P320 Entry: I’m A Mom Who Almost Demanded Action


By Julie D.

Every now and again as I’m moving wet laundry from the washer to the dryer, I hear the now familiar tinkle of metal on metal. Another empty shell casing forgotten in a pocket. I pause and reflect on how I came to this place of understanding and tolerance; not for my son’s lack of emptying his pockets before putting his clothes in the washer, but for understanding and appreciating how that casing ended up in his pocket to begin with.

I am many things. I am a college graduate. I have a successful career. I am a voter. I am a news junkie. I am a wife. But, most important; I am a mom. Juggling a career, kids, caring for my ailing father and trying to run a home has been hard sometimes; but make no mistake, my children are my passion. Like moms everywhere, I would give my own life to protect them from harm.

In this way I am probably like a lot of the members of Moms Demand Action.

I grew up and still live in Minnesota. Here people fish in both winter and summer and hunt in the fall. I never gave guns much thought growing up. It was the norm. It seemed everybody’s dad or brothers had guns. My dad was a businessman. Not the sports type, he took up golf, fishing and bought a shotgun to go hunting with his clients and customers. For him, the point wasn’t the score, the size of the catch or the number ofbirds. It was part of the art of the deal.

The fishing pole and the golf clubs were tucked in the corner of our garage next to the wood pile. They were always tipping over and getting stepped on. The unloaded gun was propped in the back corner of the basement closet. Religiously it would slide to the floor when we pulled out the vacuum. We would shove it back in and forget about it.

I became addicted to the news at an early age. I remember watching the CBS Evening News in black and white with daily coverage of the Vietnam War. I remember the images of the soldiers slogging through the rice paddies with rifles strapped to their backs or firing their weapons into the jungle at the unseen enemy. I was gripped by sorrow and worry for this unimaginable thing called war.

Guns were in almost every frame, but again my attention and interest was not focused on the guns. Their presence was expected. I was focused on the raw emotion of the stories unfolding before my young eyes. I was frightened by what I saw. My parents comforted me and told me the war is far away and I am safe.

In the 60’s there was a lot of news about riots and protests too. The police and the protesters got a lot of air time. The police carried guns. That was nothing new. They were supposed to. The rioters and protesters threw rocks and started fires and smashed windows. A lot of people got hurt in those stories too. The guns didn’t capture my attention. The rage and the violence did. I never forgot that feeling. My parents comforted me again.  You are safe here.

I married my childhood sweeetheart. He was from Arizona. He came from a family of avid hunters. I was fine with that. I just made him promise not to put his gun in the closet where it would tangle up in the vacuum hose and tip over. He was appalled. It was not a gun he clarified, it was guns. Guns, he pointed out don’t get stuffed in a closet. They belong in a safe. Except for the loaded gun you sometimes carry for protection and keep by the bed at night.

I wondered what life was like in Arizona. I pointed out that we live in Minnesota where it’s safe. We don’t carry around a gun witth bullets in it. Somebody could get hurt. My dad’s gun never had shells in it. For all I know he had never even loaded it. He just carried it around like a prop, offered his client the first shot, and then he tossed it back into the closest with the vacuum when he got home.

My husband and I had our first fight about guns.

I won part of the battle, but lost the war. No guns in the open in our house. Period. Our son was born and as he grew, his favorite toy was a pop gun. If that wasn’t available, his fingers would do and he raced around the yard shooting at imaginary targets. I didn’t give it much thought, little boys do that.

Father and son forged a bond over guns. Pop guns and pointed fingers gave way to a BB gun for target practice  with plenty of supervision from Dad. Gun safety was the mantra. I was pleased that father and son were bonding. Bonding was big in the news at that time.

The BB gun was eventually replaced by a .22 along with formal firearms safety classes. I was horrified. There were real bullets in that thing. Then came the weekly trips to the range for more practice and their conversations took on a surreal quality. I felt as if I had wandered into a Fellini film with no subtitles. Calibers and specs and “Rugers” and scopes. I had no idea what was going on, but I sensed that something radical had shifted in our world. Then, another gun safe was installed. “For what,” I asked? We have four guns. Daddy’s hunting gun, his pistol, the BB gun and the .22.

Their eyes rolled as they looked at each other conspiratorially. We have lots of guns mom. Surprise! Long ones, short ones, black ones, silver ones and a few painted with camouflage. We have guns from America and guns from other countries too! “Well, aren’t you two clever,” I said. “I hope that you left the price tags on because they are all going back.”

I lost that battle too.

The news continued to occupy me. The CBS Evening News in black and white had given way to CNN and Headline News. A 24/7 barrage of graphic, gory coverage in real time and in color.  Wars and terrorist bombings in other countries. How sad for those people. How frightened those mothers must be for their children, I thought.

Then came the Oklahoma City bombing and the horrible loss of life. All those innocent people. The children in that daycare injured and dead. Those could have been my children. Then came the stories of gang violence in places like Chicago and California and right here in Minnesota, too! Drive-by shootings in neighborhoods. In. This. Country.

I was outraged. Innocent men, women and children were getting shot and killed right in their own front yards, for God’s sake, by a bunch of hoodlums shooting AK-47s and assault rifles. Then came Columbine. Newtown. This has to stop. Something has to be done, I thought. I thought that the place to start was in my own home. I was a mom on a mission. It was time to turn this bus around.

I sat my guys down at the kitchen table for “the talk.” I had what I thought was a rational argument to present.   I had a lesson to teach and I meant to teach it. I imagine my outline pretty much followed the passion underlying the platform of what is now Mom’s Demand Action.

I pledged my love for my husband, my son and our daughter. I tried to help them to see through my eyes, through my heart, that the thought of losing any of them to gun violence was unimaginable. Guns don’t belong in a civilized society. Guns don’t belong in our home or our lives. AK-47s? Those belong in the hands of the Soviet army, not in the hands of kids in street gangs. People are getting hurt. People are dying for nothing. This is no longer about wars in faraway places. This is happening right here in America. Everywhere.

They listened to what I had to say. They were attentive and respectful of my anguish and my fears. Then my son asked to speak. He said there was far more to this than I understood. He asked me if I wanted to learn what he had learned and had come to understand, so that I might look at this a little differently. I agreed to hear him out. I didn’t expect to change my mind.

The teacher became the student.

At our kitchen table the night of “the talk” — and in hundreds of conversations since — I have listened to my son, now a young man, speak of the Second Amendment and what our forefathers intended. He has taught me about our country’s laws and legislation. He spoke of the more subtle nuances of our Constitution; he brought forward ideas of the anti-federalists, quoted men long dead and spoke of seeing the Bill of Rights as a list of rights inalienable from birth till death.

He spoke of his experiences in hunting, and what he had learned in the marshes, fields and forests. He talked about the pleasure and pride he took from his training in marksmanship and in competitive shooting. He helped me understand that a gun was like a tool, no different than a hammer or a knife that could be used in many different ways. Used properly, safely, and legally, all are useful. Used improperly, all can be lethal weapons.

The tool is not the problem. What is in the heart and mind of the user is the problem. Evil people do evil things. If one tool for destruction is not available, they will find another. Not a shot was fired on September 11, 2001, yet the loss of life was staggering.

For him, for his father, and millions and millions of people in this country who own and use guns properly, responsibly and legally as granted by our forefathers in the Second Amendment, this is a very big deal. They have committed no crime and have no intention of doing so. They have not hurt anyone. The hype generated around this issue by the media and politicians eager to grab the spotlight after each new incident have so muuddied the waters that rational reflection and dialogue have become almost impossible.

My son has spoken before hundreds assembled at our state capital to speak out against proposed legislation to further erode the rights of law abiding gun owners.

Do we still have violence in our country? Yes. Will changing the size of a gun’s magazine or banning one class of guns, or further restricting law abiding citizens from legally purchasing and using guns for sport , pleasure or self-defense solve the problem? No.

To all the moms out there, I gotta tell you; my son has grown into a great young man. He hears your concern and shares your outrage and your pain at the horrible tragedies that families across the country have experienced at the hands of bad people doing bad things. My son talks about the value of life and how precious it is. My son is a good man who owns guns. I would love for you to meet him, to listen to the other side of thestory. You could learn a lot from him. I did.


  1. avatar g says:

    Great article. Here’s a mom that deserves a cheer and our support!

    1. avatar TheBear says:


      Good stuff here.

  2. avatar Paul G. says:

    Thank You!

  3. avatar alanhinMN says:

    Thanks for your article. If I am guessing correctly Rob has made some impressive presentations at the state legilature.

  4. avatar Mark N. says:

    Post this on MDA and count how many seconds it is before it gets deleted and the poster banned.

    1. avatar Daniel S. says:

      Several of us here probably can’t even post on their page anymore.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        To get around IP bans, one can use TOR or any proxy really.

      2. avatar Bob says:

        I’m proud to say that I’ve been banned from the MDA/ETGS page. I think I had a positive effect as long as it lasted though.

  5. avatar John in Ohio says:

    That is a powerful message and you are an excellent writer. Good job!

    I do have to point out, however, one small line that you might want to reconsider the message being conveyed; “as granted by our forefathers in the Second Amendment.” Although on the surface it might seem petty, rights are not granted by our forefathers. They are endowed by our Creator. Our forefathers enumerated the right to keep and bear arms as a firm limit for government. They wanted to ensure that the individual right to keep and bear arms was untouchable by a constitutional government.

    I think that you should get this article out there; published far and wide. It could speak to multitudes of people who do not understand and perhaps change their point of view.

    1. avatar Jay Williams says:

      I was wondering who would make this point. Thanks, John, for pointing it out delicately and with respect.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Thanks. I didn’t want me pointing out that one detail to detract from an excellent piece of writing. Hopefully, the author will realize that even though we may discuss or even bicker back and forth over some details, it doesn’t mean that the overall message isn’t important and on target.

        1. avatar Julia says:

          While I appreciate the concept that a ‘right’ may have been granted by our Creator, it did not, in effect, become a ‘right’ until specifically spelled out in a document which has become a fundamental part of our nation’s heritage. The remarkable foresight that enabled our founders to give us that right may be what keeps this country from going down to tyranny. I believe a misguided idealism coupled with lack of information regarding what truly happens when gun control is enacted is the major force behind gun control legistation. By the same token, you can lead a horse to water . . .

        2. avatar Paul G. says:

          Absolutely incorrect Julia. Spend some time reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and you will understand more. Enumerating a right in many ways does not support that right, but paints a target on it for it being relegated to privilege status. A quick walk through the Bill of Rights, and scotus decisions relating to free speech, gun rights, fourth amendment searches, etc…..will drive that point home quickly.

        3. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          The Bill of Rights was an attempt to limit the power of the central government, nothing more. The amendments do not “grant” any rights at all, and so far have been powerless to protect them – any of them.

          If you truly think that all of the infringement by government is simply misguided, I’m sorry. All of the violations of liberty and justice we live with today are the inevitable result of giving some people power over other people. They have much power today, unfortunately, because too many people refuse to see the evil intent, and believe that these “rulers” have some actual authority over them.

        4. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “believe that these “rulers” have some actual authority over them.”

          MamaLiberty, you might like this: Alien vs. Libertarian. 🙂

        5. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          Love it! When people ask who I will “vote” for, I tell them “nobody.” I don’t have a “president,” nor a “representative.” Don’t want any.

          I own my life and body, and I’m the only one who is responsible for it.

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Julia: There are many rights which are not spelled out in the Constitution. That doesn’t necessarily make them any less important than other rights. Our federal government was created and defined by the document, our rights were not. The Constitution’s purpose was to narrowly define the power of our government. It was not to define the rights of individuals. I’m not even sure that it’s possible.

          While I respect your opinion on the matter, part of the problem with government and people today is that they view rights as you have commented. Instead of realizing that government is actually confined and defined to this narrow set of powers (privileges) and the People posses the actual rights; the whole relationship has been turned on its end so we get a view that government possesses rights and can grant unlimited privilege to individuals through those rights. Government is the servant and the People are its master, not the other way around.

          IMHO, your viewpoint is held by many statists and that is a problem.

        7. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Government is supposed to be the servant and the People are supposed to beits master, not but the Statists have turned it the other way around.”

          Fixed it for you, more’s the pity.

        8. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Julia: What keeps our nation from going down in tyranny is best summed up by the Second Amendment.

          A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

          Those words describe an aspect of the natural right and admonishes government to keep hands off. We haven’t been protected from tyranny because of the Second Amendment. We have been protected from tyranny because people keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was a reenforcement against infringement by government. I believe that it bought this country a lot of time. By itself, the 2A could do nothing. It was, and remains, the individuals keeping and bearing arms everyday that keeps tyranny at bay.

          From a statist point of view, circumventing or eliminating the 2A would remove the RKBA from the individual. Nothing could be farther from the truth! The individual right would remain regardless of the presence of a Second Amendment.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Yessir, John. The Founders didn’t grant the right. They guaranteed it against Federal infringement. Not against state infringement, though. That didn’t happen until 2010.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Yes, the Constitution guards against state infringement, because by signing on to the Union, they agree to abide by the Constitution.

        Article VI, paragraph 2:
        “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” [emphasis mine]

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          Exactly, Rich. Thank you.
          Also, by enumerating that right to all citizens, that right is valid anywhere where the US citizen is in the USA. No state can legitimately infringe rights enumerated to the people by the United States. Even if I am in Chicago, the rights guaranteed me by Illinois are in effect, and so are the rights guaranteed me in the USA, since I am in the USA first and foremost. The states agreed to that when they joined the union of states.

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          No, Rich. The Supremacy Clause did not bind the states to 2A. The BoR relates to restrictions on Federal actions. Not until the 14th was it possible for 2A to bind the states, and not until McDonald in 2010 did it become official. Read Heller and McDonald. It tells the story.

        3. avatar Ralph says:

          This is the exact language from McDonald.

          “The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally applied only to the Federal Government, not to the States . . . .”

        4. avatar Paul G. says:

          Scotus is far from always correct. Forget precedent and go to the source document.

        5. avatar Ralph says:

          Paul G., I do go to the source document, and also to laywers and jurists who I believe know about the source document. As for the lawyers and jurists — and also historians — I’m not aware of any who thought that the Supremacy Clause made 2A binding on the states.

          Sorry, but when every authority of any quality says one thing and somebody with no training says another, I’ll go with the ones who actually know.

        6. avatar Paul G. says:

          Even when it is contrary to simple English, and clearly not in the best intentions of the populace….of course. I am betting you agree with scotus and judicial review as well.

        7. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “every authority of any quality” What? Like a bunch of “lawyers and jurists?” In case you haven’t noticed, they’re the ones trying to trample our rights.

          “says one thing and somebody with no training The Constitution says another, ”

          Here’s yet another explanation of the supremacy of 2A: http://www.examiner.com/article/the-supremacy-clause-and-the-second-amendment-is-it-really-all-that-complicated

        8. avatar Paul G. says:

          Beautiful link, who in their right mind could think that the US constitution would be modified with a Bill of Rights that really means nothing, since the states are free to override those rights? Why enumerate them at all in that case? All it does is give states bullet points to act against…or it means what it says, and is supreme. Natural, inherent rights, except at levels below federal governance?

        9. avatar SteveInCO says:

          The Bill of Rights was ratified *by the states* to further restrict the Federal government. That’s what it was originally for; and only with the passage of the 14th amendement did that begin to change. Sorry to break it to you guys but Ralph is 100% correct on this.

        10. avatar Paul G. says:

          Funny, it doesn’t say that anywhere.

        11. avatar Paul G. says:

          You don’t find it strange that in amendment 1 they needed to specify Congress, when Congress is the only portion of the federal government that can make laws? Weird, huh? Or of course, the other amendment, that was defeated, that would have extended freedom of speech specifically as protected from state encroachment? I thought the BOR had nothing to do with states? Something isn’t right with that concept. “No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.” Madison called this guarantee, extending protections of the First Amendment and more, “the most valuable amendment in the whole lot.” It passed the House, but was rejected by the Senate. If the Bill of Rights could not apply to the states, why even propose such an amendment?
          You may notice it doesn’t say Congress:, and then enumerate the rights. The word Congress only applies to the first amendment, mainly since many states had state religions that they weren’t going to give up. This readily explains the defeated amendment above.
          Like I said, simple English.

        12. avatar MarkPA says:

          The picture on whether the Bill of Rights applied to the States is a bit ambiguous prior to 14A. An early decision of SCOTUS said they did NOT apply to the States. On the other hand, I recall the view expressed that some of the rights were guaranteed against the States by the BoR; and, in particular, the 2A. Bear in mind that the RKBA was considered a natural right, not a right created by the Constitution. Moreover, it was guaranteed by many – although not all State constitutions. So, to maintain the argument that the BoR constrained only Congress while also maintaining that the RKBA was a natural right would be awkward. Moreover, each male citizen of militia age owed a duty of service to the Federal government irrespective of his State government. It would be awkward for a State to dis-arm a male citizen of military age thereby interfering with his ability to meet a militia duty. Inasmuch as everyone took for granted that a citizen would be armed (with the possible exception of a Bowie knife or an Arkansas Toothpick) the issue had no need to be pushed until the 13A.
          – – – Upon the 13A the issue of applying the BoR to States became a big issue; so, the 14A was passed. But, then, SCOTUS essentially decided that the 14A couldn’t possibly mean what it said. Only in the 20’th century did SCOTUS start to take the 14A seriously with its silly “incorporation” doctrine. Now I think there are only one or two BoR rights that remain unincorporated.
          – – – Heller and McDonald put us in a strong position. If Heller is reversible then so too is Roe v. Wade is reversible. Reversing McDonald doesn’t strike me as likely because it would tend to make all the incorporations reversible. (This is merely a layman’s opinion.)

        13. avatar Rich Grise says:

          There is no such thing as “a right created by the Constitution.” You, being a human, have all the rights there are. (there is no right to do harm.)

          The Constitution grants certain powers to the government, and that’s supposed to be it. They’ve way overstepped their bounds, which is why the villagers have got their pitchforks out.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Thanks for pointing that out, Ralph. It’s necessary that someone do so. If it isn’t obvious by my posts, I tap dance around that bit because I haven’t really sorted it out for myself yet. I leave it up to the rest of you to discuss it. 😉

      3. avatar Diamondback says:

        I disagree, Ralph.

        The founders intended the BoRs and US constitution be “applied/incorporated” against the states via the constitutional requirement that ALL state and federal officers swear an oath of fidelity to the US Constitution upon assumption of office. The corrupt courts/judges usurped/perverted that intent and continue to do so on many, many different constitutional issues today.

        Another indicator of the founders intent that the US Constitution and BoRs were “applied” against the states is the fact that they stipulated that it was/is “the Supreme Law of the land.”

        In 2010 in McDonald v. Chicago, the supremes “incorporated” the 2ndd Amendment against the states via the 14th Amendment’s due process clause. The supreme court has stayed far away from applying constitutional protections against the states via the “privileges and immunities” clause though because that would open them and all other “sworn officers” up to charges for failing to do their primary duty to the people – affirmatively protect their rights, privileges and immunities as stated in the “conscious of the constitution”, The Declaration of Independence.

    3. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Yes, what John said.

    4. avatar lizzrd says:

      What “creator” is there to endow us with a right? Mom? Dad? Allah? Our forefathers created the right through the act of prohibiting infringement of it.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        You’re funny, lizzrd. Scurry along now. 😉

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        “What “creator” is there to endow us with a right? Mom?”

        Sure! She’s the one who assembled you from molecules she extracted from the food she ate. Or, in the bigger sense, Mother Nature. You’ve survived 3,000,000 years of evolution and got born human. Therefore, you have the unalienable right to self-defense. It’s Natural Law.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          There ya go! +1 🙂

  6. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Fairly good article…but WHAT took you so long??? That’s only last year and now you”re converted? I’m over 60 and I am very happy my wife of 25 years has always understood what an evil violent world we live in. She grew up on the westside of Chicago and saw firsthand people die every day. Glad you finally saw the light. From an OFWG married to a beautiful black woman.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      You put your finger on it, fww. Your wife grew up in a violent city. You saw violence first hand. Julie D. was actually kinda sheltered — and good for her that she was. But she can see now, and we’re both happy about that.

  7. avatar Rokurota says:

    I don’t know who your son is, but he sounds like the kind of young man America needs more of.

    1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

      The kind of young men that still live with their parents and have their mom do the laundry? I think we have plenty of those and that’s part of the problem.

      1. avatar Bruce L. says:

        My wife sometimes does my daughters and her children’s laundry, when they are visiting on vacation. If you don’t know all the facts, you shouldn’t make nasty comments.

      2. avatar Matt in Tx says:

        Mack yer trollin.

      3. avatar Carry.45 says:

        Mack, that’s all you have to say to this woman and mother after that beautiful piece of writing? Your mum would be proud, I’m sure.

  8. avatar Vhyrus says:

    I’m calling this one the winner. This is how you write a ‘mom’s for guns’ piece.

    1. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

      I second that motion

      1. avatar lizzrd says:

        Yup. Well-written, logical, and with a happy ending.

  9. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    Wonderful article, Julie! I’m so very glad you listened to your son.

    I’d love to send you the book I wrote about my own experience as a victim of an aggressive attack, which led to many years as a firearms and self defense instructor. I made a pledge to myself that I would never again be a helpless victim… and would do whatever I could to help other people – especially other women – make that same decision.

    If you (or anyone else) would like to have a free pdf copy of “I Am NOT A Victim,” look at this page and follow the instructions at the end. http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/?page_id=846 “The Man I Might Have Killed.”

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I appreciate your efforts and generosity. I’ll read it and then recommend it to my daughters.

      (Edit: Of course, I’m not Julie or anyone connected with her. 🙂 )

  10. avatar Vendetta says:

    Very nicely written article. If only my Mom had written it. She still isnt convinced though shes not an anti. Just doesnt find the necessity.

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      As the old (often quoted in the) Army saying goes “Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.”

      If someone’s breaking down your porch door at 3am because they were drunk, high or all for “wealth redistribution”, than that’s a hell of time to know you needed it but not have it.

  11. avatar Jus Bill says:

    THIS is the type of article the NRA should be circulating. Brief, articulate, and well written. Bravo!

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      Nah…MSNBC or HuffPo would discover that she’s a fabricated shill, like Colion Noir. Because all women are supposed to favor gun control.

      Why I bet Julie D. isn’t even her legal name!

  12. avatar Paul McCain says:

    Great article, kudos!

  13. avatar ProfBathrobe says:

    Phenomenal article.

  14. avatar Gregolas says:

    Thank you, Julie D. Extremely well-written and touching.

  15. avatar Great Scot says:

    Eat your heart out, Shannon Watts! This is how you do a Mum on the gun debate issue argument!

  16. avatar KMc says:

    Julie, you had me hook, line and sinker until “assault rifles. Please tell me your Son didn’t use that term.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      It could be the correct term in that case. Assault Rifle is a well accepted military term for a selective fire, intermediate cartridge, carbine. Many of the AKs that gang members use are capable of selective fire, so they’re assault rifles.

      Assault Weapon is the term the gun grabbers made up to make a semi-auto pistol or rifle sound scarier.

      1. avatar KMc says:

        I think it was “assault” that bugged me. The most overused term in the past few years, can’t virtually any inanimate object become “assault” if used improperly? Had to get that off my chest….

  17. avatar disthunder says:

    As a son of another mom who had her mind changed after a few dinner table discussions, I greatly appreciate you sharing your story.
    I like to think I’ve grown into a pretty decent guy, but it wouldn’t have happened without a great mom.

  18. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I take the gangs running around with AK-47s with a grain of salt It seems street gangs prefer small concealable hand guns. I thought Randy Wakeman had a good article as to why ” assault rifles” were really the protected guns under the 2A. I still think the 2A has very little to do with duck hunting; and my daughter who placed runner up in the Indiana State Academic Bowl on the history of the American Revolution would agree. My daughter and I still think the 2A is a check and balance on the Federal Government, more than anything else.

  19. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    . Guns belong in a civilized society. Guns belong in our home or our lives, such as Switzerland. AK-47s? Those do not belong in the hands of despots such as the Soviet army, not in the hands of kids in ISIS gangs. There, I fixed it for you. An armed society is a polite society-Robert Heinlein.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “Guns belong in a civilized society.”

      An armed citizenry is what keeps society civilized!

  20. avatar John Boch says:

    I had to re-read it to see if my mom had written this.

    Very nicely done, Julie.


  21. avatar Andy says:

    A great woman here , sounds like a great family too . Glad you are on our side because you would be a very strong opponent . I just wish a lot of anti-gun folks would listen to common sense like you have . BPAR . KYPD .

  22. avatar A-Rod says:

    This could have been written by Nancy Lanza. Now before the S hits the Fan because of what I just said I am NOT implying that the son of this author would go shoot up a school. I am only trying to state that there are plenty of mothers out there that are doing the right thing by spending time with their kids and firearms. Kudos to this mom!

  23. avatar BluesMike says:

    One phrase caught my ear. “as granted by our forefathers in the Second Amendment” I think you want to go back and ask your son about that. The rights are inalienable not because they were granted by powerful people or a piece of paper. Rather, they are part of our nature, granted by the Creator.

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This. Was just about to post about this very thing. The only entity that gets anything granted to it by the Constitution is the federal government.

  24. avatar IdahoPete says:

    “The tool is not the problem. What is in the heart and mind of the user is the problem. Evil people do evil things. If one tool for destruction is not available, they will find another. Not a shot was fired on September 11, 2001, yet the loss of life was staggering.”

    Wow. Spot on.

  25. avatar D.G. Cornelius says:

    Good article, good read! Thank you!

    P.S. To all of you, TTAG people: thank you all, generally speaking. For me, stuck in this quasi-socialist Europe, caught in the darkness of an electrified Middle Age, where one is far from being a citizen, but a subject, and this since some 2000 years ago, your site, your articles, your talks, are a breath of fresh air. And I hope, from all my being, that USA will remain a sane place at it’s core, strongly connected with it’s fundamental values, for the hope that that sanity, someday, will spread all over this world. Believe me, the alternative to your freedom, to your rights, to your 2A, it’s a nightmare where you don’t wanna end up.

    And always remember that your Founders did what they did, decided as they decided, took the measures they took, based of their significant past experience with the insanity of the Old World. They tried their best to prevent the newborn nation to be infected by the dark habits of the Old World. They gave you a different world, and gave the world the first(and, imho, so far only) modern nation. The rest of us we are still struggling to escape Dark Ages mentality, if ever.

    Thank you all! I hope USA will never be less than the best it can be.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Excellent post. I have friends in the Old World and they are desperate to get over here. They speak much as you have commented. Unfortunately, so many in this nation seem to either want a European style system here (progressives) or think that we can somehow hybridize our constitutional republic with the Old World concept of strong central government (some gun owners). They say, you don’t know what you have until it’s gone. Unfortunately, a whole host of progressives and gun owners are going to one day find out the truth of that saying. The Second Amendment is strongly worded for a reason. Shall not be infringed means just that and so many Americans don’t seem to grasp why or how fundamentally crucial it is to our free nation.

      1. avatar D.G. Cornelius says:

        Unfortunately, for an educated European “commoner”(yes, in EU, officially or non-officially, the society is divided in “ruling class” and “commoners”. The last are quite “bound to the land”, through various means, so the name “serfs” could be more accurate) is quite impossible to get in US. When it’s about an educated EU “commoner”, that supports IIA and the principles/values that founded USA, and it is not a “commoner” that has “bowed” to the establishment, it get’s impossible to immigrate to US, and that impossibility is assured with all cooperation of US Government, which is also interested in diminishing the opposition, not increasing it. Europeans, those aware and awake, people that have a lot in common with your Founders know-how about the “old world”, are quite a peril for nowadays US government and politics. Certainly, most of the non-EU people and/or illiterate people from who knows where, are more convenient, since they are already trained to obey.
        The establishment is well aware that the last time they let like minded and educated people to get together, they ended up with USA being born. And they work relentlessly, since the birth of the USA as a nation, to erase it. And this is not a “conspiracy theory”, it’s a fact: take a look at European history, and you will find countries and trans-national groups of interests, that can follow with great determination, a certain plan, extended on hundred’s of years. 250 years is quite short span for that kind of people. Think that the Cologne Cathedral was completed in slightly over 600 years(1248-1880), with no deviation from the original plans. Don’t ever make the mistake to take the devious “old world”, lightly. These bastards have thousand of years of experience in getting things their way. And your Founders defied them. And they are pretty revengeful bastards.

        The alternative paradigm brought by your Founders is a clear danger for the “old world” paradigm, for the old ways and their “order of things”.

        I have offered and I offer to any of your “progressives” and “stronger government” supporters my EU citizenship (they would be able to reside and work in any of the EU countries) in exchange for their US citizenship. So far, no one seemed interested. My offer is still valid for any of those.

        P.S. Sorry for the obvious off-topic.

        1. avatar Mike V. says:

          Brilliant, and exactly correct.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:


          In speaking with individuals from other lands (not just Europe) about Liberty, it’s palpable that many weren’t raised from early years on the core notion of an individual being a free person by virtue of existence alone. Even our beloved and departed Uncle Joe, born and raised in Iraq as a Jew, struggled to grasp the basics that I grew up understanding instinctively. He came to this country from Israel in the 1970’s (IIRC) and during his later years his eyes were open. He finally saw the changes that came about here and he understood the importance of the individual right to keep and bear arms . American children aren’t being raised to understand Liberty anymore. It’s rotting our nation from the roots, IMHO.

        3. avatar D.G. Cornelius says:

          Yes, what you are experiencing in US is an all out attack to the fundamentals of your society, an attack directed towards the paradigm of the New World. What is happening now, to your nation, started some generations ago, slowly growing and insinuating all over, in all positions that can be useful to demolish the New World. Generations over generations were unaware of what is happening, until it started to be out in the open, so this is not an enemy to be taken lightly.
          It is an ideological war, and your enemy has a vast experience in this kind of war. Your only chance is to stick to your basic values and principles, and don’t move an inch back, no matter how “tempting” any of their offers might be.

          I say all this, as crazy as it might sound, because I know this “movie”. It can be seen all over Europe’s history. Same pattern, same ways, no matter the times, no matter the nation, since at least 2000 years ago, out in the open.
          Maybe, someday, if it’s not out of place and you, TTAG people, consider that might be of use, I’ll try to tell the story of it, from the start to nowadays.

          Thank you all for the time and patience to read my rather long, and often somehow off-topic, posts.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I agree with you completely. I’ve spent my whole life, since childhood (an odd child some say), fighting this. Even then I could see it in the distance.

          I do hope that you write something up and submit it to TTAG. Undoubtedly, many of us would benefit from reading it.

          NOT to take away from TTAG as I’d rather see it here because it will get the coverage that it deserves; I would publish anything you want to write about Liberty on a small blog I have geared towards international awareness. (Delete this part please if it is inappropriate here mods. Thanks.)

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