Proposal: two guns groups: "Gun Policy" and "Gun Enthusiasts".

[DanTex]

I posted this in Meta, so this is cross-posting. In light of the push to include general gun discussions in the gungeon, I wanted to make my case here also.

Here are the advantages of splitting it up like that, rather than having just one big guns group
1) Having a single "guns" group would further alienate the "gungeon" from the mainstream of DU. A lot of people already ignore the guns forum, and if in, in addition to heated debates about gun policy, it also becomes home to "gun porn" it will further cement the status of DU Guns as basically just another gun forum on the internet that happens to be hosted on DU.

2) It will give gun enthusiasts a single place to talk about guns. I can agree that "Outdoor Life" is not ideal for this, since guns are a hobby in their own right, and there are enough gun enthusiasts who want to talk about guns themselves to justify their own group.

3) People who only want to talk about gun policy won't have to see the "gun porn". Being interested in gun policy but not guns is a completely legitimate point of view. They are really not the same thing at all -- one is about personal hobbies or self-defense decisions, the other is a policy discussion about the balance between freedom and public safety.

4) People who want to post pictures of guns won't have other people taking jabs at their "penis size". If there's a forum specifically for discussing and posting pictures of guns, then people who don't like guns shouldn't be allowed to go in there and make derogatory remarks. The reason that pictures of guns are contentious in this board is because there are people who think the gun culture exerts a negative influence on society, and view "gun porn" as exemplifying an unhealthy gun obsession. Whether you agree or disagree, the belief that guns have a negative influence on society is a legitimate one, but it is something that should be debated in a forum on "Gun Policy", not in a group dedicated to gun enthusiasts.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. personally, I think any comparison to guns/penis

should be automatically Alerted. it is totally offensive to me and I would think any woman. I think that tone is what keeps a lot of women from posting in GC&RKBA.

I am amazed that any Thinking Man is not also equally offended. It is Worse than the car/penis jab.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Too bad.

The phallic symbolism of guns is part of our culture.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. lovely. Have a Nice Day. Peace Out.

[sarisataka]

9. If they are so phallic

why do men buy guns with a 2" barrel?

[Warren Stupidity]

44. What red blooded man wouldn't want two dicks?

[gejohnston]

45. Oh I don't know,

sometimes one is enough. As long as you let the big head do the thinking.................................

[sarisataka]

47. That would just be a distraction

I prefer to do one thing, do it well and then move on.

Although your idea would definitely be an "in" to a certain movie genre

[Trunk Monkey]

53. He didn't say double barrel

he said 2 inch barrel

[cherokeeprogressive]

67. This red-blooded Man does just fine with ONE dick.

And has never, not on his worst day, even considered the notion of having two.

What a strange fucking notion in the first place... two dicks. Humorous, but at the same time disturbing...

Do you think about having two dicks often?

If you do; I'm sure there is professional help.

[PavePusher]

70. What red blooded man...

doesn't wonder what the fuck is wrong with you?

[aikoaiko]

12. Its actually a part of the anti-gun enthusist culture of perjorative language.

Which is of course your culture.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

39. yep.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. You are either ignorant of symbolism and metaphors in culture

Or more likely just engaged in the ridiculous posturing of the "debate" in the gungeon.

Guns are phallic symbols. Ties are phallic symbols. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Get a clue.

[aikoaiko]

50. Your Freudian analysis is passé

Even folks in the humanities are leaving Freudian symbolism behind. It always said more about the analysts than object or person who was analyzed.

It's woowoo.

[Starboard Tack]

123. Calling things passé is passé

How patronizing.

[Trunk Monkey]

54. Ties are phallic symbols.

What?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

61. but what does it have to do with making policy?

[cherokeeprogressive]

68. The Washington Monument is a phallic symbol. Skyscrapers are phallic symbols. Guns are NOT.

If something doesn't LOOK like a penis, how can it be a symbol for one?

A tie is not a phallic symbol. Ties point to my dick. There's a difference.

Some people see phalluses and penises everywhere they look. It's either penis envy or hatred of penises, I've yet to figure out which.

In the end, it's a homophobic play to shame supporters of gun rights out of their beliefs. "Guns mean you're gay" isn't going to work, but some people will never figure that out. Never.

[AtheistCrusader]

113. That explains everything...

[AtheistCrusader]

112. Maybe yours.

Not mine.

I do not aim a firearm at anything I do not wish to destroy.
My penis? Not so much...

[DanTex]

7. That's why I think there should be two forums.

In the Gun Enthusiasts forum, someone can go and ask questions about what kind of gun they should buy without any penis comparisons.

On the other hand, the identification of masculinity with guns, aggression, and violence is a legitimate topic of conversation when it comes to debates about gun policy and the role of guns in society.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. I think Gun Policy should be Gender Neutral.

[Upton]

11. "the identification of masculinity with guns" ??

Approx, 1/3 of women own guns too, or is that a reference to the classy way you antis are always claiming any Democrat who supports RKBA is making up for a supposedly small penis?

[DanTex]

15. Yes, the identification of masculinity with guns.

First of all, 1/3 of women do not own a gun. The statistic you are quoting is that approx 1/3 of women live in a household where someone owns a gun.

Anyway, the identification of masculinity with guns and violence is a legitimate topic of conversation. It should not be off limits in a discussion on gun policy. I don't know any "anti" who claims any Democrat who supports RKBA is making up for a small penis.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. You see no sexism in your attitude? and while it may be legitmate topic of conversation somewhere on

DU --- you really think it should be included while making policy? What other policies/laws do you think should be gender based?

why did you even bring it up in regards to policy if this statement is true --

I don't know any "anti" who claims any Democrat who supports RKBA is making up for a small penis.

[DanTex]

37. I see zero sexism at all in my attitude. In fact, I resent the implication.

That some men use guns to prove that they are "real men" is a legitimate argument to make in a discussion of the role of guns in society, and of gun policy.

[NewMoonTherian]

57. In what way is it legitimate?

There's certainly nothing stopping anyone from making that argument, but what bearing does it have on policy?

Fill in this sentence: "Some men use guns to enhance their own sense of masculinity, hence, gun policy should be changed by ______."

Failing that, I really don't see how it is relevant, or how it contributes anything to the conversation.

That, and I don't find the argument believable. It's more of an obnoxious slur without any credibility. It's offensive to both men and women.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. indeed, It is an injustice to both sexes and I have to wonder if he is being intentionally obtuse.

It boggles my mind. I wonder how juries would think about the attitude.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

69. Many of the rest of us do

[PavePusher]

72. If I recall my stats correctly...

I think he meant to say that 1/3rd of all gun owners are female.

[Hoyt]

18. Most women aren't into all the hi-cap mags, expanding loads, stopping power, and such.

I think most women who carry a gun do it strictly for defense.

Men seem to have other well known reasons.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. You take it upon yourself to Speak for Most Women?

wow.

[Hoyt]

25. My apologies, I guess you are into Hi-cap mags and that other gun toting nonsense.

[gejohnston]

29. maybe a Browning Hi Power or

other double stacked pistols fit well in her hand. How many decent full size pistols have a single stack these days? Unless you like 1911s, your choice is kind of slim.

[Glaug-Eldare]

32. I own many standard-capacity magazines and I've never carried a gun outside in my life.

You really need to start making a distinction between gun ownership and gun carry, because they're not the same thing.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

34. One thing I am NOT into is your nonsense.

[seabeyond]

40. top shots. love the show. absolutely women who are into gun for sport. target shooting.

my mom was raised with an uncle that took her hunting. it was her time with a man that was at peace, from a chaotic house of drunkenness. she was always looking at that time as one of the few positive in her life.

not liking guns myself, i have had enough experiencing with others to know there are all kinds of stories that involve guns, in many different ways.

[Kaleva]

52. Enjoyed watching "Top Shots" too. Good show.

[seabeyond]

55. ist it funny. i dont like guns. i dont watch tv. except when hubby turns on stewart and colbert

when he comes to bed and then i am probably reading to. but one night he turned on top shots, at the beginning of first season and i was hooked. it is our "date" night. lol. i explain all the emotional connected, behavioral stuff going on and he discusses the guns and the shots....

[Kaleva]

56. Yes, there is personal drama in that show besides the shooting.

I remember in season 2 where the Air Force sniper guy purposely missed an easy shot so his friend, who was just having a bad day, wouldn't get eliminated. The friend went on to win the competition.

[seabeyond]

75. i know. he was the arrogant jerk thru out the show and then at the end did that.

totally vendicated himself. but, i also wonder how often he kicks himself for that now. got emotional for a second.

and the the worst out of all the seasons was the guy that came in second the last show. i wanted him to lose from almost day one, he bugged me. and he kept holding on. yuk

and the military dude that walked off the show was a hoot.

[Starboard Tack]

126. Why don't you help us out here?

Do you think women gun owners, in general, have the same reasons for owning and carrying as men? Aren't women more motivated by a sense of vulnerability, rather than a desire to impress each other? There are always exceptions.
I don't recall any women here talking about their guns in detail, showing pics of their guns, comparing their guns in terms of how many rounds they can fire, how big or tiny they are, or how well they tuck into their beach wear for those special summer days.

[Starboard Tack]

135. Thanks for sharing. Your honesty and openness is refreshing.

And your attitude toward guns and gun ownership seems to be very responsible and sensible.
I also wish more female members would participate in this group, especially as so many of our members who carry talk about the threats that women face and how they would be better off carrying. It doesn't seem fair that these discussions and arguments are almost exclusively among men.

I can relate to your having seen the best and worst of humanity. How we absorb all that experience determines how we choose to live our lives. Looks like you are making some good choices. You should join us in Frugal & Energy Efficient Living.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

164. thanks for the suggestion. I added it to my subscriptions...

that is the most I have ever talked about myself on here

[gejohnston]

21. Most women I know

own for target shooting and carry for hunting only. That is the beauty of being from a place where parents raise their sons right and misogynistic assholes are dealt with properly.

[NewMoonTherian]

60. How is stopping power not pertinent to self-defense?

Maybe we could save a couple of innocent lives by better informing people of different rounds' properties.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

71. Yet another baseless and uninformed statement from you

All three topics you enumerated are important considerations for self defense.

[Hoyt]

107. Clearly, if you are plotting out an algorithm for possible scenarios where you shoot someone.

Don't you think that is a bit sick, professor?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

114. Scenarios are actually the best way to discuss and illustrate legal and tactical issues associated

with self defense. Nothing sick about it.

Discussing trade offs between weapon and ammunition choices is also relevant since it can directly impact effectiveness in self defense situations.

[PavePusher]

73. "I think..."

Huh. News to us...

[Hoyt]

108. Takes lot of thought picking out the right lethal weapon, load, etc., to tuck away before venturing

out into civilization.

[Marinedem]

104. Yeah, because none of those three things are helpful in a defensive role...

Do we have a rolling eyes smiley?

never mind, found it.

[Hoyt]

109. And what situation do you expect to arise that puts you in a defensive role where a gun is the only

way to handle it? This country is not a war zone except to those who have to strap a gun or two on before venturing out into what would otherwise be civilization.

[gejohnston]

110. Is your part of Georgia civilization?

The way you describe it, it hardly sounds like it.

[MicaelS]

63. If there are two forums..

"Gun Enthusiasts" will have to be a Safe Zone / Group. That means anyone who comes into it posting about "penis sizes" gets banned from the Group.

But then the "Gun Policy" group will get filled up with those making penis comments directed at the "Gun Enthusiasts" group.

As in "Look at the Gun Porn those small penis troglodyte Gun Enthusiasts are posting over there now!"

[Kaleva]

76. I'm thinking some folks may not like a "Gun Enthusiasts" group

It'd be essentially a safe haven for pro-gunners.

[MicaelS]

78. Well, some folks at DU don't want any discussion of guns..

That isn't a strict condemnation of guns, guns owners, the NRA and the Gun Industry.

[Hoyt]

111. Well if you are going to post about your caliber, bore size, stopping power, etc. . . . . . .

[ileus]

134. caliber and bore size are the same thing.

[Hoyt]

139. Some people look at it from bullet size, others look at the "hole" for some perverted reason.

[Clames]

147. And some keep attaching innuendo to these terms...

...for their own perverted reasons.

[Hoyt]

160. That's what happens when Ileus posts bull.

[Clames]

162. It's what happens when you post period.

[ileus]

163. what part was bull???

ID of the barrel is the OD of the bullet.

Are you saying bore size isn't the same as caliber, or hole as you call it?

[beevul]

115. In other words...

"In the Gun Enthusiasts forum, someone can go and ask questions about what kind of gun they should buy without any penis comparisons."

Uh huh.

"On the other hand, the identification of masculinity with guns, aggression, and violence is a legitimate topic of conversation when it comes to debates about gun policy and the role of guns in society."

In other words, thats a very polite and roundabout way of getting the message across that it is people who are actively disagreeing about gun policy in a forum dedicated to discussion of it - specifically those on the pro-gun side of the argument - that the penis comparisons will be directed at.

In other news, water has been found to be wet.

[rfranklin]

2. I think that is a reasonable way to accommodate most people on DU...

sort of the difference between transportation policy and discussing engine modifications.

[beevul]

116. That depends...

If transportation policy included banning or tightly restricting certain types of engines, or engine modifications...or a certain vocal minority kept pushing for transportation policy to do so...


Then clearly they belong in the same forum.

[Hoyt]

3. Excellent approach.

[Glaug-Eldare]

6. Bingo. This is exactly what I want to see. n/t

[sarisataka]

10. Mark the calandar

I agree with Hoyt today

[liberal N proud]

13. Could just change the one to Gun NUTS

[Tuesday Afternoon]

36. we are all gun Nuts just two opposite sides of the same coin.

[PavePusher]

74. Or you could simply be polite and respectful of others.

Or is that too much to expect?

[liberal N proud]

86. I was

I have so many other thoughts about this group, but I can't use them.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

89. you weren't and you know it but, its OK. we are used to the snide comments.

you are not fooling anyone.

[liberal N proud]

94. This is why it should be the gun nuts

Little things get blown up.

Have a wonderful evening!

[PavePusher]

95. Go step on Legos. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

97. Peace.

Last edited Sat Jun 23, 2012, 11:41 PM - Edit history (2)

this comment gave away the true nature of your intent:

I have so many other thoughts about this group, but I can't use them.

[slackmaster]

14. Arms enthusiasts have plenty of forums outside of DU to discuss technical issues, recreation, etc.

3) People who only want to talk about gun policy won't have to see the "gun porn". Being interested in gun policy but not guns is a completely legitimate point of view. They are really not the same thing at all -- one is about personal hobbies or self-defense decisions, the other is a policy discussion about the balance between freedom and public safety.

I disagree.

It is often appropriate to post images of firearms and discuss their appearance and features in the context of policy matters.

