Is it possible to be a progressive DUer and a gun owner?

[11 Bravo]

I am a 62 year old former combat infantryman. I've been shot. By an AK-47. It fucking hurt. I own two long guns (a shotgun and a rifle) and two hand guns (a 9mm pistol, and the .45 caliber service revolver that my Dad carried as a fighter pilot in WWII). I have been a progressive Democrat since I was old enough to think. I hunt, and my family and I eat everything I kill. I think trophy hunters have a screw loose. I have a VA concealed carry permit. I was (and would be again) in favor of Virginia's AWB before George Fucking Allen lied his ass off to get elected, and then promptly overturned it contrary to his campaign promise. (Happily, I later stumbled into an opportunity to call him a lying asshole, to his face, on a Richmond sidewalk, but that's a story for another time.) I supported Virginia's one-gun-a-month law (how many fucking guns does ANYONE need?) I support universal background checks and the closing of the gun show loophole. I support a ban on high capacity magazines. I don't believe any private citizen needs to have access to armor-piercing (cop-killer) ammunition. I believe that George Zimmerman, that cowardly cop wannabe, should spend the rest of his life in prison.
So help me out here, DU. Am I a gun humper, a gun fetishist, a Gungeoneer, or just a plain old Delicate Flower?

[flvegan]

1. As a gun owner, I'm looking forward to how this goes.

[RB TexLa]

2. Of course. It's possible to own an gun and be on any part of the political spectrum.

[unreadierLizard]

4. Just don't tell that to some here.

Being a gun owner and progressive is apparently synonymous with "evil" with some people on these boards.

[Mojorabbit]

34. I know and it drives me crazy. I just ignore

the threads of the more hysterical people.

[kestrel91316]

3. I love flamebait.

[11 Bravo]

9. Not my intent, but you're welcome to your opinion.

[renie408]

10. Right?

[TeeYiYi]

14. Well...

...since Meta got nuked, what else do we have to look forward to?

TYY

[BainsBane]

55. I for one appreciate some common sense from a gun owner

I don't see this as flame bait as all. The OP, I know from past experience, doesn't like me, but that doesn't stop me from appreciating his sensible position expressed in the OP. Far too many gunners on this site refuse to consider the measures 11 Bravo says he supports.

[11 Bravo]

69. Pleae believe me, BB, I do NOT dislike you!

I'm pretty sure we have crossed swords before (and since I usually just respond to content without even looking at usernames it could have happened more than once); but I'm nothing more than an old ex-grunt, frequently acerbic, almost always obnoxious, who loves this place and the back-and-forth if provides.

[BainsBane]

103. Cool

Thanks for letting me know

[DesertFlower]

5. i agree with you.

i'm a 72 year old woman who owns a handgun for personal protection.

[Scootaloo]

6. It's not a question of ownership, but of attitude. n/t

[LAGC]

12. Quite a few here don't make that distinction though. (n/t)

[renie408]

7. You have been here close to 16,000 posts worth and you felt THIS thread was necessary?

Cause, like, nobody has ever seen THIS thread before.

Do you need a hug? Is that it?

[Nye Bevan]

8. What's the difference between a gun "owner" and a gun "humper"?

I see both terms used here.

[TeeYiYi]

19. Humpers take selfies with their guns. ..nt

TYY

[petronius]

30. A 'gun owner' becomes a 'gun humper' at the exact moment the gun owner displays

insufficient enthusiasm for whatever particular gun control measure the tosser of the epithet is currently fond of. It's meant to be an insult, nothing more...

[BainsBane]

50. When someone is closer to the Tea Party than the Democratic Party on gun policy

He becomes a gun humper. That is obviously not the case with 11 Bravo, according to his OP.

[petronius]

86. As I said: merely an insult, insisted on by people who prefer that sort of behavior...

[BainsBane]

104. It's a statement of fact

If you consider it an insult, perhaps you should reflect on your views.

[petronius]

108. A test I always use is to consider whether I would be embarrassed for my friends,

family, and colleagues to see what I post here on DU - would my behavior, manners, and reasoning stand up to the scrutiny of people I know and respect in real life?

