Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Gun control's best friend"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 02:09 PM
Original message
"Gun control's best friend"
Gun control's best friend

By Dimitri Vassilaros
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, April 1, 2005


http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/colu...


"Darfur is a Texas-size region of Sudan. The Sudanese government and its militia proxies have killed roughly 70,000 civilians, raped and mutilated untold numbers of others and caused about 3 million refugees to live in camps."

"As I was reading story after story about the horrific treatment of the innocents by government-backed forces, I always wondered why there was no mention of the victims fighting back."


""But Sudan has helicopters and AK-47s. People in the camps have machetes," Garvelink said. International treaties covering humanitarian aid prohibit giving any side arms to defend oneself; otherwise no aid workers would be allowed to bring in supplies to a troubled region."

""Whenever you create a sword-fight by letting the poor people fight back and give them the arms, it creates an added element of complexity. You do not know what the results could be.""

""That could create a vicious cycle of violence," Ali-Dinar said. "The cycle now is mainly orchestrated by the government. Give guns to the traumatized and it will definitely get out of hand. There is no limit then, for them to stop.""

Comments? Opinions?








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pnutchuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. Where the hell is the government getting their guns from?
Why can't they be blocked?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lenidog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Suadan being one of the poorer countries in the world
is probably buying Chinese weapons. China is sorta the Wal Mart of arms sales in the worlds. View the US and the European nations as Neiman Marcus, Russia as Sears and China as Wal Mart and you get the idea of quality and prices. Another problem would be that it is impossible to stop the flow of AKs in the world. Russia alone made over a hundred million AK-47s, that isn't counting the later models such as the AKM and AK-74. Then add in the fact that China, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, North Korea, Eygpt, East Germany, Iraq, etc all made their own copies of AKs and the number is staggering. There will be AKs floating around the planet with guerillas, terrorists, armies, militias, etc probably into the NEXT century.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutchuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. In that perspective, world peace seems like a pipe dream. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lenidog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Though its a very depressing thought. You are probably quite
Edited on Tue May-03-05 02:53 PM by lenidog
correct in your analysis. I mean because Sudan uses AKs, I used that for an example and the fact that the AK is the most produced gun in history. You also have to add in the sea of other weapons out there and even if you just count the ones made since 1950 it boggles the mind. Also they float around for decades and because of the international weapons trade they will show up in the strangest places. Then there are still groups out there that are sitting on stuff made as far back as World War II or I and it just seems hopeless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. Military Sears & RoeBuck..
Any tin pot dictator with internet access and some hard currency on hand, CAN BUY WHAT EVER HE WANTS..

And have it delivered on a Russian freighter

Whether his people need food or medicine is in-material to him, HE controls the check book

If you dont believe me, just look at the OFFICIAL Russian weapons EXPORT pages.

Want a MiG 29? NO PROBLEM.

Need Anti-Aircraft weaponry?? NO SWEAT!

Tanks aplenty here!

A warship?? HOW BIG and HOW POWERFUL you want it????

Here you go for your browsing pleasure,

The Sears and Roebuck of the Russian Army http://www.rusarm.ru /

I see they have a special today on Submarines
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lenidog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-05 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #17
29. I wonder if they except CODs
They will sell to anyone who has the cold hard cash. Its a little better during the Cold War they would give the crap away by the freighter load. Now they want money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The White Tree Donating Member (630 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yes Guns are the answer to everything
Because a highly organized Army with AK-47's and Helicopters would be cowed by the prospect of disorganized villigers with guns. Not.

That is about the most ridiculous non-sequiter argument I ever heard.

If your going to intervene, it would be better to do it under an organized body like the UN then to just throw in guns and hope.
In order to get them guns, you'd either have to smuggle them in illegally, or else fight a battle to arm the downtrodden populace.
Gun runners have made their fortune doing one (smuggling) for a long time. It has not seemed to solve anybodies problems.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. The Sudanese army is not "highly organized"
and a ragtag bunch of Iraqis armed with barley more then AK-47 and RPG-7's is giving the most modern and well trained Army in the world fits and starts.

I for one would rather having the option of shooting back at people trying to kill me rather then being as defenseless as a cattle on the threshold of the slaughterhouse.

I don't think its a progressive value to passively encourage genocide by refusing to support those being slaughtered. Well, maybe it is. FDR sure didn't go out of his way to help the Jews of Europe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. oooh!

I don't think its a progressive value to passively encourage genocide by refusing to support those being slaughtered. Well, maybe it is. FDR sure didn't go out of his way to help the Jews of Europe.

That wouldn't be a slur against a Democrat ... and Democrats ... would it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. history
You forget that the VAST majority of Americans (Democrats included)wanted NOTHING to do with the second European conflict. For FDR to have jumped in BEFORE Germany declared war on us, just after Pearl Harbor would have been political suicide. and most of the congress and senate would have voted him down in a heartbeat

We was already involved in the North Atlantic before the Declaration of war, Also we was shipping massive amounts of military aid to the British at the time as well.

Pearl Harbor changed everything

One of the center pieces of my Rifle collection is a U.S. Marked No4 MKI British 303 rifle, sent over in the lend-lease program, which after the war was returned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. you talkin to me?

I trust not. I'm not the one who forgot any of that. I just hadn't got around to pointing it out yet. Sheesh, I type fast, but I'm not an octopus!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Oh...I'm Sorry.
Edited on Tue May-03-05 04:25 PM by davepc
Democrats have never done anything wrong, ever.

Also, FDR did all he could to help the Jews of Europe, including:

Bombing of the rail lines into the death camps to impede the ability of the Nazis to send Jews to the slaughter house. -- oh wait, no he didn't.

Firing Breckinridge Long (an avowed anti-semite) as the State Department official in charge of refuge and immigration issues. -- oh wait, no he did't.

Increasing or eliminating the quota that only allowed 20,000 German and Austrian refuges to flee to the United States. -- oh wait, no he didn't. Only 5,000 Jews who actually made it to the US, out of 3 million or so seeking asylum.

Also, FDR never suggested refugee Jews be resettled in Venezuela, Ethiopia, or West Africa. -- Oh wait, yes he did!

After Rabbi Stephen Wise, Jan Karski were able to illustrate to FDR the magnitude and scope of the Nazi murder system, FDR did not write to Cordell Hull in May 1943 "I do not think we can do other than strictly comply with the present immigration laws." -- Oh wait, yes he did!

He also never told King Ibn Saud that he did not support or approve of a Jewish state in Palestine. -- Oh wait, yes he did!


I apologize and take back by baseless and indefensible "slur".

No one did more to stop the Holocaust the Franklin Roosevelt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-05 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. Don't forget Manzanar....
just pointing it out....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-05 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. No crickets chirping from Canada when it comes to post 20
Edited on Fri May-06-05 07:30 PM by Retired AF Dem
Imagine that. The world stood by and did nothing while millions of Jews died. And these same people wonder why Israel has a habit of not really caring about what the rest of the world thinks when it comes to how she handles her security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Why is stating a fact a slur?
Neither Churchill or FDR did anything about the Jews in Germany in fear of Hitler dumping untold numbers of refugees upon them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. Since the US doesn't have ....
Edited on Tue May-03-05 02:41 PM by MrSandman
Internment camps
Government exterminaion of civilians
Systematic abrogation of human rights bt the government,

This argument for prohibition doesn't apply.

Anyone who believes in disarming the people should propose repealing the Second Amendment and there will be no "reason" to allow the civilian ownersip of firearms.

On edit: OTOH, the rate of firearms homicide and suicide is probably low...s
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. "argument for prohibition"?

What might you have been reading ... or smoking?

I'm constantly amazed at how somebody can read something about somebody who is not in the US and someplace that is not the US ... and still think it was about USAmericans and the US ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
26. Since it was posted on a board dedicated ...
To discussion of US policy, the inference is not that ethnocentric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. and actually, of course

Internment camps
Government exterminaion of civilians
Systematic abrogation of human rights bt the government,

This argument for prohibition doesn't apply.



The thesis of the author is that gun control is genocide's best friend -- i.e. that widespread firearm possession among the public is the cure for genocide.

In that context, the response to your assertion that there are no internment camps, government extermination of civilians or systematic abrogation of human rights by the government in the US would be that there is no need for firearms to be widely held by the public in the US.

No disease, no cure needed.

Nice of you to point it out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. hmm
Hmmm.

1911 Turkey establishes gun control.
1915-1917 1.5 Million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1929 The Soviet Union establishes gun control.
1929-1953 approximately 20 Million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1935 China establishes gun control.
1948-1952 20 Million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1938 Germany establishes gun control.
1939-1945 13 Million Jews, gypsies and other arbitrary categories of people unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1964 Guatemala establishes gun control.
1964-1981 100,000 Mayan Indians unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

1966 Cambodia establishes gun control.
1975-1977 One Million educated people unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1970 Uganda establishes gun control.
1971-1979 300,000 Christians unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. oh my!
April 14, 1912 - sun rose
Titanic sank.

December 26, 2004 - sun rose
Tsunami devastated multiple areas in Indian Ocean.

December 6, 1917 - sun rose
Explosion in Halifax Harbour killed and injured thousands.

August 24, 79 - sun rose
Volcano erupted in Pompei and killed thousands.


What shall we do?!?


Well ... I'd say:

- don't sail on "unsinkable" ships
- establish an early-warning system for tsunamis
- take measures to prevent munitions ships from catching fire
- don't live under potentially active volcanos

I don't think I'd say "sleep during the day", or "move to the dark side of the moon", or "blow up the sun".

But I do think I'd say "don't elect governments that are likely to kill you". If you have your druthers, that is.

Of course, if you do elect a government that isn't likely to kill you, and the US decides that it would rather you have a government that is likely to kill you and orchestrates the coup that leads to this happening (Guatemala, 1954) ... well, unless you have a nuclear weapon in your back yard that's within striking range of US territory, there ain't likely gonna be much you can do about it.


Of course, I'd also ask ... if any of the people whose deaths you choose to exploit in your cause had not been governed by governments that "established gun control", would they have been "able to defend themselves"? Would they have lived any longer than they did?

Were any of those people "unable to defend themselves" because of "gun control"?

Where's DoNotRefill when you need him? ... "Correlation is not causation" ...


Oh look.
http://www.ustimesweekly.net/ct/getarticle.php?dept=49&... (danged if it doesn't publish that other one, "Constitutional Times", cited earlier)
You left one out.

THE WORLD HISTORY OF GUN CONTROL

1929 -- The Soviet Union establishes gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1935 -- China establishes gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1938 -- Germany establishes gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies,and other arbitrary categories of people unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1964 -- Guatemala establishes gun control.From 1964 to 1981 100,000 Mayan Indians,unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1966 -- Cambodia establishes gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1970 -- Uganda establishes gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1999 -- Australia establishes gun control. Law-abiding citizens were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms for destruction, a program costing the government more than $500 million. The results Australia-wide:homicides are up 3.2%, assaults are up 8%, and armed robberies are up 44%. In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%. Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such a monumental effort was expended in "ridding society of guns."
Maybe you do have some shame, given how that last one is so misleading and deceptive and false and all.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-05 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #21
33. I'm right here...
"Were any of those people "unable to defend themselves" because of "gun control"?

Where's DoNotRefill when you need him? ... "Correlation is not causation" ..."

And disarming the targeted population is a necessary precursor for genocide. Can you name a SINGLE population that was exterminated and that had free and easy access to small arms and ammunition?

Does gun control cause genocide? Nope. Is gun control among the targeted population necessary for genocide to be able to happen? Absolutely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #15
27. If I believed that were the purpose of owning firearms...
You would be correct.

Of course, I don't think that you will find that I have advocated the RKBA to stand up to opressive domestic government.

Of course, if you want to make that argument, I will accept the RKBA as a vaccine to prevent the disease.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamin lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. This whole thing is being mishandled because nobody
understands the root cause. These people have lived together for hundreds of years without conflict. What happened? The crops failed, only enough food for some. Why did the crops fail? The rainfall decreased. Why did the rainfall stop? The Indian Ocean's temperature changed 2 degrees F causing weather patterns to change. Why did the Indian Ocean heat up? Global warming.

