A Conversation Between Two Liberal Gun Owners

EthologyNerd and Alluson, two (sexy) liberal ladies who both happen to own guns and have had similar experiences with guns throughout their life, sat down last night and decided to mull over what gun control means to them, the problems we face in the USA as a trigger-happy nation, and what happens next.

Alluson: Gun ownership and “Keep your hands off my guns” are one the main pillars of conservative thought and ideologue. However, conservatives aren’t the only ones who get to own guns. I recently purchased my first .22 rifle. It’s pink, naturally. The biggest argument conservatives make against gun control law is that “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” However, as we just saw by the awful tragedy in Norway, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world, that’s simply not true sometimes. What’s your back story and experience with guns?

EthologyNerd: I grew up with guns. I shot my first rifle, assisted, at age 8. I come from a Democratic-voting (but not necessarily liberal) family that encouraged us to be able to handle and shoot guns as a part of our upbringing. We didn’t have loaded guns in the house, actually, and that’s where I think my experience starts to differ from a conservative gun owner’s experience.

I was taught that shooting guns was fun, that it was for hunting…but self-defense didn’t even come into the equation until I was a woman on my own and my father bought me a handgun. Antiquated gender roles there: sure. But I didn’t keep that thing loaded, and to this day I only use it at the range. What about you?

Alluson: I’ve grown up in a hunting family as well. My dad used to tease me that he was going to shoot Bambi every year. I still can’t watch that movie without crying – “RUN, BAMBI! RUN!” gets me every time. I can’t remember the first time I shot a gun, but my favorite thing to do as a teenager in upstate New York was to shake up seltzer cans and shoot them. Those fuckers went flying! At home though, My dad was careful with his guns – the guns were locked and under the bed, and I don’t even know where the bullets are to this day.

But the gun control issue, at least to me, isn’t about people and families like you and I. Gun control is addressed curb the senseless and insane killing we see every day in the USA. The previous linked article points out a startling fact – the Norway gunman killed 70 people in one day – and nearly 80 people a day die in the United States from gunfire. To put it in even crazier perspective, 2005, for example, there were 12,352 gun homicides in the U.S. In that same year, Norway had five. The common sense answer seems to be – fine, BAN HANDGUNS. A fact-based conversation seems to be impossible with a conservative, many times – short and sweet phrases seem to be their modus operandi.

EN: That’s totally true. I admit I’m conflicted- I don’t think automatic weapons or those easily modified to automatic should be available for sale. For whatever reason, that alone disqualifies me from the NRA platform. To me, it should be simple, right? Responsible gun owners don’t need an AK.

And handguns? Well, what the hell is going on when nine people are wounded at a birthday party? Shouldn’t we ban guns. period? Part of me says yes…but then there’s the other part of me, as a raging, flag-burning liberal, that defends free speech to the death. So, law hoe, is the Second Amendment saying, “Hey, guys, let’s all get some guns!” Or does it truly need modern interpretation?

Alluson: That’s what I think is great about this gun control issue. Shouldn’t “keep yer hands off my guns” be a liberal slogan? Like “Keep your hands off my body!” and “Stay out of my house! NO YOU MAY NOT SEARCH ME” I suggested this once to my conservative friends and their pea brains nearly exploded. (Pea brains not because they are conservative, but because they are pea brains). Speaking of the NRA, they’re a pretty fucking influential lobbying group in the USA.

In my professional Law Hoe opinion, I don’t think the Second Amendment means we all get Uzis. Maybe it means we all get handguns. There’s a whole phrase there that conservatives love to ignore – “For the purposes of a well armed militia.” Realistically speaking, wouldn’t this just mean the National Guard? That is, all men and women involved in the National Guard would need a gun? A wise man, BuickLeSabre, pointed out once that no matter how you are interpreting the Constitution, even as a “originalist,” where one claims to be faithful to the letter of the law, you are still doing just that – interpreting.

In your professional Dog Hoe opinion, why do you think that despite huge, massive tragedies – i.e Columbine, Maryland snipers, Virginia Tech – the United States still cannot or will not take active steps towards stricter gun control laws?

EN: I think it’s that ridiculous Manifest Destiny, pioneer spirit. I’LL SAY IT. It’s fine if people get their hands up in everyone’s vagina but all of a sudden asking that you not own a weapon produced solely to fire the maximum amount of bullets is crossing the line? In the end, as a liberal gun owner, I honestly feel it comes down to the lobby. And the money. And the essential idea of “freedom”- remember, it’s easy to say gays can’t get married and us ladies can’t get tissue sucked out of us…because there’s no money and not nearly the kind of pressure behind those issues, legislatively.

And, honestly, Michael Moore is obnoxious, but “Bowling for Columbine” did have a point– our Canadian friends, like Cookies, have a veritable arsenal. But not the gun crimes. So I do, in some ways, agree with the “when guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns” thing. But I don’t notice those with legally owned guns stopping crime like accountant Batmen.

I don’t think that, in the current political climate, we can even fantasize about stricter gun control when our Congress can’t even agree to not let the country go completely bankrupt. I, however, would be the first person to turn in my two guns if ever there was a ban enacted. Would you?

Alluson: I’m pretty surprised that my first instinct to that question was “Hell no!” I guess I’m more of a NRA-loving loon than I thought. Then again, I own a .22 rifle – it would land you in the hospital if I shot you, but probably not kill you. I think an outright ban is politically impossibly, and to be honest, would probably just create a terrible black market for hand guns. Stricter control for gun licenses? Enforcing gun laws as they stand? Those sound like great ideas – but those cost a lot of money. But then again, simple things like psychiatric evaluations, background checks, and 24 hour waiting periods have minimal costs attached. I think we’re all in agreement that Crazy People and criminals should not have guns, but clearly it’s not happening like it should. For me, the NRA should put its money where it’s mouth is, and maybe put some of its lobbying money towards gun safety, and maybe not opposing every law that even has a whiff of gun control.

EN: That’s exactly what blows my mind. Exactly how can a person be opposed to a more thorough screening when buying a gun? If you’re not a nutjob, there shouldn’t be a problem.

But where do we draw the line? I’m diagnosed bipolar from age thirteen. Should dealers be able to access medical records? If that’s the case, I wouldn’t be able to buy a gun, in all likelihood. This is the “slippery slope” you law hoes love to cite.

On the other hand, would I personally relinquish my guns if such a measure were enacted? Well, yes, because I’m generally a law-abiding citizen. Hits very close to home, though, and I can assure you guys I’m not any closer to a shooting rampage than Mr. Smith down the block.

I guess I don’t know what the answer is. I’d be happier to ban guns outright than to battle Congress and the gun lobbies on legislation that would make it harder to get a gun. Do we really need to own guns? Is stricter legislation even possible? What do you guys think?

Image via Wikipedia.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *