America is a young country with precious little mythology. We were a frontier nation, and our land was claimed by the gun. So no, getting your first gun isn't a rite of passage or anything, but it does offer (to some) a connection to our cattle-driving, Injun-killin' past.

What he said. If you're in a family that hunts as a hobby, it's pretty big deal, but otherwise I doubt most kids get a gun.

I grew up in rural Vermont where firearms were (and still are) considered just one more tool to use on the farm. My grandfather was an avid hunter and taught me how to shoot rifles, shotguns and handguns. He had a 16 gauge pump shotgun leaning in a corner in the kitchen for as long as I can remember. We never touched it without his permission, of course. Just like we didn't mess with the splitting axe or other dangerous tools in the barn.

I remember getting my first .22 bolt action rifle distinctly. It was indeed a coming of age moment for me. The smell of gunpowder and Hoppes #9 solvent still remind me of being a kid in rural Vermont.

I live in perhaps one of the most anti-firearms states in the country now: Massachusetts. 7 months ago I had the urge to get back into hunting and target shooting. I went into a store and tried to buy a 12 gauge and was basically laughed at. Here we have to go through an extensive licensing application in order to even possess a single round of .22 ammunition.

Growing up in a "free state" like Vermont I guess I took my freedoms for granted. I was outraged and went through the application process for my license to carry concealed in MA. I finally got my class A license a couple of months ago and am a proud gun owner who believes that a society is not truly free unless its citizens have the ability to arm themselves and protect themselves from their own government.

I know only a handful of people in MA who own guns. None of my neighbors or close friends do. Most would probably be horrified to know that I am not only a gun owner, but an enthusiastic hunter:

Cheers to all of you who choose exercise your constitutional right.

I'm in Kentucky...we like our guns. I'm more of a suburban kid by Kentucky standards, but spent many-a-weekend shooting just about anything that moved on my friends' farms. I got my BB gun on my 10th birthday and shot the metal light pole in my front yard everyday for several years. I've never been hunting (I'm a fisherman, myself), but it is as much of the culture in this state as Kentucky basketball, bourbon, and horseracing.

Incidentally, growing up with guns so common along with responsible adults modeling proper behavior really does bias my view against gun control. I'm pretty objective on most political topics, but almost always come down on the gun-ownin' folks side of this game. Then again, there are two vastly different worlds between Western Kentucky and inner-city DC....that's a tough political beast to legislate fairly.

EDIT:

I guess pheasant, maybe a dove. Either way, shooting chickens isn't exactly very sportsmanlike, but who am I to judge what happens in Vermont?

Wordy, don't forget competitive shooting. Skeet, trap, cowboy action, benchrest target, ISPC, rapid-fire target (still an Olympic event), silhouette, and plenty of others I'm sure.

Yeah, I guess I sort of broadly characterize that into the same group of hunting, but didn't ahve a good word for it. How about a category of "legally shooting things for fun"?

Self-defense is not a complete defense against criminal accusations, though. There are factors -- and I bet looking for a fight in which you could shoot someone probably counts as a factor.

Ok I understand the whole part about hunting, culture and defense (self and from government) for wanting guns but where I get lost in this debate is the disagreement on licensing. So are you for or against that part? From your example you were still able to get your gun but it wasn't just as easy as 'Hey I feel like owning a gun today' and having it done same day in a jiffy. Personally I'm for registration and licensing that keeps guns in the hands of people who seriously want to have them for the positive reasons previously stated in the thread.

That, and a license is just permission from the government to do something, in this case own a gun. Requiring government permission to defend against an oppressive government doesn't exactly satisfy the need.

No! The neighbors' chickens are strictly off limits unless you're REALLY hungry.

That's a ruffed grouse:

Most hunters in New England call them partridge. They're only shot on the wing (again, unless you're really hungry), meaning you flush them and take them as they fly with a shotgun. They're very very tasty: delicate pale meat with no fat whatsoever.

A right isn't a right if your government charges you for a license to exercise it. Do you need a license to practice the religion of your choice? Do you need a license to gather in public spaces? To speak or publish freely? No. The individual right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment. Any erosion of this right, or our other constitutional rights, is absolutely unacceptable.

Interestingly, our Supreme Court has spoken on this issue:

"No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor." --Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court, 1943.

"The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional." --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]

Basically, what MA is doing is illegal but no one wants to touch the issue. In MA, I paid $100 and had to register my fingerprints with a national database. I am a law abiding citizen who has never had so much as a parking ticket. [EDIT: Oops. I'm like a serial parking offender in MA. I meant speeding ticket!!] This is outrageous in my opinion.

Also, MA is a "may issue" state that is controlled by local fiefdoms of PD chiefs. If my local chief deems me "unsuitable" for any reason, he can revoke my license period. I have no recourse, I see no day in court. I just get a letter in the mail requiring me to surrender my firearms, or give them to someone with a license. Of course, you know as well as I do that "unsuitable" can mean anything. For example, I know of cases of minorities having a very hard time getting licenses in the same towns whites get them relatively easily.

I do believe that guns should not be in the hands of criminals, but requiring licensing doesn't do that. If a criminal wants a gun they can get a gun, and a person who wants to break the law with a gun is not going to care at all about a stupid licensing law.

The only thing licensing does is make it difficult and sometimes impossible for the average law abiding citizen to own a gun. And it's a slippery slope. If you look at anti-gun legislation in places like the UK you'll notice a gradual erosion of gun owner's rights lead directly to an all out ban.

You need a permit for mass gathering in public places, no?

So many guns and not one of those nutters has managed to put a round into Cheney yet? Boggles the mind.

edit: double post.

Because they broke the law.

Right, but the 2A isn't there to protect or encourage unlawful coups. It's there to preserve the right to protect oneself from harm; from tyranny. It doesn't do away with democratic processes, or render null and void other articles and amendments.