Tribute to an Unpopular DUer I admire... (You probably love to hate him .)

[Sparkly]

We may disagree on some issues (I'm not even sure if we do or not), but on the issue of guns and gun control, you are THE MAN!! And I hereby take the unpopular position of saluting you.

You drive people crazy. You reduce them to hurling insults, confounded by the truth. And even then, you parry and strike from the stance of sheer strength in your convictions, your facts, your knowledge of the battlefield itself. Yes, you can be snarky -- we ALL can be snarky. Many less intelligent DUers seem to pride themselves on ineffective, simplistic "snark." But your snark infuriates some people because it's so succinct, pointed, truthful, and often irrefutable. You've obviously been in worse battlefield, and you know the territory.

I have a little experience with the trenches of this issue myself -- the same bs talking points, defenses, false comparisons, "second amendment" drivel, etc. -- from discussing it on other boards. But it's clear you've fought the fight longer, and in far more entrenched rightwing boards than the DU rightwing perspective on this.

We've been on the same side in threads like this ages ago, and communicated a bit in PMs back then -- but I just want to go on the record as saying that I commend your commitment and fortitude, your willingness to face this battle over and over again, and the righteousness of your stance.

I'm willing to settle for "sensible gun control" -- licensing, comprehensive background checks, CAPs, manufacturing standards, dealer security standards, etc... Just to make sure that people who own guns know how to use and store them safely; to make sure they're responsible for preventing children from having access to them; to make sure manufacturers have safety standards, since currently TOY guns do, and real guns don't; to make sure guns aren't freely and legally sold to people with histories of criminal behavior, spousal abuse, serious mental illnesses, etc...

Some FEAR guns being OUTLAWED (I belive the common term is "grabbed"). It could happen any second, they fear!!!

(Actually, in my wildest dreams, it'd be possible -- but alas, it can't be.)

You'd think anyone who feared the Big Bad Government might take away their Much-Needed Guns would WANT controls in place to ensure it never happened. You'd think these law-abiding citizens who do know how to use and store guns would insist their own knowledge apply to all, from fear that otherwise their rights might be taken away.

But NOOO.... It's guns for the stupid, the reckless, the criminal; for people who don't know how to store them or use them, or keep them from children! Guns for everybody, that'll make us all safer!

"Enforce the laws on the books! There are SO many of them already!"

"Criminals will get them anyway; why have laws for the rest of us?"

(And then the endlessly stupid parallels: "Anything can kill, should we outlaw those things?")

The so-called "liberal" or "libertarian" gun mania is positively NUTS, in my view, and a product of FEAR (= a big complex about "defense"-- ironically, some of the same people whine and wring their hands about US and Israeli "defense," but I digress...)

I think two semi-comical skits sum it up best: The mini-cartoon in "Bowling for Columbine," showing the basis of the fear that has Americans clinging desperately to their guns, and the old SNL fake-ad skit about "America, show us your guns!!" (Do you remember that one?)

It's been a continual amazement to me that DUers embrace the NRA position, and reject the Democratic party's position, on this issue. (In fact, nothing amazed me more, until I discovered DUers opposing disarming Hezbollah... But I digress again.)

It's like a time-warped view of the 1960s... "Peace! Love! Flowers! Oh, but also Guns!....(Just to make sure we can have our peace, love, and flowers...)."

"People are being KILLED! Don't you CARE the way I DO?!? ....Oh, disarm Hezbollah? Why, that would be wrong and deadly! I want peace!"

"I hate our oppressive government! They're all about violence!... Oh, guns? I need mine, just in case I need to inflict violence on my government!"

"People are dying! Killing is wrong! Nobody else understands! Shame on all of you!... Oh, this? I just need my gun to make sure that I can kill somebody if I have to."

"There's no such thing as 'defense' -- it's just escalating the violence! Let's have everyone disarm right now! I'm anti-war! PEACE now! Oh, MY gun? It's just in case I need to defend myself..."

The hypocrisy is AMAZING.

I remember, a year or so ago, certain "staunch liberals" proclaiming proudly that they wouldn't back down on ANY of the Democratic agenda, not one bit! Goddamnit, they would not compromise! They'd stand firm! Then I posted about gun control.... It got 400+ infuriated posts. "Why, GUNS are a liberal issue! We have a right to assault weapons, the definition of them was bogus, it's all liberal!" "No, it isn't" "Well, it SHOULD be!!" :eyes:

So, here's to you, the man DUers love to hate.

I take the unpopular position of saluting you -- at least on this issue -- with gratitude and respect, MrBenchley. :patriot:

[MardiGras Bandit]

1. I'm confused,

is this guy for or against gun control...

[Sparkly]

5. For it.

He may even be for outlawing them.

Personally, I don't think that's possible.

But I admire his convictions in the same way I admire Dennis Kucinich. It may be an unrealistic stance, but it's the right one, and he fights no matter what the opposition says.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

8. Guns are just another tool.

I'm fine with gun control, but outlawing them is absurd and unconstitutional.

[Sparkly]

11. Who said outlawing them?

I'm fine with gun control, too.

Outlawing them could only happen in utopia, in my view.

But I do admire visionaries.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

16. I don't believe outlawing guns is ever okay, even in utopia.

I enjoy guns just for target use. We rarely even have ammo in the house, but we have a few guns. They can just be a fun activity in responsible hands. Of course, I plan on buying a baretta within the next year or so, since I don't havea handgun yet and I enjoy shooting them the most.

[Kailassa]

43. Or in Australia, where a grandmother like me

can safely catch deserted trains in the middle of the night, and travel through the roughest suburbs after dark when I feel like a nice walk, because of the lack of guns.

Yes, people can use knives, and have. But I've successfully been able to defend myself.

You cannot sucessfully defend yourself against an experienced criminal who has a gun, because they know what they are planning to do before you do. A loaded pistol in each hand will do nothing but injure a few innocent bystanders if you're shot in the back.

[liberaltrucker]

2. Uh, guns don't kill, people do

I (unfortunately) had to use a gun in self defense.
The perp saw said weapon and fled. I didn't fire a shot,
but the cops did. One less felon on the streets.

[Sparkly]

6. Fine.

Did I say something that challenged your right to own a gun?

[liberaltrucker]

14. Looked like it to me

But it's late and my mind is a little:crazy:

[CoffeeCat]

3. Wow!!

The dude who wrote "Jaws" is a DUer?????

Kewl!

[Sparkly]

7. Yeah....

Multi-talented. ;)

[hfojvt]

4. I'd like to salue him too

one finger at a time.

Just kidding.

How about a 21 gun salute? :evilgrin:

Can I still keep my pepper spray for self defense?

[Sparkly]

9. Pepper spray -- no problem.

I used to keep a little can of mace of my keychain, when I was a young single woman in NYC... :hi:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

10. Okay keep the pepper spray, but only if you give up your knives & gun.

[hfojvt]

17. knives? Gun?

I have a machete and several axes. They never really leave the house, and the machete, although it is sitting beside my chair, is not very sharp any more. As an Irishman, I prefer the shillelagh.

[Sparkly]

18. Well, congratulations.

:shrug:

[RB TexLa]

12. That's not the one that says gunowners fantasize about shooting people

over and over and over and over every time guns come up in a thread?

[Sparkly]

13. Could be. nt

[Wonk]

15. So, is it Mr Benchley or Iverglass?

Iverglass is a she, I think.

[iverglas]

20. actually, it's a figment

(not moi!)

and I think figments are probably neuter. ;)

Much like their cousins, straw people.

Me, I think some people fantasize about people fantasizing about other people fantasizing about shooting people ...

[LaPera]

19. Get in line dude!!!

[Guaranteed]

21. Here's the most unpopular, DLC-loving DUer of them all!

Cheers! :toast:

[iverglas]

33. and therein lies the irony, in my mind

I'm not real up on the ins and outs of internecine Democratic Party wars ... but what I find funny is this:

A. The biggest baddest "argument" that the rkba-heads have, that they fall back on as their ultimate response to any proposal for any measure that could be expected to reduce firearms crime and violence in the US, is "you'll lose the election"!

B. Ditto the only "argument" that anybody can really come up with for opposing the taking of strong progressive positions by the Democratic Party on such things as support for same-sex marriage and opposition to interference in women's reproductive rights: "you'll lose the election!"

C. Benchley supports the Democratic Party platform on all its major points, I gather -- including, as he has expressly stated on several brazillion occasions, the plank on the second amendment to the US constitution -- but in response to that come cries of "DLC licker!"

The funny thing, you see, is that the above appear not to be mutually exclusive in many people's minds.

I don't agree with the Democratic Party's policies on either firearms control or, say, same-sex marriage, and various other things. I think they're right-wing. So someone could yell at me that I was advocating election-losing policies, but not that I was unprogressive. They're mutually exclusive.

It just strikes me as the same, mutatis mutandis, with Benchley, if I understand what he says correctly: *either* he's advocating election-losing (i.e. progressive) policies *or* he's an unprogressive DLC licker.

Not both, really.

[BlueIris]

22. MrBenchley rocks my socks.

He's one of my favorites. I wouldn't characterize him as unpopular, though.

[iverglas]

23. and Dick Little

likes that other guy.


Dick Little's Canadian Beef
www.efrank.ca

;)

[ErisFiveFingers]

24. Guns bad.

But I firmly back the right of Rwandans to bear machetes.

(think about it for a while)

As to the DU'er, admiration of verbal fireworks? Is this admiration of pretty verbal fireworks, while acknowledging that pretty rhetoric, is.... well, nothing more than fireworks?

Hell, I can watch FauxNews if I want that kind of sub-intellectual, but pretty and exploding, discourse. O'Liely does a great job of pissing people off. Maybe you should honor him, too?

[AtomicKitten]

25. He is sassy and succinct.

I am very happy to say I've never been on the receiving end of Mr. Benchley's snark and I'd be happy to keep it that way! He knows how to turn a word. Ouch.

He knows who he is. I admire that.

[Solon]

27. You can say that again...

as someone who TRIED to be reasonable with him, I think my favorite insult he threw at me is: "You are a waste of oxygen". Forgive me for saying that I do NOT think he is worth a single word of encouragement.

[readmoreoften]

29. I've been insulted by better. Why celebrate a bitter hack? /nt

[Solon]

31. What I find somewhat amusing is this...

On the gun issue, on a personal level, I don't really disagree with him, at least, not entirely, I think he is totally off the handle, and goes way to far on it, but I view it as a practical issue. As such, REASONABLE gun control is enough, in my view, but personally, if guns were never needed, EVER AGAIN, then I would be dancing in the streets. But like I said, I wouldn't support a candidate with his views, such a candidate would lose elections around my area, badly, and oddly enough, I'm the fringe leftist who wants Democrats to lose elections, according to him, of course. Consistancy isn't his strong suit, to say the least. Another favorite DUer on this board I like says this whenever Mr. PD shows up: "Mr. Benchly is in the thread, all rational discussion has ended", I'm paraphrasing there.

[calico1]

39. I don't get it either.

Saluting someone who is rude and dismissive of anyone who disagrees with him? :shrug:

[Solon]

26. No offense, but he isn't worth a thread...

The guy is snarky, true, but that is no sign of intelligence, to be honest, he has no clue as to HOW to debate in the first place. Mr. PD is inconsistant in many ways, yet just pisses people off because most of the time he is extremely condenscending, and at the same time insulting. He contributes nothing of his own to this board, to be frank about it.

[iverglas]

32. jeez

He contributes nothing of his own to this board, to be frank about it.

It's actually quite unfortunate that you plainly don't have a clue.

And no, I'm not going to give it to you, so no point in begging. Benchley can, if he wants to.

[Solon]

34. Hey, if you think a guy who insults people constantly for his own...

egotistical purposes is actually worth appreciating, knock yourself out.

[readmoreoften]

28. I'm way pro-gun and I don't think that's an unpopular stance on DU

But he is known for more than his position on "gun control"... I'll keep it polite.

[readmoreoften]

41. Oh, I get it. He is FOR gun control. Eh. We disagree again.

If there were no guns I'd get eaten by wild boars at my GF's ranch. We need shotguns. Also to keep the rednecks in check. Just kidding. Sorta.

[tkmorris]

30. What an unfair thread.

See, you can post nice things about Benchley, but any who oppose that view have to tread very carefully lest they violate the rules. This creates a totally unbalanced conversation, and thus is useless.

Where Benchley is concerned I hope I can say at least this much, because I can demonstrate the truth of it. His views on a number of topics have completely reversed in the relatively short time he has posted here. To me, this smacks of hypocrisy, or at least indicates a shallowness of thought that makes him a poor ally, even when his opinion that week may reflect my own.

As for your original post, you seem to be "saluting" Benchley because he, like you, argues for "gun control". I would ask though, what exactly does that mean? If you want to outlaw them say so and let me be the first to disagree. If your goal is the nebulous "gun control" however, you need to define that. To my mind it means some manner of restrictions on the sale, purchase, and possession of firearms. Trouble is we already have such restrictions. Now perhaps you don't feel they go far enough, and perhaps they don't, but unless you spell it out who can say?

Again, if the issue is outlawing guns you can have two sides, for and against. When it comes to gun control however, there is no fence to be on one side or another of. There is a spectrum of views, from even greater lenience than we have now to public ownership of military grade fully automatic hardware and everything in between.

One wonders why you chose to single out a single DU'er whose views, however liquid they may be, seem close to your own. On this one issue. Probably. What's your point?

[readmoreoften]

37. Had no idea he and I agree on gun control. Hope this thread gets locked.

Yes, now I am expected to talk nice about someone who said that my family must hate me or something equally ridiculous. I certainly don't want to get TSed for talking ill of the kid. But I'm set up to do so on this thread. It's nicely-worded flame bait. We're not supposed to single DUers out.

[marions ghost]

35. You have to admire someone who in arguing for

gun control, can be just as aggressive as the legions of gun promoters and defenders. Call Mr. Benchley
what you like but you have to admit that he is strong in his position and he fights relentlessly against overwhelming opposition. He is a stalwart for the cause of gun control, an issue that the average person is afraid to touch. Why? because Guns Rule in America.

In this society, it's they who believe in guns who always insist on the upper hand. They never concede an inch. They never work for sensible gun laws. There are good points to be made that everyone owning guns is not the solution to our societal problems, but they don't want to hear about that. Gun use for "protection" is only possible for a small fraction of the population who are physically strong enough, skilled enough and mature enough to handle them. Having to monitor and have a personal relationship with a lethal weapon just is not a realistic lifestyle choice for many. Guns appeal to those who need them. But for most of us they would be a waste of time and money. They are not practical. And statistics show that they do not make anyone safer, quite the opposite.

Owning guns, for the average person, is symbolic. It says, I have control, I am keeping my family safe, I am defending my little microcosm. It provides a psychological function. It does not provide a realistic solution for the general public however. It is not a community-oriented solution. We are going to need to take care of each other in ways that go far beyond guns.

The fervor to own guns for protection (ie. anything other than for sport or hunting food) is symptomatic of a sick society, not a healthy one. We are a fear-based sick society, so the increase in gun ownership is not surprising.

[Crunchy Frog]

36. I don't love to hate him. I just hate him.

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. So Send Him A PM. Starting A Thread LIke This Is Extremely Distasteful

in my opinion.

And I'm just an impartial observer. I have no ill will towards the poster you mention. But regardless, I've never quite seen a thread of this nature, and can't help thinking it is of poor judgement and taste and could not in any way be productive.

I think next time you should just send that which you admire a PM instead.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

40. He's a blast to read and has more guts than I do. I wouldn't be surprised

if some of the pr-gun vitriol comes from shills that are paid to be here by the NRA.

:toast:

[iverglas]

42. noooo -- but hey, what am I, chopped liver?

I don't think they're paid. I think they're the footsoldiers, the true believers. Not in things that many people around here believe, 'tis true, but true believers.

And there's me, toiling away in obscurity down below, kinda like that kid with his finger in the dike, or in one of those famous walls of history meant to hold off the barbarians, and n'er a thread to call my own.

Well, not true. I've got loads of threads devoted to me ... just not here. They pretty much go like this:

"Now if I could only get that bitch, iverglas and her butthole buddy, MrBenchley over here ..."

(can't give the citation here ;) )

Some people just don't appreciate a good EdgarAllanPoe / TomLehrer / PhilOchs / MontyPython / TrailerParkBoys fest as much as we in the dungeon do, I'm afraid. Sigh.

[Moderator]

44. locking....

This is flamebait and not a good idea.