The Gay Advocates of Gun Rights

[derby378]

Four years ago, Chris Cheng—a Chinese-Japanese-Cuban-American Google employee—started watching Top Shot, a History Channel reality show where contestants shoot their way through a series of complex competitions. Cheng, who as a kid had sometimes gone shooting with his Navy veteran father, started getting into the show.

One day, while watching season two with some of his Google coworkers, Cheng told them: "Hey, everyone, this is gonna sound crazy, but I think I'm going to apply for Top Shot." He remembers his colleagues thinking he was nuts. "They looked at me like, 'You barely shoot, you don't have any accolades or trophies or awards or anything in the shooting world. What makes you think you'd even stand a chance with some of these lifelong, seasoned professional marksmen?' "

But Cheng had a sense of what he could do. He'd been going to the range and hitting his marks; the best way to put his skills to the test, he figured, was to sign up and try out. He got in. Then he beat out veterans, police officers, and an Olympic shooter en route to winning that season's competition. The first thing he did after his victory was take some of the $100,000 prize money and upgrade his National Rifle Association membership to lifetime status.

Then, last year, Cheng took to his blog to announce he was gay. This wasn't a surprise to his friends and family: Cheng and his boyfriend had been together for four and a half years. But he wanted people to see that gun owners were a diverse set of people—and who better than a gay, racially diverse, tech-geek-turned-champion-marksman to deliver the message?

http://news.msn.com/us/the-gay-advocates-of-gun-rights-1

[Starboard Tack]

1. Is there some sort of point being made here?

Is it supposedly unusual for a gun owner and marksman to be gay, or a Chinese-Japanese-Cuban-American Google employee?
Am I missing something? Was it the lifetime NRA membership? What is newsworthy about this story?

[msongs]

2. being killed by a gun is an equal opportunity happening? nt

[Starboard Tack]

3. But this isn't even about killing or carrying.

It seems like it's more about shaming. Why shouldn't gay, multi-ethnic geeks be good shots with a gun? I'm sensing homophobic and racist undertones. Otherwise, wtf is it about? I don't get it.

[derby378]

8. Where?

[Starboard Tack]

10. Where what? nt

[stone space]

39. Oh, geeze. Not an Oleg Volk.

Please, tell me that's not an Oleg Volk.

[derby378]

42. So what if it is?

We've talked a little in the past, and he let me use some of his stuff back in the day. May I suggest a recent essay by Andrew WK?

[stone space]

52. Your buddy Oleg Volk.

The main indication that gun control in America has failed is the fact that its supporters are still alive. Millions of people who have invested in arms, training and lobbying in response to past restrictive legislation have no plans to surrender. If gun control efforts begin to infringe significantly on their ability to fight in the future, those who wish to disarm others will be killed.

The reason for such a blunt statement is that being a gun owner is made up of two components: posession of a weapon and posession of skills and training. One can surrender a gun but not the training.

That skill is the gun-banner's problem. It means that a person trained to use weapons will be able to make use of guns acquired in the future. He would also have a strong motivation to avenge the loss of his means of self-protection. Guns can be made, stolen, bought or taken off enemy casualties. Furthermore, tools other than guns can be used for offensive actions. A gun-banner would have to watch his back for the rest of his life.

http://www.a-human-right.com/effective.html

[NYC_SKP]

85. Exactly what is it about Oleg Volk that offends you?

I see a photographer who captures nature, does spreads for various products, and has an editorial point of view.

Here's the parts you left out that follows your carefully selected and misleading excerpt:

The reason for such a blunt statement is that being a gun owner is made up of two components: posession of a weapon and posession of skills and training. One can surrender a gun but not the training.

That skill is the gun-banner's problem. It means that a person trained to use weapons will be able to make use of guns acquired in the future. He would also have a strong motivation to avenge the loss of his means of self-protection. Guns can be made, stolen, bought or taken off enemy casualties. Furthermore, tools other than guns can be used for offensive actions. A gun-banner would have to watch his back for the rest of his life.

The only solution to it would be gulags, prison camps or execution for the former gun owners. Soviets, for example, use a combination of the two approaches. Knowing that, gun owners cannot surrender their arms and expect to be left in peace. And the gun control fans cannot just remove the guns and expect to survive long after that.

Fortunately, we have a realistic perception of how terribly destructive a civil war would be. All other means of combating gun control - education, lobbying, moving to less restrictive jurisdictions will be tried first.

What's not to love?





If you can link him to something terrible (aside from responsible self-defense), then please provide some proof.

[stone space]

94. What's not to love?

What's not to love?

The main indication that gun control in America has failed is the fact that its supporters are still alive. Millions of people who have invested in arms, training and lobbying in response to past restrictive legislation have no plans to surrender. If gun control efforts begin to infringe significantly on their ability to fight in the future, those who wish to disarm others will be killed.

http://www.a-human-right.com/effective.html

[NYC_SKP]

95. If someone comes to forceably disarm you, is that not a threat to be met with force?

Self defense is a Civil Right, and it is a basic Human Right.

People or organizations that try to remove it by force should expect to be met by resistance.

This is a universal truth, and it's played out over and over and over again in several societies.

Any government or society that would deny it will perish, as they have in the past.

Take care and have a nice day.

[stone space]

96. What did Sarah Brady ever do to him?

Why is she being singled out in that threatening Oleg Volk poster?

