Why do gunowners own guns only because "they have the right to"?

I think that this is a fair question, and I’ll give it a fair answer as best I can from my POV.

I don’t self-identify as a gun-owner. It’s just one more adjective in a long list of them (asshole perhaps being prominent; Top-10 minimum) that can be used to identify me.

Like many other gun owners, I was raised around them, and taught from an early age that they are just tools. Like many other tools, safe handling and responsible use is necessary to prevent injury/death to the wielder and other nearby people. Like some tools, they require a certain level of maturity and responsibility to safely use, and some mature supervision may be required.

I’ve been shooting since age 5. Shooting .22s under the supervision of my Dad or older brother, various cousins and uncles. It was made known, and sternly reinforced, that guns, just like other tools like rotary saws and such, were NOT to be touched/handled without a responsible adult present.

As such, guns were just another part of life, like cars and screwdrivers and Sunday dinners of fried chicken, green beans, and mash & gravy. There was no mystique to them, no stigma for having them.

This changed in the early 90’s with the election of William Jefferson Clinton as the 42nd President of the United States. The tone…changed…in the media and in public discourse. All of a sudden, certain guns were bad. Not because they were badly made, or prone to malfunction, but because of what they were. And the kind f people who owned those kinds of gun were stereotypically identified with a certain demographic: the white, conservative, christian fundamentalist preoccupied with Red Dawn scenarios, or who were portrayed as self-identifying as wanna-be “Rambos.”

And the tone of the political discourse changed with it. There were politicians and politically active celebrities who were mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to-take-it-anymore over the gun violence associated with the crack epidemic and ongoing inner-city drug violence. These people used fiery rhetoric to describe the bans they wanted to enact, the guns they wanted confiscated, the actions they wanted to take to get these evil guns and their owners “off our streets.” There were blatantly misleading “News Specials” about “Assault Weapons” and the need to ban these dangerous guns, and the dangerous people who were drawn to them.

In the later part of the 90s, this discussion went nation-wide and public on the increasingly accessible internet. The vitriol that was heaped upon me, well, I haven’t forgotten, or forgiven. And it wasn’t for anything I had actually done, it was for one, single aspect of who/what I am: a gun owner.

For me, it was if I were suddenly public enemy #1 for nothing more than existing, and breathing air. It was like the kind of shocked surprise one might feel from being jumped out of a dark alley, or if you met a complete stranger, said, “Hi,” extended your hand in greeting, only to have it slapped away and to be spat upon.

For over a decades now it has formed an ongoing part of an increasing cultural divide, most often bitterly rancorous. People will ask seemingly innocent, innocuous questions, only to rip off the mask of civility and start making allusions to penis size, deep-rooted psychological issue, racism, fascism, religious fundamentalism, and on-and-on in this vein.

But…

But, a kind of cultural/political crossroads has been reached, and a corner may be turned. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled favorably (but by a thin margin) on the “individual right” interpretation of the 2nd. Ad. Gun ownership is at an all-time high in the U.S, and it appears to cut across all demographics: urban/suburban, race, sex, income, etc., everyone, to some degree or another, are getting guns.

Thirty-nine states now have “shall-issue” concealed carry. Four have no restriction. Eight have “May Issue” concealed carry laws that range in restriction from “de facto carry ban” to a harsh “Shall Issue” requirement.

Obama’s campaign website (for the 2008 election) stated that he wanted to renew the lapsed Assault Weapons Ban, as well as enact “other, reasonable gun control measures.” Shortly after his taking office, AG Holder floated an idea for a renewed AWB, only to have the idea dropped and never mentioned again almost immediately.

Meanwhile, Hizzoner-Duh-Mayor Bloomberg in New York City (now ably assisted by Chicago city mayor Rahm Emanuel) leads the crusade to continue pushing for gun bans and increased gun control legislation.

AG Holder formulated and enacted a scheme known as “Operation Fast & Furious” to knowingly turn a blind eye and deliberately allow dubious gun purchases in states along the Mexican border, supposedly to “trace the flow of illegal guns” into Mexico and into the hands of the drug cartels. In reality, we were innundated with the statistic “90% of illegal guns in Mexico originate in the U.S.A.,” one U.S. Border Patrol agent was killed with one of those guns, and who knows how many Mexican nationals have been hurt or killed with them.

And we gun owners are told once again that we must compromise for “public safety.”

I don’t think people like Czarcasm or Elvis understands the meaning of the words compromise; or there definition is that they get what they want, and we have to suck it.

Because from where I stand now, and have stood for 2+ decades of firearm ownership, they haven’t ever given anything up with the passage of any gun control law: only us gun owners.

The OP really. It’s that simple of a question. The right is there. Your right to ask nosey questions does not supersede my right to not reply to you.
“I asked a question and got an response but I’m not satisfied with that response.”

Who the fuck are you? My teacher?

The reason I practice the religion of my choice, assemble freely, criticize the government, not house soldiers without being paid, refuse to self incriminate, or own a gun is my goddamn business. No I don’t need to provide a reason.
If we have to explain ourselves about why we exercise a right to make it “OK”, we should then have to explain ourselves about ANY right before it is acceptable.

The thread should be over now.

(Maybe not)

ExTank, Red Dawn came out in 1984 (he he, irony). That was during the REAGAN presidency. Early in it actually.
Oh and Bill Clinton’s thing with assault weapons had something to do with escalating gang violence and the gangs not only had access to but were using assault weapons on the streets.

I probably could have described that better as “Survivalists scenarios,” somewhat inspired by Red Dawn and similar thinking.

And the AWB was aimed at a problem that didn’t exist; gangs have always heavily favored small, concealable firearms like handguns, not AR-15’s.

As someone who actually was a beans n’ bullets hoarding survivalist for a long time, I’d like to note that we were perceived as a threat all out of proportion to the number of killings ever actually perpetrated by one of us. Such crimes as were committed were typically the work of survivalists who were also political and/or religious extremists. Most of us were very low key, even secretive about our preparations as we didn’t want to be besieged by refugees if society actually did go tits up. We planned and prepared in case it happened. The whack-jobs were hoping it would happen.

The ‘survivalist scenarios’ people have been around a looooong time. It had nothing to do with the election of Clinton. I don’t know if their genesis was the Cold War and everyone building a fallout shelter or if it goes back further. There wasn’t a shift except that we became aware of them thanks to Waco and that other one, I forget Oregon?

Being (AFAIK) the only explicit non-US person chiming in in this thread and thus feeling a bit attacked by this paragraph, I’m slightly curious: What in my question smacked of “butt-fuckingly stupid” and “baiting”?

Again, serious question, no gotcha or snark intended.

Just to provide a data point which may shed some light on the type of posts Una apparently was referring to in her post: From a Euro POV, open or concealed carry and guns for self defense is a very alien concept. We generally aren’t allowed to acquire or use guns for self defense. Our guns are acquired for other purposes (i.e. hunting and/or sports shooting). Thus, gun ownership for the sake of defending a 2nd amendment or just in case someone should break into your apartment or mug you downtown is a very unfamiliar concept to us.

I generally don’t bother talking to Europeans about guns here because the two default reactions are hostility and sneering elitism. S’okay. I don’t need your approval to exercise my Constitutional rights.
On boards where guns are the main topic, I have enjoyed many conversations about guns, shooting, and hunting with Europeans. I’ve taken lots of them shooting IRL, too. Draw what conclusion you wish.

I’m only detecting hostility and sneering from you here. The Europeans are being perfectly polite.

In this thread, maybe. But as with Czarcasm, this thread does not erase all that was said in years before. To be fair to Europeans, it has lately been a Canadian thing at this board to complain about how Americans love guns and fret over us somehow forcing that on them.

“Because I have the right to” has never been a legitimate answer in my opinion. While true, it implies that the person asking is questioning their rights and thus is met with an immediate defense, instead of just being honest. Unless of course that person owns and does every single thing he or she has the right to own or do (Which I think would be impossible). If I asked someone “Why do you paint model airplanes?” and they responded “Because I have the right to!” I’d be a bit confused and taken aback. A mere “Because I enjoy it” or “I find it relaxing” would suffice, just as a gun owner saying “I like to stay protected” or “I enjoy shooting, it’s a thrilling experience” or “I like to collect guns, I’m fascinated by them” would do.

I’m all for licensed gun ownership and the 2nd amendment, but I can’t help but think a large portion of non-hunter gun owners do so out of paranoia, paranoia of their safety or that their rights will be taken away any day now. I’ve seen many videos of people walking the streets with their open carry and questioned by the police. When asked to show ID they would decline, again, because they had the right to. He or she chose to inconvenience themselves simply because the had the right to. That logic seems be the staple of many (again, non- hunter) gun owners. This has simply never made sense to me.

Damn straight. We should exercise only those rights where we can do so without inconvenience.

I was speaking in generalization, and not even about this thread. I apologize if it seemed like I was referring to you.

What my point was was that there was a strange difference between IRL interactions with Europeans and ones on message boards. Please look again at what I’m really saying. Europeans I know and meet with IRL are polite and reasonable about the topic as any other topic. However, online there is quite a difference, and I do not know why that is.

Una

My encounters with most Europeans mirror your own. No understanding at all of why I might want a firearm for home defense or (usually) any other purpose. It varies from blank incomprehension to outright hostility at the very thought of owning a gun. The odd thing is that many of them were quite reasonable on other topics. I always found it strange to meet a man of 60 or so that had never fired a gun in his life.

Way off topic but I had no idea you collected swords. I’d be interested to know what kind if you feel like talking about it. Mine are mostly SE Asian for practicing Kali. As an oh-by-the-way, I’ve had Brits go into hysterics over my own sword collection.

Regards

Testy

Part of the point of the Second Amendment, and part of what is being conveyed with the “because I have a right to” is that rights under the Constitution need no justification at all. IOW no one is obligated to give anyone else, government or the Brady group or anybody else, any reason at all. And refusing to give, or even to have, a reason makes no difference at all. You can own a gun for any reason, or no reason. And even if somebody can’t or won’t give a reason that someone else considers legitimate does not mean that the right of that person to own guns is affected at all.

That’s how the Constitution works, and how Americans typically regard their actions. You have to convince me that what I am doing is bad, if it is legal. I don’t have to convince you. I don’t even have to try.

You might get the “because I have a right to” if your right to model airplanes were guaranteed to you, and a whole mess of people wanted to outlaw model airplanes.

As they say, “just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you”. There is a large, vocal, powerful and well-funded lobby whose purpose is indeed to take guns away from Americans.

If you are just making conversation when you ask “why do you own guns”, that’s one thing. But as has been mentioned, the well is pretty badly poisoned in the public debate and especially on the SDMB.

Think about asking someone “why did you have an abortion?” Then think about asking that same person while wearing a “Choose Life” button on your lapel.

As also mentioned earlier, context is everything, and discussions don’t start from scratch every time.

I am not accusing you of being confrontational. I am saying a lot of other people have been confrontational, and sometimes they start by asking “why do you feel you need to own a gun?”

Regards,
Shodan

You know what would take me aback? Asking me why I paint model airplanes.

You guys use these examples, yet you are unwilling to recognize the difference between subjects. One is polarizing, one is not. One has deep-seated political ramifications, the other does not. One is so absurd that you would never think of asking it, yet the other is frequently asked with considerable scorn. The mere act of asking the question puts us on guard precisely because nobody asks us any of the other questions. The baggage of the question and long experience automatically put us on guard for a setup, which is more often than not the case. The lesson is this: if you seriously want an answer, ask at the appropriate time and place and in a serious and non-confrontational manner, and if you’ve shown your ass before over political matters don’t bother because your reputation will precede you.

With regard to gun owners open carrying and making a big deal about it, if you were sitting outside Wall Street and the police demanded your identification you’d be furious about it. Having to justify a right is asinine, and that’s why they do it, so that they reclaim the right and don’t have to show their ID. A right abandoned is a right lost. I don’t agree with the confrontational nature of their interactions and I think that carrying concealed is better under every circumstance, but I can’t argue with their actions overall or why they do it.

Think of the difference between “Oh, do you prefer target shooting or hunting” vs “So… why do you own a gun?” Think of the difference between “Oh, so what’s your favorite model airplane that you’ve painted, and why did you like it?” and “Oh… why do you paint model airplanes?”

Hmm, I guess I underestimated the sensitivity people may have to the question. I still thing’s a legitimate question, however I can recognize how some people may use it as some sort of gotcha or some rhetorical question asked by someone who has already judged all gun owners. And in said situations I can see when “because I have the right to” may be the only appropriate way of dealing with those kind of people. That being said, I don’t think it should be the go to answer. While undeniable, it is not going to help convince anyone. (Although some people just cannot be convinced).

Also, I don’t know who you mean by “you guys.” I’m certainly not anti-Second Amendment. My problem is more with the general very aggressive defensive stance many gun owners have. There are people who think if you don’t have an AK-47 and some thousand rounds to go with it you’re some sort of slave to the government. (I know these people are a minority, although a very loud one) I mean, I have yet to hear of one legitimate concern that the second amendment will suddenly be repealed. (Or that a some fascist government regime will spring out of nowhere, for that matter)

I guess what I’m trying to say is, it’s just as wrong to assume a gun owner is some loony than it is to assume anyone a bit curious about the matter is some 2nd Amendment bashing hippy. It doesn’t have to be black and white.