Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I see gun ownership like sexuality.

some people whom are homosexual feel the need to change how they speak, walk, dress, etc to make sure everyone knows at all times that they are GAY. Some homosexual people are fine just being themselves, and happening to be gay.

Some gun owners are happy owning their n+1 guns, where n= the current number of guns you own , and not openly carry or walk into a Dennys with a bandolier of ammo and an AR-15. And some feel the need to never wash their hair, wear fatigues, and walk around the mall with an .50 caliber rifle and spout MURICA! nonsense.

One of those in each group makes those groups look bad by perpetuating terrible stereotypes, the other not really doing anything bad.

anyone else notice most of the comments on this topic are from Americans on both sides?

blaktoof wrote:


some people whom are homosexual feel the need to change how they speak, walk, dress, etc to make sure everyone knows at all times that they are GAY. Some homosexual people are fine just being themselves, and happening to be gay.

Strange.

I've never heard someone that spoke negatively about a gun owner called a bigot before....

blaktoof wrote:
I see gun ownership like sexuality.

some people whom are homosexual feel the need to change how they speak, walk, dress, etc to make sure everyone knows at all times that they are GAY. Some homosexual people are fine just being themselves, and happening to be gay.

Some gun owners are happy owning their n+1 guns, where n= the current number of guns you own , and not openly carry or walk into a Dennys with a bandolier of ammo and an AR-15. And some feel the need to never wash their hair, wear fatigues, and walk around the mall with an .50 caliber rifle and spout MURICA! nonsense.

One of those in each group makes those groups look bad by perpetuating terrible stereotypes, the other not really doing anything bad.

anyone else notice most of the comments on this topic are from Americans on both sides?

It's a strange analogy, but what it sounds like it is is that at the end of the day it's question of pride in who you are. Gun-wielding Americans self-identify as such. Homosexuals identify as such. It tracks.

 daedalus wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
I see gun ownership like sexuality.

some people whom are homosexual feel the need to change how they speak, walk, dress, etc to make sure everyone knows at all times that they are GAY. Some homosexual people are fine just being themselves, and happening to be gay.

Some gun owners are happy owning their n+1 guns, where n= the current number of guns you own , and not openly carry or walk into a Dennys with a bandolier of ammo and an AR-15. And some feel the need to never wash their hair, wear fatigues, and walk around the mall with an .50 caliber rifle and spout MURICA! nonsense.

One of those in each group makes those groups look bad by perpetuating terrible stereotypes, the other not really doing anything bad.

anyone else notice most of the comments on this topic are from Americans on both sides?

It's a strange analogy, but what it sounds like it is is that at the end of the day it's question of pride in who you are. Gun-wielding Americans self-identify as such. Homosexuals identify as such. It tracks.

It certainly is an interesting analogy. However, it is possible to take pride in who you are without shoving it in people's faces.

NOPE. Not even toughing this one.

 Random Dude wrote:


It certainly is an interesting analogy. However, it is possible to take pride in who you are without shoving it in people's faces.

And again, say that to a homosexual and you're a bigot.

Say it to a fervent gun owner and you're a...... responsible liberal?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:


It certainly is an interesting analogy. However, it is possible to take pride in who you are without shoving it in people's faces.

And again, say that to a homosexual and you're a bigot.

Say it to a fervent gun owner and you're a...... responsible liberal?

Doesn't make sense, does it?

Its like the hippies in NZ. (yes we still have hippies)

Its like they have to breath weed on you and talk about love or something loudly to make sure you know that they are hippies from the 80s.

All sides and groups have extremes. Its just Ok to hate some and not ok to hate others.

I will say this though, compared to a homosexual (as per example) the guy with the gun is technically more of a threat.

 Random Dude wrote:

It certainly is an interesting analogy. However, it is possible to take pride in who you are without shoving it in people's faces.

I have literally zero argument to that.

 Peregrine wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I have no idea why the well-regulated militia part is still something people try to debate; it CLEARLY STATES in 10 USC 311 (that would be the United States Code, ladies and gentlemen), that the militia consists of every able-bodied male between 17 and 45 that is a citizen or has declared intent to become a citizen, and that the classes of militia are Organized (National Guard and Naval Militia), and Unorganized (Everyone else).