I can quite confidently say that, if I found myself claiming that "gun humper" was a statement of fact rather than a childish insult, then I would have failed that test on at least two counts. How you score it for your own-self is up to you.

It's clear that people come to the internet in general, and DU in particular, for a variety of reasons. Some of us come for honest and civil discussion - and the value of that discussion depends on the degree to which we all approach it with honesty and civility. But others clearly come for other reasons: to vent, to rant and rage, or to provoke, insult, and antagonize. It often surprises me how many apparently educated and professional adults choose that last option in particular...

[BainsBane]

110. I did not choose the term gun humper

Last edited Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:54 AM - Edit history (1)

I defined it. I offered a definition that one would qualify if his views are closer to the Tea Party than the Democratic Party. I see nothing civil about celebrating a speech where a gun activist tells the parents of slaughtered children that his rights are more important than their dead, that his dead are more important than their dead, that he is more important than their children. I see nothing civil about wanting the acquittal of a man who killed an unarmed black teenager walking home from the store. I see nothing civil about defending SYG laws that are applied on behalf of whites 11 times more than for African Americans, that have led to increased killings of black men so much so that the Office of Civil rights has opened an investigation. I see nothing civil about focusing on my own possessions to the exclusion of everyone else's right to life. There is nothing civilized about justifying the killing of human beings and promoting laws and policies that allow those killings to go unpunished. There is nothing civil about dismissing the deaths of children and suicide victims as statistically irrelevant. The gungeoneer notion of civility is entirely uncivil.

As for the the Tea Party, you can see right here there views are in sync with many of the gun proponents on this site. http://www.nj.com/salem/index.ssf/2013/02/south_jersey_tea_party_group_r_1.html

What gunners here claim to support varies on the day. I have learned that honesty and intellectual integrity is also something that means nothing to several of them. I don't know what version of civility accommodates deception and willful ignorance.

I can think of several more accurate terms than gun humper, less lurid but more descriptive. They, however, would not pass a jury, so I will forgo mentioning them. You might have observed I typically use terms like gunner, gungeoneer, gun proponent, or gun activist.

[petronius]

112. Are you saying that "gun humper" is *not* intended to be an insult?

[BainsBane]

115. Of course it is

You suggested a definition of the term. I offered my own. Why should it be acceptable for you to define it and not me?

The take away from this is most of us have no problem with gun owners. Our dispute is with gun evangelists.

[petronius]

118. Right, an insult. Then we were in agreement right up to when you called it

"a statement of fact" - do you want to revise or retract that? (If nothing else, the phrase is anatomically quite difficult for at least half the population, after all.)

If we agree that "gun humper" is an insult, what is your opinion of people who insist on insults and ad hominems in lieu of content? For my part, I come to DU in search of honest and civil discussion, and it's disappointing when I find instead personal attacks, straw men, stereotypes, caricatures, and group smears. My main point with my first post in this subthread, in fact, was that epithets like "gun humper" or "gun evangelist" appear to be on a sliding scale, and seem to kick in just as soon as a gun owner or pro-RKBA DUer expresses even slight disagreement with a suggestion...

[BainsBane]

120. I called my definition a statement of fact

The statement of fact was that some express views closer to the Tea Party than the Democratic Party.

No, insults are not nice. It however does not concern nearly as much as those who extol statements like "my rights trump your dead." I don't really worry about the egos of armed men. They spend enough time coddling themselves. I am far more concerned about the victims of gun violence that gun proponents so casually dismiss.

Gun zealots come here to evangelize, to try to convert people to their pro-gun ideology. They also come to try to disrupt efforts at gun control and try to shame Democrats by blaming failures of legislation on their audacity in expressing their views about guns rather than on immoral senators, the gun lobby, and Tea Party. were the blame belongs.

[rrneck]

113. ...man who killed an armed...

I think you might have meant unarmed there.

[BainsBane]

116. Yes, thank you

[Half-Century Man]

52. I thought it was after the third date.

I gotta keep up.

