HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » I just had to turn off Ra...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:20 PM

I just had to turn off Rachel Maddow.

She's starting of on a rant about guns, citing a few killings that happened over the past week. I don't know what it is about some people on the left that they lose the capacity for rationality when guns are involved. If you rounded up a list of half a dozen murders where the perpetrator was on drugs, most rational people would recognize that that isn't evidence that all drugs are evil; if you rounded up a half dozen murders where the perp used a knife, that wouldn't be used as evidence to ban all sharpened metal; and yet, some people suddenly think that anecdotes become data when guns are involved.

I really wonder how long this is going to persist before more people in the party finally get it through their head that this is a dead issue. A large majority of Americans are on the other side, and it's been getting larger for decades. Hell, even 55 percent of DEMOCRATS polled have a positive view of the NRA. The continued hardon some people in the party have for banning every modern weapon and punishing the hundred million gun owners in this country is pure 195 proof electoral poison.

256 replies, 53033 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 256 replies Author Time Post
Reply I just had to turn off Rachel Maddow. (Original post)
TheWraith Apr 2012 OP
Gman Apr 2012 #1
rl6214 Apr 2012 #26
Gman Apr 2012 #46
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #53
ellisonz Apr 2012 #59
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #60
ellisonz Apr 2012 #63
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #68
ellisonz Apr 2012 #72
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #88
sarisataka Apr 2012 #169
COLGATE4 Apr 2012 #187
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #188
sarisataka Apr 2012 #196
sylvi Apr 2012 #83
ellisonz Apr 2012 #89
sylvi Apr 2012 #115
ellisonz Apr 2012 #125
Straw Man Apr 2012 #133
ellisonz Apr 2012 #136
gejohnston Apr 2012 #142
Straw Man Apr 2012 #145
ellisonz Apr 2012 #150
ellisonz Apr 2012 #149
sylvi Apr 2012 #146
ellisonz Apr 2012 #151
sylvi Apr 2012 #155
ellisonz Apr 2012 #160
Straw Man Apr 2012 #166
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
trumad Apr 2012 #222
Straw Man Apr 2012 #244
sylvi Apr 2012 #144
Gman Apr 2012 #107
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #109
sylvi Apr 2012 #112
Gman Apr 2012 #114
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #118
Gman Apr 2012 #120
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #126
sylvi Apr 2012 #140
Gman Apr 2012 #152
sylvi Apr 2012 #156
Marengo Apr 2012 #193
Becka2515 Apr 2012 #179
shadowrider Apr 2012 #181
Meiko Apr 2012 #190
Meiko Apr 2012 #189
Gman Apr 2012 #76
gejohnston Apr 2012 #84
Gman Apr 2012 #94
sylvi Apr 2012 #105
gejohnston Apr 2012 #106
Gman Apr 2012 #116
gejohnston Apr 2012 #119
Gman Apr 2012 #122
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #97
yamihere Apr 2012 #159
Gman Apr 2012 #161
yamihere Apr 2012 #171
rl6214 Apr 2012 #202
ellisonz Apr 2012 #2
TheWraith Apr 2012 #8
ellisonz Apr 2012 #14
gejohnston Apr 2012 #35
ellisonz Apr 2012 #56
gejohnston Apr 2012 #71
ellisonz Apr 2012 #79
gejohnston Apr 2012 #90
ellisonz Apr 2012 #103
gejohnston Apr 2012 #113
discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #54
ellisonz Apr 2012 #57
discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #108
elleng Apr 2012 #3
TheWraith Apr 2012 #7
elleng Apr 2012 #12
ellisonz Apr 2012 #15
elleng Apr 2012 #17
ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2012 #124
elleng Apr 2012 #129
ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2012 #131
elleng Apr 2012 #135
eqfan592 Apr 2012 #227
elleng Apr 2012 #233
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #132
elleng Apr 2012 #134
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #137
elleng Apr 2012 #143
SATIRical Apr 2012 #191
Straw Man Apr 2012 #18
ellisonz Apr 2012 #48
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #98
ellisonz Apr 2012 #104
Straw Man Apr 2012 #128
ellisonz Apr 2012 #130
Straw Man Apr 2012 #138
petronius Apr 2012 #139
ellisonz Apr 2012 #148
petronius Apr 2012 #153
ellisonz Apr 2012 #154
petronius Apr 2012 #157
ellisonz Apr 2012 #158
Straw Man Apr 2012 #164
ellisonz Apr 2012 #165
Straw Man Apr 2012 #167
ellisonz Apr 2012 #168
Straw Man Apr 2012 #170
ellisonz Apr 2012 #173
beevul Apr 2012 #178
Straw Man Apr 2012 #209
petronius Apr 2012 #194
Straw Man Apr 2012 #162
derby378 Apr 2012 #212
X_Digger Apr 2012 #240
rl6214 Apr 2012 #31
Clames Apr 2012 #22
elleng Apr 2012 #25
rl6214 Apr 2012 #30
elleng Apr 2012 #33
DCBob Apr 2012 #28
elleng Apr 2012 #36
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #39
DCBob Apr 2012 #62
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #64
DCBob Apr 2012 #67
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #74
DCBob Apr 2012 #78
Straw Man Apr 2012 #141
hack89 Apr 2012 #70
DCBob Apr 2012 #77
hack89 Apr 2012 #82
DCBob Apr 2012 #85
gejohnston Apr 2012 #92
hack89 Apr 2012 #93
DCBob Apr 2012 #175
gejohnston Apr 2012 #176
hack89 Apr 2012 #182
DCBob Apr 2012 #184
hack89 Apr 2012 #195
DCBob Apr 2012 #197
rl6214 Apr 2012 #205
DCBob Apr 2012 #211
DonP Apr 2012 #110
ManiacJoe Apr 2012 #111
Straw Man Apr 2012 #147
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #100
oneshooter Apr 2012 #121
SATIRical Apr 2012 #192
Johnny Rico Apr 2012 #198
elleng Apr 2012 #200
shadowrider Apr 2012 #201
Johnny Rico Apr 2012 #204
Johnny Rico Apr 2012 #203
DURHAM D Apr 2012 #4
Siwsan Apr 2012 #5
TheWraith Apr 2012 #11
baldguy Apr 2012 #219
gejohnston Apr 2012 #229
baldguy Apr 2012 #230
WinniSkipper Apr 2012 #237
baldguy Apr 2012 #242
gejohnston Apr 2012 #243
baldguy Apr 2012 #245
gejohnston Apr 2012 #246
baldguy Apr 2012 #250
beevul Apr 2012 #251
baldguy Apr 2012 #254
beevul Apr 2012 #256
WinniSkipper Apr 2012 #253
TheCowsCameHome Apr 2012 #6
Clames Apr 2012 #9
tosh Apr 2012 #10
hlthe2b Apr 2012 #13
Clames Apr 2012 #16
hlthe2b Apr 2012 #19
Clames Apr 2012 #24
elleng Apr 2012 #27
Clames Apr 2012 #32
elleng Apr 2012 #47
ellisonz Apr 2012 #61
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #42
elleng Apr 2012 #49
hlthe2b Apr 2012 #40
beevul Apr 2012 #172
hlthe2b Apr 2012 #174
beevul Apr 2012 #177
hlthe2b Apr 2012 #180
beevul Apr 2012 #185
X_Digger Apr 2012 #241
ellisonz Apr 2012 #51
DCBob Apr 2012 #20
Clames Apr 2012 #29
rl6214 Apr 2012 #38
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #43
gejohnston Apr 2012 #45
DCBob Apr 2012 #65
gejohnston Apr 2012 #80
eqfan592 Apr 2012 #228
shadowrider Apr 2012 #249
hack89 Apr 2012 #66
DCBob Apr 2012 #73
hack89 Apr 2012 #75
DCBob Apr 2012 #81
hack89 Apr 2012 #86
DCBob Apr 2012 #91
hack89 Apr 2012 #95
gejohnston Apr 2012 #96
PavePusher Apr 2012 #213
rl6214 Apr 2012 #206
ileus Apr 2012 #21
elleng Apr 2012 #23
southernyankeebelle Apr 2012 #34
gejohnston Apr 2012 #41
southernyankeebelle Apr 2012 #44
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #50
Gman Apr 2012 #87
gejohnston Apr 2012 #99
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #101
Gman Apr 2012 #117
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #123
PavePusher Apr 2012 #214
gejohnston Apr 2012 #58
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #102
southernyankeebelle Apr 2012 #183
WinniSkipper Apr 2012 #207
southernyankeebelle Apr 2012 #208
WinniSkipper Apr 2012 #215
southernyankeebelle Apr 2012 #218
WinniSkipper Apr 2012 #216
southernyankeebelle Apr 2012 #220
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #210
hack89 Apr 2012 #69
southernyankeebelle Apr 2012 #186
baldguy Apr 2012 #221
hack89 Apr 2012 #223
baldguy Apr 2012 #226
gejohnston Apr 2012 #231
baldguy Apr 2012 #232
gejohnston Apr 2012 #234
baldguy Apr 2012 #238
hack89 Apr 2012 #235
TomClash Apr 2012 #37
elleng Apr 2012 #52
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #55
ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2012 #127
Simo 1939_1940 Apr 2012 #163
Meiko Apr 2012 #199
Paladin Apr 2012 #217
shadowrider Apr 2012 #224
baldguy Apr 2012 #225
shadowrider Apr 2012 #236
baldguy Apr 2012 #239
Clames Apr 2012 #247
Simo 1939_1940 Apr 2012 #248
fightforfreedom123 Apr 2012 #252
fightthegoodfightnow Apr 2012 #255

Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:21 PM

1. Gun nuts

perpetually paranoid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:02 PM

26. Anti-gun zealots

 

perpetually ignorant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #26)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:30 PM

46. Why so defensive? Why so paranoid?

Most gun owners I know that think they're some kind of bad ass would shit their pants if they were ever in a situation where they thought they had to use their gun.

LOL! Zimmerman is the perfect example. Overreacted, shit his pants and the damage is done.

Typical gun nut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #46)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:37 PM

53. So you were there that night and saw everything

 

Have you come forward and told investigators everything that happened? Can we expect you to be called as a witness for the prosecution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AH1Apache (Reply #53)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:46 PM

59. What's your point? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #59)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:49 PM

60. The point I'm making to that poster

 

is that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers. It just amazes me that people who were not there think they know everything that happened that night. Myself, I'm going to wait until I hear all the evidence before I pass judgement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AH1Apache (Reply #60)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:55 PM

63. Well...

It's not like we know nothing...so yes, people are entitled to have an opinion about the event - it is not a blank slate. He get's innocence before the law, but not in the court of public opinion. There's not too much evidence that we haven't seen in all fairness...

I for one think he won't be convicted because there were no witnesses and thus it's going to be very hard to prove beyond a "reasonable doubt."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #63)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:00 PM

68. I never said people aren't entitled to an opinion

 

I think you are correct about him not being convicted because the Special Prosecutor aimed to high with her 2nd Degree Murder charge, in my humble opinion, she should have gone for Manslaughter which would have been easier to prove.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AH1Apache (Reply #68)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:03 PM

72. I agree...

...people wanted a murder charge, and she gave them what they wanted. I don't think he'll plea either.

See, I'm reasonable. You really should reconsider your approach to the gun issue. Pragmatism is much better than dogmatism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #72)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:17 PM

88. You are right

 

she gave them what they wanted and now she will probably lose the case.
I never considered you unreasonable and if I came across that way, I apologize.
I just think your wrong on the definition of the 2A just as you think I'm wrong.
My beliefs on the 2A are deep seated and I seriously doubt that I will change my mind any time soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AH1Apache (Reply #88)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 03:25 AM

169. Could she get a conviction on...

manslaughter as a lesser included charge.

I had the same thought when I saw the press conference- why murder, that will be hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #169)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 10:56 AM

187. Absolutely. Under Fla law, Murder 2 always carries

the possibility of a jury finding guilty in a lesser included offense. I think that's her strategy - plead Murder 2 and go for Voluntary Manslaughter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #187)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 10:58 AM

188. I believe you are correct.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #187)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:36 PM

196. That would make sense...

after all the drama I wondered why does he just walk in and give up--- unless a deal is in the works

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #63)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:15 PM

83. "Zimmerman is the perfect example."

 

When you cite something to back up an assertion, it certainly comes across as stating it as fact.

Otherwise it's what, an opinion backing up an opinion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #83)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:17 PM

89. 1. That's GMan's statement.

Also, I can't help you if you can't tell the statement of a "fact" from an opinion. Are you a fact machine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #89)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:02 AM

115. Yes it's Gman's statement

 

That's what this sub-thread is about. Then Apache commented on how Gman was making it sound like he had all the facts. Then you responded about how it was only an opinion. Then I responded to you about why how it sounded as if he was asserting it as fact. Now you're simply declaring it again as an opinion while Gman is downthread declaring that's he's stating facts.

I think it's you who can't tell one thing from another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #115)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:13 AM

125. This ain't no court of law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #125)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:25 AM

133. It's not a debating society either, apparently.

Is there anything else that it's not? A cocktail party? A support group? A soapbox?

♪ ♫ ♪ Tea for two, and two for tea ... ♫♫ ♪

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #133)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:28 AM

136. Ain't no feckin' Tea Party neither...

You want Tea Party go to Free Republic!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #136)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:40 AM

142. wrong tea party

this is what he was referring to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #142)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:43 AM

145. Actually, I was referring to the dexterity of his tap-dancing.

It's a Johnny Carson reference. I'm an old guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #145)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:06 AM

150. It was low hanging fruit...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #142)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:05 AM

149. What's the difference?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #136)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:44 AM

146. Ah yes, the ad hominem

 

The last refuge of every internet debater who's exhausted their last bit of sophistry and circular argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #146)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:07 AM

151. I like how you charge ad hominem...

...and then go with an ad hominem. Where have I seen that before?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #151)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:43 AM

155. The difference is

 

I attacked every one of your arguments until you finally gave up debating and went to the easy but dishonest, "you're a Tea Partier" insinuation. That signaled to me that the debate was over, and since you elected to stop arguing the point and fall back on insults instead, I'm perfectly free to give my opinion of your behavior, which is an accurate one, apparently.

You're not very good at this, really. Normally, I'd advise someone out of pure sympathy not to embarrass themselves. But you seem to have no problem with it, so knock thyself out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #155)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:17 AM

160. Dodgers 9 - Padres 8

Padres pitchers walked 4 straight batters to blow a tie in the bottom of the ninth.

I obviously have better things to do than debate in depth people with their own agenda. The hilarious thing is that the Tea Party line was in response to a post that mention tea parties that was made by a poster other than yourself. Keep on playing those games - NRA types seems to like games!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #160)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:42 AM

166. Keep on tappin' ...

♬ ♪ ♪ Singin' in the rain, ♪ ♪ just singin' in the rain ... ♪ ♪ ♬

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #133)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:41 AM

222. .

At Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:07 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

It's not a debating society either, apparently.

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

implying a DUer is a Teabagger.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:38 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Fucking Gun threads---Let's make them immune to the alert button and juries and let them just kill each other. trumad
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The post adds nothing to the discussion, but does not seem to be over the top.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trumad (Reply #222)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 09:20 PM

244. Show and tell?

Isn't that special.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #125)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:42 AM

144. No one said it was

 

Nice try at misdirection though.

Well, actually it's not even a nice try. More like a complete fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #83)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:33 PM

107. It is a fact that

1) Z called Martin a fucking coon
2) Z was told not to follow Martin and did it anyway
3) Z had no visible injuries

Therefore he hated Blacks, overreacted, shit his pants and killed Martin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #107)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:38 PM

109. Wow

 

you seem to have it all figured out, shit, why should we even have a trial, according to you, he's guilty so let's just dispense with the trial and go straight to prison, do not pass go, do not collect $200.00. And here I thought that this was a progressive website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #107)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:49 PM

112. None of those three items are established facts

 

In fact, regarding point #2, the statement was, "We don’t need you to do that", from the 911 operator. That's far from a lawful police order to desist some activity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #112)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:54 PM

114. Sounded pretty clear to me from the 911 operator

Please don't say Z had no obligation to do what the 911 operator said. Surely you're not going there. I'm trying to cut you some slack here and give you a way out...

Are you trying to say Z was a bloody mess and his nose was on the side of his face? Well there's that little pesky video 40 minutes later where he looked just fine. Now, please don't go the "who you gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes" route either.

Jeez! Is there NO limb so thin that you guys won't crawl out on it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #114)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:04 AM

118. Apparently your the only

 

one who heard that clearly, Oh, I forgot, you and Hoyt were there that night and witnessed everything that went down.
So I guess that we are going to see you both called as prosecution witnesses, or, should we just skip the trial and go straight to the sentencing phase, or better yet, just send him to prison on you interpertation of what YOU think actually happened?
The stupid, it hurts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AH1Apache (Reply #118)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:09 AM

120. You bailed out because you can't counter the 911 tape

Or the video at the station. Both those things are indeed facts. He had no broken nose, he had no blood on him, his head was clean as a baby's ass. That's why he will go down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #120)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:15 AM

126. Riiiiiiiiiight

 

whatever you say dude, whatever you say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #114)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:38 AM

140. Well, I appreciate

 

your "trying to cut me some slack here and giving me a way out", but frankly, I really don't feel that challenged or intimidated by you or your argument. Thanks anyway.

As far as, "Please don't say Z had no obligation to do what the 911 operator said", it goes back to my original point of whether or not it was a valid police order vs. an informative statement. "We don't need you to do that". If I'm on the phone to a 911 operator and offer to come down to the station to file a police report, and they tell me, "You don't need to do that", does that mean I'm forbidden to do so?

With regard to that "pesky little video", you do know that it has since been enhanced and shows what many interpret as wounds to the back of his head, don't you?

"Are you trying to say Z was a bloody mess and his nose was on the side of his face?" Really? Do you think that kind of hyperbole adds to your argument? When you have a bleeding injury about the face or scalp, once hemostasis is achieved EMTs will often use disposable wipes made for that purpose to clean off smears of blood. Cops were bringing him in for an interview and don't especially like their subjects sitting around for hours with their faces still drenched in blood from a previous wound.

I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or not. He may well be a lying, murderous, racist thug. The difference is, I'm willing to look at all the evidence, or lack thereof, critically, and not assume facts not in evidence. I also reserve the right to point out facts not in evidence, asserted by others, as part of the discussion and let the chips fall where they may.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #140)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:24 AM

152. I wouldn't expect in the least for you

To be challenged or intimidated since I don't really expect you to stray from your canned responses or even realize you have no valid argument.

I'm sure Fox has some enhanced/altered video of Z with a crooked swollen nose and blood streaming down the back of his head. The facts are your boy didn't have a scratch on him and was nothing but a big pussy with a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #152)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:57 AM

156. LOL "canned responses"

 

Is that the Idiom Of The Day or something?

Falling back on the same opinions labeled as fact, over and over, while disregarding other possibilities or facts is the very epitome of a canned response.

You're welcome to the last word. I grow bored with what has become an exercise in futility with some of you True Believers™.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #114)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:44 AM

193. Did Z have a legal obligation to obey the 911 operator (or dispatcher) in question?

On this I am genuinely curious, as my research to date indicates he did not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #107)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 08:26 AM

179. You're wrong

 

1. I have heard the tapes and I didnt hear that word uttered
2. It was a 911 operator and they have no lawful authority to tell you to do anything, but if they did she said "you dont have to do that" thats not much like an order to me.
3. The video is inconclusive

I know you want to skip the fair trial part of this but you're just going to have to deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Becka2515 (Reply #179)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 08:32 AM

181. A point of correction

It was not a 911 operator. It was a civilian dispatcher who was called on a direct line, not through 911.

1. You are correct. It's been confirmed through voice analysis he said "F*cking cold"
2. Addressed
3. Video is inconclusive. We'll have to wait for trial to get EMT/hospital statements. (He went to the hospital the next day).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #107)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:20 AM

190. Wow!

 

All figured out huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #63)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:16 AM

189. I think it will come down to the forensics

 

What angle did the bullet enter Trayvon's body and how much distance was between them when the gun was fired. If the evidence shows Trayvon was standing and at greater than an arms length it's pretty much all over.IMHO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AH1Apache (Reply #53)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:06 PM

76. LOL!

I suppose Zimmerman was having his head bashed on the sidewalk, broken nose, almost suffocated, ad nauseum.... Z was so bloodied up, swollen nose, blood all over him.

"Well... It could happen...", they say.

Gun nuts just don't know the first rule of holes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #76)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:15 PM

84. I suppose NBC was totally honest in their

reporting, Oh wait.................
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120407/NATION/204070367#ixzz1rNqhQURz
and I bet Richard Jewel really was the Olympic Park bomber. Oh wait, it turned out to be a totally different guy that also bombed an abortion clinic.

I'm not pro Zimmerman, just anti trial by media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #84)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:20 PM

94. I read that canned response 2 weeks ago

How 'bout some intelligent response that's your's. Just like that other guy. All you gun guys seem to be able to do is regurgitate canned responses like an ape behind a computer screen reacting to symbols and getting a reward.

Think for yourself. And keep it relevant. Don't bring up the Rosenbergs either or Sacco and Vanseti.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #94)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:30 PM

105. Well,first of all

 

I don't know what the fuck you're babbling about, or who this "other guy" is. Secondly, I don't know who "the Rosenbergs or Sacco and Vanseti" are either.

The sub-thread addresses what is asserted as fact vs. what is given as opinion. Do you have cogent response to that, or is there another tangent you want to go off on?

On edit: Looks like I replied in the wrong place. I withdraw the comment with apologies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #94)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:30 PM

106. I wrote that canned response

the first time, so I do think for myself. I own it, I originally thought of it. Do you think for yourself? Jewel is relevant as far as trial by media goes.

All you gun guys seem to be able to do is regurgitate canned responses like an ape behind a computer screen reacting to symbols and getting a reward.

for some reason, the word projection comes to mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #106)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:02 AM

116. Yeah well Hurricame Carter was innocent too

Just like the Rosenbergs and Sacco and Vanzetti. What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #116)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:08 AM

119. Are you saying Hurricane isn't?

It was a prime example of trial by media. That makes it relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #119)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:11 AM

122. I actually think he was innocent

But that's beside the point.

Hell I went to the concert Dylan put on at the Astrodome for him. Probably the best show I ever saw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #76)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:22 PM

97. Just couldn't resist the insult could you?

 

Like I said, I'm going to wait for the trial before I make up my mind.
BTW, when you insult those of us that are gun owners, all you do is make yourself look like an idiot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #76)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:12 AM

159. How do you explain

 

Zimmerman's gun? It was a PF9 and after the shooting it was found to have a full magazine and a spent casing in the chamber. I like creative writing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yamihere (Reply #159)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:32 AM

161. Source???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #161)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 03:57 AM

171. Don't have one

 

But I figured since you are siting rumors that you have no proof of, like whether or not Zimmerman had a broken nose(unless there is an x-ray report out there I'm not aware of or you have x-ray vision), I could do the same. My goal is not to get into a pissing contest. I just wanted to point out that rumors and half truths could go both ways. I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or not. I don't want to jump to conclusions one way or the other. If it turns out he is guilty of murder, lock his ass up and throw away the key but don't convict him before the trial has even began. Hell the investigation hasn't even been completed and you got idiots out there like the rapist Mike Tyson calling for his head. I hate to say it but it looks like a bunch of race bating to me and most people are falling for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #46)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:29 PM

202. Not at all defensive or paranoid, just truthfull and showing that two can play that game.

 

Most gun owners I know, and I probably know a lot more than you do, don't think anything of the sort. If the ones you know do think that way, you obviously know the wrong type of people.

"LOL! Zimmerman is the perfect example. Overreacted, shit his pants"

Got any proof of this, a cite where he shit his pants or are you just talking out your ass?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:26 PM

2. Are you denying we have a problem with gun violence in this country? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:34 PM

8. I'm pointing out that the violence problem in the US isn't the result of guns.

Otherwise we wouldn't have seen a 30% drop in violent crime over the last 20 years while we also saw a 50% increase in the number of guns in private hands. Continuing to push a long-since debunked agenda, which is grossly unpopular with the public, doesn't do anyone any good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:42 PM

14. Really?

Try prove that statement. I don't think you can...

Also, I think most professional sociologists would dispute your claim that the decline in the violent crime rate is a result principally because of increasing number of guns in frankly just about the same percentage of hands. I think most people would credit other factors such as increasing economic equality, better policing, and better medical technology in reducing the effects of violent crime upon society. You can repeat that gunnerhood myth but it doesn't make it true...

It also depends on what statistics you're looking at in making such an assertion as a "30% drop in violent crime."


Violent crime rates in the United states per 100,000 population beginning in 1960. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:10 PM

35. you jumped to the conclusion

Also, I think most professional sociologists would dispute your claim that the decline in the violent crime rate is a result principally because of increasing number of guns in frankly just about the same percentage of hands.

He did not say that. He said gun sales are up and violent crime is dropping. You are the one leading to conclusions.

I think most people would credit other factors such as increasing economic equality, better policing, and better medical technology in reducing the effects of violent crime upon society. You can repeat that gunnerhood myth but it doesn't make it true...

According to Thom Hartmann, the income gap is growing wider. There are a number of factors. Canadian violent crime rates follow the same sine wave as ours. Ours go up and theirs go up, ours drops theirs drops.

It also depends on what statistics you're looking at in making such an assertion as a "30% drop in violent crime."

for example?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #35)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:43 PM

56. "He said gun sales are up and violent crime is dropping."

= correlation, not causation. Also, we know that to a great extent when we consider this statistic that it reflects the same people owning more guns to an extent.

According to Thom Hartmann, the Constitution of the United States does not empower the Supreme Court of the United States to determine the constitutionality of a law. I've never been a Thom Hartmann fan. What I said was a much broader statement than your considering...in particular, the economic prosperity of minority communities has increased on average. I should have said equality and prosperity, our standard of living as defined by a number of metrics is up on average.

See the graph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #56)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:02 PM

71. = correlation, not causation.

that is what I said. You are the one reading causation into it. Best way to track that is compare ownership license application rates in places like Illinois. If more people have FOIDs, then it is reasonable to assume more are buying guns.

