But I don’t find this paranoia(for want of a better word) when I ask people why they hang glide, or like lasagna, or jog at night, or any other interest they have. You might find this hard to believe, but some people ask questions because they are interested in the answers-the term for that is curiosity, and the last time i checked curiosity was a healthy human endevour. Referring back to Oakminster’s straightforward response to the question, please note that no attack followed. In fact, his response was appreciated by those you think are out to trap gun owners.
Re the OP: You might ask out of ‘just curiosity’, but Michael Moore doesn’t. Context is everything. I have had many enjoyable conversations with curious non-gun owners.
As much as you might not wish it to be true, there are many aggressive non-gun owners out there who love to challenge gun owners.
.
I can certainly believe that people who like lasagna or hang-gliding are seldom subjected to much hostility or disapproval about it. As a result, I’d expect them to be significantly less (ha ha) gun-shy about the “why do you even do this in the first place?” sort of question than gun owners are.
That said, if you really do routinely open conversations about other people’s hobbies with this “why do you even do this in the first place?” sort of questions, then I think maybe you could stand to work a bit harder on your conversational charm.
I mean, “why do you like lasagna?”? Really? Doesn’t that seem to imply that liking lasagna is something that needs to be justified, a preference that lasagna aficionados ought to be prepared to defend in the face of potential criticism?
I think it’s much more gracious to just implicitly take it for granted that lasagna enjoyment is a natural human trait, and jump right into the lasagna-liker’s world with more empathetic questions like “what’s your favorite kind of lasagna?” or “do you parboil the noodles first?”.
<snerk> 
And there are many that are not. How healthy is it to take Scumpup’s approach that all should be met with suspicion? I think such an approach actually reinforces certain ideas that non-gun owners may already have about the “Us vs Them” outlook that gun owners supposedly embrace.
I prefer to debate with you, though, because you recognize both that reasonable people may disagree and that to impose any kind of severe restrictions it would be necessary to remove the right from its Constitutional secure harbor.
My response to your argument would be: what recourse would people have against a future government that wished to ban them?
Clearly, all you want is to show off what you fondly believe to be your rapier wit. Have a nice day.
Not really. The article makes the officer’s mistake seem almost reasonable. Here’s the actual text of the law:
It’s only the title of the section that uses ‘firearms’ without detail, and titles are not part of the law itself, but merely a convenient way to identify the law in question.
Actually, the officer didn’t recognize anything until the deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney told him he couldn’t charge anyone under that section unless they had a high-capacity magazine or folding stock.
If you mean through a change in the Constitution, making sure that the people you elect show no interest in such an event taking place. If you mean without a change in the Constitution, the same vigilance in electing the proper people and a willingness to take it all the way up the Supreme Court if need be.
Funny you should ask!
Some people own guns because they’re insecure about their masculinity. You can’t tell until they go totally dickish just for asking why they a gun.
Excellent answer on all points. If I may, I’d like to illustrate it with a personal experience. During my marriage to my second wife, I returned from a trip to the shooting range to find my wife and couple who were friends of hers drinking beer in the basement rec room which was also where my guns were stored. As I was putting away my stuff, the husband from the couple was eyeballing one of my AR-15s. Instead of asking what it was, or whether it was fun to shoot, or whether I could shoot it well, he wanted to know “Why do you need something like that?” Any time justification of ownership, especially when the word “need” is used, comes up, you can be sure that person is an anti.
Any time guns are linked to masculinity, you can be sure that the person making the link is an idiot.
Damn good example-thank you.
And did this person indicate verbally that the ownership of any guns was a bad thing, or did you “just know” that he thought that because he asked the question? Might he not have been referring to that particular weapon and not to guns in general?
In this case we knew it long before.
How do you feel about nurse-ins? Do you see a parallel between them and conspicuous gun ownership? Why, or why not?
Enjoy,
Steven
I haven’t thought about it much, but if this thread was about that subject(which it apparently isn’t, btw), I would as them why they are doing what they are doing. Do you think I would be chastised by them for daring to ask such a question, or would it be more likely that they provide information about their cause?
Going off of the nurse-ins that I’ve attended and been a part of, you’d get both answers. Some would politely mention they’re nursing in public to show a solidarity with those whose rights to do so were infringed, some would tell you to mind your own business. In any case, there would be many people there who were doing something they might not normally do, just because they can.
It’s another case of people doing something to demonstrate their rights. It’s something they wouldn’t normally do if the right didn’t need defending.
Enjoy,
Steven