US gun support runs far deeper than politics

BRYAN, Texas (AP) — Adam Lanza's mother was among the tens of millions of U.S. gun owners. She legally had a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and a pair of handguns, which her 20-year-old son used to kill 20 children and six adults in 10 minutes inside a Connecticut school.
In the raw aftermath of the second-worst school shooting in U.S. history, countless gun enthusiasts much like Lanza's mother complicate a gun-owning narrative that critics, sometimes simplistically, put at the feet of a powerful lobby and caricatured zealots. More civilians are armed in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world, with Yemen coming in a distant second, according to the independent Small Arms Survey in Geneva.
Take Blake Smith, a mechanical engineer who lives near Houston and uses an AR-15 style rifle in shooting competitions.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who famously claimed to have shot a coyote while jogging with a pistol holstered to his running shorts, has signed a half-dozen certificates applauding Smith as one of the state's top marksmen. "But I won't call myself a fanatic," said Smith, 54, whose father first let him handle a gun around age 6.
"I sit at a desk all day. And when I get out to the range, I don't hear any gunfire going on," said Smith, who likens his emotional detachment to his guns to the way he would feel about a car or any other machine. "I'm so intent on my sight alignment, my trigger pull, my position. I don't worry about anything. I don't think about anything. It's relieving. It's therapeutic. Everybody has to have their Zen."
Since the school shooting, President Barack Obama has asked for proposals on reducing gun violence that he can take to Congress in January, and he called on the National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful gun-rights organization, to join the effort.
Gun laws in the U.S. vary from state to state — for instance, as of last month it is now legal to carry a gun in public view in Oklahoma — and are defended by the firearms industry and the NRA. On Friday, the NRA broke a weeklong silence since the Connecticut massacre by calling for armed volunteers at public schools, prompting criticism from many quarters.
But in the U.S., gun-control advocates are up against a sizeable bloc of mainstream Americans for whom guns are central to their lives, whether for patriotism or personal sense of safety, or simply to occupy their spare time.
Dave Burdett, who owns an outdoors and adventure shop across the street from the sprawling Texas A&M University campus in College Station, says his affinity for guns is rooted in history, not sport.
"It isn't about hunting. Everyone says, 'Well, I can understand having a sporting rifle, but not an AR-15," Burdett said. "But wait a second — the idea of the Second Amendment was to preserve and protect the rights of individuals to have those guns."
"Remember that the (American) revolution was fought by citizen soldiers," he added. "To this day, that's one of the cornerstones of our military defense. We have an all-volunteer military."
An NRA poster picturing a bald eagle is taped to the glass door of his office. He started as a lawyer, dabbling in everything from commercial land to trying to block the deportation of an illegal immigrant, before seguing into selling guns.
When his daughter graduated with a business degree from Texas A&M, Burdett figured she would move somewhere cosmopolitan like Dallas and work in a downtown high-rise. She instead went to work in the store, built her own AR-15 out of spare parts and used it to join what her father described as the "let's-go-pig-hunting-tonight circuit." Those feral hog hunts often include high-powered rifles as well as night-vision goggles.
"The other thing is, shooting is fun. It really is," Burdett said.
Many think so. Smith, the mechanical engineer, said that includes teenage girls. At national shooting competitions, Smith has run into a group of girls around 13 or 14 years old who call themselves "The Pink Ladies," firing high-powered rifles at targets. He also recalls meeting Australians, whose country bans guns, who told him, "I love to shoot, so I'm going to the U.S."
Others add safety to the list of reasons for allowing people easy access to guns.
"To me it's obvious — the more people that have guns, or at least in their homes, it's more of a criminal deterrent," said Bill Moos, a local taxidermist in the small town of Bryan, near College Station. Moos, who owns more than 30 guns, can be spotted any given morning, prowling his roughly 40-acre (16-hectare) ranch with his dogs and a shotgun slung over his shoulder.
He tells a story of standing in the post office one day and hearing about a suspect driving around, wanted by the police. He thought of the woman behind the counter near him.
"My first thought was, 'How are you going to protect yourself?' Does she have a gun, in case someone tries to rob her?" he said. "It's the first thing you think of: How are you going to defend yourself?"
On the television in the corner of his workshop, above a stuffed gray fox and a clutch of animal jawbones dangling on a ring like a set of keys, Obama is holding his first press conference since the Connecticut tragedy. He's promising to send Congress legislation tightening gun laws and urging them to reinstate a ban on military-style assault weapons, like the one used by Lanza.
Moos turns down the volume.
"I guess it's something you get used to," he said of guns. "That you grow up around, and you enjoy them, and you accept the fact that you can own. It's a privilege. It's a whole different way of life. I guess I don't need three pick-ups and a Corvette. But I have them."
In the raw aftermath of the second-worst school shooting in U.S. history, countless gun enthusiasts much like Lanza's mother complicate a gun-owning narrative that critics, sometimes simplistically, put at the feet of a powerful lobby and caricatured zealots. More civilians are armed in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world, with Yemen coming in a distant second, according to the independent Small Arms Survey in Geneva.
Take Blake Smith, a mechanical engineer who lives near Houston and uses an AR-15 style rifle in shooting competitions.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who famously claimed to have shot a coyote while jogging with a pistol holstered to his running shorts, has signed a half-dozen certificates applauding Smith as one of the state's top marksmen. "But I won't call myself a fanatic," said Smith, 54, whose father first let him handle a gun around age 6.
"I sit at a desk all day. And when I get out to the range, I don't hear any gunfire going on," said Smith, who likens his emotional detachment to his guns to the way he would feel about a car or any other machine. "I'm so intent on my sight alignment, my trigger pull, my position. I don't worry about anything. I don't think about anything. It's relieving. It's therapeutic. Everybody has to have their Zen."
Since the school shooting, President Barack Obama has asked for proposals on reducing gun violence that he can take to Congress in January, and he called on the National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful gun-rights organization, to join the effort.
Gun laws in the U.S. vary from state to state — for instance, as of last month it is now legal to carry a gun in public view in Oklahoma — and are defended by the firearms industry and the NRA. On Friday, the NRA broke a weeklong silence since the Connecticut massacre by calling for armed volunteers at public schools, prompting criticism from many quarters.
But in the U.S., gun-control advocates are up against a sizeable bloc of mainstream Americans for whom guns are central to their lives, whether for patriotism or personal sense of safety, or simply to occupy their spare time.
Dave Burdett, who owns an outdoors and adventure shop across the street from the sprawling Texas A&M University campus in College Station, says his affinity for guns is rooted in history, not sport.
"It isn't about hunting. Everyone says, 'Well, I can understand having a sporting rifle, but not an AR-15," Burdett said. "But wait a second — the idea of the Second Amendment was to preserve and protect the rights of individuals to have those guns."
"Remember that the (American) revolution was fought by citizen soldiers," he added. "To this day, that's one of the cornerstones of our military defense. We have an all-volunteer military."
An NRA poster picturing a bald eagle is taped to the glass door of his office. He started as a lawyer, dabbling in everything from commercial land to trying to block the deportation of an illegal immigrant, before seguing into selling guns.
When his daughter graduated with a business degree from Texas A&M, Burdett figured she would move somewhere cosmopolitan like Dallas and work in a downtown high-rise. She instead went to work in the store, built her own AR-15 out of spare parts and used it to join what her father described as the "let's-go-pig-hunting-tonight circuit." Those feral hog hunts often include high-powered rifles as well as night-vision goggles.
"The other thing is, shooting is fun. It really is," Burdett said.
Many think so. Smith, the mechanical engineer, said that includes teenage girls. At national shooting competitions, Smith has run into a group of girls around 13 or 14 years old who call themselves "The Pink Ladies," firing high-powered rifles at targets. He also recalls meeting Australians, whose country bans guns, who told him, "I love to shoot, so I'm going to the U.S."
Others add safety to the list of reasons for allowing people easy access to guns.
"To me it's obvious — the more people that have guns, or at least in their homes, it's more of a criminal deterrent," said Bill Moos, a local taxidermist in the small town of Bryan, near College Station. Moos, who owns more than 30 guns, can be spotted any given morning, prowling his roughly 40-acre (16-hectare) ranch with his dogs and a shotgun slung over his shoulder.
He tells a story of standing in the post office one day and hearing about a suspect driving around, wanted by the police. He thought of the woman behind the counter near him.
"My first thought was, 'How are you going to protect yourself?' Does she have a gun, in case someone tries to rob her?" he said. "It's the first thing you think of: How are you going to defend yourself?"
On the television in the corner of his workshop, above a stuffed gray fox and a clutch of animal jawbones dangling on a ring like a set of keys, Obama is holding his first press conference since the Connecticut tragedy. He's promising to send Congress legislation tightening gun laws and urging them to reinstate a ban on military-style assault weapons, like the one used by Lanza.
Moos turns down the volume.
"I guess it's something you get used to," he said of guns. "That you grow up around, and you enjoy them, and you accept the fact that you can own. It's a privilege. It's a whole different way of life. I guess I don't need three pick-ups and a Corvette. But I have them."
I would be more willing if people educated in weaponry were involved. Not talking heads or ignorant politicians referring to "guns that hold three clips." -or- Banning "Assault ammunition", WTF is that? The 223, 5.56 is the very same round used in many varmit rifles used by ranchers, the 308, 7.62 and similar classes are used in military and big game rifles. The all known 9mm used througout the military in a variety of guns is the same round used in Bobby's Glock or Joe's Taurus. In short, they don't know what the devil they're talking about and they want to create additional laws.
This video needs more distribution:
Â
What is an "assault rifle"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8
Â
Answer for those that don't really know and didn't watch: its a auto-reloading rifle action with "scary looking plastic bits" instead of "wood"; or in other words "assault rifle" is something in the mind of politicians and the new media.
Â
You can't educate people that have a personal agenda to take things away from others. Your video is the exact same arguement I've been stating myself. People just don't know but are quick to recite what the clueless or truth obscuring media likes to print or spew out their mouths. If the media actually told the truth their story would fizzle out and it would no longer be presenting controversy. Without controversy the stories fade.
Â
The political liars can pass whatever law they wish about their personal agenda but I will not give up my rights or my possessions that follow under that right because of some false feel good law by some uneducated politician.
@whatifafrog
I'm getting tired of gun lovers talking about how they are so educated about guns and those of us who aren't, just don't have a clue about what we are talking about. I'm not a pharmacist either, but I know drugs can be dangerous. It really doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure it out. You are not special because you can shoot a gun.
So are knives. 20 children in Japan were attached on the same day. We should also demand ihat all knives should stop from being sold, lets add ballbait and clubs. As soon as you commit a traffic offence, stop them from from even being around a car. Yake all cell phones thy are the cause of many accidents. Pnly let the people waalking have them snce they won't be driving anyway.Â
It's not the drugs that are dangerous, it's how, how much, when, and for what purpose people use them.
There, now you are a little more educated about drugs. See if you can apply the logic to guns.
There are some pretty heavy regulations on guns as it is, for legal owners. Tell me, what would you do about the illegal gun owners that isn't already in place? Or are you suggesting that there be tougher laws for legal gun owners? And if so I have to ask why. What purpose would that serve?
@SgtPepperSpray Exactly, that's why they are so tightly regulated. Maybe we should apply that logic to guns. If we didn't have so many irresponsible people owning them, this whole conversation would be unnecessary.
What I find to be somewhat interesting is that 30 round magazines are now made of unobtanium. They no longer exist. As anyone with a combat background will tell you, if you're on the stick, you can do a tactical reload in under a second.I'll let the math majors battle that one out. Net-Net is that 10 round limits only impose about a 15% reduction (at most) in combat effectiveness.
Back to the beginning: You cannot legislate this problem away. Ever.
Â
 @TimLa Net-net is that mass shooters have been disabled when they paused to swap magazines. The more frequently they must do so, the more opportunities there are to knock them in the head and sit on them - which is what generally stops these things when they are successfully stopped.
@TimLa exactly!
 @TimLa I think you make an excellent point here. Those who feel they can introduce bans or legislation are either, inexperienced with guns or merely being politicians and pretending to address a problem by introducing something that will do nothing in the end. In any problem solving situation you should be aiming at getting the biggest bang for your buck, and banning these weapons will do nothing, limiting the size of a magazine will do nothing. Mostly because there are already so many of these weapons and magazines already out there.
My favorite line we have been hearing from the politcians claiming they know whats best for us is.."I've talked with experts and they say this or that.." They did no such thing because they always follow up that statement with the most incorrect information and outlandish statistics.
Â
Lets face it. Our politicians are lawyers. What do lawyers get paid to do? Lie to whatever extent it is just to win.
I have no problem with individuals who meet the criteria for owning a gun having one. I do not, however, think you should have a right to sell it to anyone you want to without that person passing the same criteria you had to. If you can't run the necessary background check on the person you are selling it to then you shouldn't be able to sell it or if you did you'd be responsible for any crime committed with the gun.
 @jcman if the the feds opened up the NICS to everyone then 99% of people selling guns privately would use the system.
 I have always required all buyers (keep in mind I've sold maybe a total of 5 firearms in my life) to show me a CPL and WDL. At least that way, I *know* they passed a background check at some point.
"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to
maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government"
----George Washington
Â
You anti-gun fanatics can keep looking through your rose colored glasses at the world, but no matter what you do, or what you say or how much you insult the pro gun people about their intelligence or lack there of, just like liquor, prostitution, and drugs, they ARE NOT going away, EVER.Â
Given the roughly 200 M firearms owned by civilians in this country, I really doubt that *any* legislation is going to have any effect at all, no matter how draconian. Take a look at the last assault weapons ban: net zero effect. I read recently that about 3% of homicides involve an assault weapon.Â
Â
 @TimLa I think it MIGHT have an effect, if it was draconian enough. It would cause a great deal of turn-over in political seats. It might even wait for the election to happen.
 @TimLa I think it's closer to 300 M now....... either way, it's a lot of guns.
Guns don't do anything without guidance. The problem isn't the gun it's the person that uses it for evil.
 @Iarehere The problem is the irresponsible gun owners who can't seem to maintain responsibility for their weapons. Almost every mass shooting we have had in the US has been committed by a deranged individual who used the guns from a legal gun owner. If you want to keep your toys, learn to take responsibility for them.
 @justmyopinion  @Iarehere Quite a number of times, the "legal gun owner" was HIMSELF!
This comment has been deleted
 @deadcandance That is very interesting, is it right to say it costs too much to put armed guards in every school, yet seek out those schools for your own children? Isnt that like saying do as I say, not as I do? Hmmmmm
 @deadcandance Well, this IS "Merica......the rich and powerful live by different rules. This school makes a GREAT arguing point to undo the "gun free zone" ban in our schools, and allow OUR children the same protection as our "employees" children.
The 2nd Amendment is no different than the rest of the Bill of Rights, its a document that tells you what your inalienable rights are. It should be adopted worldwide. Governments don't grant you these rights, they can only inhibit them. And the 2nd Amendment is a right to self defense. Everyone born on the planet has these rights, its only governments that take them away from you. I plan on keeping my inalienable rights no matter what kind of unconstitutional laws are passed and I imagine there's a lot more people out there just like me.