[BainsBane]

107. Kids move quickly these days.

[ileus]

11. We need a Canadian lawyer to chime in here....

LOL...


Anyway, owning firearms or supporting the 2A is progressive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Let me answer it

So help me out here, DU. Am I a gun humper, a gun fetishist, a Gungeoneer, or just a plain old Delicate Flower?

All these apply to a certain small but vocal group that do not believe in any of those things...some even believe we need more zimmermans.

I hope that helps.

By the way looking forwards to that other story. Pols never take kindly

[roamer65]

15. I'm extremely "progressive" and I own guns.

I refuse to join the NRA because of its right wing contamination and I very rarely carry as there is not a big need for it. The permit does make it easier to transport the guns for target shooting pretty much.

As another DU'er stated above, it really is a question of attitude. Georgie Z needs a major attitude adjustment and I think somehow he will eventually get one...probably from a civil case.

[thelordofhell]

16. Yes

[Maeve]

17. Of course it is

The uber-partisanship crap demeans us all. There are "gun nuts", but not all owners are nuts, just as not all dog owners talk to their pets in that squeaky high-pitched babytalk. Your liberal bonafides are there to be seen in the totality of your post.

Life is not a computer, all 0 or 1, all on or off. Anyone who argues it is should grow up.

[hlthe2b]

18. I know responsible gun owners. But, they would NEVER argue against universal background checks...

and in fact lobbied hard FOR the moderate restrictions passed in Colorado this year. They are deeply offended by the tactics of the NRA and even more extremist pro-gun groups. Nor would they promote concealed carry of guns where alcohol is flowing, like bars and on-campus college fraternities. Likewise, they do not discount the all too frequent child carnage from the gun owners who refuse to lock up their guns. And, yes, at least among this group of what I consider to be the "model' for progressive gun advocacy, they are on record as supporting our moving to "smart gun" technology that prevents all but the uniquely identified user from being able to activate the gun.

So, yes, I think there are responsible progressive gun owners--but, like truly liberal Christians, we don't hear from them often enough, given the echo chamber from the extremists.

[roamer65]

25. Bingo. I'm one of those.

I actually would like to see the laws in my state tightened a bit, rather than loosened.

[struggle4progress]

20. We're a big tent party, and the whole point of democracy is that many minds with varied backgrounds

are more likely produce to produce robust solutions to our problems

[cali]

21. yes. At least I think so.

[spin]

22. Of course. ...

Especially if you are an older progressive or live in a gun friendly state.

[NYC_SKP]

23. Yes, I and thousands of other members are living proof of that.

And thank you for your service to our country in the infantry, 11 Bravo!

[Hoyt]

61. Zman could have said same thing, until he shot Trayvon. Now he can say it again.

[Egalitarian Thug]

24. Yes. Off to the trashcan, now. n/t

[sigmasix]

26. you're an american patriot

first of all- thank you for your service to our country; all Americans owe our veterans a great debt that can only be repaid through continued struggle to make America a more perfect union.
Your discription of your fire-arm ownership and usage sounds like a responsible grown-up that is aware of the dangers of irresponsible gun ownership. Some may call you those names for simply owning a fire-arm, but I believe that they are in the minority. Gundamentalists represent a serious danger to the 2nd amendment and America. The ideology of the teabagger gun nut is more dangerous than their arsenals of murder. The dangers of allowing the NRA and teabaggers to write our gun ownership laws reminds me of hiring a fox to guard the Hen house. Average American gun owners represent no threat to our country- rabid right wing racist gun nuts are the enemy of America and our children.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

27. Jesus Christ

am I sick and tired of people like you playing the victim. I'm now convinced that victimhood and a persecution complex comes with owning a gun. After Trayvon, 20 kindergartners gunned down in their classroom, and God knows how many more other incidents of gun violence and tragedy, the only thing you can think of is yourself and your fucking "rights"?! Fucking 62 years old, don't you think it's time to grow up, and put these things in perspective?

[Bake]

63. And you just made the OP's point

I knew it would happen. Just didn't know which one of the usuals it would be.

Bake

[oldhippie]

101. I'm surprised it took 27 posts, though .....

...and there will be more.

[Bake]

123. Oh yeah. No doubt.

There already are.

Bake

[Mr. David]

28. I think all legitimate gun owners needs to have their guns destroyed

and report to the nearest mental hospital for evaluations.

I, for one, do NOT understand why there is a real need to own guns, and guns that kill people - and PEOPLE KNOW THAT.

We're degenerating to Idiocracy mode, and yesterday's verdict proved that.

I'm so glad I live in a sane state, and people like James Holmes will be found guilty and sentenced to death here.

James Holmes is a perfect example of what's wrong with owning guns.

[flvegan]

38. I love a little irony.

[cherokeeprogressive]

66. No offense but... I think you're a little bit freaky. Maybe it's just me.

You must not know much about DU if you come here and claim Colorado is a "sane state" because James Holmes can be put to death there.

[Mr. David]

68. Because he used an illegal gun and they're debating whether he was sane or not.

He should be found sane, then found guilty then sentenced to death for killing the theater goers.

People like him are the reason that we have gone insane on guns.

I ask responsible gun owners to take their guns to the nearest smelter and have it melted down to an useless object.

Then you can have it back as a useless object to throw to a criminal. Bumps from heavy metals are quite nasty.

[cherokeeprogressive]

76. Thanks for the confirmation.

Unnecessary, but appreciated.

[Arcanetrance]

93. Don't you find it a tad odd to say people who own guns should be committed because guns kill

While your advocating for another individual to be killed

[Half-Century Man]

73. Calm down

You're adding extra "s"es.

You said "I think all legitimate gun owners needs to have......". I'm guessing you are not, thinking that is. I would guess you are voicing a gut reaction or mimicking another's passionate response. If in fact you do not understand why some would feel differently about guns, yet express a wish to institutionalize people who disagree with you. I suspect you do not care to hear any reasons. For if you accidentally find yourself in the smallest of agreements.......

[NaturalHigh]

31. Sure it is. Not all will agree, though.

Shot with an AK-47? Dang. I can't even imagine how that felt.

[Duckhunter935]

32. Yes

But some here do not think so

[DBoon]

33. Of course

Guns are interesting technology and can be used in respected games of skill

Guns are not my thing, but I'd hate to have the same standards applied to hobbies with possible dodgy use (chemical equipment? are you a meth cooker or something?)

Guns as a tools are fine, guns as ideology are scary. Guns are not magic, will not repel all evil, and have not in themselves ever overthrown any tyrant.

Guns should be regulated like any other hazardous item

[JI7]

35. Why do so many of them support Zimmerman ?

[arely staircase]

41. i own guns and am appalled by the z verdict nt

[RobinA]

60. I Don't Own Guns

and think the Z verdict was appropriate. So much for the false equivalence so common here.
And yeah, OP, you can be progressive and own guns. There are plenty of responsible gun owners out there.

[Thinkingabout]

36. I was raised in a family of hunters, have hunted, still enjoy game, was ways taught gun

Safety. For whatever reason my RW neighbor seems to have a need for three AR-15"s a d there is only one person in the home and I don't see the need for three. BTW, he is the gang gubermint gonna take away yo're guns.

[The Straight Story]

37. I don't own a gun (did for work in the past) and yes, progressives own guns

There are some who think you cannot be both, but they have a personal agenda they are working on.

I have shown time and again that the majority with guns are not the problem. It is the few (less than 1%) who cause the problems.

The problem is not the many who own guns but a few crazy folks who do - and I, like others, would like to see guns not in their hands. How we get there is what is up for debate.

I look for causes while others just blame the device for being the cause. If that were the case then there would be a lot more shootings and such than we see now.

We have enough laws already, which have been effective because most gun owners do obey the laws we have. But those folks get no press - and some here like to post about the few who don't obey the laws and try to apply that to all.

[petronius]

39. Simple answer: 100% yes, even without any of the caveats or background... (nt)

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. +1. I couldn't put it any better. (nt)

[arely staircase]

40. i am a gun owner and a pretty liberal democrat

Now I also support extended background checks and bans on large caliber high capacity weapons and other sensible gun control measures.

[arely staircase]

42. and you are right about trophy hunters too imho nt

[LeftyMom]

43. Is it possible? Yes. Are you going to get some serious side eye

proportionate to the ridiculousness of your arsenal? Fuck yes, you are.

Why? Because gun culture in this country is paranoid and racist.

If you willingly identify yourself with that culture you shouldn't be surprised if people wonder how much of its' ideology you agree with.

[etherealtruth]

44. You may be any of the above

.... If the following from your post is true, you are a gun owner (though I cannot imagine why a person would need 12 guns a year), though I will never agree with you I can agree to disagree


"I supported Virginia's one-gun-a-month law (how many fucking guns does ANYONE need?) I support universal background checks and the closing of the gun show loophole. I support a ban on high capacity magazines. I don't believe any private citizen needs to have access to armor-piercing (cop-killer) ammunition. I believe that George Zimmerman, that cowardly cop wannabe, should spend the rest of his life in prison. "

I do believe the well deserved slams are directed at the folk that continually post fervent beliefs that any limits imposed on gun (or ammunition) ownership, limits and requirements for ownership are somehow depriving them of their rights ... for them the epithets are justly deserved. For folk that simply own a gun (or a few) I will agree to disagree.

[11 Bravo]

54. The "one-gun-a-month" law was a LIMIT. Prior to that there was NO limit to the number ...

of guns that could be purchased in any given month in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I supported a limit being placed on the number of (mostly) out-of-state purchasers who came into the state and bought an unlimited numbers of weapons.

[NutmegYankee]

58. I remember that law being passed.

IIRC, it helped shut down the infamous gun trade to NYC where people would buy guns in easy purchase states in the south and then smuggle them north.

[etherealtruth]

85. Virginia ends monthly one-gun purchase limit

Virginia ends monthly one-gun purchase limit

Now, rather than being limited to just one of the latest models from Glock, Sig Sauer or Smith & Wesson per month, you can walk out of a licensed Virginia gun shop with an armload if you have the money and can pass an instant background check.

If anyone mourned the law's passing, it was done quietly.

Gun rights groups, who targeted the law from its infancy, are dancing on its grave.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-ends-monthly-one-gun-purchase-limit/article_55c95c91-8638-5973-bdb5-c13f93813447.html

[NutmegYankee]

88. Part of the tragic Republican gains there.

I worked hard to elect Mark Warner (gov) and Tim Kaine (lt gov) when I lived there. And while I'm happy we have the senate seats, I fear for the women and poor in that state under the nutcase General Assembly.

[etherealtruth]

84. I understand that and lived in Virginia for several years

Virginia ends monthly one-gun purchase limit

Now, rather than being limited to just one of the latest models from Glock, Sig Sauer or Smith & Wesson per month, you can walk out of a licensed Virginia gun shop with an armload if you have the money and can pass an instant background check.

If anyone mourned the law's passing, it was done quietly.

Gun rights groups, who targeted the law from its infancy, are dancing on its grave.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-ends-monthly-one-gun-purchase-limit/article_55c95c91-8638-5973-bdb5-c13f93813447.html

[Half-Century Man]

77. As far as "how many guns"

I would say it depends on the individual circumstances. I know of several people and personally know one person who collect WWII arms. My acquaintance is a class III license holder and had a dozen a few years ago. He was pricing Thompson M1A1 submachine guns once when we found out reading brochures for automatic weapons at work gets you called into the office.

[Skittles]

45. yes

you're a gun owner, not a gun humper

[BainsBane]

46. That sounds very reasonable to me

I wish you could convince folks in the gungeon to go along.

[11 Bravo]

65. I don't go anywhere NEAR the Gungeon, so I won't be convincing anyone.

[roamer65]

72. Here comes a general rant...misplaced in the queue...sorry.

What I find infuriating and damn hypocritical is how all of these gun humpers are so "states rights" on most other issues, but when it comes to their precious little guns, then be damned with "states rights" on the issue of shall carry. They are actively trying to thwart the "states rights" of states that do not wish to have shall carry laws. (i.e. Illinois, NY and CA). Sickening.

[Rstrstx]

47. Isn't this getting uncomfortably close to the top post under General Discussion?

No gun threads. And FWIW I think having a shotgun or rifle if you live out in the boonies, well I don't see anything wrong with it, it may even be necessary at times

[NutmegYankee]

48. Yes.

I am in that boat, being very socially and economically liberal, but also enjoying target shooting with family heirlooms and some deer hunting. I agree about the trophy hunter being wackos. I'm seeking to fill a freezer with meat, not a trophy.

[Paladin]

49. A gun OWNER? Yes. A pro-gun ACTIVIST? No.

Sounds to me like you're a gun owner, rather than an activist. The two terms get glossed over by our resident Gun Enthusiasts, but they constitute two very different groups.

[LWolf]

51. Yes. It's possible. nt

[Maine-i-acs]

53. I am in that boat:

Longtime gun owner; starting with BB gun training by the Rod+Gun Club at the tender age of 6.
Have owned and shot Long rifles, shotguns, and pistols, as well as several muskets, all of which I still own. Hunted since I was very young. Hunters and strong military ties in the family.

As a teen my dad turned in his membership to the Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine, when they advocated for their members to unite in opposition to the Brady Bill AWB ban (As the NRA had advised them to).
He had a chance to tell them off in a public hearing, too, and did.

I still have all the guns, but still can't see the need for assault weapons in private hands, stand-your-ground, and a few other bogus trends in gun ownership.

And I want my tax money used wisely, to feed hungry people and help old people. And I want good paying manufacturing jobs to return, union ones to boot. And I want to support public education, not for-profit private schools. And don't get me started on the prisons, the Court, or the Petrochemicals...

So call me a GTP - Gun-Toting Progressive.

[Whisp]

56. Yes. Ask Gabby Giffords and her husband. n/t

[Hoyt]

57. I do not see carrying guns on city streets as progressive.

I think the 93% of population who do not carry in public have rights too.

If Zman had not been carrying a gun, he would have stayed in his car.

[KG]

62. it's obvious to me that widespread gun ownership is not a net benefit to american society.

and therefore not a 'progressive' value, as in: making progress, making things better.

its being a right is another issue. the 2A is poorly worded, and people going about strapping is not what I think the authors had in mind.

my anecdotal experience is those most enthusiastic about guns were the ones that I least trusted to handle them intelligently.

[Ghost in the Machine]

64. Yes, it's not only possible, but a proven fact.... n/t

[Spirochete]

67. Of course it is

it's not all black and white. If suddenly you didn't have your guns, would you experience sweaty palms, difficulty breathing, overwhelming panic attacks? Do you drool over the latest issue of Guns & Ammo? I didn't think so. So you're just a progressive DU'er who happens to own a couple guns.

[Ruby the Liberal]

70. My litmus test is attitude:

Is your gun a psychological replacement for your small penis and/or lack of actual balls?

I am not seeing that psychosis in your OP, so be well.

I hope this made sense in the manner I intended it.

[bvar22]

71. Just Lay Low for a few days.

DU's Gun Prohibitionist Temperance League is all fired up and parading around DU desperately trying to tar any Gun Owner with the George Zimmerman brush.
They are unreasonable people, so don't attempt a rational conversation until they have tired themselves out demanding the impossible.

Yes. It is possible to be a very progressive, Liberal, Peaceful, non-violent, Good Democrat, and still own a gun.

[Robb]

74. Absolutely. Now consider what it meant for you to have felt

compelled to ask the question.

Ask yourself, why am I being forced to defend a relatively simple notion like this? What forces are acting upon the debate to where seemingly reasonable progressives, who some years ago might not have batted an eye to hear that you plinked cans of took elk, now look at you with pity or disdain, if not outright disgust?

