Who will be the George Wallaces and Randall Terrys of gun control?

[friendly_iconoclast]

Let's handicap the race- SOMEBODY will try to ride the issue to power.

Ted Kennedy- Poor health, and he's smart enough to realize that getting universal health
care will save far more lives than the chimera of gun control.

Richie Daley- Too much of a crook, and his ego is going to get a writ of mandamus
slapped on the City of Chicago.

Paul Helmke- A Republican with all the baggage that entails, plus a poor public speaker.

Sarah Brady- Do you *really* trust a friend of Ronnie?

Carolyn McCarthy- Quite obviously a one-issue politician, and not all that bright.

Michael Bloomberg- John Lindsay redux, will play the gun control fiddle
while New York City burns.

Any others?

[villager]

1. You "iconoclastic" Scalia-lovers forget to note the plethora of Wallaces and Terrys in the NRA...

... so those positions are spoken for viz. the gun issue.

[bossy22]

2. we are now all Scalia lovers

cause if you agree with someone that means you must love them...hmmm...last time i checked i was an adult

[zanne]

3. You can't have teddy bears with buttons for eyes....

That's too risky. Be we can have these idiots roaming the steets with guns. Just goes to show how large corporations are running this country and not you and me. (By large corporations, I mean the gun manufacturers who feed the NRA who feed the greedy politicians).

[pipoman]

4. You wish it were that simple

it would make it much easier to villanize the NRA. In fact the NRA operates primarily on donations of people who have an interest in maintaining the right to keep and bear arms. In fact some believe, me included, that if it were not for the NRA RKBA would already be a thing of the past, legislated away in the name of public safety, and yet there would be none. I am not currently an NRA member. I have been hoping that the ACLU would see the error of their ways in the wake of Heller and fight for the RKBA. As yet I have not seen any indication that they will, so I will likely re-join the NRA....after the election of coarse.

[Real_Talk]

7. Gun manufacturers and money?

Since guns are relatively cheap and durable I have questions about how much money the companies are really making. Does anyone know about the money they bring in compared to other industries?

[pipoman]

8. I once read an article

that said if all American gun manufacturers combined their annual sales they would not make the Fortune 500.

[krispos42]

10. Not much

It's manufacturing, so the profit margin isn't that much in general. Ruger I think made $1.5 million last year, with a loss the year before.

[Wickerman]

24. Let's all cry a few crocidle tears for the poor gun companies

Google, its a cool invention:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_1_45/ai_59330774

The majority of companies in the industry closed their 1999 books in the healthy black. While not a record-setting year, the industry's performance was remarkable, given constant bombardment from anti-gun forces, big-city lawsuits, tragic shootings and an end-of-year lawsuit threat from the president.

While fourth-quarter figures are not available, all indicators point to a robust finish for the year.

Sturm, Ruger & Co. posted an impressive third quarter, completing six consecutive quarters of increased firearms sales. The company had a 48-percent increase firearm sales for the third quarter compared to the same period in 1998. The $42.7 million in third-quarter sales boosted Ruger' s total for the first nine months of 1999 to 139.9 million. This was an increase of $32 million from 1998.

Ruger's casting division sales for the first three quarters of 1999 were down $12.5 million compared to 1998. However, the third-quarter drop was relatively small at $1.7 million, as the company aggressively moved to improve the division's performance.

Still, Ruger posted overall sales of $181.4 million for the first nine months of 1999, an increase of $19.5 million over the same period in 1998. For the three quarters, the company had a net income of $22.9 million, compared to $18 million the year before.

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/02/27/gun_company_buys/

There’s been a lot of chatter on the internets about Cerberus Capital Management buying up firearms manufacturers. Cerberus various investments generate about $60B (with a b) in revenue according to their website. And they own Chrysler. That’s just to give you an idea of how big they are. They’ve recently acquired DPMS, Bushmaster, and Remington. I guess they have a thing for black rifles (who doesn’t? -ed). This, of course, led a lot of the paranoid gunny types to ponder why they were doing this, including speculation that they had nefarious intent. Guns are a good investment. S&W posted record profits repeatedly for years (that recently changed but it’s not a major loss). And my people in the gun biz are telling me that guns are selling like mad now (elections, mass shootings, something in the water, etc.). Also, an unprecedented level of protection against frivolous lawsuits has been afforded to gun makers via the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act. Guns are good business.

So, who are these guys? Well, take off your tinfoil beanies. One of the managing directors for Cerberus is George K. Kollitides and he is running for Board of Directors for the National Rifle Association. Here’s one bio:

Nominated by the NRA Nominating Committee, Kollitides has spent his adult life supporting the Second Amendment. A Benefactor member, he became an NRA Life member as a young man. He serves on the Boards of Remington and Bushmaster. He is an avid shooter and hunter, and is a Life member of TSRA, CRPA, NYSRPA, ATA, Boone and Crockett (Associate), Houston Safari Club, NMLRA and Quail Unlimited.

A quick few indicators its a healthy business.

[Tejas]

33. 10yrs ago Ruger was okay, but lately

it hasn't gone well. Hopefully their ideas on streamlining will help.


http://www.smartmoney.com/one-day-wonder/index.cfm?story=20071025

[Wickerman]

34. I suppose it's like any sort of business

Some brands are hot. Some are not. Remington also lost market share when they got out of the sidearm bidness and from what I read was starting to see a modest come back prior to their sale. Overall the industry seems pretty damn healthy.

[tburnsten]

57. Remington hasn't made sidearms in decades

except for World War Two when just about every manufacturer of
everything was busy making arms, and they were one of the
makers who started cranking out 1911A1s for the government I
don't believe they make anything that can be referred to as a
"sidearm", unless you count the one or two
Silhouette style "handguns" they make.  And those
are only handguns because they fit the ATF defintion of a
handgun, they are really just stockless short barreled bolt
action rifles.

Little known fact, Singer, the sewing machine maker, made some
of the most sough-after 1911A1s during WWII.

[pipoman]

83. I guess I missed this a couple of days ago

I think the point (at least I was trying to make) is that the often espoused views of some that gun manufacturers (being the paragons of profit that they are) are responsible for pumping endless amounts of cash into the pockets of politicians from the state reps who passed ccw legislation in nearly every state to the Senate and Congress to stall national 'common sense' legislation is equivalent to feeding 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish.

[Real_Talk]

74. good info folks

I guess they aren't exactly the hottest stocks going.

[iverglas]

104. Real_Talk

meet Real_Talk.

Hell, talking to yourself is surely more fun than responding to what other people say.

[Thortin]

9. They are not making that much

Net income in the quarter ended April 30 dropped to $3.3 million, or 8 cents per share, from $5.2 million, or 12 cents per share, last year.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/06/12/ap5111555.html

As far as corporations go, thats not much money

[radioburning]

16. ROFL...

:rofl:

Where do you guys come up with this stuff? Seriously.

[jody]

52. "running this country and not you and me". You broke the code, We the People are running the U.S.

and don't you forget it.

We are taking our rights back, one right at a time.

As Jackie Gleason said, "How sweet it is!"

[iverglas]

88. how unsurprising

As Jackie Gleason said, "How sweet it is!"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Gleason

Gleason was an emphatic Republican and personal friend of U.S. President Richard M. Nixon, who had a vacation home near Gleason's in Florida. The two shared an interest in golfing and in the importance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

http://www.cah.utexas.edu/photojournalism/detail.php?nickname=nixon&picid=2


Surely Robin Williams, say, "Liberal Democrat" that he is, must have said something à propos that we could have used.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

120. And it started with Heller

[virginia mountainman]

5. Probably be that Dianne Feinstein

She loves to care Sara Brady's Republican water for her..

Remember this photograph...



Notice her trigger finger....She is ready to take the crowd out..I wonder if she got that rifle, from her freind, Josh Sugerman, and his DC Gun shop??

And who could forget these qoutes..

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right 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," 2/5/95

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93

"

Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home."

"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) on terrorism and self-defense: During U.S. Senate hearings on terrorism held in Washington, D.C. on April 27, 1995:

[old mark]

11. The first time I saw this pic, I couldn't believe she would be

so stupid, but I realize she is completely ignorant about guns of any kind. If that were a real (full-auto capable) AK and that 75 round drum magazine loaded, she wouild have shot everyone in the pic ane more beside.

She does look like she is enjoying holding the gun, though.
Is she a closet gun owner, or does she have armed bodyguards like most of the other big-name anti gunners?

mark

[old mark]

27. I just Googled Dianne Feinstein bodyguards

Got over 25,500 results. She uses a combination of police and private armed guards, and Dianne has a Concealed Carry Permit from the State of California, and owns and carries a .357 magnum revolver.
I draw this information from some of the results on the first page of the Google search. She is too predictably hypocritical to be worth further investigation.

Dianne can be trusted with a concealed handgun.
Most people in California evidently cannot.
Evidently she does know enough about guns to keep her finger off the trigger of that AK, she was probably wishing she had the opportunity to kill her opposition.
She is an eliteist liar and deserves no more of my time.

mark

[iverglas]

30. care to substantiate?

Dianne has a Concealed Carry Permit from the State of California, and owns and carries a .357 magnum revolver.

Really. Let's have those links.


Dianne can be trusted with a concealed handgun.
Most people in California evidently cannot.

Feinstein became mayor of a large city when her predecessor was shot to death.
Most people in California certainly did not.

Feinstein was the announced target of a terrorist organization.
Most people in California probably were not.

Feinstein has repeatedly been elected to high offices, indicating that people trust her judgment, and where she is subject to constant public scrutiny.
Few people anywhere are.


I just Googled Dianne Feinstein bodyguards
Got over 25,500 results.

One o' those self-fulfilling prophesies, eh?

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Dianne+Feinstein+bodyguards&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

And my, just look at those results. Dunno about yours, but mine consist pretty much of racist cesspools. Oh, and right-wing gun militant cesspools.

illegalshurtus.com
alipac.us
vdare.com
alphadogweb.com
stentorian.com
keepandbeararms.com
thefiringline.com

Very few actually seem to have anything to do with Feinstein having bodyguards, however.


She is an eliteist liar and deserves no more of my time.

And you are a Democrat!

:rofl:


Do you refer to all politicians whom you wish to discredit by their first names, or just women?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

119. I suggest you do a bit more research on DiFi before you leap to her defense

She does have a very elitist and regressive view of gun control which is far from democratic or progressive.

[iverglas]

15. and who could ever forget

And who could forget these qoutes..

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right 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," 2/5/95

how many times that "qoute" has been represented here at DU as meaning something it did not mean?

Well, okay, I've lost count myself ...

[Tejas]

26. Care to give your version? n/t

[iverglas]

28. Care to dance?

[Tejas]

31. Sorry, not familiar with the "backpeddle" n/t

[Tejas]

32. Do know the "Texas 2-step" though, quite different from your "sidestep" n/t

[iverglas]

35. How about this:

Care to explain what the fuck you're talking about?

[NewMoonTherian]

37. What was the context...

of the quote, and what prompts you to say its meaning is being misrepresented? Given its popularity(I've used it more than once), I think it's good for everyone to find out if we're in fact being unfair.

[iverglas]

38. It's your quotation

Given its popularity(I've used it more than once), I think it's good for everyone to find out if we're in fact being unfair.

What are you using it for?

Should be pretty easy to say.

[NewMoonTherian]

40. It'm not at all sure what you're trying to say here.

"What are you using it for?"

-I've posted it on a couple of forums to illustrate the senator's radical stance on the issue. If you're asking why I've used it without knowing the context, it's because I can't imagine a context that would make this statement any more palatable. That's why I was asking you if you had any insight into it.

"Should be pretty easy to say."

-I'm not ashamed to admit I have no idea what you're referring to. What should be easy to say?

I should add I don't mean to be confrontational here. You appear to have information that I'd be genuinely interested to hear.

[iverglas]

41. this

I've posted it on a couple of forums to illustrate the senator's radical stance on the issue.

WHAT radical stance?

State the stance, in your own words.

[NewMoonTherian]

42. I think I see where we're missing each other.

To me it reads as if she would like to see all of a certain type(or all types? There's a point of ambiguity. Can you clear that up?) of firearm banned and confiscated and manufacturing ceased. Was it only in regard to automatics? Semiautomatics? Was she in fact referring to firearms at all?

[tburnsten]

59. Her stance is radical to anyone who can read

what isn't "radical" about stating that you would confiscate every firearm in the U.S. if you had the chance to? How could you possibly try to spin that in any other way?

[iverglas]

62. well there we finally have it!

what isn't "radical" about stating that you would confiscate every firearm in the U.S. if you had the chance to?

The Big Lie.

Hey -- I'm not saying you're lying. You may be, er, ignorantly repeating The Big Lie.

Let me make it very clear to you.

Dianne Feinstein did not state that she would confiscate every firearm in the U.S. if she had the chance.

I'm sure there are many here who will be happy to enlighten you, now that the innuendo has finally taken concrete false form. Too many people here know the truth, and would look just dreadfully dishonest if they didn't step up to the plate and speak it.

[tburnsten]

79. That is exactly what she said

you even quoted her as saying she would if she could, but that she knows she can't get the votes to.

That isn't a "big lie", it is exactly what she said. The only word not in her statement was "firearms" or "guns", but she didn't need to add that word in, it is absolutely crystal clear what she was saying.

What innuendo?

[iverglas]

82. there's a strangely excellent reason for that

The only word not in her statement was "firearms" or "guns"

And that would be the same reason why the word "elephant" wasn't in her statement.

The reason: she wasn't talking about "firearms" or "guns". Or elephants.

You just don't have even a smidgen of curiosity, do you? You could have found out what Dianne Feinstein was talking about days ago. Actually, just by reading the NRA website, if I recall correctly.

