Our SOP says...

[beevul]

172. No, its really NOT O.K.

It appears to me that since those posts have not been hidden, they were not the personal attacks you interpreted them as. I have in the past had a number of posts to gunners hidden, so the notion that pro-gun control posts won't be hidden is false. I have observed that of late jurors more easily hide gunner posts than others, but that, I think, reflects their exasperation with certain members or positions.

See, now you're attributing a notion, to someone who never conveyed it. Ipnabla.

The notion, is NOT that pro-control post wont or do not get hidden. I never said that, implied that, or asserted that. I DID however, put forth the notion that- and really, lets not kid ourselves or be cute here, lets just be plain - the rules either do not apply equally to everyone or are not applied equally to everyone.

Please, assert otherwise.

While you think about it, heres exhibit A:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172127393

"You reproduced that delete amendment and insisted I was lying when I explained my position on the matter. That was in one of the threads on the Colorado magazine size limits. You also produced it here as an example of an extreme view, when in fact my views are far closer to the President's and the majority of the Democratic Party. You did so despite he fact I explained my views to you."

Uh...ok. Lets just lay them out and see how close your description meshes with reality:

Your view - "delete the second amendment". You conveyed that message yourself. You did it deliberately. It wasn't a muscle twitch, and you didn't trip and fall into the "delete the second amendment" key. And short of saying "I didn't mean it", you're hastily walking back the clear meaning - that is to say, the clear message you know you intended to send, and the meaning you know full well that anyone would receive when you conveyed it. And yeah, its an extreme view. You know it, I know it, anyone that reads it knows it. it is what it is.


Lets see, the Democratic Party view:

Welll, rather than going into something long and detailed, its simple enough to just say "delete the second amendment" is the point that its farthest from.

That alone makes "my views are far closer to the President's and the majority of the Democratic Party" a falsehood. Unless you think the majority of the party and the president are against the part that says:


"We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms."

See that underlined part? You know, the part you said you'd delete? That's a core constitutional right that our party platform says we will preserve. That you would delete it puts you farther away from that platform on that topic than anyone who wouldn't, regardless of their stand on the other things that follow it whether it be background checks, magazine capacity, assault weapons, or concealed carry.

So while you might believe your views closer represent those of the party, and the President, reality says otherwise.

"So you admit you treat all gun control activists with scorn and go on to try to justify why. You want to pretend the effects of gun violence are not important. Deaths of children are why we argue for gun control. Human life is all that matters. You would like us to pretend that is not at issue because you find the position inconvenient. Too bad. Guns kill children, women, and men. That is what they are designed for and gun proliferation is the reason why the US has the highest homicide rate in the First World. Pretending one's views have no relation to that is tantamount to supporting a war, like in Iraq, and pretending one has nothing to do with the resulting casualties, or supporting cuts in health care and food stamps and pretending one has nothing to do with the resulting poverty and hardship. One leads to the other. Guns kill those people. It is the very heart of the issue. Politics involves a series of moral choices. I choose human rights and human life over profits and guns. My sense of social justice makes that imperative."

So you admit you beat your dog. See how that works? Another ipnabla for saying I did something I didn't.

I treat with scorn, those that earn it. It seems I explained that in a prior post. Perhaps go back and read what I said. I never said I wanted to pretend that the effects of gun violence aren't important. That's another ipnabla. I do not happen to believe in the same set of solutions you do - for instance I'm not big on the "delete key" when it comes to constitutionally protected rights. Politics is MORE than just a set of moral choices - its a set of moral choices made while respecting existing restrictions upon the exercise of power which protect rights. We don't suppress all demonstrations and rallys because someone might get trampled, or because someone might incite a riot. And that applies equally whether we agree with the message of the rally or disagree with it. That's how constitutionally protected rights are treated - even the one you'd delete.

"I could not live with myself if I adopted the positions or coldness toward victims of gun violence that it takes to earn your respect. Social justice is far more important to me. You find that objectionable. That is entirely your problem, and, I would assert, a very serious one."

And another ipnabla. Wow. You assert that its "positions" or "coldness" that earns my respect or doesn't. That's a hoot.

Blaming Ford or Budweiser, or how many cylinders the engine has, or how many beers a twelve pack holds, and/or agitating for marginalization/stigmatization of any of the above when someone driving drunk kills a kid, does not construe social justice.

Likewise, blaming the gun for what people do with one outside the law, accidentally, or negligently, and or agitating for marginalization/stigmatization of guns in general because of it, does not construe social justice.

No. Those are the tools and M.O. of the puritan. The fundamentalist. The extremist.

Likewise, are attempts to marginalize or stigmatize those who value their own party plank on the subject of the second amendment more than you do by your own assertion.

Theres no spinning, twisting, hopping, skipping, dismissing, or misconstruing a way away from it either.

It is what it is, and you own it - paid in full by your delete key.