I Was Banned at "The High Road" forum...

[Riy]

For posting the following open letter. I'm not really interested in discussing the "the High Road" forum's decision. I am however interested to hear people's opinions as to the questions.

Bear in mind while reading this that I am NOT anti-gun. I am an undecided.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

My First and Probably Last Post: An Open Letter


I don't like guns.

I don't have anything against you owning them if you want to, but I don't like them. In fact, I prefer that the people around me don't have guns. To me, guns are a lot like mass media journalists; they are protected, they cannot be effectively regulated despite anyone's best efforts, they are ostensibly necessary to a free state and their supporters enjoy reminding us of the fact, they are everywhere you look, they are loud and obnoxious, they have potential to be part of a greater good but are just as easily a tool to be used for tremendous wrongdoing, and, like a nasty car wreck, people just seem to fixate on them regardless of their views.

When I see a gun, I see Nancy Grace; lots of hype, lots of noise, lots of misinformation, hard to look at. That's just me.

I say this with both conviction and humility... I am a journalist.

I come to your site as a member today after having spent the better part of the last year lurking as a guest only. I've read a tremendous number of posts in that time. And, in that time, I've also developed a tremendous fascination with gun culture. I'm not an "anti" but I will readily admit that I am bordering on it. And before anyone should suggest that I find someone to take me out to the range to "convert" me, let me explain that I grew up in a very pro-gun family and was schooled in the ways of the gun from a very young age. In fact, my heritage is in large part the reason that I find myself here at all (at least until the inevitable point that I am branded a troll and rendered persona non grata) .

My father you see is deceased. He was a decorated veteran, an avid shooter and accomplished marksman, a local NRA leader, a respected community leader, and an apparently well-liked member of this board until his passing. The latter fact determined by my sister and I only upon delving into his personal affairs after his death. Now, as much as some of you might be tempted to offer some form of condolence or other well-meaning expression, please withhold doing so. I have no regret in the fact that my father has passed. Nor does my sister.

The man, despite being revered by virtually all who met him, despite being nearly locally iconic in his role as a neo-classic Texas gentleman rancher, and despite his lifelong devotion to all that is considered sacred by the multitudes of pro-gunners here and elsewhere, was possessed of certain peculiarities of personality that rendered him considerably less beloved in the eyes of those who knew him inside his residence. While I will spare all the burden of a detailed disclosure, let it be known simply that he was not the kind of man that most parents would prefer their children to visit. He was also not the kind of man most parents would wish their daughters to marry. And, despite his public remonstrations regarding gun-control and its' infringement upon responsible, God-fearing American heroes such as himself, he was, as several members of our family might argue, perhaps the last person on the planet that should be afforded the right to own a firearm. I argue that now, as a 38 year-old woman, just as readily as I wish I could have when I was an 11 year-old girl all too familiar with the business ends of my father's various and creatively-employed implements of assault.

Yet, despite this, I am able to separate the tools from the man wielding them. Despite the horrors inflicted by my father, I managed to find and marry a good man, have a fulfilling relationship, raise two daughters of my own to near-adulthood, and cultivate a successful career as a nationally syndicated writer. Indeed, my sister was not so lucky. Nor was our mother.

Still, and again, I don't like guns. I don't like them around me. But as a borderline "anti" I would like to give gun owners everywhere the benefit of the doubt. I try very, very hard in fact to do so. Sometimes it is profoundly difficult for me. You see, I would wager that among the ranks of this board there are no small number of self-appointed defenders of individual right who, like my father, wear but a very thin gloss of veneer over the churning internal stink of hatred and depravity that is their true being. But understand that I am a reasonable and rational woman who knows that at least some of you are truly as good a group of people as you proclaim to be, and, as such I do not wish to color all of you with the same crude and ugly stroke of brush with which I am about to obliterate the last remnants of my father's ill and lurid history. Those, you, deserve at least that much from a borderline "anti" like me.

But tell me...

Why then, given the fact that "I" am capable of giving "you" that benefit; given the fact that I am able to objectively reason through the illogisms that struggle so hard to compel me to not only write you off, but also commit my considerable energy and resources to supporting, with pen and with pocketbook, the cause of those that would see your rights decimated and ground to shards... WHY THEN do you choose to disparage me and others of those like me?

Why do you call us sheep?

Why do you assail the fact that some of us, like me, choose to live in San Francisco?

Why does our concern with the environment and healthcare result in invective?

You see, there are many, many of us out here who all of you consider "antis' who are not at all. There are some of us who, were we to give in to the temptation to slip logic in kind at the butt of your own tendencies to do so, would have (*)(*)(*)(*) fine reason to be "antis", would be very good at it, and would represent a considerable benefit to the cause of your nemeses.

We are legion. And our words are mightier than bullets. And we don't run out of ammo.

So, the next time you feel like hurling wisdom at us, the next time your own brush feels heavy and wanting for a target, consider that there are a few of us who haven't yet decided which ring to throw our dogs in. And our dogs are big. And our dogs are hungry.

With regards,

A loud, powerful, logical, well-connected, female and liberal California journalist who really doesn't want to take away your guns, but leans further in that direction every time she sees your lack of personal self-control.

[Tuatara]

It's a good letter. I seem to remember a lot of gun proponents referring to their opponents as anti-gun nuts or some other colorful derogatory term.

[SpotsCat]

Sorry your father wasn't "Mr. Wonderful", and you didn't grow up with Wally and the Beav in the Cleaver household. C'est la vie.

As a gun owner, my concern about anyone that is "anti-gun" flows from two sources. First, I cannot understand why anyone would want to overturn a freedom that is so clearly spelled out in the Constitution of the United States - that being the 2nd Amendment. I'm sure we all know the words, I shan't repeat them here. And, I'm sure we have differing opinions on the meanings of the words therein. I'm not going to parse words, or get into a long Internet discussion over what the definition of "is" is. You have your beliefs, I have mine.

Secondly, I've seen the results of allowing the government to take control of our everyday lives, with as simple an issue as wearing a seat belt. When I was a child, automobiles did not come equipped with seat belts as standard equipment, they were an option. It wasn't until 1965 or 1966 that seat belts became mandatory on all automobiles manufactured after that date and operated in the United States. Then, a couple of decades later, the safety zealots felt that we could reduce the number of lives lost in automobile accidents if everyone would just buclke up. To that effect, they had legislation introduced and passed that gave law enforcement the authority to ticket drivers that weren't wearing their seat belts - but only if they were stopped for another offense, seat belt useage wasn't a primary offense. Alas, this wasn't the stopping point - now the local gendarmes can stop me if they see that I'm not wearing a seat belt. In my lifetime, we've gone from optional equipment, to mandatory equipment, to government mandated useage, to my being cited for my failure to do so.

What happened to my right to choose? I know that if I'm in an automobile accident without wearing my seat belt that my risk of being severely injured or killed is substantially higher. But don't I have the right to accept that risk? If I smoke, my risk of dying of lung cancer is higher. If I eat a 20oz ribeye steak every night at dinner, my risk of dying of a heart attack is higher. If I drink a pint of Cutty Sark every day, my risk of cirrhosis of the liver is higher. But don't I have the right to accept that risk? Where's my personal freedom, my right to decide what's best for me, my liberty?

My point is that a bunch of well-meaning - but misdirected IMHO - individuals have taken it upon themselves to decide what's best for me. And quite frankly, their interest in such mundane details of my everyday life scares me.

Now, to try to steer this back on topic --

I own a firearm, several to be exact. They are locked in a gun safe, with the firearms in one area, and the ammunition in another locked area. They are readily accessable to those who are in the know, yet secure from children and others who aren't.

I own firearms for the protection of my family - no other reason. I don't hunt - I gave that up many years ago. Firearms exist im my household for one reason, and one reason alone - to protect my family in the event of a situation that requires the use of force.

