostly to talk to the site owners… themselves. That my email was, in full, posted exacto without added comment as an article – which I had fully written as a personal piece of opinion – says more about TTAG than I thought. I agree with one commenter; if that’s all it takes to get an article then either TTAG’s quality has been lowered, or whoever published this is trying to be a troll, or understood my message and didn’t stop at my name, my personal beliefs, or my apparent intolerance.

    Two, I’m simply… Amazed at the AMOUNT of comments. But am not surprised of their content.
    There are the jackasses I expected, and there are the people who were more understanding, which I appreciate but more or less expected as well.

    Like I said, there is no unity. I may sound like a pussy, a newbie to the internet, an intolerant person, or whatever you will give me, but some of those comments are telltales of behaviors that I frankly, honestly wish they NEVER have to represent the pro-gun community, and am scared of how they look to the fence-sitters if they know any in their personal lives.

    But this is the internet, sorry for expecting better quality on TTAG in particular, what should I know. I should have expected shit and should’ve never been surprised of seeing shit comments. No, that is not sarcasm.

    Three? Think of me what you want, guys, and girls. My opinion will not change, nor will the fact that I carry, and that I have been in a situation that this site would call a DGU. Should I have mentioned it in the email? I didn’t want to. Again, my opinion matters virtually nil. But I had to make use of my firearm a few years ago, and that’s all I will allow myself to detail – please understand that I do not want nor do I feel that I have to tell the full story.

    It is an experience I wish to NOBODY. But sometimes, I tell myself it is a situation only those who have lived, have a chance to truly understand why I absolutely do not tolerate taking away a life, no matter how justified it is, and why it gets me antsy, to remain polite, when people act like vigilantes or try to justify themselves, because “muh freedoms”. It took an enormous toll on me in many ways. I don’t ever want it to happen again to me.

    If you haven’t been in a DGU yet? Pray to whatever deity you believe in, if you do, that you never have to live one. I don’t want any of you to live one. Those who have? Then perhaps you understand this utter and constant feeling of disgust I have for chest-thumpers.

    But maybe I’m just emotional. Again, without sarcasm, maybe I’m just that, emotional, when something reminds me of it? Who knows.

    Ultimately, you are all free to think what you want and act the way you wish. I don’t tolerate certain opinions, I sometimes voice it, but really , what can I do to stop any of you from where I am? I’m just someone on the Internet. You don’t know me, I don’t know you Just as I am free to ignore those I don’t like, you are free to ignore me. It’s not like you are in my house – or me in yours, and it’s certainly not like I’m trying to dictate what you must do or else. This is the Internet.

    I just wish we were more united, and more of a worthy and threatening force to those who do NOT respect our freedoms, and that we could get rid of the many stereotypes, which again today were confirmed true, that only serve… ironically… to give more ammunition to our detractors.

    And because this is the internet, I can voice my opinion if I wish to. I don’t care if I’m not heard correctly. But very clearly I have been heard. 150+ comments don’t lie.

    Peace, to all of you.

    1. Karina, really…it’s ok for you to leave. But stop the whining.

  76. avatar Yossarian says:

    Wait – Who are you again?

  77. avatar Paelorian says:

    You cannot tolerate people who find it acceptable to take another human life? Unless you qualify that statement heavily, you’re insane. Under no circumstances is it acceptable to take a human life, and it is so bad that you cannot even those who would consider it acceptable? Would you refuse to talk to someone who killed an extermination camp guard so that a hundred people could escape and survive, because what they did is completely reprehensible? Even fundamentalists Jains, who take great pains to minimize loss of life, recognize self-defense as legitimate. You poorly understand Buddhism if you tolerate one human ending another’s life under any circumstances. Heck, The Dalai Lama eats meat and considers self-defense reasonable. I abhor violent aggression. But violence itself? Anyone who is truly against all violence is worse than a fool. They’re immoral. What kind of person wouldn’t utilize their ability to use force to stop an act of far greater evil? It’s a bad person who considers it morally correct to allow a mass murderer proceed with abominable acts because they don’t want to bloody their own hands. If your family was being raped and beaten to death in front of you and you had the means to stop the crimes with lethal force, and you couldn’t move, would you sit on your hands because you considered it the only ethical option? This attitude is disgusting. It is righteous to smite an evildoer to save innocent lives.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email