Comments...Â
Â
A 2009 University of Pennsylvania study financed by the National Institutes of Health looked at the chances of being shot when holding a gun versus not holding a gun. In Pennsylvania, from 2003 to 2006, police sent the epidemiological researchers reports of gun-related assaults soon after they happened. A research firm then matched those victims with similar people in the area who did not own guns through phone surveys conducted by random-digit dialing. (This is the same sort of research setup that goes into studying the link between drunk driving and car crashes or smoking and lung cancer.) With both a gun-owning victim and a non-gun-owning Philadelphian, researchers had a variable and a control group. Then by comparing those who were shot and had a gun on them with the control group, the researchers looked for a correlation--and found one. In the study, someone in possession of a gun was about 4.5 times more likely to be shot. If the victim had a chance to resist, he or she was 5.5 times more likely to be shot.
Â
Even more interesting is what the research didn't find. "There was an expectation that we should surely find a protective value," the study's lead researcher Charles Branas, of the University of Pennsylvania, says. But having a gun, he says, "on average was found not to be protective in assaults." This is the conclusion written in the study: "Although successful defensive gun uses can and do occur, the findings of this study do not support the perception that such successes are likely."
Â
Branas says there are a few possible reasons why they saw the increased risk among those with guns: For one, people might enter an environment they'd normally avoid. A conflict might also escalate when a gun was involved. Finally, and most unlikely, someone could have the gun taken from him or her and be shot with it.
Other studies support the notion that guns and personal safety do not go hand in hand, especially with guns in the home. The Harvard School of Public Health's David Hemenway published a study in 2011 and concluded that the chances of violence occurring in the home were increased when a gun was around. "On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in," Branas says.
Â
These studies don't zero in on school shootings, obviously. But it's not hard to see how the same conclusion might apply: having guns around is unlikely to swing a shooting toward a better outcome.
Â
how about trying some gun training and defensive training on more adults and see if that changes. just because you buy a gun does not mean you know how to use it. its just like a car, i can give you a car but unless i train you how to drive it, it is useless to you. just like a gun, just like a gun is useless to a gun owner unless he/she is trained on how to use it.
I really don't care what some study says. All I know is my right to protect myself has been used once in my life from an crazy idiot who had a temper. A temper enough to go into the sheriffs department and tell them that if he saw us crossing what he thought was his property(our legal easement road access to our adjoing property) he would shoot us in the head. The sheriffs told our family if we went to our property to make sure we are armed.
Â
As a legal concealed weapons permit holder we did just that when my father and I went to our property 2 weeks later. That crazy man walked from his house onto our property telling us we better be running now as his pistol was in his hand walking towards us at 60-70 yards away. You don't always have to shoot another human being but being in the crosshairs of a .300 ultra mag at that distance versus his handgun was a match and a decision maker that stopped him in his tracks quickly. A few words from my father while I had him at point was enough to stop him followed by a cell call to 911. Yeah, it took the sheriffs deputies about 4-5 minutes to arrive.
Â
For those who believe only the police should have guns would be reading about 2 people dead with that kind of mentality. I refuse to be a victim or a statistic because of someone's false sense of security thinking the world is so much safer with this or without that.
Â
If the police need these kinds of weapons then that is a sign that the criminal activity out there warrants it for the law abiding civilians.
Â
Remember, the police don't stop crime. They come after the crime is committed to investigate or act as a deterent by presence. Police=post crime response.
 @Muk115 I read your whole sad story, and I have to say I'm struck by the obvious that you've totally ignored... if your angry neighbor didn't own a gun, you wouldn't have needed to protect yourself from it.
Out of curiosity, what would you use to protect yourself and family in the event of say, a home invasion robbery? Anything? Nothing?
 @justmyopinion  @Muk115 Sigh. The angry neighbor could have come at them with a baseball bat. So they would have Needed a gun to protect them from a non-gun.Â
@Muk115 You are right. In my line of work I only stop crime by stumbling upon it or seeking it out where it occurs most. If I am four miles away, which is likely, I'd have to drive 120mph (unlikely) just to arrive in 2 minutes. Two minutes is too darn long. You have to protect yourself.
I wish we would never have to worry about having to protect yourself like that but it just isn't reality not to. Its the world we live in now.
 @31F And its probably safer to not enjoy the 1st Amendment rights too? I imagine more people die from saying something that someone didn't like than people who die from trying to protect themselves with a firearm. been lots of self defense cases in the past couple of years right here in the state. That option can never constitutionally be taken away from you. If it is then you get what you deserve.
 @Blindman Â
if you think about it.. media misinformation to implement governments war agenda has killed far more people than individuals citizens..So your right words do kill..
@31F Some would beg to differ.
Â
http://gun.laws.com/gun-statistics
 @bobalouie Agreed, interpretation can go either direction. Â
"To me it's obvious â the more people that have guns, or at least in their homes, it's more of a criminal deterrent,"
That says it all. Â If that school had not been a "Gun-Free Zone"; if it had been known that school officials, like a principal, vice principal, on-duty guard or even faculty, were armed and trained for the purpose of security of the school, the shooting in CT would never have happened. Â In fact, school shootings would be so rare to non-existent, that the morons in politics would begin to question why we even needed armed protection in our schools. Â Columbine happened during the height of the assault weapons ban. Wake up idiots.
 @Obewise If a criminal can't buy a gun legally or off the black market, the next best thing is stealing a gun from a person that they know of who has guns.
 @backinmyday I will give them to them then, first the bullets, then empty cases. If they are able they can have the gun. The cops are gonna take it from me anyway.
Arguing the gun rights argument is one thing, but if you think the 2nd amendment will ever be repealed you're out of your mind. That's a conspiracy level paranoia. That's like being worried about free speech being abolished. Nobody is going to take away your guns. Also, there's nothing wrong with laws that help ensure safe use of firearms. Calm down and stop exaggerating so much just to get your point across.Â
jowsuf.......Free speech ISN'T so free anymore!! Did you know it is a law that if you publicly criticize the president, the Secret Service can throw you into prison at their discretion??  THAT was on the news awhile back. Little by little our rights are being eroded.
 @countrygalfm Don't forget the Patriot Act.
 @countrygalfm Funny, but I have good intention, so I will never feel that my rights are being taken away.  It seems as if those who have bad intentions are the ones most offended by their rights getting questioned.
31F, Susabelle.....I think you're missing the point.....this is a new law just been introduced. What it is refering to is if someone speaks out against him to his face. What is being printed here is moot. I don't think intentions have anything to do with it!!
 @31F Actually, nothing really on the market right now fits a true AR definition, at least without modifying it to become fully automatic. Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about the weapons already banned. Of course they are already out there, legal or not, but no one is advertising that they have them.
Â
My husband and I have discussed getting an AR because of the low recoil on them and it would be an easy gun for me to shoot. We need a larger safe if we were to do that though.
 @Susabelle Susabelle, what are your feelings about currently banned weapons?  Do AR type weapons fall in that category, in your opinion?
 @31F  @countrygalfm I have good intentions as well, and have no worries about using anything at my disposal for nefarious purposes, however, I am offended by the folks that think that the answer is banning AR type weapons. I dont even own one, but that does not mean that I do not worry that this is the wrong direction to take and it does worry me.
 @countrygalfm publicly criticize or publicly threaten? I see a lot of folk on here criticizing him, and I can guarantee you that they could find them if they wanted (They being the Secret Service)
Baby steps.
Â
Free speech? Usedta be you couldn't yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. Now ya can't used the 'N' word regardless of any context. Free speech went out the window years ago. It was replaced by feewings.
Feewings. You speech hute my feewings. You so bad you need to be censured. Exaggerating?
Â
Baby steps.
 @bobalouie Well my opinion on that is that freedom comes with responsibility. Some things are common sense, I think. No freedom we have was ever intended to be stretched to the point of being harmful to others. I think the FIRE examples is one of those. I don't consider that an infringement at all. The same goes for gun laws. The world isn't that black and white. Our freedoms mean nothing if they aren't used responsibly and taken advantage of.Â
Â
I'm sorry that you're upset you can''t be racist without getting in trouble, but I believe only upstanding citizens deserve to exercise their freedoms. Our rights aren't a go nuts free-for-all. We are representatives of our  nation. There are reasonable limits to everything. That's why you can own firearms but you can't have a howitzer in your backyard. Freedoms without reason is anarchy.Â
@jowsuf @bobalouie Well put. As a clarification also, I personally despise that particular term, and a few others, but that's off topic.
 @jowsuf  @bobalouie Actually, with the right paperwork filled out you CAN own a howitzer in your back yard in some states, taxed as a "destructive device." Part of the problem is that each and every round that explodes is ALSO taxed as a "destructive device" at a stamp-tax of $200 per plus actual cost, so it's just a tad-bit expensive.
 @jowsuf  @Iarehere Agreed. I remember when some liberal democrats were throwing around the idea of the "fairness doctrine". It was a blatant attempt to limit free speech because they were not being successful on talk radio while their opponents were. The problem is, like you say, once we start down that road it just slowly erodes until one day you wake up and go "what happened".
@jowsuf I do agree with that. The thing that makes me draw a line between Police and Military is while in the Army I used some things that were secured. It is hard for the private citizen to use let alone secure a missle or bomb.
 @Iarehere I think that's what this whole debate boils down to. How do we come to an agreement on what these freedoms mean? What are the limits on these freedoms? Should there be any? There is too much grey area. The problem is, how do we clear the fog? It's all a very slippery slope no matter what direction you want to take things.Â
 @Wolfen  @bobalouie It's a matter of context and intent. I'd also say class. Do you WANT to be able to use the word? It boils down to being a cultural difference. It's about as fair and balanced as Fox News, but that's the way it is. Cultural differences. It's like that everywhere. There are many cultures where words are used among those in the group but would be insulted by its use by outsiders. That's just the way the world works. In all honesty, if you were a PART of that culture (which is not necessarily defined by race alone), it would be fine, but you're not. Them's the breaks.Â
 @Wolfen I think those that are offended by it would rather see it not used.  In all due respect, just because it is used in media, like music, doesn't make it right.  I don't think rap makes the "N" word acceptable, just because rappers use it.  The media is by far not a source of tact.  When I hear it being used at someone or in music, it is just blatantly racist.  Free speech or not, when you say that to someone of that race, don't get upset if they start swinging at you.  Of course, the defender will end up in jail, while the instigator goes to their next racist rant.  It's just not right.
@jowsuf @bobalouie I agree with what you are saying. I do believe that the general population should be able to buy the same equiptment the police use. Not what the Army, Navy, Marines have.
 @jowsuf  @bobalouie In bobalouie's defense, I believe he's trying to say that MOST people can't use the "N" word without being called a racist. However, drive through Belltown or Cap Hill and listen to the rap music blaring from the "big wheels" as I like to call them, and you'll hear the "N" word twenty times in ten seconds. If a word is deemed as socially unacceptable, it shouldn't be used by ANY race of people. (including those that are so "offended" by it)
 @jowsuf I must say, well said!
 @bobalouie And the "N" word is such an American past time
You're missing the most important and obvious abusers of that word. The rap industry. But hey, its ok for them to use it but it will cause a riot of anyone else slips out with the word.
Actually, it's well accepted if ya hang right. Most Americans deplore its use. Yet it's ok for some to use, and hate speech by others. Wierd...Â