Girly?
Or a little more macho?
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palin31-2008aug31,0,3379120.story?page=1
Let’s try that again!
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palin31-2008aug31,0,3379120.story?page=1
Let’s try that again!
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palin31-2008aug31,0,3379120.story?page=1
Nice.....thanks for the post
I really need to get my license here in TX so I can chose the gun I want to carry.....
NRA Girl here!
Ping
Ping!
Growing up around hunters and guns all of my life. In my earliest memories of my mother holding her gun and shot her first Elk. She was beaming with pride!!! She is a very smart lady and a former teacher at high school. It a woman power to have that feel of owning a gun in her hands. Love it!!!
(NoCoGOP’s wife message)
I pack a Glock 9mm. I used to live in Hyde Park in Chicago and was held at gunpoint at the old Co-Op. Of course, I didn’t have a weapon then. NEVER AGAIN. I was robbed - thank God - it could have been worse.
bump and ping
I choose to carry a Python .357 snub nose and have done so for 15 years now. Have a beautiful gun purse which is guaranteed by the company not only for quality, but if I should ever have to place my hand in there and fire the end of the purse out, they will replace it for free. I feel so ahead of the times for just a moment!
Unfortunately, a few men don't see it that way, either. Some men seem to see it as their job to discourage women from carrying.
On the plus side, a full quarter of the people in the NRA class I took over the summer were women, from early 20's through probably mid-70's. The teachers (both men) could not have been more positive, and they were very encouraging that this is something women can and should do.
Girly?
Or a little more macho?
And by the way, my firing range date went well. She handled the 9mm and the .40 quite well, but the .357 and the .45 were more than she cared to try.
Proud owner of a .9mm Beretta, .22 Rueger, .22 long rifle and a .410 shotgun and I’m a member of the NRA.
We went shoopping this weekend and looked at several compact semis thanks to recommendations here. I was glad to see my wife interested (she mentioned it when we were in the area of the gun shop), but she has some misconceptions on the need to carry at all times. We are going to an Eastman show next weekend.
We have settled on a Kel-Tec 380 for her I think. I like a used Sig they had in stock.
The Gun is Civilization
by Marko Kloos of the
Munchkin Wrangler blog
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat—it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
*PING*