Liberals taking shot at gun-rights stereotypes

[beevul]

Liberals taking shot at gun-rights stereotypes

May 18, 2008

Inside a Manhattan basement shooting range, Stanley Sherman raises a .22-caliber rifle to his bearded cheek and fires off 10 quick shots at a paper target, the tinkle of brass shell casings punctuating each round. Retrieving the target, the Manhattan resident turns, grinning, and holds it up to the small crowd behind a soundproof window: 10 small holes inside the bull's-eye.

Sherman is the founding member of New York's chapter of Shooting Liberally, one of three chapters nationally that encourage liberals to enjoy gun play without shame. Traditionally, conservatives have defended the Constitutional right to bear arms. But the three-month-old movement challenges the idea that fun with guns is the preserve of the political and social right — and offers liberals a new way to connect and share their ideas.

"This shoots to hell the theory about guns and liberals," said Sherman, a maker of theatrical masks in his 50s who said he has been heavily involved in liberal politics for most of his adult life. The group has no official position on gun control, but the majority appears to take a progressive stance on the issue.

Sherman set up the group in February after hearing the story of a liberal friend who, while on a hunting trip with her grandfather, was instructed not to embarrass him by letting his friends know that she was a Democrat. "It would be nice to erase that divide," said Sherman.



http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080518/FEATURES05/805180320/1014/FEATURES05

But...but...but...guns and gun owners and gun rights are right wing republican things :eyes: :sarcasm:

[Vincardog]

1. I am a liberal progressive populist and I own several guns. Even Semi-auto hand guns.

I haven't been hunting in years.

[sharesunited]

2. Stick to video games Chauncey.

[beevul]

3. Nothing constructive to add sparky? N/T

[sharesunited]

4. Sure! Guns kill. Video games are a more benign version of the same thrill.

[beevul]

5. Paging Jack Thomson, you have a supporter here...N/T

[old mark]

20. "Guns kill"...

...only if you know how to use them correctly. I am a 3rd generation Democrat, and I have been an enthusiastic gun nut for 40 years.
My guns are mainly for self defence, few for hunting.
I own several autoloading rifles, a lot of auto pistols and a few revolvers.
I hate the idea that Republicans are the only ones who own and know how to use guns, and, Sharesunited, I really can't grasp what kind of world you imagine you are living in.

mark

[SteveM]

21. "Same thrill"? So you've killed and had a thrill and can compare versions?

[iverglas]

6. but...but...but...

"This shoots to hell the theory about guns and liberals," said Sherman, a maker of theatrical masks in his 50s who said he has been heavily involved in liberal politics for most of his adult life. The group has no official position on gun control, but the majority appears to take a progressive stance on the issue.

Apart from the completely question-begging nature of that last statement (I can't even begin to guess what it was supposed to mean), is there evidence to support what he says?

At this site:

http://moleprogressive.blogspot.com/2008/05/new-york-state-focus-progressive_15.html

The Progressive Democrat Newsletter grew out of the frustration of the 2004 election. Originally intended for New York City progressives, its readership is now national.

his name appears only in relation to this shooting club.

At this site:

http://www.democracyfornyc.org/index.php?option=com_search&searchword=att

Democracy for New York City (DFNYC) is a volunteer-driven non-profit political action committee. We are part of a national coalition of local groups committed to the ideals espoused by Democracy for America, the organization founded by Howard Dean.

his name appears only in relation to this shooting club.

Yeah, yeah, google finds him protesting the war and what not.

So what? Is he some voice of authority on what is "progressive"? You noticed how many anti-choice people right here at DU call themselves progressive?

Sherman set up the group in February after hearing the story of a liberal friend who, while on a hunting trip with her grandfather, was instructed not to embarrass him by letting his friends know that she was a Democrat. "It would be nice to erase that divide," said Sherman.

That doesn't even begin to make sense. The divide in question obviously has bugger all to do with firearms, since the woman was right there with a firearm, presumably.


If these people like to play with guns and also advocate, oh, licensing of all firearms owners, registration of all firearms, laws requiring safe/secure storage of firearms ... for starters, anyhow ... well hell, what's not progressive? What has one's taste in hobbies got to do with one's politics?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. Don't blame us for not letting you define who we are.

You are in fact Canadian and have stated before that you have no vested interest in US gun policy. So forgive us if we tell you to shut up and mind your own countries business.


David

[Indy Lurker]

9. Who is the authority on what is "progressive"?

[iverglas]

10. why ask me?

Why not ask whoever offered up this Joe Nobody as one?

[avenger64]

8. I am a democrat, and I believe in freedom ...

... I have guns, semi-autos and others.

I believed in freedom, and was angered when:

(1) Reagan and the DEA used the 'war on drugs' to go on jack-booted raids on people's lands, confiscating property in order to build the wealth of the police state.
(2) Janet Reno ordered the slaughter of men, women, and children at Waco.
(3) Bush and his proto-fascist coterie pushed the Patriot Act through after 9/11, authorized by Republicans and Democrats alike.
(4) Bush continued by using a 'no-fly' list to humiliate and deny mobility to political opponents, people who had the courage to speak out against him.

If you were also against any of these things, maybe you should think twice before giving the Government power to seize people's property (yeah, guns) from them.

[iverglas]

11. not angry enough to do anything about 'em though

Eh, "avenger"?

All those guns on the one side ... all those jack-booted raids and slaughtered men, women and children, all that proto-fascist legislation and denials of rights on the other ...

What's wrong with that picture?


If you were also against any of these things, maybe you should think twice before giving the Government power to seize people's property (yeah, guns) from them.

Forgive me if I say -- you know, from the outside looking in -- that I can't see how it would make a pinch of poop of difference. You folks with the gunz seem to be pretty fucking useless when it comes to doing anything about all these awful things (I refer to your 3 and 4, since I think your 2 in particular is a mere right-wing talking point) ... and in fact a whole lot of you voted for the ones doing them ...

[avenger64]

12. geez, I got a stalker ...

... how flattering. What the hell should I do? Go storming into the Capital building with an AK?

I don't think so - I follow the laws, and I don't really believe in the system, but I know it's the only one we have. And you know, the math thing makes me capable of calculating the amount of force I'd be up against. I enjoy the finer things in life (sex, beer, debating idiots on the internet), and I couldn't really enjoy them at all if I was in prison or dead.

You didn't mention (1) by the way - I take it you agree? And to '2' being a right-wing talking point, I suggest you watch 'Rules of Engagement' about Waco. I'm not kidding about the jack-booted stuff, man. You seem capable of reason when you try real hard - I think you'll agree. If not, I'll understand.

Your post really comes off as angry, foam-at-the-mouth stuff - I hate to go against my own beliefs, but you really shouldn't have a gun.

[iverglas]

14. lawsy lawsy

You'd think I would recognize the names of the bozos whose posts I reply to here ... and yet ... I apparently don't.

Amazing how moronic both posts of yours I've replied to were though, eh?


By the way: if you want to make allegations of stalking, you do it by contacting the moderators. You do not do it on the boards.

And if you want to make allegations of stalking, you'd really do well to have better evidence than the fact that someone has replied to posts of yours in two threads in a forum.



You didn't mention (1) by the way - I take it you agree?

You take it wrong. You can take it, from my failure to address it, that it is of the most supreme lack of interest to me. If all someone can find to whine about regarding the Katrina catastrophe is efforts to remove firearms from the disasters zone, I'm not impressed. If all someone can find to whine about regarding the Reagan presidency is whatever that was, I'm equally unimpressed.


And to '2' being a right-wing talking point, I suggest you watch 'Rules of Engagement' about Waco. I'm not kidding about the jack-booted stuff, man. You seem capable of reason when you try real hard - I think you'll agree. If not, I'll understand.

It's always fun to watch Guns forum denizens do their dance. Spout right-wing talking points, and demonstrate the couth of an orangutan.


Your post really comes off as angry, foam-at-the-mouth stuff - I hate to go against my own beliefs, but you really shouldn't have a gun.

Like I wuz saying.


Now, I'll say: Nice weather we're having, isn't it? And you can tell me how angry and unbalanced and bitter and twisted and old and drunk I am. May as well just get it over with, eh?

[avenger64]

15. Man, that was rational ....

... dude, you need some serious chill, and some social skills, too.

"It's always fun to watch Guns forum denizens do their dance. Spout right-wing talking points, and demonstrate the couth of an orangutan."

Uh, yeah. Right to the point. I don't think calling out the Patriot Act, the war on drugs, and the no-fly list is exactly 'spouting right-wing talking points'.

Of course, people who read this will realize who's 'couth' and who's not. Let me give you a tip - most people realize that when all someone has is calling people names, said person really doesn't have much to say of value.

"And you can tell me how angry and unbalanced and bitter and twisted and old and drunk I am."

And I think they'll also realize that I really don't have to say that at all.

[iverglas]

17. okay now ... sloooooowly

Let's try this "conversation" thang again.

You say something. I reply to it. You don't pretend I was talking about the price of tea in China.

It went like this:

you (as quoted by me when I replied): And to '2' being a right-wing talking point, I suggest you watch 'Rules of Engagement' about Waco. I'm not kidding about the jack-booted stuff, man. You seem capable of reason when you try real hard - I think you'll agree. If not, I'll understand.

me (replying to the above, as quoted by me before my reply): It's always fun to watch Guns forum denizens do their dance. Spout right-wing talking points, and demonstrate the couth of an orangutan.

See? See how it works?

The right-wing talking point was the Waco wackoiditry.

The couth of an orangutan was as demonstrated in the balance of that passage.

Seeing how it works?

This, now, will be why your comment in "reply" to that italicized passage above:

Uh, yeah. Right to the point. I don't think calling out the Patriot Act, the war on drugs, and the no-fly list is exactly 'spouting right-wing talking points'.

is what we call "non-responsive". Or maybe "a gigantic waste of time, a dance performed by someone engaged in diversionary grooming rather than a good faith discussion of an issue".


most people realize that when all someone has is calling people names, said person really doesn't have much to say of value.

Uh huh.

... "stalker" ...

Me, I think I called your talking point a name. Or, as a reasonable person would say, offered an accurate characterization of it.

[beevul]

19. Likewise...

" If all someone can find to whine about regarding the Katrina catastrophe is efforts to remove firearms from the disasters zone, I'm not impressed."


If someone expects commentary regarding the Katrina catastrophe outside the context of firearms confiscation from law abiding people that just want to protect thier homes and lives from opportunistic 2 legged predators, one might expect to find it OUTSIDE the guns forum.


Someone - PARTICULARLY someone who say things like this:

or you could just behave in a civilized manner and read and heed the administrators' instructions at the top of this forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x167281#167288

And quote moderator instructions such as this:

Discussion of gun-related public policy issues or the use of firearms for self-defense belong in the Guns Forum.

Personal-interest discussion about guns and weaponry should be posted in the Outdoor Life Group. By "personal interest" I mean, any discussion that is unrelated to public policy, such as: Posting pictures of guns or discussing the leisure activities of hunting or shooting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x167281#167288

Well...someone who does such things really shouldn't have to be reminded.



Ta. :spank:

[iverglas]

13. posted in wrong place

[avenger64]

16. Ok, no more for iverglas ...

... last call, babe.

[iverglas]

18. "dude" ... "babe" ...

Got the memo, did you?