Another Convert Into What Is The 2nd Amendment.

[twyacht]

Even at 51 years old, this post's author, is a growing recognition that by God, this Country is not always a happy and jolly place.

Moreover, sometimes when the SHTF, having a firearm, can be the difference between Gun Owner and Victim.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/should_i_buy_a_gun.html

I have never owned a gun.  Matter of fact, I have fired a gun a grand total of one time in my life.  I shouldered a shotgun out in the north Georgia woods when I was nineteen years old and fired at a milk bottle filled with water as a target.  The kick from the gun nearly tore my shoulder off, since I obviously had no clue what I was doing.  I have no idea if I came close to hitting that jug.

I have never wanted to own a gun.  I fish.  No need to shoot fish, though I am sure that takes place.  I have never been hunting.  I am not opposed to it in any way; it just works out that I have never been asked to join a hunting party by my father or brother-in-law -- and considering my lifetime gun résumé to this point, that is, for their sake, likely a very good thing.

What I have done is held a pistol in self-defense.  Robbed at gunpoint when I was working at a gas station off Interstate 20 east of Atlanta in 1978, I grabbed the pistol the owner kept under the counter and (for some silly eighteen-year-old-full-of-vinegar-manhood-thingy) chased the dirtbag out the door.  Of course, I had already hit the silent alarm, and the next person yelling at me to drop the gun was the second person who had pointed a gun at me in the span of six minutes -- only he was wearing a cool blue uniform and waving a standard-issue .357 magnum of the DeKalb County Police Department.

So my personal, limited experience with guns is not good.  Actually it's just this side of tragic.  But I have considered, and now again am considering, buying a gun.  I've been checking them out over the past few months.  Looking at pump shotguns, mostly -- the lighter, the better.  I think of things like "one round in the chamber in case I have to fire immediately" and "if I can pump it and get the perp's attention without firing, then I need to make sure there are 3-5 rounds loaded and the spread pattern is right" and to make sure I get double-aught ammo to be able to take someone out in one shot if need be.  Do I need a trigger lock, or will the safety be fine if the weapon is loaded (who wants to be a rookie fumbling to load shells when urgency is at a premium?).

My stepmother is taking shooting lessons.  Seriously.  She is trying to choose right now between a couple of guns -- one was a 9-millimeter Luger, I believe.  She announced that she was doing this while I was thinking of doing the same.  Though I lean shotgun, if for no other reason than, well, easier to hit stuff, y'know.  Her motivation for "granny gunning up" is on target with mine: the peace of mind that, should I need a gun, I would have it and know how to use it.

This, though, is not about what type of gun, or really even a gun at all.  This is about the tenor of the times.  At age 51, I have been around long enough to know the difference between unease and unrest.  There are also levels of unrest.  Right now, this is unrest that strongly threatens to grow into greater unrest.

While most of us have been rightly concerned about attacks on our soil in this post-911 world, "Washington" has done its "official public warning" best to attempt to convince us that the real and immediate threat is internal.

Now, we conservatives know full well that what "Washington" was talking about was a political ploy aimed at trying to sell the concept to the American voting public that right-wing militias connected to the Tea Party, armed by the NRA and under the direction of the Republican National Committee, are such a direct physical danger to the life and limb of regular people that we need to keep those folks in check.

My current concern is that "Washington" is about to be correct -- only, like my shooting grade,180 degrees off-target.

Across the nation there has been an ongoing debate over the past three weeks or so.  Are those troublemakers within "Occupy" really connected to "Occupy"?  Are they opportunists seeking to use this "movement" to create havoc and potential anarchy?  The reason that question is asked is to seek a biased-journalistic way to distance any violence from those who have supported (and still do, since there has been no condemnation) "Occupy" publicly (read: Democrats and, more expressly, President Obama).  That question is nothing but irrelevant spin.  We should have a long discussion sometime about irrelevant spin in newsrooms, but let's stay on track for now.

Of course, "Occupy" owns any violence connected to it in any fashion, even if (and that's a strong "if") it did not commit that violence directly.  It did, without argument, seed that violence, and then it sought to take advantage of it to place direct blame on the police.  I am not absolving authorities, but if there are a couple of veterans who suffered serious injuries at Occupy Oakland, the fact is that Occupy Oakland is responsible for damage done in direct altercations since it initiated those confrontations.

Back to my gun.  I am not overly concerned about any direct confrontation from anyone in any current "Occupy" movement.  But I am very concerned about the potential for violence coming from the seed of Occupy.

These elements were emboldened by mostly liberal mayors who allowed that seed to be planted in a park in their town.  Rather than immediately enforce laws that would apply to anyone else (like, say, at a Tea Party rally), those mayors played political footsie with the Obama administration and Democrat leadership and allowed this "grassroots movement" to ignite the hoodlums, thugs, gangs, Marxists, and general lowlifes that exists on the far left of our political spectrum.  Occupy is made up of and attracted (still does) a violence-seeking mob that sought to exploit a political unwillingness in liberal bastions to forcibly tackle them head-on from the jump.

If Occupy wants to burn liberal inner cities to the ground, a lot of Republicans will simply shake their heads.  If Occupy spreads beyond that and seeks to do direct damage to traditional Americans in our communities, then Occupy is going to find out fast that the rules of the past, where people like us relied solely on authorities to defend us, won't be in effect.  I will be blunt.  If they want a fight, they had darn well be ready for what punching back looks like.  There is a reason "Occupy Cheyenne" didn't make any real noise.  It's not the cops with tear gas guns that would be the problem -- it was the pickup trucks that drive the roads of very conservative southeast Wyoming every day with stickers that say "Hell ya' that's a real gun in that gun rack."

It is that unrest that has settled over me.  I have never quite felt this way.  That these liberal, indoctrinated morons who defecate in the streets of New York can actually spark a following that would spread to Kalamazoo, Kankakee, or Kearney.  And since that happened, we have more idiots jumping on this, and suddenly you have "Occupy (insert name of your subdivision)."  Not mentioned, yet, is the potential for what could take place the night of and day after the next presidential election.  Especially if Obama loses.  Especially if he loses like Al Gore lost in 2000.

No, these are unique times.  Times when I consider something that I had not really thought of before.  It might be time for me to arm myself.

*For the record, if I do choose to purchase a weapon. I will take lessons.  Since I know you would plead for me to do so.

***

"Remember that Jefferson told us that the Second Amendment would not be needed until they tried to abolish it. There are people who have that in mind right now. The personal ownership and usage of firearms is not a common aspect of today's culture worldwide. It is up to Americans - those who know what it means to be an American - to uphold the light of liberty in the face of those both here and elsewhere who would extinguish it. We see the hysterics who feel that the abolition of firearms would bring about major changes in the human psyche, and that crime would disappear. We cannot reason with these people because they are impervious to reason, but we can expose them to ridicule and frustrate their political clout. That is a job not just for the National Rifle Association, but for everyone. If you want to make a resolution for the coming century, resolve to do something in defense of liberty every day, and by liberty, of course, we mean true liberty - the right to keep and bear arms. Without that liberty all other liberties are meaningless."
Col. Jeff Cooper

***

Another Citizen is starting to get it.

[Magoo541]

I feel like Chris Mathews with a tingly thing going up my leg, that's a first!   

[Solus]

Guy is making a good start....and seems to see the projected danger of OWS.

However, he hasn't recognized that a very real threat has existed well before that movement.   Also, he seems to be leaning towards a pump shotgun as his sole firearm weapon for SD.

Either he spends all of his time at home, and always watches TV and makes coffee with his shotgun at hand, and carries his shotgun out to get the morning paper or he hasn't considered all the possible threats to which he is exposed.

He does realize he needs training and is aware that those in the "gun culture" would strongly encourage him to obtain it, so perhaps he is getting other input to guide his future choices also.

It is very good, encouraging and "warming"  (not quite a tingle up my leg yet) that he is making his first steps towards self protection.

[fightingquaker13]

I mostly agree with the above posts. Kudos to the guy for getting a clue and buying (and here is where I really give him credit), learning to safely use, a gun. But still, OWS as a life changing threat? I think that if you wanted to chase them off, the most effective means would be a bar of soap, hair trimmers and a job application.
FQ13

[JC5123]

I mostly agree with the above posts. Kudos to the guy for getting a clue and buying (and here is where I really give him credit), learning to safely use, a gun. But still, OWS as a life changing threat? I think that if you wanted to chase them off, the most effective means would be a bar of soap, hair trimmers and a job application.
FQ13

I think that you have too much faith in bottom feeders. These idiots are looking for any excuse they can find to start rioting. They have been threatening violence from the beginning, and they have already committed it. Look at Oakland, and New York yesterday. They want chaos and destruction because they see it as the only way to get back at the man. By dismissing these clowns you are turning your back on a very serious threat. Just look at who is supporting them. It's a literal who's who of violent offenders in American history.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

JC, you have to remember that FQ did not "learn" history, he "was taught" history.
Instead of following his curiosity to find out why or how historical events occurred the way they did , he was instructed in a series of answers his indoctrinators wanted him to parrot back on tests.

[fightingquaker13]

I think that you have too much faith in bottom feeders. These idiots are looking for any excuse they can find to start rioting. They have been threatening violence from the beginning, and they have already committed it. Look at Oakland, and New York yesterday. They want chaos and destruction because they see it as the only way to get back at the man. By dismissing these clowns you are turning your back on a very serious threat. Just look at who is supporting them. It's a literal who's who of violent offenders in American history.

I am both dismissing them and turning my back. However, I have both eyes open and a glock in my waistband and an AR and shotty in my bedroom. I am calm and confident in apeacful end to this idiocy. I am not however,stupid.
FQ13 who really does think that this the "cool new thing" and it will pass with the ice and snow. However, as I've said before, these folks are pissed for the same reasons the Tea Party is pissed, even if their tacitics and solutions differ. The reason is crony capitalism that marries Wall Street, K Street and the Hill in a way that screws us. The protests will go away, the anger won't.

[JC5123]

I am both dismissing them and turning my back. However, I have both eyes open and a glock in my waistband and an AR and shotty in my bedroom. I am calm and confident in apeacful end to this idiocy. I am not however,stupid.
FQ13 who really does think that this the "cool new thing" and it will pass with the ice and snow. However, as I've said before, these folks are pissed for the same reasons the Tea Party is pissed, even if their tacitics and solutions differ. The reason is crony capitalism that marries Wall Street, K Street and the Hill in a way that screws us. The protests will go away, the anger won't.

This is what will get you killed. You cannot be REactive to these groups. They are spoiling for violence. This is not something you can ignore and it will go away. We have to stand up to these little punks, or they WILL push their agenda to force the establishment of martial law. That is one of their goals. They WANT violence. It's all they know. They are on camera threatening to fire bomb Macy's. They already destroyed a Men's Warehouse. (which is ironic since it was a supporter)

[tombogan03884]

I am both dismissing them and turning my back. However, I have both eyes open and a glock in my waistband and an AR and shotty in my bedroom. I am calm and confident in apeacful end to this idiocy. I am not however,stupid.
FQ13 who really does think that this the "cool new thing" and it will pass with the ice and snow. However, as I've said before, these folks are pissed for the same reasons the Tea Party is pissed, even if their tacitics and solutions differ. The reason is crony capitalism that marries Wall Street, K Street and the Hill in a way that screws us. The protests will go away, the anger won't.

don't go there Tom, don't go there Tom, don't go there Tom.

FQ seems to overlook the fact that the majority of the OWS crowd including the organizers, is composed of "progressives" (communists ) and Unions with strong ties to the furthest left wing of the Dem party.
The remainder are the scum of society.
 Black racists, Nazis and the KKK ?
 Explain to me how anything good can come from this mix.
What they represent is the beginning of the end of the Cold war, and we lost.

[fightingquaker13]

They are on camera threatening to fire bomb Macy's.

The guy who threatened this (and who was arrested) is a mental patient living at home with his parents. In fairness, he no more represents the OWS crowd than Klansmen and Tim Mcveigh types represent the Tea Party. Every Movement has its wing nuts. I have never said I agree with these folks. I do think that the source of their frustration isn't too different than ours. While they may not be 100% allies, they might be useful on issues like NAFTA, police powers, free speech, and government transparency. One needs to think strategically. You take what you can get while you can get it and then renegotiate later.
FQ13