Hell. Just by reading this website, in fact.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=95394&mesg_id=95790

Now, this is the time to retract your statement and apologize for propagating The Big Lie.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

87. well

You really think she wasn't aching to say "guns" instead of "assault weapons"?

I'll bet you know what I'm aching to say.

Your BIG LIE is that "assault weapons" are anything other than ordinary rifles or shotguns with some frightening features that your side rarely even knows anything about other than the name of.

Oh dear! Did you just accuse me of lying? -- even when the "lie" that you are claiming is mine just your own bafflegab??

I don't give a flying fuck what your opinion of the "assault weapons ban" is, and you have no idea what my opinion of the "assault weapons ban" is, too obviously.

This is the ugliest bit of diversionary grooming I've seen around here in some time.

You said:

Her stance is radical to anyone who can read
what isn't "radical" about stating that you would confiscate every firearm in the U.S. if you had the chance to?

Your statement is that Dianne Feinstein said that she "would confiscate every firearm in the U.S. if <she> had the chance to". Your statement is unequivocally FALSE.

I hold no brief whatsoever for Dianne Feinstein, by the way. From the relatively little I know about her, she seems to be in the right wing of the Democratic Party, which puts her to the right of some members of the caucus of even the far-right governing Conservative Party of Canada. I'd shoot myself before I voted for that party, unless there were some very important and likely to be successful voting strategy involved.

Of course, that's exactly what is involved in the US at present -- a very important, likely to be successful voting strategy: ENSURING THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS ARE NOT REPUBLICAN.

If it took electing some Dianne Feinsteins to do that, I'd vote for a Dianne Feinstein in a heartbeat.

So I'm wondering -- what strategy are you pursuing?

What goal is advanced by propagating a lie about an elected Democrat -- or pursuing any course of action with the intent or effect of diminishing a Democrat's chances of election -- in the present context?

[iverglas]

43. forgive me

You were the second person who jumped in here to whom my post was not addressed, and I've been proceeding as if you were the one who posted the quotation initially, when you weren't.

The person who did post the quotation apparently has no intention of clarifying his intentions.

FYI:

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

and discussion of the quotation in this thread, e.g.:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=47581

[NewMoonTherian]

44. Not to worry, thanks for the information. n/t

[Tejas]

47. "Care to explain what the f*** you're talking about?" - um, your double-standards?

:rofl:

[iverglas]

63. care to reply to post 59?

Now's your chance.

[Tejas]

73. Yes, in post #59 - tburnsten is correct (thankfully, the Senate thinks so too) LOL!

[iverglas]

81. so you're actually going to sit there

and state unequivocally that The Big Lie is true?

Congratulations.

[tburnsten]

86. What "Big Lie"?

You sound like what I heard on the road one morning, when I flipped through a station airing rush limbaugh, talking about "Big Lies" and the ******* this or the ****** that.

You sound exactly like him, only reversed. Congratulations, you have created a hideous monsterbaby.

[tburnsten]

58. That extra line doesn't change the meaning or context at all.

It doesn't change anything about the statement, and is still the reason why she should not be in our public office, because in our country, holding public office includes taking an oath to protect and uphold the constitution of the United States.

[iverglas]

65. what are you blathering about?

"Extra line"? What "extra line"?

The passage in my post is identical to the passage in the post I replied to. I copied and pasted it from there, fer fuck's sake.


It doesn't change anything about the statement, and is still the reason why she should not be in our public office

YOU give it a shot. WHAT is still the reason?

[Tejas]

107. ne comprenez-vous pas l'anglais ?

Feinstein = gun-grabber

comprende?

[iverglas]

108. bibbity bobbity boo?

BOO!

That was the Easter Bunny. It just took all your candy.

[iverglas]

17. why wonder??

Notice her trigger finger....She is ready to take the crowd out..I wonder if she got that rifle, from her freind, Josh Sugerman, and his DC Gun shop??

Surely a quick tour of your favourite websites would tell you the answer.

http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html

Important note: reply from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown
I received a reply on 3/13/2000 from Mayor Brown re: my letter about this incident. He states that:

1. Ms. Feinstein voluntarily relinquished her pistol permit and weapon a long time ago. ...

2. The firearm shown above was "unloaded, disabled, and 'locked.'"

http://bp0.blogger.com/_6VqdYNSOxKo/R_rd780lNsI/AAAAAAAAAmg/-0qYKWguZyc/s400/omega+man.gif

Notice his trigger finger ...

[bossy22]

18. hmm gun safety is not your fortay

"2. The firearm shown above was "unloaded, disabled, and 'locked.'""

doesnt matter, you never have your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to fire

[iverglas]

19. I don't have any fortays

I wouldn't know where to buy one.

doesnt matter, you never have your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to fire

(a) and you never put ant traps in your garden because there just might be faeries living there whom you will poison;

(b) tell it to Charlton Heston.

[bossy22]

21. as usual

another worthless post by you- not saying this is much better either

[iverglas]

22. yup, as usual

Inability to engage in abstract thought and reason by analogy.

[benEzra]

46. One would assume Ms. Feinstein was NOT, in fact, being attacked by zombie vampires in that photo...

unlike the fictional "Omega Man" (which IMO ranks only slightly below "Killer Clowns from Outer Space" as a cheesy movie title; they should have stuck with I Am Legend, the title of the book).

Methinks Will Smith had his finger on the trigger when the zombie vampires were attacking him, too, in the more recent and more successful screen adaptation.

At such time as zombie vampires invade the Senate during one of Ms. Feinstein's diatribes on the eeee-villlls of protruding handgrips on civilian rifles, she is free to have her finger on the trigger. If she does, she should probably attempt to aim the carbine at the threat, though, rather than at the politician standing next to her.

[NewMoonTherian]

54. The trigger finger bit...

was very ignorant on her part - as was appearing with the weapon in the first place in a garish attempt at shock value - but she can't be expected to be mindful of gun safety issues, especially considering that she's trying to instill fear into her audience. Besides, this kind of detracts from the primary issue of her ridiculous policy stance.

To be totally honest, I'm only posting to submit an even worse title: "Snakes on a Plane". They make a movie about a plane with snakes on it, and what do they call it? "Snakes on a Plane". Checkmate.

[iverglas]

64. funny thing, that

Neither was Charlton Heston.

You did know that was Charlton Heston playing somebody being attacked by zombie vampires, right? And not an actual guy being attacked by zombie vampires?


At such time as zombie vampires invade the Senate during one of Ms. Feinstein's diatribes on the eeee-villlls of protruding handgrips on civilian rifles, she is free to have her finger on the trigger.

And surely that goes for Will Smith too. At such time as zombie vampires invade his movie set, he should feel free to have his finger on the trigger.

Feinstein is actually free to have her finger on the trigger any time she likes, you know. Goodness.

[benEzra]

77. She's also free to send text messages with both hands while driving down the freeway...

but that doesn't mean that doing so wouldn't be a violation of the most fundamental safety rules.

(1) Always treat a gun as if loaded.
(2) Never point a gun in an unsafe direction.
(3) Finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
(4) Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

Ms. Feinstein is violating rules 1, 2, AND 3, and the only reason she isn't violating Rule 4 is that you can't violate it if you're not actually shooting at something.

[tburnsten]

85. I believe she is violating #4 as well

she isn't even paying attention to the area covered by her muzzle, she doesn't need to be firing to break all the rules like this.

[Howzit]

91. It is OK for Dianne Feinstein to have her finger on the trigger of that AK, pointed at those people

if she were arresting them for breaking the law or about to shoot them for a valid legal reason in real life. If the picture of here had been captured out of a fictional movie portraying her as a terrorist that prefers to shoot people by accident rather than deliberately, that would also be OK. Fiction vs real life.

[iverglas]

92. real gun vs real gun

You folks sure do see things that aren't there, doncha?

How tall is the Easter Bunny?

[tburnsten]

109. That is a real gun, movie guns are props

not "props" like Dianne Fiensteins AK she was posing with. Movie guns are non-functional, they are not firearms at all except for their outwards appearance. Just because something looks like a firearm doesn't make it a firearm.

[iverglas]

110. damn, you just know everything, don't you??

That is a real gun, movie guns are props
not "props" like Dianne Fiensteins AK she was posing with. Movie guns are non-functional, they are not firearms at all except for their outwards appearance. Just because something looks like a firearm doesn't make it a firearm.

You'd think if that were the case, it would be the case in Canada, wouldn't you?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2008/06/08/5812986-cp.html

Guns intended for movies going to criminals: report
By Jim Bronskill, THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - Guns intended for make-believe action on the silver screen are winding up in the hands of real-life criminals due to a "loophole" in Canadian laws, says an RCMP intelligence report.

Some firearms dealers in British Columbia have taken advantage of movie production companies filming in various Canadian locations, says the newly declassified report on trends in gun trafficking and smuggling.

Special permits allow these companies to legally buy firearms in bulk internationally and import them to Canada for use on their movie sets. The gun dealers act as middlemen between the foreign suppliers and the production companies to help import the firearms.

"In this process, these dealers have exploited a loophole in the Canadian firearms legislation, which specifies that firearms must be registered as soon as practicable," says the November 2007 report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. ...

(note: there isn't really a "loophole". What they're doing is flatly illegal, obviously.)

[tburnsten]

111. What is your vested interest in Dianne Fienstein?

And yes, some prop guns are working firearms, these are often used in scenes where the characters need to work the action a bunch or muzzle shots, or in shots where the characters fire blanks around, not at each other obviously, because that is dangerous and potentially deadly.

Anyway some Canadian Property Masters getting in trouble for illegally trafficking firearms has exactly what to do with Dianne Fiensteins unsafe gun handling?

[iverglas]

112. why don't you stop beating your poor dog?

[iverglas]

113. something else I'd like to help you out on

Just for your future reference.

"Gun porn" does not refer to the exploitation of women for the gratification of gun fetishists.

It refers to the gratification of the gun fetish. Gun porn always involves guns, but need not necessarily involve women.

Hope that helps.

Now g'head, name one of those vicious trolls, will you?


edit: here ya go.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gun+Porn

1. Gun Porn love it 50 up, 9 down hate it

The term Gun Porn did not originate with the videogame Black. Gun Porn as a term meaning photos of guns that display them in the same carefully posed and lighted manner as the models in traditional pornography, has been around for a long time in firearms and shooting cultures.

The creators of the game Black were using the term with this meaning as an example of how the guns were the stars of their new game.
"did you check out the new issue of Guns & Ammo? It's got some great gun porn.

[tburnsten]

114. I am well aware of what real gun porn is

And no, it isn't "gratification of the gun fetish", it is artistic photos of firearms. "gun porn" is a lighthearted phrase in the shooting community, while your definition of "gun porn" is offensive and bigoted. I don't believe you would get so wound up over "car porn", the automotive magazines and sites have some awesome photography going on in them, in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons as gun magazines and sites print/post skilled photos of firearms. Because enthusiasts like seeing them.

[iverglas]

115. oh dear

I was going to quote your offensive post in which you pretended not to know what gun porn was and accused me of all manner of nasty things ... but oops, it's not there anymore. Oh well!

[tburnsten]

116. Happens to the best of us

And asking you what YOU call gun porn clearly resulted in a different definition than what I or anyone not interested in stereotyping people with hobbies you don't approve of as "fetishists". To myself and anyone else reasonable, "gunporn" is just a name for great photos of nice guns that pokes a little fun at ourselves. What was so offensive about my post? It must have been really bad to make you completely forget what I said.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

121. Grey Davis pulled the same sort of bonehead stunt when he was the California AG

[iverglas]

123. my my

I had just enjoyed this little stroll down memory lane, and now it's been dredged up for the enjoyment of others.

Person of few, and fairly unintelligible words, aincha?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

125. And for those who do not recall, or would prefer not to...

Davis while AG got up in front of a joint session of the legislature in California with a semiautomatic AK lookalike and claimed that if the gun had been loaded he could have killed everyone in the room since it was capable of firing 600 rounds per minute. He also violated every principle of the safe handling of firearms in the process. It was of course a damned lie.

[Howzit]

55. That picture is not of Heston the right wing fascist, but

of Omega Man the character in a movie. Omega Man's gun is loaded and he is about to shoot zombies at the behest of the movie director. It is appropriate that his finger is on the trigger in that context.

In the second picture, Dianne Feinstein is playing a US senator in real life. We believe she has no intention of blowing away her colleagues, yet her finger is on the trigger of the AK and she isn't looking where the barrel is pointing. It may or may not be loaded - it is impossible to tell from the picture. Too many people have been shot with guns that were "safe" and "unloaded" because some idiot with their finger on the trigger allowed a gun to point at a person who was not an intentional target. If Feinstein has a concealed weapons permit, she received training and passed testing that included safe gun handling - that is not what she is doing in that picture and her permit should be revoked.

Now find a picture of Heston playing a right wing fascist at an NRA convention showing him with his finger on the trigger. The NRA may promote the shooting of people, but never by accident.

[iverglas]

67. no, really, I'm sorry

Omega Man's gun is loaded and he is about to shoot zombies at the behest of the movie director.

No, really. Really. That's Charlton Heston. It really really isn't Omega Man.

I just hadn't expected to have to overcome delusions of this nature. Please, I assure you. It isn't Omega Man. It's Charlton Heston. And that wasn't Santa Claus, it really really was your daddy.

It's Charlton Heston with his finger on the trigger of a firearm. For all Charlton Heston knew, that firearm was loaded. He had absolutely no business putting his finger on the trigger. None.


It may or may not be loaded - it is impossible to tell from the picture.

That's right. It's impossible to tell from the picture.

You have two clues, though:

- the statement of someone who knew (unlike you, who doesn't have a clue) that the firearm was not loaded
- the fact that Dianne Feinstein actually (I know, I know, it's hard to believe) is not a complete fucking idiot, and that it's highly unlikely that everyone involved in putting that firearm in her hands on that occasion was a complete fucking idiot


"Prop" in one case, "prop" in the other. You really just have no way to slither around that one.


If Feinstein has a concealed weapons permit, she received training and passed testing that included safe gun handling - that is not what she is doing in that picture and her permit should be revoked.

And if the dog hadn't stopped to pee, you'd have a point.

Feinstein does not have a concealed weapons permit. And your puny opinion about what should have been done with it, had she had one, really doesn't matter a pinch of poop anyway.

[jody]

29. virginia mountainman, you need to be tarred and feathered for quoting such facts about an icon from

the gun-grabber community.

You deserve to be flamed with thousands of posts citing Feinstein's support for the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense for whom government is not obligated to protect.

:thumbsup: :rofl:

[virginia mountainman]

48. Yea, Poor Mrs Feinstein, her words are not "conveniently" forgotten....

How dare, we repeat what she says on national TV..LOL...BOO HOO cry me a river.. :nopity:

How about Caroline McCarthy, in her OWN words..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

Watch her, prove, on national TV, that she is a complete and total dunder head when it comes to firearms, AND her OWN PET, legislation.

Just like Feinstein, will NEVER live down her comments, McCarthy, will NEVER live down that clip...


EDIT, If she would not have taken such an constitutionally abhorrent stance....She would not need to worry about her words following her around, year after year after year....

[jody]

49. Once on youtube, always on youtube. Thanks for posting the link.

:hi:

[MicaelS]

6. Since we're talking religious zealots

I nominate Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina’s Church.

Controversy during anti-gun protests

In May 2007, During a Rainbow/PUSH Coalition protest outside a suburban Chicago gun shop, Pfleger was accused of threatening the life of the owner, John Riggio. The Illinois State Rifle Association released a tape where Pfleger was heard telling the assembled crowd, "He's the owner of Chuck's. John Riggio. R-i-g-g-i-o. We're going to find you and snuff you out… you know you're going to hide like a rat. You're going to hide but like a rat we're going to catch you and pull you out." Pfleger later claimed his use of the phrase "snuff you out" was misinterpreted.

Cardinal George rebuked Pfleger, saying, "Publicly delivering a threat against anyone's life betrays the civil order and is morally outrageous, especially if this threat came from a priest." Pfleger claimed that he did not intend to use the word "snuff" as a slang term for "kill", but rather as a substitute for "pull", as he used later in his statement.

During another protest at the same store, Pfleger and Jesse Jackson were arrested by Chicago police for blocking the entrance to the store. Both were later released without charge. The store had been the target of multiple protests by Pfleger and Jesse Jackson. According to the Americans for Gun Safety Foundation, Chuck's Gun Shop & Range, had sold over 2,000 weapons that were traced to crimes committed between 1996 and 2004.

[Tejas]

12. That fella is a hoot

Watched him on Youtube showboating at a church, so over the top that I thought it was a comedy sketch, can't believe the parishioners weren't insulted.

[iverglas]

20. you'll enjoy this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0wvQMqSzTM

10 minutes of Michael Pfleger handing Fox News its ass in a sidewalk ambush.

Gee, I wonder whether he might be voting for Democratic Party candidates?

[Tejas]

23. Pretty much a tie there ;)

[iverglas]

14. since we're talking falsehood and misrepresentation

... well, carry on.

[iverglas]

13. who will be the first to compare respected Democrats with the scum of the earth?

Why -- you!

[Tejas]

25. I'll be your Huckleberry, post a list n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. Only one "respected Democrat" on that list

Richie Daley is as crooked as a mountain goat track.

Carolyn McCarthy is as "single issue" as any RW anti-abortion demagogue, and
dumb as a stump to boot.

Teddy K. is wisely attempting to get universal health care for *all* Americans
in his twilight years and has given gun control a pass. Guess that makes him a
RW stooge in your worldview.

Bloomberg, Brady, and Helmke are Republicans.

Dianne Feinstein would have had her carry permit yanked for brandishing in public if she
wasn't Dianne Feinstein.

And while you defend her unsafe handling of firearms,
could you explain exactly *why* she merits such consideration,
while the thought of the proles with firearms disturbs you?

[iverglas]

39. and what the fuck are YOU talking about?

Dianne Feinstein would have had her carry permit yanked for brandishing in public if she wasn't Dianne Feinstein.

Are you talking about that photograph? If so, what carry permit would you be talking about? If not, what are you talking about?

And while you defend her unsafe handling of firearms,

Actually (nice try, though), what I did was make it very plain that THERE WAS NO "unsafe handling of firearms".

When you gonna explain those Charlton Heston antics away?

could you explain exactly *why* she merits such consideration, while the thought of the proles with firearms disturbs you?

What "consideration" is this now?

And why are you choosing to misrepresent my emotional state as you have?

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. Erm, ah this...

Actually (nice try, though), what I did was make it very plain that THERE WAS NO "unsafe handling of firearms".

You assert that her handling of the firearm wasn't unsafe.
You posted a letter from Willie Brown stating that the weapon "was locked, safe, and unloaded".
That's an argument from authority.

We are supposed to believe you and Mr. Brown and not our lying eyes?
Any competent firearms instructor ANYWHERE would condemn her actions.

When you gonna explain those Charlton Heston antics away?

A cheesy cover painting and a still from the video of a Hollywood movie.
And a Seventies sci-fi movie has what, exactly, to do with Ms. Feinsteins' gun handling
skills?

Nice attempt at a distraction.

Me: could you explain exactly *why* she merits such consideration, while the thought of the proles with firearms disturbs you?

You: What "consideration" is this now?
And why are you choosing to misrepresent my emotional state as you have?

Why, *this* consideration, from your post #30 above:

Feinstein became mayor of a large city when her predecessor was shot to death.
Most people in California certainly did not.

Feinstein was the announced target of a terrorist organization.
Most people in California probably were not.

Feinstein has repeatedly been elected to high offices, indicating that people trust her judgment, and where she is subject to constant public scrutiny.
Few people anywhere are.

Well, thanks to Heller and that darn Fourteenth Amendment, "most people in California"
may, if they wish, obtain a handgun permit (barring legal disqualification).

Better yet, denial of such a permit without legal cause (such as the local gendarmerie not liking
a particular person, or failing to befriend the right politician) is now actionable.

Can you say "deprivation of civil rights under color of law'?

Glad to know the idea doesn't disturb you.

[iverglas]

66. christ fucking jesus

You assert that her handling of the firearm wasn't unsafe.
You posted a letter from Willie Brown stating that the weapon "was locked, safe, and unloaded".
That's an argument from authority.

Look, I really don't have time to provide you with the full Logic 101 course.

That is not an argument from authority. I am not asking you to adopt someone's OPINION because he's really smart or really nice or the sheriff.

That is a witness statement. The only bit you need to worry about is: "unloaded". That's a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion.

If Willie Brown had observed Dianne Feinstein shoot someone dead, would you say his testimony to that effect should be excluded because it was "an argument from authority"?

I swear. Nobody could make this shit up.