[NYC_SKP]

98. Sarah Brady bought her adult son a hunting rifle as a Christmas present.

I don't have a problem with her.

I gather that Oleg has a problem with the minions, not the woman.

You'd have to ask him about all that.

[stone space]

97. How does the fact that...

...gun control supporters are still alive indicate that gun control has failed? (In fact, apparently it is the main indication that gun control has failed.)

The main indication that gun control in America has failed is the fact that its supporters are still alive.

http://www.a-human-right.com/effective.html

[NYC_SKP]

99. I don't know, you'd have to ask Oleg. That part is confusing to me, too.

But reading the entirety of the composition, I tend to understand and agree with him.

But that line isn't clear.

I'm serious about asking him if you want to, I'll be he'd reply to the question if posted on his blog or sent by email.

[stone space]

100. I suppose that he does...

...answer that a little further down.

If gun control efforts begin to infringe significantly on their ability to fight in the future, those who wish to disarm others will be killed.

He would also have a strong motivation to avenge the loss of his means of self-protection.

A gun-banner would have to watch his back for the rest of his life.

http://www.a-human-right.com/effective.html

[NYC_SKP]

101. Interesting. I'd file this under commentary, speculation, but not an unreasonable one.

I could make similar statements:

"If income disparity continues to increase AND vital basic resources continue to decline AND citizens continue to feel more and more powerless, then riots against the rich and the government that supports them should be expected."

Is his statement any more or less reasonable than mine?

[mwrguy]

58. Oleg Volk is a fascist jerk

That's what.

[HALO141]

65. Oh really.

Why, just because he apologetically disagrees with you?

[Starboard Tack]

77. Lot of support for fascist jerks by 2A purists.

Strange bedfellows.

[Eleanors38]

78. Gays & lesbians didn't fare well under fascism.

[stone space]

81. We're talking about somebody whose...

...view of Human Rights includes using those guns to threaten a mass murder of gun control advocates.

[Eleanors38]

82. Uh, no, we are talking about RKBA for LGBTQs.

as is the OP. That you wish to divert the discussion to your hair-on-fire outlook of a photographer's views does not make it less so. Do you think LGBTQ people have the RKBA?

[stone space]

84. I'm opposed to the mass murder of...

...gun control advocates.

That's why I do a double take whenever I see somebody support extremist gun fetishists like Oleg Volk.

[Eleanors38]

86. That mass murder thing is YOUR imagination. Overtime.

Sounds to me you don't like the notion of self-defense, and are willing to prevent others from exercising that right while using a gun. Is this true?

[stone space]

87. My imagination???

http://www.a-human-right.com/effective.html

The main indication that gun control in America has failed is the fact that its supporters are still alive. Millions of people who have invested in arms, training and lobbying in response to past restrictive legislation have no plans to surrender. If gun control efforts begin to infringe significantly on their ability to fight in the future, those who wish to disarm others will be killed.

The reason for such a blunt statement is that being a gun owner is made up of two components: posession of a weapon and posession of skills and training. One can surrender a gun but not the training.

That skill is the gun-banner's problem. It means that a person trained to use weapons will be able to make use of guns acquired in the future. He would also have a strong motivation to avenge the loss of his means of self-protection. Guns can be made, stolen, bought or taken off enemy casualties. Furthermore, tools other than guns can be used for offensive actions. A gun-banner would have to watch his back for the rest of his life.

I think not.

[Eleanors38]

88. What advocacy of mass murder is in this? Your martyrdom is premature.

[Straw Man]

15. It isn't hard to understand.

Why shouldn't gay, multi-ethnic geeks be good shots with a gun?

No reason they shouldn't, despite the common stereotypes -- that's the whole point of the article.

I'm sensing homophobic and racist undertones.

Yes, and they're emanating from the left, which is highly disturbing to me.

[Starboard Tack]

17. Bullshit! They are not emanating from the left at all.

They are being ascribed to the left without any foundation, by people like yourself. Nice try. It's called smearing and they are using this guy as a poster boy. Disgusting!
Trying to legitimize a fascist organization by showing us they have a gay spokesperson, who also happens to be a multi-ethnic computer nerd, is pathetic and insulting to the intelligence of anyone who is a liberal.

[beevul]

18. Cough...ammosexual...cough. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

20. Is that all you've got Beevul?

Rather juvenile, don't you think? You've never seen me use words like ammosexual.

[beevul]

21. From which portion of the political spectrum does that word originate, and emanate?

From which portion of the political spectrum does that word originate, and emanate?

[Starboard Tack]

23. I have no idea. I don't subscribe to party lines or doctrine.

Why don't you tell me and why you would use it in a post to me?

[beevul]

25. It originated and emanates from the left.

You said "Bullshit! They are not emanating from the left at all" in response to another poster asserting that "homophobic and racist undertones" were emanating from the left.

That's practically begging for an example, and I gave you one.

Ammosexual.

[Starboard Tack]

90. It isn't a word I use, but I don't see it as being homophobic

That's a real stretch. It's just a reference to guns being sexualized by some people. Obviously, there is some truth to that, but it isn't my argument.

[Eleanors38]

83. Google 'ammosexual' and tell me about those origins.

But maybe Bill Maher us a RW punk-ass chump, after all. And Raw Story joined up with the Blaze.