It's up for debate because that's just a federal law, not part of the constitution. Congress could change that law at any time and define the militia as something else, so if you're basing your right to own a gun on that law you're not building yourself a very strong foundation.

I didn't say ANYTHING like that as a matter of fact, and come on dude, we've argued on the same side and on opposite sides of enough things that we BOTH know you can and do read the whole post. No need to play games like morons on /tg/ or /k/. That post is just countering the argument that the 2nd Amendment only applies to a "well regulated militia" and that militia is the national guard. Since I know you read the rest of my post which covers the actual RIGHT to keep and bear arms, which is an individual right per the wording of the constitution itself AND a nice big pile of jurisprudence on the subject, then we can safely proceed with the knowledge that I was discussing the concept and legal definition of the "well regulated militia" which as we see from the United States Code means just about everyone in this thread with an American Flag by their name (who's male over the age of 17), along with the rest of the populace that fits that definition besides Frazz, who is older than time itself and therefore past the 45 year age limit. Thus we are "well regulated" as the Unorganized Militia. Now put on your damn tricorn.

It's the same answer as people drinking and serving alcohol to thier buds even though, according to the CDC, alcohol kills 3times as many people in this country as guns and is a factor in 2 out of 3 cases of domestic violence, not to mention the health problems, lost jobs, wrecked marriages, etc. caused by it's abuse.
People like 'em and won't give 'em up.

Liberals have taken to calling gun owners "Ammosexuals" and calling openly for their extermination. So take that as you will.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Liberals have taken to calling gun owners "Ammosexuals" and calling openly for their extermination. So take that as you will.

I'll take that as a ridiculously general statement. I think you need to qualify it a bit, rather than just slapping everyone left of centre. I bet most liberals don't say anything of the sort, just the ones who write for places like (from memory) Mother Jones (or something along those lines)? That'd be like me saying "Republicans have taken to calling X Y, and openly calling for their extermination" based off something I read on Brietbart (again, whatever it's called, the opposite to Mother Jones).

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
That post is just countering the argument that the 2nd Amendment only applies to a "well regulated militia" and that militia is the national guard.

But it's not a very strong counter because it only addresses federal law, not constitutional rights. Congress could, at any moment, pass a new law changing the definition of "militia" to be the national guard and then the people arguing that position would be entirely correct about what the "well regulated militia" consists of. There's nothing in the constitution that requires any particular definition of "militia", which means that the best you can establish with the USC citation is that Congress currently agrees with your opinion.

Since I know you read the rest of my post which covers the actual RIGHT to keep and bear arms, which is an individual right per the wording of the constitution itself AND a nice big pile of jurisprudence on the subject, then we can safely proceed with the knowledge that I was discussing the concept and legal definition of the "well regulated militia" which as we see from the United States Code means just about everyone in this thread with an American Flag by their name (who's male over the age of 17), along with the rest of the populace that fits that definition besides Frazz, who is older than time itself and therefore past the 45 year age limit. Thus we are "well regulated" as the Unorganized Militia. Now put on your damn tricorn.

But if the right is clearly an individual one that is unrelated to any kind of militia membership then why complicate the discussion by trying to establish just what a "well regulated militia" is? Why not just leave it at "that phrase explains why they felt that the right needs to exist, it doesn't create any requirement for exercising that right"?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Liberals have taken to calling gun owners "Ammosexuals" and calling openly for their extermination. So take that as you will.

That's the first I have ever heard of that, so Conservatives have taken to making up lies about liberals.

Or, you know, we can stop generalizing unless you want to be like OP.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
As a side note, because I'm just WAITING for someone to bring up the "well regulated militia" line, and it was mentioned in some liberal politician's quote somewhere on page 2, I have a knowledge bomb straight from the United States Code on the militia. I have no idea why the well-regulated militia part is still something people try to debate; it CLEARLY STATES in 10 USC 311 (that would be the United States Code, ladies and gentlemen), that the militia consists of every able-bodied male between 17 and 45 that is a citizen or has declared intent to become a citizen, and that the classes of militia are Organized (National Guard and Naval Militia), and Unorganized (Everyone else).

That's it. It's very cut and dry and defined in our national law. If you aren't a member of the uniformed services, you are automatically a part of the unorganized militia. Therefore, any able-bodied male between 17 and 45 who does not practice with firearms regularly with the intent of preparing for the defense of the nation is actually remiss in their responsibilities as a citizen of the United States. That is, per U.S. law, the well regulated militia. Everyone with a pulse. This of course doesn't affect the right to keep and bear arms, because that's an individual right as affirmed by multiple supreme and federal court cases.

The real irony here, is that by failing to maintain and practice with a weapon, these anti-gun snobs are *actually* the ones preventing the "well-regulated" militia from existing, i.e., "being in proper working order".

So really all I see here as a problem is that Title 10, Section 311 United States Code needs to have the age range pushed out to 55 at least (we're living longer, stand to!) and be made non-gender discriminatory, just like registering for selective service should be if we're going to keep the draft around.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title10-section311&num=0&saved=%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGUxMC1jaGFwdGVyMTMtZnJvbnQ%3D%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim

Good to know, thank you

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Liberals have taken to calling gun owners "Ammosexuals" and calling openly for their extermination. So take that as you will.

That's the first I have ever heard of that, so Conservatives have taken to making up lies about liberals.

Or, you know, we can stop generalizing unless you want to be like OP.

Just what I've been seeing on Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action's FB pages. Same deal at Coalition To Stop Gun Violence. There's screen caps!

Also I'm not a conservative

The Republican party would freak about my stance on just about anything that isn't firearms.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Liberals have taken to calling gun owners "Ammosexuals" and calling openly for their extermination. So take that as you will.

And domestic terrorists, and that they should be droned. Imagine if people made the same comments about free speech

Video spoilered for NSFW content (mainly profanity)



Don't like tattoos? Don't get one
Don't like alcohol? Don't buy any
Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one
Don't like abortions? Don't get one
Don't like drugs? Don't use them
Don't like guns? Don't buy one
Just because someone does not agree with something does not give them the authority to take your rights away.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Liberals have taken to calling gun owners "Ammosexuals" and calling openly for their extermination. So take that as you will.

That's the first I have ever heard of that, so Conservatives have taken to making up lies about liberals.

Or, you know, we can stop generalizing unless you want to be like OP.

Just what I've been seeing on Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action's FB pages. Same deal at Coalition To Stop Gun Violence. There's screen caps!

So is membership there a requirement before I get issued my "liberal" card?

I'm not saying idiots are not out there. I'm saying that those idiots don't qualify for the statement of "liberals say...".

In America, why does a person's view on guns triumph over EVERYthing else?

False!

Your views on American Football are your most important views.

Second is For or Against the designated hitter.

And third is which one?



Everything else is communist clap-trap or neo-conservative double talk. THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN! Wake up, sheeple.

In this thread I have seen something that you don't actively choose (sexuality) being compared to something you do actively choose (owning a gun) and people not getting the difference. Even the "having pride in it" part is contextually changed given that fact.

Incredible.

No, I'm not for extreme gun control. Just find the above absurd.

Because 1980s action movies.

Damn these threads are tiresome. Perhaps the Mods should consider locking gun threads on site, the same way they treat relationship threads.

My views of freedom trump everything else. Yes. I believe an armed citizenry is essential to maintain a free society. So, I view legislation against guns as the first step in legislation against freedom.

Gun laws started off as Jim Crow laws to keep black people from defending themselves or causing civil unrest. Gun control is about power. If they wanted to stop the violence they'd focus on the mental health issue and the gangs.

 MWHistorian wrote:
My views of freedom trump everything else. Yes. I believe an armed citizenry is essential to maintain a free society. So, I view legislation against guns as the first step in legislation against freedom.

Gun laws started off as Jim Crow laws to keep black people from defending themselves or causing civil unrest. Gun control is about power. If they wanted to stop the violence they'd focus on the mental health issue and the gangs.

I agree with the mental health part. Focusing on helping mentally ill people would go a long way in stopping the violence problem.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
In this thread I have seen something that you don't actively choose (sexuality) being compared to something you do actively choose (owning a gun) and people not getting the difference. Even the "having pride in it" part is contextually changed given that fact.

Incredible.

No, I'm not for extreme gun control. Just find the above absurd.

I've met many people that have actively chosen their sexuality.

I've also met many people who even when they were kids at the age of 3,4,5 had their parents sit them in their lap, and pull the trigger to "hunt" and bought them guns, and more or less forced them to go on family hunting trips etc. they pretty much had no choice into gun ownership.

blaktoof wrote:

I've met many people that have actively chosen their sexuality.

I've also met many people who even when they were kids at the age of 3,4,5 had their parents sit them in their lap, and pull the trigger to "hunt" and bought them guns, and more or less forced them to go on family hunting trips etc. they pretty much had no choice into gun ownership.

And I call utter bs.

Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings,
psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

From the APA

Dr Bailey said: “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.
“But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved. “The study shows that there are genes involved in male sexual orientation.
“Although this could one day lead to a pre-natal test for male sexual orientation, it would not be very accurate, as there are other factors that can influence the outcome.”

From the people who conducted the study that discovered genetic indicators for homosexuality (indicators, not 100% deciders)

They generally don't count shills that repress their sexuality for various reasons (religion, money, peer pressure etc).

Yes, those kids did have a choice. Guns are not an intrinsic part of them. They choose to get them, and use them.

I have no problems with people wanting guns, but this is utter fething bs and stop peddling filth.

I apologize that you find reality offensive, but there are also multiple peer review papers that suggest for some people, or to some extent, sexuality is a choice.

The wiki article on sexual orientation even lists three.

Also what you quoted doesn't say what you think it says.

Scientifically it says the following : we have evidence that there may be genes that are involved in sexuality. Ie they do not have proof, and they are not sure. They then go on to state is not completely determinative, and there other factors. If its not genes, its choice.

in effect the article is saying they have found some indicators that there may be a genetic component to sexual orientation but they have nothing to indicate their findings have any validity, and they are completely aware that the genes are not the determinative factor in sexuality.

Many of the gay men I met were at one time attracted to women, and still found women attractive, often even sleeping with them secretly from various internet sites on the DL but identify as homosexual. I have dated multiple women who identified as Lesbian, and even married one. After our marriage she returned to being Lesbian. I have met many women that found men attractive and loved men, but something terrible happened to them and they psychologically could not face being with a man so they sought out love/intimacy with women. I have met many men that Identified as straight but after watching porn so much began to identify as bisexual or homosexual because of the fixation of seeing the man orgasm to completion being what they found the most arousing in porn slowly being changed from the idea of sex in general to the focus of the man orgasming as that was the completion or climax of the act of sex, which began implanting thoughts of being focused on men cumming being erotic and arousing.

Human sexuality is a lot more complex than some gene indicators, as much of it has to do with mental stimulation and psychological issues with humans. Which is why some humans begin to ID as asexual, and we have people who are considered "deviant" because they enjoy extreme BDSM which ultimately has little to do with the act of sex, etc.

Which is what the article you linked actually says, there may be genetic indicators but its not the determinative factor.


Many cultures have rites they pass on to their children. Like FGM, you have situations where people are raised in it, despite the fact its questionable to many outside people, they go off and become educated to a high level and return to their countries of origin to continue the practice of FGM in a manner that is more clinical (IE M.D. level) than someone with broken shards of glass cutting children.

You have not been raised in rural parts of America where guns/hunting/protection are part of the society that people are brought up in. Children at young ages often do not have a choice to buy into an idea of society or how things should be, yes some people can choose to become gun owners later in life but for some people it is a cultural/family identity that they were brought up in. It is a lot harder to change something you were raised into when you get older than to pick up something new that you had no real dealings with either positively or negatively as child.

Actually you're the one who doesn't understand it. Especially as the Doctor actually saying it even says "It isn't a choice", so considering that fact and you not being able to read it, I see no point in discussing further with you.

Comparing sexuality to gun ownership and female genital mutilation, fething hilarious. Seriously, genuinely hilarious.

Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.
“But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved

I think you are just seeing the part you want and ignoring the rest.

For some people gun ownership is part of their culture and rural way of life.

an interesting article that lightly touches on the topic

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jul/25/kids-guns-and-the-american-way