Did progressives become a bunch of noodle brains? Or did the true gun madmen out there lower the bar so much when they decided to speak "for" you?

The choice for the progressive gun enthusiast is clear; either decide your fellow progressives are lunatics, or take some concrete steps to differentiate yourselves.

And, before it's said, tepidly supporting the weakest possible legislation while simultaneously calling progressives idiots for wanting real, significant and lasting reform DOES NOT CUT IT.

[Ruby the Liberal]

80. 1,000 times, THIS

Well done, Robb.

[11 Bravo]

83. Robb, I don't know where you stand with regard to me, but in many ways I consider you my brother.

Your posts about the innumerable senseless deaths resulting from the country's ridiculously lax gun laws are always poignant, persuasive, and right on point. But I asked the question because I AM a progressive, and I DO own guns. My guns are locked in gun safes, and they only come out when this highly trained expert marksman (at least according to the US Army) decides to use them. The lunatics don't not speak for me, and I have struggled to point that out, while at the same time trying to make it clear that my gun ownership doesn't make me Wayne Fucking La Pierre.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. I'm sorry you get lumped in with the rest of the idiotic rightwing gun trolls here.

It's unfortunate. I guess it is inevitable, given that 99 out of 100 self identified gun enthusiasts here are obnoxious right wing trolls. Sorry. It happens.

[pnwmom]

78. I think you are a perfect example of how a progressive can be a gun owner. n/t

[arcane1]

79. This non-owner says "yes" n/t

[ZombieHorde]

81. Of course.

I live in Montana, and I have met lots of liberals that enjoy hunting.

[Demo_Chris]

82. Answer to the original question: OF COURSE...

Of course it is, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[Jenoch]

87. I am a gun owner

(I have 8 guns, 2 deer rifles 2 .22 rifles, a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun) and I do not consider myself a gun nut. I do not go to rallies and I do not and never have belonged to the NRA.

I will correct you on one of your points.

"I don't believe any private citizen needs to have access to armor-piercing (cop-killer) ammunition."

What caliber is you rifle? The reason I ask is that most deer hunting calibers will pierce a bullet resistant vest. The most common caliber for a high powered rifle is a .30 - 06. All .30 - 06 ammunition is armor piercing.

There are teflon coated bullets that make it even easier to pierce vests, but that ammunition is illegal for private citizens to possess.

[NutmegYankee]

91. If I may -

Armor piercing ammunition is a special steel core bullet designed for that purpose. Normal .30-06, while powerful enough to pierce a vest, is just jacketed lead. It is one of the most popular hunting (deer) rounds out there.

[Jenoch]

92. I know the difference.

I read that armor piercing (steel core) handgun ammunition is illegal. What about rifle calibers?

[NutmegYankee]

96. Some states, like mine, ban it for rifles.

Obviously it has no civilian purpose.

[Jenoch]

99. I agree it should be banned.

It should not be available outside of military and LEO. However, there is much hyperbole concernung it. I cannot recall it being used in crimes and I am guessing that it would be difficult to aquire.

[msanthrope]

89. Yes. nt

[Owl]

90. Sure, why not?

[PD Turk]

94. Dunno about progressive

I own a decent collection of firearms, mostly antiques and replicas, but I'm not a progressive. I'm a dyed in the wool left-wing liberal and I will be until the day I die.

[steve2470]

95. Yes.

No, you're none of the epithets you mentioned.

I think the burden needs to be on the NRA and its fans to come up with reasonable, effective, 2nd Amendment-compliant solutions for our homicide problem. I'm not an expert on the issue or on guns.

[moondust]

97. You are helping to perpetuate a dangerous, deadly culture.

Due to your background, I wouldn't instinctively distrust your weapons competence or your emotional or psychological maturity.

But if individuals like you are allowed to own and carry guns then so are many individuals who are not nearly as competent or stable. In a sense you are providing cover for the irresponsible.

Once guns are widely distributed throughout a culture, it is inevitable that some owners will handle them irresponsibly and some of the wrong people will get control of them and use them improperly--to deadly effect.