[Starboard Tack]

91. Interesting. I guess we have a few right here.

I see nothing homophobic about it. More about many guys who have a love affair with their guns. Some weird shit, to be sure, but there are all kinds of fetishists in this world.

[Eleanors38]

92. We'll see if "ammosexual" gets sanctified on DU.

[Starboard Tack]

93. What do you mean by "sanctified"?

ammosexual
A term for someone who feels affection for firearms. Often an attraction to the beauty and design of the gun, but can also refer to love for the history, freedom, security, or tactile feel of the gun. Also typified by those who feel joy in being able to find and acquire ammunition to feed their firearms, especially at an affordable price.

Ammosexuals, like many alternative lifestyle groups, have been ruthlessly attacked by hate-filled bigots who desire the eradication of individual liberty and equality, in favor of either violent mobs, might-makes-right, or tyrant kings.

Fearing violence and protests, most ammosexuals are forced to hide their biological affection from vocal and violent prejudice. Ammosexuals are frequently the target of anti-freedom laws and politicians, and are currently denied many freedoms granted to other minority groups in most nations. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ammosexual

Apparently, some gun owners love the term

2nd Right - the name ammosexual is really growing on me. i ...
https://www.facebook.com/2ndRight/posts/368450253288813
the name ammosexual is really growing on me. i kinda like it what about you guys...........mike.


http://aattp.org/tag/ammosexual/

[Dawson Leery]

27. Mr. Cheng is no lefty. He is an avid supporter of the

war criminal neo-cons.

He is friends with that horrible Loesch filth. Telling.

[Starboard Tack]

32. OK, got it!

So, the only legitimate "qualities" he has are his "multi-ethnic background", his "gay" status and the fact that he is a crack shot with a rifle. Otherwise, he's a RW, NRA supporting sleazoid. I guess the message here is, not all gay multi-ethnic computer nerds are cool.

[Straw Man]

28. So the left doesn't promote ...

... the "gun owners are white male redneck racists" meme? Are you really trying to peddle that absurd notion?

Are these emanating from the right?







Exactly what are you trying to say?

[Starboard Tack]

33. Looks like you're comfortable with the company you keep.

I see nothing in your cartoons about gun ownership, just gun nuttery.

Most folk have no issue with responsible gun ownership. That does not include carrying Ar-15's around or any other gun in public. You guys are your own worst enemy.

[Straw Man]

35. What is that supposed to mean?

Your veiled canards are getting very tiresome. I don't carry AR-15s around in public, nor does the vast majority of gun owners. These cartoons are crude stereotypes. They feed the bigoted self-righteousness of a radical minority that is dragging the Democratic Party into a culture war that can only hurt us.

Don't try to avoid the issue. Does the left routinely stereotype gun owners, or does it not? I submit that it does, to the detriment of its credibility on gun issues.

[Starboard Tack]

37. No, it does not. It stereotypes gun nuts, not gun owners. There is a difference.

Most gun owners are not gun nuts. Most, but not all, pro RKBA supporters who participate here are not gun nuts. A few definitely are. I don't know whether you are or not. But I wonder.
You seem determined to blame the left, yet you claim to be progressive. Looks to me that it is you and a few others who are doing the stereotyping.

You need to learn the difference between gun owners and gun nuts. It's like the difference between Christians and RW fundamentalists.
The latter of each comprise a minority of the former, and give all a bad name.

[Straw Man]

40. Come on, now.

Most gun owners are not gun nuts. Most, but not all, pro RKBA supporters who participate here are not gun nuts. A few definitely are. I don't know whether you are or not. But I wonder.

Do you really think that committed anti-gun people draw those fine distinctions? C'est pour rire. No -- they traffic in gross caricatures, the better to vilify and propagandize. And you're trying to pretend that they don't do it. Weak position. Very weak.

You seem determined to blame the left, yet you claim to be progressive. Looks to me that it is you and a few others who are doing the stereotyping.

Please explain what stereotyping I am doing. Those on the left who persist in promoting this culture war are doing irreparable damage to the progressive movement. I would like to see that stop. I would like to see them stop handing the gun rights issue to the right on a silver platter.

You need to learn the difference between gun owners and gun nuts. It's like the difference between Christians and RW fundamentalists.

"Gun nuts" is a term of art applied to anyone whose opinions on gun rights are more liberal than one's own. You know it and I know it. I know the difference between reality and crude propaganda. That will suffice.

[Starboard Tack]

41. I don't care what committed anti-gun people think.

They are not a problem in my world. They are no danger to anyone except those who are so attached to their guns that they live in fear of them. I don't. I couldn't care less if every gun on the planet disappeared tomorrow.

The fact that I enjoy shooting occasionally does not motivate me enough to defend any so-called rights to own guns. Neither does the good possibility of buying a gun in the future, whenever I move back to a permanent home on land. Right now, I'm living in a great area for hunting wild boar, thought the season is now over. But it would have been nice to go hunting. Maybe next year.

I don't see the left as doing anything to damage the progressive movement by opposing certain types of weapons, clip capacities and other proposed legislation. I think the damage is being done by those who promote both OC and CC, especially the latter.

Forget the term "Gun Nuts". It means nothing. Let's go with "Gun Fanatics". You know, those guys who live and breathe guns, can't get enough of them, dream about their next acquisition, can't wait to test it out and brag to their buddies about it. Those guys who think guns are personal safety devices.

[Straw Man]

43. Completely disingenuous.

I don't see the left as doing anything to damage the progressive movement by opposing certain types of weapons, clip capacities and other proposed legislation.

Then you are incredibly naive. The left has hopelessly alienated blue-collar Democrats with these non-productive obsessions, which have little or nothing to do with public safety. I know this. I talk to them every day. "I used to be a Democrat" is the mantra of many, many hunters, sport shooters, and "carriers." But I guess in your worldview they are "gun nuts" and don't count.

The fact that I enjoy shooting occasionally does not motivate me enough to defend any so-called rights to own guns.

I think that says it all. You seem to have very little interest in rights, period.

[Starboard Tack]

44. If you want to put guns and rights in the same sentence, then you are correct

I have zero interest. They don't belong in the same conversation. There is nothing progressive about guns or gun ownership. You can call me naive, but it changes nothing. I am fully aware of the American mentality when it comes to guns and that is what I would call naive. But I'm not here to call people names, or insult anyone.

Guns can be fun and guns can be useful tools, but in terms of rights, they come last on my list, way below dirt, but definitely above cockroaches, which I have zero use for.

For those of you who love your guns, I say "Enjoy them while you can. And try not to hurt anyone with them." Especially those of you who want to carry them in public.

[Straw Man]

45. OK, now we know where you really stand.

Guns can be fun and guns can be useful tools, but in terms of rights, they come last on my list, way below dirt, but definitely above cockroaches, which I have zero use for.

So the commoners can only possess firearms with the permission of the ruling class? Does that about sum it up?

[Starboard Tack]

46. No, I didn't say that

The law should be the same for all. As long as guns are legal, anyone should be able to own one. Local laws should determine where they may be carried.
I don't care if everyone in the US owns a gun or nobody does, it's your problem. I'm very happy not to have to think about it. I have no desire to ever return to the US to live, so all I can do is offer my perspective on various issues, including this one.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. "As long as guns are legal..."

LOL

Banners are so cute with their wordplay.

[Starboard Tack]

49. Except I'm not a banner.

I just see the writing on the wall

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. That sounds so very quisling.

[Starboard Tack]

53. "Quisling"! Really? That's quite an insult.

You think I'm some sort of collaborationist? Which enemy am I supposedly consorting with exactly?

I don't have side in this. I like guns to a degree and enjoy shooting. I dislike the use of guns against people, barring the most extreme of circumstances. I do not support disarming the population, neither do I support arming the population. I support use restrictions and the removal from the marketplace of certain types of weapons, but I don't necessarily advocate these things.
I do advocate the repealing of 2A, at least as far as "the right to bear" is concerned.
The "right to own" I can live with, but carrying should be heavily restricted.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

57. You claim you are not a grabber. Yet

when the grabbers, who apparently outnumber you, speak of laws and enforcement that violate every other right from unreasonable search and seizure to due process to presumption of innocence to free speech itself you remain silently steadfast. Their gross infringements can't draw you out but you will argue with those who defend their rights.

Sure, it's not your job to challenge them but our suspicions about your hair-splitting, half-blind defense of rights shows that you can no more be trusted to do the right thing than they can. When the argument falls between "keep and bear" versus "ban them all" your post history speaks volumes.

You can't bifurcate the 2A. The grabbers won't let you and neither will we. Playing the "nuisance makes me smarter" card will only leave you an orphan of both camps. I think I know which way you would break but I would be delighted if you proved me wrong.

[Starboard Tack]

60. Thankfully, I belong to neither "camp"

My opinions on guns and gun ownership are not rigid, by any means. Obviously, I am torn between the ideal of individual rights, which I have always embraced, and the ideal of a safe society, which I strongly support.
Obviously, as long as the 2A purists stand their ground and the "banners of all guns" stand their ground, there will never be a compromise or solution.

I try, hard as it is, to bring a more reasonable voice to the conversation. Of course, this makes me few friends either here in the "Gungeon", or in the neighboring "Castle". But I am not here to make friends, but to share my thoughts and ideas and to listen to a variety of voices, hopefully to learn something.

The current craze of CC in the US stems from a racist attitude, promoted by the extreme right wing, of which the NRA has become a flagship. To see supposed liberal Democrats support this is disappointing, at the very least, and potentially disastrous for the country.
I think the following link is a perfect example of this
http://voxday.blogspot.it/2012/12/why-us-gun-deaths-are-high.html

[Straw Man]

48. Of course you did.

You said you place no value on the right to own a gun. You see it as a privilege. Rights that are not protected will be taken away. It's that simple.

I don't care if everyone in the US owns a gun or nobody does, it's your problem. I'm very happy not to have to think about it.

You'd rather not think about, yet you don't hesitate to pontificate on it. Interesting.

[Starboard Tack]

50. Pontificate? Hardly.

I give my humble opinion based on 7 decades of living on this planet. I have no interest in ever returning to the US to live, so it is not my problem.
I personally think, if anyone can own a gun, then everyone should have that right. Carrying is a whole other issue.

[Straw Man]

54. Humble opinions.

I personally think, if anyone can own a gun, then everyone should have that right. Carrying is a whole other issue.

There is a reason that the framers of the Constitution used the phrase "keep and bear arms." Such a right is currently the law of the land.

I have no interest in ever returning to the US to live, so it is not my problem.

Precisely.

[Starboard Tack]

55. If the framers were around today, I think they would feel and think as I do.

Y'all have fun now!

[Straw Man]

56. Of course you do.

If the framers were around today, I think they would feel and think as I do.

On what evidence do you base this? Besides your own rather hearty self-esteem, I mean.

[Starboard Tack]

59. Because I think they were realists

Something I can identify with.
You may have hit the nail on the head with the "self-esteem" thing. Definitely an important factor.

[Straw Man]

61. Laying it on thick.

Because I think they were realists

Something I can identify with.

As opposed to ... surrealists? Any true Scotsmen in here?

You may have hit the nail on the head with the "self-esteem" thing. Definitely an important factor.

Trust me: There is such a thing as too much self-esteem. I'm sure the Founding Fathers would agree with me ...

[Starboard Tack]

62. I don't consider ostriches surreal.

But they sure as hell don't think outside the box.
I'd love to see the statistics on how far afield US gun owners travel. Especially those who regularly carry.

I gauge my self esteem by how others treat me, not by my fear of others. YMMV

[Straw Man]

63. Rest assured ...

... that Thomas Jefferson holds you in the highest regard. Fellow realist, y'know ...

I'd love to see the statistics on how far afield US gun owners travel. Especially those who regularly carry.

Well, I lived outside the United States for eight years and have travelled extensively in Asia and Europe. Your point?

[Starboard Tack]

67. My point is, you should have a mature perspective on life and your fellow humans

Maybe you need to venture outside again. I hadn't been out of the US for many years until a year ago. Since then I have rediscovered so many wonderful things, like how food should actually taste and how nobody thinks about carrying guns around. Can't tell you how good it feels.

[Straw Man]

68. How's that condescension working for you?

Does it impress the locals wherever you currently reside?

Yes, the world is a broad and magical place, full of many wonderful things. I had quite forgotten, hunkered down here in my mobile home, surrounded by guns and the empty trays of TV dinners, quivering at every sound outside, watching Fox News and foaming at the mouth over the latest UN attempt to take over the U.S. of A. and enslave us all to godless Communism.

I don't know what I would have done if you hadn't enlightened me.

[Starboard Tack]

70. A simple thank you will suffice.

You take care now.

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. Why should you be thanked for a display of cultural bigotry?

[Starboard Tack]

76. "Cultural bigotry"? Please explain.

Do you interpret my disdain for those who carry for no good reason as "cultural bigotry"?
Do you see carrying a gun as part of the American culture? Something to be proud of? Maybe put in your tourist brochures? "Welcome to America, where more and more of us think carrying a gun is progressive."

IMO, those who carry with no good reason, are the true bigots. They are bigoted against their fellow Americans, whom they don't trust and are fearful of. Bigotry is born of fear. I am not afraid of Americans, be they gun carriers or meth heads. We are all potential murderers. Carrying a gun only brings us one step closer to realizing that potential.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. My word, the converts really *do* sing loudest in church!

There's something about expats that seems to compel them to slag the US.

The best example I can give is a banned poster who went to ludicrous extremes
in their efforts to portray their new country of residence as a "fine society",
conveniently ignoring all problems in order to trash the States.

[Starboard Tack]

75. Well, that might be true if I were an expat.

I spent about half my life in the US. There is so much that I love about it and so much that disappoints me. But I'm not here to "slag" it.
When I talk to my European friends, I spend much of the time defending the US and helping them get a truer perspective on both the people and the way of life. European media does not portray Americans in the best of light, and American foreign policy has always been an issue and continues to be.

I do not ignore the problems of any country, especially the one I currently live in. There are lots of problems with every country in the world. However, DU is a US based site and our focus is mainly on the US and its political issues. Firearms legislation is not a hot topic in Europe, nor is it anywhere else, to my knowledge.

It is an American problem. That's why we are here discussing it. If those who are inflexibly locked into their opinions on the issue would listen more to those of us who have a somewhat broader perspective on the issue, then reasonable solutions might be possible.

Keep slinging insults, calling each other "banners" and "gun humpers". I doubt it will bring about any sensible change, but if it makes y'all feel good, then be my guest. I'll just continue to throw in my 2 cents worth every now and then.

[Eleanors38]

38. WOW! That stereotype exists?? The caps! The camo!

The huge gut! Flying spittle! The... The


white.

[HALO141]

66. So, what...

you're calling the guy a token?

[Starboard Tack]

69. The "guy" is a marksman and a spokesperson for the NRA

He also happens to be gay and multi-ethnic and a computer geek. I see no relevance, though some people are connecting dots and assuming that the NRA must be OK because it has a gay member who knows how to shoot and to top it off, he's not white trash.

[HALO141]

71. While that may be a non-sequitur,

it's no less relevant than the notion that the NRA is the domain of fat, bigoted, white guys.

[Eleanors38]

4. Increasingly, the fat-gut, pinhead, spittle-flying whiteguy stereotype...

promoted by the cartoon cadre, is collapsing. The Narrative™ is hopelessly beyond repair regarding the burgeoning increase in women shooters, and the LGBT "connection" to armed self-defense will remove & replace another social filter. There is a little irony here. For years, I have contended the 2 most powerful pressure groups in the U.S.A. are the constellation of LGBTQ organizations, and the NRA. Seems the shooter understands this implicitly.

