Rural vs. Urban

[GrrrlRomeo]

My stance on gun control is that it is not a left vs right issue, nor is it an all or nothing issue. It's a Rural vs. Urban issue. People in rural areas use firearms as a tool. In urban areas, guns serve no purpose other than being used as a weapon. There's nothing to hunt in the city. Even used as a defensive weapon, there is too great a risk of injuring, and possibly killing, an innocent by-stander in a crowded situation for it to be of much use.

I've heard a lot of talk from people living in rural areas complaining that people in urban areas don't understand why gun rights are important. But the flipside of that is people living in rural areas don't understand why gun control is necessary in urban areas. This is why gun laws need to be handled at the local level and not at the federal level. The issue doesn't belong in a presidential campaign. The issue should lie with your local state rep, or your city mayor.

I do not fear the farmer down the road owning a gun. I don't really fear the family living in the suburbs that wants to protect their home (given that they are responsible enough to secure it). But I do fear people on crowded subways in the city having guns.

[havocmom]

1. When I lived in a big city, I kept a gun

Every woman, but one, I know who had been attacked was attacked in her own home, in a city. The one woman who was beaten and almost raped outside the city was spared because someone (moi) with a gun happened along. Police do not have the response time to save your ass in case of trouble. They too often show up to take notes about a crime which has already been committed and/or lay out yellow tape and call the coroner's wagon

Yes, rural people use guns more often. Law enforcement is spread even thinner in rural America, and there are wild things to be dealt with, some having four legs, some having two, some being rattle snakes with fangs and venom. Sometimes there are injured critters that need immediate relief from massive injuries that happen, especially when car meets critter.

To suggest no one in a city needs a gun, I believe, is Pollyanna-ish. It would be nice to think the police will always be in time to save your butt, but that simply not the case. there have even been court cases where police departments were sued for not arriving in time to prevent crimes. The courts back the logical conclusion that one cannot expect to be assured of police protection.

And it is a bit unrealistic to think someone else is gonna save your neck. That is like the folks who complain that 'somebody needs to do something about election fraud. Somebody needs to be each of us; democracy and life are both participatory, not spectator sports.

Unless you are physically very strong and adroit in marital arts, you are probably more at risk from your fellow man in a city than out in the country.

Have lived both lifestyles, and keep a gun in both environments.

[alwynsw]

2. Excellent post! n/t

[GrrrlRomeo]

7. Not saying that people in the city don't need to defend

themselves. I just don't think a gun is the best weapon for doing so. I firmly believe that every woman should learn self-defense. In the city I just think guns cause more harm than good. The dangers outweigh the usefulness in highly populated areas.

[Billy Ruffian]

10. unarmed vs. firearm self defense

I don't think you have any idea of how much training and continued practice it takes to become proficient in unarmed self-defense (a great deal), nor of the relatively little amount of training and practice it takes to be proficient with a firearm.

To suggest that women should rely upon unarmed self defense is, IMO, irresponsible.

For some women, unarmed self-defense may be the right choice. For others, a firearm may be the best choice. That choice MUST be available to every adult.

[solinvictus]

11. Urban..

"In the city I just think guns cause more harm than good. The dangers outweigh the usefulness in highly populated areas."

I couldn't disagree more. In this age of home invasions with multiple asailants, a firearm is the only means of insuring one's own safety. In my own experience, I've called the police twice and at both instances, the response time was well in excess of a half hour. Now, ponder what would happen during that time if you or your family was at the mercy of criminals.

[Massacure]

104. The dangers come because people don't know how to use them.

Guns shouldn't be banned. Everyone should just be given classes on how to properly use and store them.

[slackmaster]

3. I disagree

In urban areas, guns serve no purpose other than being used as a weapon.

I live in an urban area and use firearms as implements of a sporting avocation (target shooting), and as financial investments.

[alwynsw]

4. I've lived in both environments and kept firearms in both

While living in the city, I pursued target shooting at ranges and left the city to hunt. I also defended my family and home with a handgun.

Now that I'm back in the country, I still target shoot - most often on my own property - and I still hunt. (I eat what I kill, so whomever is considering the trophy flame, please spare me the bother.) If necessary, I would still defend my home and family from intruders.

In both cases I have purchased and will contunue to purchase firearms as investments.

[goju]

5. I tend to agree

Gun control should be at the state level, not federal. Some exceptions of course but it makes sense to have different laws for New Mexico than New Jersey. Dont like the laws, move. Its that simple.

[enfield collector]

6. 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with hunting.

[GrrrlRomeo]

8. It doesn't have anything to do with sports either.

But it seems to me, sporting and hunting is the arguement I hear most often for people wanting to own guns.

[slowroll]

9. Urban areas already have gun control

what good has it done? You seem to be largely agreeing with an earlier post of mine in another thread. But the urban/rural difference I was talking about there is a problem of PERCEPTION. Gun control abounds in urban environments, where the only exposure to firearms use is thru their misuse and the shit that passes for entertainment nowaday. With solely that exposure, of course firearms are going to develop a taboo appeal to those who would be most likely to misuse them. So now you've got no one in the city who's a law abiding citizen using guns for defense or hunting or target shooting or anything else and the only people who want to use guns are those whose understanding of guns and their place in society is warped from the beginning. Now is a self-replicating phenomenon, with proper and normal gun usage becoming increasingly stigmatized and alien to law abiding folks who are only familiar with their misuse and that very stigmatization and "cool factor" increasing their appeal to criminals.

What's the solution? Christ, where to begin? For one thing we need to stop simultaneously glorifying and demonizing guns in our popular culture. It's a recipe for motivating misuse. I'd personally like to see some reintroduction of responsible firearms use to young urban dwellers, maybe bring back shooting teams on a high school level.

Maybe that kind of stuff would have some impact. I doubt it, tho. I think urbanization, specialization, personal mobility, the erosion of the community and the backlashes against these trends have well and truly fucked American civilization, and the perverted attitudes towards firearms displayed by both the childish guns-are-icky control advocates and the nutcase kill-em-all freeper types are just one example. I don't see any solution other than keep as far away from it as possible. I've already priced the lumber for my shack in Montana.

[Remmah]

12. Previous Urban Dweller

Years ago I was an urban dweller. I joined a rod and gun club and used it as a place to plink-practice. Guns were in my urban houses I lived in for 16 years and were never raised in anger. Back then I even kept them in the closet in a canvas case; no worry of theft. I grew up in the suburbs w/younger brothers and sisters and kept a .22 and 12 gauge in the closed w/no locks. (Unloaded, ammo in my dad's work shop.)

I've been in subway systems in DC, NYC, Toronto. I pretty much remember signs saying they were illeagle to carry on board. Same for all the city busses I've been on. I've always obeyed the laws concerning carrying them. I've been lucky, never been mugged. Some stations that I have visited there were muggings. It seems it's more a function of criminals vs honest citizens. I will say that NYC has responded well and really cleaned up the crime on the subway, but I also realize that no system is perfect. I pick and choose the times I ride and where I sit when I do ride. I try not to ride in fear but make decisions to avoid fearful riding.

I still own legal fireams but certainly don't carry them on the public transit systems. I currently live rural, have no interest in hunting. I could shoot in my backyard but don't. I let the lead accumulate at the rod and gun club for future recycling. I did finally invest in a safe.

[LinuxUser]

13. And Dems need to seriously think about rural voters

If the Dems ever want to start winning national elections, they need to start thinking about getting rural voters. Kerry was a gun-banning extremist. The occasional goose-hunting trip doesn't fool anyone. Such people aren't going to get the votes they need to win rural states and there aren't enough electoral votes in CA and NY to win the presidency.

As you rightly point out, there is a big rural/urban divide on the gun issue. That's why it should be a state issue, not a Federal issue. Different states have different cultural attitudes and circumstances.

One point where I disagree with you is the danger of innocent bystanders being killed by guns used in dense urban areas. Yes, I can see where you're coming from, but the dangers are really much less than you may be thinking. Yes, having a shoot-out on a crowded rush-hour subway is just about the worst-case scenario and would certainly result in some bystanders being shot, so you are right about that, but that's the most extreme example possible. In almost all other cases, like in an apartment or a house, or even on a city street, the risk of stray bullets hitting someone is very low. For apartment defense, if you choose the right type of ammunition, the risk can be made to zero. There are special types of bullets which are designed to not go through walls. People who live in apartments should choose these. Obviously, it takes some education and knowledge to make those kinds of choices.

[virginia mountainman]

14. Alienated Rural Democrat

I have been “lurking” here for quite sometime, and I would like for some of ya’ll to meet an “alienated” rural Democrat.

First a little background about me…..

My family has STRONG Democratic roots, Both my parents where union organizers in some textile mills in southwest Virginia back in the 1970’s I was the “Democratic poster child” in parades back in the 70’s, we was also featured on the nightly news for a period of time, with my mother's work with bringing the union into town, (ultimately unsuccessful) My mother was also a delegate, from the state of Virginia, for Mondale, at the democratic convention

My wife’s family has just as strong roots. Her father has just retired from the coalmines. Her grandfather has served in local government on the democratic ticket for many years, and is also a union man.

My “alienation” began around 1993, when gun control started being a loudly contested issue. My WHOLE FAMILY owns guns, we ALL where raised around them.

Guns where NOT an issue, everyone had them. I was raised in a small house, my father’s long guns where stored in a rack over the headboard of my bed, his handguns where kept in his bed-side bureau and yes, he kept a .45 1911 pistol, loaded, in the open, on top of his dresser, no big deal, it was ALWAYS THERE, right beside his tie-tack box.

It was ready to defend everything my father held dear in his life at a moments notice.

To us kids, it was nothing special, they was ALWAYS their, very much like the butcher knives in the kitchen, they are both deadly, but they both are just “their”.

Nothing special about them

Now I know some of you are thinking my father was a “gun nut” he was NOT, I don’t ever remember him buying any guns, he did not shoot them often, maybe a box of shells a year, right before hunting season. All the guns he had, he had BEFORE he had me.

I had uncles and cousins that “traded in guns” allot. It is a hobby to them and they are law abiding folks, each and everyone. They enjoy the hobby of collecting and shooting as do I

I remember, me and my (then hardcore democratic uncle) was watching the news about the Brady bill, he got very silent about it, but was still supportive to the Democrats. Then the AW ban came, I remember seeing Feinstein on the news, holding up a semi auto AK up saying that ONLY CRIMINALS would have one. (Between all of us, we had 4 of those rifles) in the next election my uncles and cousins went republican, I did too

I PROUDLY voted for Bill Clinton over Bush SR, he took my vote and betrayed me and my family.

We saw the party that we supported faithfully for generations literally turn on us overnight it seemed. Gun Control was all over the news and if you disagreed, you where “outside the mainstream” or a “gun nut”

Some will say we are just bigots, religious zealots, and “simpletons” and we don’t matter.

But the truth is I could not careless about gay marriage, I am supportive of abortion rights, I detest what is happened in Iraq, I BELIEVE IN ALL OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

And I am an outcast from the democrats, because I believe in the 2nd amendment

It is about MORE than guns, it is about personal responsibility, I was taught at a VERY EARLY age, that it is MY number 1 responsibility to protect myself and family from “folks that have bad intentions” Guns are the BEST means of that, the police are ONLY CALLED AFTER there is a crime committed, if you cannot defend yourself effectively, or rely on OTHERS to protect your family, you have FAILED as a parent/husband.

All these gun control laws effect is how effectively I can protect my wife and kids, or my wife protecting herself and kids when I am not here, THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE!!


Let me point out the damage that gun control has done to the democrats; my family has swung to the right. All my uncles and cousins proudly sport “Bush 2004” and “W” stickers on their cars. My father-in-law does not vote anymore, he cannot vote for the “gun banners” but he can’t bring himself to vote for the republicans neither. ONLY MY WIFE’S GRANDFATHER STILL OPENLY SUPPORTS DEMOCRATS. My wife has swung to the right, she is STILL gloating about the election.

My parents no longer vote/supports democrats neither.

See the “gun issue” is about much more than guns to my family. My family would be willing to support the democratic agenda (some may be too far gone now) but I think most would. The Democrats lost us with all the “Hillbilly”, “redneck”, and ”gun nut” talk

It's not the 90 million U.S. gun owners or their guns that are the problem. It's the criminals, and the 20,000 gun laws have never deterred them.

Lines like “Mr. and Miss America turn them ALL IN” don’t help you at all in these parts.

And stop talking about “hunters” the INSTANT folks here, hear that, they KNOW that you’re a “gun banner”

Kerry’s “canned” goose hunt was a joke; his 100% voting record against gun right was NOT a joke.

I have read “post after post” about how the NRA is a shill for the Republicans, they ARE NOT, they DO Support TRULY Pro-Gun democrats, like my congress critter, Rep Boucher (D) VA 9th district.(and YES I do vote for him proudly)

And the talk of NRA money, PLEAZZZZ, it is the 4 million members that vote religiously that give the NRA its power


I made this post (MY first) because I WANT to see the Democrats come back, I am truly scared that soon if the party don’t learn, they will find themselves completely out of power. The Republicans being in complete control scares the crap out of me. I am new to forums so pardon if I have broken any un-written rules, PLEASE give me a canadate I can support whole-heartedly.

Andrew

[Romulus]

15. Great post!

and welcome to DU!!!!!!!

(from a former Virginian (sniff))

[cattleman22]

16. Well said

I too grew up in rural VA. You touched on two important issues. Guns and the urban elitism.

[Redneck Socialist]

17. Welcome to DU

Good first post.

[alwynsw]

18. Great post!

Welcome to DU.

[beevul]

20. WOW!!

"I PROUDLY voted for Bill Clinton over Bush SR, he took my vote and betrayed me and my family."

"We saw the party that we supported faithfully for generations literally turn on us overnight it seemed. Gun Control was all over the news and if you disagreed, you where “outside the mainstream” or a “gun nut”."

"Some will say we are just bigots, religious zealots, and “simpletons” and we don’t matter."

"It is about MORE than guns, it is about personal responsibility, I was taught at a VERY EARLY age, that it is MY number 1 responsibility to protect myself and family from “folks that have bad intentions” Guns are the BEST means of that, the police are ONLY CALLED AFTER there is a crime committed, if you cannot defend yourself effectively, or rely on OTHERS to protect your family, you have FAILED as a parent/husband."

"See the “gun issue” is about much more than guns to my family. My family would be willing to support the democratic agenda (some may be too far gone now) but I think most would. The Democrats lost us with all the “Hillbilly”, “redneck”, and ”gun nut” talk."


You really cut right to the heart of the matter. The five paragraphs that I quoted describe EXACTLY the mindset of the rural vote, in my experience. They also gives a pretty good explanation of how misunderstood, underestimated, and alienated rural folks get, and why.

Until the situation with the rural vote is reconciled, including the topic of guns, things will continue along in their current direction.

That is not something ANYONE should be happy with.

[iverglas]

21. cheeses

I go on a search for last 24 hours / marriage canad ("canad" finds "Canadian", "Canadians", "Canada" ...) -- to see where today's Supreme Court of Canada decision on the same-sex marriage reference is being discussed at DU -- and I find this:

PLEASE give me a canadate I can support whole-heartedly.

Hmm. If only, eh?

But as long as I'm here ...

Lines like “Mr. and Miss America turn them ALL IN” don’t help you at all in these parts.

Yeah ... and lines that attempt to portray elected Democratic representatives as wanting to confiscate all firearms don't help YOU at all in THESE parts.

But I'm curious ...

I PROUDLY voted for Bill Clinton over Bush SR, he took my vote and betrayed me and my family.

What exactly did Pres. Clinton do that "betrayed" you and your family?

My “alienation” began around 1993, when gun control started being a loudly contested issue. My WHOLE FAMILY owns guns, we ALL where raised around them.

So? Wazzat got to do with gun control?

All these gun control laws effect is how effectively I can protect my wife and kids, or my wife protecting herself and kids when I am not here, THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE!!

Ah yes. Big daddy must protect little woman. It's a moral imperative.

http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=456

The survey question asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with this statement: "The father of the family must be the master in his own house."

In our 2000 Canadian survey, only 5 per cent reported being strongly in support of patriarchal authority, down from the 15 per cent we found in 1983 ... .

... In Canada, almost everyone was part of this revolution, even men, who by 2000 had only 23 per cent of their numbers in support of dad being boss at home.

... Meanwhile, we found that where 42 per cent of Americans believed the father should be master in 1992, the number increased to 44 per cent in 1996. We wondered if this was a statistical anomaly. We went back into the field in 2000 to find out if the frontal assault on patriarchal authority by U.S. president Bill Clinton and television icon Homer Simpson would bring U.S. numbers more into line with those in Canada and France.

This time <in 2000>, 48 per cent of Americans said the father of the family must be master in his own home ... .

Patriarchy, the tell-tale heart of fascism.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[virginia mountainman]

24. "sigh"

I would like to thank ya’ll for you kind words…………


Iverglas, you are from Canada, I do not expect you to know how an rural American voter thinks and feels, this is part of the reason of my first post, I want folks in the urban areas to understand WHY we think the way we do. So they may understand WHY the intense backlash against gun control, and that is what it is, an INTENSE voter backlash against ANYONE who votes for gun control, if you don’t believe me, one look at the 1994 congress compared to the 2004 congress will tell you that

You said {what exactly did Pres. Clinton do that "betrayed" you and your family?}

I will tell you, nearly as soon as he was sworn in, he started his crusade against law abiding folks defending themselves.

The name calling started about anyone who disagreed in the slightest.

He betrayed me and my family by making it more difficult for me and my wife to defend ourselves, with the AW Ban. Part of the AW ban was the “10 rnd” magazine restriction I want my wife to have as many rounds as possible to defend herself when she is alone

He and others vilified gun owners every chance they got and the nightly news ran stories about gun control on a weekly basis. I remember the early 1990’s vividly.

In the rural areas, the ability to defend oneself and loved ones IS PARAMOUNT, it trumps all, taxes, environment, jobs, it basically don’t matter much if you are dead at the hand of a criminal. Ask ANY HUNTER what would happing if you broke into his house late at night.

You also said {Ah yes. Big daddy must protect little woman. It's a moral imperative.}

My wife, family, even my neighbors ARE WORTH PROTECTING, is yours not??

And as for the protect little women” comment, she shoots better than I do, she DOES NOT need my protection per se, but it is my responsibility, I took this responsibility on willingly when I married her, if something does go wrong late one night, I would rather give my life in defense of the home than her or my kids to give theirs. It IS a moral imperative to protect and defend someone you love. WOULD YOU NOT DO THE SAME IF YOUR HOME AND FAMILY ARE THREATENED? I know my wife would do the same for me and the kids, I hope and pray she never does. I CHOSE to put myself between danger and my family.

Than you close with this line; (Patriarchy, the tell-tale heart of fascism.)

Name Calling again, “sigh”

Patriarchy;

1. A social system in which the father is the head of the family and men have authority over women and children.
2. A family, community, or society based on this system or governed by men.

My wife, is just as well armed as I am, she can defend herself independent of me. She does not depend on me for protection, and we share household responsibilities 50/50, we BOTH hold CCW in Virginia, I do not feel I have “Authority” over her, nor do I feel she has authority over me. So you are PATENTLY FALSE in that assertion. And you are reading words that are not their

My wife is HIGHLY educated and does not need to depend on me for anything really, we chose to be together. We accent each others “specialties” she is great at taking care of the family when sick, I am great at household defense, she is great at cleaning, I am great at cooking. I and my wife have a partnership and it works well.

So please, my words are simple, don’t try to read things into them that plainly are not their.

That attitude is costing the party dearly. Would YOU vote for someone that looks down on you????????????????????????

Andrew

Please overlook the difficulty in reading my post, as I said before I am new to online forums,

[iverglas]

26. "my words are simple"

Haha. So funny, on so many levels.

[alwynsw]

34. Remember what Thumper's parents taught him? n/t

[iverglas]

38. "If you can't say something nice, don't say it at all."

Kinda like the DU rules say.

Advice that you should maybe have directed at the individual whose post apparently didn't measure up to that standard:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=95394&mesg_id=95548&page=

Did you have nothing to say?

Not even a running (simple) word count of our new little friend's efforts?

Them's a whole lot of simple words, is how it looks from where I sits.


(typo fixed)

[alwynsw]

39. Time to drag this out again.

[iverglas]

41. and yet

you cared enough to say ... well, the very least, I suppose ...

So much effort for so little caring, and so little effect.

I dunno. Perhaps you thought I cared how much you cared?

Guess, now.

[solinvictus]

27. Clinton..

I couldn't agree more. Rural areas don't have the luxury of police patrols, more often there's a single officer covering a large area for only one shift. Even here, in my firsthand experience, police response is over half an hour to a report.

The Democratic Party needs to steal the gun issue from Republicans; meaning they should unconditionally recognize the right to individual firearms ownership for self-protection. Additionally, they need to recognize that the entire nation does not and should not ape the local laws of such areas as NYC, Chicago, or California. I can't emphasize this enough: because they openly embraced a gun control platform, Democrats have lost the Southern, Western, and Midwest rural vote. In case no one's noticed, the Million Mommies are now a scattered fringe group that can't muster support for local meet-ups. Additionally, Sarah Brady is a staunch Republican, so supporting her supports Bushco. It's a losing issue that needs to be dropped.

[iverglas]

29. Diane Feinstein wants to confiscate all firearms ...

... Sarah Brady is a staunch Republican.

Ah, the mottos that the rkba-heads love to live by. So too bad that they're so not true.

As I understand it, Sarah Brady was once a Republican, having been married to a Republican politician, and no longer holds membership in the party.

Hmm. I seem to recall someone else who fit that profile. I think her name is Teresa something.


I can't emphasize this enough: because they openly embraced a gun control platform, Democrats have lost the Southern, Western, and Midwest rural vote. In case no one's noticed, the Million Mommies are now a scattered fringe group that can't muster support for local meet-ups.

Press your point all you like. Bullshit that has been pressed is just squashed bullshit.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/05/24_NRA.html

(Oh look, a progressive opinion source, quoting a reliable news source.)

Take a look at another state the NRA promised to deliver to Bush: Michigan. According to polling, the NRA's work on behalf of Bush helped Gore win the state. The Christian Science Monitor reported on November 2, 2000, "In Michigan...message-mongers also need to consider the law of unintended consequences. The pro-gun lobby, backed by actor Charlton Heston, has worked hard to peel votes from the traditionally Democratic union membership. But, says independent Michigan pollster Ed Sarpolus, Mr. Heston is hurting Bush, because he's reminding Republican women about guns -- and 3 of 5 Republican women agree with the Democratic position favoring greater gun control." The press focused enormous attention on Gore's reluctance to discuss the gun issue, but largely ignored the same tactic from the pro-gun Governor of Texas. The polling in Michigan shows clearly why Bush also avoided the gun issue.

But heck, they're just the little women, and they probably votes the way their menfolk tells them to anyhow.

Additionally, they need to recognize that the entire nation does not and should not ape the local laws of such areas as NYC, Chicago, or California.

C'mon, say something that actually amounts to something.

What laws doncha want to be aping?

Do you seriously imagine that if licences to possess firearms and registration of firearms were required by law, all those southern pappies would suddenly become disentitled to possess firearms and all their guns would get grabbed? If so, have you considered cognitive therapy?

If you are defending/advocating unlimited access to handguns, which plainly you are:

they should unconditionally recognize the right to individual firearms ownership for self-protection

-- despite the fact that historically, such firearms played no role whatsoever in the traditional rustic settings and populations you evoke -- well, I guess cognitive therapy alone isn't likely to be sufficient for the problem at hand. Such an ability/desire to ignore the facts in front of one's face must stem from a quite different kinda problem.

[virginia mountainman]

33. voter intensity

Some more tidbits of rural voter wisdom.

(3 of 5 Republican women agree with the Democratic position favoring greater gun control.)

Ask THOSE “3 out of 5” HOW IMPORTANT gun control is to them and their vote? Is gun control a “deal breaker” to those women that support it?? Nearly all of them will rank it LOW on their voter priority list.


Ask the other 2 about gun control and you most likely will find that it is a VERY important issue to them, and that they will not support ANY canadate that supports any gun control measures

Now do the math, as if you are running for election.

Will you take the position that gives you “SOFT” support among a SLIGHT plurality of voters, and that totally alienates just under half of your support right off the bat??

Maybe if that was the ONLY Issue that tactic would work, but there are many issues besides gun control, and you just ENRAGED slightly under half of the constituency, that enraged part don’t care about your stand on the “other issues” all they want is to see you served on toast, no matter what.

Just keep telling yourself that soft “3 of 5” number

And on the day of the election, say it is a cold and rainy day, will the soft “3 out of 5” show up, possibly if it don’t inconvenience them too much.

Will the ENRAGED other 2 show up???? YOU BET they will! If they need to build the bridge back over the flooded river, they will be their, you can count on it

There is a BIG difference between “SOFT” and “SOLID” support

Now if our “canadate” had chosen the other option, the Pro-Gun side, the “3 out 5” the “3” soft votes most likely would stay about the same, but for the sake of argument lets say there is “1” out of the 3 that will not vote Pro-Gun no matter what,

So that leaves 2 “SOFT” supporters and 2 “SOLID” supporters, they equal “4” and one angry gun banner trying to swim the swollen river on election day, and our Pro-Gun canadate wins in a walk

Democrats have been playing those polling numbers for years, and when they bet on the “soft gun control” vote, they LOOSE.

Case in point, look at all the polling recently that showed all kinds of voter support for the Assault Weapon Ban, they why did it not pass??

Simply put, they KNOW that gun owners vote religiously, and that they would be turned out on Election Day, because folks that are anti-gun, while they may be the majority, don’t really care enough about the issue to make it a “make or break issue” like the PRO-Gun folks. In a moderately close election, pissing off 1/3 of your electorate is a loosing proposition, because, they WILL VOTE against you. It has been happening to democrats every election cycle since 1994.

Basically it boils down to voter intensity, for every one “SOLID” Anti-gun vote; there are literally hundreds of “SOLID” Pro-gun votes.

Thanks for this forum; I have needed to vent my frustrations for YEARS over this issue.

Andrew

[iverglas]

36. while you're at it

Ask the other 2 about gun control and you most likely will find that it is a VERY important issue to them, and that they will not support ANY canadate that supports any gun control measures

... be sure to ask them what, if any, issues they lean Democrat on. And ask them whether, if the Democratic candidate opposed firearms control and supported every other plank in the Democratic platform, they would vote for the Democrat rather than for the Republican who also opposed firearms control.

Duh.

Is gun control a “deal breaker” to those women that support it?? Nearly all of them will rank it LOW on their voter priority list.

Yuppers. So unless you're proposing that the Democratic candidate mount a campaign against reproductive rights and vow to prosecute the war against Iraq vigorously, what's your point?

In other words: please provide some explanation for your characterization of the 2 out of 5 Republican women who do NOT support Democratic Party policy on firearms control as "just under half of your support".

Is it common, where you're at, to refer to people who do not vote for you, and who are known to disagree with at least one of the policies in your political platform, and who are more than obviously not remotely likely to vote for you regardless of your policy on that particular issue, as "your support"??

Go ahead and explain what earthly sense it makes to change a policy when the change will NOT result in 40% of your opponent's supporters voting for you, rather than retain the existing policy with which 60% of those supporters agree.

Case in point, look at all the polling recently that showed all kinds of voter support for the Assault Weapon Ban, they why did it not pass?? Simply put, ...

<insert unsubstantiated allegation of your choice to explain Republican opposition to renewing the assault weapons ban, having nothing to do with the fact that the Republican Party and president were in control of the legislative agenda>

Will you take the position that gives you “SOFT” support among a SLIGHT plurality of voters, and that totally alienates just under half of your support right off the bat??

Hmm. How we doing on those reproductive rights and war on Iraq thangs?

Here's one o' those fancy shmancy northeastern intellectual type notions for you.

Opposition to the Democratic Party policy on firearms control IS A PROXY for a thorough-going right-wing political stance in a large majority of cases. More than obviously, adopting the Republican (or any other variety of rkba-head) policy on firearms control isn't going to alter the voting of people who are essentially misogynist, racist, nothing but self-interested and/or stupid.

So unless you have some better evidence than you've produced so far (I believe we're talking about that military-intelligence kinda "anecdotal evidence") that anyone who opposed the Democratic Party policy on firearms control would vote Democrat if that policy were changed, you're blowing heated CO2.

So that leaves 2 “SOFT” supporters and 2 “SOLID” supporters, they equal “4” and one angry gun banner trying to swim the swollen river on election day, and our Pro-Gun canadate wins in a walk

Hahaha. Very entertaining. The two REPUBLICAN women we are talking about suddenly switched horses in the middle of that swollen stream, and voted Democrat for no reason other than the fact that the Democrat position on firearms control was the same as the Republican position.

Very entertaining indeed.

Let's try it the other way around. The 3 out of 5 Republican women who oppose the Republican policy on firearms control are in fact "soft" Republican voters. Their vote is going to be swayed, not to the Republicans by the Democrats adopting Republican policy on the issue, but to the Democrats by the Republicans adopting a policy they oppose.

Simply put, my guess is as good as yours. Actually, it's better. And all the homespun tales of your unhappy gun-totin' Democrat kinfolk voting Republican that you can spin, even if I believed them, doesn't change that fact.

Did you consider actually clicking on the link I provided?

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/05/24_NRA.html

Your noise impresses me no more than the similar noise generated in an effort to persuade Democrats to abandon women and GLBT people in order to cash in on the viciousness and stupidity that the misogynists and homophobes have largely succeeded in having recognized as "values".

Your kinfolk may proclaim that they vote Republican for some pet reason of their own having to do with their cherished "values", but we all know perfectly well that anyone who voted Republican in the recent election is someone who is concerned only about his/her own bottom line, and either his/her own bottom line is genuinely served by Republican Party policy, at the expense of other people about whom s/he does not give a shit, or s/he is so stupid that s/he believes that s/he is served by the Republican Party when in fact s/he is screwed by it.

Or heck, a combination of the two. One part cupidity, two parts stupidity; vice versa; whatever. The day that *I* (and *I* have been a candidate) pandered to either would be the day I lost all values and/or brains.

Whether they're to be pitied or to be scorned, to pander to them just doesn't seem either very intelligent (since the Republicans can outpander you any day) or very nice.


Here's a website that seems to be tailor-made for simple folks like yerself:
http://www.canadate.ca/

[virginia mountainman]

42. Here we go again..........................

Here we go with the angry name calling again…………..

I can answer you whole post in just a couple of lines;

Look at the polls, and look at the election results, the republicans are taking over the congress and senate…….. And yet you call ME names.

With attitudes like that, I can see why some rural folks have had enough, I have MANY issues against republicans, but they DON’T call my people names.

AS I said before, I could NOT CARE LESS about gay marriage, I strongly support “reproductive issues”, I want us out of Iraq, I am not “homophobic” by any stretch of the imagination and I resent being mischaracterized as such.

That “noise” you hear is the RED TIDE flooding America, and you refuse to even acknowledge there is a problem. It is just us “stupid misogynists” we are not even worth your time.

Simply put...........

I believe your way of thinking is outside of the mainstream now. And is detrimental to the Democratic Party. Your way of thinking and acting IS playing into the hands of the Republicans.

Andrew

[iverglas]

46. simply put

I've heard it all before. And I recognized it for what it was, every time.


From where I stand, voting Republican is pretty much a res ipsa loquitur kinda thing, if you'll excuse me waxing all Latin.

The thing speaks for itself. Very, uh, eloquently.


And yet you call ME names.

I'd suggest that you do your cutting and pasting duty and offer the evidence to support accusations like this if you want to be making them.

[virginia mountainman]

54. realities

I reread the post, and lots of big hateful words where tossed around, abet, non directly at me, I just hate the BROAD mischaracterizations made of rural folks, and I DO get defensive about it

If you took the time to really learn about us “down here” you could find that we DO agree on many things, but to a large segment of us guns is simply a make or break issue, just like abortion is to some, universal health care is to others, It is just an issue.

I really hate it when people that DON’T understand the issue, try to impose their viewpoints on another.

I am not asking you to “modify” your view points; I am asking you not to impose your viewpoints on me. If you don’t want a gun in your house, fine, just let me have all of them I want.

You’re making the issue far more complicated than it really is.

The reality is in the poor areas of the south and Midwest, would benefit from Democratic policies but the people as a whole in most of flyover country are not receptive to them anymore, I remember all this started when in 1994 right after “Brady” and AW ban was first passed, over 50 congressmen and 4 senators LOST their seat on election night over their vote on those pieces of wonderful legislation.

And let’s look at the realities now

The Brady bill has had a SIGNIFICANT portion of it deemed illegal and has been struck from the law itself “the waiting portion has been struck from the books, the rest is still their”

The AW ban is history………..

The democrats are no where near regaining congress, and the situation is getting worse, a large part of the Democrats that are in the congress now ARE Pro-Gun, thank god

The senate now has a SLIGHT Pro-Gun majority

So basically Gun Control is dead, if ONLY the party will give it up, not just lip service, really give it up, and become supportive of gun rights

So basically since 1993 the only federal gun control that is still in effect, is part of the “Brady Background check” I believe the rest of it is dead.


Just watch what will happen to the DC Gun Ban. The writing is on the wall about that ban as we speak

So all the battling for gun control won WHAT???

In the end, It won next to NOTHING and it costed my party nearly everything.

I feel NO PITY when I see photos of Feinstein, Sara Brady and McCarthy crying. They should cry for the democratic seats they bled dry in their attempts to pass bad legislation.

I can only pray we nominate some one like Mark Warner of Virginia for president in 08, we will win in a walk then.

Andrew

(started using MS Word to help me compose my posts)

[esterload]

64. Heck, iverglas

I'm just a simple rural feller like the mountain man. May just be an old-fashioned Democrat who uses simple words but I know blatant elitism when I read it. I’ve been lurking here to see what the younger folks think. For the most part, I’ve found it neither pleasant nor informative.

And you all wonder why my neighbors all voted for George? Why don’t you call them, us, hell, me stupid one more time?

That will teach all those rural independents who didn’t support the Senator!

Oh, let’s see, maybe I can fire a few synapses and recall a bit of the four years of Latin I had to endure as a boy…..

Ah yes…

Nonne quisquis hic Latine decenter loquitur?

Pardon any spelling errors. My Latin spell checker seems to have died 1500 years ago….

By the way, iverglas, do you work?

[iverglas]

70. strange questions

So hmm. I'm a nun who speaks nicer Latin hereabouts? Or hmm, perhaps that's my French creeping in again.

"By the way, iverglas, do you work?"

Mais quelle question!

Let us ponder the scenarios.

iverglas: Yes, I do.
esterload: __________________1

iverglas: No, I don't.
esterload: __________________2

Now, for 1, I envisage something like this:
- Oh yeah? What work can you possibly do that you have all this time to hang around here?
iverglas: _______________
- Oh, sure. Prove it.

And for 2, I envisage something like one or more of these:
- So you're an independently wealthy limousine liberal?
or
- So your big daddy supports you?
or
- So you can't get a job?

Let's try both scenarios, just for giggles. Either one is possible, right?

Assume that I have answered "yes"; will you fill in the #1 blank for me?

Now assume that I have answered "no"; will you do the same for #2 now?

Surely you had some theories. Since you have disobeyed the cardinal rule for the examination of witnesses -- never ask a question to which you don't know the answer -- you must surely have been prepared for both events. I can't imagine that you would have asked a question knowing that one of the possible answers, of which there are only two, would have left you floundering and gasping for come-back. And I wouldn't want to preclude you from entertaining us with one such by rendering it inapplicable from the get-go.


And you all wonder why my neighbors all voted for George? Why don’t you call them, us, hell, me stupid one more time?

But you, uh, forget. There was another option. There are two possible explanations for a vote cast for George W. Bush: cupidity and stupidity. Base and fully informed pursuit of one's own ends at the expense of those less advantaged already and further disadvantaged by one's choice, or ignorant and gullible acceptance of lies and misrepresentations in the pursuit of nobler ends.

I don't rule out the possibility of both factors being in operation. Someone whose vote is determined by his/her perceived interest in the largely uncontrolled circulation of firearms in his/her society can often be characterized as both greedy and stupid. "Greedy" is obvious. "Stupid" is evident from a host of facts, all of which we are perfectly familiar with, whether any of us chooses to acknowledge them or not.

[esterload]

80. There ya go..

Alas, poor iverglas, I’m just a simple bumpkin with a minimalist education.

But even an ole hill codger like me knows it’s just the text; it’s just the text…

Nachpow binu lachmah!

[alwynsw]

32. Please overlook the difficulty in reading my post

What difficulty? You made your point(s) quite well. You ain't Shakespeare, as some on this board would prefer, but you seem to speak from both your head and heart.

Forget grammar, spelling, etc. The main purpose of any communication is to convey your point. You have done so admirably.

Go ahead, grammar nazis, have at it.

[Columbia]

43. ain't = aren't

:hi:

[alwynsw]

61. ain't = ain't

poopie head :bounce:

[alwynsw]

35. I think you did quite well.

Remember that some of the most eloquent orators and writers the world has known have been despots. Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Chairman Mao, Juan Peron, and Castro come to mind.

Some of the kindest and most benevolent have been plain spoken. Lincoln, FDR, Dag Hammarskjöld, U Thant, Mahatma Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela are among them.

Don't worry about the big words. Just make your point and everything will be fine from there.

AS the Wizard said, "Pay no attention...".

[iverglas]

44. now how *did* the Wizard say that ...

AS the Wizard said, "Pay no attention...".

Wizard: "Not so fast! Not so fast! I'll have to give the matter a little thought! Go away, and come back tomorrow!"

Dorothy: "Tomorrow? Oh, but I want to go home now!"

Wizard: "Do not arouse the wrath of The Great and Powerful Oz! I said come back tomorrow! The Great Oz has spoken! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

Funny how he said it ... about himself.


Some of the kindest and most benevolent have been plain spoken. Lincoln, FDR, Dag Hammarskjöld, U Thant, Mahatma Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela are among them.

Hahaha. Did anybody actually READ the Gandhi (that's "Gandhi") writings I posted links to a little while ago??

Start here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=93782#93791

and consider things like this:

I recognize that in the hour of its danger we must give, as we have decided to give, ungrudging and unequivocal support to the Empire of which we aspire in the near future to be partners in the same sense as the Dominions overseas. But it is the simple truth that our response is due to the expectation that our goal will be reached all the more speedily. On that account, even as performance of duty automatically confers a corresponding right, people are entitled to believe that the imminent reforms alluded to in your speech will embody the main general principles of the Congress-League Scheme, and I am sure that it is this faith which has enabled many members of the Conference to tender to the Government their fullhearted co-operation.

Whew, pretty "plain spoken".

Hmm, Gandhi as inspiration ...

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-gand.htm

Gandhi’s ideas were gradually perfected as a result of his South African experiences. Throughout his life, the ideas he formed in these first few years in South Africa were to be developed to fit various changed circumstances in the fight for Indian independence. They were, however, set within a global context of a total rejection of modern civilization. His rejection of 'modern' or Western civilization was all encompassing. He described it as the 'Kingdom of Satan' polluting everyone it touched. Modernization in the form of industrialization, machinery, parliamentary government, the growth of the British Empire and all the things that most people regarded as progress, Gandhi rejected. In opposition to modern civilization he counter posed ancient Indian civilization with its perceived emphasis on village communities that were self-sufficient and self-governing. He was concerned with the stranglehold that Western civilization had over India. The materialistic values that the British Raj imposed on India had to be countered by the spirituality of Ancient India. Time and time again throughout his life he would return to this theme of the need to revert to what he called their 'own glorious civilization' which was far superior to anything modern society could offer.

Sheesh, why not just offer up Osama bin Laden, if yer gonna get all anti-effete western intellectualism on us?

Gandhi's ideas about education might go over well among some of the kinfolk under discussion ...

Within this context of the need for a machine-less society, Gandhi developed his ideas on education. The core of his proposal was the introduction of productive handicrafts in the school curriculum. The idea was not simply to introduce handicrafts as a compulsory school subject, but to make the learning of a craft the centrepiece of the entire teaching programme.

No child left without a trade, eh? That book-larnin' stuff, it's all an effete intellectual plot.


Don't worry about the big words. Just make your point and everything will be fine from there.

Fine advice. Funny thing, though; I just haven't noticed our new little friend having any real problems with words at all. "Simple" just isn't how I'd describe our friend's approach. I think "sophisticated" might actually do a better job.

sophisticate
3a. involve (a subject) in sophistry
3b. mislead by sophistry
5. tamper with (a text etc.) for purposes of argument etc.
6. adulterate
7. use sophistry

[robre]

51. cool everybodys got quotes

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -Mahatma Gandhi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", M. K. Gandhi, page 446

Note that the language used in speech is and should be much simpler than what one may write.

If you want to demonstrate that Gandhi is not plain spoken perhaps you should pick a quote that he said rather than wrote.

[iverglas]

52. but not everybody misrepresents

the things they quote.

Just to assure us that you aren't misrepresenting what you quoted, how's about you explain to us, in your very own words, what Gandhi said?

Please don't say I have to do it all over again for you.

[robre]

53. You never explained the first quote

that you claimed I misrepresented.

[virginia mountainman]

56. a few of my favorite quotes!

"The Constitution of the United States of America clearly affirms the right of every American citizen to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guaranteed under the Constitution. The history of unpunished violence against our people clearly indicates that we must be prepared to defend ourselves or we will continue to be a defenseless people at the mercy of a ruthless and violent racist mob."
~ Malcolm X,


"Where the choice is between only violence and cowardice, I would advise violence."
~ Mohatma Gandhi

“The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”
~ Vice-President Hubert Humphrey

"There are going to be situations where people are going to go without assistance. That's just the facts of life."
~ L.A. Police Chief Daryl Gates

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there."
~ GEORGE ORWELL

Starting to get the hang of this "forum thing" NICE!!

Andrew

[iverglas]

57. never say never

I already gave this url once in this thread. But for you, I give it again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=93782#93791

I really do not have any kind of duty to tell anyone the same things over and over again just because someone "new" comes along once a week and spouts the same tired nonsense, you know.

Quite plainly, I think, that is what I meant when I said:

Just to assure us that you aren't misrepresenting what you quoted, how's about you explain to us, in your very own words, what Gandhi said?

Please don't say I have to do it all over again for you.

How you could interpret that to mean that I needed to "<explain> the first quote that <i> claimed <you> misrepresented" is quite beyond me.

[robre]

59. thanks for the link to the informations about snakes

"If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."

[iverglas]

66. clap clap

You've got that copy/paste thing down real good.

I'm still wondering how you might demonstrate that statements like the first you quoted, or the one you now quote, have anything to do with your cause, and that your actions are not mere ignorant/disingenuous appropriations of someone's words for purposes that he would never have approved.

Anybody here proposing that the middle classes render voluntary help to the Government in the hour of its trial? Anybody here still living in a state ruled by an imperial colonial power and engaged in a collective struggle for self-rule?

Speak up now.

[LinuxUser]

28. Correction about Dems and gun bans

Quote:

Lines like “Mr. and Miss America turn them ALL IN” don’t help you at all in these parts.

Yeah ... and lines that attempt to portray elected Democratic representatives as wanting to confiscate all firearms don't help YOU at all in THESE parts.

End-quote

Here's the deal: There's an urban myth floating around that guns are illegal in Japan, that no one owns a gun there. Wrong! People in Japan do own guns. They are allowed to choose from a very tiny set of guns, which consists of target rimfire rifles (22lr rifles), a small number of hunting shotguns and a small number of hunting big-bore rifles. Oh, and a very very tiny number of people have handgun permits, but it's so small that even Japan's Olympic handgun team has to train outside of Japan.

So guns are legal in Japan! And that's the goal of Dems like Feinstein and Kerry. They're not talking about confiscating all firearms. We all know that. They are talking about bringing us to the same situation they have in Japan where there are a tiny number of designated hunting arms available. This outcome is often reduced to the simplified (and not strictly accurate) phrase of "banning guns" or "gun banner".

Some types of firearms are legal in almost every jurisdiction in the world. We are not worried that the US would somehow become a member of the very tiny club of countries where literally all guns are banned. We are worried that the US will join the much larger set of countries like Japan and the UK where you can only get a tiny set of guns. A lot of us are also worried that the US will become like much of Europe where use of a gun for self-defense is strictly illegal (except for the defense of powerful people).


So when Kerry goes on a goose hunt and poses with his goose hunting shotgun, we know very clearly what it means: "I'm going to make it so that this is the only type of gun available in the US".

I'm someone who used to own various semi-auto versions of military firearms, until they were banned in California. None of my guns are for hunting. My Glock and my shotgun are for defense. What were the semi-auto versionf of military guns for? Just for fun. Just because I can. And I don't want them banned. Obviously I'll never be able to explain it to people who don't have such feelings. But that will be what decides my vote.

[iverglas]

30. correction about use of the word "correction"

So guns are legal in Japan! And that's the goal of Dems like Feinstein and Kerry. They're not talking about confiscating all firearms. We all know that. They are talking about bringing us to the same situation they have in Japan where there are a tiny number of designated hunting arms available. This outcome is often reduced to the simplified (and not strictly accurate) phrase of "banning guns" or "gun banner".

And then of course there's the not strictly accurate use of the phrase "not strictly accurate" to describe a lie ...

What we actually all know is that Diane Feinstein was talking about the firearms defined as "assault weapons" in the legislation she was discussing when she made the famous statement invoked by our new little friend.

A lot of us are also worried that the US will become like much of Europe where use of a gun for self-defense is strictly illegal (except for the defense of powerful people).

Sheesh ... speaking of yer "not strictly accurate" ... . Didya want to name one?

So when Kerry goes on a goose hunt and poses with his goose hunting shotgun, we know very clearly what it means: "I'm going to make it so that this is the only type of gun available in the US".

Hmm. Is it strictly accurate for someone who so misrepresents the policy agenda of the last Democratic candidate for the office of President of the United States to characterize him/herself as "liberal / progressive / Democrat"?

I don't want them banned. Obviously I'll never be able to explain it to people who don't have such feelings. But that will be what decides my vote.

I guess it all depends on how one defines "liberal / progressive / Democrat" ...

[robre]

37. "Patriarchy, the tell-tale heart of fascism."

"Patriarchy, the tell-tale heart of fascism."

No, you nutter, the tell-tale heart of fascism is total state control over our lives, which total gun control would take us one more step towards.

[iverglas]

40. ah, that's so sweet

No, you nutter, the tell-tale heart of fascism is total state control over our lives, ...

You might need to learn to distinguish between tell-tale hearts and the obvious.

The tell-tale heart, you see, is what gives one away despite one's best efforts.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=382&letter_id=113254646
(widely reprinted on the net)

Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism ...
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights ...
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause ...
4. Supremacy of the Military ...
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media ...
7. Obsession with National Security ...
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined ...
9. Corporate Power is Protected ...
10. Labor Power is Suppressed ...
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts ...
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment ...
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption ...
14. Fraudulent Elections ...

Yes, yes, that's an excellent description of George W. Bush's régime.

But strangely enough, a lot of it also describes what we see hereabouts quite often ... and not from advocates of firearms control.

Apart from the rampant sexism, we do see just an awful lot of that intertwined religion and government (it is my sacred duty to protect myself and my wife and my children and my property (obviously a redundant assertion, in the eyes of many) and the government must make laws based on that sacred duty and not on the public interest.

How 'bout that obsession with crime and punishment? Shall I quote a few of the pithy remarks from that thread today about the convenience store robber who was shot? Perhaps some of what one of our colleagues had to say (in another forum here) about an assault by motor vehicle committed an allegedly psychotic woman? I think "obsession with crime and punishment" is a pretty good description.

I could go on ... but we could spend all evening on that "disdain for intellectuals" bit alone.

And it's all pretty obvious to the minimally astute observer, anyhow.

[robre]

47. elements

Just because virginiamountainman has a wife doesn't mean he's even the slightest bit sexist. Even if he really had some secret hate of women which is why he captured one in wedlock with his great butterfly net of oppression it doesn't make him a fascist.

You made two pretty far leaps there. This man clearly stated he would clearly give up his life for this woman, yet you seem to think he hates her? A traditional marriage isn't the only possible lifestyle in the world, but it is a lifestyle and you should respect it.

Are you a freshman english major?

[iverglas]

49. well hey now

Just because virginiamountainman has a wife doesn't mean he's even the slightest bit sexist.

I wonder who might have said it did, and why you might be making this defence to moi. ??

I assume you are at least wanting someone to believe that someone, perhaps I, said such a thing.

If you thought someone, let alone I, had said such a thing, you would appear to need to sharpen those effete literacy skills.

If you just wanted someone else to think that someone -- I? -- had said such a thing, well, the improvement you would appear to need would be in quite a different realm.

Even if he really had some secret hate of women which is why he captured one in wedlock with his great butterfly net of oppression it doesn't make him a fascist.

Really ... whatcha tellin' me all this stuff for?


Are you a freshman english major?

No, but my paternal grandfather was a long-serving English captain. Does that help?

[robre]

50. Perhaps you say things without knowing you said them...

"All these gun control laws effect is how effectively I can protect my wife and kids, or my wife protecting herself and kids when I am not here, THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE!!

Ah yes. Big daddy must protect little woman. It's a moral imperative."

"Patriarchy, the telltale heart of fascism."

Or perhaps you're just baiting.

[iverglas]

55. perhaps not

"Perhaps you say things without knowing you said them..."

Perhaps there are faeries at the bottom of your garden. Or in the garden of your bottom.

May I suggest that when you quote what *I* say, you do so accurately?

That means that you reproduce the emphasis I inserted into what *I* quoted, so that it is plain to the reader what *I* am talking about.

Here's how it went -- the boldface indicates that I am quoting someone; the underlining indicates the portion to which I drew the reader's attention:

All these gun control laws effect is how effectively I can protect my wife and kids, or my wife protecting herself and kids when I am not here, THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE!!

Ah yes. Big daddy must protect little woman. It's a moral imperative.

There then followed a somewhat important passage of quoted text between that portion of my post, which you have quoted, and the next portion that you quoted:

Patriarchy, the telltale heart of fascism.

But you just decided not to pay attention, I guess.


Anyhow, if you're still not hearing that heartbeat, I'd have to guess that you're just trying reeeeall hard to be deaf. Whatever turns you on, eh?

Meanwhile, I'll still be wondering why you decided to say:

Just because virginiamountainman has a wife doesn't mean he's even the slightest bit sexist.

to moi ...

But not for too long.

Oh, and by the way:

A traditional marriage isn't the only possible lifestyle in the world, but it is a lifestyle and you should respect it.

A marriage in which the woman (or any party) is plainly regarded as subordinate/property is not a "lifestyle" that I respect, or that my contempt for is anything for which I have any need to answer to you or anyone else. So maybe you should go lecture somebody who gives a shit.

[robre]

58. still don't understand

"All these gun control laws effect is how effectively I can protect my wife and kids, or my wife protecting herself and kids when I am not here, THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE!!"

How does that that translates to him reguarding his wife as property or subordinate? To me this quote makes it seem that he would risk his own life above that of his wife and his children. How is this quote sexist?

Oh, and as to giving a shit: nobody gives a shit that you just read Poe. If you say telltale heart one more time I will strangle you... through the internet.

[iverglas]

68. ah, Poe

I would estimate that I read Poe about 3.5 decades ago. Wot a memory, eh?

On the other hand, I do occasionally watch reruns of Homicide on one of my cable channels, and did notice the episode in question in the line-up a few weeks back, I seem to recall. ("Heartbeat", which is of course also the name of the loooong-running Brit cop/soap show we watch religiously every Friday evening.)

Ah, "the dreadful reality of betrayal from within", as the on-line reviews of the movie say.

It just don't take a stethoscope, your pretense of microscopic examination of my (again inaccurately quoted) report of what comes through loud and clear notwithstanding.

[Billy Ruffian]

65. I don't understand

After Virginia Mountainman wrote:

All these gun control laws effect is how effectively I can protect my wife and kids, or my wife protecting herself and kids when I am not here, THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE!!

Iverglas responded with

Ah yes. Big daddy must protect little woman. It's a moral imperative.


And went on and on with a report on a survey.

Nowhere in VM's post did I read that he thought his wife was incapable of protecting herself. Nowhere in his post did I read that he was in charge of his family. Nowhere in his post did I read that he wanted a patriarchy in his family.

It was Iverglas that implied that. For some reason, the fact that VM wants to be able to protect his family is a bad thing in Iverglas' eyes.

Now, Iverglas will write "I never wrote that! You're making it up."

[iverglas]

69. and let's not forget

(I mean, I'm sure you can/will, given how you too have "forgotten" the emphasis in the passage I quoted ...)

"... if you cannot defend yourself effectively, or rely on OTHERS to protect your family, you have FAILED as a parent/husband."

Biiiig daddy.

Anybody think that the one doing the protecting isn't the one who gets to call the shots ... as it were?

And of course:

"My wife has swung to the right, she is STILL gloating about the election."

Hell, I thought those wuz the ones you wuz all wanting to keep arms for bearing AGAINST ...

So let's try to sort it out. When the day comes to rise up and defend against tyranny, our new little friend will be well-armed for the occasion ... and his wife (and all his kinfolk 'cepting for her grandpappy) will be among the friends of tyranny. Protect, defend against ... protect, defend against ... she's my sister, she's my daughter ... she's my sister, she's my daughter ...

Somebody smack him out of it, or his little head will spin itself right off.

[beevul]

63. Stones and glass houses and all...

"But strangely enough, a lot of it also describes what we see hereabouts quite often ... and not from advocates of firearms control."

Not from advocates of firearm control? Do you need an eye exam? Maybe by "alot of it" describing what we see hereabouts quite often and not from advocates of firearms control, you meant other than 2 and 3?

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause ...

Yeah, noone hereabouts who advocates firearms control EVER scapegoats guns/<insert pro-gun org here>, or identifies rkba'ers/<insert pro-gun org here> as THE ENEMY. Noone hereabouts demonizes guns/<insert pro-gun org here>. :eyes:

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights ...

There sure seems to be some disdain quite often enough for the recognition that self defense IS a human right. And, not from advocates of RKBA, I might add. I am guessing you were referring to "other" rights that somehow were not subjectively defined-out of the term "human rights" though. :eyes:

Examples of 3 (definitely) and 2 (depending how 2 is defined, or rather what is exclude OUT of 2, via selective definition) are abundant enough...for those WILLING to recognize them, that is. I could cite examples, but I think the examples, hereabouts, are clear and frequent enough that noone will need them pointed out to them.

[Bullseye10]

91. You just don't get it!

That post was sincere and about as accurate a representation of the effects of urban elitism on rural democratic voters as you will see. Keep it up dude. A democrat will never win the presidency carrying 16 blue states.

[iverglas]

97. dumb me

That post was sincere and about as accurate a representation of the effects of urban elitism on rural democratic voters as you will see.

And that will be your opinion, humble as I am sure it is. I shall take it under advisement, but must tell you that my preliminary assessment was somewhat different.

Oh well, dude. Variety is the spice of life.

And what would we do without such a constant stream of new folks bringing so many novel dimensions to the discussion with such sincerity, eh?

[mosin]

22. Excellent first post

What you describe in your family so eloquently is happening with my family in Texas as well. Even my father voted Republican this year.

[LinuxUser]

25. Excellent post

As I've been trying to point out on this forum, there are many many single-issue gun voters like you and me here. Like you, I'm pro-choice on abortion, I'm neutral or in favor of gay marriage, and I'm totally opposed to the war... but Kerry is a gun banning extremist, and I'll never vote for a gun banner, ever, no matter what. The Dems can't go to areas outside the big urban areas and have lines like "turn them all in" (thank you Sen. Feinstein) and expect to get the votes they need. It just doesn't work!

Until the Dems get right on this issue, the Dems are going to be the party of hand-wringing outsiders who complain about how ignorant their Republican overlords are.

[iverglas]

31. and

The Dems can't go to areas outside the big urban areas and have lines like "turn them all in" (thank you Sen. Feinstein) and expect to get the votes they need.

Self-proclaimed Democrats can't go to DU and post statements plainly intended to convey the message that Diane Feinstein stated that she wanted the people of the US to turn all their firearms in and expect to get the credulous unquestioning recognition they evidently think should be forthcoming.

[Columbia]

45. It matters not

Whether it is ALL firearms or just some (ALL scary looking firearms), the point is that her advocation of any kind of confiscation process at all that is unacceptable.

[iverglas]

48. yeah ...

Civil discourse -- discourse that is sincere and undertaken in good faith -- and democratic discourse -- discourse that is honest and frank, not designed to mislead or misrepresent -- matter not a whit ... to some people.

[Columbia]

60. That's nice

Just to assure us that you aren't misrepresenting what you say was misrepresented, how's about you explain to us, in your very own words, what Feinstein said?

Please don't say I have to do it all over again for you.

[iverglas]

84. if your memory is actually that bad

... do the search. Oops, you'd have to have a gold star to do that, I guess. And I don't pay for mine so that I can do your work. As anyone who regularly reads this board would have to be quite aware, I have demonstrated exactly what Feinstein was saying in the instance quoted, over and over again. If you want to claim that I have not done this, feel free. If you want to pretend that I have some obligation to do it again simply because you demand it, feel free again. It's not like I give a toss, you see. We all know what Diane Feinstein actually said, and we all know what several thousand right-wing internet sites falsely claim she said, and why I'd feel obliged to waste time rebutting the false claim yet again simply because you demanded it, I just can't think.

Seems to me, in any event, that the onus is on the person who falsely claims that Feinstein said something she didn't say, to prove that claim. Did someone do that here? If so, how's about you challenge that person to explain to you, in his/her very own words, what Feinstein said?

[Columbia]

85. Perhaps it is

Just wanted to see if you are able to take what you dish out.

Apparently you can not.

[iverglas]

86. apparently

the moon is made of green cheese.

[Columbia]

87. I wouldn't know

I'm lactose intolerant.

[alwynsw]

88. Cheesy comment.

:evilgrin:

[Columbia]

93. Hey poopiehead

You almost got me in trouble this morning. You got a PM. :)

[alwynsw]

94. If you lived in a normal time zone

you'd have been scot free. I was already home from my "appointment".

[iverglas]

89. so now I'm sufficiently bored

that I'll do your work for you. (And advanced search is working, so I can.)

Just to assure us that you aren't misrepresenting what you say was misrepresented, how's about you explain to us, in your very own words, what Feinstein said?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=90203#91648

You weren't in that thread. Sadly, the person who was, whom I was addressing, is no longer with us. Well, in theory, anyhow. To that person, I said:

Now, how 'bout this
"I agree with Senator Feinstein when she said, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in'."
of yours? You agree with her when she said, referring to ASSAULT WEAPONS,

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them ... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."

(If you ask google, you'll find all the sources for that one you need.)

You see, even the NRA fills in the blanks thus:

http://www.clintongunban.com/Articles.aspx?i=59&a=Artic...

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban <on "assault weapons">, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."

So would you maybe agree that someone who writes the quotation in question thus:

On CBS's "60 Minutes" on February 5, 1995, Senator Dianne Feinstein declared, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright <firearms> ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."

is, oh, a lying sack of shit?

And yet that's exactly what your source, http://www.afn.org/~govern, did.

When you said that you "agreed" with Diane Feinstein, I do hope you weren't accidentally claiming that Diane Feinstein would have banned all firearms in the US if she could have. You weren't claiming that, were you??

And then there are my comments in the exchange starting here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=93053#93249
-- a thread you were in, I notice.

Going back a little farther:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=77287#77310

... if the author of an "article" said something like this:

Instead of merely reauthorizing the ban, however, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-L.I.) seeks to ban more guns and implement a national registration scheme. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the assault weapons ban sponsor, said on CBS' "60 Minutes," "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate for an outright ban, picking up every one of them - Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in - I would have done it." The gun control agenda has never been stated more honestly.

... then s/he would expect to be fired, if s/he were working for a reputable newspaper.

We all know (yes we do, sigh) that the "them" in Feinstein's statement referred to assault weapons. And yet anybody less knowledgeable than us, reading that paragraph, would think that she was referring to "guns". After all, the abridged quotation from Feinstein immediately follows the sentence about McCarthy seeking "to ban more guns". What do we clever, informed, honest folks suppose the author was trying to make people think?

Would anyone at all informed, or rational, quote this statement --

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate for an outright ban, picking up every one of them - Mr. and Mrs. America, turn your assault weapons all in - I would have done it."

-- and then say:

"The gun control agenda has never been stated more honestly"

??

I wouldn't think so. Would you?

So could you explain why your pet author here said exactly that?

Sadly, the person to whom I was speaking that time, too, is no longer with us.

Oh my, oh my, oh my. Lucky DU's memory isn't quite as short as yours.

Lookie here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=47581
(boldface emphases added)

Dookus Sat Mar-27-04 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. I have never heard anybody
in any position of power whatsoever advocate the confiscation of all guns in America. The only people who talk about this are the NRA extremists.

****Columbia**** Sat Mar-27-04 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. You haven't?
... "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right <"assault weapons"> ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," February 5, 1995

You actually seemed to know what Feinstein was saying about what -- and yet you presented the quotation in question in response to the statement "I have never heard anybody in any position of power whatsoever advocate the confiscation of all guns in America", prefaced by your question "You haven't?"

What can this mean?

I wasn't the only one wondering:

Dookus Sat Mar-27-04 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. And where in any of those quotes
does somebody advocate confiscation of all guns?

It continued:

Dookus (1000+ posts)
Sat Mar-27-04 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I maintain my original point-
Nobody in any position of power is advocating the confiscation of all guns in America.

Columbia
Sat Mar-27-04 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Correct with a nuance
Police, military, and personal bodyguards may have guns of course.

... which makes just about as much sense as you started out making. Lots of sense, that is, if you were trying to convey the message that the statement in issue supported a claim that the speaker had an agenda beyond the one it stated.

Sadly, again, the person in that thread who said, in response to the same post you began by replying to:

Diane Feinstein
said something about confiscation. I'm not sure whether it was about all guns or some guns. She said something like, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it." She said it on CBS.

and to whom I replied in post 32, which again demonstrates that *I* knew exactly what Feinstein was saying and that it was *not* "about all guns", is also no longer with us.

There are more. For instance, my post 79 in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=52102
in which I pasted what I'd said in that other thread cited above:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=47581#48135
in response to the individual (sigh, now departed) who said, after quoting the statement by Feinstein in issue:

the woman clearly said that her preference would be to ban all guns

I'm sure that this is not an exhaustive list of the instances when I have demonstrated misrepresentation of what was said by Diane Feinstein regarding the items legislatively defined as assault weapons.


Now, what have we accomplished here? Have I answered your question? --

Just to assure us that you aren't misrepresenting what you say was misrepresented, how's about you explain to us, in your very own words, what Feinstein said?

Well ... in response to:

The Dems can't go to areas outside the big urban areas and have lines like "turn them all in" (thank you Sen. Feinstein) and expect to get the votes they need.

I said:

Self-proclaimed Democrats can't go to DU and post statements plainly intended to convey the message that Diane Feinstein stated that she wanted the people of the US to turn all their firearms in and expect to get the credulous unquestioning recognition they evidently think should be forthcoming.

Did I say someone was misrepresenting something? Or is your question loaded?

So, allow me to answer your question.

Mu.

[iverglas]

90. and oh dear

Whatever was meant by the reference in this thread to what Feinstein said, we'll never know. So even if I had said something that called for an answer to be given to your question, the whole thing seems to be moot right now.

Or "mute", as some would have it. MUte, perhaps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(Japanese_word)

[Columbia]

92. Ah, so it was confiscation after all

Would you consider that rather significant or no?

[iverglas]

95. there ya go

The moon IS made of green cheese.

And the faeries at the bottom of my garden are hooting with laughter as they dance around the bonfire to keep warm.

[Columbia]

98. Heehee

I love it when you talk dirty to me so you can avoid answering a question. :loveya:

[Columbia]

83. Challenge declined?

I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked. :wow:

[benEzra]

99. virginia mountainman,

may I have your permission to crosspost this article to a couple of other forums I frequent? Thanks!

bE

[virginia mountainman]

101. Absolutely !!

Absolutely!! I hope that those in power realize just how much “blue” blood they have drained over this issue, and how it tends to turn “RED” Just send me a PM or post a link here, showing where this thing ends up!!

I tried to send you a PM but alas, I don’t have enough posts to use PM’s yet.

Andrew

EDIT; Corrected somthing

[hollowdweller]

100. Mountain Man, your words are true here in WV too! While I liked Clinton

He screwed the party with a double whammy: First he passed 2 major gun control initiatives. Then he passed NAFTA. If the Dems weren't going to protect people jobs or guns the blue collar union vote started going Republican.

For this very reason I so hoped Howard Dean would win the primaries, since he was from a rural state and understood the politics of it.

Even though the Dems are known as the party of gun control Clinton was given the benefit of the doubt, because it had been SO LONG since any federal gun legislation had been passed. Then BB and AWB were passed. We lost the house thereafter, since people couldn't vote Clinto out they voted congress out.

Then Gore screwed up. He could have said " We passed the AWB, we passed Brady, the crime rate is at a 30 year low. I see no need to pass any gun control legislation" Declared success and probably WON the 2000 electoral vote.

Instead he upped the ante calling for a national gun owners ID card, playing right into the perception that the Dems ultimate goal is to keep restricting the right to own guns till they can ban them!

I fear now that until the Democrats actually introduce some laws that are FOR gun owners that people who feel this issue is a make or break will NEVER vote Democrat. I've said it before and I'll say it again. (this issue is losing us elections!!!!)

[virginia mountainman]

102. Yep

My Father-In law just retired from the West Virginia coalmines, my wife spent most of her life in Mingo and Logan County in southern West Virginia.

Most of those miners I know openly RESENT what has been done to them by their own party. But that belongs in another forum.

I hope someone wakes up in our party, before their anit none of use left outside of California, New York and Massachusetts.

There is a bumper sticker in WVA, it reads;

“Still a Democrat”

You see it from time to time, Not NEARLY as often as a “W” though

That sticker is VERY poignant, if you think about it,


Andrew, Simple Defender of the Bill of Rights

[Shostakovich]

103. Many of us have known this for a while....

But there are none so blind as those who will not see.


If anyone gets stuck on one single issue, they'll lose a lot of votes. What happened to actually protecting the entire Bill Of Rights and appealing to people that way?

[alwynsw]

105. Welcome to DU!

Perhaps an overture? Something festive?

[jody]

108. Outstanding, don't give up, we Democrats need to silence the

gun-grabbers in our party.

Keep fighting because those who work and sweat for a living know the Republican Party will rob labor to subsidize the wealthy.

The Democratic Party is the only alternative to 21st Century Robber Barons masquerading as compassionate conservative Republicans and its time workers regained the leadership of "We The People's" party, the Democratic Party.

[Buster43]

19. In some ways

that argument holds no water. You are assuming that anyone who lives in a rural area owns guns because they hunt and those that live in urban areas don't. You forget about sport shooting and those that live in urban areas do hunt as well. I used to live in a rural area but moved to a urban area earlier this year and all my guns and safe obviously followed me. I do competition shooting as well as a little hunting. I burn up roughly a 1,000 rounds a week practicing, both handguns and rifles of various calibers. And I carry concealed everywhere I go, although the main reason I carry concealed is that I am a Federal Officer. I have no problem with concealed carry laws.

[alwynsw]

62. Welcome to DU

[iverglas]

67. where are your manners?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=91154#91258

And gosh, follow this one a mere two posts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=92334#92360

But hey, a hearty welcome a month or two late is always, um, welcome, I suppose.

[alwynsw]

71. I keep 'em in my pocket.

Omniscience must be a wonderful thing. I prefer having a life away from my computer.

[Columbia]

72. Whatcha talkin' about Willis?

You know your keyboard is your best friend. Don't deny it.

[alwynsw]

73. well...

So long as I can find fatcanadiangirlsinheat.com.

[Columbia]

74. Speaking of keyboards

You owe me a new one. The one I have now is covered in cherry cola.

Poopiehead! :mad:

[alwynsw]

75. Dummy!

I bought a "liquid proof" keyboard. At lease buy a plastic cover.:silly:

[Columbia]

76. I don't like using a rubber

Doesn't feel natural to me. :smoke:

[alwynsw]

77. Nothing quite like a shower in a raincoat. n/t

[Columbia]

78. Especially golden ones

[alwynsw]

79. Golden?

Silence is golden. Snowfall is silent. (And we know where they get lots of snow.)

Have we hit a circular discussion? Could be. Where does that Arctic Circle go?

[Columbia]

81. Color of Oscar

Color of Oscar,

You too will get the award,

But one you can drink.

:beer:

[alwynsw]

82. Now that's an offer I'll accept!

:toast:

[Balen]

96. Good Post

I agree with you the issue should not belong in a National campaign but since Clinton did (Brady/ and other laws) it is a national issue.

[Krinkov]

106. i totally agree.

well said. This also explains why its unfortunately such a dem issue, as dem strongholds are the states with the largest cities.

I am against most gun control, certainly if federal.

While i am totally against preventing, or even limititing law abiding city dwellers from owning handguns (DC is an example of why that is worthless), I can see the problems with use of rifles there -- the rounds overpenetrate and there aren't many situations requiring something that is effective at ranges over 100m. Plus length equals hindrance in the close quarters environment of an apartment. I'd go with a sawed-off(if it was legal there) and/or a 9mm to defend my home and loved ones.

I was born and raised in manhattan, btw.

[barkinhound]

107. Thanks.

VirginiaMountainMan you have hammered that one flush.

I've been a lurker here also and this is a first post.

I have voted for Democrats my entire life. I voted for Bill Clinton and felt the exact sense of betrayal felt by you and yours.

This last election I ended up sitting it out. I could not vote for a candidate with such an anti firearms bent and yet I could not bring myself to vote for the NeoCon Cult that now wields power. I feared that were I to cast my vote for an independent it would more or less be a vote for George.

I have been watching and hoping that the Democratic Party will alter their stance on this issue. To me The Bill of Rights was a huge concession and coup for the working classes when this country was founded. When either party decides that liberty is not safe enough for us I pay attention.

I am also a rural dweller. I was raised in Alabama within much the same familial scenario that you describe. Now I live in rural Oregon. Firearms were not an issue within my family. They were and have always been a useful tool in everyday living. Hunting and personal defense. My family have always been Yellow Dog Democrats. That is certainly beginning to change due not only to the firearm issue but the perceived necessity to be politically correct in all aspects of life if you wish to be a member of the club.

This is not a trend I've seen just within my family. I have conversed with more and more folks like me, working class rural dwellers that have gone beyond sitting out an election to the Dark Side. To a one they have mentioned being insulted by Democrats for being "hillbillies", "hicks" and such for having a love of shooting and firearms. It just doesn't make much sense to me. Whether it be real or perception doesn't matter they are lost votes.

Listen, I would love to feel good about voting for a Democratic Presidential candidate again. After perusing this site I'm not holding my breath though. This does seem to be a rural/class issue and I don't think it is going to go away and I don' think the party will alter it's point of view. I hope that I am incorrect.

I know, I know, I'm just a hillbilly and a hick but from my point of view we live in a plutocracy and there is not a vast difference in the final goals of either party. Historically though the Democrats have been the only party that actually acts like it listens to or has the best interest of the working poor and poor in mind.

It is such a strange phenomenon to witness. Me and many of my friends and kind find ourselves not fitting anywhere. A lot of us are countrified folk with hard left leanings but with a distinct bent toward supporting the Bill of Rights. Now, especially because of the second, we feel ostracized from any group. We lean left on social issues so we are considered commies by the NeoCons. We support liberty and the right to bear arms and we are considered goobers or worse by liberals.

I am here because I am interested in the course the Democratic Party is taking. I would like to see the party become the one that stands for liberty and the downtrodden. I would like to see it admit it's mistakes and change them. I would like for it's appeal to go beyond the urban and PC crowd and become a force to actually get rid of the NeoCons. We'll see.

Anyhow, thanks for the post. Most interesting.