And a Seventies sci-fi movie has what, exactly, to do with Ms. Feinsteins' gun handling skills?

Nothing. Why do you ask?

You seem to be evading the question. Why is it unsafe for Feinstein to put her finger on the trigger of an unloaded firearm, when you're not squealing about Charlton Heston doing the same thing?


Better yet, denial of such a permit without legal cause (such as the local gendarmerie not liking a particular person, or failing to befriend the right politician) is now actionable.

Hey, honey child: in a civilized society, this kind of improper exercise of discretion would have been actionable for a long time now.

It sure as fucking blazes is in Canada. What's wrong with you people down there?


Can you say "deprivation of civil rights under color of law'?

I could. If I wanted to sound like a bleeding parrot. Then I'd wonder what you're complaining about, since there are apparently remedies for such things.

Can you say "the rule of law"? It's easier.


http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1999/1999rcs2-817/1999rcs2-817.html

These doctrines recognize that it is the intention of a legislature, when using statutory language that confers broad choices on administrative agencies, that courts should not lightly interfere with such decisions, and should give considerable respect to decision-makers when reviewing the manner in which discretion was exercised. However, discretion must still be exercised in a manner that is within a reasonable interpretation of the margin of manoeuvre contemplated by the legislature, in accordance with the principles of the rule of law (Roncarelli v. Duplessis, {1959} S.C.R. 121), in line with general principles of administrative law governing the exercise of discretion, and consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson, {1989} 1 S.C.R. 1038).

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/fr/browseSubjects/roncarelli.asp

Frank Roncarelli (Plaintiff), Appellant and The Honourable Maurice Duplessis (Defendant), Respondent

{1959} S.C.R. 121 The Chief Justice:

No satisfactory reason has been advanced for the Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side) setting aside the finding of fact by the trial judge that the respondent ordered the Quebec Liquor Commission to cancel the appellant's licence. A reading of the testimony of the respondent and of the person constituting the commission at the relevant time satisfies me that the trial judge correctly decided the point. As to the other questions, I agree with Mr. Justice Martland.

The appeals should be allowed with costs here and below and judgment directed to be entered for the appellant against the respondent in the sum of $33,123.53 with interest from the date of the judgment of the Superior Court, together with the costs of the action.

Taschereau J. (dissenting):

{translation}

The respondent was the Premier and Attorney General of Quebec and held those high offices at the time the events which gave rise to this matter occurred.

The appellant, a Montreal restaurateur and holder of a licence from the Liquor Commission for the sale of spirits, took action personally against the respondent in Superior Court, claiming $118,741 in damages. He alleged in his action that he had been licensed for many years, that he always complied with the province’s laws governing the sale of alcoholic beverages, and that his restaurant had an excellent reputation and served a large and desirable clientele.

He further alleged that he had been and still was a member of the religious sect known as "Jehovah’s Witnesses" and that because he had posted bonds for some 390 of his fellow Witnesses who had been brought before court in Montreal on charges of distributing literature without a licence, the respondent unlawfully intervened with the manager of the Commission in order to cause him to lose his licence, which was revoked on December 4, 1946. Because of the alleged unwarranted intervention by the respondent, the appellant lost his licence and thus sustained the considerable damages he was claiming.

We did away with political interference in licensing processes nigh on 50 years ago now, up here.

Catch up, eh?

[Real_Talk]

76. simple truths

1. It is never a good idea to point a gun at people with your finger on the trigger, unless you may need to shoot them.
2. Fictional Movies are not real.
3. Press conferences are real (we hope)
4. Just because someone has a little D next to their name on C-Span doesn't make them the Pope.
5. Diane Feinstein is not infallible, does not walk on water and likely does not shit ice cream.

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. I gotta admit I agree with half your post...

The second half.


The first half, not at all. Whether DF's Kalash was unloaded or not, her handling of it was still
unsafe. You'd want someone trying to be a legislative leader on, say, telecommunications law to
be at least marginally aware of how data and voice networks are actually operated. I apply the
same criteria to Feinstein, and the photo in question shows her lacking in understanding.

I'll even stipulate that the weapon Di F. was hold was unloaded. Her handling of was unsafe on many
counts. If the president of the NRA, Ted Nugent, and Zombies Jeff Cooper, Carlos Hathcock, and
Chuck Heston said it was OK - it was still unsafe.

You could drive 25km/hr on the Bonneville Salt Flats without a seat belt and be just fine-
and you would be driving unsafely.

Hear, hear on the political interference in licencing bit.

Dear old Massachusetts strictly controls the number of liquor licences to keep the competition
down and prices up. Yet our rates of alcoholism and drunk driving are close to that of Florida,
where liquor licences are "shall issue" and anyone with a retail store and no criminal record
can get one in most counties.

Hopefully the same will apply to gun licensing here and in North Carolina where the county sheriff
gets to decide if you are worthy or not...

[tburnsten]

60. You can't make it plain there was no unsafe handling

since there very clearly was unsafe handling going on, I am not sure if the Avtomat Kalashnikov series of rifles is lacking a bolt hold-open device like the SKS carbines do but just about every other semiauto of any flavor has one, on top of being convenient for reloading it allows one to V-I-S-U-A-L-L-Y check whether or not the firearm is unloaded. The rifle in her hands has the bolt closed, a magazine seated, her finger on the trigger, the weapon pointed at a crowd of her fellow politicians, she isn't paying any attention to where the muzzle is, and there is no situation in which this could be considered "safe", no matter who you are.


Unless to you anything an anti-gunner does is perfectly reasonable and sane. I don't think pointing a rifle at another human being is a safe act at all, especially not with the bolt closed, especially not with the magazine in, and especially not with your finger on the trigger.

[iverglas]

68. and the rifle in her hands

WAS NOT
FUCKING
LOADED


It's unsafe for me to press the gas pedal all the way to the floor when sitting at a traffic light at Yonge and Bloor, too.

UNLESS THE IGNITION IS NOT FUCKING ON.

If the engine of a car is not running, IT IS NOT UNSAFE to press the gas pedal all the way to the floor when sitting at a traffic light at Yonge and Bloor.

You people are beyond belief.


Unless to you anything an anti-gunner does is perfectly reasonable and sane.

I'll tell ya. What's more than obvious is that there's nothing reasonable or sane about a militant gunhead. The evidence is ... oh ... all around us.



html fixed

[Irreverend IX]

72. Lots of people kill themselves playing with "unloaded" guns...

The basic concepts of firearm safety still seem to elude you. Why do you think that every single gun safety course out there teaches people never to point the barrel in unsafe directions and to keep fingers off the trigger? You can play with unloaded guns a hundred times and suffer no mishaps, but all it takes for you to commit a negligent discharge is one forgetful moment. What if the cops or whoever set that rifle up for her forgot to clear it? It happens; recall the French military demonstration mishap that resulted in onlookers being sprayed with live rounds.

Also, I must ask, why do you have so much of an emotional investment in defending Diane Feinstein's gun handling? Why is she important enough to elicit 48-point type?

[iverglas]

80. if only this had been an "unloaded" gun

and not the unloaded gun it was.

I guess I'll have to quit smoking today. I shouldn't strike that match, because my office MIGHT be filled with some invisible flammable gas ...


You can play with unloaded guns a hundred times and suffer no mishaps, but all it takes for you to commit a negligent discharge is one forgetful moment.

I can be in the terminal stages of Alzheimer, and it won't matter how many times I strike a match in my office, it will not catch fire. Because my office is not filled with flammable gas.

And it wouldn't matter how many times Dianne Feinstein put her finger on the trigger of that firearm, there would have been no discharge, because it was not loaded.

If a firearm is not loaded, there can be no accidental, negligent, intentional or purple polka-dotted discharge.


Also, I must ask, why do you have so much of an emotional investment in defending Diane Feinstein's gun handling?

You must ask a question loaded with a false premise? How sad for you.

[Irreverend IX]

98. So you know more about safe gun handling than any firearms instructor...

If it's so safe to put your finger on the trigger of a gun you're sure is unloaded and point it at people, why does every gun training program ever devised say to never do it? And your analogies are laughable. Stomping on the gas pedal of a car with the engine off? You can hear and feel whether or not a car engine is running, or tell by looking at the controls. Smoking in a room filled with flammable gas? Flammable gas filling a room is extremely improbable, a loaded gun is highly probable. Most guns don't make it apparent whether they're unloaded or not. A few have a loaded chamber indicator, but like any mechanical device it can get broken or malfunction.

And still I wonder why you've done so much typing for the sake of Diane Feinstein.

[iverglas]

105. So you're an unidentified flying object

Flammable gas filling a room is extremely improbable, a loaded gun is highly probable.

Since I have a father with pale green eyes and a mother with pale blue eyes, it is highly probable that I have blue eyes. (Some would actualy say it's a certainty.)

Now, how much are you willing to bet on me having blue eyes?

Will you accept my actual eyes as proof of my eye colour? Or will you insist on telling me over and over that it is highly probable that my eyes are blue?

Jeezus f.... there's actually a basis in reality for saying it's highly probable that my eyes are blue.

There is no fucking basis in reality for saying that it is highly probable that any given firearm is loaded. If no one has ever loaded the firearm, there is no remote possibility, let alone probability, that is is loaded, just for instance.

[Howzit]

90. "If the engine of a car is not running, IT IS NOT UNSAFE to press the gas pedal all the way..."

"...to the floor when sitting at a traffic light..."

The common factor between the car and the gun is that both will make a sound to let you know if you were mistaken about their "ready" status. The difference is in your ability to correct a mistake within your response time. The car has lots of inertia, a brake and steering that makes it unlikely to mow down someone 200 feet away within a tenth of second of initiating that mistake.

Iverglas, you rail on gun nuts that don't seem to get the need for safe gun storage, so why can't you concede that the second rule of safe gun handling is a sound one? That is, never touch the trigger until you are engaging a legitimate target. The first rule is to never allow a gun barrel to point at something you are not willing to destroy - this doesn't only mean actively aim at, but includes casual "sweeping". Some would argue that the first rule is to always treat all guns as if they were loaded. The other rule is to be clear about the target and what is behind it - shooting at something that moved, only to discover it was a man and not a deer is a violation of this rule. Also, bullets punch through things and can go a long way beyond the intended target. The point is there is a short list of rules that if followed, would make every non justified human shooting a clear homicide. There is no room for accidents.

[iverglas]

93. "There is no room for accidents."

Exactly! There was no room for accidents! THE FIREARM WAS NOT LOADED.

[tburnsten]

94. The point you repeatedly miss

is that NO firearm is "unloaded", no matter what bullshit artist administrator tells you. There is not a single LEGITIMATE firearms instructor or expert that will say it is EVER safe to handle a gun the way she is, and if she wants to show off how scary-looking a civilian semiauto AK clone is, she could at least follow most of the safety rules that are common to ALL firearms. She could have at least had the magaziine out and the bolt locked open instead of just relying on what her "expert" tells her about it being "unloaded", and she should never have put her finger on the trigger. The point you keep missing is that this is yet another stunning example of a gun-banner blatantly disregarding every firearms safety rule she can while she tries to show how "dangerous" the weapon is. Sure is dangerous to point a rifle at a group of your colleagues with a magazine in, bolt closed, and finger on the trigger.

[iverglas]

95. how is it

that the assortment of clowns in this forum know so damned much, and Dianne Feinstein knew so damned little?


She could have at least had the magaziine out and the bolt locked open instead of just relying on what her "expert" tells her about it being "unloaded",

How in the fucking hell do you know what Dianne Feinstein did? Would you tell us, please?


The point you repeatedly miss
is that NO firearm is "unloaded", no matter what bullshit artist administrator tells you.

The point you have decided to, er, "miss", is that whether a firearm is loaded is a matter of FACT, and has nothing to do with what ANYBODY tells ANYBODY.

I have no idea what firearms are "unloaded". Some firearms are UNLOADED, no cutesy quotation marks about it.


There's a perfectly good point to be made that what Feinstein did was to set a bad example when it comes to safe firearms handling.

The same point could be made about me if I were to walk around a daycare centre with an unlit cigarette hanging from my mouth, even if I had never smoked a cigarette in my life.

There is absolutely NO point to be made about Feinstein doing something "unsafe", because SHE DID NOTHING UNSAFE.

[tburnsten]

96. Well, I have eyes

"How in the fucking hell do you know what Dianne Feinstein did? Would you tell us, please?"

hmmmm, because I can see the picture? What she did was not "set a bad example", she put the lives of everyone in the room at risk by her foolish and unsafe handling of that rifle. Whether a firearm is loaded is not just a "matter of fact", it is a fact that must be checked abd rechecked and rechecked again, and is no substitute for safe handling. For someone who cries for more restrictive gun laws and safe storage you are certainly going far out of your way to try and convince readers that a clearly unsafe act is somehow not an issue. Why do you care about Dianne Fiensteins reputation so much anyway?

[iverglas]

102. I see no evidence of that, I'm afraid

How in the fucking hell do you know what Dianne Feinstein did? Would you tell us, please?
hmmmm, because I can see the picture?

And yet you couldn't see your own words that I copied and put in front of your face, and to which my question so obviously related that it would have been apparent to a blind pig in a sandstorm:

She could have at least had the magaziine out and the bolt locked open instead of just relying on what her "expert" tells her about it being "unloaded",

Does the underlining help at all?

How in the fucking hell do YOU know what Dianne Feinstein did? I repeat.


What she did was not "set a bad example", she put the lives of everyone in the room at risk by her foolish and unsafe handling of that rifle.

Keerist. You people really do believe in magic, don't you? A bullet was going to magically materialize in the firearm she was holding, and then she was going to pull the trigger and kerpow.

Maybe Omega Man dunnit.


Why do you care about Dianne Fiensteins reputation so much anyway?

Oh yeah, that's right, I keep forgetting to answer the question loaded with a falsehood.

Mu.

There you go.

Now, what do I care about?

Truth.

[Real_Talk]

99. How is it that you can not admit

that it is bad practice to point a rifle at people with a finger on the trigger? Perhaps all the clowns on this board can see that DF is completely wrong in this instance. As I said above, she is not infallible. If nothing else, someone who bleats about gun safety should demonstrate same.

Do you like to have people pointing weapons of any sort at you?

[iverglas]

103. how is it that you can not admit

that the question you have just asked me

How is it that you can not admit
that it is bad practice to point a rifle at people with a finger on the trigger?

has nothing to do with the discussion here, and is in fact loaded with a total falsehood?

Or heck, maybe you will admit it. Will you?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

122. You continue to show your overwhelming ignorance of the safe handling of firearms

[old mark]

50. Because she is a rich, connected person of stature, better than us mere

citizens.
The rights outlined in the Constitution were meant only for the rich and others with political clout, I guess.

She is just a "better person" and you MUST trust her to make the correct decisions affecting you and your family.

Sounds a bit like The Dear Leader in North Korea.
Do you Canadians really like that guy too?
mark

[iverglas]

69. you're a card

Because she is a rich, connected person of stature, better than us mere citizens.
The rights outlined in the Constitution were meant only for the rich and others with political clout, I guess.

It's a sorry state of affairs you've got yourselves.


Sounds a bit like The Dear Leader in North Korea.
Do you Canadians really like that guy too?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=190&topic_id=21786&mesg_id=21816

One time I needed a chest x-ray, which is done by the same procedures that I and others have described--get the form, go to the hospital, hand it in, show your card, etc.

Since this is a public first-come-first-served service, there's often a bit of a lineup, which there was this day (took maybe half an hour from the time I walked in the door). Anyway, while I was waiting in line, I noticed that my federal MP (member of the House of Commons, equivalent to a US congressman) also waiting in line in his suit next to the usual lineup of people in jeans and t-shirts or whatever. He didn't jump the line, didn't think of pulling rank on anyone, and was content to hang out until his name was called like everyone else.

I talked to him on the way out since I had voted for him and liked what he said in Commons--he was just there to have an old basketball injury checked on. That's pretty much the way it works in a near single-tier system--to the greatest extent possible, everybody's equal and gets the same level of service.

So whaddayou think, chum?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

124. That is certainly the way her repressive actions on firearms come across

[jody]

51. I'm curious, why did you choose George Wallace? Are you a student of Alabama history or perhaps an

expert on Alabama politics?

Perhaps you worked with Wallace or followed his career closely through the turbulent 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s?

Perhaps you worked on his campaign to represent our Democratic party as its presidential candidate in 1964, 1972, and 1976.

In any case, I'm sure you have a good reason to use his name in a pejorative way based on knowledge of George Wallace's career and not gross ignorance.

I look forward to your reply.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. Wallace was an opportunist, Terry a true believer

And both willing to use deprivation of civil rights to obtain and/or keep power.

Wallace began his career as a populist and a "moderate", if you will, segregationist.
Then he was beaten in a race by a "red hot" type, and then decided he wasn't going to
be "outsegged". We know the results. He was willing to change his position later in life.

Randall Terry is a Bush-league Hitler who really thinks he is saving poor widdle baybeez.
A shining example of the type who believes the right to life begins at conception and
ends at birth. Or a "fetus fetishist", if you want to be rude about it.

D. Feinstein stands for "guns for me, but not for thee".

[jody]

56. You repeat the popular story about Wallace but it glosses over significant facts. Wallace was a

product of the South with its history of segregation, something over which he had no control.

George Wallace born in 1919 like Jimmy Carter in 1924 saw firsthand the plight of the poor including blacks.

Both used their elected offices to help all the poor regardless of race and both pushed the political system to its limit to help the poor.

Wallace or Carter were both brilliant but could they have done more as state governors to help blacks in Alabama and Georgia?

I doubt it and still get elected governor at that time.

Have a great day, :hi:

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. Wallace decided to shit on African-Americans and the 14th Amendment

He did a lot for the poor, but he consciously decided to ride the segregation horse to power.

Tell me, was the game worth the candle?

I know that the concept of temptation is big in Southern Protestantism.

Satan may have taken George Wallace to the mountaintop, but it was Wallace
who decided he liked the view.

How about another Southern politician?

Sam Houston.

He had an excellent chance of being a major power in, or even President of, the Confederate
States of America. He threw the chance at power away because he could not countenance
the sundering of the Union.

George Wallace was no Sam Houston, and he was damn sure easier on the white poor than the
black poor.

[iverglas]

71. thank you

I can only hope that you're as baffled as I am, to read such truly weird things here at dear DU.

[jody]

75. Interesting points. Looks like you and I would enjoy discussing southern politics as it was

in the mid 20th century.

Have a great day, :hi:

[Real_Talk]

78. Everybody else was doing it...

is not a good excuse. There were plenty of people alive who knew that Jim Crow was evil and had the courage to speak out. I don't think we can whitewash a person's history based on other people's bad behavior.

[jody]

97. Interesting point. How many elections for public office have you won or how many winning candidates

have you worked very hard for to get elected?

[Real_Talk]

100. none.

I hope to God I would not be willing to sell out what is objectively right to get anybody, including myself elected. Some things are not acceptable,stirring up hate is not OK as long as you win the election. I do not grant historical passes to people, the fact that you make him out to be an opportunist who only stirred the muck for political gain only makes him worse.

[jody]

101. I encourage you to talk to Senators who represent from 500K to 37 million people and congresspersons

with an average of 690 thousand constituents with diverse cultural goals and learn about compromise.

I've done that and I admire any of those who represent part of We the People because it's impossible to satisfy all the people all the time but elected politicians must satisfy 50% of the people most of the time to get reelected.

[iverglas]

106. you see?

There are actually things on which some of us agree.

I do grant the odd historical pass. Sometimes there are things people just didn't know. Sometimes it may even have been seen, by reasonable people of goodwill, to be better to get something than nothing, if everything wasn't possible. Georgie boy here doesn't qualify on any such score.

[iverglas]

70. now what a surprise

jody speaking well of George Wallace. My goodness, who could have possibly guessed that would happen?

I mean, he seems to be taking offence at George Wallace's good name being besmirched, but maybe he's not really speaking well of him. Maybe he'll explain ...


HAHAHAHAHA.


I guess that if one can't see the shocked looks on the faces of the bystanders, one can just go merrily along behaving in the utterly incomprehensible way that our jody does when it comes to matters of, er, skin colour.

Figured out that that article about "Negro crime" you thought you saw in this week's edition of Time Magazine and found so fascinating was actually PUBLISHED IN 1959 yet, jody?

[SteveM]

117. Only surprise here is why do YOU care?....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=173896&mesg_id=174131

Of course some laws were so-o-o-o long ago. And in another country.

[iverglas]

118. and more to the point

Of course some laws were so-o-o-o long ago. And in another country.

in another century.

I do believe jody is supposed to be living in the same time line as we are.