You will see an increasingly diverse gun culture, and like it or not, MSM will have to cover it. What has been seen by some as a strained effort to window dress (with some good reason) will become a powerful new picture of diversity and legitimacy; the NRA may very well have to play catch up.

We'll see what happens as racial minorities take a pen to the narrative. Seems liberals are already busy at it.

[ileus]

5. Everyone wants to be safe...knowing how to shoot is a great start.

[Starboard Tack]

7. WTF does anything in this story have to do with being safe?

How is being a champion marksman a step toward being safe? He's engaged in a fucking sporting competition, not a "family fun, let's go shoot some bad guys on out fume spewing ATV's outing".

There is nothing here that indicates his support for carrying a gun around and calling it a "personal safety device".

Get over yourself!

[Straw Man]

9. Maybe you missed this.

It's in the linked article.

In April, Cheng officially signed on as a news commentator for the NRA. This past month, the group released its first video starring Cheng, in which he offers an explainer on the fighting in Ukraine before launching into a case for protecting gun owners from government intrusion. "I think that this is an opportunity for the NRA and our community to accurately portray the diversity that already exists in the community," Cheng told me, of his new gig. "We've allowed some prevailing stereotypes to take hold, and we're not challenging them."

[Starboard Tack]

11. No, I saw that.

No mention of him carrying, nor promoting carry. Maybe he does. If so, more fool him, but I don't see why his being gay, or multi-ethnic, or a computer geek has any relevance, besides some possible RW meme that only "real macho white men" carry guns.

The whole piece is typical NRA exploitative bullshit.

[Straw Man]

12. Then perhaps you're unaware ...

No mention of him carrying, nor promoting carry. Maybe he does. If so, more fool him, but I don't see why his being gay, or multi-ethnic, or a computer geek has any relevance, besides some possible RW meme that only "real macho white men" carry guns.

... that protecting the right to carry is part of the core mission of the NRA, for whom he is now a spokesman.

The notion that "only 'real macho white men' carry guns" is, unfortunately, a LW meme, and one that the LW would do well to abandon with all possible haste.

[Starboard Tack]

13. Once again, we see things in a completely opposite way

One can only wonder why, but as you perceive things as failings of the Left and I see them as RW garbage, therein may lie the answer.

[Straw Man]

14. You're very confused.

One can only wonder why, but as you perceive things as failings of the Left and I see them as RW garbage, therein may lie the answer.

I sense a half-baked accusation that I am a right-wing sympathizer, but your grasp of the entire issue is so muddled that the accusation doesn't stick.What exactly is the "RW garbage" to which you refer? Inclusiveness, or the lack of same? Please be specific.

A certain segment on this forum loves to portray gun-rights proponents as Bible-thumping white racist Neanderthals. Are you trying to deny this? This type of stereotyping is most certainly a failure of the left, and I would be remiss if I didn't point it out.

Another canard bites the dust.

[Starboard Tack]

16. No, I am not confused in the least.

I'm not saying you are a RW sympathizer. You just share some similar values, as in thinking that guns have rights, and that those supposed rights supersede public safety. I doubt you are a Bible-thumping neanderthal and probably more of a non-religious libertarian.

But keep reminding us on the left how much we are failing by not falling in line with the NRA and the gun lobby.

[beevul]

19. You most certainly are.

"...as in thinking that guns have rights, and that those supposed rights supersede public safety."

Nobody here thinks "guns have rights".

Nobody.


You know that, but decided to ascribe that thinking to someone else just the same.

"...and that those supposed rights supersede public safety."

It isn't that rights supersede public safety, its that the protections of those rights which are limits on governmental exercise of power, were designed and implemented as the law of the land to prevent and prohibit government from certain avenues of action in the name of public safety or anything else, for that matter. There is no doubt among any who are intellectually honest, that that is precisely what they were intended to do.

The preamble to the bill of rights says "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

I assume you don't need a cite to the bill of rights.

Certain things can not be done in the name of public safety. We don't gag people before entering a theater to prevent them from yelling fire, for example.

Speaking of the "public safety" crowd...it is noteworthy, that when a tragedy occurs, the intensity changes for a short time, but never the avenue. What one would expect to see from a crowd that forthrightly and honestly cares about public safety, is that crowd doing everything they can that isn't gun related in addition to the typical anti gun stuff, to lessen it all, yet one never sees that. One sees "gun control" repackaged as "gun safety", the same calls for the same legislation that they've been trying to get for decades, and the same efforts to demonize/marginalize/silence people that disagree.

That's hardly the way a bunch that forthrightly and honestly cares about public safety because of public safety would operate, but certainly does describe the bunch that cares about public safety because GUNZ.

If theres anything funny about it at all, its that they think nobody notices.

[Starboard Tack]

22. Really?

I was responding to Straw Man who said

"A certain segment on this forum loves to portray gun-rights proponents as Bible-thumping white racist Neanderthals."

Are you suggesting that he is not referring to guns having rights, or is he misusing the English language?

Do you think, for one moment, that any of the signers could have envisaged the kind of weaponry available today, or that they would seriously consider that private ownership of guns could, in any way, be a deterrent to governmental excess of power? Let's get real here. Unless, of course, you think we should have private armies and air forces and total fucking anarchy.

Quite frankly, I don't care much for any of your "bunches", whichever side of the argument they are on. I don't do bunches very well.

I don't support the "nanny state", but this silly anachronistic piece of paper called 2A needs to be torn up and rethought. Even Windows needs updating occasionally.

[beevul]

24. The cutesy semantical gambit was played out

"Are you suggesting that he is not referring to guns having rights, or is he misusing the English language?"

The cutesy semantical gambit was played out in...oh, I dunno...2003 or so. It was as wrong then as it is now, just not as old. "Gun-rights" is shorthand for "the rights of people where firearms are concerned", and that's pretty widely known to essentially everyone, except you, apparently.

That or you're just being snarky.

"Do you think, for one moment, that any of the signers could have envisaged the kind of weaponry available today, or that they would seriously consider that private ownership of guns could, in any way, be a deterrent to governmental excess of power? Let's get real here. Unless, of course, you think we should have private armies and air forces and total fucking anarchy."

Um, firearms technology from long before the time of the framers included Fourteenth Century multiple-barreled volley guns, and a design from 500 years ago by Leonardo DaVinci for a rotating triple-barrel breech-loading cannon. The Founding Era had already seen pepperbox revolvers, Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifles , cartridges to combine shot and powder, the British breech-loading Ferguson rifle, the 11-cylinder crank-operated Puckle gun, and the Girandoni air rifle, capable of firing 22 .46 caliber balls, that had actually been in use by the Austrian army 11 years before the Bill of Rights was ratified. Not to mention privately owned cannons, both on land, and on privately owned ships, without the "total fucking anarchy" you speak of.

So do lets don't pretend that the framers were luddites ignorant of technology or technological advancement.

"I don't support the "nanny state", but this silly anachronistic piece of paper called 2A needs to be torn up and rethought."

A vast majority of Americans disagree, which is why those "bunches" we speak of, have to repackage "gun control" as "gun safety".

Ain't democracy great?

[Starboard Tack]

26. Sorry if I'm late to the game, in terms of misuse of the language.

I'm an old dog.

Now, down to business. Yes, was aware of all the following. That said, are you fucking serious? I doubt anyone was using much of that during the so-called "War of Independence"

Um, firearms technology from long before the time of the framers included Fourteenth Century multiple-barreled volley guns, and a design from 500 years ago by Leonardo DaVinci for a rotating triple-barrel breech-loading cannon. The Founding Era had already seen pepperbox revolvers, Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifles , cartridges to combine shot and powder, the British breech-loading Ferguson rifle, the 11-cylinder crank-operated Puckle gun, and the Girandoni air rifle, capable of firing 22 .46 caliber balls, that had actually been in use by the Austrian army 11 years before the Bill of Rights was ratified.

I don't like the term "gun control" any more than I like the term "gun rights". Neither make sense for the same reason.

I am a huge advocate of self-control.

A canon of then would hardly cause much concern, either then or now. Modern field artillery, or a missile battery battery might. Ask our buddies in the middle east, where effectively we have an NRA fantasy land.

[beevul]

29. Granted.

"Now, down to business. Yes, was aware of all the following. That said, are you fucking serious? I doubt anyone was using much of that during the so-called "War of Independence"

None of that matters. The framers knew full well what technology existed and what rate technology advanced at. Assertions to the contrary are nonsense. That was the entire point.

"Ask our buddies in the middle east, where effectively we have an NRA fantasy land."

Anti-gun talking point, that one. You can not believe, or expect anyone here to, that you originated that, since its been said here hundreds of times.

Secondly, now you're ascribing to the nra positions it does not hold. Its cute, but most of us old timers hereabouts had iverglas to contend with, and we were well seasoned by her sophistry. Thusly, rank amateur sophistry doesn't stick so well when thrown at the wall here.

Your assertion is laughable on its face. The nra doesn't propose that people at large should own shoulder fired missiles, or grenades, for example, or that people should be walking around with fully automatic AK style weapons without ever having been background checked. Thats what happens in the middle east.

But again, you knew that, and said what you said just the same.

[Starboard Tack]

34. I got one word for you on that argument. "Yet!"

Sorry if I'm not professional enough for you. You are defending the NRA, which is a blatantly fascist organization, yet you claim to be a progressive liberal, or am I mistaken?

You think you can take on the US government with your plinkers? Get over yourselves. Stop supporting this ridiculously ancient document and get up to date. Legislate sensibly, with both public safety and individual rights in mind. But quit propping up the RW nuttery and the NRA.

[beevul]

36. Let us all know when they start pushing for those things, then.

"You are defending the NRA, which is a blatantly fascist organization, yet you claim to be a progressive liberal, or am I mistaken?"

You've been mistaken (wrong) since you started saying things that aren't true, but you know that. I defend the truth. It isn't my fault you're on the wrong side of it. That you ended up on the wrong side of it, is your own doing. Self inflicted. You made an assertion (which you've now doubled down on) that is pure falsehood, and nothing more. The nra is fascist? That's some creative definition you're using, since they rail against authoritarianism, and the gun control movement who you claim not to be a part of but whos tactics you seem to enjoy employing and whos talking points you spew like a full automatic, is steeped in pure unadulterated uncompromising authoritarianism.

"You think you can take on the US government with your plinkers?"

Wow, that's quite a tangent. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, anti-gun talking point.

"Stop supporting this ridiculously ancient document and get up to date."

Well, at least you're being honest now. It isn't just amendment 2, its the document that places restrictions on government that you don't like. Pure authoritarian swill right there.

Legislate sensibly, with both public safety and individual rights in mind.

I suspect I define "sensibly" quite differently than you do. Then again, so do a vast majority of Americans. Of course, Americans have been defining it differently since the founding of this nation. The bloody nose England was given is evidence of that, I'd say.

"But quit propping up the RW nuttery and the NRA.

Quit beating your dog. See? I can play that game too.

Please cite 1 instance of me propping up "rw nuttery". And like I said, pointing out falsehoods you have stated isn't defending the nra, its attacking your false statements. I guess maybe to you, its the same thing, but to anyone with a nuanced objective take on it, it isn't.

[X_Digger]

64. Lol, wonderful take-down.

I haven't engaged with his pseudo-intellectual sophistry in quite a while, now I remember why.

And compared to Iverglas.. yeah, it's like diet tang compared to orange juice, n'est-ce pas?

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. Diet Tang? More like store-brand Kool-Aid knockoff...

However, I do agree with your point- the prohibitonis.... ahem, 'gun control advocates'
we see nowadays tend not to be the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.

[Straw Man]

30. Oh, please.

Are you really suggesting that "gun rights" can only mean "rights possessed by guns"? Adjectives are much more flexible than that, especially the noun-based ones. Do "gun safety" advocates strive to keep their guns from harm? Does "air travel" refer to the wind? Is a "shoe store" the establishment where shoes do their shopping?

Misuse of the English language? You know better than that. If you don't, you should.

[gejohnston]

31. cannon

A canon of then would hardly cause much concern, either then or now.

I would argue the opposite. Take the typical howitzer for example. 18th century version can be operated by one person, use make shift ammunition (rocks glass bottles etc for example) and don't even need gun powder. I know a guy that used the proper mixture of acetylene and oxygen to propel concrete balls from one made out of a car tailpipe and muffler.
Modern? Have fun with the price. I found a demilled 155mm for $20K. Want one working? I'm sure the tax stamp will be the cheap part. That's just the gun, not including things like aiming stakes or a collimator.
Want ammo with that? Good luck finding it. You want to fire it? Unless it is a small towed like a 105mm, and you want to do only direct fire (or don't give a shit where it lands), you will need a crew. A gun crew is about the size of an infantry squad. Plus, unless you don't give a shit about where it lands, you will need someone skilled in artillery surveying (a seven week school at Ft Sill), a fire direction slide rule or computer (last I checked, FDC specialist is a six month school at Ft. Sill, but then that was 30 plus years ago before I went into the Air Force.)
If you win the lottery and can get into the classes (and can endure Lawton, Oklahoma) by all means. Personally, boot camp 1 and military trade 1 was enough time for me.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Bravo!

Many folks confuse the the NRA with the NRA-ILA. AFAIK the basic NRA still encourages shooting practice and safety. The ILA group is the one associated with the likes of Ted N.

The encouragement of basic rifle and pistol practice is the basis for an effective militia as referenced in the 2A. Some may see this OP as a bit off topic for the SoP but it isn't. The only way a militia makes sense is by having well practiced sharpshooters from which to staff its ranks and to staff its instructors from the best of those.

Then he beat out veterans, police officers, and an Olympic shooter en route to winning that season's competition.

This person, whatever else he maybe, brings to mind the story of Dad Farr: http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/camp-perry-1921

Bravo Cheng.

[Eleanors38]

79. Thanks for posting the story about "Dad" Farr.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

80. You're welcome

Another poster here wrote about George Farr and reminded me of that story after I hadn't heard it in about 40 years.

Now it's really stuck in my head.

[NYC_SKP]

89. I had to look up Oleg Volk. Then I read what "Out Magazine" had to say...

.

I LOVE that the author doesn't take a position of it, just asks questions (Mother Jones and Think Progress could learn something here about journalism)

...and the comments support our POV quite clearly.

It doesn't appear that the NRA or another large pro-arms group is behind this campaign. Rather, the scan code takes viewers to a site called A Human Right, which is run by a man named Oleg Volk, a Tennessee-based advertising photographer whose primary work includes shooting for gun magazines and who says he grew up in Russia, an experience that shaped his pro-gun politics.

"I grew up in USSR and have seen what happens when citizens are reduced to the status of subjects," writes Volk. "Moreover, proficiency with weapons is as practical a skill as giving CPR or using a fire extinguisher: in an emergency, these skills can save lives." In addition to the site, Volk also has YouTube account and personal website dedicated to bearing arms. According to his Facebook page, Volk is in a relationship with a woman. He makes no direct indication of whether or not he supports Washington State's marriage equality.

But does his sexual orientation matter to you? Would you feel better about this if he were an out, loud, and proud gay man? Would that change your opinion of these posters? What is your opinion, anyway? Is gun control the same as discriminating against gays? Would buying guns end homophobia? Is this the greatest example of hyperbole ever in history?

Here's a closer look so you can make a more informed judgement.

http://www.out.com/entertainment/popnography/2013/05/21/gun-advocate-uses-gays-make-his-point