It's not you but rather the desperados and wackos and drunks and criminals and George Zimmermans you are dragging into the future on your coattails.

[Major Hogwash]

98. Oh muh gawd!!

You're 62 years old!!!!!

Oh muh gawd!!!

Delicate Flower?



Hardly!

[Mr.Bill]

100. Yes. I know plenty of progressive, liberal Democrats that own guns.

Rachel Maddow owns guns. There are plenty of non violent, non aggressive reasons to own guns, for instance competitive sport shooting or simply collecting.

[madrchsod]

102. i used to own guns and was a lifetime nra member

but i moved into town and did`t feel i needed my rifles. gave up on the nra when they started going political. personally i think concealed concept is stupid. if you want to carry a gun legally you should be able to wear it concealed or not concealed.

[tpsbmam]

105. I loathe guns, I'm a progressive and

I think you can most certainly be a gun owner and be progressive.

I used to live in Colorado and had a friend who hunted and he, too, ate everything he killed. In fact, his hunting was what helped cause my vegetarianism! It was the second time I actually saw the bodies of the animals he killed and then expected me to eat. I couldn't -- I got nauseous when I faced the food on my plate. I had the same reaction when I went to a luau as a kid in Hawaii -- the pig they slaughtered & cooked made me physically ill when I faced the prospect of eating its meat. Soon enough, hamburgers weren't hamburgers, they were cow faces flashing in front of my eyes and I could no longer eat them.

Twice I've been around supposedly "responsible" gun owners who've acted in ways that were terrifying. Both were in situations that made them angry and they got their guns and started waving them around in threatening ways. Scared the shit out of me and confirmed my antipathy toward guns & gun ownership.

All of that being said, gun ownership and progressivism aren't mutually exclusive. I have no problem with my meat-eating friends who buy their meat at local stores. And I have no problem with people who eat what they hunt. When I saw the deer heat on my neighbor/fundamentalist minister's wall when we had a neighborhood meeting in his rec room, I told him I was going to puke (he was good enough to remove it) and asked him if "he liked killing God's creatures." Yeah, I wasn't particularly polite about it -- it disgusted me. I have to admit I didn't get past that to ask if they ate the venison from the deer he murdered. (Okay, so it still disgusts me even if I accept what hunters who eat their kills do.)

Do I agree with all of your points? Nope. But that doesn't make you any less progressive than I am. So yeah, even for this gun hater, you can be a gun owner & be progressive. They're not mutually exclusive.

[otohara]

106. Concealed Carry - Fucking Sucks

I was scared to death walking down a busy street last month to see my son do his magic at a club. I'm terrified knowing so many
people are carrying guns. I won't go out - unless I have to.

So know this - you are scaring women, children and teens - how does that make you feel?

[williesgirl]

109. Yep, I'm walking, talking proof! Even have a concealed weapon permit.

[rrneck]

111. Is it possible to be a progressive DUer and a gun owner?

Yes.

[Anansi1171]

114. As an 18E who completed the 11B course at Benning, I think you are wonderful and a true progressive.

Nothing at all like the Zimmerman apologists here on DU. Those are some sick in the heart puppies.

[Lugnut]

117. I don't have any guns.

My husband does. He's a liberal like I am. He and my son used to hunt but they quit back in the 80s. The guns are all locked up in a gun cabinet and they're now just a valuable collection. Sure, it's possible and I don't think you have anything to be concerned about.

[Iggo]

119. Gun fucker, gun fetishist (same thing, really), gungeoneer, or delicate flower?

That's it?

That's kind of a short list.

EDIT: Oops. I missed the original question, to which the answer is Yes.

[ecstatic]

121. Gun owner for the purpose of hunting, hobby, home defense: Sure. Concealed carry?

Not so sure. I think responsible progressives understand the danger (and paranoia) associated with carrying a loaded gun around all the time. Sadly, I do know some registered democrats with conceal carry licenses. Unlike Z, they actually do face real threats, but I'm just not convinced that a gun would be anymore helpful than having nothing at all when it comes to surprise attacks.

[Adsos Letter]

122. Yes. n/t