Hartmann does not like Marberry v Madison. I agree with him about 80-90 percent of the time.

Minorities on average, could very well be. But a return to the gilded age would be a bad thing. That is why people in the cities in US and Europe "toted" while those in the "wild west" actually did not as a rule. They did not fear crime, so saw no reason to. They also had a stronger sense of community. It was also easier to feed yourself without money in the rural west, so there was less of a reason to turn to crime.

Here is an experiment. Compare the number of CCW permits in shall issue states like Florida or Louisiana relative to population. Then take a poll to see who carries concealed in say, Vermont (who never required a permit) or Wyoming (who had shall issue from 1995-2011. Now it is Vermont light.) I'm willing to bet Wyoming and Vermont will have lower percentages because of their lower crime. I am not saying more "toters" causes more crime, I'm saying more crime (or perception of) causes more "toters".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #71)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:09 PM

79. Sociologists calculate statistical significance too.

http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/sociology/statistics/stat_inf.htm

I never paid much mind to Hartmann and I certainly wouldn't pay him much mind on Marbury v. Madison!

You're such a rugged individualist, which given your background makes sense...

Vermont and Wyoming both have lower population density than Florida and Louisiana and are less urbanized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #79)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:19 PM

90. what is your beef with Hartmann?

You're such a rugged individualist, which given your background makes sense...

please explain, and what is a "rugged individualist"?

Vermont and Wyoming both have lower population density than Florida and Louisiana and are less urbanized.

I was not saying that they have lower crime because of any reason, just less likely to CCW because of less crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #90)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:29 PM

103. I'm not a talk radio fan.

You've never heard that phrase before? http://www.pinzler.com/ushistory/ruggedsupp.html

Who knows - I don't have the ability to analyze that accurately outside of GSS or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #103)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:53 PM

113. I have heard the phrase before

but not in that context. My example was of a safety net in the sticks (there were also social safety nets as well, remember I said greater sense of community. Check out the Grange movement, and where the Socialist Party had its best successes. Hint, North Dakota and Wisconsin). I see you post in outdoors as a hiker, I am wrong in guessing you picked up some of the same "outdoorsy" skills?

That sense of community is and was certainly at odds with Ayn Rand. In Ayn Rand's world, Coffeeville, KS, and Northfield, MN's, bank robberies would have been successful because there would be no sense of community.
I would not say I would be a "rugged individualist" in the same sense that Hoover meant it. Far from it. I learned about how bad the gilded age sucked in a book, like most people in the US. When I went to the Philippines, I saw it first hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:40 PM

54. What's this...

..."we" stuff? Are you pregnant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #54)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:45 PM

57. The royal "we" - the United States

Out of curiosity, what is funny to you about "are you pregnant"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #57)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:36 PM

108. Ha!

What would I expect from a Dodgers fan?

What's funny?... nothing really. I've always thought of the "are you pregnant" line as simple sarcasm.
Have a nice night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:26 PM

3. Sorry, Wraith, NO WAY I could have a positive view of the NRA,

and I don't know about hardons for banning every modern weapon and punishing the hundred million gun owners in this country, tho I do think that prohibiting MANY from owning guns would be a positive public policy, and I do think that keeping arms created for killing during WARS should be banned from the streets of the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:33 PM

7. We don't have military weapons on our streets.

Despite the deliberate conflation of fully automatic assault rifles with semi-automatic "assault weapons," there are in fact relatively few military weapons in civilian ownership.

I don't like the NRA either, but the reality is that according to polling even a majority of Democrats don't feel the same. Continuing to slam the solid 60-80% majorities of the country which support current laws isn't doing us any favors.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=11545

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:40 PM

12. Excuse me. 'Assault weapons.'

Doesn't change my position, and I suspect majorities of the country would agree with my position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:43 PM

15. God help you now...

...they're going to play a semantic game and say you don't know what you're talking about and therefore you can't have an opinion. This is the way of the gun nut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:49 PM

17. Well, no one's been able to remove my ability to have an opinion, yet,

after all these years, ellisonz, and I sure ain't scared NOW!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:13 AM

124. Uninformed and as rationalizing at it may be...

Facts matter. It is not just semantics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #124)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:18 AM

129. Yes, facts matter.

Guns kill people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #129)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:23 AM

131. VPC mantras and rationalizing are not valid arguments

Humans kill humans with guns and lots of other things. Why is the more important concern. How is often a matter of convenience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #131)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:27 AM

135. It is MUCH too often TOO convenient

for people to kill people with guns, and they do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #135)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:58 AM

227. Still doesn't seem to make a difference

Major gun control laws in other nations have not had an impact on their violent crime rates (their rates were already low to begin with, and passage of the laws did not have a significant impact).

The simple fact is that if we want to combat violent crime, we need to stop messing around with the poison pill of gun control (that fails to actually do anything to the violent crime rate) and start spending that political capital on things that WILL impact it (education, job creation, etc.).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eqfan592 (Reply #227)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 12:53 PM

233. Of course education and job creation would go a long way;

not holding my breath. Mistake to think there is A recipe; as in education, MANY approaches are necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #129)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:24 AM

132. I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree

 

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.
I own several firearms and they have never killed anyone. Any tool can be misused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AH1Apache (Reply #132)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:26 AM

134. Yes, I didn't, of course, say 'ALL guns kill people.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #134)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:30 AM

137. You're right

 

you didn't say that and I didn't mean to imply you did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AH1Apache (Reply #137)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:41 AM

143. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #129)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:34 AM

191. Guns kill people like roads kill people

 

Actually, roads kill more people because sometimes the person is thrown from the vehicle and dies due to impact with the road.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:49 PM

18. The usual crap.

...they're going to play a semantic game and say you don't know what you're talking about and therefore you can't have an opinion. This is the way of the gun nut.

Yes. New rule: you are not allowed to ban something that you cannot define. "I said this, but I meant that" doesn't fly when you're defining felonies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:31 PM

48. Thank you for making my point.

"you are not allowed to ban something that you cannot define"

^^^^^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #48)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:23 PM

98. Why semantics are important in this debate

 

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

"Assault weapons - just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms - are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

The anti-gun crowd is well-known for using and abusing semantics to try and deceive people into supporting restrictions on things they do not understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #98)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:30 PM

104. *yawn*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #48)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:17 AM

128. Is that really your point?

Do you believe that it's acceptable for laws to be vaguely worded and not provide a clear definition of the items they seek to ban?

A: "Let's make possession of assault weapons a felony."
B: "What's an assault weapon?"
A: "You know -- one of those things. I know them when I see them."

If you can't describe the characteristics of what you want to ban, how are we supposed to have an informed discussion about it? The only possible conclusion is that you're not really interested in an informed discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #128)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:19 AM

130. Yes.

I stated:

God help you now...

...they're going to play a semantic game and say you don't know what you're talking about and therefore you can't have an opinion. This is the way of the gun nut.


So yeah, you're making my point...same old tired argument. Beat that horse...yeah. for you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #130)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:30 AM

138. Just so we're clear, ...

... you are in favor of legislation that bans something but doesn't define it.

What's it like living in a cartoon world?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #130)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:36 AM

139. You call it "tired" because you can't call it wrong. Of what value is an

opinion if you don't know the fundamentals of the topic (whether it's guns or anything else) you're opining on?

And, when one becomes aware of a deficiency of knowledge, does it make more sense to complain about the "tired argument", or to take advantage of the discussion to learn, and thus put one's own argument on a more solid foundation?


Caveat: one is of course allowed to have absolutely any opinion one wants on any topic under the stars. I haven't noticed claims here that a lack of understanding means a DUer "can't have an opinion." But I do question why someone wouldn't want to rectify that lack and continue in the conversation...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #139)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:03 AM

148. If you like...

I will gladly call it wrong.

It's the wrong argument about the topic, it's what is commonly known as a bait and switch, and it's not an argument that leads anywhere but a one-dimensional answer that is more characteristic of our political enemies than of progressive society.

You know what we mean when we assault weapons, we know what we mean when we say assault weapons, and so debating that point is fundamentally asinine and shows the lack of deep thought that is put into the gunnerhood mythology that is so popular in this group (which exists primarily as a holding cell for for the gun cultists).

Happy now?

(Note to jurors: I felt threatened and so I stood my ground. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #148)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:34 AM

153. You may do so gladly, but you do it mistakenly

Why would you think it asinine to suggest that participants in a discussion should strive to express themselves clearly, using accurate and specific terminology for topics of that discussion? I think discussion forums like this one can be informative (for example, I actually didn't know what assault weapon / assault rifle meant when I first came here, so I asked), but they work best when everyone pays attention and tries to both understand and communicate effectively.

Reread this subthread from the first post: even here there is a mixing of the term "assault weapon" with types of weaponry that are not included in that category. So this doesn't work:

"You know what we mean when we assault weapons, we know what we mean when we say assault weapons..."

I actually don't know what some gun control advocates mean, when they use words for which they clearly don't know the meanings, or mean something other than the common meaning. The only "lack of deep thought" here is thinking that that doesn't matter. Rather than argue for your right to use incorrect phrasing, why not learn from the discussion and thus enable yourself to better craft and express a position?

You should look up "bait and switch", by the way - it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means; although you may know what you mean by it, that doesn't do any good when what you mean isn't what it means to everyone else. See how this works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #153)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:43 AM

154. "I actually don't know what some gun control advocates mean"

Then you haven't been paying attention for 20+ years...

why not learn from the discussion and thus enable yourself to better craft and express a position?


Or you could just accept that it's a subjective term (which is how the dictionary uses it) rather than attempt to make it an entirely technical argument...which is then mocked and totally discounted as of being no use because god forbid the gun nuts accept that some weapons have no legitimate sporting or self-defense use.

Like I said, asinine...

And on Edit: The Gun Lobby plays games while people die because they can make a quick buck. That's the fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #154)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:59 AM

157. You may choose ambiguity over clarity if you prefer, of course

In truth, I don't see why you're staking out this particular position; it certainly doesn't lead to a strong argument or an effectively-expressed opinion if a poster is unable or unwilling to clearly say what they mean. But everyone gets to choose for themselves how to present their ideas...

(And as an aside, if you're going to quote me as your subject line you ought to do it honestly - not clip a part that alters the meaning. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #157)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:12 AM

158. Accepting a certain-level of ambiguity is part of life...

In honesty, you're much to well-spoken to fall for such intellectual traps; such as carrying on about how there is no such thing as an assault weapon and how there is no generally acceptable definition that can be used for the purpose of debating gun control policy. But everyone gets to choose for themselves their own political ideas...

(The meaning was not altered, it simply brought the argument you are making to the forefront. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #158)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:36 AM

164. And you want felony convictions based on ambiguous criteria.

How very progressive of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #164)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:41 AM

165. And you want the madness to continue...

How very (censored for jury purposes) of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #165)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:46 AM

167. Please identify the madness ...

... that I supposedly "want ... to continue." Then I can refute you. Otherwise it's just a bunch of sleazy innuendo.

Don't tell me "It's a subjective thing." That would be the most pathetic of cop-outs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #167)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:50 AM

168. Easy...



You can skip to 1:40 if your stomach is that weak...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #168)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 03:38 AM

170. The Brady Bill?

I thought we were talking about an assault weapons ban.

Bill is as vague as you -- "the madness" is a catchy buzz-phrase, sure, but what does it mean? I ask for specifics and this is what I get?

I reiterate -- you have no interest in substantive discussion. It gets clearer with every post you make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #170)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 04:44 AM

173. We're talking in general...

Bill is right. Bill signed with AWB. Bill was a great Democratic President.

I ask for specifics and this is what I get?


Still playing that game? That discussion has been had and the gunnerhood is incapable of discussing it beyond well we need pistol grips because they're ergonomic. Liars.

I reiterate - you have no interest in substantive discussion. It gets clearer with every post you make.

Also, doesn't it strike you as a little bit odd you're on a Democratic website touting the benefits of assault weapons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #173)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 08:20 AM

178. Why then...

"That discussion has been had and the gunnerhood is incapable of discussing it beyond well we need pistol grips because they're ergonomic. Liars."

Why then, does anyone want a pistol grip on a rifle, in your opinion?

And whats wrong with having one on a rifle, if anything?

Is there something so dangerous or threatening to public safety, in having one on a rifle, that they should be banned?



FWIW, I the rifles I own have traditional stocks, and are all rimfire. Some even have octagonal barrels - antiques.

And I don't carry a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #173)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 05:26 PM

209. Crap, crap, and more crap.

Still playing that game? That discussion has been had and the gunnerhood is incapable of discussing it beyond well we need pistol grips because they're ergonomic. Liars.

The discussion has not been "had" -- you refuse to have it. In fact, you're running from it as fast as you can.

Pistol grips are more ergonomic than straight stocks. That is a fact, not a lie. As for the "need" aspect, that is relative and subjective, but banning something merely because someone doesn't "need" it is more characteristic of a totalitarian state than a democratic one. Show me the inherent danger in ergonomic rifles. Are they too easy to fire? OK, let's mandate that rifle stocks be embedded with ground glass and covered with motor oil. That should slow the "gunnerhood" down some.

Also, doesn't it strike you as a little bit odd you're on a Democratic website touting the benefits of assault weapons?

Does it strike you as a bit odd that you're on a Democratic website calling for unclear laws that can be applied at the whim of law enforcement?

"Assault weapons" my ass. Let's just call them "modern rifles." See how that game works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #158)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:02 PM

194. Clarity and precision is especially important in the context of policy

Assume for the sake of argument that there really is a subcategory of firearms that require special legislative treatment. The aspects and features that require that special treatment would therefore be usable as a definition, to discriminate the guns that do need treatment specially from those that do not. This delineation would be essential in crafting appropriate legislation, and very useful in explaining the need for it.

But if a clear definition, that accurately separates the special category from all the rest, can't be given, then the existence of that special category itself is called into question. If 'assault weapons' can't in fact be meaningfully described relative to other firearms, then maybe they're just all 'firearms' to be treated the same.

Gun control advocates want to ignore that last paragraph, I assume because they like the scary sound and resultant confusion of the 'assault weapon' moniker. Rather than discuss and explain why a so-called assault weapon needs special policy, they prefer to simply start from that unfounded assumption. But honest discussion starts from a clear understanding and expression of what's being discussed, so it's anything but a trap to point out misleading or ambiguous terminology, and to insist on clarity...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #154)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:33 AM

162. You don't know what you mean either, apparently.

Or you could just accept that it's a subjective term (which is how the dictionary uses it) rather than attempt to make it an entirely technical argument...which is then mocked and totally discounted as of being no use because god forbid the gun nuts accept that some weapons have no legitimate sporting or self-defense use.

So you say, "Some weapons have no legitimate sporting or self-defense use."

To which I say, "Which weapons?"

And you say, "Assault weapons."

So I say, "What's an assault weapon? Do you mean like an assault rifle? I thought those were already banned or strictly controlled."

And you say, "It's a subjective thing," and expect the discussion to end there. And you think we should have a felony on the books that is based on subjective criteria.

An "assault weapon" is a legal rather than a technical designation. It identifies a semi-automatic rifle that possesses certain ergonomic and cosmetic features that cause it to resemble a military rifle, although it does not have the full-auto capability of its military counterpart. Its military appearance offends some people, causing them to want to ban it. They succeeded in 1994, in an effort that had more to do with class snobbery than with public safety. That, in a nutshell, is/was the assault weapons ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #148)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 07:24 PM

212. I don't think it means what you think it means

In Washington state back in 2009 or 2010, someone tried to pass a bill where the humble pump-action shotgun would have been labelled an "assault weapon."

So yeah, your argument is moot. "Assault weapons" are whatever the gun-control lobby says they are, and it's subject to change like the weather. That's why we ask, because a lot of ordinary gun-control activists can't give an answer to the question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #139)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 03:43 PM

240. It's a 'noble' ignorance- why risk being 'tainted' by knowledge?

They're proud of their ignorance, they wear it like a badge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:06 PM

31. Talk about playing a "semantic game"...

 

This IS the way of the anti-gun zealot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:55 PM

22. They don't. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:00 PM

25. I don't believe they've been asked, properly.

Polls can be fashioned to ask ANYTHING, and they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:05 PM

30. The majority in the country don't know what 'Assault weapons' are...

 

military style weapons in this country aren't the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:09 PM

33. Which is why I conclude

that polls that appear to say a majority approves x,y,or z are highly unreliable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:03 PM

28. I suspect a strong majority would also support stricter controls of assault weapons.

but the NRA would never allow it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:10 PM

36. Right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:16 PM

39. Do you even know what an "assault weapon" is?

 

It can be anything from a hammer to a car. Now it your thinking of an assault rifle, those are strictly controlled and are rarely used in any crimes and are so expensive to purchase that the average gun owner can't afford them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AH1Apache (Reply #39)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:53 PM

62. The typical RW argument.

you cant define it.. and even if you did gun manufacturers would change the design slightly to get around the definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #62)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:56 PM

64. So you have no clue of what your talking about

 

Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AH1Apache (Reply #64)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:00 PM

67. if you dont know just search Google... that might help you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #67)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:05 PM

74. Your the one who made the claim about assault weapons

 

so do tell, what is an assault weapon? I already described what could be classified as an "assault weapon". Once again, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AH1Apache (Reply #74)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:09 PM

78. Trust me.. its easy.. just type in "assault weapon".. then press "search" button.

cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #78)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:39 AM

141. Is that what you were thinking of?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Or was it more like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

I ask because they are not the same thing at all, no matter how much the VPC wants people to think they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:02 PM

70. Why? What threat do they really represent?

are many people actually killed by them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #70)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:06 PM

77. Are many people killed by grenades?

I think not many so no need to worry about that either??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #77)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:13 PM

82. Are there millions of grenades in the hands of the public?

Because there are millions of semi-automatic rifled in the hands of the public right now - so tell me of the carnage that is being dealt by these weapons that requires they be banned immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #82)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:16 PM

85. who said "semi-automatics" were assault weapons??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #85)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:20 PM

92. If you are talking about "automatics"

check out the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #85)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:20 PM

93. The Assault Weapon Ban only applied to semi-automatic weapons.

Assault weapon is a made up term use by gun control advocates to describe semi-automatic rifles that look like military assault rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #93)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 07:16 AM

175. thanks, thats what I thought... and isnt it relatively easy to convert a semi-automatic..

into an automatic/machine gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #175)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 07:51 AM

176. No. Also

and any that can be easily converted to one is legally one under National Firearms Act of 1934. The mail order auto sear, if they exist, would also have to be registered under the NFA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #175)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 08:45 AM

182. Very hard

automatic weapons are regulated at the component level - any parts or kits that could turn a semi-auto into full auto are tightly regulated. On top of that, any gun that can be easily converted is regulated as an automatic weapon. Semi-automatic rifles are designed so they cannot be converted.

And lets not forget a basic fact - rifles of all kinds are very rarely used as murder weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #182)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:28 AM

184. There was DU discussion about this awhile back which suggested it was doable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #184)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:04 PM

195. Bump firing is not full auto

if it was, it would be illegal.

Instead of playing what ifs, how about you dig out some statistics showing the danger? How many people have been killed by full auto rifles in America? Rifles and shotguns account for about 3 percent of murders with semi-automatics being a fraction of that total - a total that is steadily going down. I don't see a real threat to society there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #195)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:37 PM

197. You are probably right about all of this but..

it still disturbs me that this country is armed to the teeth... especially the wacko RWingers and they cant wait for the shooting to begin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #175)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:57 PM

205. NO, it's not

 

you must watch a lot of television.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #205)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 06:27 PM

211. actually I dont.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #85)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:41 PM

110. Ummm, that's what "Assault Weapons" are - semi auto

The semi automatic versions offull auto miltary rifles. One trigger pull one shot. We were kind of assuming you knew that.

You know semi-auto, just like Grandpa's 1906 model Browning Auto 5?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #85)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:48 PM

111. That's revealing...

> who said "semi-automatics" were assault weapons??


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #85)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:46 AM

147. Who?

who said "semi-automatics" were assault weapons??

The Congress of the United States. They invented the term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #77)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:25 PM

100. Twice as many people are killed by hands and feet each year.

 

Every year about 300 people are killed in the United States using rifles of all kinds, let alone assault rifles.

This is about half as many people as are killed by hands and feet.

There is virtually no rifle crime problem in the US.

Logically, this makes sense. Rifles are difficult to conceal and thus not very conducive to planed, clandestine criminal behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:09 AM

121. "arms created for killing during WARS should be banned from the streets of the country."

Are these some of those arms?

Trapdoor Springfield rifle?

Krag rifle?

Springfield 1903?

M1 Garand?

M1 carbine?

Are these some of the arms you want to ban possession of?

Oneshooter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #121)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:38 AM

192. Don't forget the bayonet (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:50 PM

198. "keeping arms created for killing during WARS should be banned from the streets of the country"

 

Every one of these was created for killing during wars:

Springfield Trapdoor single shot carbine:


Brown Bess flintlock musket:


Bayonet:


Sword:
?1264723015

Tonga war club:


Do you stand by your statement, or do you wish to revise it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #198)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:14 PM

200. I stand by my statement,

arms created for killing during war should be banned from the streets of the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #200)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:28 PM

201. What if a war is fought with hammers and screwdrivers? Ban them too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #201)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:38 PM

204. The first wars were fought with sharp rocks and fire-hardened sticks. Ban them!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #200)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:31 PM

203. Ok...so we've established that you want to ban wooden clubs. What about arms that *weren't" created

 

for killing during war?

Baton:


Bowie knife:


Sporting flintlock:


Winchester 1892:


S&W .500 Magnum


Mini 14


If you do want to ban these, then why bring up the "made for war" issue in the first place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:28 PM

4. And I turned it up so I could hear it in the next room.

choices...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:32 PM

5. The issue isn't gun ownership - it is responsible vs IRRESPONSIBLE gun ownership

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:39 PM

11. Actually, the problem is drugs.

Or more accurate, the black market drug trade, same as the black market trade in alcohol during prohibition. The vast majority of murders in the US stem from gang activity to control the drug trade. You don't hear about those, because it's poor black and brown young men turning up dead in Chicago and Baltimore, but most likely around 60 to 75% of our murder rate comes from the black market. After prohibition, when there were dire predictions about how legalization of alcohol would create a massive spike in crime, you know what happened? Crime dropped by about two thirds, almost overnight. If we could get over our own failed policies, we wouldn't HAVE a problem. But some people insist on continuing to do the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:24 AM

219. There's no such thing as "responsable gun ownership"

For the average person in an urban or suburban environment, there is absolutely no reason to own or carry a handgun. The very act of having a handgun is irresponsible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #219)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 12:05 PM

229. the average person has more of a reason in a

urban environment, because there is the greater reason of being attacked. There is little reason in a rural environment. Individual circumstances vary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #229)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 12:10 PM

230. The only reason to carry a gun in a city is if you think humans should be treated as prey.

Civilized people have better ways of interacting with each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #230)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 01:36 PM

237. Or, one might think....

 

"The only reason to carry a gun in a city is BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO think humans should be treated as prey."

They're called criminals.

Now go ahead with the "The chances of being confronted are so absolutely minuscule" etc etc. that you should not need (pesky word - because CCW don't) a gun.

And then I say "And your chances of having an issue with a CCW are EVEN LESS" so why are you concerned?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinniSkipper (Reply #237)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 05:29 PM

242. That doctrine was once called "Mutual Assured Destruction"

And that label in appropriate for that idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #242)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 05:57 PM

243. has nothing to do with MAD

Mutual Assured Destruction, or mutually assured destruction (MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two opposing sides would effectively result in the complete, utter and irrevocable annihilation of both the attacker and the defender, becoming thus a war that has no victory nor any armistice but only effective reciprocal destruction. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment, and implicit menace of use, of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use by said-enemy of the same weapons against oneself. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any rational incentive either to initiate a conflict or to disarm (presuming neither side considers self-destruction an acceptable outcome).


Can you logically defend your position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #243)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 10:39 PM

245. You're afraid that some unnamed, unknown nefarious person is armed & will do you harm.

So you feel the need to arm yourself, which causes others to be afraid & arm themselves, and so on, and so on. This is based upon the theory of deterrence, according to which the deployment and implicit menace of the use of weapons is essential to threaten the enemy, in order to prevent the use of those same weapons by said enemy against oneself. And guns have the additional feature that anyone can be colored as the "enemy". After all, they might be carrying a gun!

It's really the perfect set up for an insane arms race, based on nothing but blind fear & ignorance - which we see being played out live on the 6 o'clock news every night. And unnecessarily takes the lives of tens of thousands of innocents each year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #245)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 10:50 PM

246. you get this where?

So you feel the need to arm yourself, which causes others to be afraid & arm themselves, and so on, and so on.

Me personally? No. In general, that is not how it works in the real world.

This is based upon the theory of deterrence, according to which the deployment and implicit menace of the use of weapons is essential to threaten the enemy, in order to prevent the use of those same weapons by said enemy against oneself. And guns have the additional feature that anyone can be colored as the "enemy". After all, they might be carrying a gun!

or muscle bound, knife, what ever. Still not MAD. A better description of MAD is if both are carrying grenades, no winners.

It's really the perfect set up for an insane arms race, based on nothing but blind fear & ignorance - which we see being played out live on the 6 o'clock news every night. And unnecessarily takes the lives of tens of thousands of innocents each year.

sounds like you have the blind fear going. Most of those who "armed up" can't legally have guns under current law. It is not "tens of thousands" and many are also gangsters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #246)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 06:52 AM

250. I'll make it simple for you: Zimmerman was afraid of "gangsters", so he carried a gun.

And he had a right - in your view - to shoot Martin, because Martin looked like a "gangster" to him and Martin might be carrying a gun. So Zimmerman anointed himself to be judge, jury and executioner for Martin.

Of course, now that the facts have come out we all know how absurd Zimmerman's story is.

Your problem is that you're making a whole host of assumptions - just like Zimmerman did - which simply aren't true. Every stranger is a "suspicious person", even if they're your neighbor. Every suspicious person is a "gangster", even when they're not. Every "gangster" carries a gun, especially when they don't.

There's no way for you to verify any of your assumptions, and given the situations most people find themselves in, they're generally not true. You and the other Zimmermans supporting these notorious CCW laws are constructing your arguments on a RW fantasy world and NRA lies which have no basis in reality. You go out into the world ready & willing to kill anything that startles you or makes you angry. And people - INNOCENT people, for the vast majority of cases - like Trayvon Martin die because of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #250)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 07:17 AM

251. Look whos talking. Thats a low personal attack baldguy. Even for you.

Just look at these words, for they are your own:

"There's no way for you to verify any of your assumptions..."

Then ask yourself how that sentence applies to these sentences also by you:

"And he had a right - in your view - to shoot Martin, because Martin looked like a "gangster" to him and Martin might be carrying a gun."

I very much doubt that GE has any view of the sort, or anything remotely resembling it. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.

Its your assertion after all. And a filthy one at that.


"You go out into the world ready & willing to kill anything that startles you or makes you angry."

Remember when you said ""There's no way for you to verify any of your assumptions..."?

Once again, its your assertion. Its up to you to substantiate it.

Look, Baldguy...we all know that this debate gets nasty...but you've just taken things to a new low, both debate wise, and on a personal level. And everyone who sees your post will know it.

"You and the other Zimmermans..."

If that doesnt constitute a personal attack, does anything, anymore?

Dislike guns all you like. Dislike those of us that disagree with you all you like.

But you should be completely ashamed of stooping as low as you now have.

Alerted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #251)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 08:21 PM

254. Your response amounts to little more than "I'm rubber and you're glue..."

Typical RW arguments do nothing to further your cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #254)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 09:49 PM

256. Nonsense.

"Your response amounts to little more than "I'm rubber and you're glue..."

Nonsense.

You uttered these words: "There's no way for you to verify any of your assumptions...", both before and after making your own assumptions about another poster.

Pointing that out, and illustrating for the entire world how much of a hypocrite you are for applying them to others but not yourself, is no more a "RW argument", than pointing out how asshole-ish, juvenile, and just plain mean your unfounded baseless assertions about another poster, that posters views, and that posters motivations were.

Which is to say not at all.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #242)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 12:59 PM

253. Wow. That's off base. NT

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:32 PM

6. *Pffft* A few killings here and there,

every goddamned day, week after week, month after month........

Today in particular wasn't very good for being face to face with a nut with a gun in my general area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:37 PM

9. I can't watch her...

 

...when she goes on one of her idiotic anti-gun tirades. Living proof that a high-level education is easily wasted by illogical bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:38 PM

10. "...they lose the capacity for rationality when guns are involved."

"...they lose the capacity for rationality when guns are involved."

This is exactly what I see from the other side of this debate.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:40 PM

13. Maybe when progressive gun owners do something to reign in the extremist actions of the NRA

Show me one piece of anti-gun legislation (gun control legislation) that Obama has championed. Just one.

There are none and yet, many of our own progressive gun owners join the far RW in backing NRA as they do everything possible to defeat Democrats. And you wonder why many of us really resent those who do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:45 PM

16. He championed plenty...

 

...during his first election campaign. AWB being the main one. There isn't a lot of support for anti-gun legislation as a whole really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:51 PM

19. While in office, he has championed ZERO gun control legislation. ZERO. again, ZERO

For those who still don't get it, the answer is STILL ZERO.

Some here are letting the RW and NRA push such BS against your own professed beliefs and interessts, that it leaves most of us here just shaking our heads.

Thomas Frank (What's the Matter With Kansas) should make his next book: What's the Matter With Progressive Gun Owners///

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:59 PM

24. Maybe he came to the realization...

 

...that the legislation that is typically brought up by the anti-gun crowd has ZERO. Again, ZERO impact on the criminal use of firearms. So what BS is getting pushed against whose professed interests? I think the Brady Campaign pushes a lot of BS on this particular topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:03 PM

27. More like has zero chance of passage,

given the untoward power of NRA and the Congress he's been dealing with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:08 PM

32. You must have missed...

 

...that little series about the myth of the NRA's power. No duh such legislation has little chance of passing, the American public majority doesn't care for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:30 PM

47. I don't believe their power is a myth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:53 PM

61. That was political power as defined by the ability to swing elections...

...and also the decreasing statistical relevance of guns in the American home, not straight "NRA power" in general. They have strength, but they do not have swing, no one that isn't for the NRA's extremist agenda already is going to be for it next year. It's like the gay marriage debate, people are just becoming more tolerant on average, doesn't mean the hateful aren't developing even more intense hatred.



http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/01/435437/the-myth-of-nra-dominance-part-iv-the-declining-role-of-guns-in-american-society/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:20 PM

42. But I thought that according to a certain poster here

 

that the NRA is not that influential at all, so which is it? Are they powerful or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AH1Apache (Reply #42)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:31 PM

49. They are; don't know about 'a certain poster.' Will check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:17 PM

40. Apparently it is ok that NRA supports only RWers and does everything possible to defeat Dems.

Allies with ALEC that has, among its extremist agenda, active efforts (unfortunately quite effective to date) to enact legislation to restrict voting and suppress the ability for young, old, impoverished, and minorities (overwhelmingly Democratic voters) to vote.


I am beyond disgusted that so many progressives KNOW this (whether they care to acknowledge or not) and STILL support NRA unquestionably.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #40)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 04:13 AM

172. Apparently its even believed by some that THAT is the truth.

The NRA endorsed 58 incumbent House Democrats these past midterms

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=197216&mesg_id=197906

"NRA Endorses Democrats Johnson and Herseth Sandlin."

http://madvilletimes.blogspot.com/2008/10/nra-endorses-democrats-johnson-and.html

(NASHVILLE, TN) — The National Rifle Association (NRA) has endorsed Senator Rosalind Kurita (D-Clarksville) in her write-in campaign for re-election to the 22nd district in the state Senate. The group had endorsed Sen. Kurita during her primary victory and has now endorsed her for the general election in November.


http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2008/10/06/nra-endorses-write-in-skeet-shooter


The National Rifle Association or NRA officially endorsed Governor Bill Richardson's re-election campaign today. Richardson spoke before a crowd of local, national, and even international competitors in the National Police Shooting Championships. He spoke about his recent training required to carry a concealed weapon.

http://www.kunm.org/news/archives/index.php?id=EEypkuFkAFyzvFubYE

NRA endorses Governor Schweitzer

http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=8386328&nav=menu227_3


And then there was John Tester.

And all of these:

Heres a bunch of NRA Endorsed Democrats...This is only 36 states worth.

(from a few years back)

(D) Howard Dean (D) Mark L. Doumit,(D) Jim Hargrove, (D) Jean Berkey, (D)Brian Hatfield, (D) Brian Blake, (D) William 'Ike' Eickmeyer, (D) Joe Baca, (D) Mike Schneider, (D) Barbara Buckley, (D)Genie Ohrenschall,(D) Ellen Koivisto, (D) John Oceguera, (D) Jerry D. Claborn, (D)Richard D. Perkins, (D) Mo Denis, (D) David Parks, (D) James Alexander, (D) Gino White, (D)Wendy Jaquet, (D) Mike McGrath, (D) Jim Elliott, (D) Lane L. Larson, (D) Kim Gillan, (D) Paul Clark, (D)Brennan Ryan,(D)George Golie, (D) Bill Wilson, (D) John W. Parker,(D) Margarett H. Campbell, (D) Ralph L. Lenhart, (D) Gary Matthews, (D) Monica J. Lindeen, (D)Gary L. Forrester, (D) Jayne Mockler, (D) Larry Caller, (D) Keith Goodenough, (D) Ross Diercks, (D)George W. Bagby,(D)Marty Martin, (D)Ann Robinson,(D) *Mary Meyer Gilmore, (D) Bill Thompson, (D) Jim Matheson, (D)Mike Dmitrich, (D) Eli H. Anderson,(D)Laren "Larry" C. Livingston, (D) Carl Duckworth, (D) Brad King, (D)Linda Aguirre, (D) Marsha Arzberger, (D)Pete Campos, (D)Shannon Robinson, (D)Mary Kay Papen, (D)Phil Griego,(D)Patricia Lundstrom, (D)Dona Irwin, (D)Andrew Nunez, (D) Joseph Cervantes, (D)Pauline Ponce, (D)Thomas Swisstack, (D)Bob Hagedorn,(D)Lois Tochtrop, (D) Liane "Buffie" McFadyen, (D)Max Sandlin, (D)Nick Lampson, (D) Henry Cuellar, (D) Mark Homer, (D) Chuck Hopson, (D) Jim McReynolds, (D) Robby Cook, (D) Dan Ellis, (D)Patrick M. Rose, (D) John Mabry, (D) David Farabee, (D) James "Pete" Laney, (D) Mike Villarreal, (D) Kevin Bailey, (D) Dan Boren, (D) Jim Wilson, (D) *Jeff Rabon, (D)Richard Lerblance, (D)Susan Paddack, (D) Charlie Laster, (D) Mike Morgan, (D) Jerry Ellis, (D)Glen "Bud" Smithson, (D)Neil Brannon, (D) Mike Brown, (D)Joe Eddins, (D) Ben Sherrer, (D)Barbara Staggs, (D)Ray Miller,(D) Terry Harrison, (D)Paul Roan, (D) John Carey, (D) Dale Turner,(D) Bob Plunk, (D) John Young, (D) Danny Morgan, (D) Joe Sweeden,(D) Terry Hyman, (D) Raymond McCarter, (D)David Braddock, (D) James Covey, (D) Purcy Walker, (D) Abe Deutschendorf, (D) Roy "Butch" Hooper, (D) *Joe Dorman, (D)Lucky Lamons, (D) Darrell Gilbert, (D) John Auffet, (D) *Debbie Blackburn, (D)Rebecca Hamilton, (D)Al Lindley, (D) Mark Gilstrap, (D)Chris Steineger, (D) Jim Barone,(D) Anthony Hensley, (D) Henry Helgerson, (D) Doug Gatewood, (D)Robert Grant, (D) Bill Feuerborn, (D) Jerry Williams, (D) James Miller,(D) Bonnie Sharp, (D) Tom Burroughs, (D) Margaret Long, (D)Candy Ruff,
(D) Harold Lane, (D) Jerry Henry, (D) Sid Regnier, (D) Jim Ward, (D) Janice Pauls, (D) Dennis Mckinney, (D)Stephanie Herseth, (D)Jim Peterson, (D) Gil Koetzle, (D) Garry Moore, (D) Frank Kloucek, (D) David Sigdestad, (D) Dawn Jaeger, (D) Gerald Lange, (D) Richard Engels, (D) Mary Glenski, (D) Gary Stodelmon, (D) Dale Hargens, (D) Paul Valandra, (D) Thomas James Van Norman, (D) Mike Wilson, (D) David O'Connell, (D) Larry Robinson, (D)Joel Heitkamp, (D) Dorvan Solberg, (D) Lyle Hanson, (D)Joe Kroeber, (D) Ole Aarsvold, (D)Ralph Metcalf, (D) Arden Anderson, (D) Bill Amerman, (D)Pam Gulleson, (D) Collin Peterson, (DFL) Kent Eken, (DFL) Loren A. Solberg, (DFL) Tom Rukavina, (DFl) Anthony "Tony" Setich, (DFL) David Dill, (DFL) Paul Marquart, (DFL) Mary Ellen Otremba, (DFL) Al Juhnke, (DFL) Lyle Koenen, (D) Leonard Boswell, (D) John Kibbie, (D)Dick Dearden, (D)Eugene Fraise, (D) Michael Gronstal, (D) Greg Stevens, (D) Marcella Frevert, (D) Dolores Mertz, (D) Roger Thomas, (D) Dick Taylor, (D) Geri Huser, (D) Jim Lykam, (D) Philip Wise, (D) Kurt Swaim, (D) Paul Shomshor, (D) Ike Skelton, (D) Victor Callahan, (D) Jim Whorton, (D) Rachel Bringer, (D)Wes Shoemyer, (D)Terry Witte, (D) Wayne Henke, (D) Thomas Green, (D) Gary Kelly, (D) Mike Sager, (D) Terry Young, (D) Ray Salva, (d)Paul LeVota, (D) Curt Dougherty, (D) Al Liese, (D) Allen Icet, (D) Tim Meadows, (D) Ron Casey, (D) Wes Wagner,(D) Harold Selby, (D) Belinda Harris, (D) Frank Barnitz, (D) J.C. Kuessner, (D) Terry Swinger, (D) Mike Ross, (D) Randy Laverty, (D) Jack Crichter,
(D)Jim Hill, (D) Jimmy Jeffres, (D)Gene Jeffress, (D) Percy Malone,
(D) Ken Cowling, (D) Robert Jeffrey, (D)Randy Rankin, (D) Lenville Evans, (D) Jay Bradford, (D)Scott Sullivan, (D) Dewayne Mack, (D)Bob Mathis,(D) Dawn Creekmore, (D) Dwight Fite, (D) Janet Johnson, (D) Sandra Prater, (D) Jeff Wood, (D)Will Bond, (D) Preston Scroggin,
(D)David Evans, (D) David Dunn, (D) Wayne Nichols,(D)Leroy Dangeau,
(D) Bill Stovall, (D) Charles Ormond, (D) Travis Boyd, (D) Dave Obey,
(D)Roger Breske, (D )Robert W. Wirch, (D) Julie Lassa, (D) Terry Van Akkeren, (D) John P. Steinbrink, (D ) Amy Sue Vruwink, (D) Marlin D. Schneider, (D)Barbara Gronemus, (D) Jerry Costello, (D) Pat Welch,
(D)William Haine, (D)Gary Forby, (D) Jack Franks, (D) Mike Boland,
(D)Patrick Verschoore, (D)Careen Gordon,(D)Frank Mautino, (D)Lisa Dugan, (D) Michael Smith, (D) Gary Hannig, (D) Robert Flider, (D) Kurt Granberg, (D) Bill Grunloh, (D)Steve Davis,(D)Jay Hoffman, (D) Thomas Holbrook, (D) Dan Reitz, (D) John Bradley, (D) Brandon Phelps,
(D)Gene Taylor, (D) Bud Cramer, (D) Sanford Bishop, (D) Tim Golden,
(D)Michael S. Meyer Von Bremen, (D) Steve Thompson, (D) Valencia Seay, (D)Steve Henson, (D) Mike Snow, (D) Barbara Massey Reece, (D) Buddy Childers, (D) Bill Cummings, (D) Jeanette Jamieson, (D) Don Wix, (D) *Stephanie Stuckey Benfield, (D) Hugh Floyd, (D) R. M. Channell, (D) Curtis S. Jenkins, (D) Lee Howell, (D) Robert F. Ray, (D) Bobby Eugene Parham, (D) Jimmy Lord, (D) Dubose Porter, (D) Johnny W. Floyd, (D) Greg Morris, (D) Penny Houston, (D) Ellis Black, (D) Ron Borders, (D) Jay Shaw, (D) Hinson Mosley, (D) Allen Boyd,
(D) Will S. Kendrick, (D) Dwight Stansel, (D) Sheri Mcinvale, (D) Lincoln Davis, (D) Jim Cooper, (D) Bart Gordon, (D) John Tanner, (D ) Tommy Kilby, (D ) Jerry W. Cooper , (D ) Jo Ann Graves, (D ) Rosalind Kurita,(D) Roy Herron, (D ) John S. Wilder, Sr., (D ) Harry Tindell, (D) Dennis Ferguson, (D ) Jim Hackworth, (D ) George Fraley, (D ) Frank Buck, (D ) John Mark Windle, (D ) Jere L. Hargrove, (D ) Charles Curtiss, (D ) Mike McDonald, (D) Stratton Bone, (D) Michael L. Turner, (D ) Ben West, Jr., (D ) Curt Cobb, (D ) Joe Fowlkes,(D) Eugene E. (Gene) Davidson, (D) David A. Shepard, (D) John C. Tidwell, (D ) Willie (Butch) Borchert, (D) Mark L. Maddox, (D) Phillip Pinion, (D) Craig Fitzhugh, (D) Ben Chandler, (D) Dennis L. Null, (D) Joey Pendleton, (D) Walter "Doc" Blevins, (D) Johnny Ray Turner, (D) Ray S. JonesII, (D) Denise Harper Angel,
(D ) Charles Geveden, (D) Fred Nesler, (D) Frank Rasche, (D) Mike Cherry, (D) *J.R. Gray, (D) *John A. Arnold JR., (D) *James E. Bruce, (D) *Joseph E. "EDDIE" Ballard, (D) Gross Clay Lindsay, (D) *Jim Gooch JR, (D)Tommy Thompson, (D) Brent Yonts, (D) Dottie J. Sims, (D) Jody Richards, (D) Rogers Thomas, (D) Rob Wilkey, (D) Jimmie Lee, (D) James H. Thompson, (D) Steve Riggs, (D) Perry B. Clark, (D) Robert R. Damron, (D) Rick W. Rand, (D) Royce W. Adams,(D) Charlie Hoffman, (D) Arnold R. Simpson, (D) Mitchel B. "Mike" Denham, (D) John Will Stacy, (D) Carolyn Belcher, (D) Don Pasley, (D) Adrian K. Arnold,(D)Susan Westrom, (D) Harry Moberly JR, (D) Rick Nelson, (D) Ted "TEDDY" Edmonds,(D)Ancel Smith, (D) W. Keith Hall, (D) Charles "CHUCK" Meade, (D) Robin L. Webb, (D) Hubert Collins , (D) Tanya Pullin, (D) Rocky Adkins, (D) Baron Hill , (D) Craig Fry, (D) Patrick Bauer, (D) Thomas Kromkowski, (D) Scott Pelath, (D) Dan Stevenson, (D) Chester Dobis, (D) Robert Kuzman, (D) Joe Micon, (D) Sheila Klinker, (D) Ron Herrell, (D) Ron Liggett, (D) Tiny Adams, (D) Terri Jo Austin, (D) Scott Reske, (D) Dale Grubb, (D) Clyde Kersey, (D) Alan Chowning, (D) Phil Pflum, (D) Peggy Welch, (D) Jerry Denbo, (D) Dave Crooks, (D) John Gregory Frenz A, (D) Terry Goodin, (D) Robert Bischoff, (D) Markt Lytle, (D) Paul Robertson, (D) James Bottorff, (D) William Cochran, (D) Dennie Oxley, (D) Russ Stilwell, (D) Dennis Avery, (D) Trent VanHaaften, (D) Win Moses Jr., (D) Ted Strickland, (D) Kimberly Zurz, (D) Charlie Wilson (D) Marc Dann, (D) Kenneth Carano, (D) John Boccieri, (D) William Hartnett, (D) Derrick Seaver, (D) Todd Book, (D) John Domenick, (D) L. George Distel, (D) John Dingell, (D) John J. Gleason, (D) Doug Bennett, (D) Jennifer Elkins, (D) Matt Gillard, (D) Stephen Adamini, (D) Rich Brown, (D) John W. Drummond, (D) Glenn Reese, (D) Linda H. Short, (D) Thomas L. Moore, (D) NikkiI Setzler, (D) Gerald Molloy, (D) Kent Williams, (D) John Yancey Mcgill, (D) John C. Land III, (D) *E. Dewitt Mccraw,
(D) *Olin R. Phillips, (D) Walt Mcleod, (D) Mike Anthony, (D) Herb Kirsh, (D) Douglas Jennings, JR., (D) Denny W. Neilson, (D) James A. "JIM" Battle, JR., (D) C. Alex Harvin III, (D) Jimmy C. Bales, (D) Thomas N. Rhoad, (D) Harry L. Ott, JR., (D) Bill Bowers, (D) Mike Easley, (D) Beverly Perdue, (D) Roy Cooper,(D) Mike Mcintyre, (D) Marc Basnight, (D) Scott Thomas, (D) Clark Jenkins, (D) Robert Holloman, (D) Cecil Hargett, JR., (D) R. C. Soles, JR., (D) Charles Albertson, (D) A. B. Swindell, (D) Tony Rand, (D) Daniel Clodfelter,
(D) David Hoyle, (D) Walter Dalton, (D) Joe Queen, (D) Martin Nesbitt, (D) Bill Owens, JR, (D) Bill Culpepper, III, (D)Alice Underhill, (D) Russell Tucker, (D) Arthur Williams, III, (D) Edith Warren, (D) Marian Mclawhorn, (D) William Wainwright, (D) Dewey Hill, (D) Edd Nye, (D) Joe Tolson, (D) Jim Crawford, (D) Marvin W Lucas,
(D) Douglas Yongue, (D) Ronnie Sutton, (D) Lucy Allen, (D) Earl Jones, (D) Alice Bordsen, (D) Pryor Gibson,(D) Lorene Coates, (D) Hugh Holliman, (D) Walt Church, (D) Jim Harrell, (D) James Black, (D) Bob England,(D)D. Bruce Goforth, (D) Rick Boucher, (D ) Joe Manchin, III, (D ) Darrell McGraw, (D) Alan Mollohan, (D) Nick Rahall, (D) Jeffrey V. Kessler, (D) Robert H. "Bob" Plymale, (D) John Pat Fanning , (D) Earl Ray Tomblin, (D ) Billy Wayne Bailey, Jr., (D) Anita Skeens Caldwell, (D) Shirley Love, (D) Bill Sharpe, (D) Roman W. Prezioso, Jr. (D)Jon Blair Hunter, (D) Mike Ross , (D ) Joe DeLong, (D) Randy Swartzmiller, (D) Tim Ennis, (D) Kenneth D. Tucker, (D) Scott G. Varner, (D) Dave Pethtel, (D) J.D. Beane, (D) Brady R. Paxton, (D ) Kevin J. Craig, (D) Jim Morgan, (D) Don Perdue, (D ) Joe C. Ferrell , (D ) K. Steven Kominar, (D ) Harry Keith White, (D) Richard Browning, (D) W. Richard "Rick" Staton, (D) Eustace Frederick , (D) Marshall Long, (D) Gerald L. Crosier,
(D) *Virginia Mann, (D) *Robert S. Kiss, (D) Ron Thompson, (D) Thomas W. Campbell, (D ) Tom Louisos, (D) David G. Perry, (D) John Pino , (D) Sharon Spencer, (D)Jon Amores , (D) Mark Hunt, (D ) William F. "Bill" Stemple, (D) Brent Boggs, (D) Sam Argento, (D) Joe Talbott, (D ) Bill Hartman, (D) Bill Proudfoot, (D) Doug Stalnaker, (D) Mary M. Poling, (D) Samuel J. "Sam" Cann, (D) Robert "Bob" Beach, (D) Larry A. Williams, (D)Stan Shaver, (D) Harold Michael, (D) Jerry L. Mezzatesta, (D) Bob Tabb, (D) Paul Kanjorski, (D) John Murtha,(D)Tim Holden, (D) Vincent Fumo, (D) Michael O'Pake, (D) Tom Scrimenti, (D) Joseph Markosek, (D) Frank Dermody, (D) Victor Lescovitz, (D) Timothy Solobay, (D) Peter Daley, (D) Lawrence Roberts, (D) James Shaner,(D) Joseph Petrarca, (D) James Casorio, (D) Thomas Tangretti, (D) Edward Wojnaroski, (D) Thomas Yewcic,
(D) Camille "Bud" George, (D) Michael Hanna, (D) Robert Belfanti, (D) James Wansacz, (D) Todd Eachus,(D)Kevin Blaum, (D) Neal Goodman, (D) Richard Grucela, (D) William T. Stachowski, (D) Ginny A. Fields,
(D) Robert K. Sweeney, (D) Aileen M. Gunther, (D) Bill Magee, (D) Darrel J. Aubertine, (D) Francine DelMonte,(D)Robin Schimminger, (D) William L. Parment, (D) Michael Michaud, (D) Bruce Bryant, (D) Christopher Hall,(D) John Martin, (D) Troy Jackson, (D) Rosaire Paradis, (D) Jeremy Fischer, (D) Raymond Wotton, (D) George Bunker, (D) John Wakin, (D) Edward Dugay, (D) Thomas Watson, (D) John Richardson, (D) Sonya Sampson, (D) Rodney Jennings, (D) Susanne Ketterer, (D) Janet Mills, (D) John Patrick, (D) Robert Duplessie, (D) Timothy Driscoll, (D) Elizabeth Ready, (D) Jeb Spaulding, (D) Dick Sears, (D) James Leddy, (D) Virginia Lyons, (D) Robert Starr, (D) Sara Kittell, (D) Richard Mazza, (D) Susan Bartlett, (D) Mark Macdonald, (D) Ann Cummings,(D) John Campbell, (D) Matt Dunne, (D) Peter Welch, (D) Alice Miller, (D) Jim Mccullough, (D) Mark Larson,
(D) John Patrick Tracy, (D) Albert Audette, (D) George Allard, (D) Richard Howrigan, (D) Avis Gervais,(D) Kathleen Keenan, (D) Albert Perry, (D) Floyd Nease, (D) Shap Smith, (D) John Rodgers, (D) Maxine Grad,(D) Harry Monti, (D) Tony Klein, (D) Michael Obuchowski, (D) Carolyn Partridge, (D) Steve Darrow, (D) Alice Emmons, (D) Jim Masland, (D) Alice Nitka, (D) Daniel Adams Eaton, (D) Roland J. Lefebvre, (D) Claire D. Clarke, (D) Robert E. Martel, (D) Dominick J. Ruggerio, (D) Frank A. Ciccone III, (D) Walter S. Felag Jr.,
(D) John F. McBurney III, (D) Joseph A. Montalbano, (D) Michael J. Damiani, (D) Roger Badeau, (D) Marc A. Cote, (D) John J. Tassoni Jr., (D) Joseph M. Polisena, (D) Beatrice A. Lanzi, (D) Michael J. McCaffrey,(D) Stephen D. Alves, (D) Leonidas P. Raptakis, (D) Peter G. Palumbo, (D) Robert B. Jacquard, (D) Matthew J. McHugh, (D) Brian Patrick Kennedy, (D) Stephen R. Ucci, (D) Joseph J. Voccola, (D) Peter J. Petrarca,(D) Roger A. Picard, (D) Arthur J. Corvese, (D) William San Bento Jr., (D) Jan Malik, (D) Michael B. Forte Jr.,
(D) Robert O'Leary, (D) Marc Pacheco, (D) Stephen Brewer, (D) Richard Moore, (D) William "Smitty" Pignatelli,(D)Stephen Kulik, (D) Daniel Keenan, (D) Peter Kocot, (D) Geoffrey Hall, (D) Patricia Walrath, (D) Stephen LeDuc, (D) William Greene, Jr., (D) Bruce Ayers, (D) William Galvin, (D) Garrett Bradley, (D) Christine Canavan,(D) Thomas O'Brien, (D) Brian Knuuttila, (D) Anne Gobi, (D) Harold Naughton, Jr., (D) John Fresolo, (D) Biagio "Billy" Ciotto, (D) Joan V. Hartley, (D) Tom Colapietro, (D) Antonio "Tony" Guerrera, (D) Brian J. O'Connor,(D)Edward E. Moukawsher, (D) Steven T. Mikutel, (D) Jack Malone, (D) Linda A. Orange, (D) Michael J. Cardin,(D)Stephen M. Jarmoc, (D) Peggy Sayers, (D) George M. Wilber, (D) Reginald G. Beamon, (D)Jeffrey J. Berger,(D) Roger Michele, (D) Kosta Diamantis, (D) John "Corky" Mazurek, (D) Emil "Buddy" Altobello, (D) Peter J. Panaroni Jr., (D) Stephen Dargan, (D) Louis Esposito Jr., (D) James Amann, (D) Richard Roy, (D) Terry Backer,(D) Kevin Ryan, (D) Ruth Ann Minner, (D) Anthony Deluca, (D) Robert Venables, SR , (D) Bethany Hall-Long,(D)John Vansant, (D) Michael Mulrooney, (D) John Viola,(D) Bruce Ennis.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=172118&mesg_id=172141

But seeing thier names wont be changing the minds of any gun control fanatics, hereabouts.


So. very clearly, unless ALL those Democrats are "right wingers", you're wrong.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #172)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 07:09 AM

174. a handful--mostly DINOS... and you think THAT proves your point...?!

What foolishness... What does it take?.....for NRA to directly cock its gun to your heads? Because that is essentially what you are enabling them to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #174)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 08:13 AM

177. No, thats not what I think.

"Apparently it is ok that NRA supports only RWers and does everything possible to defeat Dems."

Thats what YOU said.

Note the qualifying word "ONLY", used by you in that sentence.

"a handful--mostly DINOS... and you think THAT proves your point...?!"

No, thats not what I think.

I KNOW it disproves what you said. Think theyre endorsing those Democrats, in an effort to defeat them, do you? You did say "does everything possible to defeat Dems", didn't you?

Feel free to name which of them is a DINO. Then work your way through them, until you have a large majority of them - you know, "most" - that are DINOs. Seems like an aweful lot of effort to go through to to demean Democrats, particularly on Democraticunderground, but hey, knock yourself out.

Start with Bill Richardson and Brian Schweitzer. Oh, wait. they aren't. How about that "RWer" Howard Dean - Endorsed MULTIPLE times by the nra. No? You did say "NRA supports only RWers" didn't you?

Well, which ones are the DINOs then?

You asserted it, its up to you to substantiate it.


And unless you at least attempt it, you make perfectly, crystal, clear, that your anti-gun ideology is of a much higher priority than your allegiance to Democrats. And if you neither attempt it, nor attempt and succeed, you're just slurring Democrats with no evidence what so ever provided - in the name of anti-gun ideology.

Say, isn't it people from the anti-gun side of the issue that say we pro-gun Democrats are the ones always slurring Democrats in the gun forum?

Those shoes youre now wearing, are the shoes that anti-gunners have been trying to put on the feet of we pro-gun Democrats for a long time now.

How do you like 'em now, eh? Comfie?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #177)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 08:30 AM

180. I have to doubt your veracity...

I'll leave it at that. You say you are progressive, yet you defend those who would do everything possible to ensure Democrats/LIberals/Progressives are defeated at every trun.

I think the vast majority of DU sees this for what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #180)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:34 AM

185. i'm sure you do.

Last edited Sat Apr 14, 2012, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

"You say you are progressive, yet you defend those who would do everything possible to ensure Democrats/LIberals/Progressives are defeated at every trun."

LOL. and youre still saying it as if it were true.

Nope, I'm afraid thats a poor and inaccurate characterization of the way things are.

Injecting truth into what was a clearly false screed - yours - is not defending anyone. And injecting truth into a what was a clearly false screed - yours - was my sole intent. I don't just sit idly by while anti-gun idealogues say things that aren't true, you see.

As to the nra...they work to get those that are ANTI-GUN defeated, because they're anti-gun. Not simply because theyre Democrats.

The endorsements of Dean, Richardson, and Schweitzer are a few among many elegant examples that prove it.

And disprove your screed.

And as to those that they DO work to defeat...well...i'd be interested in examples that didn't earn it through a voting record, and/or public hostility toward gun rights. I really doubt there are any.

But I'd entertain any examples you might care to provide.

Theres the old addage:

Play with a rattlesnake and you may just get bit. Don't blame the rattlesnake for it when you do.

Its nobodys fault but your own.

Thats a pretty good summation of the nra, and how they react to those who attack and or are hostile to gun rights.

I prefer it that way, rather than nobody with any political power protecting my rights, even as imperfect as it is.


If certain politicians wish to tangle with the nra by attacking the rights of people where guns are concerned or voting against the rights of people where guns are concerned, and knowing full well beforehand the wrath they'll incur in doing so, I have exactly zero sympathy for them, or the consequences of their fully informed choice. The same way as I have exactly zero sympathy for the dumbass who knowingly picks up a rattlesnake and gets bit, or the dumbass who knowingly sticks their finger into a live light socket.


Regardless of party affiliation.

In some circles thats knows as whats called a principled position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #172)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 04:47 PM

241. Here are some from 2010..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=379165&mesg_id=380165

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00053553&cycle=2010

2010 Democratic Campaign Donations:


House:
Altmire, Jason (D-PA)...............$9,900
Arcuri, Michael (D-NY)..............$2,000
Baca, Joe (D-CA)....................$3,000
Barrow, John (D-GA).................$9,900
Berry, Marion (D-AR)................$1,500
Bishop, Sanford D Jr (D-GA).........$7,600
Boccieri, John A (D-OH).............$6,100
Boren, Dan (D-OK)...................$4,950
Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA)...........$7,950
Boucher, Rick (D-VA)................$5,950
Boyd, Allen (D-FL)..................$9,900
Bright, Bobby (D-AL)...............$10,050
Cardoza, Dennis (D-CA)..............$4,950
Carney, Chris (D-PA)................$8,600
Chandler, Ben (D-KY)................$7,950
Childers, Travis W (D-MS)...........$6,950
Costello, Jerry F (D-IL)............$2,000
Critz, Mark (D-PA)..................$2,500
Cuellar, Henry (D-TX)...............$2,150
Davis, Lincoln (D-TN)...............$9,900
Dingell, John D (D-MI)..............$7,950
Donnelly, Joe (D-IN)................$6,950
Edwards, Chet (D-TX)................$6,950
Gordon, Bart (D-TN).................$1,000
Green, Gene (D-TX)..................$2,000
Halvorson, Deborah (D-IL)...........$5,950
Heinrich, Martin (D-NM).............$2,000
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (D-SD)...$7,450
Higgins, Brian M (D-NY).............$1,000
Hill, Baron (D-IN)..................$6,950
Holden, Tim (D-PA)..................$9,900
Jones, Vernon (D-GA)................$1,500
Jordan, James D (R-OH)..............$3,000
Kagen, Steve (D-WI).................$8,950
Kanjorski, Paul E (D-PA)............$7,450
Kind, Ron (D-WI)....................$2,000
Kissell, Larry (D-NC)...............$9,900
Kratovil, Frank M Jr (D-MD).........$9,900
Marshall, Jim (D-GA)................$6,950
Matheson, Jim (D-UT)................$5,000
McIntyre, Mike (D-NC)...............$6,950
Mollohan, Alan B (D-WV).............$4,950
Murphy, Scott (D-NY)................$2,500
Murtha, John P (D-PA)...............$2,500
Nye, Glenn (D-VA)...................$5,100
Obey, David R (D-WI)................$3,500
Ortiz, Solomon P (D-TX).............$2,000
Owens, Bill (D-NY)..................$2,000
Perriello, Tom (D-VA)...............$5,950
Peterson, Collin C (D-MN)...........$1,500
Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND)................$4,500
Rahall, Nick (D-WV).................$6,950
Ross, Mike (D-AR)...................$5,000
Ryan, Tim (D-OH)....................$3,000
Salazar, John (D-CO)................$3,000
Shuler, Heath (D-NC)................$8,450
Skelton, Ike (D-MO).................$6,950
Space, Zachary T (D-OH).............$9,900
Stupak, Bart (D-MI).................$1,000
Taylor, Gene (D-MS).................$4,500
Walz, Timothy J (D-MN)..............$3,000
Wilson, Charlie (D-OH)..............$6,100
Total: $335,700

Senate:
Dorgan, Byron L (D-ND)..............$2,500
Ellsworth, Brad (D-IN)..............$9,900
Manchin, Joe (D-WV).................$4,950
Reid, Harry (D-NV)..................$4,950
Total: $22,300

Additional Independent Expenditures to Democratic candidates:

Altmire, Jason..............$10,346
Boren, Dan...................$8,175
Boyd, Allen.................$14,377
Cardoza, Dennis..............$4,322
Childers, Travis W...........$4,518
Davis, Lincoln...............$6,539
Dingell, John D..............$3,626
Halvorson, Deborah...........$4,216
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie...$8,711
Hill, Baron....................$850
Holden, Tim..................$8,594
Kilroy, Mary Jo................$595
Lentz, Bryan...................$595
Matheson, Jim................$8,704
Mollohan, Alan B.............$6,675
Murray, Patty................$6,706
Rahall, Nick.................$2,591
Ross, Mike...................$6,627
Shuler, Heath...............$23,161
Skelton, Ike.................$8,796
Space, Zachary T.............$4,610
Strickland, Ted.............$25,143
Taylor, Gene.................$3,201
Total: $171,618

Grand Total: $529,618



2010 Democratic Endorsements:
Alaska
Scott Kawasaki
Jim Folsom, Jr.

Alabama
Jan Cook
Bobby Bright
Tammy L. Irons
Tom Butler
Zeb Little
Roger Bedford, Jr.
Lowell Barron
Larry Means
Phil Poole
Marc Keahey
T.D. "Ted" Little
Billy Beasley
John "Jody" Letson
Ken Guin
William E. Thigpen, Sr.
Johnny Mack Morrow
Randy Hinshaw
Butch Taylor
John Robinson
Jeff McLaughlin
Craig Ford
John G. "Jack" Page III
Steve Hurst
Richard Laird
Richard Lindsey
James M. "Jimmy" Martin
Demetrius C. Newton
Oliver Robinson
Alan Harper
Elaine Beech
Thomas E. Jackson
Betty Carol Graham
Alan C. Boothe
Terry Spicer

Arizona:
Rebecca Rios
Barbara McGuire

Arkansas:
Mike Beebe
Shane Broadway
Dustin McDaniel
Mike Ross
John Paul Wells
Robert Thompson
Paul Bookout
Bobby J. Pierce
Johnnie J. Roebuck
Randy Stewart
Monty Betts
James McLean

California:
Dennis Cardoza
Joe Baca
Lou Correa
Alyson Huber
Cathleen Galgiani

Colorado:
John Salazar
Betsy Markey
Lois Tochtrop

Connecticut:
Paul R. Doyle
Andrew Maynard
Joe Aresimowicz
Edward Moukawsher
Tom Reynolds
Steven Mikutel
Linda Orange
Claire Janowski
Roberta Willis
Jeffrey Berger
David Aldarono
John Mazurek
Bruce Zalaski
Emil Altobello
Terry Backer
Kevin Ryan

Delaware:
David B. Mcbride
Bruce C. Ennis
Nancy W. Cook
George H. Bunting, Jr.
Robert F. Gilligan
William J Carson, Jr.
Edward Bradford Bennett
Robert E Walls
John C. Atkins

Florida:
Allen Boyd
Bill Montford
Leonard Bembry
Debbie Boyd
Dean Cannon
Darren Soto
Ron Saunders
.....

And that's just A-F of states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:35 PM

51. Are you voting for President Obama in 2012? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:52 PM

20. Gun worship is turning this country into a war zone.

Im a farm boy and we had several guns around and we hunted alot but I firmly believe we need strict gun control or this country will revert back to the wild west days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:04 PM

29. You mean the Wild West...

 

...that had lower incidence rate of firearm homicides than what was seen in the late 20th century? There's the actual Wild West and then there's the Hollywood version.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:13 PM

38. Typical of the anti-gun zealots...I am a gun owner, I hunt...

 

Please link us to some gun worship, I would love to see it because I never have actually seen gun worship.

We have strict gun control in this country, something like 30,000 gun control laws, they just aren't enforced. The wild west even had strict gun control so you really don't know what the wild west was all about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #38)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:25 PM

43. But, but, but

 

don'cha know that if you support the 2A, you are
A. A gun worshipper
B. A gun militant
C. A gun nut
D. A gun lover
E. A gun enthusiast

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #38)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:28 PM

45. reminds me a little of bit like

"I have friends who are.........."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #38)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:56 PM

65. I have no idea if Im typical at all.

I dont fear guns like some people do. But I do fear the trigger happy gun slingers out there who just cant wait to have a chance to use their weapon like Mr Zimmerman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #65)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:10 PM

80. I'm always skeptical of the media

especially when they convict someone based on leaked evidence by irresponsible DAs. NBC doctoring 911 tapes does a lot less to improve my image of the media. As for Zimmerman, I'll wait for the trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #80)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 12:00 PM

228. Be careful now, gejonston.

"Waiting for the trial" equates to "Irrational gun-nut Zimmerman supporter racist" to some these days....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eqfan592 (Reply #228)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 05:23 AM

249. Ain't that the truth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:58 PM

66. War zone = lowest levels of gun violence in 50 years? Really? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #66)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:03 PM

73. I suspect that will be picking up if the RW doesnt get their way this next election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #73)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:05 PM

75. Gun grabbers have been predicting blood in the street for years.

hasn't happened yet.

No - violent crime will continue to decline and you will be even more safer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #75)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:12 PM

81. somehow your assurances dont make me feel any more comfortable.

millions of angry RW maniacs with itchy trigger fingers and a house full of guns and ammo... sounds like trouble to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #81)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:16 PM

86. Your paranoid fear should not be the reason I lose my civil rights.

the fact of the matter is simple. Gun ownership in America has skyrocketed. Gun violence has plummeted and is at historic lows.

There are no hard facts to justify the draconian gun control I am certain you want to embrace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #86)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:19 PM

91. "Draconian"?? no. Sensible.. yes.

There are loopholes in the gun regs that need to be closed. Its too easy, too fast, too loose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #91)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:21 PM

95. Describe these loopholes. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #91)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:22 PM

96. for example?

do you know current federal gun laws? Please explain the "gun show loophole" and how it relates to FFLs selling at gun shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #91)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:46 PM

213. Annnnnnndddddd........

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #81)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 03:18 PM

206. "sounds like trouble to me."

 

Sounds more like hoyt and 6pak to me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:54 PM

21. everything she thinks she knows about firearms is wrong...the guns kill people types.

Last edited Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Bad news is this one has a platform to spread her misinformation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:56 PM

23. Doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:09 PM

34. Here is something for you and your gun buddies. I wish to hell Obama would put some gun

 

control in this country. I'm sick and tired of seeing innocent kid being shot because he was black with this stand your ground law. That is nothing more than legalized murder. You can say guns don't kill people bullshit. Who cares. Normal people in this country think we need some gun controls yes even people who own guns. I know a few.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #34)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:17 PM

41. one thing

what if he was a white kid with a purple mohawk and lived in a trailer court? Do you think any of these people would give a rat's ass? I doubt race has that much to do with it. That is the narrative the media wants to push, which explains why NBC doctored the 911 tapes.
What if Martin's parent's did not have the money to hire lawyers to attract attention? Who would care?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #41)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:28 PM

44. A white kid has the luxury of walking anywhere at any time without being stop. But really I don't

 

care who the person is. WE NEED SOME GUN CONTROL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #44)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:32 PM

50. 30,000+ gun control laws on the books

 

how many more do you want? How about these laws start getting enforced first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AH1Apache (Reply #50)


Response to Gman (Reply #87)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:23 PM

99. for example?

can you counter anything he said?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #87)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:28 PM

101. Still with the insults

 

and not a single answer.
Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AH1Apache (Reply #101)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:04 AM

117. You give the canned answers you do and you

Think your insulted? LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #117)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:12 AM

123. Is that all you have?

 

Then you have nothing.
I've noticed that when people such as yourself resort to insults it's because you have lost the debate and all you have left are the usual canned insults.
Have a good night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #117)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:50 PM

214. Dodge.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #44)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:46 PM

58. gun control isn't the issue

We have had gun control since the founding. Florida has stricter laws than half of the states. In fact, the south has traditionally have had stricter laws. Do you know what the current gun laws are? Federal laws? I'm amazed that people really think you can by assault rifles and sub machine guns at Wal Mart, even though they have been basically banned since 1934.

Laws of different states? Do you know the laws of your state? The history of them? Florida banned open carry in 1893 because some white people didn't like African American workers "toting". That was the real reason. Didn't have anything to do with "a more civilized society". Neither was South Carolina's 1902-1965 handgun ban. New York's state law was written by and named after a gangster.

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, he controlled much of the city's criminal activities between 14th Street and the Battery in New York City. He is credited as being one of the earliest ward representatives to use his position to enable the activities of criminal street gangs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Sullivan

Chicago is still like that.

In the places that have stricter gun laws than Europe have higher murder rates? Places like Chicago, NYC, USVI, Puerto Rico? Vermont and Wyoming are as safe as if not safer than Europe.

A white kid has the luxury of walking anywhere at any time without being stop

looking like that in a gated community? Get real. You don't know this place that well. The only difference is Bill Maher would find it amusing.
My son gets stopped in Florida for wearing cammo. He is white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #44)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:29 PM

102. Why?

 

WE NEED SOME GUN CONTROL.

For the last 20+ years we have had ever-more-liberal gun laws in this country. We've gone from virtually no states allowing concealed carry to now almost every state allowing it. Other laws have also made progressive strides to support the second amendment.

And over the same time period, violent crime has declined every year, and is now at 1960's levels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #102)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:16 AM

183. That is baloney. Obama hasn't instituted one gun law. Not one. If it ever got on to any ballot

 

I sure as hell would control guns, period. I wouldn't stop it if you like to go hunting for game. But that is it. I am sorry I know alot of people here will disagree but that is MY PERSONAL feelings. I know it will never happen. But if it was up to me I'd get rid of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #183)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 04:15 PM

207. Maybe that's the issue right there

 

Your anger should be specifically directed at the 2008-2010 Congress if you were expecting more gun laws.

And how would you "control guns"? I don't think you would find many people on this board that would object to removing every single illegal gun from the hands of criminals. I believe the people would support it 100% as long as you could do it legally, and not trample on their rights. I'm sure someone has a plan.

Like it or not - the horse is out of the barn and it's not going back in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinniSkipper (Reply #207)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 05:26 PM

208. Like or not ---- your right about that. I don't like and there is nothing I can do about it. So I

 

say let the crazies kill themselves. Sooner or later maybe if enough children get shot on the streets maybe then some common sense laws will finally be put into place. Maybe if La Pierre has a wife and kid and some takes them out then who knows maybe he'll suggest that law. Of course I don't want something like this to happen. All am saying is leaders with strong support had something happen to their family member maybe they'd see things different. I know it won't change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #208)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 01:40 AM

215. I'm not much of a fan of criminals with guns

 

I would really prefer it if they didn't have them. The world would be a better place. However, for you to call them crazy is a bit of an insult. Some criminals are that way because they have zero opportunity, and zero education. And the drug war is very profitable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinniSkipper (Reply #215)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:22 AM

218. Well you might be right but it still is crazy. Sometimes people kill another because they

 

want their expensive purse, shoes or even candy. That is crazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #208)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 01:51 AM

216. "had something happen to their family member maybe they'd see things different."

 

This is exactly what pro death penalty people say. And my guess is you are not pro death penalty. This is why our legal system is not based on revenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinniSkipper (Reply #216)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:27 AM

220. Well to me killing the person who kills someoneelse makes it way to easy. Kill the prisoner and

 

that's it. He gets off. I'd let him/her in jail til the day he died and remind him every day what was done. He could never see the light of day. However saying that there are exceptions. Like that doctor who family in Vt or Ct (I can't remember what state) was raped and murdered in their home those 2 bastards do deserve the death penalty. I would electuate them or shoot them. No IV there was something so bad about this case that I think they deserve the death penalty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #183)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 05:32 PM

210. Uh, I didn't say he did.

 

That is baloney. Obama hasn't instituted one gun law. Not one. If it ever got on to any ballot
I sure as hell would control guns, period. I wouldn't stop it if you like to go hunting for game. But that is it. I am sorry I know alot of people here will disagree but that is MY PERSONAL feelings. I know it will never happen. But if it was up to me I'd get rid of them.


I didn't say he did.

What I said is that since 1986 we have had ever-more-liberal firearm laws in this country. By that I mean more permissive towards the right to keep and bear arms - more freedom.

Yet over the same period of time violent crime has declined dramatically.

Also, you should note that the second amendment is not about hunting, it is about insuring the security of free states. That means killing people, not game animals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #34)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:01 PM

69. Do you really want him to lose the election?

because that is what will happen. Why do you think he is silent on the issue?

Gun violence is at historic lows - you have never been safer. Put aside your fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #69)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:56 AM

186. Of course not. I am not stupid. I don't want him to give the NRA an openning. Hell they already

 

think he is going to outlaw guns. That will never happen. Plus this issue is not on the top of what I want changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #69)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:37 AM

221. The only way passing rational federal gun control laws would cost Obama the election

is if Democratic gun owners abandon him.

Is that what you are advocating?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #221)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:41 AM

223. Do you deny the role of swing voters in presidential elections?

there is a large group of voters in the middle that can be persuaded either direction - all Presidential campaigns are build around this fact. The American electorate is not divided into two static blocks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #223)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:56 AM

226. Are you advocating that Democratic gun owners abandon Obama in 2012?

Or that they abandon ANY Democratic candidate that supports gun control?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #226)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 12:29 PM

231. since it has been written out of the 2012

platform, and Pelosi told Holder to STFU about AWB, it is a moot point. To answer your questions,
Of course not
In those areas, the Republican probably does too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #231)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 12:38 PM

232. So, if gun control is included in the 2012 party platform, you won't support the Democrats?

Or are you going to continue to avoid the question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #232)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 12:56 PM

234. did not avoid the question

you didn't finish reading my post.

Of course not
In those areas, the Republican probably does too.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #234)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 01:40 PM

238. Since you refuse to answer a simple, point-blank question, I'll answer it for you.

Real Democrats vote for Democratic candidates. Period. To call into question their support because of most Democrats don't follow the RW dogma of your position on a pet issue is ludicrous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #226)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 01:05 PM

235. No - I am saying that he would alienate independents and other swing voters

he needs to win.


It is not complicated - Obama has figured it out. Why else has he ignored gun control?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:11 PM

37. She wasn't getting to the root cause of the violence

Why are so many people so desperately angry that they feel they have to take out others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomClash (Reply #37)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:37 PM

52. Few DO get to the root of the violence;

many too many inequities here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #52)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:42 PM

55. Alot of it, in my humble opinion,

 

is this insane war on drugs, if drugs were legalized and regulated, that would go a long way towards reducing the violence associated with the drug trade.
I fully agree that there are many too many inequities here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:16 AM

127. Her irrational screeds on firearms are often factually flawed...which decreases

her overall credibility.

At one point I was sending in corrections, but this is an emotional vice rational topic for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:34 AM

163. When I turned off Rachel on 1/11/11 I never turned her back on.


I have a low tolerance for dishonesty - regardless of which direction it comes from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #163)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 02:03 PM

199. I have to agree

 

I used to really enjoy listening to her but I cannot deal with the intellectual dishonesty, too bad really. Perhaps in all fairness I will give her another go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:13 AM

217. Kicking This One......


...so that participants in the Real World forums can see what sort of ugly, hyper-conservative politics prevail in the Gun Control/RKBA group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #217)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:43 AM

224. I had no idea being pro-2A and pro-gun was hyper-conservative

Perhaps you can explain to the good Democrats who post in this group why they're really not Democrats at all, but hyper-conservatives.

I'll wait for a thoughtful and coherent response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #224)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:54 AM

225. If you support RW Republican orgs & their goals, how can you claim to be a Democrat?

I'll wait for a thoughtless and incoherent - as well as disrespectful - response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #225)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 01:36 PM

236. Well, as usual you didn't answer the question but I'm used to the ball

being punted.

Now, show me where I said I support RW Republicans and their goals. You can't, because I've never said it or exhibited it.
I support gun rights and applaud advances in legislation that increase gun rights regardless who proposes it.

If you consider 2A rights to be Republican, you're misguided and deluded, but it's your right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #236)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 01:48 PM

239. The NRA is a RW conservative org aligned with the GOP.

If you support their goals, you support the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #239)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 12:44 AM

247. And you are wrong.

 

Good thing you are no authority when it comes to what defines an individual's political alignment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #225)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 04:02 AM

248. This is how: (and it is a most thoughtful and coherent thesis)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #248)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 12:42 PM

252. Urban fear

 

"The niggers are going to attack me!"

:Roll eyes:

based on what was known that night, Zimmerman should have been arrested. There is still no evidence that Martin "asked for it".

"We need more facts." are code words for "Matin was a nigger. Therefore, Zimmerman had a duty to shoot him. There must be evidence Martin provoked Zimmerman. Otherwise, we cannot hide our bigotry."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 08:29 PM

255. Right.....

......because you think the issue all is about control advocates punishing you. And what makes you think the 'rant' is coming exclusively from gun control advocates. What nonsense.

Here's what our party has to say about firearms.........such a rant (not):

Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common- sense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread