HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Gun rights group to hold ...

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 01:01 AM

Gun rights group to hold rally & gun giveaway at Va. Capitol on MLK day

Gun rights group to hold rally & gun giveaway at Va. Capitol on MLK day

According to the anti-gun rights group Brady Campaign, Virginia's gun laws are more restrictive than 34 other states. And now a fiesty gun rights group wants to do somthing about it.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) will rally at Virginia's Capitol Square in Richmond on Monday 16 January, 2012 (Martin Luther King Day). The purpose of the event is to lobby legislators to pass key gun rights reforms this legislative session.

VCDL is inviting gun owners and from all over the Old Dominion to report at 8:45 AM on Monday outside the General Assembly Building where they will be organized into teams to go to legislators' offices, meet with their elected officials and staffs, and hand out VCDL's Gun Bill Analysis white paper. "Gun bus" transportation is available from Harrisonburg, Staunton, and Waynesboro; gun carry is welcome at the event, including inside the Virginia General Assembly Building and Capitol (see VCDL's Alert below).

In addition to the opportunity to tour the historic Capitol Square and associated buildings, attend legislative meetings, and participate in an outdoor rally with speakers, VCDL will also be holding a gun give-away where a lucky winner will receive a .50 caliber rifle.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-washington-dc/gun-rights-group-to-hold-rally-gun-giveaway-at-va-capitol-square-on-mlk-day

Just seems a little tasteless...

86 replies, 8831 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 86 replies Author Time Post
Reply Gun rights group to hold rally & gun giveaway at Va. Capitol on MLK day (Original post)
The Straight Story Jan 2012 OP
ellisonz Jan 2012 #1
DonP Jan 2012 #7
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #12
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #15
ellisonz Jan 2012 #22
DonP Jan 2012 #25
ellisonz Jan 2012 #26
DonP Jan 2012 #29
ellisonz Jan 2012 #43
X_Digger Jan 2012 #33
DonP Jan 2012 #37
ellisonz Jan 2012 #44
X_Digger Jan 2012 #49
ellisonz Jan 2012 #57
X_Digger Jan 2012 #58
ellisonz Jan 2012 #59
X_Digger Jan 2012 #60
ellisonz Jan 2012 #61
X_Digger Jan 2012 #62
PavePusher Jan 2012 #70
ellisonz Jan 2012 #72
PavePusher Jan 2012 #69
ellisonz Jan 2012 #71
PavePusher Jan 2012 #73
ellisonz Jan 2012 #74
DonP Jan 2012 #75
ellisonz Jan 2012 #76
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #77
ellisonz Jan 2012 #78
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #79
ellisonz Jan 2012 #80
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #84
PavePusher Jan 2012 #81
ellisonz Jan 2012 #82
PavePusher Jan 2012 #83
PavePusher Jan 2012 #68
rrneck Jan 2012 #2
Euromutt Jan 2012 #3
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #16
ileus Jan 2012 #4
Hoyt Jan 2012 #5
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #6
Hoyt Jan 2012 #9
ManiacJoe Jan 2012 #39
ileus Jan 2012 #17
DonP Jan 2012 #8
Hoyt Jan 2012 #10
DonP Jan 2012 #11
Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #18
DonP Jan 2012 #27
ileus Jan 2012 #28
Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #30
DonP Jan 2012 #31
Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #34
DonP Jan 2012 #35
ellisonz Jan 2012 #47
DonP Jan 2012 #53
ellisonz Jan 2012 #56
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #86
Union Scribe Jan 2012 #36
Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #38
ellisonz Jan 2012 #45
DonP Jan 2012 #54
ellisonz Jan 2012 #55
Hoyt Jan 2012 #13
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #19
Hoyt Jan 2012 #23
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #52
Hoyt Jan 2012 #63
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #67
Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #32
gejohnston Jan 2012 #40
Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #41
gejohnston Jan 2012 #46
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #51
Hoyt Jan 2012 #64
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #66
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #14
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #20
SteveW Jan 2012 #21
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #48
Hoyt Jan 2012 #24
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #50
E6-B Jan 2012 #65
Glassunion Jan 2012 #42
-..__... Jan 2012 #85

Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 01:46 AM

1. "Just seems a little tasteless..."

Nah never...the pro-gun movement is a paragon of class and humility

The response to an article like this in the main forums would be massive outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:03 PM

7. Tasteless. Oh you mean like the Brady bunch using an MLK image to solicit donations today?

 

They have a picture of MLK on their landing page asking for donations since he'd support us.

I was curious to see if those GOP led jackals would use the day to grub for more money. You can always count on them to do the tasteless thing, from trying to use Virginia Tech memorials for fund raising to MLK as a "spokesperson".

Hmmm, maybe the Joyce Board of Directors is finally looking for some kind of actual results from them before they cut their next support check?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:41 PM

12. I checked the BC site, and you are correct.

 

I doubt the Brady Campaign will mention that Dr. King (like Eleanor Roosevelt) sought a concealed-carry permit.

You have to be willing to elide a lot of inconvenient truth if you're going to be counted as one of the anti-gun faithful.
Just look at the support Rahm Emanuel and Micahel Bloomberg get from certain posters here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:07 PM

15. Dr. King (like Eleanor Roosevelt) sought a concealed-carry permit.

just thought that it bears repeating is all.

Like seeing it in the title line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 04:43 PM

22. You think MLK was opposed to gun control?

Nice try at an unwarranted counter-attack

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #22)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 05:05 PM

25. Why would you think he opposed them, since he owned guns and applied for a Concealed Carry Permit?

 

Or didn't you know that from all your reading on guns?

"Most people think King would be the last person to own a gun. Yet in the mid-1950s, as the civil rights movement heated up, King kept firearms for self-protection. In fact, he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

A recipient of constant death threats, King had armed supporters take turns guarding his home and family. He had good reason to fear that the Klan in Alabama was targeting him for assassination. Adam Winkler, Prof. of Law, UCLA January 18, 2011"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 05:12 PM

26. Not the same thing.

That's you're engaging in this desperate attempt to slander MLK Jrs. message of peace, justice, and social responsibility shows what a hollow man you truly are DonP. Dr. King would not favor the current madness - he was an ardent opponent of militarism, and that is what our current gun culture encourages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #26)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 05:37 PM

29. Then why did he own and choose to defend himself with guns? His own and others?

 

I pity you.

You hold a simplistic, almost cartoon like image of the man. If anyone is slandering his reputation it's people like you.

You can't accept a simple historical fact that, when confronted with the prospect of the possibility of personal violence, he chose to more closely agree with gun owners here and apply for a carry permit than with people like you, that know what's best for him and the rest of us.

You sound exactly like the kind of person the sheriff that denied his concealed carry permit was. Nice company you keep.

Oh, and thank you for conducting the seance to tell us that you, and you alone, know what he would have thought today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 09:49 PM

43. He would not favor the current madness. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #26)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 06:29 PM

33. Try this on for size..


"As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of "self-defense." In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law." Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Chapter II, Black Power, Page 55, Harper & Row Publishers Inc., First Edition, 1967.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #33)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 07:08 PM

37. Now you're slandering him too!

 

How dare you actually share his personal thoughts on this!

He obviously didn't mean that, he must have meant something else. <sarcasm off>

I wonder which sheriff turned down his CCW application?

There sure seem to be a lot of people here that would do just that, given the opportunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #33)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 09:50 PM

44. I don't disagree with that.

But I do disagree with the idea that he would support the militarism that gun ownership in this country is approaching.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #44)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 10:23 PM

49. Do you think he would agree with DC & Chicago's ban on handgun ownership?

Given that he owned a handgun and tried to get a permit to carry it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #49)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 11:22 PM

57. No.

But that doesn't mean he would proclaim an "individual right" that is not in the Constitution or tolerate the scourge of unlimited weapons purchases. That would be a distortion of his character

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #57)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 11:44 PM

58. I think you'll have to find something more than your supposition to support that..

Especially considering he himself owned guns outside of any government group. To assert otherwise would be calling him a hypocrite.

And I think you'd find he would rail against the restrictive licensing and too-cute-by-half measures that DC & Chicago are trying, in an effort to suppress gun ownership.

After all, this was the guy who said, "A right delayed is a right denied."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #58)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 11:58 PM

59. I'm not playing games.

"Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him." ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

(Done with this topic, you're twisting his legacy and that is wrong.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #59)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 12:29 AM

60. Dr. King was not a pacifist, but endorsed non-violence in the context of political change

"Finally, I contended that the debate over the question of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked. The question was not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized demonstration." Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Chapter II, Black Power, Page 27, Harper & Row Publishers Inc., First Edition, 1967.

I'm sorry if this adds depth to what appears to be a rather two-dimensional image of Dr. King.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #60)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 12:38 AM

61. Never said he was...but he certainly wasn't a militarist. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #61)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 01:51 AM

62. Remember, this sub-thread started with you saying..

"You think MLK was opposed to gun control?"