Guns or no guns, the intervention cannot succeed unless the root cause is addressed. Short term, bring food, lots and lots of food. Mid term, change the farming to more drought resistant strains of grain. Long term, ADDRESS GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. And in the meantime thousands of defenseless innocents are murdered
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lenidog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. That is only exacberating the situation
this fight has been going on for centuries. Its only now with technology that the Arabs who hold the power in Sudan are finally able to gain total ascendancy over those in the Darfur region. The reason behind this war is multi-level, Arab vs Black, settled vs nomad, Muslim vs Christian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
11. btw ... yet another nice friend ya got there
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. And I am wondering...
what exactly that has to do with whats going on in Sudan, and things the folks in the opinion piece were quoted as saying?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. do you or your new friend

give a shit about what is happening to the people of Darfur?

Or are they just another convenient victim to be exploited in the cause of gun-adoring USAmericans?

Do you actually know anything about the situation in Darfur -- the genesis of the current crisis, the nature of the international response, anything at all?

Did you find this opinion piece while researching the situation in Darfur and trying to understand what brought it about and what could be done to alleviate it?

Or did you find it while reading a favourite right-wing columnist, or a favourite rkba-head internet site, or maybe just roaming the internet looking for some new victim to exploit in your cause?

I did a little search to see where references to this article might be found on the net.

http://www.patriotblog.com/index.php?p=9
(and more at that site)

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=5553

http://keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/read_comments.asp?nl...
(and more at that site)

http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/2005_04.ht...
("An occasional blog by a gay gun-nut in Vermont.")

http://concealcarry.org/archive/2005_04_01_archive.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/firearmsregprof@lists.ucla....
(website of Joseph E. Olson, lobbyist for the "Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance")


Any of them look familiar?

Probably not this one:
http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/6283.shtml
... although I do believe that this nutbar http://canadiancoalition.com/who.shtml and his website have shown up here before ...


And I am wondering...
what exactly that has to do with whats going on in Sudan, and things the folks in the opinion piece were quoted as saying?


Why don't you tell us ... what does what the author of the opinion piece said have to do with what's going on in Sudan?

You posted it; have you no comments or opinions? Surely, if you found it so interesting, it is because you have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the situation in Darfur that you thought the opinion in question worth considering. What say you?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. I wonder...
"do you or your new friend give a shit about what is happening to the people of Darfur?"

My new friend? About to the same degree as Josh Sugarman is yours?
Obviously, I can speak for noone but myself including who my friends are. You might try giving that a go yourself. I would have thought it bloody well obvious that I GIVE A SHIT about people being able to defend themselves versus being defenseless. Shouldn't I?

"Or are they just another convenient victim to be exploited in the cause of gun-adoring USAmericans?"

Thats a neat characterization, it really is. And when "gun-adoring USAmericans" become anywhere-close to as proficient consistant or swift at jumping on the bandwagon and dancing in the blood of others to suit an agenda, as the anti-gun loudspeakers are, you will have made a point. Until then, the title of "best exploiters of innocent victims to suit an agenda" rests safely in the possession of the anti-gunners, where it was SOUNDLY earned.

Do you walk to school?

Or does your lobster make potatoe salad?


"Do you actually know anything about the situation in Darfur -- the genesis of the current crisis, the nature of the international response, anything at all?"

Certainly not enough to have an opinion about camps, genocide, rape, or a government killing its own folks...Nosiree. :eyes:
I really don't need to have a kings wealth of knowledge, or a passing familiarity, or anything in between to give a shit about defenseless people being slaughtered, but thanks for your concern.


"Or did you find it while reading a favourite right-wing columnist, or a favourite rkba-head internet site, or maybe just roaming the internet looking for some new victim to exploit in your cause?"

Nice. But wait...THERES MORE...

"I did a little search to see where references to this article might be found on the net."

Little must have been the operative word. I still had the page up from whence it came though, and it was none of those. I found it on yahoo news about the same time I was reading about the POTENTIAL lawsuit against HK.

Methinks you need a new brush, really.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/us/gun_control_debate/ope... ;_ylt=Av.NWXP0UPq.Hi3lNx4wmv5GR4sA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

"Why don't you tell us ... what does what the author of the opinion piece said have to do with what's going on in Sudan?"

I am not quite sure, why on earth I would do such a thing. The only one that I am aware of that seems to believe that one has any such thing to do with the other, is you.

"You posted it; have you no comments or opinions? Surely, if you found it so interesting, it is because you have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the situation in Darfur that you thought the opinion in question worth considering. What say you?"

What a neat little package you try to tie that into. The problem is, its the attitudes toward the "little people" that are the subject of this thread, or at least were meant to be. Those little people, you know, the ones in the camps, and getting killed and raped by the hand of their own government? And those other people, you know, the ones quoted on the potential victims being able to defend themselves or not, and why?

Those things were meant to be this threads topic. Don't suppose you have any comments on them at all, do you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. so many questions, so no answers
My new friend? About to the same degree as Josh Sugarman is yours?

I dunno. Have I posted an article by Josh Sugarman ... let alone started a thread with an article by Josh Sugarman ... and made no critical (or any other) comment on it?

Didn't think so.

Did you have a point?


I would have thought it bloody well obvious that I GIVE A SHIT about people being able to defend themselves versus being defenseless. Shouldn't I?

Don't know, don't care. Any reason you didn't answer the question I asked you?

Lest the point be too obscure for you: the shit you might give about "people being able to defend themselves" tells us nothing about any shit you might give about the people of Darfur, which was the subject of my question.

You have told me that you give a shit about an ideology, not about any human beings.


And when "gun-adoring USAmericans" become anywhere-close to as proficient consistant or swift at jumping on the bandwagon and dancing in the blood of others to suit an agenda, as the anti-gun loudspeakers are, you will have made a point.

Yeah ... and when you offer anything to substantiate yours, it will be one worth noticing.


Do you walk to school?
Or does your lobster make potatoe salad?


Is there a Dan Quayle joke in there I'm not getting? Of some kind of "Canadian" joke? I assure you that few Canadians (especially in the urban inland areas like where I am) keep lobsters as pets, let alone train them to prepare dinner.


Certainly not enough to have an opinion about camps, genocide, rape, or a government killing its own folks...Nosiree.

Well, I give up. Do you have an opinion about those things?

And if you did, how exactly might it be relevant to the actual subject matter of the opinion piece that you posted?

Genocide bad. Guns good. Is that it?


I really don't need to have a kings wealth of knowledge, or a passing familiarity, or anything in between to give a shit about defenseless people being slaughtered, but thanks for your concern.

And there it is again -- not-an-answer.

You might need to have at least a smidgen of familiarity with "the situation in Darfur -- the genesis of the current crisis, the nature of the international response, anything at all" to have an opinion about a proposal for a solution to the situation -- that being what you the article you posted sets out, even if obscurely. Eh? I dunno, maybe not. Maybe guns are the solution to every problem, so there's no need to waste time learning such things.


http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/us/gun_control_debate /

Oh yes, I see there indeed many places to get one's gun-news fix.


Why don't you tell us ... what does what the author of the opinion piece said have to do with what's going on in Sudan?
I am not quite sure, why on earth I would do such a thing. The only one that I am aware of that seems to believe that one has any such thing to do with the other, is you.

Er ... what?

You're suggesting that what the author of the piece said does *not* have anything to do with what's going on in Sudan?

I mean, that's kinda what *I* would have said. But given that the piece was purportedly about what's going on in Sudan, and that you're the one who offered it up, I kinda thought that you might have some thoughts on the point.


The problem is, its the attitudes toward the "little people" that are the subject of this thread, or at least were meant to be.

Well, actually, the subject of the thread was an opinion piece that started out by saying:

The slaughter, rape and torment of the citizens of Darfur would end if humanitarian aid included guns.
That's a pretty clear and unequivocal statement.

It concludes with another:

Darfur is one more reminder that gun control is genocide's best friend.
Those are kind of what I see the subject of the thread being. And I'm still wondering why you aren't commenting on the opinion that you yourself offered for discussion.


Those things were meant to be this threads topic. Don't suppose you have any comments on them at all, do you?

I think I've already commented on what the obvious topic is: whether the statement that the slaughter, rape and torment of members of a group would end if the members of the group were given firearms is a reasonable statement, and whether it is reasonable to say that gun control is genocide's best friend.

Nope, and nope. Given the absence of any facts or arguments in what was offered by the author of the piece in between those two statements, to demonstrate any rational basis for them, I don't really have to say anything more at this point. No onus on me to rebut bald assertions.

You got anything to say to back 'em up, yet?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. What is the sound of shit happening...
"Don't know, don't care. Any reason you didn't answer the question I asked you?"

Because other than YOU saying it is relivant, I see no reason to think it is? Perhaps because, no matter what YOU believe the subject of the thread is, the decision is not yours to make. No onus on me to rebut bald assertions, as you say.



"Lest the point be too obscure for you: the shit you might give about "people being able to defend themselves" tells us nothing about any shit you might give about the people of Darfur, which was the subject of my question."

Not obscure, just meaningless. "You have given no evidence to show that you care, beyond wanting these people to be able to defend themselves" is what I am hearing. Well, thats more than the people quoted in the article seem to care, so I just have no idea why you would be questioning the degree to which you believe I care, as opposed to the self admitted degree with which they care. No idea at all. Perhaps you might explain that. At any rate, I am wondering, just exactly who are you speaking for again, who is US?


"You have told me that you give a shit about an ideology, not about any human beings."

No, iverglas. YOU interpret that I "give a shit about an ideology,
and therefore have not given evidence that I give a shit about human beings". The operative word is selective. As in selective interpretation. If I didn't give 2 shits about them, I certainly wouldn't care if they were armed or not, or getting slaughtered/raped and imprisoned, or not. I believe in self defense BECAUSE I care about human beings, not in spite of it. Clearly, this you do not understand.


"Yeah ... and when you offer anything to substantiate yours, it will be one worth noticing."

ROFL...you really DO crack me up. Asking for substantiation that the loudmouth anti-gun organizations dance in the blood of victims more than anyone else? Thats like asking for proof that the sun exists. You can blather on all you like about it, but its there, no matter how loudly you or anyone else screams for proof. And regardless of all the blathering, it will come up again tomorrow, for all the world (with functional sight) to see.

"Well, I give up. Do you have an opinion about those things?"
(camps, genocide, rape, or a government killing its own folks)

Sure I do. Bad things all. I thought that went without saying...Has anyone including myself given you reason to suspect that I would believe differently?

"And if you did, how exactly might it be relevant to the actual subject matter of the opinion piece that you posted?"

How indeed...

"Genocide bad. Guns good. Is that it?"

No, I think it was more along the lines of "genocide-bad, genocide made easy- bad. There you go needing to be told again.

"You might need to have at least a smidgen of familiarity with "the situation in Darfur -- the genesis of the current crisis, the nature of the international response, anything at all" to have an opinion about a proposal for a solution to the situation -- that being what you the article you posted sets out, even if obscurely. Eh? I dunno, maybe not. Maybe guns are the solution to every problem, so there's no need to waste time learning such things."

"And there it is again -- not-an-answer."

And there it is again, not-a-sequetir. Someone once said something very similar on the topic of the AWB. That you have to know a little something about guns...to have an opinion about a proposal for a solution to the assault weapons situation. They were told in no uncertain terms that they were wrong. Perhaps you might even remember who it was, that was doing the telling. Me, I just couldn't guess...

"I mean, that's kinda what *I* would have said. But given that the piece was purportedly about what's going on in Sudan, and that you're the one who offered it up, I kinda thought that you might have some thoughts on the point."

My thoughts on the point have nothing to do AT ALL with who wrote it, what site it was posted at, how YOU might have come across it, or anything else, except how those folks who were quoted by the author view those folks who are being killed/raped/imprisoned, and view their options for self defense. Those statement ARE my point, however poorly I might have made it.

"Those are kind of what I see the subject of the thread being."

Well, be that as it may. You kinda saw someone getting news off somewhere other than yahoo, too, until that is, you didn't.

"I think I've already commented on what the obvious topic is: whether the statement that the slaughter, rape and torment of members of a group would end if the members of the group were given firearms is a reasonable statement, and whether it is reasonable to say that gun control is genocide's best friend."

Well, the topic as you see it, thats all fine and good. You seem still not to understand though. The key points and MY reason for posting this, are statements by people quoted in the original text by the author. Its those statements I wished to discuss, and those statements you have not addressed, even after being repeatedly informed that that was the case.


In any case, I do so tire of typing in volumes just to communicate with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-05 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. okey dokey
... how those folks who were quoted by the author view those folks who are being killed/raped/imprisoned, and view their options for self defense. Those statement ARE my point, however poorly I might have made it. ... The key points and MY reason for posting this, are statements by people quoted in the original text by the author. Its those statements I wished to discuss, and those statements you have not addressed, even after being repeatedly informed that that was the case.

So then.

If only I saw you DISCUSSING the things said, instead of simply repeating your insulting characterizations of the people who said them.

If you have a problem with what the people in question said -- as you apparently seem to have -- why don't you tell us what that problem is? Why don't you tell us what's wrong with what they said? Why don't you give us some sort of reasoned critique of it? Why don't you DISCUSS what you say you want to discuss?

Why don't you do something a little more informative than reiterate things like "the self admitted degree with which they care", "how those folks who were quoted by the author view those folks who are being killed/raped/imprisoned", etc.? (your evident claim being that they *don't* care, that being a pure unsubstantiated allegation ... especially given how these seem to be people who actually spend their lives doing something about the problem, as opposed to whatever it is you and I do)

I don't know how the degree to which aid workers and assorted other elements of the international community care about victims of crimes against humanity might be a subject for this forum. I do think that the actual point of the actual author who wrote the actual piece that you posted here --

The slaughter, rape and torment of the citizens of Darfur would end if humanitarian aid included guns.

... Darfur is one more reminder that gun control is genocide's best friend.
is what is relevant to this forum, and yet you still don't seem to want to say anything about that position statement.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Citizenghost Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-05 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #14
31. Funny You mention that Iverglas...
Edited on Fri May-06-05 04:52 AM by Citizenghost
You love to point the finger at pro-Gun Rights guys and gals but you fail to see that your side of the line does the same thing.

Million Mom March mean anything to you?

What about Handgun conrtol Inc.?

They also hide behind warped "Facts" and stats,but you seem to only want to point out our observation of history.

Guns aren't the anwser to everything but if those people had been armed maybe they could have taken a few of the bastards down with them.


Now how about you get off your soap box,knock off the "Hoilier than thou" attitude and actually try to see things from our point of view for a change,I'm not a right wing nut job,but I'm not an extreme Leftist Loon either,More gun control isn't the answer,nor are more arms the answer.

I don't think I'm some badass Rambo that can take on an army by my lonesome,but I'd like to be able to take a few down before I go,it's basic human nature to try and defend one's self.

Why do you make it your goal to try and keep others from defending themselves?

You don't want a weapon in your house,fine by me but don't try and force me to live the way you choose to,I'm not trying to force my way of life on you,so why don't you Anti's just knock it off?

The law abiding citizens aren't the ones you should fear,it's the assholes that would kill you for no other reason than to take the money out of your wallet,or rape somebody just because it gives them a sick thrill,these predators are the ones you should be afraid of.

The lawabiding guy or gal that you see whilst out and about is only trying to protect themselves from such threats,Why?

Only to keep what's theirs,that means valueables both physical and emotional,as well as keeping the money they had to work their asses off for.




By the way what does it matter what country this sort of thing happens in,I think it's appauling that the populance can't protect themselves,yet you seem to revel in it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 17th 2019, 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC