Previous Post
Next Post

 Jaquie Fischer, 23, a student in a concealed-weapon class at Delray Shooting Center, shot at this target at with a Glock 17 pistol Thursday evening. She is taking the class to obtain a permit. (courtesy

Over at, Hamilton Nolan finds the reaction to Guns & Ammo‘s pro-gun control screed funny—in that condescending “gun owners are dopes and fanatics” kinda way. His TTAG quote from our editorial on Metcalf’s editorial refers to “The People of the Gun.” Which triggered some shudders from Gawker’s commentariat. “Guns have become mythologized to an incomprehensible degree,” Chatham Harrison opines. “Their worshippers are unapologetically and irredeemably tribal, and they take every opportunity to enforce unity in that tribe (see: “People of the Gun”) and see to it that no other group, such as the rest of America, can keep them from their totems.” In other words, “‘People of the Gun’ is a scary fucking thing for anyone to say.” Is it? Is PotG needlessly exclusionary? And do we care what people who call us “gun nuts” think about the tribal ID?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Statists are the “people of violence” even though they would deny it. Why can’t we be “people of the gun”. All it means is we like guns and value our civil and natural rights.

    • This.

      I always thought PotG was a bit dramatic. Really we should should be referred to as RKBA supporters, RKBA purists or RKBA advocates. “Gun” advocacy ignores all of the other arms that the people must be free to own. It also excludes new technologies. When phasers come out, we are entitled to bear those also.

      • A great many people here do, in fact, insist that they are generally pro-rights and freedoms, of which RKBA is one. With that in mind, the label might be broadened a bit, something along the lines of “freedom supporter”.

        Just to give it some flair, you might want to use a more exotic language, like Latin (which, after all, has a long history of use in the content of American politics and jurisprudence), thus rendering “freedom” as “liber”. In fact, there is a wonderful Latin word, “liberalis”, which literally means “that befitting a freeman”, and what would be more apropos in that context than RKBA?

    • I am not a person of the gun. I wish I could have nothing to do with guns. All I want is freedom (and venison . . . and the occasional duck.) If I could have the freedom without the guns, I’d choose that. Unfortunately, recorded history says I can’t.

      Maybe we’re the “10 out of 10 Crowd” meaning we like all ten amendments in the bill of rights. I know I like all 10 of them, I just spend a lot more time thinking about the 2nd because other people seem to spend so much time trying to take it away. If they went after the other ones equally I’d probably think about them equally.

      I don’t think about air much but if somebody tried to take mine away I’d probably think about it all the time.

  2. I’m okay with that phrase, but can’t stand the terms “gat” and “po-po”. I’m aware of their origins but I find they come across as juvenile in journalism.

    Just my 2 cents.

  3. I think if you want to build consensus and increase following, better terms to use are Pro 2A people, People of the Constitution, Americans.

    People of the Gun makes it sound like the gun is making the decisions.

    • I’m finding “pro-self-defense” a fun phrase. It completely short-circuits the automatic reaction some people have to “gun” or “the second amendment”, and puts them in a position that invites actual thought: namely, who wants to be “anti-self-defense”?

      • “pro-self defence” is awsome! If we used the term “firearms enthusiast” they would replace the word enthusiast with extremist. Pro gun translates to them as “pro-violence” or pro-death. Anything using the word militia is construed as extremists looking to overthrow the gubmint. It is like labeling anyone that says that they like kids is a pedophile, but pro-self defence is a bit harder to twist into a negative.

      • “Pro self defense” is really good! I was going to suggest “Self defense oriented.” “People of the gun” sounds stiff and awkward. It’s hard to be against either of the first two phrases.

      • I’ve found the same thing. Especially when I’m talking to someone who favors strict gun control, I’ll just say that I disagree with them because I believe that self defense is a fundamental right. Self-defense is positive and empowering — almost no one will disagree with the right to self defense. So this automatically establishes the reason for owning and carrying guns as being valid, even if some may still disagree with the choice… which just leads to another issue where we win, personal choice.

        I’ve always taken “people of the gun” to be a useful reference to people who are really serious about them, as opposed to people who just own guns. But it’s a pretty bad term for winning hearts and minds to our side.

    • Using NewSpeak is not going to change the way those people think about you. Personally I would replace POTG with “Men” and gawker-commenter with “girly-men” but PC isn’t my thing.

    • I’ve said pro 2A, pro constitution, pro liberty, and the more cumbersome “pro-choice in matters of self-defense.” Any of these works. “People of the gun” does sound a bit insular and might tend to place more emphasis on the object rather than the person who owns it.

      As a general rule, I make it a point to reject statist limits on the language we use, but in this case it may be in our best interests to chose another term (one they will hate even more, since it will make us harder to demonize).

      • …too late for edit, but let me add that if people want to call themselves people of the gun, I don’t really care.

  4. Anyone who can’t see that it’s a somewhat tongue in cheek reference to people who simply share the same interest isn’t worth worrying about.

    • Exactly. It’s a succinct way to encompass a complex concept. Otherwise you’re resorting to saying “people who own firearms and enjoy shooting them for recreation and/or hunting and/or carrying them for self-defense.”

      • And it’s not like we’re a club that restricts membership. All you have to do is own a gun to belong. And really, just supporting civil rights gets you a membership. No gun required for that.

        If we do change up from POTG I suggest Pro Civil Rights. But honestly, POTG is fine with me.

        • Haven’t you heard? We’re a racist club. Only white men need apply.

          Wait a minute… I’m not white! …exiting quietly… no sudden moves and no one gets hurt…

        • Ever watch Blazing Saddles? The first time the new sheriff comes to town? Hold your gun to your head and threaten to shoot yourself as you head for the door. You might make it. After all, according to hollywood, us OFWGs ain’t all that bright.

      • This. And I like the word “gun” as part of the name. For me PotG is a mark of being beyond irrational fear of guns and understanding their place and role in everything from hunting to recreation to defense of life and liberty, as you said. It’s not about gun worship, so much as the mere ability to hold a conversation about guns without shying away from using the word “guns” or getting squeamish in the process.

        If you can’t read or hear the word “gun” without getting twisted in knots then you’re a hoplophobe. Changing the label to appease people who find it uncomfortable doesn’t help anyone. It’s not derisive or offensive, and being phobic is not a right to be coddled.

  5. Can a married TTAG-er tell me what the text says?I’m 26 years old and can’t get past the caption photo…..

    • Truth! These are people who think of us as nothing more than cavemen, they and their opinions are the next level up from pond scum.

  6. “People Of The Gun” are often derided by “People Of The Violent Blockbuster Movie”. I could care less what hypocrites think or say.

  7. I don’t care for it or use it, but to each their own. While I value my Second Amendment right and see it as fundametal right; I would not say it is the thing single thing that defines me.

  8. I love being a Person of the Gun. Do Hamilton Nolan or Chatham Harrison like being People of the Irrational Fear of Personal Responsibility or People of the Incredibly WASPy Name?

  9. Personally I never thought of myself as one of the “people of the gun” but rather as a person who thinks of a gun as just a tool, and that is all it is. It is a multi purpose tool, it is used by me for recreation, personal safety, and food.

  10. I don’t like the term. It implies that guns are all I’m about. They aren’t. It’s just a tool I carry on my hip, much like the blade that’s in my pocket. In fact, I carry a knife everywhere but past the security checkpoint in an airport. It goes everywhere I go, including the places where it’s illegal to carry a gun, like my kids’ schools. Which means I’m more likely to have a knife on my than a gun. So does that make me a Person of the Blade too?

    They are an important part of my life and who I am, but they’re not all of either. In fact, they’re nowhere near the top in my list of priorities of life, nor should they be for anyone not directly in that industry or those that support it.

  11. This “tribe” isn’t actually exclusionary. Either way I don’t think anyone here actually sees it in a “mythological” sense. It’s just a less boring term than “gun owners” or “2A supporters”.

    It’s actually the Gawker types who mythologize guns. To us actually, they’re things, items, tools. To them they’re evil, corrupting, anthropomorphic.

    They call us obsessed because we won’t hand just ‘hand over our property already’. Because they themselves would see no appeal in retaining it.

    I see no need for a fixed gear bicycle, and think there’s a bit of a “cult” around that kind of thing, too.

  12. I’d change it to ‘people of the guns’. You make it sound like there’s only one, and I don’t like sharing.

  13. I’m OK with the term and my tribe. If other people have a problem with it, that’s their problem not mine. And if it makes them fearful, I’m OK with that too. The whole PC thing is getting out of hand and I find it very tiresome.

  14. Personally, I’d prefer “American citizen”, it’s inclusive to those who are not people of the gun because we welcome them into the fold, but I have no personal objections to The People of the Gun. I can see the fence sitters and hoplophobes fearing the term and using it derogatorily.

    • Perhaps we should be “armed American citizens” and they should be “unarmed future American victims”. Would that make them happier?

  15. They would still hate us if we called ourselves something politically correct like “respecters of the gun”. I don’t see a problem with us using it. Does it look bad to people on the fence about gun ownership? Maybe, and that would be the only reason to stop using it.

    We have to learn how to stop playing defense against the anti’s and learn some offense. Hit them where it hurts and use their words to make them look bad.

  16. Just one question.

    Why should I take seriously ANYTHING written at Gawker by folks with “Hamilton” and “Chatham” as first names?

  17. “People of the Gun?” Well, as long as you asked, I prefer “Children of the Corn.” But I think it’s taken.

  18. We are People of the Gun. I always liked how you say it in posts. Of course some anti will get butt hurt about it.

  19. We already have a title for ourselves, and that’s citizens. The anti’s are the serfs, slaves and subjects of slave masters, the democrat party. We need no other title than citizen, as it implies all the things we hold dear about the constitution. Think about it.

  20. I don’t mind the term and don’t give a rats ass what anyone else thinks. Although i’d rather be referred to as a “People of the Constitution” person.

  21. People like that probably believe the stupid “sh*t” they say and tell themselves… And they think we are nuts?

  22. “DontForgetTheRainSqarr
    I know eh? How does the rest of your life have to be going for you to construct your entire identity around worshiping an inanimate object that is mass-manufactured for the purpose of killing and injuring. Today 11:42am”

    I’m completely surprised that someone identified a gun as an inanimate object… but then they lost it when they ignored the purpose of protecting, defending and feeding… they got it half right.

  23. I don’t use the term “People of the Gun,” myself. I find it a touch on the nerdy side but also recognize that “Second Amendment Supporter” and other terms along those lines are dry. It’s neither here nor there.

    I’ll point out that Farago even entertaining the idea of not using the term is allowing the enemy to set the rules of engagement in a war. Not a good way to advance a cause…

    • “One mark of a great soldier is that he fight on his own terms or fights not at all.”
      ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      was going to use this in my comment but yours beat me to it 🙂

  24. On a much more important topic:
    why won’t FlashPlayer install on my LT?
    Cause I’m a Person of the LapTop

  25. Nope, I do not like it. I like ‘Citizen’ a whole lot more but “We the People” works well too.

  26. I always thought the term was a bit stupid – it seems like an quaint anthropological term that some scientist, studying a remote tribe, would pin on us all, ref: “The Forest People” by Colin Turnbull, about the Pygmy tribes of equatorial Africa. “The People of the Gun – an anachronistic tribe of totem worshippers, found disseminated through North America….”

    But I find that term far less annoying than “Armed Intelligentsia” – which has that same pompous, air-of-superiority tone that permeates Rush Limbaugh’s broadcasts.

  27. I think “people of the gun” makes us seem like a religious cult. Why not define it simply as it is? Pro-Liberty vs Anti-Liberty.

      • Still one of my favorite quotes:

        “You need a 1911…the purest expression of personal defensive firearms perfection ever created. Gods gift to gunnies, through the genius of Holy St. John Moses Browning.”
        -Chris Byrne.

  28. Yes, we should obviously listen to the guy that claims we have a religious devotion to guns. There’s nothing we can do to make the anti’s happy. It’s like that scene in Independence Day at Area 51 where the president (US) asks the captured alien (The Anti’s) what can be done so there can be peace and he just hisses “DIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEE”. That seems to sum it up from my perspective.

  29. Is this guy seriously going to deride others for perceived tribalism!? I guess he doesn’t have a favorite sports team that he follows and/or roots for religiously. I guess he’s not proud to be an American. I suppose he’s not a union member or have any religous affiliation. The cognitive dissonance regarding his own collectivist identities is palpable.

    • Not to mention the fact that they probably “worship” Obama more than we could ever worship a material thing.

  30. When a disparate and varied people find themselves surrounded by a common enemy, they do indeed look like a “tribe”.

    Put another way – this is a fence calling the field a yard.

    “People of the Gun” is an expression of commonality amongst an otherwise categorizable/definable population.

      • That’s an important point, I think. But I think we are also generally classifiable as people who support individual choice in self defense strategy. I am not bothered by the term “people of the gun,” but I don’t refer to myself or think of myself that way, any more than I think of myself as a “person of the screwdriver” or a “person of the computer.”

  31. It’s funny that the author disses on tribalism from her tribal pulpit. And that she doesn’t realize when the meaning of a word changes over time, the meanings and implications of historical documents don’t.


  32. I don’t have a problem with the label. The implied subtext of a people united by ideas in the face of persecution is accurate enough.

    As for being a tribe, I have one question: Where shall we build our first casino?

  33. If you’re upsetting a statist, you’re probably doing something right. Keep it, even if they use it as an insult. No matter what title we use, it will be twisted to use against us.

  34. It’s simply a term used to differentiate gun enthusiasts from hoplophobes. I do not worship material things, nor do I claim to be of any tribe. What these people think is completely irrelevant to me.

  35. I think “People of the Gun” is perfectly fine. It’s all-inclusive. It’s just a term for people who enjoy guns and defend their right to keep and bear them. “People of the Gun” might be straight, gay, black, white, Asian, Latino, Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Jewish, or a variety of other things. They might live in a farm in Arkansas or a high-rise in a metropolis. They might own an FN-SCAR and a collection of Glocks, or just a 30-30 lever gun and a few single-action revolvers.

    The fine folks at Gawker (that rock-solid bastion of unfaltering excellence in journalism) seem to think it means that people of the gun are ALL we are, but I don’t see it that way. Most POTG have many other interests and pursuits in life. Identifying yourself as “gay” or “conservative” doesn’t mean that you are ONLY that, does it? So why would that be the case with POTG?

  36. Robert, stop getting lured into these Alynski-esque scuffles with the antis. Mike Vanderboegh has made it abundantly clear that for these people, the means only justify the ends. Keep running with the tag. It’s a good one.

  37. What that particular commenter said isn’t particularly inaccurate, he just tried to phrase it in the most negative way possible to reflect his personal views on the matter.

    Said differently, “Pro-gun enthusiasts and hobbyists are a strong community. They are highly vigilant against attempts to disarm them or disenfranchise them of their rights and property.”

    I took all his “devil terms” and turned them into “God terms” while maintaining the overall meaning of the message. And, I even managed to be more succinct than them.

  38. I like how they call us tribal, yet every other day its seems there is some new anti self defense group popping up in the news.

    • Everyone is fundamentally tribal in their interactions and relationships with others and groups, just like everyone has survival instincts. Leave it to the anti-gunners to be in denial about themselves and berate others for the way we fundamentally operate and have operated for thousands of years. They claim the instinct to survive is unnatural when you actually do anything proactive to increase your odds and they look down their noses as if they don’t operate the same way as everyone else, as if they are different and special when they are less individualistic and free-thinking. That level of denial is sad to see but pretty much unstoppable.

  39. That’s a funny comment in that it is extremely hypocritical. The statement itself is polarizing, exclusionary, and tribal in nature, basically saying “look at that crazy group, our group is the only logical and right group”. At least he said we have unity, something the other side of the table can’t claim. “People of the gun” is a perfectly legitimate term that is acceptable to any reasonable person (see what I did there?). There are “gun owners”, “hunters”, “professionals”, and then there are people that fully believe in our rights; people of the gun.

  40. If you look at the author’s other articles he’s full of doomsaying, demanding, demeaning, b!tching and moaning. He sounds like one of those perpetually miserable opinionated assh*les that gets off on spreading their misery and the sound of their own raving. I’ll bet he’s one of those guys who gets dumped because his partners get sick of his endless ranting.

  41. well I just thought it friendly.

    Seeing as how there are no background checks required, no fees, and all thats required is to be a legal resident, not even a citizen really, I’d say “exclusionary” does not mean what he thinks.

    but if it bothers him that much, I’d say use the term early and often. this, from a “gawker”

  42. I don’t mind the term. I do not personally use it, nor does my husband but it works to identify the particular community. Firearms have always been a part of our lives. From my husbands perspective hunting and shooting was a part of life growing up in Missouri before he joined the Army. For myself, well not being originally from this country it was a matter of personal security. I joined the government intelligence service where training and carry were mandatory. We have lived here for years and I am still amazed at how many people take our constitutional rights for granted, or actively oppose them. Not all people around the world are so fortunate to have such set in law.

    I may not say we are “people of the gun” be we have lived our lives with them and both carry concealed to this day. We support the second amendment, along with our other rights. If this all makes us a part of “the people of the gun” so be it.

    Sorry if this comment has taken overly long.

  43. I would prefer a term like “Gun Owners” or perhaps more proudly “Firearms Owners of the American Republic” but “People of the Gun” is fine. Any label is of course imperfect and subject to counter-condescension.

    Seriously, “People with Guns” is my final answer.

    • Although, that doesn’t distinguish people legal gun owners and armed criminals. Chicago has lots of people with guns, but almost no gun owners.

    • I wad going to suggest “gun owners” also. Then we are just member of a group that is somewhat defined by its possession of an inanimate object, like car owners, or homeowners, etc. It’s apolitical, anti-tribal, and infinitely divisible into subgroups like “Glock fanboys.”

  44. I think I get what mr Harrison is trying to say, but the prose got a little purple, didn’t it. When I first heard POTG, I was a little taken aback, and now I kinda dig it in a forum like TTAG, in a tongue in cheek kind of way. That being said, I would imagine that any media or pr consultant hired to further this cause, would rightly say “get rid of it”. Unfortunately things said here among generally like minded people, can look very different to others… Now what really offends me, is all the sarcastic sexist jive, like that following the Wonkette article, or today’s flight attendant article.

  45. I like “pro self-defense”, but offer “People of the Constitution” and “People of Liberty” as alternatives.

  46. “People of the Gun” does seems an oddly formal locution, especially when capitalized. Gun owners are far from a monolithic group. We come from all back grounds. We differ widely in our beliefs and opinions. And the vast majority of gun owners do not consider it a significant part of their identity, any more than owning a car. Most gun owners don’t read gun blogs, or spend much time focused on gun issues. They’re not gun enthusiasts, or particularly interested in politics. They are just regular people, who happen to own guns.

    Anyway, I wish this blog would stop feeding the trolls, by responding to Gawker, Wonkette, etc. It’s like trying to reason with some raving homeless person. Progressive blogs frequently post obnoxiously ridiculous crap in order to get other sites to link to them as example of how obnoxious and ridiculous they are. So don’t fall for the click bait.

    “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

      • That goes without saying. TTAG is a business, and the content we all enjoy has to bring in revenue somehow. No ill feelings about that.

  47. Leftist ideologues yapping about how politically involved gun owners are a tribalistic group that don’t tolerate dissent?

    I laughed so hard I spilled water on my keyboard.

    They are pathetic.

  48. Tribal? Perhaps, but then everyone seeks a feeling of inclusion and I think POTG enhances that for many of us here. We humans are also hard wired to view people as either in-group or out-group, it’s a survival mechanism. Why we should be concerned about what out-group people think about our in group lingo is beyond me. Let’s face facts; Out-group members are always viewed as potential enemies. In this case they actually are. We’re not willing to give up our rights or our guns and they won’t accept that, thus we are enemies. What they think now is only valuable to the degree that we can use it to prevail over them.

  49. When thinking about “The People of the Gun,” I think we need to evaluate our goals.

    Is our goal to (re)normalize gun ownership via examples of normalcy (e.g. safely enjoying the gun range)? Or is our goal to champion gun rights everywhere via examples extremity (e.g. Open AR carry in Starbucks)? In my estimation – a successful political / cultural movement likely needs both examples. If we consider the success the LGBT community has had normalizing it’s perspective into modern culture – we might have an example.

    There are of course the classic examples of the “angry queer” all throughout the history of that community’s argument for mainstream acceptance. However, within that community there are also loads of examples of what might be called the “normal LGBT” person (N.B. I’m making no value judgement – just a cultural distinction). In reality – both act as agents of cultural change. The first shockingly disrupts society’s norms, the second co-opts the norms and presents an example of the LGBT life that isn’t so shocking – and thus begins the acceptance.

    Now – with respect to gun rights – we need to determine – what is TTA?. Is TTAG the voice of the angry gun owner? The girl who shamelessly open carries her AR to Wal-Mart just to make a point? If yes – the People of the Gun is right. If no – then we might be in want of a new moniker.

    The issue here (in my opinion), is that RF’s sarcasm is sometimes nuanced and not readily accessible to an irregular audience (Dan’s brazen tongue is a bit different). So when the kids from Gawker come by – they’re terrified. Do I care – maybe – only in so much that I want people to believe that gun owners are just people. We spend a lot of time saying that a gun is just a tool – I’m not sure being identified as “People of the Gun” illustrates that well. (Yeah yeah – cultural symbols are important – but this a blog comment – not an essay).

  50. Tribal isn’t necessarily bad. Especially when, as in our case, it is used in the context of a creed, rather than an ethnic identity. In the same way, I have no problem calling or hearing constitutionalists called “the free tribe.”
    Tribal also evokes a historical and familial tie that other words simply don’t convey. I’d much rather a few people think the term is insular and be proven wrong by individuals who call themselves “people of the gun” than allow statists to dictate our terms to us. If it sounds insular then let’s prove that it’s not, one individual at a time by being open, inviting, and humble as we deal with people who are either afraid of or unsure about guns.

  51. I like “People of the Gun”. It has a sense of community; unity. Now, if only more People of the Gun looked like her… much easier on the eyes!

  52. Come on guys, why are we even having this discussion? Political Correctness was invented by lefties to shame us into feeling bad for everything from carrying a gun, to smoking, to being more successful than some other guy. I would bet my favorite heater / gat / roscoe that not too many of us here are the least bit PC nor care what the libtards at Gawker / NYT/ Huffington think of us. They are going to make up labels for us anyway…..why not own up to them? The best way to disarm a bully is to take away their ammo. So everyone of us should proudly declare ourselves “THE PEOPLE OF THE GUN”, or “GUN NUTS”, or whatever else you like and tell the bullies to go F@&K themselves! For I would submit that the term is just as inclusive as it is exclusionary and given the choice I think there are quite a number of Americans out there who would rather be with The People of the Gun than The People Not of the Gun.
    Especially if we can get them all to wear tee shirts like this:

  53. Way down here at the end where nobody will ever see it…but…

    Fuck ’em.

    “Irredeemably tribal” is pretty rich coming from the same set of people who spend their days exploiting the human tribal instinct to segment people into markets where we all heedlessly buy whatever flavor-of-the-week idea or doodad happens to be making money at the moment. I’ve spend enough time in the presence of these hypocritical progressive nincompoops to know that there’s no reason to cater to them.

    They’ll recoil with horror and call us names no matter what we do. We believe in — and practice — our right to own objects that fill them with fear. We’ve taken personal responsibility for confronting the kind of evil that their fragile psyches won’t allow them to contemplate. They cling to the idea that law enforcement protects each and every individual, and that scary violence can somehow be cultured out of existence. Or that it’ll disappear if they just ignore it hard enough.

    We are people of the gun, and that’s all there is to it.

    Our presence reminds the intellectual progressives that their bubble-wrapped world isn’t completely sealed off and isn’t fully under control…and it never will be. That scares them to death, so they’re ridiculing and belittling the thing they’re scared of. Which is us.

    So fuck ’em. We are who we are, and we can call ourselves whatever the hell we want.

  54. There is a subtle difference between those of us who make the conscious decision to incorporate firearms and those who do not. People of the gun suits me just fine.

  55. This is a community. That likes a thing. Call it what you want, some people will hate it for having the utter GALL to disagree with their worldview.

    So forget ’em.

  56. I’d rather you didn’t. Sort of sounds goofy, not to mention that it’s a pair of handlebars for any left wing bastard that wants to make use of them.

  57. FWIW – I’ve never really embraced the term PotG because my guns do not define me… I seem to define them actually. But it doesn’t really bother me either. I’m a gun nut, just like someone would be a car nut and spend their free time working on hot rods in their garage, so they can take it out a weekend or two in the summer. Not sure they refer to themselves as PotC… but who knows, maybe they do.

    I do think another term as mentioned above would categorize us a better though…

  58. Call us Americans. If you do not defend your constitutional rights, every last one of them, you are not an American. America is not the law, the government, or political body. It is We The People. Never forget that.

  59. Hmmm…

    Some of my vital statistics would perhaps be relevant here. I [am / am a / am an / have]:

    • electrical engineer;
    • fairly good mechanic;
    • metal smith;
    • journeyman framer;
    • electronics hobbyist;
    • holder of two Masters degrees;
    • alarm company owner/operator;
    • worked overseas, including at/near both poles;
    • am a pilot;
    • love motorcycles;
    • own and use firearms;
    • understand the Hybrid Synergy® Drive;
    • live in the country;
    • have actually designed and built a digital processor;
    • identify as a Democrat, although I don’t always vote D;
    • own a great many tools…

    I could go on, but the above is sufficient to make my point: I’m an alarm installer. Or I’m a mechanic. Or I’m a geek. Or I’m a Person of the Gun. Or I’m a hayseed.

    It depends on the subject under consideration; I’m sure there’s overlap between me and most of you. Hell, one or two of you might even match me point for point, although with only a few hundred humans ever having wintered three or more times on the Ice, it ain’t likely.

    The point is, we’re PotG, but that’s not all we are. It’s a facet of who we each are, and collectively it’s a grouping, a Venn section. It’s not an exclusive Tribe, but it is a point of commonality, and of community.

    It’s no more isolationist than calling myself male, middle-aged or pinkish.

    PotG is one way of viewing me, especially in relation to others with whom I share that trait.

    Around here and in similar venues, it is of course highly relevant.

    Anyone who gets their panties in a bunch over PotG shoud just get over their cheap self.

    My 2¢.

  60. This guy doesn’t like titles at all. Be they a unifying title: like PoTG or RKBA. Or derogatory like anti’s or “gun nuts”. That’s not to say I don’t like some of them. I find PoTG hokey (but don’t you guys go changing for the world!), but I like cwp’s idea of “pro self-defense”, or “pro freedom from government demands”.

    I think the reason I dislike titles is because they are short-hand ways of expressing ideas, and not just ideas, but ideas that go right to our core. I just don’t think something like, “I’m pro self defense because I’ve seen the uglier side of humanity, or I’m pro freedom because I know there was once a time when the government had nearly no grasp on our rights and we were better for it…” should be shortened like the phrase “laughing out loud” in a text message.

  61. I always thought that referring to firearms freedom abettors as “People of the Gun” was a subtle gibe at the anti-firearms, politically correct crowd themselves. Now they want to turn it around and shape it into a slur against us? Oh that’s rich!

  62. Wasn’t the original phrasing “We the People of the Gun”?

    Honestly, dude, if you’re going through life worrying about giving the OpFor ammo for the debate, then you’re letting them make decisions for you just as much as if they passed a ban on AR’s. The other side will be getting all the ammo they want from plenty of other places, and if you’re walking on eggshells thinking of typing or saying the wrong thing, then you’re gonna end up pissed off at the world.

    If you feel like you don’t like something in the articles, and want to remove it, then it should be for your own reasons, not because some other guy made it sound like something that its not. People at my lunch table at work like to crack dirty jokes. Is the gonna stop me from bringing hotdogs for lunch? Hell no.

  63. I think we should do the thing with changing ‘people’ to ‘men’ like the guy way far above said. I like Blood-Eagles as some kind of moniker going on, also.

Comments are closed.