People who are pushing for restrictions of various kinds often rely on distortions or inaccurate information about whatever they are trying to restrict. Prohibitionists intentionally blur distinctions among classes of weapons, and give inaccurate accounts of the purpose and uses of weapons and features of weapons.

[DanTex]

16. I don't think anyone objects to that.

Last edited Sat Jun 23, 2012, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)

But you are talking about posting pictures of guns in the context of a policy discussion.

The current proposed SOP changes involve allowing any discussion of guns, including stuff like "revolver vs semi-auto" or "Glock vs Beretta" or "check out this new gun I bought", etc. I think there is demand from Democratic gun enthusiasts for a forum where those discussions can take place -- a specific Gun Enthusiasts forum that is not just about "Outdoor Life", but actually about guns. But that stuff doesn't belong in the same place as gun policy discussions.

[Kaleva]

17. How would you propose wording the SOPs for the two groups?

Here's the current SOP:

"Discuss gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence."

Here is the proposed SOP:

"Discuss all aspects of firearms use and ownership, including but not limited to gun control laws and policies, the Second Amendment, self-defense, crime and violence, safety and education, shooting sports, and collecting".

Also, do you propose moving both groups into their own topic area?

[DanTex]

22. How about this:

Gun Policy: Discuss firearms policy and the role of guns in society, including gun control, the second amendment, self-defense, and gun crimes and violence.

Gun Enthusiasts: Discuss topics related to personal gun use and ownership, including hunting, self-defense, target shooting, firearms technology and gunsmithing, collecting, etc.

At least, that's a start. Even though "self-defense" appears in both, I think a post about the frequency of defensive gun use belongs in Gun Policy, while a post inquiring about a good gun to use for concealed carrying would belong in Gun Enthusiasts. Maybe there is some way to clarify that.

[Kaleva]

26. Your last paragraph addresses a question I had.

The discussion about which gun one would consider best for self and/or home defense would belong in the Gun Enthusiast group but discussions about the castle laws, SYG, CCW and the debate about the AWB would belong in the Gun Policy group.

[gejohnston]

27. Makes sense, but one question

I take it gun enthusiasts would go to recreation?

[Kaleva]

30. That wouldn't work, IMO.

Because one can talk about guns for self defense which wouldn't fit in the Recreation topic area.

[gejohnston]

33. agreed,

but reloading and how to make the Olympic pistol team doesn't go in the justice and public safety either.

[Kaleva]

35. Maybe create a new Topic "Firearms" which contain the two groups.

The regular members of one will most likely be the regulars of the other.

[MicaelS]

80. I think this is best n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

93. This gets my vote.

NewMoon and I have discussed this down-thread and like the idea.

[DanTex]

31. I don't know.

Either that, or else, as Kaleva suggest, creating a new Topic for Firearms, with two sub-groups in it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

38. I think this approach might have some merit.

Hell has frozen over, folks.

[aikoaiko]

20. I do not support this approach although it is not an unreasonable suggestion

1. I do not think it is true that the proposed change would alienate the GC&RKBA. Sure some of those people who are opposed to the discussion of technical aspects of guns might leave, but over the years there have been many DU members who are not regulars of the group come to our group asking questions about firearms. Their posts were locked and they were turned away. This the natural place where DUers want to come to discuss firearms. The change might actually bring more members into the group.

2. I agree that outdoor life is not a good place for technical discussions of firearms.

3. "Gun porn" is a red herring in this discussion.

4. People who post disruptive posts should get their posts hidden and get PPRed if their continue to be disruptive even in the GC&RKBA group.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. agreed. and I would add that term gun porn is also offensive and sexist and goes a long way to

trying to silence the Female Voice and Participation in this GC&RKBA Group

[mvccd1000]

28. Love it! This is why I voted NO on the new TOS poll

There are hundreds (thousands?) of places on the web to discuss the technical aspects of guns and shooting. The Gungeon is a unique place, and I do not want to see it become just another gun porn forum.

If you're interested in a website to talk about what KIND of gun to buy, or how your XD9 compares to a CZ, go to a neutral place like opencarry.org (as opposed to a forum for a specific brand or model).

This place is about the societal implications of the gun culture, and I like it the way it is. I feel the current types of discussions will be marginalized by a multitude of "I bought this," or "I want that."

Not interested in those types of discussions here; I go elsewhere for them.

[SecularMotion]

41. I think a safe haven for Democrats to discuss gun policy is a good idea

There is too much NRA noise in the existing forum to have a honest discussion of the issues.

[gejohnston]

43. are you saying,

those who disagree with you are not real Democrats or liberals, or are you defining "honest discussion" as "I want a circle jerk full of VPC and Brady noise?"

[DanTex]

48. That's sort of a different discussion.

I would agree that, given that the NRA is an obviously right-wing organization, support for the NRA does not belong on DU. But the split I'm describing would simply create a new "Gun Enthusiasts" group where people could talk about their personal gun ownership/enthusiasm, and the "Gun Policy" would be about, well, gun policy. The gun policy forum would look a lot like the current gungeon, except without the personal stories about what guns people are thinking of buying, etc.

[SecularMotion]

49. You're right

I read both this OP and the one in Meta. My response was to this suggestion in the Meta thread -

"2) A Gun Control group and a Guns and RKBA group.
This is also not a bad idea. Again, there are benefits here both for gun enthusiasts and gun control advocates. On one hand, it would satisfy the desire of gun enthusiasts to discuss RKBA and also "gun porn" in the same forum. On the other hand, it would allow for discussions of gun control and gun violence that aren't swamped with NRA talking points. "

Sorry for the confusion.

[Kaleva]

51. I think one ought to be able to discuss the gun safety programs provided by the NRA

It's the only organization which provides such a thing where I live. The political arm of the NRA is another matter entirely though.

[Kaleva]

64. How would discussing the pros and cons on renewing the AWB in a "safe haven" work?

[DonP]

106. "safe haven" = Where no one will disagree wtih my opinion or correct my errors

Funny how all of a sudden there are three large threads in Meta all about our poor little "Right Wing Nut Troll" filled Gungeon.

And all 3 threads have been started by big fans of gun control. Including one poster that posts the same thing every two weeks complaining about closing it and about all the "trolls" (that seem to kick his ass in every poorly though out discussion he starts). They keep telling us how no Dem can possibly support the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd in Heller or McDonald. The same one that bragged about how he "didn't know what a 4473 or a NICS was and didn't care".

Also admitted to never firing or touching a gun, but knows all about them from reading about the issue.

You'd almost think they are getting tired of having their arguments refuted by facts down here and would like a "safe haven" from anyone that actually knows what they are talking about re; AWB, Heller, McDonald, .50 calibers et. al.

[ellisonz]

117. lol

Still waiting to see a single post from you supporting the President or Democratic Party at large.

[DonP]

118. And we're all waiting for you to post your fortnightly whine about the Gungeon in Meta again

That's the third time you've referenced checking out "all my posts". That borders on stalking and that's a violation of ToS and you know it.

There are plenty of posts from me about the candidates I've supported in past elections. I worked for over 4 decades in a Chicago ward office for an alderman, so the opinions of some self aggrandizing, whiny grad student type who thinks he's a coffee house hero with no experience on these issues in the real world, isn't really high on my list of concerns. But it's also none of your fucking business either, you pathetic little weasel.

You be sure and let us know when Skinner appoints you to the position of official DU "Purity Apparatchik" and then we might give a shit what you think of how good a Dem any of us are or aren't. Until then your opinion of us isn't worth warm spit. It seems most of the folks responding to your threads in Meta think so too.

You are about the 45th self appointed character we've had down here in the last decade or so that decided that they were going to alert DU to how we weren't "Good Dems", because we didn't agree with their narrow, self centered view of the party. Keep it up and before you know it, you can ask Iverglas to join her on the closed echo chamber she rants on now.

Now, get back to drafting your next whine in Meta about how horrible it is down here and how we are all trolls so we can see you get spanked again for trying to screw up another forum that can't find anything to respect about your opinions on the forums SOP (soon to be expanded apparently based on the support).

[ellisonz]

119. You seem angry.

You also seem pretty anti-intellectual and based on your call-out post above the claim that I'm somehow stalking you is laughable at best.

Hint: It's just the internet, get over it before you have a stroke or something, dude.

[DanTex]

120. Yeah ellisonz! You whiny grad-school communist tree-hugger!

You bratty intellectual types with your "books" and your "sciences" and "humanities" are ruining America! Everything I ever needed to know I learned from Smith and Wesson!


(necessary because we're in the gungeon)

[ellisonz]

124. Yeah...

...how dare I engage in sociology and consider the moral importance of all stakeholders in the conversation. For examples, the victims and families thereof from senseless gun violence.

I think we need to go back to this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/117231665 - in which the most popular response to the question of what to say to such a person is that "they're sorry for their loss" - but that it's no different from car crashes, heart attacks and snake bites. Not enough motivation to say, support common sense gun control measures designed to curb the numbers of such victims. Smith and Wesson doesn't teach jack shit about making judgment in regards to public policy and it's no substitute for moral judgment.

But I'm just as DonP has previously noted, nothing but a "scalawag" - I'll have to get a scalawag bumper sticker for my "stupid Prius."

[friendly_iconoclast]

132. Your role as "DU spokesperson for victims of gun violence" was *entirely* self-appointed.

..., along with that of "Guardian of Progressivism and DU thought".

I daresay your opinions have been given more than their due...

[gejohnston]

133. like I said before

but that it's no different from car crashes, heart attacks and snake bites. Not enough motivation to say, support common sense gun control measures designed to curb the numbers of such victims.

All of your rants are based on propaganda, no sociology or deep thought, no technical knowledge. All bullshit fear mongering that you naively buy into. Here is a quick question, can you give serious and honest answers:
Define "common sense gun control"
How are they designed to curb violence?
How will they curb violence?
Can you point to some place that actually curbed violence with gun control?

[ellisonz]

137. That's your interpretation.

1. Laws consistent with "a well-regulated Militia" that support public safety without draconianism.
2. By removing dangerous weapons from the hands of criminal, mentally-deficient or unqualified users.
3. See #2.
4. The United States of America, not to mention the comparisons of our rates of homicide with other Westernized nations.

Damn that was easy!

Tell me, why is gun control "bad"

[Marengo]

140. Can you elaborate on point # 1?

[ellisonz]

145. No elaboration required. n/t

[sarisataka]

153. And there lies the problem

Whenever it is asked of pro-control people, what are 'common sense laws' you get one of three replies:

-"to start we should..." implying there will be more to follow
-re-institute the 'holy grail' AWB which even pro-control people have admitted did nothing to reduce crime
-'well regulated laws' which they never quite get around to saying what those laws may be. The speaker will usually reveal their opinion that SCOTUS was wrong in their interpretation of the 2A (somehow seeing a Constitutional clause that you may ignore SCOTUS rulings if you disagree with the ruling or political leaning of the court).

Is it any wonder that gun control gets nearly no support from the 2A rights supporters? More extreme pro-gun laws are passed without comment because moderates want as much negotiating power as possible for the day the pendulum swings and people like Lautenberg and Feinstein are able to push their agendas...

[ellisonz]

154. There's also the fact that I have better things to do today...

...than flagellate a pig.

[sarisataka]

155. Don't quite follow you squadron leader...

[Marengo]

165. I disagree as your statement is ambiguous.

"Laws consistent with "a well-regulated Militia" that support public safety without draconianism."

What is your definition of "a well-regulated Militia"? What would be the contents of the laws you advocate?

[hack89]

141. Number 1 implies no private ownership of handguns. Correct?

and we are using the word "regulated" in its original context, correct?

[gejohnston]

144. umm no

You don't know what "well regulated" means. You slept through history and law.
Has been federal law since 1930s, but mo country has
What about Japan and South Korea? What is "Westernized" and why does it matter? Why isn't Jamaica, Mexico, Russia, Belize "westernized"? You didn't answer the question. You can't show where laws dropped murder or suicide rates.

[ellisonz]

146. I'm not the one arguing words dramatically transubstantiated their meaning. n/t

[gejohnston]

149. OK student

Intellectual inquiry means you went to the library. Deep thought means introspection.

[ellisonz]

152. *buzzer*

Incorrect - intellectual inquiry means the employment of reason in search of a solution/answer to a question/problem. Deep thought means the exact same thing vaguely. They are synonymous phrases. Also, if you can show me a single credible (non-gun extremist point) to back up your argument that the Founding Fathers were incapable of understanding the meaning of their words, you'd have a leg to stand on. Now you're just grasping at straws because even you admit there's a "shade of difference." I'm not interested in shades, I'm interested in concrete reasoning.

[gejohnston]

157. buzzer again

actually, no. They are not synonymous. Just look it up in the dictionary. The founders understood their words just fine, you don't understand the meaning of words in their historical context. The meaning of words change over time. You are starting to sound like the right wingers who claim "the word privacy does not appear in the constitution, so there is no right to it." Privacy, at that time, did not mean the same thing there either.

Now you're just grasping at straws because even you admit there's a "shade of difference." I'm not interested in shades, I'm interested in concrete reasoning.

I am hardly grasping at straws. Reason has to be based on something. None of your "concrete reasoning" is based on anything.

[ellisonz]

159. The supposed "right to privacy" is based on interpretation of the Ninth Amendment.

Read Griswold v. Connecticut.

If they had wanted it to mean what you suppose, they would have written "well-armed."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"self-evident" = Concrete reasoning.

[gejohnston]

122. I actually don't see the anti intellectualism

At most it is a pot shot at youth and the lack of wisdom that comes with it. It is one thing to gather knowledge (what the knowledge is or how it obtained doesn't matter. It applies the humanities as well as auto mechanics) it is quite another to understand how it applies in the real world and how to apply it. School, library, your elder's knee, or whatever gives you only the basic information and sometimes knowledge. That information turns into actual knowledge and wisdom only after learning the complexities and the many possible contexts, which only comes from opening your mind to accept those on their own terms. You only get that by living.

[ellisonz]

125. "self aggrandizing, whiny grad student type who thinks he's a coffee house hero"

That's anti-intellectualism - textbook.

But then again, I haven't had to murder 20 men to know know murder is wrong, and I haven't had to Frist 20 cats to know I'm not going to learn much new from Fristing cats.

[gejohnston]

129. A lot more complex than that.

I have had my share of undergrad and grad students that were pseudo intellectuals. If anything, he is calling out pseudo intellectualism. If you confuse universal basic ingrained cultural or civil values with intellectual inquiry and deep thought, you may be a pseudointellectual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudointellectual

[ellisonz]

138. I paid attention in my sociology classes.

Sorry, but you're second sentence fails to define any of your terms for the purpose of meaningful analysis. Basic and ingrained might as well mean the same thing and the notion of "universal" is contrary to the idea of "cultural," "intellectual inquiry" and "deep thought" are redundant, and I won't even begin to unpack what you mean by "civil values" in such a context. I also paid attention in my political philosophy courses. Sorry, try again to precisely elucidate your concepts. Also, I kind of shudder to think at the idea of you as a teacher in an educational institution

[gejohnston]

142. I'm glad you did

I don't think I said you didn't. I paid attention in all of my classes too, plus I have the experience that understand You don't put any thought in your rants. When you said "you knew murder is wrong".

"universal" is contrary to the idea of "cultural,"

Not if it is found in all known cultures. Murder is a crime in all cultures. Murder is also a legal concept. What is murder in one culture, may not be murder in another. Obviously that does not mean all individuals within that culture does.

"intellectual inquiry" and "deep thought" are redundant, and I won't even begin to unpack what you mean by "civil values" in such a context. I also paid attention in my political philosophy courses.

Not really redundant. There is a difference, a shade of difference but still a difference.
Civil values are secular values shared by a society, which are not always laws and are sometimes expressed by customs.

I'm glad you paid attention in your political philosophy courses as well. That only means you listened to the lectures and did your work.

[gejohnston]

161. let me clarify something

My reference to "having students" should have read "sitting next to students". My bad. I was once a "traditional student" in another century, literally. I may have been one of the "coffee shop ranters" back then. Then I thought joining the army, which I did, was a good idea. A couple of years later, I decided that the Air Force offered more adventure, and many places my Army specialty did not. I learned a lot more, but still took classes. A lot my classes had a wide range of ages. Finding naive and shallow coffee house rants amusing is not anti intellectual. Neither is scorning them. A very wise anthropology PhD once taught me that to acceptance leads to understanding. To truly understand something, you must first accept it on its own terms. You are simply judging without attempting understand.

[DanTex]

156. I think we've got both covered this thread...

Anti-intellectualism:

whiny grad student type who thinks he's a coffee house hero

Pseudointellectualism:

confuse universal basic ingrained cultural or civil values with intellectual inquiry and deep thought

Here's a tip: if you find yourself using the term "deep thought" non-ironically, and you're not talking about a computer, there's a good chance you're a psuedointellectual.

[gejohnston]

158. what about chess? I fail to see how

since the term preceded Deep Thought. deep thought means introspection. It is not anti intellectualism to question the wisdom of someone's rants.

What is anti-intellectual about "whiny grad students who try to be coffee house heroes"?

[Clames]

128. It is just the internet...

...yet you seem to have serious stake in imposing your will on a DU group you could just ignore and save yourself the potential stroke...


Anti-intellectual? Strong statement from someone who's self-admittedly proud of his lack of technical understanding on firearms. Willful ignorance really. Very anti-intellectual attitude to have.

[rrneck]

131. I don't know why anti intellectualism would bother him

since he is clearly not a member of the group in question.

[ellisonz]

136. Technical knowledge /= "intellectualism"

Such divisions are ancient!

[gejohnston]

143. but sound policy requires technical knowledge.

You want to ban something that is already regulated, very rarely used in crime, and can't give a logical explanation why without resorting to Brady/VPC talking points. That is not intellectualism. It is often mistaken as such, which is unfortunate.

[ellisonz]

148. "dangerous and unusual"

[gejohnston]

150. what about them?

You are using them in the legal context, ask a lawyer. None of the so called "assault weapons" reach that level.

[Clames]

151. Microstamping is another subject that the lack of technical understanding...

...causes a regular tripping hazard. Physics be damned, they want some laws!

[Kaleva]

46. I'm quite open to this idea and here are some of my opinions on it.

The two groups ought to be under one topic area (Firearms?) as most members of one group will also make up the majority of regulars in the other.

The standards of behavior in the Gun Enthusiast group ought to be held to a higher standard then what takes place now. It is after all, a place where gun enthusiasts ought to be able to discuss guns without references to their penis size or of being an NRA stooge.

I would expect the Gun Policy group to be pretty much the same as the Gun Control & RKBA is now because of the deep divisions between the pro gun control people and the RKBA folks.

I would suggest that krispos42 be host of both groups, if he agrees to it.

[MicaelS]

84. Excellent idea, I agree 100%. n/t

[Simo 1939_1940]

88. I like this as well.....particularly your point re. standards of behavior

in the Gun Enthusiast group.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

90. standards of behavior are subject to a jury...how do you propose that higher standard take effect?

[Kaleva]

96. Members can be blocked from a group by the host for violating SOP

"Block a member from the group
Blocks a member from posting in the group. The member will be automatically notified by DU Mail. Members can be unblocked by any Host."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

98. perhaps we could start a rough draft for an SoP....

I think people be on both sides of the issue and still show some respect. If a member continues with certain behavior that is not acceptable to the group as a whole then would that be a violation and said person would be blocked?

I am wondering why this could not happen here in GC&RKBA...by rewording the SoP....

[Kaleva]

99. GC&RKBA or the proposed "Gun Policy" group would be different...

because of the major differences of opinion on the issues discussed amongst the regulars. Behavior in the proposed "Gun Enthusiast" group could be held to a higher standard mainly because of the more common interests amongst the members of the group.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

100. by higher standard...basically ... a Safe Haven? I still don't understand why that same standard

can not be applied here. The issues can be discussed civilly in here, I have seen an exchange of ideas handled respectfully.

I guess what I am getting at is that whatever way this goes...people are either going to "play nice" or they aren't.

We can kick someone out here for the same reason,,,,or am I wrong in thinking this?

A disruptor is a disruptor no matter where they post. We should not tolerate verbal abuse. period.

[Kaleva]

102. I imagine one could do that here.

Modify the SOP so that it says one who engages in personal attacks and/or name calling (by either side) here could be blocked from the group. That would make the host, krispos42, a mod here and he may not want to do that even if the "About this group" page does give him the authority to block members.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

103. I am thinking that this could work...may need to add another host. It could be done but, I am not

sure if this is the route everyone else wants to take.

[NewMoonTherian]

58. I love this idea.

I have absolutely no objections. I think it's the best solution proposed so far.

To clarify, though, would both of these topics remain under Justice & Public Safety? That would seem a little awkward. Gun Policy should stay here, of course, but Firearm Enthusiasts might be better suited for Recreation. It might not get as much traffic there, but I think properly sorting the boards is more important.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

62. would the Enthusiasts group be a safe haven?

[NewMoonTherian]

81. I would certainly hope so.

I'm sure we'll have to keep it that way through judicious use of alerts.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

66. Would having...

...both groups listed under an umbrella topic like "Firearms" work for you? One top-level topic includes both groups. One covers policy; the other covers everything else. This is the arrangement I prefer.

[NewMoonTherian]

79. That sounds fine by me. I'd vote for exactly that. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

92. Cool :)

I mentioned this also to DanTex but there is no response yet. I would rather not have this individual group's SOP diluted with a wider variation of topics but I am definitely in favor of having a one place for everything guns but dividing them into a policy group and separate enthusiast group. Further, since the current group exists under Justice & P/S the policy group could still maintain that identity as it only serves as an html link. There is no fundamental problem having a single forum with multiple links from different places in the overall topic listing. For example there would be nothing wrong with finding Hilton Head under all of these: locations->South Carolina->Hilton Head, Recreation->Golf->Hilton Head, Vacations->Hilton Head.

Perhaps tomorrow I'll make an OP maybe with a poll asking about this possibility.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

65. How would you...

...feel about having both groups listed under an umbrella topic like "Firearms"? One top level topic includes two groups. One covers discussions including hunting, competition, reloading, collectables... The other covers policy. This is the arrangement I prefer.

[Dr_Scholl]

77. Oh my God! I agree with Dan for once!

Seriously, though, good idea.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

83. Two separate safe-haven forums... "RKBA & Guns" and "Gun Control"

Make each a safe haven for their respective topics and that would save a lot of hospitality.

[MicaelS]

85. Disagree completely...

Then they would be lots of posting back and forth "Do you see what they're doing over there?". Both Groups would ban members from the others.

I think Kaleva has the best idea. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45863

The two groups ought to be under one topic area (Firearms?) as most members of one group will also make up the majority of regulars in the other.

The standards of behavior in the Gun Enthusiast group ought to be held to a higher standard then what takes place now. It is after all, a place where gun enthusiasts ought to be able to discuss guns without references to their penis size or of being an NRA stooge.

I would expect the Gun Policy group to be pretty much the same as the Gun Control & RKBA is now because of the deep divisions between the pro gun control people and the RKBA folks.

I would suggest that krispos42 be host of both groups, if he agrees to it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

101. I think it is asking too much of Krispos if we go this route but, if he is OK with it

then I would have no objection.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

91. cofused. do you mean --

hostility, by chance?

[rrneck]

87. On reflection this might be a splendid idea.

Imagine the traffic we could draw. Any Google search that has "Democrat" and "gun" is bound to steer tons of firearms enthusiasts here like crazy. You make a place here to talk about guns, post pictures of guns, and coordinate information about gun related activities we'll get all sorts and kinds of interesting, intelligent, well informed and combative gunnies from all over the political spectrum.

If you build it, they will come.

[Marinedem]

105. I think it's a great idea. NT.

[MicaelS]

121. After much consideration,

Even though I disagree with some of your positions vis-a-vis the RKBA, I find that I agree with, and support all of your points. Your OP is well reasoned, and therefore I am Recc'ing your OP.

I think we need to move forward with coming up with clear statement of purpose for both Groups.

I recommend that they be both placed under the umbrella of "Guns", rather than "Firearms" due to the fact some might want to discuss Airguns and / or Paintball guns.

I also recommend that "Gun Enthusiasts" be made a Safe Zone, so we don't have people trolling that Group making posts about "Gun Porn" and "penis sizes."

Good job, DanTex.

[Atypical Liberal]

130. As long as I can talk about Gun Policy in the Gun enthusiasts group, I'm cool with it.

I just want one place to talk about all things guns.