Female women gun owners dating
courtesy Elaine D.
Previous Post
Next Post

Granted, it’s hard for everyone to find the right person. But when you’re a Woman of the Gun  and a Democrat, it’s even harder.

It was a lot easier to find dates before Bumble suddenly decided that you could no longer feature photos of yourself holding any kind of firearm, even if it was from a legitimate training course or competition. I didn’t know this when I signed up in the beginning.

I kept putting up a photo a friend of mine had taken at an IDPA event where I’m standing near the bays holding my rifle, just because I thought it was a good photo and it was also a recent full body shot. (You know how dudes are about that…no recent full body shot and you basically have I Have Something To Hide stamped on your forehead whether it’s true or not.)

The picture kept getting taken down with vague messages about how Bumble “wanted to maintain a tone of respect and keep it positive in their community.” I kept putting it back up and it kept getting taken down, but I never got a clear message about the fact that the problem was that there was a firearm in the picture, though I finally figured it out.

This forced me to use a good number of my precious 300 characters on my profile stating that I was a shooter of rifles and pistols. That’s left very little space for anything else relevant about me, and I didn’t have any pictures of myself doing yoga on Machu Picchu to make myself look cool, so the whole process was already hamstrung from the start.

Anyway, you meet a few different kinds of guys when you state on your Bumble profile that you shoot rifle and pistol. But you can’t not include that information because that may lead to someone vomiting in horror or possibly thinking you’re there to assassinate them if it comes out during a date.

Yes, I am serious. I have been asked multiple times, back in the days when I used to wait to disclose that during the date, if I was a secret agent, a narc, working for the FBI, there to kill the person I was meeting for coffee and/or running from the cartels.

How does a woman answer such questions? Let’s just say it’s a delicate situation. It’s very, very tempting to toy with people like that when you’re a tall Asian woman with a dark sense of humor. At the same time there are all kinds of problems that can arise from having people think you’re some kind of amateur version of Jane Wick.

So I decided to start disclosing that I was a Woman of the Gun. The hope was that I would only hear from men who were OK with that. It sort of worked. Sort of. That would lead, then, to coffee conversations that went something like this:

He: So…guns! You really shoot?

Me: Yes. Do you think I’d put that on there if it wasn’t true?

He: So what kind of .22 do you have?

When I would explain that I got rid of anything smaller than 9mm and now focus on that and 5.56 and .308, there would be a long silence.

No second date.

Apparently I needed to specify caliber on my profile. So I added it. That led to a number of dates like this.

He: So…you shoot guns. But you’re a liberal.

Me: Yes, that’s right.

He: So you’re against the Second Amendment.

Me: How did you arrive at that conclusion? I clearly own guns.

The evening would then devolve into a person I had never met before insisting that I must be anti 2A simply because I didn’t vote red. The concept of not being a single issue voter didn’t seem accessible. Not very fun.

Or, there was this:

He: You shoot?

Me: Yes, I do a bit. Practice a couple of times a week.

He: Oh. Well, I’ve been shooting since I was a kid. I build my own stuff.

Me: Really, I’d like to see. I have a membership to a range here and I can bring a guest with me to practice. Let’s go so I can see what you built.

Strangely, three of the four times that conversation happened, the guy scheduled the range date and then didn’t show up. And wouldn’t return my call asking if he was coming that morning.

I would just shrug it off and happily go ahead with my usual practice. The one time the guy did show up, he brought an illegal short barreled rifle with a fore grip chambered in 7.62. He was pulling it out of its case when something that looked like a colostomy bag fell out and landed beside it.

Me, politely: What is that? Do you have a medical issue?

He: It’s motor oil. This gun only runs on motor oil. It won’t fire or operate properly unless you lube it up with motor oil.

Me: Um. Regular gun lube or something like M-Pro won’t work?

He: Nope, nope. Only motor oil. It’s fine. It’s cheap, too.

Me: I guess I’ve just never seen someone show up at a range with a sandwich bag full of motor oil in order to run a SBR. Seems kind of inconvenient. Is it registered?

He: Why would I need to register it?

Me: Well, the barrel length and that fore grip. That build means you have to register it.

He: No it doesn’t, I built it at home.

Me: That doesn’t matter.

He: Yes, it does! I’ve been shooting since I was eight!

Since this person had just a few minutes previously informed me that he also owned a pit bull that he was training to be an attack dog for “when the zombies come,” I decided that this was probably not a good time to either upset him or press the issue.

The rest of the shooting session happened in silence. I spent the silence reflecting on how I actually joined the range I belong to in order to get away from people like this. That and people with gang tattoos on their knuckles whose hands shook because they were high on meth.

It was my own fault. I was so ready to date someone who accepted my shooting habit that I had failed to screen him properly. But what had I missed? I’d checked for everything I could think of, including caliber. Was I really going to have to add, “All of your firearms must be legal and your dog must not eat humans” to my profile?

At that point it was turning into a tiny instructional manual about something that wasn’t even about dating. All of that, and still none of these red voting guys thought I actually believed in protecting gun rights. The cognitive dissonance was getting louder than a Judas Priest concert, but it didn’t sound nearly as awesome.

After that experience I quit Bumble for a good while and focused on my carbine skills instead.

I’m happy to report that I’m finally in a good relationship now with a very fine man who I met on Bumble. He is fine with my calibers, enjoys shooting with me, and even orders boxes of ammo for me as presents. His firearms are legal, his dog is a sweetheart, and even though he says he’s actually looking forward to the zombie invasion, he’s more focused on trying to pass Jeff Gonzales’ Pistol 2 class.

So there’s hope after all. The moral: never lose hope when you’re looking for love.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. she will be excommunicated by both factions…women AND Democrats…LOL
    good luck out there…you will need it…

    • Skip guns as an issue. Any single point of like mindedness is a sign of future failure. And certainly don’t mix with someone crazier than you. Any woman head over heels about gunsnis covering up some significant issues. Cough cough Dana Loesch cough choke snort.

    • “But when you’re a Woman of the Gun and a Democrat, it’s even harder.”

      If you vote for anti-gun politicians that may support your other desires, but are will damn your 2A rights every time they get a chance, you are not a POTG. You are a gun owner that is eventually fine with your rights being removed at the expense of getting your other wants fulfilled.

      Other than that, glad you have you and sorry about your dating troubles. On the other hand, all that pre-filtering will probably put in you a much better place in the long run.

      Good luck.

        • Seriously, respectfully, curious: how do you vote for folks who are ACTIVELY ‘promising’ to take away something you (apparently) value so highly?

          I can’t get my head around it, and thus the question-again, serious and respectfully asking.


        • “The concept of not being a single issue voter didn’t seem accessible. Not very fun.”
          That depends on the issue! The issue of 2A could get you killed if the anti-gun punks get their way.
          Sounds like the lady does not fully understand what Democrats stand/lay for!! Confusion is contagious….

      • “You are a gun owner that is eventually fine with your rights being removed at the expense of getting your other wants fulfilled.”

        This is why I have been saying for a while now Homosexuals , potheads, Liberals and the Left see gun rights as an equal value to gay sex and drugs. As long as they get gay issues and legal pot, they are just fine with not having guns. Because to them guns are not MORE IMPORTANT than gay sex/rights and legal pot.

        Well you got your gay issues made legal. You got your pot legal in at least the western states. And your lost your gun rights. That’s and even trade to many people on the west coast and in Colorado.

        As a black gun owner knowing the history of gun control in the USA I disagree with the order of importance many gays, Liberals and the Left, including Libertarians, have when it comes to gun civil rights. I know you are all very happy.

        And I’m glad for you while I live in the most armed state in the union.

  2. It’s not a Zombie Invasion. It’s an Uprising.

    So it looks like we’re going to have a leftist posting here regular. I’m not sure how I feel about that. Wait and see, I guess.

    • I’d rather have a leftist post than become an echo chamber like m0st media sites.

      Having said that, if you vote Democrat and they ban our guns then you suck.

      • I think it’s good that liberals post here as well. They just shouldn’t be surprised, or complain, when they get torn apart or ridiculed by many who visit here, because the left has made it very clear. The ultimate goal is a gun free “utopia.”

      • If you look at California, some of the most damning anti-2A laws were passed by the GOP, including the Mulford Act by a Gov Reagan. He also pushed for and instituted wait periods, which still exist.

        For everything Obama was, he actually never past any anti-2A laws as POTUS, although his administration did ban the import of 7N6 and Kalashnikov Concern, yet Bush Sr did the same with China and he also laid the ground work for the ‘94 Federal AWB that Clinton eventually signed. And as it stands, Trump has pushed the Bump Stock ban through (yes I understand bump stocks are stupid, but it’s the fact the language can also ban binary triggers or any triggers or even your finger). He also declared that due process should be circumvented. Directors Turks “White Paper” was also buried shortly after it became public knowledge and the SHARE / HUSH Act was also killed by the GOP the Friday before the Vegas shooting.

        AFAIC we have no allies in government.

        • “For everything Obama was, he actually never past any anti-2A laws as POTUS”

          That’s because the GOP took control of the house in 2010 and later on, took the senate. Obama very much wanted to pass a new AWB. And the 2013 one, the one he wanted to pass, was far, far more extreme then the 94 one. The GOP isn’t fantastic, but they have been forced kicking and screaming into at least fighting for gun rights sometimes.

        • …For everything Obama was, he actually never past any anti-2A laws as POTUS

          While that is technically true, it has more to do with Obama’s poor political judgement resulting in the Democrats losing the House majority in 2010 than anything else, and it is also true that Obama tried to use the federal bureaucracy to penalize disfavored businesses- such as firearm dealers.


          If you are arguing that Trump is worse than Obama on 2nd A issues, you are either uninformed, misinformed, or dishonest. Obama’s lack of action on the subject was entirely because he lacked the votes to pass legislation on the matter.

        • WHERE IS MY 7N6 DAMMIT!!! F YOU OBAMA!!!
          I miss your lovely terminal ballistics and sweet low, low prices.

        • “If you look at California, some of the most damning anti-2A laws were passed by the GOP, including the Mulford Act by a Gov Reagan. He also pushed for and instituted wait periods, which still exist.”

          Ronald Reagan is a dead president and a dead Governor. Who runs the state now??? Who has publicly supported the Mulford Act when he was asked to repeal it???

          Answer, the proud white homosexual state senator Tom Ammiano president of the California state senate. He wrote the law making rape victims and everyone else, wait an extra ten days to get a gun. He is also an ex-cop out of San Francisco.

          What makes a gay man smarter than a female rape victim????????

        • I’m sorry, but it’s true. You can be a gun owning Democrat, but you can’t vote for them if being pro-2A has any importance to you. If you spend your spare time protesting at abortion clinics and then voting Democrat, you’re canceling out your actions. If yoi proselytize for single payer health care and vote Republican, you’re canceling your actions. The modern Democrat party is anti-2A. Dems in the mold of Rep Zell Miller and Gov. Bill Richardson are gone. The party left them. If Democrats have enough votes, the first thing they’ll do is ban the carbine that Elaine is pictured with and spent her time practicing with instead of dating losers. Is Elaine voting for Cruz or Beto? Beto wants to melt down the 6.5 pound of pure EVIL Elaine is holding. If being pro-2A means only owning a muzzleloader, can’t use it for self defense, and you want to submit to background checks, licensing, home inspections, and storage/liability laws, then the Dems what you’re looking for.
          The headline should be “Walking Contradictions Have Trouble Finding Boyfriends.” A militantly pro-choice Republican is going to have the same problems.

        • Lots of us gun loving liberals in the world (myself and nearly all my friends included) just like there are pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights conservatives. Believe it or not, you can also be pro-gun but pro-SOME rational gun control laws (back ground checks, carry licensing, no guns for felons, some versions of safe storage law, etc.)

        • “Believe it or not, you can also be pro-gun but pro-SOME rational gun control laws (back ground checks, carry licensing, no guns for felons, some versions of safe storage law, etc.)”

          Oh yes…there is a canyon-wide difference between being pro-gun, and being pro-2A. The pro-gun person enjoys guns, but would easily turn them in if the all-benevolent government requires it. The pro-2A person will discover a disastrous, but previously unknown loss of all owned guns, and increase their donations to pro-2A organizations and politicians.

        • @Anymouse

          The long term plan is to mobilize the liberal gun owners I know to start speaking out and move the Dem party toward a more educated and moderate stance on legal gun ownership. There are a lot of us, lots more than you’d think. Especially in Texas.

          Might work might not but worth a shot.

        • And just like everything else, with a major pro gun majority on the Supreme Court, as there is reason to take up those cases, those Unconstitutional laws will also fall.

        • “…to start speaking out and move the Dem party toward a more educated and moderate stance on legal gun ownership.”

          The problem is, they have *zero* interest in accommodating you on that issue.

          The *only* way for them to hear your voice on that is for them to lose elections, and for you to tell them *why* you didn’t pull that “D” lever.

          You continuing to pull that “D” lever tells them you are just fine with draconian gun control at the least, and outright repeal of the 2A at the worst.

          For some reason, you seem completely incapable of seeing that.

          A follow-up question to my other one –

          A future Progressive administration passes “Australian-style gun control”, mandatory “buy-backs”.

          Do you comply?

        • “Are you so sure the Rs won’t instigate restrictions? I’m not. Not at all.”

          They have, and do. We trash them at every turn. And that includes every lobbying group that claims to be staunchly pro-2A.

          It might be useful to understand that interchanging Republicrats with “conservatives” is a common error across the political discussion. In the times of the Founders, a “liberal” was a believer in liberating individuals from the thumb of government. Of allowing liberal tolerance of individual rights. Conservatives of the day were those who wanted to conserve the status quo of the rule of monarchs. Today, those concepts are completely reversed – liberals want ever greater government intrusion and control; conservatives want to conserve/protect/retain the superior rights of people over government.

          When it comes to guns, Republicrats are enormously less like to increase infringements on “gun rights”. With liberals, such infringements constitute is a litmus test, a badge of approval, a mark of faithful adherence to the concept of corralling individual freedom and liberty. YOUR party utterly abandoned any pretense that they do not intend to eventually disarm the public.

        • And that isn’t answering Geoff’s question Elaine. Is there in fact a “Molon Labe” tat somewhere on you and is it for real? Are you and I gonna be shooting next to each other or at each other if they try to come and take them?

      • “Blue Dog” Democrats used to be a very real thing. Kentucky, for example, is an odd duck: conservative but likes unions, has a string of Democrat governors yet sends Republicans to congress. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans at a state level but a lot of counties went Trump.

        Blue Dogs can score high with the NRA, be pro life, want lower taxes, and be pro labor. They may want their guns and tight family life but know from experience a coal miner without a union is a dead man walking. They’ve been stung enough by the ‘bosses’ to know you can’t trust corporate interests while also being suspicious of the government as well. They aren’t asking for the whole pie for labor but for their fair share; an honest day’s labor for an honest price. They would just as gladly fire a shogun at the tax man, the revenue man coming to bust up their still, the corporate man selling snake oil, or the banker looking to raise the rate on their loan.

    • Gee I asked if TTAG was tilting left JWM. Got read the riot act. My FEELINGS are I am not a fan. FWIW I don’t give a rat’s azz if Elaine gets a guy. Soyboy’s can’t handle a gal with a gat. Stay tuned…

      • Back in the old days of TTAG, there was a card-carrying gun grabber who wrote articles. The truth about guns is that there are a lot of people who think nobody should have them, and RF figured those people should be heard from and openly debated.

        The truth also is that there are a *lot* of mostly closeted “liberal” gun owners, and it looks like Dan figures those people should also be heard from and openly debated.

        I look at this as a return to form for TTAG. It can’t hurt to hear a different perspective on gun ownership and debate it. Plus, Elaine is an amazingly good writer and there’s not enough of that going around, if you ask me (which you didn’t).

        • I’m grateful to have honest gun grabbers come on, than a Libertarian, Liberal, or Leftist liar.

    • “Exploring the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns”

      That is the tag line of the website. It says nothing about the content being right-leaning only or reading/post a privilege of certain types of people. Certainly the topics will lean a specific direction at times but some different points of view and opinions can’t hurt – without it all this site will ever be is a subsection of OFWG talking about how hard it was when they walked to school uphill in both directions.

      • “…all this site will ever be is a subsection of OFWG talking about how hard it was when they walked to school uphill in both directions.”


        That’s the way it was back then.

        • I have a question for you, Elaine –

          Trump loses re-election to a Progressive who gets “common-sense gun regulation” passed that bans future sales of semi-auto “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines and requires you to register with the government all the ones you have.

          Do you meekly comply or do you make all or some of yours “disappear” in a tragic boating accident? *cough*…

        • That’s going to be hard to do if they don’t control the presidency the senate and the house, which inst going to happen. There is also the factoring of the conservative leaning supreme court. I’m so tired of this NRA fear mongering that has infected the masses. Do any of you remember how bad the eighties were…then 1994 happened?
          I mean do we seriously still have to act like THE END IS NIGH!!!!!

        • “I mean do we seriously still have to act like THE END IS NIGH!!!!!”

          In the end, there really was a wolf.

          And Cassandra was correct.

    • Indeed. If guns are so important they take up the whole “about me” section of a dating profile, but you vote Democrat, you’re broadcasting “I’m badly confused” to, well everyone.
      Which makes smart guys want to stay away.

      Then you’re only attracting gun guys, and to (most) of them you’re shouting “I’m in league with the devil! We’re conning for your guns!”
      This makes gun guys want to stay away.

      Meanwhile (most) guys who don’t think you’re in league with the devil think that it’s because you are, in fact, the devil.
      This makes wimps and Democrats want to stay away.

      That only leaves dumb, non gun owning, non political, tough guys. Who are afraid of strong women, such as the one who shoots guns in competitions and those political enough to list their affiliation on a dating site and blog about it.

      There is literally no one to date you. I’d imagine it is very difficult.

      • I think there are many relationship where the man is Republican and the woman is more of a Democrat. The type where the woman doesn’t like that her husband owns guns and doesn’t want the kids to be around them if she can have it her way. Or the kind where the woman doesn’t really care about guns, wants to help needy children and is against war/violence.

        • Yup that’s my situatuon. My wife, a teacher, doesnt want to know anything about my guns and she cancels my political vote with hers. But she still makes her students stand and recite the pledge of alligence. We still have in common our level of patriotism, thank God!

        • @CZJay

          That’s a good point and a good analysis.

          My man votes Red. He’s an expert shot, a police officer, has an engineering degree and got accepted to law school before his life took another path.

          Despite what others here may believe, we agree on most things. Healthcare, pro choice, education, and, obviously, gun ownership. We just believe in different ways to get there.

          I really enjoy your posts by the way. Thanks for reading and writing.

        • Unless the violence is done to unborn children then it’s OK. Especially unborn black children. Likely also the type who doesn’t want to punish violent kids like the recent Florida school shooter- who everyone but the kind hearted progressives in charge of the system knew was going to eventually assault the school.

        • Thanks, Elaine. Partially for the compliment to my analysis, mostly for being a good sport and having a sense of humor.

    • I find that women naturally pick Democrat as their party because they want to take care of people. They want education, health care, security, food, etc, for those that can’t do for themselves. Democrats claim to be the party that will provide the best.

      Republicans are not good at bringing in the youth, women and minorities. They don’t appear to be inclusive, compassionate or diverse. They come off as big money lovers and war mongers.

      • Cute video. There’s a metric shit ton of republican women dude. Look up the stats. Lots of women voted for Trump. I don’t remember the numbers off the top of my head. But if the only people who voted GOP were straight, white, Christian men, the GOP would’ve died 50 years ago. Go visit a red state. There are tons of republican women. There are even republican blacks and Latinos for that matter, too. Trump won MORE Latino votes then Mitt Romney.

        • Don’t forget that Hillary was hated by most women. It’s not like Trump inspired women to vote for him. Women rather have Trump than that bitchy Hillary.

          Of course there are Republican women. A lot of them were raised that way and/or grew up with family in military or law enforcement. They stay Republican because they feel a sense of patriotism, something the Democrats do not provide. They have pride for their fathers, brothers and husbands who served.

        • Uh, I’m a woman…and I’m conservative as all hell. Always have been, too. Oddly enough I have quite a few conservative female friends who are shooters as well.

        • It should be stated that Trump got %14 of the black vote. Mostly black men. Most Republicans get 0.00001 of the total black vote.

          Trump will most likely get %30 of the black vote next time. That’s why the democrats are flooding the nation with people who can’t read or speak English.

    • My mom was the one that taught me and my brother to shoot when we were kids. She bought my first handgun too.
      I gotta admit that an avid shooter that votes Democratic confuses me also. I’m figuring that with guns being important enough for you to list it in your profile, that you would want to preserve the 2A. It’s okay to have other issues you hold more dear, but many gun owners have become very political on 2A issues. It is the single most important thing I look for in any candidate. I’m happily married to an Asian woman that also enjoys shooting, but she wouldn’t vote for the party that endorsed Hillary any more than I could.

      • @bontaijoe

        Here’s the thing (and there’s no way to get into all of my thoughts about this without it becoming a screed, plus I’m still learning so I’ll keep it short): I’m just not sure the Second Amendment means what a lot of people think it does, especially as I read more about the historical context of it.

        At the time it was written, although gun control measures were not written into the language, gun control was *practiced,* as it always has been. There was not free unfettered access for everyone to guns. Never has been never will be in the history of this country. What goes up and down is the battle between whether you want to regulate the arms or regulate the people, and it seems like the US has always done some of both.

        So. It’s an ongoing study for me. We can’t go back in time and tap the authors on the shoulder and ask them what they would think of AR-15s. But I am amazed how, on both sides of the debate, people seem so sure they know what that answer would be. That’s just where I am with it right now.

        • The founders wrote entire friggin books on their thoughts about the 2nd amendment and what it meant. yes they had primitive multi shot capable weapons at the time and were fine with it. check out the guy in the video below as he manages to explain it much better than I can. The fact remains the words are there, just not in the original document. Read the Federalist papers and Anti Federalist Papers and you’ll find many of the founders agreed a good and free man must not be disbarred the possession and use of arms in defense of themselves, their property, and their nation.
          Should criminals be allowed guns? Not until after they have served their sentence.
          Should we all be able to buy a freaking machine gun? Hell Yes!! if you can afford the ammo.
          Should I have to see a shrink to buy a gun? Hell no.
          Background check? Eh I’m agnostic to those. I can see the problems with it and I can see the good.
          Licensing for ownership? Seriously you didn’t need a license for a damn frigate shortly after the founding do you honestly believe the founders would want to license your rifle?

          I’ve found that the more I look into the school shootings and mass murders, the more I see the same exact red flags thrown up by the perpetrator in every instance and yet no one has done anything to try to prevent it or break the cycle. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZSvcSkCF7w).

          Now to dig into your democratic affiliation a bit. Why? Why did you choose the democratic party? Economics? Social Programs? The lie that Republicans will ban abortions? Grew up under Bill Clinton? Suffered through Bush jr? I’m legitimately curious.

        • “I can see the problems with it and I can see the good.”

          Liked your response to Elaine, but remain curious. What, exactly is the “good” of background checks? In five years on this blog, I haven’t found anything good about NICS checks regarding gun ownership.

        • “We can’t go back in time and tap the authors on the shoulder and ask them what they would think of AR-15s.”

          Yes, we can. That is, those willing to do the work of reading what the Founders left us. Only a modern leftist would imagine the Founders were incapable of being clear in writing the words of the constitution. Read original sources, not politically-motivated crap from the minds of people who couldn’t hold an intelligent silence in the presence of the Founders.

          Just so you cannot say, “I didn’t know”, I’ll repeat a bit of the lesson I offered last nite – at the founding of the republic, the constitution was written to control the central government. That meant the central government had no delegated authority/power to establish gun restrictions upon the people, or the independent States created by the people. (side note: “independent States” were not the creation of the national government, nor did the States surrender their powers completely to the central government, thus becoming vassals)

          After 1868, the entire US constitution was incorporated (by constitutional amendment, not simple congressional legislation). That incorporation was designed to prevent sovereign States from re-instituting slavery. The abolitionist movement in the US could not muster the votes necessary to abolish slavery through a constitutional amendment. Attempts were made via congressional legislation.

          After 1865, there were not enough southern Democrats in the US Senate block the 14th Amendment, which made all former slaves citizens (which effectively ended formal slavery in the US). The 14th also made all the restrictions on the central government applicable to the States, including a prohibition on infringing on the right of citizen to keep and bear arms. This condition posed a problem for those politicians who wanted a more powerful central government to control the States. The entire concept of our constitution and nation was turned upside down; States were no longer sovereign, no longer superior to the central government. In order to solidify the power structure, a concept called “compelling government interest” was created by the Supreme Court, permitting the central government to rule over the States at convenience.

          The point of all this is that selectively picking and choosing, ignoring the political relationship between States and the central government prior to 1868 leads to mischief of the mind. If you want to use history to “prove” the central government always imposed gun restrictions on the citizenry, be honest enough to understand the realities of such cherry-picking. Gun laws became more onerous in the early 1900s, worsening as time proceeded. Once the central government became supreme over the states, all sorts of “unconstitutional” laws were passed by congress. And the Wilsonian theory that the constitution should be malleable to fit the desires of the politically powerful took full root.

        • @ Moltar, below:

          Why I’m currently Dem:

          1. Healthcare. ACA gave me the best plan I’ve had in many years. Expensive yes. Effective in terms of getting care? Also yes. Everything before it was also very expensive and was shitty both in terms of care and also the continual threat of its being removed for any and all reasons. I think the ACA is a beast that needs revision but in terms of the improvements it’s made for people like me, undeniable.

          2. Pro choice, yup. I suppose I see abortion differently than a lot of people do. Humans have always aborted as a form of birth control. ALWAYS. Ever since we’ve been on planet Earth. It’s an ugly reality that can only be partially solved by the availability of modern contraception, though I do believe all forms of contraception should be made free and easily available, including and up to sterilization.

          Many of the pressures of today’s world come from resource depletion and overpopulation. Tribe against tribe has always been there, but combine that with resource depletion and too many people, and you’ve got a bad situation. I don’t think the questions regarding our natural environment can be separated from issues about overpopulation.

          3. Education. I have a master’s degree, so I’ve benefited greatly from academia which appears to be one of the most polarized environments right now. But I do believe that if carefully selected and pursued, education can still be the path to a better life and the production of a more engaged, informed, and thoughtful citizen. It has certainly done that for me.

          So those are just a few of the reasons.

          (Sometimes when I don’t reply to a thread, it’s because for whatever reason a “reply” button doesn’t show up for me to write a response. Hopefully this gets to you anyway.)

        • Classic liberal, statist, collectivist self-justification.

          1. Healthcare is not a natural, human or civil right protected by the constution (as in an enumerated right). RTKBA is an enumerated right, immune to government regulation.

          2. Abortion is good for birth control; keeps the number of government resistors down to a manageable level (if massive, unlimited abortion were not permitted, black people would represent twice the percentage of the population as they do now). Abortion is naked murder of a developing human, but because it has a long history we should endorse it.

          3. Education: I got mine, you get yours. The words “carefully selected and pursued” are telltale signs of an elitist who would be comfortable deciding what “carefully selected and pursued” actually means. Because there might be differing opinions, government would decide (except when conservatives are in power, then the courts would decide in favor of the leftists).

          Sorta a declaration that guns are good for elitists, but life and education is best left to a ruling class of faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats.

        • “I do believe all forms of contraception should be made free and easily available, including and up to sterilization.”

          Your inner commie is showing. There is no such thing as free contraception. (Or anything else for that matter) Someone always has to pick up the tab for all the freebies government provides in exchange for votes.

          People aways, through the whole human history enslaved each other and cut each others throats. That doesn’t make it right.

    • Hear hear! I sympathize with the author. Glad she found someone nice. I’ve done some online dating here in deep blue upstate NY, and as a conservative gun owner in enemy territory, it really is a drag. I ought to be a catch: a PhD and a great job in a technical field, my own home, no debt except for my mortgage, lots of interests and hobbies beyond guns, plenty of friends (including many women who swear I’m sane and not a creeper), and yet… nothing but lefty academics as far as I can see, all rejecting me for my values or because of “Patriarchy.”

      (I call my 1911 “Patriarchy”)

      Anyway…(!) I suppose it’s just as grim and lonely being a single, gun owning conservative behind the iron curtain as it is being Democrat who likes guns. A 2A themed dating website would be cool!

      • @Napresto

        Sorry to hear that. Yup. It’s tough when you don’t fit the “box.”

        If there’s anything I’ve learned from my experiences it’s that people have a lot of trouble with complexity, with things that don’t fit how they think the world “should” be. It is like your very existence makes their eyes roll back in their heads and precipitates an existential crisis which they then stave off by having a few more craft cocktails and/or draft beers and then they wander off into the night, dazed and confused and wishing they had never had that experience.

        Or, sometimes, rarely, you meet someone who actually enjoys the experience.

        • “If there’s anything I’ve learned from my experiences it’s that people have a lot of trouble with complexity, with things that don’t fit how they think the world “should” be.”

          Good Lord is this so very true. All it takes is reading the comment section of any mildly controversial/interesting article on TTAG for 5 minutes for my eyes to gloss over and look for better things to do with my time. Most comments are just thinly veiled personal polemics disguised as chastising comments about ones lack of purity on 2A issues, nuance or true conversation be damned.

          Frankly, I just wanted to thank you for this article as it’s a different perspective of gun ownership – it shows a broader picture of the People of the Gun. Do you have different ideas and beliefs than I do? Sure, but not as many as I’d have thought. Like you said, how you go about it and political affiliation is just different.

          “The Daily Stoic” had an interesting tidbit about this just the other day too and it’s quite appropriate here in TTAG’s commentary section wasteland:

          “Snowflakes, whether they are on the left or the right, are miserable because they need the world to be a certain way–their way. They are constantly at risk of being upset and disturbed because someone else–someone with views different than their own–has the power to say or do or think for themselves. A Stoic, on the other hand, is open-minded and content to let others live and think as they wish. Not only that, but they relish the opportunity to have their own views challenged, because they know they grow stronger for it.”

          Hope you continue to write for TTAG, Elaine.

        • “If there’s anything I’ve learned from my experiences it’s that people have a lot of trouble with complexity, with things that don’t fit how they think the world “should” be.”

          This statement is true only when someone unnecessarily introduces complexity into what is a simple proposition (as leftists, liberals and Dimwitocrats often do).

          “Frankly, I just wanted to thank you for this article as it’s a different perspective of gun ownership”

          I would like to agree with you. I would like Elaine to provide a different perspective; as in something different that we have read from anti-gunners and their elitist faction that are happy to remove guns from “deplorables”.

  3. Seems odd both our girls have guns and boyfriends have never been an issue . This is in NYS. One posts her hunting photos and the other handguns at the range .

      • Define older/younger. With the advent of the internet (thanks Algore!) it’s pretty easy at almost any age now.

        • Think it depends on where you live too. Where I live, younger = up to about 37, older = 37 to about 60. There aren’t a ton of folk older than that in my city anymore.

        • Even if that were true, worst case is you both would have to drive a few miles. Not the end of the world.

        • @Elaine D.

          I turn 37 in Feb 2019. Reality is a bitch. If I’m officially becoming old at 37, then I’m going for broke. I told my wife I’m buying a basset hound, a rocking chair for the porch (oh, and an actual porch), a corn-cob pipe and an old side-by-side shotty to rest in my lap (to complete the look) so I can sit, smoke and grumpily glare at people as they go by.

          She liked the basset hound idea.

          They say “Youth is wasted on the young.” Well, in that same vain, I say “Retirement is wasted on the old.”

        • @Grumpy

          Well, maybe it’s more like, “are you physically old” vs. “do you feel old.” I titrate my oldness not only to my number of years but how much complaining I do which seems to be a pretty reliable measure.

  4. You might as well just switch to being a republican. Democrats are a major turn off to real men. Unfortunately real alphas, are fewer and far between these days. Nowadays it’s supposedly manly to be a lotion handed limp wristed, skinny jean wearing, man bun metrosexual. Keep looking, eventually you will find a good alpha. Just have to weed through the sea of betas.

  5. The cognitive dissonance of being a liberal gun owner. Do I have to explain that the people you vote for are the very same people who would take away your rights? I don’t understand how you can support people who are absolutely against Liberty.

    • It’s happened throughout history quite a few times. Americans who supported the crown during the revolution. Poles, Jews, French, Brits, Russians and even a few Americans who supported the Reich, even after their nations had been invaded. Cognitive dissonance is often touted, which I believe plays a part. But I believe the answer is simple selfishness.

      • I think you found the answer. Dems are giving, or at least promising, her what she wants, like better health care plan and acces to killing unborn babies. And they promise not to take away HER guns just yet.
        People need to rationalize their decisions in order to be able to live with themselves.

    • There have been pro-gun Democrats and anti-gun Republicans. Sadly, I haven’t seen a pro-gun Democrat win an election in my area for at least a couple of decades. Also unfortunately, there are anti-gun Republicans in office right now.

      Also, please don’t relinquish “liberal” to the Democratic party. Democrats don’t own or represent liberalism. One of the tenets of liberalism is liberty. Something Democrats are generally against. The average Democrat today is illiberal.

  6. OK, so I read it. Bullshit. How do you know his SBR was “illegal”, and what business was that of yours? If you don’t work for ATF, STFU. Why is that your business? I have an SBR in 7.62, don’t have a foregrip or WTF, what are you even talking about? Mine is also suppressed, why would that be your business to do anything except enjoy the opportunity to try it out? You sound like what my generation would refer to as a NARC! Undercover ATF?

    • Perhaps location/state laws clued her in to what was allowed/not allowed? Perhaps in conversation he was clueless on the extortion fee, i mean, tax stamp. Any number of things could have clued her in. Why the negativity?

      • “Why the negativity?”

        Possibly because gun owners who are obsessed with that’s “legal” or not are not our friends. Ridiculous or immoral laws absolutely SHOULD be ignored (Irish Democracy has worked so well in my corner of Colorado that every gun store in town openly sells full size and even extended magazines in blatant violation of our bullshit mag cap limit), and for many of us, we take pride in our defiance. Those who snivel and timidly request that please sir can I maintain a scrap of my rights? I promise I won’t be a bother deserve our scorn.

        Not to mention that their blind subservience to the whims of idiot politicians (I’m sorry, “laws”) is inherently opposed to the true meaning of the 2A. These are the kinds of gun owners (though by no means gun people) who must retreat to their fainting couch after much clutching of pearls when some militia group trains for guerilla warfare

      • @khalil

        Yep. My range sells the kinds of arms you have to get a tax stamp for. I’ve been looking at various models in .300BLK for a while and have had lots of conversations about the requirements and what makes something need the stamp.

        And, because my range is my home base and I am on very good terms with them and they sell these kinds of weapons, I’m not wanting to bring illegal weapons into their premises because they do know the difference. Just a personal preference to keep it all clean and nice.

        • Exactly *how* do they “know the difference”, when there is no difference? If I burned up my paperwork, would my SBR suddenly be recognized by these magical range employees as somehow “illegal”? The entire concept of “illegal” guns is unConstitutional and should be ignored at every opportunity. There are situations where you would be risking prosecution for a crime if you do that, but this is not one of them. If everyone who has ever seen me with my SBR, or using the suppressor with my AR-10 .308, or AR-15, reported me to the authorities (eek! EEEK!!) I’d spend all my time asking cops what their probable cause was for questioning me, ATF I have agreed (in the process) to produce the documentation on demand but I want to see your ATF documentation (badge) first. Cops, no. I say it’s documented, why are you still here? I don’t have to prove anything to you. BTW, since that first range experience that has never happened. Nobody knows or cares whether my barrel is 9″ or 16″, whether my buttstock pretends to be a brace or not, it is STUPID!

      • OK, let me repeat the question! Why would you CARE what the laws are? What business is that of yours? Are you a cop? ATF? If he wants to sell it to you, then be concerned with its provenance. Or NOT!!! First time I took my .300 suppressed SBR to the range, a puke range employee threw me out until I brought the paperwork, which he then barely looked at before admitting me, I don’t think he even knew what to look for. So why did he decide it was his business to refuse my money? What are we DOING to ourselves? And WHY? We may be forced by our fear to personally comply with clearly unconstitutional laws, but why the HELL are we joining in their enforcement?

        • My way of thinking about it was this, which may or may not make sense to you.

          This guy struck me as trigger happy. I mean, he was apparently training a pit bull to attack people, which is a terrible terrible idea for the dog because if something ever happens to the owner, that dog will not be able to find another home.

          The firearm as it stands right now is illegal. If the guy decides that there is a zombie uprising beginning and shoots someone, either by accident or on purpose, he is going to be in legal hell. As a firearms owner I don’t want to see another firearms owner doing something dumb and fixable that could get him into a hell of a world of hurt that he doesn’t even realize. I’m going to at least say something. That person does not have to take it in but I do feel it’s something I want to do.

          Because hell, as a new-ish shooter I have been called out on some dumb shit I do (it took me forever to understand the safety rules when you are doing drills in front of the firing line for example) and I am glad as hell that people yelled at me and told me to not to do those things. I have been chewed out lots for dumb shit and it made me a better and safer shooter.

          So that’s just how I think about it.

      • He, the guy, described it as an SBR. If it was a rifle lower, that means registration because the barrel was maybe 12″.

        It occurred to me that perhaps he had used a pistol lower and that’s why he thought it didn’t need registation (he was very protective of his little baby and I didn’t even try to handle it, plus he was too busy lubing it up with motor oil). Thing is, though, he had a foregrip on the thing that meant that even if it was a pistol build, that type of grip would mean it would be considered tax-stampable. So either way he was looking at registration because of the way he’d done the build.

        His choice, but if he ever shoots someone with it, there’s going to be hell to pay legally, which is the only reason I said something in the first place.

        • Elaine, people who put the bucks into a gun like that know what they are saying. When I tell someone “this is an SBR”, I am clearly saying that it has a tax stamp and the accompanying paperwork, and I carry the entire family trust paperwork along with the ATF crap. If he said it was an SBR, instead of claiming it was a pistol, he already knew what the requirements are. But just look at the nonsense you address in this one reply. WTF does a foregrip handle have to do with anything? Why does a buttstock matter at all? Is there supposed to be some sort of evil magic in these items which may get away from an individual if he does not have the additional totems from ATF? What is this all ABOUT, considering there is no disguising the fact that it is an INFRINGEMENT on the right *of the people* to keep and bear arms? And again, who is paying you to enforce federal firearms laws? If no one, why are you doing it? On the highway, do you pull over speeders?

  7. Democrat? Are you sure you aren’t libertarian…

    I’ve lost several girlfriends after they found out I own a pro 2A company. Not that I regret it at all, good riddance imo, it’s just eye opening how closed minded people are and how effectively the anti-2A media is at demonizing law abiding gun owners.

  8. Hint: if you tell someone you are a shooter, and they ask what 22 you have, and you tell them you don’t have one, they know you’re not a shooter.

    • Oh, I used to have them alright.

      Sold them. Can always buy again if need be. I don’t like having guns sitting around that I don’t use. When it hits the two year mark without being fired, it’s gone.

      • boy howdy. i’ve had a red label sporting clays since the ’90’s that has never been shot. also a detective special. might need ’em someday.
        i keep thinking what a fine .585 nyati that over and under would make.

        if you lose your current beau, get a .22 and teach another man to love shooting.

        • Geoff, I love my silenced 22s and I shoot them almost every day, but that’s not the point. The rimfire (and 22 is the most common and most useful) is what will teach you to shoot better than any other firearm, especially a rimfire rifle. It will also keep you shooting with good fundamentals better than any other firearm.
          A rimfire rifle, with quality iron sights, a notebook with target diagrams, spotting scope, and diligence, have been the preferred equipment for most of the world’s best professional marksmen for many decades, and for good reason.
          If you want to get good, and stay good, your 22 is where it’s at.

        • No, no it’s not. I own 2 .22s and couldn’t tell you the last time I shot either one of them. I bet it’s pushing 10 years. And it’s not like I don’t shoot. I train everyday and shoot live fire once a week. It helps having my own range outside my back door. For the 10s of thousands of 9mm and 5.56 rounds I shoot a year, I shoot ZERO .22. So exactly how is it the most important gun in my safe?

        • JD, he said “If you want to get good, and stay good, your 22 is where it’s at”. If you don’t want to get good or stay good then it’s certainly not an important gun.

      • Elane,

        As others have already touched upon, you basically can’t be an openly pro-gun advocate if you don’t have a .22 pistol and rifle. They are the starting point for introducing your friends/family/beau and their children to firearms. I certainly don’t shoot mine myself very often but other people certainly do as often as I can get them to. Effectively you NEED to own a rimfire rifle and pistol for the benefit of others. You also get benefit from having them in your safe and occasional plinking which is nice too.

        I hope you read this post and use it as food for introspective thought rather than dismiss it as an attack. You are by your own declaration pro-gun, now a regular contributor to the largest gun blog on the internet, advocate learning to shoot . . . but you don’t see a reason to own the two most needed tools for the task. This may simply be a part of your transition from being a “closet gun owner” to a openly gun friendly person which I suppose is a natural part of the change you are going through. But one thing the anti-gun left and even FUDDs among us fail to accept is that there is more than one reason to “need” various guns. And needing some rimfire in your live you certainly do. Welcome to the light.

        • @Ian

          Actually, I do understand those points. And thank you.

          I have at this time made a decision not to teach others about firearms. Mainly because there are so many incredibly good, qualified instructors and classes in my area that I’d really rather people go to one of those. All of the RSOs at my range have passed qualification measures that are quite a bit higher than at any other range I’ve ever been to. And they are happy to give a beginner a lesson, and they do this all the time, so I would much rather have them do it than me. I would be happy to bring someone with me as a guest, and then let the nice folk there do their work so that my guest can see how professional, kind, and knowledgeable a “gun person” can be.

          It could be that in a few more years I will change my mind back. That’s where it is right now. I have been looking at doing Appleseed at some point, but I can do it with the .223 Wylde rifle that I have, apparently, if I’ve been correctly informed.

          Keep in mind that I’m a defensive shooter and that that orientation has been all of my training, so it is not about being hyper-accurate. It could very well be that as I continue to slowly grow in the shooting world that this will become interesting to me, and if it does, I’m sure there will be a much more awesome version of a .22LR something on the market by that time anyway.

    • The only correct reply is a ruger 22/10 with an aftermarket stock, suppressor, eotech, bipod, drum mag, that you got on sale for $200 and bolted on $500 worth of aftermarket parts. Clear? If you don’t own a $800 22/10 you clearly hate America.

  9. Along with the posts about gun owners and Democrats we also get the joy of having people now define what is a man and masculinity. Waiting for the post that states you can’t be pro 2A unless you can field strip an original 1911 with your teeth.

  10. You: So I shoot competitively and really enjoy it. Want to try it sometime?
    Him: This makes me really anxious and I’m worried that the guns may shoot someone.
    You: I think we both ought to see other men.


  11. Oh Elaine, Elaine, Elaine….

    While not really caring if you find/have a boyfriend (which does not make your perspective unique), you just wasted an opportunity for a really funny rendition of your search. This could have been such an entertaining piece, so entertaining. But you have to ask yourself why you thought it important that we know about your romantic escapades, and that you know more about guns and regulations than some dunderhead guy. The episode is not enlightening, interesting or informative. It does not even make you more than a cardboard figure (which a good comedy piece would have done). But to be honest, you came close to sticking to guns, and away from politics. For that, good on ya’.

    Unrelated, but for your edification, owning a firearm, training to use and talking about it does not make one a POTG. Gun owners who restrict themselves to hunting gear are not POTG. Gun owners who think only their particular gun should be protected by the constitution are not POTG. Collectively the people listed are FUDDs.

        • “Sam, Elaine really gets under your skin, doesn’t she? 😉”

          “I do, don’t I? Such a puzzlement.”

          Elaine, you already read my response to the question, so nothing to add here; you get a pass on this one.

      • “Sam, Elaine really gets under your skin, doesn’t she?”

        Thank you. I have been waiting for the right catalyst…

        Real people bled and died to give us our constitution. Real people bled and died in its defense. Real people bled and died in the name of unalienable rights. Damned if I will tolerate any delusional troglodyte trying to “negotiate” “common sense” that only leads to weakening the precious protections of natural, human and civil right purchased with blood.

        As to getting under my skin, no; I can take on leftists night and day, and still smoke and joke with my grandchildren. Eventually, leftists blow themselves out against truth, justice and the American way. But I must admit, pulling on liberal noses can lead to just tweaking them for the pure entertainment value.

        As for Elaine, she is a tinhorn carpetbagger compared to my BIL. I would like her discussing awakening to the need to take responsibility for self-defense, how she reacted to the actual firearm training (does a non-male view the four rules differently, that sort of thing), how she came to select her firearm and accessories…you know, gun stuff. But she offers nothing new or unique on the politics of unalienable rights. On that issue, I just want to blow her off the blog, expose her for the mindless drone she is (something I am not alone attempting). Gun stuff, good; leftist politics, ungood bellyfeel.

        Dan Z gets lost in all this, but I do appreciate him throwing Elaine to the wolves. It sometimes gets difficult to keep switching between being an absolutist, and a person who lives in Realsville regarding actual politics. With Elaine on-scene, I can be pure absolutist for awhile.

        • @Sam

          Well, finally a post I can make a response to that isn’t a lengthy and circular rant where I can’t find the central point. No offense to you, but sometimes I wonder whether you are just typing for the sake of it.

          You want those topics covered? Sure. Great ideas for articles. Will add to the list and write. Thanks for the ideas. I appreciate you, crusty one.

        • “Well, finally a post I can make a response to that isn’t a lengthy and circular rant”

          My comments are “circular” only in that they start and end at the same point – gun control laws are unconstitutional, elitist, tyrannical, deceitful, dangerous and designed to make the central government (at all levels) an unaccountable despot.

          Enslavement of populations is the central mission of all governments. Erosion of individual rights is the corollary. Not one inch, not one ounce, not one step back from the words and intent of the founders. Period. Over and Out. This is the only language the elites and statists (liberals and leftists) understand.

      • “The POTG according to sam consist of sam and everyone else he’s holding hostage in his bunker.”

        Finally. Someone recognizes my exalted and celebrated status here.

  12. “she” has identified her problem just to progtard to see it and to solve it. Typical dem waiting for someone else to solve her lifes’ little difficultly.

  13. “when you’re a Woman of the Gun and a Democrat, it’s even harder.”

    Well, there’s your problem, lady! The Democrats will hate you, your guns and your freedom. The gun owners will rightly question your intelligence.

    Abandon the party that is continually trying to take away your rights, and your chances of finding “Mr. Right” will improve dramatically.

  14. Hi. Grizzled veteran of online dating here. Most of the women on these websites are extremely bitter, angry liberals. I’ve been attacked, apropos of nothing, merely for describing myself as “conservative”. That said, if I were to come across a Democrat who likes firearms, I’d treat her as more of an amusing oddity than a possible relationship. I’m of the opinion at this point that these website are populated with Democrat/liberal girls because no one wants to date a shrill harpy, and that all the conservative girls have been wifed up.

    • HP,

      I’m of the opinion at this point that these website are populated with Democrat/liberal girls because no one wants to date a shrill harpy, and that all the conservative girls have been wifed up.

      I think you are EXACTLY right. Progressives are shrill harpies because:
      1) They are constantly disappointed with our world which never rises to their Utopian vision.
      2) They are constantly in flux — and acting out — because they operate on emotion which obviously fluctuates wildly from day to day.

      Most men will quickly tire of such a woman and move on. After having endured such women a few times, most men will quickly want to stay with a stable (e.g. conservative) woman.

  15. Points for ‘Priest” reference..
    A good read IMO. Well done.

    Tell us about the carbine in the picture…what red dot is that?

    • It’s a Lantac Raven with an Aimpoint on it. And a muzzle brake. My little lady. Have about 12,000 rounds through her, though she’s been on a break.

  16. Perhaps you’re owned an apology for some of the obtuse comments here. If someone’s story is not interesting, why can’t it just be left alone, without the smear comments? Myself, I find your story interesting. I suspect that your case is not unique. For decades, the Liberals have been working on exterminating masculinity, and now, at least among the Progressive crowd, only the metrosexuals are left. But our biology has changed and the void is becoming very apparent. Perhaps you should re-examine your premises – is the end-goal of a Democrat agenda is what you want? Do you fully understand that agenda? I would suggest judging this agenda not by its statements and intents, but by its actions and results. You may see a different world, where individuals are judged by their personal, individual attributes, and not by the group that they are herded into. Where men are men and women are women, each having their individual values and being respected for who they are, not whom they represent. Think about it.

  17. A rifle at an IDPA meet? Not owning less than a 9mm? A foregrip having something to do with an SBR? (Hint: a foregrip has jack-shit to do with an SBR, MAYBE an AOW if it was a pistol)

    Perhaps your problem with dating is the same as your shooting. No .22. That is to say, you need to work on your fundamentals!

  18. A gun crazy democrat single women. This screams of a obviously confused lady. I would be kinda careful thinking of dating her also. Seems to me Elaine your focusing on the gun way to much. Relationships take time and work. The gun thing should be secondary to that. If you really are ate up with shooting which I doubt you need to focus deeply on what your political affiliation wants to do to your gun rights. Seems to me you have found a forum where you can boast about you and how wrong we are about liberals. I’m not buying any of what your selling.

    • That’s right. DZ forgot that he had a job and in a moment of relapse created by bad gin featured my piece just so that I could brag about myself.

      I’m sure you can write to the management and request a refund, perhaps in the form of some TTAG swag for your time.

      Seriously, though, thanks for reading.

  19. In the early posts, I thought there was hope. Nope, y’all are so adamant at trying to pigeon hole everybody that you can’t comprehend the truly free spirited! Your heads would explode if you knew my feelings about issues big and small. Stop trying to label 1 of 3 political leanings. As Mark Twain (I think) said, “I’ve never learned anything from someone who agreed with me.”

    • “..you can’t comprehend the truly free spirited! ”

      Like, maybe, they are unhinged?

      Seriously, what on Earth can we learn from another gun-grabbing liberal? Liberals cannot claim to be liberals, but not gun-grabbers, since gun control is mantra, and voting leftist includes liberals voting to relieve themselves of firearms. What can we learn from such double-minded people? Which civil rights restricting proposal has not already been floated by liberals? What can we learn from nothing new? Do you think we have never been addressed by gun-grabbers? Never been presented “sensible” solutions to gun violence that invariably lead to restrictions on law-abiding gun owners, while the criminals freely continue their rampage of ignoring law, morals and concern for other living beings?

      Elaine refuses to answer, so you are up next: Precisely which “new”, “free spirited”, innovative, unique, unknown, never revealed solution to gun ownership and use do you put forward today?

      Kitchen, heat, and all that jazz.

    • There’s a world of difference between trying to pigeon hole somebody for one viewpoint and pointing out massive cognitive dissonance, as well as the problems inherent to a leftist gun owner getting all indignant when we shun them.

      I equate it to gay marriage in some ways. I personally have no strong opinion on that, (well, I’ve turned against it because of how it’s been twisted into yet another way for leftists to wield the courts as a cudgel, but that’s a whole separate issue) but I vote conservive because they align with my worldview far more than the leftists. However, I certainly wouldn’t go to, say, 4th Wave Now and tell everyone that I’m a conservative who’s ideologically fine with gay marriage and then expect them so embrace me. I guess THATS what bothers me about these kinds of ravings; if you view gun/self defense rights as being less important than others, fine, I guess. If you think identity politics, social justice, and free shit is more important than guns, ok, whatever, that’s on you; different priorities and all that. But don’t lie to yourself or us and try to claim that a D vote is anything but a vote for gun control

      Or, in other words, know EXACTLY what you’re voting for, even if you don’t agree with all of it, and then decide for yourself what your priorities are and what you’d be ok with giving up. Make a decision with your eyes wide open.

      (All that being said, I do wanna genuinely thank TTaG for hosting several articles in the last several days where gun owning leftists chime in. It’s a data point, even if it demonstrates a truly massive degree of intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance, and those data points are excellent for further study of leftists “thought”. Know your enemy and all that)

      • @Red

        Thing is, from what I’ve been reading, there’s ALWAYS been gun control

        From an interview with Michael Waldman, author of The Second Amendment: A Biography:

        Based on the history you’ve uncovered, do you think the founders understood there to be an unwritten individual right to arms that they didn’t include in the Constitution?

        MW: Yes. And that might be noteworthy for some. There were plenty of guns. There was the right to defend yourself, which was part of English common law handed down from England. But there were also gun restrictions at the same time. There were many. There were limits, for example, on where you could store gunpowder. You couldn’t have a loaded gun in your house in Boston. There were lots of limits on who could own guns for all different kinds of reasons. There was an expectation that you should be able to own a gun. But they didn’t think they were writing that expectation into the Constitution with the Second Amendment.

        • Elaine, do you know why they couldn’t store gunpowder in their houses in 1776? Think hard about why they kept gunpowder stores in a central magazine. It had nothing at all to do with gun control. If someone uses that excuse for disarming Americans today, they don’t know what they are talking about.

        • “Thing is, from what I’ve been reading, there’s ALWAYS been gun control”

          You make the same mistake of history that many commit: conflating the history after 1868, with history before; viewing the events of the late 1770s with modern lenses.

          Prior to 1868, States were superior to the central government. The central government was created by the States (which gave meaning to amendments nine and ten). After 1868, States became effectively mere political subdivisions of a superior government.

          When States were supreme, the central government could not impose gun control of any kind on the States. The States were free agents, retaining the right and power to regulate affairs within their borders as they chose (by permission of the voters).

          The original constitution permitted very little authority among the States – other than those powers specifically (not interpreted or imagined) delegated to the central government (again, see amendments nine and ten). After 1868, the restrictions placed on the central government boomeranged onto the States, with the central government applying the same government restrictions on the States. This was done with constitutional amendments, not simple legislation or buracrat procedure. With that entanglement, the central government used the constitution as a cudgel to wield power over its creators. And all was fine for the powerful in D.C.

          Today (and since 1868), the central government has been busy destroying the tool of discipline the States retained as a means to stop a tyrannical central government from becoming the ruler of the nation. Thus, by mere legislation and bureaucratic procedure, the central government seeks to disarm the citizenry (prior to 1868, being a citizen of a State had significant and real meaning). The courts are government, and have been complicit in undermining the gift conferred by the nation’s founders.

          If we were back in time, prior to 1868, there would be a hodgepodge of “gun laws”. The States were the laboratory of republicanism, some States doing better by their citizens than others, some States adopting successful ideas from other States. All the uniformity of law that the States permitted to be applied to the were specifically laid out in the constitution. The States allowed no further intrusion by the central government. Freedom and liberty of the people was the goal of the constitution, not uniformity and conformity. After 1868, the nation never again functioned as originally designed. But the conflict of interests between the citizens of the States, and the central government persist to this day; the central government grows ever more intrusive into the private lives of the citizenry.

          Now, to bring this all forward, any gun restrictions posed by the central government are unconstitutional on their face. And because the central government succeeded in forcing the US constitution upon the separate States, gun restriction laws are also unconstitutional. Which drives liberals ’round the bend. Which is why liberals use subterfuge of legislation to achieve what cannot be achieved through a constitutional amendment restricting or repealing the Second Amendment. The subterfuge of “negotiation”, and “common sense” gun laws, and “compelling government interest” (none of which are delegated powers to the central government (and through the fourteenth amendment, State government).No government agency has valid constitutional authority to restrict the ownership of guns in this country. It is only by using imagination, deceit, arrogance, legal sleight-of-hand and raw power to cripple the Second Amendment that government (and citizens sympathetic to government control over its supposed Subjects) that gun restrictions exist.

          So no, there haven’t always been federal gun control laws, especially in the years of the founding of the nation. The rights the founders protected through the constitution are unalienable (which is quite different from “inalienable”); there is no “negotiation” to lessen those protections permitted.

          BTW, try reading the Founders rather than Johnny-Come-Latelys who feel themselves of superior intellect to the founders, and interpret the constitution in their image.

        • @Danny and @Sam

          The book is titled The Second Amendment: A Biography. By Michael Waldman. It’s an interesting read.

        • So, you read an entire book? Elaine, the second amendment is 27 words long, and part of the volumes of 2A is the fact that any book that says what you attribute to that one is full of shit. *27 words*!! How many words can you twist in how many ways in order to make those 27 words not mean that which they clearly do? The only thing in the 2A which needs explanation to anyone is the 18th century meaning of the single word “regulated”, and even that is not a controlling part of the amendment, it clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no “Until”, no “for so long as”, no “except”, no “unless”, there is no qualification whatsoever, it is as clear and absolute as it could possibly be, claiming otherwise is a lie. You were taught how to determine *for yourself* what it means when you were in about the 8th grade, someone writing a book to “explain” 27 words of the English language to you is clearly up to something, something which makes them feel qualified to call you a moron. And you READ such a book? Tell me that at least you did not pay for it!

        • “You were taught how to determine *for yourself* what it means when you were in about the 8th grade, someone writing a book to “explain” 27 words of the English language to you is clearly up to something, something which makes them feel qualified to call you a moron. And you READ such a book? Tell me that at least you did not pay for it!”


          Nice shot. Well done.

    • Oh my god. Is this one of those free energy, free spirit, free Jupiter types, right here in the wild? I’ve only heard of people like you. I would like to read your opinion on the planets, man.

  20. I would never date a Democrat anyway, but being a “pro-gun Democrat” just means you have no idea what you believe in.

  21. If you’re own guns and claim to support the 2A you need to switch parties otherwise you’re a hypocrite of the highest order…that’s a fact!

  22. Welcome to dating in general. Keep looking you’ll find a good man. Possibly. I’m definitely not a lib, my wife certainly is. It can work but it’s painful at times. My advice is try to avoid it. You’ll always end up putting up with someone’s quirks, and they’ll always be worse after the wedding. You don’t typically end up “changing” someone, they become more like they already are! Just a warning.

  23. Good god this comments section is full of mouth breathers. No surprises there. “Any woman head over heels about gunsnis covering up some significant issues.” “You can’t be pro-2A unless you’re anti-choice and anti-equality”. Unbelievable.

    • Dip derp, people are not saying that you have to vote like a conservative Christian if you like your guns. They are saying that to vote for the modern-day ‘liberal’ and enjoying the rights of self-preservation are incompatible. And they are. Gun control is literally in the DNC party platform.

      • “They’re literally proving the leftists correct, behaving like intolerant, ignorant rednecks, and they don’t even know they’re doing it.”

        Refusing to “negotiate” any of my constitutionally protected rights can only be what it is. If refusing proves the leftists correct, so be it. If refusing to “negotiate” makes me an intolerant, ignorant redneck….I’ll take that label. Anything else would be duplicitous, insincere, and useless. There is no legitimate or successful way to “negotiate” with people who want to “transform America”.

        The US constitution embodies the intent and thrust of the Declaration Of Independence (the codification into law). The term “Unalienable” from the DOI is more powerful that the commonly mistaken term, “Inalienable”. “Unalienable” means not only can rights not be taken away, they cannot be voluntarily surrendered. (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/unalienable; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unalienable; http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm)

        So, yes, I want gun-grabbers and their clones to understand I will not tolerate “reasonable” restrictions on gun ownership; defending my rights at the ballot box.

    • You are confused. You can’t be pro-2A and at the same time member of party which has destruction of what’s left of 2A rights as one of main points of its platform. Unless you joined with goal of fundamentally changing the party from inside. But we didn’t hear anything like that. Just usual support of “reasonable” infringements and .gov handpicking people worthy of the privilege of gun ownership.

  24. Less competition from metrosexual beta males is good news for the rest of us guys. That assumes we are not put off by a woman who could cover our six in a gunfight. (Or we could be covering her six.)

    • A woman I can toss a rifle and mag bag to cover me is instantly elevated to at least a 7 at the lowest in my book. Like, being a fellow gunnie would help even Eleanor Roosevelt look better!

        • Hey, has physical turn-ons and turn-offs. I am just being honest that a woman who can sling lead is very desirable.

      • Kroglikepie, I hadn’t really thought of it like that, but you are totally right. I might even kick the value up to an 8. My wife doesn’t like revolvers either, her hands are too small for any of our magnums, and the bore is high enough to really punish her with the recoil unless we are shooting .22s. But a single stack 9mm or even a .45 1911 seems to work for her.

        Elaine, I just took a closer look at your photo… boots and pearls make a nice combination.

        • Thanks. The boots are old shit kickers. Those actually are not pearls, though I am totally pleased you said that. They are shell beads made by the Kalahari San people, who I spent time with this summer. They’re the oldest living society on Earth, hunter gatherers, who make the beads out of ostrich shell by chipping away at them with hand tools and using a hand drill to create the center hole.

          The oldest human remains of our branch of Homo Sapiens are from South Africa and were found with ostrich shell beads nearby. I think of them as my “pearls of antiquity.”

        • Joe, my wife’s first real gun (IOW, besides the .25 ACP) was/is a Colt Detective Special circa 1972. It was small enough and light enough to be the first gun my son fired, at 4 (hands too small for the Python), bet your bride would like it.

        • LarryinTX, I’ve been looking for a revolver just like what you described. My Dan Wesson is way too big and heavy for her, and the aluminum frame 5 shooter .38 I have recoils a bit too much. A steel frame Detective special would be ideal.

        • Joe get a colt cobra then colts latest da revolver that’s no win current production.

          I own a 1971 dick special bought it like back in 2011 off summit gun broker in a bid.

        • @jwm

          Woman ain’t no use in a gunfight if you throw her some shit she can’t shoot with.
          Ya know?

          (BTW: Ducati Scrambler rider, here)

        • Elaine. Specialization is for insects. A true gunny should be able to pick up a dead terrorists/badguys weapon and run it. regardless of what it is. Rifle, shotgun, handgun, machine gun, rpg….. the list goes on. If you’re only good with a certain type, brand, caliber you are not a good backup to have. You need to further immerse yourself in the gun world.

          Now for the story behind my scooter. I am famous amongst my family and friends for having wrecked at least one of every type of vehicle that I’ve ever operated. I’ve rolled a car and been in a head on. Lots of fun. I’ve had a train break down and an airplane attempt to crash while I was aboard them.

          And a motorcycle ride turned into an ER visit. When I was picking a picture for my avatar, something I’d never done before( I’m not a tech savvy person. TTAG was my first regular use of a computer and still is a major part of that use.) I thought of a Harley. My wife’ being a wife, opined that I’d be safer on a scooter.

          Thus, my avatar. It probably should have training wheels on it.

        • Thanks, JWM. I have been wondering about the scooter picture for years – ever since you mentioned it’s an inside joke.

          My avatar shows the bike I ride. It used to be black and red Suzuki Hayabusa. After 12 years I sold it and now it’s silver Kawasaki Concourse. Its more upright position is easier on my bad back, but I still miss the Busa.
          Getting old sucks.

    • Quite a number of Leftist women have turned to Islam. Although on the face of it this is illogical (quite natural for a Leftist), Islam provides that fundamental male figure that the Progressives destroyed. It provides apparent strength and order. Again, opposite of the Leftists agenda, but desired by the biology. Thus, the switch.

  25. I’m a one issue voter but I identify as a democrat even though I don’t remember the last time I voted for one. I guess I’m confused too…

  26. In my experience, most people who say they are Democrats are thinking of the party of John F Kennedy- pro American worker, strong on human rights, pro-capitalism and pro strong borders. Most don’t realize how there is no place for someone like John F Kennedy in the modern socialist/anarchist party. The Democratic Party of their grandparents is dead. And voting for Democrats while also believing that people have inalienable rights shows a profound logical discontent. I wouldn’t date someone like that either.

    • JFK was the first place I heard about tax cuts increasing business activity and resulting in more federal revenue. That was clearly BS and I laughed at him (tho he was talking about cutting fed tax rates from in excess of 90%). But I was 15. College courses showed me how he was correct, as results had shown me that he in fact *was* correct. Since then, Republicans seem to have learned JFK’s lesson, while Democrats have learned to laugh in ignorance.

    • Edit fail.
      If JFK were to run today, as a no-shit war hero planning to cut taxes, he would run as a Republican, not least because the Democrats would not have him.

  27. I wonder how much of her problem finding suitable men is JUST that she is a Democrat and a shooter — and how much of it is that she is delusional, opinionated, and just difficult.

  28. Liberalism today by definition is communism/ socialism. Always ends badly for the people through poverty, oppression and death/ murder, always it’s the end game.
    Pro choice is the lack of responsibilities for ones actions resulting in the murder of a child. Human sacrifice if you will. Women know what causes babies. It is their lack of responsibility that results in the mistake of a baby outside of a rape. Somehow it doesn’t matter what they do to the baby because it’s their body for crying out loud.
    The rich get richer and the poorer get poorer in their eyes because they don’t want to take responsibility for bettering themselves. It’s far easier to blame someone else for their misfortune. After all we were all created equal so we should all share equally.
    The big bad corporations make tons of money because someone is working their ass off making sure the wheels keep turning. The poor workers who are stuck in their jobs these businesses provide are screwed by these corporations and don’t get to share in the profits. This just isn’t fair. Thus class warfare.
    This is just the tip of the iceberg for the liberal agenda. We could go on and on about how the liberal agenda is about equality when in actuality it is all about lack of wanting to take responsibility for ones own life and where it takes us. There is something seriously wrong when someone thinks working at McDonald’s is a career that should provide enough income to raise a family on. There is something seriously wrong when one looks to the government for help everytime they get in a financial crisis. There is something seriously wrong when someone thinks the government is actually going to know better what’s good for them better than they do.
    When there’s more people voting for gay marriage than who are not we are condoning our own demise. True homosexuality leads to death. It cannot sustain life so in of itself it is wrong and unnatural. When we think it is ok we have really turned to the liberal ways. True liberals are starting to talk of pediophelia being a natural thing and wanting to make excuses for it.
    True liberals are wanting to decriminalize criminal behaviors. True liberals are wanting to blame someone else other than the culprit for their actions. It’s always someone else’s fault you know. True liberals are wanting to open our borders to anyone who wants to come in because we are all immigrants you know.
    Liberalism is about a whole lot more than just gun control. So Elaine your a gun owner , so what? Your a liberal and that in itself is a problem. In the end your liberal freinds will want to disarm you regardless. My bet is when that happens you will give them up willingly. If not than you better come over to the other side now and do your best to stop their agenda. A lot of good people will be fighting and dying to keep our liberties. I hope you will be on our side.

    • @Jeff Your comment about the rich and poor, That’s how it goes,
      “Everybody knows that the dice are loaded Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed Everybody knows the war is over Everybody knows the good guys lost Everybody knows the fight was fixed The poor stay poor, the rich get rich and that’s how it goes Everybody knows”

  29. I once started talking to someone on okcupid. Turns out they were trans 🙁 not my thing. but they were into guns and ended up texting back and forth about guns all day. I kinda wish I was into trans now.

  30. Just a reminder; Democrats loathe America, it’s culture, history and values. They champion criminals over the law abiding, foreigners over Americans, and the parasites over the productive. These people are cancer, including the one’s that own firearms.

    • I knew someone would say that, so I have given DZ full permission to randomly boot me off of TTAG at any time. Preparations have been made for all possibilities.

  31. Serious question, why do you HAVE to date another Democrat if you are a Democrat? I’m into guns and vote straight Republican/Libertarian in all elections. My wife is not into guns and votes straight Democrat in every election. She is my best friend and the love of my life. Had I only dated Republicans I would never have gotten to know her.

    If you are having trouble in the dating world, maybe give people who you never even considered a chance. They might just surprise you.

    • Oh, my boyfriend is Republican. I realized earlier that I never included that in the article.

      I don’t have a problem with how someone else votes. They also need to respect how I vote. Ya know, like if someone wants to believe in God I’m cool with that but I don’t want them trying to get me to go to church all the time because they think I’m a heathen (I’m Buddhist). That kind of thing. I don’t have any kind of problem with someone being whatever they are. I do find that people seem to struggle with what I am because it doesn’t neatly fit into the “box.”

        • @LarryinTx

          I like Buddhism because cause and effect, the inevitability of death and suffering, the truth of impermanence, and the tools to ameliorate suffering just make sense to me. You push a ball at the top of a hill and it rolls down the hill. We get sick. We die. Things change. Stuff happens, life is like an ocean, you can’t control the ocean so how do you become a better surfer?

          I see Buddhism as more of a set of long-tested tools, mind technologies, and framings than as a religion, even though certainly it can be practiced like that and depending on the style of Buddhism, can have a lot of ritualistic elements. But at its core it’s a very sophisticated mind technology to ease suffering, and I like the tricks and tools contained in it a lot.

          In fact, when someone asked my teacher (who is an adviser to the Dalai Lama) what a Buddhist person should say to someone who asks what Buddhism is, he paused for a long time, then finally said,

          “Tell them it’s a method for removing negativity.”
          Fair enough, and no space aliens needed.

  32. It’s literally an article about a snowflake complaining about not being able to get a second date. But TTAG will post it because it will get guaranteed 100+ comments in six hours. Elaine I challenge you to write a real article, one without mentioning race, ethnicity or sex. You know… one actually about guns? For once?

    • What would you like to see? I am absolutely open to attempting to write about anything that I feel is in my lane. I’m a civilian, defensive shooter who has been shooting for only a short time, about two years, and only own a handful of black rifles and a few pistols since those are the tools I need for my training process. That’s my lane at this point in time.

      I’m quite serious – if there is something you would like to see, let me know what it is and if it’s in my zone I’ll certainly take a stab at it.

      • “I’m quite serious – if there is something you would like to see, let me know”

        Elaine, we are waiting to see what you think is unique about your situation, and/or your viewpoint on “negotiating” Second Amendment rights away.

        To help out, being a gun owner is not unique; being a non-male gun owner is not unique; shooting guns is not unique; competing in shooting sports is not unique; a willingness to support restrictions on gun ownership is not unique; receiving training in the use of guns is not unique; a reported prior difficulty in finding dates is not unique. Your introductory article declared you have a unique viewpoint to bring to the table. We are still waiting for you to produce. Calmly, respectfully, graciously, curiously, but we are still waiting.

        • @Sam

          Ah, now I see where you are coming from.

          Perhaps you do not find me or my viewpoint to be unique. Certainly possible. There does not seem to be anyone like me regularly writing for or commenting on this blog, but perhaps that does not qualify me for uniqueness. Ulitmately that is up to you to decide as the reader. Or the non reader.

          However, I am assuming DZ chose to feature me for a reason, and that reason may not be my uniqueness. I will keep reminding you that TTAG made the choice for me to be here. Not me. Some of your questions seem like they need to be directed to DZ and not to me, particularly the “why is she here” variety. Hope that makes sense.

        • “There does not seem to be anyone like me regularly writing for or commenting on this blog, …”

          We had a persistent liberal (self-advertised as “just reasonable”) voice here for about two years – he retired.

          “…but perhaps that does not qualify me for uniqueness.”

          “Unique” is unique, not sorta, kinda “unique”.

          “Some of your questions seem like they need to be directed to DZ and not to me, particularly the “why is she here” variety”

          The questions certainly are “why is she here” variety. We expect you to explain your participation, not Dan; he runs the blog and publishes whatever he wants. Why are you here? What is the unique perspective (that you alluded to)? If you have no unique perspective (just liberal talking points), simply acknowledge that you are here to convince people to “negotiate” away their rights, “for the children”. That would be just fine. If you are here to talk about the mechanics and tactics of using guns, drop all the other jive, and stick with operating guns. That is fine, also.

          BTW, “negotiating” away gun rights is a fist fight. The response will range from fawning to bellicose “trash talk”. It’s the way of POTG (WOTG is not a known designation). The blog is not the Harvard Debate Club. The blog is for adults. You will have to defend virtually every word you write, sometimes repetitively. Some will side with you regarding one comment, then immediately oppose you on a subsequent comment about the same subject. Reviewing about 50 random original submissions in the TTAG archives might prove illuminating.

        • Elaine- you have a choice whether or not to write for this site. And you should and probably do have your own reasons. We shouldn’t have to ask DZ for the why when you are the one writing. No one is forcing you to contribute to this site. Passing it off to DZ is the easy road.

      • An article about your collection would be a start. But like I said, anything as long as it doesn’t mention race/sex/ethnicity unless it’s on topic (like a topic that covers all women gun owners or all black gun owners, not just yourself). One article about yourself and your story is fine, and we’ve had that already and when you keep writing about yourself the site may as well be your own blog site. You see what I mean?

        • Let me explain to you how this process works.

          I write something I think is interesting to me. I send it to DZ with full permission to edit it any way he wishes. He can retitle, take stuff out as he wants to. He ultimately makes the decision about what ends up here and what is not edited out.

          I write from my own perspective. That perspective is informed by being binational, non white, liberal, and feminist. No way that it isn’t. I recognize that those identifiers won’t mean anything to others. However, they’re also a huge and inextricable part of why I see things as I do, so for some people, they are interesting.

          Nothing I write is ever going to be interesting to everyone. Nor should it be. Hope that helps.

        • “A good writer writes to captivate herself. A great one writes to captivate others.”

          Bingo !

          I would have used leventy-dozen words to say the same thing.

    • She’s a liberal and a woman…. so therefore she is always disadvantaged and a victim. It’s why she always brings it up, because without it she is equal to everyone ielse and even though that is what the dems, wom, libbes claim to want, the truth is they want to seem superior to the sheep. She wouldn’t even answer direct questions on her first post. Clearly she is dishonest at best or mentally incapable at worst. Dan screwed the pooch on this one.

      • Hey, don’t forget the extra victim points for being Asian minority. Not as highly priced as being black, but still. Now if she was also LGBTXYZ, she might have a shot at political post from her gun grabbing party.

  33. This is certainly low-hanging fruit…

    I’d think, guns or not, the modern-day democrat would rather date someone of the same sex anyway.

  34. Firearms or the hobby there of would be only a small portion of what makes a person interesting.
    But what do I know I’ve been married for decades.

    • Well, that’s what I think too. But it seems that the entire dialogue about guns is so polarized right now that if you have them and shoot them, it becomes the ONLY thing about you, as though it’s not part of a larger picture of who you are. Which is unfortunate.

  35. You’re a woman? Thanks for bringing a little beauty and grace into the world. You’re a gun owner? Thanks for taking some personal responsibility. Your a democrat? Thanks for voting against my gun rights and the lives of the unborn.

  36. So, you weren’t willing to compromise your values or pretend you drink the party polit-bureau’s anti-2nd Kool Aid to get a date?

    Sorry, but truly…. you’re not really a Democrat.

    Time to wake up, smell the coffee, and expand your horizons Elaine.

  37. “Elaine refuses to answer most direct questions. Is this even a real TTAG reader? Her last articles have a dishonest feel to them.”

    Be careful, there. You are starting to behave “like intolerant, ignorant redneck”, and don’t even know you’re doing it.

      • “Sad statement about he readership here when this poster gets these kinds of hits. Chickbait?”

        Always good to have an opposing voice, if that voice can compete with ideas of merit. If Dan can monetize “clicks” to earn income to fund the blog, I’m fine with that. We get to use the blog for free, but maintaining the blog isn’t free.

        • “Lol, Chickbait. I think you missed my point.”

          Indeed I did. It was late last night, and there were a lot of bottles and empty glasses fallen onto my keyboard. I had to fight hard to keep the honey toned liquids from invading the touchpad. Resulted in my not being quite so judicious about what I was reading.

          Thanks for the catch.

  38. If you vote for Democrats, then you are voting for Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to run the legislatures of this country. Therefore you’re against the Second Amendment. It really is that simple.

    Imagine if someone said, “you know, I really like Jewish people and see nothing wrong with them. I have Jewish friends. But I think that this Hitler guy can turn Germany around.”

  39. There’s no such thing as a “woman (or man) of the gun” who is also a Democrat. They are mutually exclusive, no matter what they claim.

    Second, if you feel the necessity to advertise that you like guns, something is wrong. Just assume that anyone might like guns and might have guns (I assume everyone does), and if anyone takes exception to that, treat it as if they have the problem, which they do.

  40. And what the heck is “dating”? Back in the day we just screwed around until the girl or her Papa said it was time to get married.

  41. Thanks for writing your article Elaine. This site needs different perspectives. I’m guessing you knew the pro 2A absolutist mouthbreathers would be out in force when they saw an article written by a jesus hating, baby killing, homosexual loving, gun banning, jihadist corroborating, closet lesbian, drug using (add your idiotic stereotype of choice), Democrat. Keep up the good work and don’t bother engaging the trolls its pointless.

  42. These troubles are common with left leaning gun-owning guys, too. As you, I got lucky, and found a similarly leaning and fairly gun-positive lady. I bought a shotgun at a Cabellas on one of our earlier dates. Her dad reflected that it was nice to have a background check built into a date. We went out to the woods and shot it on the next date.

    Elaine D., I really appreciate your recent articles. I have a number of left leaning friends that are into guns, and probably some moderate ones too. It is nice to see a bit more of the spectrum of gun owners represented online. I’m hoping to find out that there are enough of us to stop i-1639 in WA.

    Please keep the content coming. I wish I could vote for a leftward politician that was gun positive.

  43. Elaine – the democrats have become the party against gun rights. As others have stated, it’s clear, if you vote democrat, you are voting to have your rights stripped. It is no secret now that the democrats wish to take guns away from law abiding citizens, to pretend otherwise is being ignorant. Queen democrat herself, Hillary, has said she wants Australian style gun control. No thanks.

    You yourself said in a comment above you don’t want religious people continuing to bombard you with invites to their church, etc. How do you think republicans and Christians feel about having “free to choose” gender identity forced upon them? Or any number of other topics democrats want to force us to comply or agree with?

    Additionally, even though you think you must advertise you are a gun owner on your dating apps because guns are so polarizing, I really don’t think you need to – guns are likely only a small portion of the whole person you are. Granted, the freedom to shoot and own guns may be very important to you (as they are to many of us), but I’m guessing there are other important things in your life (that may not be as controversial). I realize you are in a relationship now, but just saying.

    I also must say, it saddens me that you are pro-abortion. Why are democrats OK with killing tiny humans, but detest hunting animals, as man kind has done since the beginning of our species? Don’t give me this it’s a woman’s body speech. A baby in the womb is a separate entity from the mother, it just is growing inside her womb. A new mother’s responsibility to a newborn child is to feed, protect, and nurture her new baby. It’s no different when it’s a tiny baby in the womb, it just happens to be in a womb.

  44. It’s perfectly fine to be a gun owner and a democratic. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. I was an NYC Liberal when I got myself my gun permit (living in NJ) as a 30th birthday present to myself just to try something new.

    I’ve since worried about the uphill battle of trying to explain my politics to people when they find out about this duality, but just explaining the above is really the best way.

    It’s impossible to get a second date, though. Either people can’t stand my gun ownership or can’t stand my politics. I’ve definitely learned to streamline the first date process to a cup of coffee near my house with each person paying for their own. I love taking someone out to dinner but it’s too expensive when it’s wasted.

  45. Thank you Elaine for your TTAG articles. And thank you TTAG for accepting articles from Liberal gun owners.

    Please keep the Articles coming. I don’t believe a lot of what they say. I quite frankly think some of them are insincere. But I still like reading them.

  46. first of all , I am happy that more women are getting into guns. but if you are going to vote for the blue and not for the red then you are defeating yourself. the very fact that at all times they are trying to take them from us and you keep putting them in power makes me wonder. how can someone who is into guns really keep voting for the same people who are trying to take away that right and make us a communist country . how can one not see what they are doing and vote for them. other than that I wish I had a girlfriend that was into guns, martial arts , camping and hiking.

  47. Nick Valentine , we already have the background checks ( had them for quite some time in fact – and they work so well, just ask all those victoms of mass shootings). and we have carry licensing, and of course all criminals who like to rob and kill have them, and they would never go through any door with a no guns allowed sign on it. hey Nick maybe I am wrong. maybe all of that stuff does not do anything to stop crime at all but instead stops us law abiding types from owning a gun and doing some recreational shooting with it and letting us defend ourselves. maybe it just makes things easier for the criminals since they don’t follow the law and we do.and WE get stopped and THEY don’t.

  48. Well heck if they mention they shoot and love guns, I’d be all over that and they can have my children. DUH!!!! They are not looking very hard lol

  49. Ah, yes, the good old “Just because I exclusively vote for politicians who want to abolish the Second Amendment doesn’t mean I’m anti-gun” line. Such a classic.

    • I sincerely can’t imagine the cognitive dissonance that occurs when they’re in the ballot box and drop in their card….”Here you go, please take all my important stuff away from me now”?

      Though usually, when you dig down, you’ll find they’re fine with LOTS of restrictions…but the restrictions they’re fine with are carefully crafted so THEY would still have the guns they want. The standard, liberal ‘for me, not for thee’ mindset.

  50. Anyone who thinks that Democrats or Republicans really give 2 figs for your Second Amendment or any other of your God-given, Inherent Rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights is incredibly naive. both parties have been studiously working to eviscerate them as fast as the electorate will allow. For now, the Republican Party is, for the most part, the most benign. The Democrats, OTOH, are actively working to eliminate private firearms ownership on all levels, make government even bigger, and wants to confiscate (tax) private wealth to redistribute it to those whose votes can be bought by government largess. Any gun owner who votes for any Democrat is voting to enslave themselves and their fellow countrymen. In the end envisioned by the Democratic Party Leadership, we will no longer be Citizens, merely Subjects. If you doubt this, ask yourself what is the responsibility of the government, as per the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution? How do you reconcile that with the fact that Democratic majorities in various state governments have given preferential status/free tuition for state colleges to illegal aliens at the expense of its own American Citizens? Allowing illegal aliens to vote in state/local elections?? Who watches the Watchers? Rome is burning.

  51. I never tried electronic dating, but that first date included a lot of filtering. I think it’s a good idea.

    That said, should SHTF our plan is she takes the long range and I handle the short range. That is based on practice and what we are good at.

    I seriously doubt I would date a Liberal, because I don’t know any that are very intelligent, and I would not date someone who was afraid of firearms.

    Good luck kid, hope you get your values correctly prioritized.

  52. Well, my two-cents worth in this is: POTG, whether Democrat or Republican, Conservative, Liberal/liberal or someplace in between, all need to work together in order to KEEP our rights intact. ALL of our rights. Not just the 2A, or the one(s) that seem most important to you. We (POTG) need more than just our own echo chamber if we’re going to hold on to our rights…which includes guns, free speech and assembly, due process, privacy, etc. We NEED POTG like Elaine to help from the ‘other side’ – to hopefully enlighten those on the other side of the aisle who might be ‘on the fence’ where gun rights are concerned as well as to convince harder-leaning leftists that maybe, just maybe, guns aren’t the Apocalypse-cometh like they believe they are. If they see one of their own enjoying shooting, ask her questions and she can articulate a worldview in which guns aren’t necessarily the problem (and where society IS the problem…mental health, educational indoctrination issues, political disparities, etc.) then perhaps Elaine, and others like her, can help to bridge that gap between what “we” see as a fundamental HUMAN right and “their” belief that guns are the root of all evil instead of EVIL being the root of all evil! While we might not see eye-to-eye on some, or even *most* issues, we should still be open minded enough to hear Elaine out, and to accept her for what she is: a person-of-the-gun who just happens to have a (some might say) “unique” viewpoint on the political spectrum.

    FWIW, however, I – and apparently many others here – still have trouble understanding how someone could identify as a Democrat, and vote “D”, knowing that those same political actors are working feverishly to take away exactly that thing that you, at the very least, consider important enough to defend. I applaud you for having the courage to ‘come out’, on a public forum, as being a POTG particularly at a time when our country and republic is so staunchly divided by this single issue. Thank you, Elaine, for that courage and it is my hope that, perhaps, ‘we’ – as republicans/conservatives/what-have-you – can begin to bridge some of that divide through our interactions on the issue of guns. Maybe it’s a hopeful sign for the future of America that despite our differences, or perhaps *because* of them, we can find common ground and move forwards…together.

    As an aside: congrats on finding someone to complement you! I pray that your relationship flourishes and grows. It’s *not* impossible to find someone, no matter how much of an ‘odd duck’ one might think they are, to find someone who can accept those things about them and recognize that the differences are precisely WHY we’re sometimes attracted to someone else. Peace, love and dry powder to you, friend-Elaine.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here