No shrinking violets

[beevul]

No shrinking violets

story date: June 1, 2008

47 women take self-defense into their own hands, earning the right to carry concealed weapons at a class tailor-made for them
By Mary Kincy Benefield
News Editor

Damsels in distress?

Tell it to their snub-nosed .38 specials.

Last weekend, 47 area women spent more than eight hours earning certification that will allow them to legally carry concealed weapons in their vehicles and on their persons at a variety of venues, from their local Wal-Mart stores to their children’s playdates, and many places in between.
The class the women attended, offered by the Arkansas River Valley Gun Club, was different from many others in the River Valley offering concealed carry instruction, however, because for this event, there were no boys allowed. Instead, organizers admitted only women to the class, and tailored their presentation to the instructional needs of the ladies present.

Included in that number were everyone from college students to retirees. Some were seasoned markswomen — one even supplied an instructor with a term when he momentarily stumbled — while others admitted they had never before fired a handgun.

Throughout, organizers, who also walked students through the process of submitting their concealed carry licensure paperwork to the Arkansas State Police, emphasized one concept, to the point women in attendance in the class eventually began to anticipate it: safety.

And ultimately, it was that goal, organizers said, that prompted the class in the first place--the hope that the “safe” environment created by an all-women class, where students felt free to ask even the so-called dumb questions, would lead those who earned certification through the club’s classes to be better, safer handgun handlers, who understood both the rights and the responsibilities of the weapons entrusted to them as they walk amidst the rest of us.

http://www.couriernews.com/story.php?ID=18629

I cry for the "shiny metal penis substitute™ " references - homeless because of this thread. :evilgrin:


But seriously, kudos to the ladies!

[iverglas]

1. that's so cute

Instead, organizers admitted only women to the class, and tailored their presentation to the instructional needs of the ladies present.

One is left to guess what goes on out of the eyeshot of the menfolk. And what "instructional needs" these "ladies" might have that need to be met in private.

Hmm. Perhaps suggestions as to where to aim that thing for maximum satisfaction.

... will allow them to legally carry concealed weapons in their vehicles and on their persons at a variety of venues, from their local Wal-Mart stores to their children’s playdates ...

Playdates being ordinarily conducted in private homes, that would seem to be a bit misleading.

They will not be allowed to legally carry guns into anyone's home, should the householder not wish them to. And if they chose to do so without informing the householder, if a householder somehow just forgot to mention that guns were not welcome with the two-year-old, well, they'd just be scum. Pink and frilly or otherwise.



I dunno. Did someone think that someone imagined that women were immune to the right-wing model of how to behave in society? The anti-choice brigade kind of put paid to that notion, I'd think.

[beevul]

2. What?

I thought that hereabouts "Everything is all about the menz and their gunz."

[benEzra]

4. Only if one assumes a priori that becoming competent with a gun is a "right wing" trait...

Did someone think that someone imagined that women were immune to the right-wing model of how to behave in society?

Only if one assumes a priori that becoming competent with a gun is a "right wing" trait...



Recognize the name and photo on that concealed carry permit?

[iverglas]

5. oh look, more ancient history

How too bad that you folks can't make it into this century.

Of course, how bizarre that you think appropriate to pretend that you and Eleanor Roosevelt have, well, anything in common.

Delusions of grandeur ...

Eleanor Roosevelt actually did have enemies, I suspect.

[benEzra]

7. As may some of the women who obtain CHL's now. (n/t)

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. No pretense here...

Of course, how bizarre that you think appropriate to pretend that you and Eleanor Roosevelt have, well, anything in common.

Like Eleanor Roosevelt, we are American citizens, progressive Democrats,
and believe it is our right as U.S. citizens to pack heat when we deem it necessary.

And who appointed you keeper of the flame anyway? You've exactly the same right
to decide what is proper for us as George W. Bush does for Iraqis.

[iverglas]

21. well, at least I can read

Like Eleanor Roosevelt, we are American citizens, progressive Democrats, and believe it is our right as U.S. citizens to pack heat when we deem it necessary.

Eleanor was a US citizen and progressive Democrat, and I have no idea what she thought about anyone's "right" to tote firearms around in public in the year 2008, and I'm quite sure you don't either.

You're a US citizen and believe it's your right to do whatever you fucking well want, as far as I can tell.


And who appointed you keeper of the flame anyway? You've exactly the same right to decide what is proper for us as George W. Bush does for Iraqis.

So, let's review, shall we? Here's what I said:

Of course, how bizarre that you think appropriate to pretend that you and Eleanor Roosevelt have, well, anything in common.

Did I "decide" something? Gosh, am I the decider? I don't think so.

I have an opinion on something. I think it is not appropriate for any of the gun yahoos I encounter here and there to pretend that they and Eleanor Roosevelt have anything in common. Other than being bipedal mammals and all that jazz.

And I'll express my opinion when and where I like. It's sad that my expressing of opinions causes you and yours such pain, but hey, not my problem, eh?

Now if someone would fetch his/her crystal ball, maybe we can get some questions answered.

First up: does Eleanor Roosevelt think that pouring a few million AK-47s into war zones in Africa next week is a good idea? Please, it's kind of urgent that we have an answer; I think a lot of people would like to hear what she says.

Just imagine what life in the USofA (hell, anywhere) if the whole lot of you really were like Eleanor Roosevelt. You could all have a pistol in every pocket, and it wouldn't really matter at all. Go ask Eleanor what she thinks about killing people for trying to steal your DVD player, will you?

If you want clues to these questions, just google "eleanor roosevelt" "human rights".

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. Oddly enough, others can read as well

Eleanor was a US citizen and progressive Democrat, and I have no idea what she thought about anyone's "right" to tote firearms around in public in the year 2008, and I'm quite sure you don't either.

Perhaps not (not being a medium and all), but after enduring eight years or so of a cabal who believe
that other Constitutional rights are fungible I'll not quietly suffer someone who wants to throw one
more in the crapper, whoever they may be or however "progressive" they proclaim themselves as being.

You're a US citizen and believe it's your right to do whatever you fucking well want, as far as I can tell.

Really? This ad hominem smear is the best you can do against someone who disagrees with you?
I "must" be some kind of Libertarian troll?

You are still banging away with the same Big Lie:
Some gun owners are demonstrably right wing, misogynist racists. Therefore *all* gun owners
are right wing, misogynist racists, or stooges thereof

I have an opinion on something. I think it is not appropriate for any of the gun yahoos I encounter here and there to pretend that they and Eleanor Roosevelt have anything in common.

We are not pretending. We do have things in common with Eleanor Roosevelt. In addition to the
aforementioned, we believe in Universal human rights, not dependent on gender, race, or
political stance.

Unlike you, for instance...

[iverglas]

27. whose lie is that then?

Some gun owners are demonstrably right wing, misogynist racists. Therefore *all* gun owners are right wing, misogynist racists, or stooges thereof

Yours, I'd say. Own it. Attributing it to someone else would just be doubling down.


In addition to the aforementioned, we believe in Universal human rights, not dependent on gender, race, or political stance.

And I believe in the tooth fairy.

[SteveM]

10. What? They asked for political allegiances before taking the class?

I don't think so.

[iverglas]

14. I'd doubt it

Perhaps you've missed how gunz have become the favourite recruiting tool of the right wing.

I don't think so.

[SteveM]

17. "Recruiting tool?" Some of my guns are older than the modern right wing (nt)

[beevul]

3. Collaborators all, whether they know it or not. - I'll bet.

"there are collaborators in every oppressed group, be they conscious or unconscious."

[iverglas]

6. an unconscious collaborator

being, of course, a dupe.

No shortage of them around, eh? Or is George W Bush not your head of state?

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Next thing you know they'll be oppressing minorities...

...and sabotaging emission controls on cars!

[spin]

8. Link to a really good gun site for women...

http://www.corneredcat.com/TOC.aspx

Lots of good info here for guys too.

[iverglas]

9. oh look!

http://www.corneredcat.com/Ethics/mrsdutoit.aspx

"A Word to Women
by Mrs. du Toit"

Yeah, I'm gona get all excited about any source that calls a woman "Mrs." and then gets around to mentioning her NAME.

Oh, with a pic by Oleg Volk to illustrate!! Maybe Mrs. du Toit is a regular visitor to his private gallery of women wearing slightly less clothing, doing slightly different things with firearms ... and having things done to them with other objects ...

So she's an appendage of someone named du Toit.

Gosh. I wonder who that could be.

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/essays/36/

Gosh. Kim doesn't seem real concerned about those people of another colour. Somebody should tell him about the racist roots of gun control and all.

Ted Nugent with a thesaurus, that's our Kim du Toit. A vicious racist pig. Oh, and a "gun rights" militant.

I think some here agree with him, of course:

So here’s my (tongue-in-cheek) solution for the African fiasco: a high wall around the whole continent, all the guns and bombs in the world for everyone inside, and at the end, the last one alive should do us all a favor and kill himself.

That's pretty much exactly what a number of people have been advocating, while attempting to cover their ugly disregard for the lives of the people they're talking about with words like "rights".

Here's one for Kim and all his fans. And Mrs. du Toit too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de6V90jT4SQ&feature=related

Hahahaha.

I'll bet some will pretend to think it isn't a joke ...

[SteveM]

11. Ted Nugent was there? Is he a girl-ly-man? Goodness the gate-crashers (nt)

[beevul]

12. Never one to miss an opportunity to slam the males are you...

I'm sure Melville wont mind my take on it:

And she piled upon the male's white rump the sum of all the rage and hate felt by her whole race. If her chest had been a cannon, she would have shot her heart upon it.


:rofl:

[iverglas]

13. hmm; racists = males?

If you say so. I guess.

[SteveM]

18. Hear, hear! We'll have none of that Alien-projection in these posts (nt)

[spin]

19. The info about firearms on the main page is informative...

sections cover:

Firearms Safety
Kids and Guns
Choosing Firearms
Gun Care
The Shooting Basics
Running the Gun
Practice Time
Learning More
Teaching Others
Class Reviews
Mindset
Legal Concerns

Ethical Questions
Social Considerations
Practical Issues
Holsters
Gear
Ammunition
For the Men
Just for Fun
Glossary
Why a Gun?
On Being a Gun Nut
Miscellany

http://www.corneredcat.com/TOC.aspx

Your criticism of the author of the article in the "Ethical Questions" section shows good research but does little to discredit the information about firearms presented on the original site. Mrs. du Toit's opinions on Africa were influenced by her 30 years of living there and are very controversial.

Any woman who has an interest in owning a firearm for self defense would be wise to read and consider the information on the web page I linked to.

Of course, some women who do visit this page will decide to obtain a firearm for self defense. Far better to gain knowledge about firearms rather then merely purchase one from a gun store and lack basic training in how to operate it. Hopefully they will follow the advise on gun training and safety and will become responsible, well trained gun owners. It's also conceivable that a few of these woman may use a weapon to thwart an attack or a crime.

Of course, they could just move to Canada. I understand it's a much nicer country to live in than either the United States or Africa.

[iverglas]

20. who cares?

Your criticism of the author of the article in the "Ethical Questions" section shows good research but does little to discredit the information about firearms presented on the original site.

I have no interest in the information presented at the site, and "information" is not the raison d'être of the site. The raison d'être of the site is to recruit footsoldiers for the right wing. The inclusion of material coming from the du Toit household is about all the proof of that fact that anyone needs. Whether or not any particular anyone feels like admitting it.


Mrs. du Toit's opinions on Africa were influenced by her 30 years of living there and are very controversial.

"Mrs. du Toit" is the helpmeet of Kim du Toit. Kim du Toit, the author of the racist screed cited, is a man. A racist Afrikaaner man, of long and high standing in the right wing / gun militant community.

His "opinions on Africa" were not influenced by anything other than the fact that he is a filthy right-wing racist pig.

I know these things. I didn't have to "research" who Kim du Toit was. I saw "Mrs. du Toit" and I knew exactly whose appendage she was.

Someone who doesn't know these things may just be a grunt in the right wing / gun militant brigade who hasn't been initiated into the true brotherhood, or may actually be an unwitting dupe. I'll offer a hand to any dupe who wants to know the truth and get out before they do any real harm.


Any woman who has an interest in owning a firearm for self defense would be wise to read and consider the information on the web page I linked to.

Any woman who has an interest in owning a firearm for self-defence would be wise to think long and hard about how much she values her rights and her daughters' rights, and whether she wants to become a grunt in the right-wing / gun militant war on her and her daughters' rights. And she needs to decide whether she wants to be a part of the problem, rather than a part of the solution to the social and political problems, caused and perpetuated by the right wing, that inhibit their exercise of their rights.


Of course, some women who do visit this page will decide to obtain a firearm for self defense. Far better to gain knowledge about firearms rather then merely purchase one from a gun store and lack basic training in how to operate it.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, who gives a crap. Once you've bought in to the right-wing / gun-militant model of society, it hardly matters whether you actually know how to work the shiny talisman of your allegiance. Just stick it in your garter and get Oleg to take a picture of it, and flash it when you need to establish your credentials, or want to get laid.

[spin]

22. Many women would not agree with your viewpoint...

Any woman who has an interest in owning a firearm for self-defense would be wise to think long and hard about how much she values her rights and her daughters' rights, and whether she wants to become a grunt in the right-wing / gun militant war on her and her daughters' rights. And she needs to decide whether she wants to be a part of the problem, rather than a part of the solution to the social and political problems, caused and perpetuated by the right wing, that inhibit their exercise of their rights.

Many women believe that their rights include the right of self defense.

Sounds like you would prefer that they stay helpless and live in fear or depend on a big bad stud to save their ass if the shit hits the fan.

I have a higher opinion of women. I feel they're as intelligent and capable as men. Therefore they can make a considered rational decision on using a weapon to defend themselves. In a physical confrontation they may find themselves at a disadvantage against a larger stronger opponent. A handgun in the hands of a properly trained individual, male or female, can be a very effective deterrent.

Honest trained firearm owners are not part of the criminal problem. The problem with violence in society is far more complicated then the mere existence of firearms.

Any good citizen hopes to make society better for all and will work to provide a safer and better future for all. I sincerely believe that it will take considerable effort by all political groups working together to overcome the serious problems we face. Even if we eventually force the politicians we elect to address and solve problems the change will not occur overnight.

If during the time that elapses while we try to effect change, a woman decides to purchase a firearm to have the ability to defend herself or those she loves and is willing to learn how to safely use it, why discourage her.

Both my mother and my daughter used handguns to deter attackers.

Perhaps you feel that it would have far better if they had been victims of violent crime.

[iverglas]

23. do ya really think so??

Sounds like you would prefer that they stay helpless and live in fear or depend on a big bad stud to save their ass if the shit hits the fan.

I don't think you think it sounds like that even a smidgeon. Maybe in your fond dreams, but that's another matter.


Honest trained firearm owners are not part of the criminal problem.

I didn't say they were. Your point? Has there been one mention of "the criminal problem" by me in this thread? In your dreams only.

I said that people who follow the pied piper of GUNZ TO DEFEND YOURSELF! GUNZ FOR THE RIGHTEOUS! are either willing foot-soldiers for the (racist, misogynist) right wing or dupes of the very clever and very deep-pocketed (racist, misogynist) right wing.


If during the time that elapses while we try to effect change, a woman decides to purchase a firearm to have the ability to defend herself or those she loves and is willing to learn how to safely use it, why discourage her.

Aw, because I just do hate so to see women being used as dupes by the (misogynist, racist) right wing. Of course, if they're willing foot-soldiers in its campaign, well, that's their choice!


Both my mother and my daughter used handguns to deter attackers.
Perhaps you feel that it would have far better if they had been victims of violent crime.

Oh, you betcha. I just live to see women be victims of violent crime. I mean, that's why you see all these pixels talking about the misogyny of the right-wing / gun militant brigade and its war on women's rights, and the function performed by firearms in the victimization of women.

Or perhaps I don't fall for false dichotomy /anecdote shit when it's served up to me.

And perhaps I'm really very tired of pretending that the gun militant crowd is anything other than the well-organized, well-orchestrated racist, misogynist mob it is.

[spin]

25. I doubt if you know many responsible gun owners...

So your statement that the "gun militant crowd" is composed of racists and misogynists are characteristics that you have created in your very active imagination and your dreams.

Unfortunately you appear to enjoy calling those who don't agree with your viewpoint names. When you use a broad brush to describe a large group of people, you use the very tactics that truly racist people use to justify their arguments. Name calling weakens your position and inhibits reasonable discussion.

Problems are solved by people coming together to find common ground and discover effective solutions.

[iverglas]

28. I doubt that you'd know honesty if you fell over it

So your statement that the "gun militant crowd" is composed of racists and misogynists are characteristics that you have created in your very active imagination and your dreams.

See how the words "gun owners" dont appear anywhere in my posts in this thread?

See how unsuccessful your attempts to pretend to believe I've said something I didn't say are?

[spin]

29. The word "militant" is often used to describe

anyone with strongly held views (e.g. militant Christian, militant atheist).

Most gun owners in America believe strongly in the "right to keep and bear arms". Therefore your term "gun militant crowd" would be an appropriate description of gun owners in the states. The reason that most of the citizens of the United States still have the right to own firearms (with some reasonable restrictions) is because of the effort of the "gun militant crowd" composed of politically motivated gun owners. Without a strong pro-gun movement we would suffer draconian gun laws similar to Canada. While Canada and the United States are similar there are significant cultural differences. What works for one country might prove a folly for the other.

Only 4,000,000 Americans are NRA members. While a well organized group and without a doubt a "gun militant crowd", the NRA alone isn't large enough to control elections. http://www.wisopinion.com/blogs/2006/05/nra-by-numbers.html

47,600,000 households in the states (49%) have guns in them. 59,100,000 adults (31%) personally own guns. If the majority of these people cared little about gun rights the militant anti-gun crowd would have had great success in banning and restricting firearm ownership. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

If a significant percentage of the gun owners, militant or otherwise, were racist or misogynistic, I doubt that Hillary or Obama would have made it very far in the Democratic primary. Be assured that many Democrats are also gun owners. I firmly believe Obama will be elected President as most Americans (including militant gun owners) are not racist. I also believe Hillary would have been elected had she won the primary as most Americans(including militant gun owners) are also not misogynistic.

As for your comment, I doubt that you'd know honesty if you fell over it I'll merely point out that it's never a good idea to question the character of an individual without personal knowledge of said person.

“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
Socrates

[iverglas]

30. you need to get things straight in your head

47,600,000 households in the states (49%) have guns in them.

25% of Canadian households have guns in them. So?

Any time you want to stop pretending to think that I have said that ownership of firearms necessarily implies adherence to racist and misogynist and right-wing ideologies, you feel free.


Most gun owners in America believe strongly in the "right to keep and bear arms". Therefore your term "gun militant crowd" would be an appropriate description of gun owners in the states.

No. It wouldn't.

Don't get me wrong. I do not use the word "militant" as a pejorative. But I do use it as what it means, and it doesn't mean "anyone with strongly held views". So even if your characterization of most anyone who owns a firearm of a strong holder of the views you posit were accurate, it would not support a further characterization of those people as "militants".

A militant doesn't just believe in something, a militant adopts the promotion of the thing s/he believes in as a cause, and militates for it.


Only 4,000,000 Americans are NRA members. While a well organized group and without a doubt a "gun militant crowd", the NRA alone isn't large enough to control elections.

I would likely characterize a rather small proportion of NRA members as gun militants. And I have no idea what elections have to do with anything in this discussion.


If the majority of these people cared little about gun rights the militant anti-gun crowd would have had great success in banning and restricting firearm ownership.

Do you hang out with a lot of people who fall for this sort of crap?

If a majority of those people didn't like the idea of violating women's reproductive rights and occupying small foreign countries and sending all the foreigners home, and jump when their political masters said "tax cuts", a political party that might take rational action to address the problems of firearms violence -- and the problems of racism and misogyny -- in the US might get elected.


If a significant percentage of the gun owners, militant or otherwise, were racist or misogynistic, I doubt that Hillary or Obama would have made it very far in the Democratic primary.

I'm finding it amusing that you evidently think I am this stupid.

If you'd like to get back on track -- we're not talking about gun owners, militant or otherwise -- feel free to rejoin the conversation at some point.


As for your comment, I doubt that you'd know honesty if you fell over it I'll merely point out that it's never a good idea to question the character of an individual without personal knowledge of said person.

So, do I take it that your efforts to divert this discussion from the statements I have made to some totally unrelated left field were out of genuine failure to grasp the message, and not a desire to misrepresent it?

If so, I'll be happy to try to help if you can maybe give me a hint about what you're not grasping.

[benEzra]

32. The ones doing the Right's dirty work....

are the ones perpetuating the meme that true progressives want to ban popular guns and restrict the right of self-defense, and that anyone who doesn't isn't a true progressive. Which, IN THIS COUNTRY, drives fence-sitters and moderates who disagree with gun bans and support self-defense away from progressive candidates they might otherwise support.

You don't like the concept of peons owning guns for defensive purposes? Absolutely fine. Work for bans in your country to your heart's content--and I won't troll on Canadian political forums to try to oppose you.

But in THIS country, we have a long and proud history of gun ownership across the political spectrum, including by progressives and Dems. And your constant cross-border agigation for U.S. Dems to push more gun- and self-defense restrictions doesn't help progressives in this country one bit.

[DrCory]

31. Do you honestly believe...

"I said that people who follow the pied piper of GUNZ TO DEFEND YOURSELF! GUNZ FOR THE RIGHTEOUS! are either willing foot-soldiers for the (racist, misogynist) right wing or dupes of the very clever and very deep-pocketed (racist, misogynist) right wing."

Every single person who posesses a firearm for the purpose of self defense is either a racist/misogynist or a dupe?

[iverglas]

33. yup (with addition)

Do you honestly believe...
Every single person who posesses a firearm for the purpose of self defense is either a racist/misogynist or a dupe?

You could try me on a few exceptions to the general rule, as I'm sure there would be a few. But otherwise, yup.

Dupe, generally. The racists and misogynists have other primary reasons.


Have a look at US crime rates 1960-2006 and explain how trends in crime rates would explain trends in individual decisions to acquire/carry firearms "for the purpose of self defense".

edit: I meant to include the link for that --
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Of feel free to offer any other explanation you might have.

I know what mine is.


http://abacus.bates.edu/Library/aboutladd/departments/special/ajcr/1970/Tydings.shtml

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – SENATE

July 9, 1970

Page 23393

SENATOR TYDINGS AND GUN CONTROL

Mr. MUSKIE: Mr. President, in the June 27 issue of the New Republic, Alex Campbell has written a perceptive article about the political situation in which the Senator from Maryland (Mr. TYDINGS) presently finds himself being the object of attack from both the left and right. I think this short piece clearly demonstrates what happens to a public figure when he takes on the tough issues without ducking. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the RECORD.

...

TYDINGS OF NO JOY

And, because Tydings is also pushing for saner gun laws, lavish displays of posters and bumper stickers paid for by you-know-who tell Maryland voters, "If Tydings wins, you lose."

What?

Their guns; therefore, they seem to fear, their manhood. Both fears are groundless; nevertheless Tydings, a self-confessed liberal, is now being depicted as a castrator as well. Tydings is Maryland's senior senator and faces in September a primary fight with George P. Mahoney, a Democrat who is an eight-times loser and is so far from being a liberal that in 1966 Spiro T. Agnew won the governorship from him largely by appearing to be by contrast a moderate.

Mahoney is counting confidently on gun lobby backing. Should Mahoney lose a ninth time, the gun lobby doubtless will back Republican J. Glenn Beall Jr. against Tydings in November.

Unregistered guns killed two of Tydings’ close friends, John and Robert F. Kennedy. The 1968 Gun Control Act is a flop; only three states require gun licenses and in 35 states, lunatics may legally own guns. Tydings wants guns registered and licensed. His assurances to hunters that this will not interfere with sport and to collectors of antique guns that these won't count, have failed to abate the trumped-up hysteria against Tydings' modest proposals; so have Tydings' terrible statistics – 99,000 armed robberies annually, more than doubled since 1964, and 9,000, Americans shot to death each year.

... The senator has written a book, Born to Starve, to expose his views on population control. He says that 5.4 million American women who are poor don't want large families and do want family planning assistance, but fewer than 800,000 get it. The Nixon Administration has adopted elimination of unwanted births as a national goal, but Tydings is urging larger financial provision, $984,000 over five years. His less rational accusers blow up over his family planning stand. Some blacks say he's a rich white who aims to sterilize the black poor; others profess shock at his proposal to leave abortion "to individual conscience." If he politically survives the attacks generated by what seems to be everyone else's castration syndrome, Tydings may look good in 1972, when he will be only 44. Many of his liberal ideas match with those of Senator McGovern – and of Senator Ted Kennedy. Tydings would also fit a Muskie ticket, or a Hughes ticket. But sometimes, reading his hate mail, Tydings becomes a bit glum. The storm that is being worked up against him in his state is contrived by the gun lobby in part because he is a liberal, and people who fear and hate liberal views readily believe that Tydings is plotting to disarm them so as to leave them helpless prey of vaguely glimpsed powers of evil. But, meanwhile, Tydings' efforts to protect poor and black people from the criminals who prey on them are rudely rebuffed.

Ah, those were the days. When Democrats were "liberals".

[DrCory]

34. So...

Judging from our past exchanges, what catagory would you suggest I fall into?

[iverglas]

35. sorry

I'm afraid you haven't made that big an impression, that I could offer or even form an opinion.

(edited to add: That would be true of most posters here; I have no real way of knowing what their motivations are or how informed they are or what influences have operated on them, and I would hesitate to offer or even form an opinion based on what is seen here in most cases, and not only because anyone in the first category would be working hard to conceal his/her motivations.)

A large majority of the people who have posted in this particular forum over the years are now six feet under. I think that bears out my global assessment to a pretty good extent.

As, of course, dos a visit to any gun militant website on the net.

[east texas lib]

24. Well, what's good for Dick is good for Jane too...

Taking personal responsibility for your own safety is just good planning...and common sense.