There is a local police and sheriff's department, but they are not and cannot be everywhere at all times. They can respond if I call them, but their response time can be a matter of minutes, which can be too long in a situation that can end tragically for me and mine in a matter of seconds.

I look upon a firearm much like I look upon my home fire extinguisher - I have it there for a purpose. I bought it and put it someplace where I can get to it quickly if I need to. I've familiarized myself and my family with its operation, and honestly hope and pray the day never comes when I have to use it. But, should that situation arise - I'm prepared.

And that is why I own firearms, and oppose any effort to amend, modify, limit, control, or regulate my use, purchase, and ownership of them.

[Tuatara]

I think people need to stop equating "anti-gun" with "gun control". With that being said every measure of support for gun control is not right either. Some of them are pretty far fetched. But the whole debate loses it's meaning when one side decides to insult the other side.

[sunnyside]

I'm actually a bit confused. Did a family member get shot? If he was just hitting with a gun there are many objects much better suited to the task.

Now it sounds like at the heart of the letter is that the writer feels under attack for even being on the fence about gun rights and some other issues.

You aren't going to get banned here. But you might get a little bit of that. I think there are two reasons for that.

1. People are sensitive about these things. When you speak about healthcare and the environment what they hear is that you're interested in taking their money away from them. When you speak about gun laws what they hear is that you want to take their guns from them.

2. They've found that going on the aggressive works. Hit someone on a forum with enough vitrol and they're bound to either leave or get upset and do something stupid that gets them a ban.

Though careful about letting your perceptions be scewed. There might be a half dozen posts like mine but the one you'll tend to remember is the one calling you a fasciest or whatever.

[SpotsCat]

Originally Posted by Tuatara

I think people need to stop equating "anti-gun" with "gun control". With that being said every measure of support for gun control is not right either. Some of them are pretty far fetched. But the whole debate loses it's meaning when one side decides to insult the other side.

I agree.

I think that the people who support gun control mean well, but they are, quite simply, out of touch with reality.

Take for example the assault weapons ban of the 90's. Banning high-capacity magazines - probably not a bad idea. Banning pistol grip stocks on rifles, flash supressors, and bayonet lugs - a complete waste of time.

I'm sure that JFK is completely bummed out that he was assassinated with a military rifle, while Dr. King is happy as he can be that he wasn't shot with a rifle that had a flash supressor on it. Medgar Evers is thinking that if only he'd have been shot with a 30.06 deer rifle instead of an Enfield 30.06, he'd have survived like Larry Flynt did.

They mean well, but they're clueless. And that cluelessness will get us all in trouble if we're not careful...

[Riy]

I understand and support the concept of private gun ownership being necessary to the maintenance of a free state. That is the reason I haven't thrown in with those that support gun control.

But... at the same time I have a personal dislike for guns due to my own experiences. No, no one got shot. And it went just a little beyond a yearning to be raised by the Cleavers thank you very much. When I said I was made all too familiar with the business ends of my father's weapons, I meant it. Intimately familiar. As a very young girl. I will leave it at that.

What bothers me is that despite the fact that I, and plenty of people like me, can reign in personal feelings and be somewhat logical and objective, we get abused for simply stating we dislike guns, or we live in California, or we are liberals, etc.

I'm not working against anyone's gun rights despite the fact I am in a position to do so quite effectively. In fact I have made a conscious effort to be supportive. So why abuse people like me and try to push me off the fence instead of pull?

What do you think this does for your cause?

[SpotsCat]

Originally Posted by Riy

I understand and support the concept of private gun ownership being necessary to the maintenance of a free state. That is the reason I haven't thrown in with those that support gun control.

But... at the same time I have a personal dislike for guns due to my own experiences. No, no one got shot. And it went just a little beyond a yearning to be raised by the Cleavers thank you very much. When I said I was made all too familiar with the business ends of my father's weapons, I meant it. Intimately familiar. As a very young girl. I will leave it at that.

What bothers me is that despite the fact that I, and plenty of people like me, can reign in personal feelings and be somewhat logical and objective, we get abused for simply stating we dislike guns, or we live in California, or we are liberals, etc.

I'm not working against anyone's gun rights despite the fact I am in a position to do so quite effectively. In fact I have made a conscious effort to be supportive. So why abuse people like me and try to push me off the fence instead of pull?

What do you think this does for your cause?

In reply, I'd use Rhett Butler's famous quote to Scarlet O'Hara...

If you want to lobby against handguns, longguns, shotguns, or firearms in general - be my guest. I'm not saying that to be anti-social, hostile, or abusive - I'm simply tired of trying to make people understand the valid reasons to own a firearm.

My friend - and fellow forum member - Swede and I have discussed firearms many times on another website. He states that firearms have a tremendous cost upon society, and I agree with him. A firearm in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing - as evidenced by the cryptic messages about your past that you post, among others.

But a knife in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing. An automobile in the hands of a drunken driver is a dangerous thing. An airplane in the hands of a terrorist is a dangerous thing. Feeding the bears at Yellowstone is a dangerous thing.

A gun in the hands of the wrong person can take a life. A gun in the hands of the right person can save a life. This is the town I live in. Read the story, and especially the part about Joel Myrick. My eldest and middle daughter were in school that day, and my youngest was attending the middle school.

Even that didn't change my fundamental beliefs about owning firearms...

[BigRed]

Originally Posted by Riy

I understand and support the concept of private gun ownership being necessary to the maintenance of a free state. That is the reason I haven't thrown in with those that support gun control.

But... at the same time I have a personal dislike for guns due to my own experiences. No, no one got shot. And it went just a little beyond a yearning to be raised by the Cleavers thank you very much. When I said I was made all too familiar with the business ends of my father's weapons, I meant it. Intimately familiar. As a very young girl. I will leave it at that.

What bothers me is that despite the fact that I, and plenty of people like me, can reign in personal feelings and be somewhat logical and objective, we get abused for simply stating we dislike guns, or we live in California, or we are liberals, etc.

I'm not working against anyone's gun rights despite the fact I am in a position to do so quite effectively. In fact I have made a conscious effort to be supportive. So why abuse people like me and try to push me off the fence instead of pull?

What do you think this does for your cause?

Nothing wrong with disliking guns. I'm in the same boat as you to an extent. I'm not a fan of violence really. But I also do find guns impressive and cool when used properly and safely.

Nonetheless, as long as your dislike for guns doesn't turn into a dislike for somebody's freedom to have one, I'm cool with you.

[BigRed]

Originally Posted by SpotsCat

In reply, I'd use Rhett Butler's famous quote to Scarlet O'Hara...

If you want to lobby against handguns, longguns, shotguns, or firearms in general - be my guest. I'm not saying that to be anti-social, hostile, or abusive - I'm simply tired of trying to make people understand the valid reasons to own a firearm.

My friend - and fellow forum member - Swede and I have discussed firearms many times on another website. He states that firearms have a tremendous cost upon society, and I agree with him. A firearm in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing - as evidenced by the cryptic messages about your past that you post, among others.

But a knife in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing. An automobile in the hands of a drunken driver is a dangerous thing. An airplane in the hands of a terrorist is a dangerous thing. Feeding the bears at Yellowstone is a dangerous thing.

A gun in the hands of the wrong person can take a life. A gun in the hands of the right person can save a life. This is the town I live in. Read the story, and especially the part about Joel Myrick. My eldest and middle daughter were in school that day, and my youngest was attending the middle school.

Even that didn't change my fundamental beliefs about owning firearms...

Very true. I've wanted to post this for a long time, but haven't found the right chance. For all those people that say, "I ain't ever heard of someone going on a knife-spree." I present this story to you:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080608/...japan_stabbing

Insane! He killed seven people!