Censorship at Fedora Lounge

[Atticus Finch]

Here in the US we've got that pesky 2nd Amendment...and no...it doesn't give states the right to form a militia. The Supremes decided that red-herring issue several years ago (see, District of Columbia v Heller). It does pretty much what it sounds like it does. It gives law abiding US citizens the right to have and use firearms. Regardless of what statutes may exist in other countries, or how people may feel about the need for such statutes, firearms will probably never be banned in the United States. At least not without changing one tenth of our Bill of Rights...and that isn't likely to happen.

So...let's just admire the gun photos posted here...or not...and forget the politics surrounding gun ownership.

Just saying...

AF

 

[Jaguar66]

Its not so much the guns, but the bullets that are so dangerous. Or is it the powder in the shells that is so dangerous? Hmm, always such a delicate subject.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

But hey..showing a breast has nothing to do with politics.
Could be a 'hot' topic though...

I dunno. Quite a few politicians* are boobs.
*from both parties, I might add. After all, there's a Left Boob and a Right Boob.

 

[ThesFlishThngs]

As a vegetarian, I find that offensive.

 

[Rathdown]

...a prohibition against firearms will always make it harder for the wrong people to get access to real dangerous weapons.

Alan, as someone who lived in Ireland for 22 years I would have to take exception to your statement that prohibiting firearms makes it difficult for "the wrong people" to obtain firearms. I would think it obvious that "the wrong people" are the least likely to obey the law restricting the possession of firearms.

However, this thread isn't about the legal or moral issue of the private ownership of firearms. It is about the method of carrying a handgun concealed on one's person. In the "Golden Era" community there are a few who take part in Zoot Shooting-- the wearing of "Golden Era" clothing while shooting "Golden Era" firearms, which are (not surprisingly) carried in period authentic holsters.

This may have little interest in those countries where governments do not trust their subjects to own firearms. But in those countries where citizens are presumed to be law abiding members of society, and thus may freely own firearms and take part in past times like Zoot Shooting, it is of interest, hence the multiple threads regarding firearms on this forum.

Now, as it happens, between 1900 and 1960 there was very little advance in the design or manufacture of holsters for handguns and anyone looking for in-period holsters should first find a copy of Stoeger's Shooters Bible from the immediate post war era (say 1946-1955) and look at the holsters commercially available at that time.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Well said. It's a right we possess by law in this country which is greatly misunderstood by citizens of countries without similar rights. It is the main reason I think, that this country has never been invaded by a hostile army. If in The Soviet Union, or Poland, or Denmark for example, every citizen had the right to keep and bear arms, Hitler might have had second thoughts about invading those countries.
I think Hollywood has had a huge role in portraying gun ownership as a crazy and unnecessary thing over the years. We truly do not have a "gun problem" in this country as most gun owners are law abiding and responsible. If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would possess them. I am very glad that I have the right to possess firearms to protect my life and property, or for simple survival, to hunt for food if I had to do so.

Here in the US we've got that pesky 2nd Amendment...and no...it doesn't give states the right to form a militia. The Supremes decided that red-herring issue several years ago (see, District of Columbia v Heller). It does pretty much what it sounds like it does. It gives law abiding US citizens the right to have and use firearms. Regardless of what statutes may exist in other countries, or how people may feel about the need for such statutes, firearms will probably never be banned in the United States. At least not without changing one tenth of our Bill of Rights...and that isn't likely to happen.

So...let's just admire the gun photos posted here...or not...and forget the politics surrounding gun ownership.

Just saying...

AF

 

[JonnyO]

Well, while we are at it, its not the guns that are dangerous, its the people who own them. I have never seen a gun get up by itself and shoot someone. Please, don't take this the wrong way as saying someone on this Lounge is dangerous, guns can be a very safe object as long as they are in the proper hands. I know several very safe and responsible gun owners who keep them under lock and key while inside a gun safe. If you hand off a gun to a gang member, bad move. If you hand off a gun to a member of the NRA or Police Force or gun collector, I feel it would be in safe hands and no harm would be done. This is why background checks are done when people are applying for pistols permits and the such.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I had that experience last week, to have a drawing deleted from.....a Zippo site called: flash your Zippo.
In my shildish mind it was a funny and very innocent picture of Hilary Clinton holding a Zippo ligher as a.....gun.
On the Zippo lighter was written: Obama care, and fire was coming out of the Zippo Chimney.

This picture/drawing was deleted without any trace of explanation.
I simply cannot understand the reason for doing this?
You can show your weapon collection here, that could feed an army.....how can a funny picture/drawing like this ever become a threat to anyboody here?
I feel so disoriented about such an innocent issue has become a must to avoid.

I think all of us at one time or another have done what I fondly refer to as "The Minefield Merengue." While I don't think, officially speaking, I've ever had any of my posts deleted here (yet). It's happened to me a time or two on other forums. Though I have in the past self-deleted a number of posts because I thought that it could be taken the wrong way.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I think this sums it up right here. There's many threads on the Lounge that I don't like, have no interest in, or disagree with what is said, and unless it's insulting me, I'm just gonna leave it alone. This is a big forum with many different people, from many walks of life, with many different views, opinions, interests, etc. It's going to be impossible to make everybody happy. Stick to the parts that make you happy and let others do the same.

Live and let live.

And if one doesn't like the subject of a thread, stay out of it and leave it alone. How simple does it have to be?

 

[ButteMT61]

I've been a member of the NRA since I was ~10. Not recently as it's too political for me, but I learned the right way to own, handle and shoot young. I grew up with people that lived off of what they hunted. My family used to have to do it to survive. I'm lucky, I don't.
I agree that this topic often quickly turns into an America-bashing session which really gets me ban-bound. Imagine if the only people with the guns were criminals and governments. Actually, you don't have to imagine, watch the news. I'll take the USA and its issues over living in North Korea or China or Mexico any day.
Guns are every bit as collectible and artistic as coins, glassware, hats, jackets or lighters. But please no more trying to nanny those who collect or appreciate them.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Someone should probably change the name of this thread to..'The Great Gun Debate' since moderators/Bartenders 'explained themselves' several pages ago just like the OP asked for in the first post. Afterall..this is leading nowhere except to more than likely a place of hard feelings even if not responded to on a keyboard.
HD

 

[Paul Roerich]

Someone should probably change the name of this thread to..'The Great Gun Debate' ...

Oh, for the days of 'The Great Inverse vs. Reverse Pleats Debate'.

 

[Two Types]

'Nick Danger' wrote: It's a right we possess by law in this country which is greatly misunderstood by citizens of countries without similar rights. It is the main reason I think, that this country has never been invaded by a hostile army. If in The Soviet Union, or Poland, or Denmark for example, every citizen had the right to keep and bear arms, Hitler might have had second thoughts about invading those countries.

I don't think widespread gun ownership in those countries would have made a scrap of difference. hitler wasn't known for rational decisions - this is the man who thought he could take on the Soviet Union (with its vast territory, manpower and natural resouces), the UK (with its vast maritime resource, its Empire and its geographical position) and the USA (an economic superpower with vast resources)! Don't think he wouldn't have invaded the USA if geography wasn't against him (after all, the English channel was too wide for a safe invasion, so how could he get across the Atlantic?).
Thus i would argue that geography, more than widespead gun ownership, is at the root of the reason behind no one having invaded the USA.

(At least this isn't a political point - it's a discussion of mid-20th century history!)

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Well, Major Nick you are a little bitty geographically distant and isolated, as well. A very small border with a hostile neighbour and a very long one with … well … Canada.

The whole "if people were armed would Hitler have been less wiling" is a massive red herring. As anyone who knows psychology knows, the VAST majority of those people would be far too scared to do anything. And the rest would be such bad shots that they would be worse than useless.

Well said. It's a right we possess by law in this country which is greatly misunderstood by citizens of countries without similar rights. It is the main reason I think, that this country has never been invaded by a hostile army.

This whole "political" issue is a strange one to us Europeans. The necessity for guns (rifles etc.) in country areas is unquestioned. But the reasoning behind the need for "protection" guns is, to us, flawed. "It's in the constitution" is not rational. We fear that the politicisation of guns, and the resultant kneejerk ownership of guns puts people in a position more likely to use them un-necessarily. Policing is another area of concern. They did have a pilot scheme to arm police in Britain in the 80s, in the wake of the miner's strikes, but it didn't get beyond the training stage. Truth be told, in my town, the vast majority of the police officers couldn't hit the proverbial barn door.

See, I don't know why we can't talk about these things like adults, without getting judgemental, go through the pros and cons and moral philosophical dilemmas. But we can't and so, was it maybe 4 years ago, or 5, or 6 (?) any possible whiff of contentious topics was banned 'round these parts.

 

[Spitfire]

With all the guns floating around, it's easy to understand that even the most common crook in USA feels the need to arm himself.

I know this is a cultural thing. But so is NOT to arm myself.
I actually believe there are more people on this earth who believes in NOT ARMING themselves to the teeth - than the opposite.
You might even argue that showing guns is a highly political thing. And might even be very offensive to a lot of people!

I realize now that this forum is more "american oriented" than international.
And it's my choice if I can take the smell or leave.

I also realize that people are fascinated by guns - as collectors items.
Like coins, watches, leatherjackets etc.
The only thing is, that it's very seldom you hear of people getting killed by a leatherjacket or a watch.

I will not buy the thought of: "If you don't like something, don't read threads about it".
I don't think the problems disappears just because I don't read about them.
"If you don't like porn - don't look at it!" "If you don't like domestic violence - don't read about it"
"If you don't believe in drugs - don't read about it"
Does it make any sense?
I don't think so.

Finally: I refuse to be censored just because having guns is a cultural thing, which is NOT to be argued with.
And I still need an explanation from those who did it.

 

[Two Types]

Back on the point about widespread gun ownership preventing invasion, I would ask this question? Did the Nazis invade France in 1940? Yes. Was there wide ownership of firearms (shotguns and hunting rifles, particularly in rural areas) in France at that time. I believe so. (Nowadays, there are reported to be nearly 20 million firearms in France - in a population of under 7-0 million).

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I feel the same way when they close the heavy metal threads. You get used to it.

Yes, I remember starting a thread a while back on Evil Psychiatry which was closed down. At the time I admit I was a bit peeved but now I have a big laugh whenever I think about it.

 

[herringbonekid]

I also find it quite strange - and disturbing - that this forum allows members to show their deep fascination with guns, rifles and what have you - but as soon as somebody talks against that, they are censored.

I personally find the tendency to glorify violence and weapons very disturbing. Yet it seems to be an integral part of the national identity of many US Americans.

i also find the glorification of guns disturbing and the arguments against the dissenting voices all have the same mantra-like quality e.g. "guns don't kill people, people do !" etc etc.

however, i'm now of the opinion that U.S. gun ownership and gun worship is one of those deeply ingrained cross-Atlantic differences that most Europeans will simply never understand, a bit like monster truck rallies and Cheese Whiz.

 

[Spitfire]

however, i'm now of the opinion that U.S. gun ownership and gun worship is one of those deeply ingrained cross-Atlantic differences that most Europeans will simply never understand, a bit like monster truck rallies and Cheese Whiz.

I think you are ever so right!

 

[Chasseur]

I am a little torn here. I am an American, I am a firearms owner, and fairly avid hunter (hence my name...). I would not consider myself a “gunnut” in the conventional sense (I am not waiting with 6 machine guns for when the black helecopters from the UN come get me, etc.). I have many, many European friends who also own firearms and are not much different than myself. I go hunting myself in Europe most years.

However, I make a conscious decision on my part to avoid doing much involving firearms on this forum because I do not feel this what the bulk of this forum is about. I can go to a firearms or hunting forum and talk about those things there. I also know there are people here who are bothered by firearms or hunting so I do not post or comment on much on those topics. I come here (like many I think) to talk about clothes and other things from the 1920s-50s.

However, there are many aspects about the “Golden Era” on this forum that do interest people that I have no interest in: leather jackets, Nazi militaria, some of the really fine details on hat construction, collecting old records, our endless threads on “why today/people/things etc today are bad”, etc. However, it does not really bother me if people talk about those things so I just do not go to those threads. I am not sure why people who do not like firearms cannot simply not look at those threads? Provided we keep the firearms stuff to their proper threads and I think the mods do a good job at that (I am thinking of some of our adventurer gear threads that Scotrace did a good job keeping in line).

Just my thoughts.