And you admitted that he likely would have been opposed to both DC and Chicago's efforts.

How you want to define that nebulous 'militarist' in this context is up to you (and I assume the plasticity of the term would let you apply it to anything you want.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #59)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 01:20 PM

70. Posting truth and historical fact is now "twisting his legacy"? Wow..... n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #70)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 04:44 PM

72. I know this may be a surprise...

...but there is a word, an important one: interpretation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 01:18 PM

69. Did you not actually READ post 33?

 

"...the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #69)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 04:43 PM

71. Yeah but not with an arsenal...

...that would make a Mexican drug lord blush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #71)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 04:59 PM

73. So, define "arsenal" as you relate it to private weapons ownership.

 

Don't forget to be "reasonable".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #73)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 05:03 PM

74. I think I made my point. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #74)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 05:20 PM

75. Not really and you keep misusing the word

 

Boy! For a guy that claims to read all about guns, you really need to do more research.

For you and the rest of your little gun control friends ... an "Arsenal" is where guns are manufactured, as in; The Springfield Arsenal or the Rock Island Arsenal.

The "Armory" is where many guns are stored.

Are Mexican Drug Lords manufacturing their own weapons now? No they're not, so they probably have an Armory.

That's alright, you don't have to actually know what you're talking about. Why start now?

But we do so love it when you get your ass pasted to the wall again and again on a subject, that you declare "victory" and claim you're through with this subject.

Let me guess, you're not going to the SHOT show this week?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #75)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 05:32 PM

76. "Let me guess, you're not going to the SHOT show this week?"

Obsessed much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #76)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 05:39 PM

77. Why *not* go? Think of it as opposition research.

 

Believing that you only need to know what those that agree with you think or do is a recipe for failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #77)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 05:46 PM

78. Ha...















I think I get all the opposition research I need here, and if it's any indication, presuming the verbal ability here is above average here, the "fear" is strong with the pro-gun movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #78)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 05:50 PM

79. Attitudes like yours have helped to make gun control the success it is today.

 

Please don't change...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #79)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 05:52 PM

80. I won't...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #80)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 08:40 PM

84. I'm glad of that. Unswerving dedication to a course of action is rare these days.

 

I hope you can convince other gun control advocates to follow your example.
Lord Cardigan and George Armstrong Custer would no doubt approve...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #74)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 05:59 PM

81. No, you haven't. Please tell me what your definition is...

 

so I know if I qualify or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #81)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 06:03 PM

82. Again with the obsession...




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #82)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 07:51 PM

83. ..for clear communication? Yes. That's one of the principles of this site. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 01:17 PM

68. Accusations of slander? From you?

 

That's rich. Post your evidence that refutes the facts. We'll wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:03 AM

2. On MLK day? Sheesh. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:27 AM

3. It does seem rather tasteless, though not as much as...

...the fact that Virginia state legislators evidently don't observe MLK Day. Presumably, the VCDL picked the date because a) a significant number of members would have the day off, while b) the legislators would nevertheless be available. That's why they're not doing it on a weekend, say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Euromutt (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:08 PM

16. ^^^this ^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 09:44 AM

4. Wish I could be there and get my name in the pot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 11:46 AM

5. The so-called VCDL works hand-in-hand with the Young Republicans.


That ought to tell you something about them, and gun rights groups in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 01:51 PM

6. It does tell me something about them: They need more Democrats!

 

Join up, people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:17 PM

9. I think the vast majority of Democrats are not for more and more guns in public.


That's a good thing, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 07:43 PM

39. You are allowed to think that.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:09 PM

17. Haven't joined, but I am a member of their FB group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:07 PM

8. "So called"? Do you mean that's not their real name?

 

Or do you have some proof that they are in league with the Young Republicans?

Or ... is this another of your specious claims that emanates from your nether regions again, since only the GOP in your fantasy land, are gun owners or active for gun rights?

Probably not a single Dem in the whole VCDL organization, right? Just like there are no Dems in the entire 4.5 million NRA membership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:18 PM

10. There are not many, that is right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:27 PM

11. That's not the question. I asked about proof.

 

I asked what kind of proof you had for your claim that they are a GOP front group?

Unless you can provide some kind of substantiation we'll all assume that you pulled it out of your ass again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:12 PM

18. One would hope that you are more polite with your guns than with your words.

You seem like a very rude individual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 05:18 PM

27. How "rude" of me to ask for proof

 

How rude to actually expect some kind of evidence or proof from posters that totally make claims up and post it as if it were the revealed "gospel according to Sara Brady".

People here asking for some kind of vague support for the wildly BS claims made by gun control supporters have really put a cramp in their style it seems. Hell, we're all still waiting for that one single example of a gun control "win" that after dozens of posts gun control fans still couldn't come up with.

Me, I lay awake nights worrying about what gun control supporters that would see me and my family disarmed and defenseless and turn gun control over to the whims of the next "Dick Cheney" type to make it into office, think of me and my manners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 05:22 PM

28. rude questioner

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 06:12 PM

30. It's not what you ask, it's how you ask

Do you pull your claims out of your rectum? Hopefully not. Insults will not win you any points.
I'm sorry you lie awake at night worrying about attacks on you and your family. You must live in a truly terrible place. What part of Afghanistan do you live in that you lay awake at night, worrying so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #30)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 06:18 PM

31. Sorry, a poster who has admitted to "making things up to make a point" ...

 

... really doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Where I come from we call that lying.

I see no reason to be polite to self admitted liars.

I don't lie awake worried about attacks from bandits and thieves. Read it again ...slowly, and think <sarcasm>

And while you're at it, please note he has provided no answer to the request for any kind of proof that VCDL is a GOP front group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #31)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 06:32 PM

34. You're not sorry. You are now calling him a liar.

You are rude and out of line.
I see nothing sarcastic about your laying awake at night. It isn't funny and appears to have no point. Why can't you just say what you mean and be civil about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #34)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 07:04 PM

35. He's admitted to lying - that's why I called him a liar, get it?

 

Or is telling the simple truth rude now too?

If you took the time to actually read my post instead of rushing to offer a snappy response. I was being sarcastic about "lying awake at night, worrying about what gun control people thought of me."

Let me help you.

I don't really care what people that have to rely on a network of lies, half truths and general obfuscation of facts to try and make a point think, they are irrelevant to any meaningful discussion.

The era of being nice and trying to "compromise" with gun control advocates is long gone and isn't coming back.

Geez, work on that comprehension thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #35)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 10:00 PM

47. The era of being nice and trying to "compromise"...is long gone and isn't coming back."

Oooh...a hardliner.

And yet we're the one's who've lost our damn minds.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #47)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 11:06 PM

53. "And yet we're the ones that have lost our damn minds." Ummm, no you just lost - period.

 

A hardliner? Not even close.

Just a regular person capable of reading and grasping legal rulings, simple bills passed and signed by our President and seeing the trends for what they really are, not what the shrinking handful of people like you'd like them to be.

Get used to it, it's not going to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #53)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 11:21 PM

56. So you didn't say...

The era of being nice and trying to "compromise" with gun control advocates is long gone and isn't coming back.


What else could that mean, hardliner? Or was that sarcasm without the tag too

"Get used to it, it's not going to change."

This remains a democratic-republic yet...I refuse to accept the policies of our "conservative" friends...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #34)


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #30)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 07:05 PM

36. High-handed lectures about manners

are very good manners, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #36)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 07:18 PM

38. Are or are not?

If not, why not? The hand should be as high as necessary when reining in rudeness. We are in an environment with rules that require a level of civility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 09:51 PM

45. "I lay awake nights worrying about what gun control supporters"



Boo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #45)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 11:08 PM

54. That doesn't even make sense for you. Get some rest, you obviously need to calm down.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #54)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 11:17 PM

55. Oh I'm calm...

This GOP debate is hilarious...I sleep very well at night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:01 PM

13. It's their real name, but let's be honest -- they are just promoting guns in public.


That "Defense League" stuff is garbage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:12 PM

19. Many anti-rights folks...

...seem to operate with their own definitions. Kind of like the communists did 50 years ago. "Liberate" meant a communist takeover of a government. Maybe some of them followed Hanoi Jane back home.

This slogan mean anything to you, "born from people, for people to fight and for people to serve"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 04:56 PM

23. Hanoi Jane? What's that got to do with guns in public?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #23)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 10:59 PM

52. Please...

...return to your head-down position. Sorry to have bothered you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #52)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 09:13 AM

63. You should be sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #63)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 10:35 AM

67. smiles & smilies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 06:22 PM

32. "Maybe some of them followed Hanoi Jane back home. "

Are you serious? I'm starting to doubt your credentials. You may not have noticed, but the Vietnamese succeeded in liberating themselves from the yoke of colonialism, in spite of interference from US intervention.
If the US had succeeded in holding South Vietnam, as it did with S. Korea, we would probably be looking at a N.Vietnam similar to N.Korea today.
Jane Fonda's liberal credentials are impeccable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #32)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 09:01 PM

40. Unless I missed that part of history class

but if IRRC, they liberated themselves from the yoke of colonialism in 1954 after the French got the shit shot out of them. Granted, the oligarchs left behind were French favorites that basically ran the place before (in the south).
The Soviets had "advisers" in the north while the south had us. The Viet Cong had no problem torching villages in order to "save them" nor did they have any problem summary executing "reactionaries and collaborators". Both sides were pawns of two imperialistic super powers.
As for Jane, her ideological naivety was a set of blinders that let her see only black and white in a Technicolor world. In that way, she was really no different than dittoheads or teabaggers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #40)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 09:11 PM

41. She may have been naive. Most of us were. Many died.

To accuse her of living in a B&W world is absurd and comparing her to dittoheads and teabaggers is beyond insulting. She was very different and was one of the icons of the anti-war movement. She helped show the rest of the world that not all Americans were in lock step with the interventionist policies of the MIC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #41)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 09:56 PM

46. hardly absurd

and snopes.com cuts both ways.
Ever since her infamous visit to Hanoi, Jane Fonda has maintained the fiction that she was just "trying to stop the war." But she didn't go to North Vietnam to try to bring about peace, or to reconcile the two warring sides, or to stop American boys from being killed - she went there as an active show of support for the North Vietnamese cause. She lauded the North Vietnamese military, she denounced American soldiers as "war criminals" and urged them to stop fighting, she lobbied to cut off all American economic aid to the South Vietnamese government (even after the Paris Peace Accords had ended U.S. military involvement in Vietnam), she publicly thanked the Soviets for providing assistance to the North Vietnamese, and she branded tortured American POWs as Liars possessed of over active imaginations.


She was an icon only because of Daddy's fame, but she was about ideology not peace. No, she really was no different and I stand by what I said. The real anti-war movement was made people had a real stake in the game, including many who were there.

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #32)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 10:58 PM

51. re: "I'm starting to doubt your credentials."

Absolutely. Doubt away, my friend. I have no credentials except those you choose to give me.

Test and reason through anything I say. For the VC liberating a region meant bring it under communist control. The process of "liberation" frequently would involve the murder of civilians. I disdain redefining what is accepted. It smacks of a lie.

Anyone who uses/advocates the use of a firearm for purposes of self-defense may justifiably call themselves _ _ _ Defense League.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 09:17 AM

64. It depends upon what they are REALLY defending themselves against

and who they really are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #64)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 10:25 AM

66. That was my whole point. :) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:06 PM

14. you do realize that is what governing is all about

R's and D's working together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:21 PM

20. Waht would MLK, jr do?

Here's an article from last year in Huff-Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

Most people think King would be the last person to own a gun. Yet in the mid-1950s, as the civil rights movement heated up, King kept firearms for self-protection. In fact, he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.


Would MLK object or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 04:27 PM

21. Thanks for posting the link again...

This is the kind of history that many Democrats, IMO, have been re-introduced to, and it can only help in a more sober look at guns and their role in our society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SteveW (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 10:10 PM

48. Tacitus said...

..."Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 04:58 PM

24. Unlike many here -- his fears were real. A lot of folks were out to get him.


Too bad someone did -- and they used a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #24)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 10:44 PM

50. A gun...

...is a tool.

Equating all those who use that tool is absolutely wrong.

Sarah McKinley is not James Earl Ray. Neither was Lông Trắng.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 09:38 AM

65. Guns and Dr. King have been documented. Pacifist is a myth.

 

What Dr. King thinks of and what he did with guns is documented.

He was not a pacifist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 09:26 PM

42. They should have done it at a Chuck E Cheese.

Now that would have been funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #42)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 01:19 AM

85. I realize you posted that in jest...

 

but there's some serious shit going down at Chuck E Cheese...

http://www.youtube.com/results?search=Search&resnum=0&oi=spell&search_query=chuck+e+cheese+fights&spell=1&sa=X

For someone that's legally permitted to carry... I can't think of a better example of where the right to self defense wouldn't apply.

Even better... just stay as far fucking away from the place altogether... at least the ones in the more temperamental neighborhoods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread