Over 4 million now. They got quite a few new memberships since Feinstien and Obama starting running their mouths.

I think the gun, in America, has taken on a symbolic meaning of freedom and independence that has been woven into our national fabric even before the founding of our country with the revolutionary war.

edit:
This is why I say even before the revolutionary war, I think this is the beginning of our national image and tapestry.
http://castle.eiu.edu/~wow/classes/f...h/Pilgrim2.jpg

To you, it does. America is a large and diverse nation, and as such the meaning of American freedom and independence varies per person or group. On the Fourth of July I don't think of guns. You do. Both are fine, but I resent people trying to tell me what America means.

Well, On the fourth of July, I don't think of guns either. I think July 4th, 1776, declaration of independence. Do you really think all gun owners think about is guns? If so your sterotyping just as bad as the people I think your admonishing.

Also you can't tell me the pilgrims aren't part of, if not the start of, our national fabric. It's taught in schools, its in the history books, and celebrated every year in November. Just because it isn't in your frame of reference, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Something like this, you might see somewhere during the thanksgiving holiday, every year.
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumbla...6620lw6cU7.jpg

Well then we're back to that narrative that America is a gun nation. Not a nation that permits gun ownership; a gun nation. The connotation is that if you are a real American, you own a gun. You can see language of that sort right here in this very thread, and all over GT for the past two months. That's the kind of narrow interpretation of what it means to be American that has hamstrung the GOP. There are a lot of Americans that don't think that way.

Then there's the other part of the pilgrim mythos; the part where they were unable to use those guns to feed themselves adequately and were relieved by the Native Americans, (who were then ultimately betrayed, but that is another issue and one that, if I recall, we both agree on). In other words, it is not so simple to say that America is a gun nation. Firearms have been present throughout American history, but they are but one small thread in a tapestry made of millions of equally small threads.

Tak, I think were arguing over interpretation of words. I *think* your arguing against the idea that guns define our national identity, when taking issue with the word of "gun nation"; and I would agree, guns do not define who we are.

What i'm arguing is that "The gun", has been with us, and part of our society since it's first beginnings. They don't define who are, but they have always been with us, and because of that, you'll see guns represented in symbolic ways throughout our history. As such, the gun as come symbolic in and of itself, and while not defining the American identity, certainly part of the American tapestry.

EDIT:
And yes i'm well aware of the Pilgrim mythos. I don't agree with all the puritan bible toting symbolism in the first picture I linked, I only use it as an example of how guns are woven into our national fabric.

Strange turn. Gun nations eh?
This nation was also born by the gun, there are still those in the country that believe freedom equals an armalite and a ballot box.
Most people consider those people to be nuts.

What I find ironic is that Canada was also a gun nation too. Things were not a whole lot different up here (in some ways it was more harsh). Yet the results were quite different in several ways. We don't quite have the same level of paranoia that seems to exist in the states in relationship to government, or are as concerned about possessing firearms. Now it could also be argued that our biggest issue is political apathy (we tend to shrug our shoulders and go back to our daily lives when it comes to our idiot scum sucking politicians).

All countries and cultures have their mythologies, and all have difficulty accepting that these things are myths.

The NRA are in the business of fundraising and influence-raising through incessant conspiratorial messaging.

You wouldn't take seriously anyone who talks like an NRA spokesman.

Honestly, where do you start with somebody who talks like this?

There are issues with exposing young people to incessant violence, and damaging their psychological health.

Probably more issues due to the let's-all-go-to-war attitude prevalent in the NRA's pet political party, but there are also some in the nation's civilian population.

I'll wager more people lead damaged lives due to being shot, shot at, seeing someone else being shot etc than due to playing too much Grand Theft Auto.

Lots of other countries seem to get along better with similar levels of violent movies. Ever seen Irreversible?

It also makes no sense to blame a violent culture, listing off Call of Duty, Natural Born Killers, Manhunt and American Psycho - if you don't also mention Leyte Gulf, Abu Ghraib, Okinawa, Oklahoma City, Fallujah, Malmedy.

I've played video games, violent and non, for over 25 years and I have never had the urge to go on a shooting spree.

The NRA truly wanted to end gun violence while protecting the second amendment, they would lobby for a universal mental healthcare system where anyone with mental health issues could be treated at low to no cost.

Then you'd see random shootings drop, gun owners would be happy that no one would be taking their guns, and we could be past this whole thing.

As much as it pains me to admit it, I think there is credibility to claims that violent video games have some place in all this. Though I know opponents to this idea will be quick to point out there is no collaborating evidence. I think this, because when I grew up, the only mass shootings I ever heard about, where "drive-by's" done by gang bangers, and there was no visually realistic interactive media.

As i said, when i was growing up, there was no such thing as games like Call of Duty. I can recall in my earlier 20's playing on LAN parties the very first First person shooters. I played ALL the dooms and expansions, I remember Duke Nukem 3d, Quake, etc. In terms of Quake or DN3, it was more like the First person shooter as competative sport, or in place of the friday beer and card game with the guys. There wasn't this big strive for realism, it was just all good fun between friends. Today we have the "Modern FPS". I never had that in my "formative years". Now, I've been gaming on PC's since the earliest beginnings, I hate having my games censored, and even I am surprised at some of what makes it into modern FPS's.

A couple examples:
Call of Duty: World at war, the very first 2 minutes of the game.
I was surprised at that level of personal violence.

The classic example,
Call of duty Modern warfare - No russian
I was amazed this even made it past a storyboard stage in design.


Now, I realize that video games this day and age are not just for kids. In fact, ill be the first one to say so. I love my games and I don't want them under the congressional axe. The problem i think is not enough parents realize this, and allow their kids to play this stuff when they may not be mature enough to handle it.

As movies go, I'm not so sure movies are as much as part of the problem as video games might be, because movies are NOT INTERACTIVE. Movies, do not make illustrate it as "this is you, you are there, and this is what your doing, you pull the trigger" illustration. In movies, your just watching a story unfold.

Now having said all that, I have always found it amusing that in our society, we have all manner of violence in video games, movies, televison, etc. In this country I can watch on national TV an autopsy of someone who was brutally murdered in all it's gory detail, and yet, a showing a woman's breasts is strictly taboo. I also find amusing how far behind the times MR LaPierre is in the examples of games and movies he cited. My thought was, "seriously dude? that was ages ago, I can come up with far better examples then that".

And I've possessed and used firearms for almost twice that time and i've never had the urge to go on a shooting spree either. Yet my own government is trying infringe on my right to keep them. Go figure.

As far as I can tell the NRA is the only side in this argument even talking about mental health. To most Democrats privacy concerns outweigh preventing nuts from getting their hands on firearms.

I'd bet dollars against donuts that even if there weren't any random shootings this administration would still try and disarm the American people.

I find it interesting that the same people who claim that hours spent watching violent videos and playing violent games have no effect on people belong to the same industry that is geared to influencing people with just a 30 second commercial.

He joined after Columbine, hoping to become President of the NRA then dismantle it. I've gotta admire that.

You admire useless publicity stunts?

No way would Moore ever hold any elected or appointed office in the NRA. Joe Biden has a bigger chance of that and it's still miniscule.