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, 48712 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