DU Guns poster gets quoted in Guardian article about Norway gun control

[DanTex]

Not exactly the most enlightened comments ever posted here...

American bloggers opposed to gun control were quick to note that Norway's regulations did not stop Breivik carrying out the attacks.

One poster, lawodevolution on democratic.underground.com, commented: "No full autos (automatics), license to own a gun, permission to transport, limit on how many you can own, need to show a reason to own a gun no carry, etc ... All this did not stop a guy from carrying a 'handgun, automatic, and a shotgun' at a no-gun zone in Norway.

"Gun control is a failure. These dirtbags do not obay (sic) laws and a person who wants to do a mass shooting will put the time and money into getting the equipment necessary to do the job ... When these idiots decide to attack they need to be shot in the crotch multiple times until their junk falls off."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/24/norway-strict-gun-laws-circumvented

[malletgirl02]

1. Never mind about the comment itself.

Isn't kind of bad journalism to use message board comments?

[petronius]

9. I would have thought so, yes, but there's a lot in the New Media world that

causes me to raise an eyebrow. Blogs becoming news, Twitter as a channel of government communication, casual butchery of the language, erasure of the news/op-ed line... it's a brave new world, alright.

[MineralMan]

15. Quoting a blog to give an idea of what gun control opponents

are saying is perfectly legitimate. Besides, the idiocy of that post is the perfect way to ridicule American attitudes. As it turns out, the second part of that was deleted, so it's no longer in the thread. Not soon enough, apparently.

So, now, some people will be in the position of knowing nothing more about Democratic Underground than that quote, which isn't even here any longer. As I said, what a great way to show off this forum overall. As if the Guns forum were representative of DU in general. It's not called the Gungeon for nothing, and yet there it is in a British paper, sounding like it's what DU is.

Feh!

[petronius]

19. I think everything you said in your post undermines the claim that quoting message

board posters is legitimate (or good) journalism. A single, anonymous, transitory quote is poorly representative of anything. A motive to ridicule American attitudes is poor journalism. Speaking generally (without regard to the specific quote or poster), I still agree with Malletgirl that this is sub-par journalistic behavior...

[MineralMan]

24. Look, I'm really pissed that a deleted post by a tombstoned

DUer ended up representing DU in that article. The writer intended to make American gun control opponents look bad, and found a perfect posting with which to do that. It's not good journalism, but the reason that particular post was used made the point the article meant to make.

My anger is that DU is represented in that newspaper and that story as being the place for such crap. Never mind that the post is gone and the poster as well. It doesn't matter. The reference remains and will inform some people's opinion of DU. That pisses me off. It's probably a good thing for the Guns Forum that I'm not the owner of this site. I be giving serious consideration today to unchecking the box that lets this subforum exist. Very serious consideration.

But, I'm not the owner, and wouldn't want that responsibility. So, it's not up to me.

[petronius]

34. Fair enough. The specific incident is mildly amusing to me at most,

so the general journalistic topic captured more of my interest...

[BeFree]

65. I agree

Using the post in a journalistic manner was totally inappropriate.

Somebody needs to be fired from that rag. Maybe many somebodies.

[Starboard Tack]

119. The Guardian is probably the most highly respected daily newspaper in the world

Hardly a rag. It is DU that needs to root out the NRA trolls before they do us any more damage

[Cirque du So-What]

35. Admins aside

I'm surprised the other 'regulars' of the Gun Forum are so tolerant of the codswollop posted by their more vitriolic members. I find no willingness on the part of ANY of the regulars to point out that such language is actually counterproductive to their cause - reinforcing the notion among some undecideds that, hey, maybe they really *are* a bunch of hotheaded, trigger-happy, misanthropic head cases. I would hope that the more levelheaded members who frequent the Gun Forum develop the intestinal fortitude to take aside their own and administer some friendly advice, rather than saying nothing when they go on what appears to the world to be an insane rant.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[MineralMan]

37. I'm not in the forum a lot, but when I am, I do just what you say.

I also click the alert button when it's appropriate.

I'm a firearms owner, and have been all my life. I'm also a firm believer that regulating firearms makes sense and is absolutely necessary. We have lots of such regulation, and most of it is just fine. There are some areas where it could be improved. I'm a proponent of mandatory firearms safety training, including hands-on classroom time and range time before anyone is allowed to purchase firearms. That's not a popular view here. In fact, I'm pretty unpopular here in general. It's not a regular place for me. I come here when a topic shows up on the Latest Page that interests me. This thread interested me a great deal.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[MineralMan]

41. I understand. Just say your piece, make your point, and move

on, and it won't be so stressful. That's what I do in this subforum. If I have something to say, I say it, within the rules, and then go on to other topics. You'll never win an argument here or get the last word, so there's no point in trying.

[iverglas]

49. well there we go again

my deleted post consisted of a quotation of a post I wrote at DU many years ago. I guess I'll just have to link to it ... and I cannot imagine that linking to a post of one's own at DU breaks any rule.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID24/1638.html#1

It was posted as a response to the post this is in reply to, and is as relevant as it was when I wrote it ... in 2003.

[TPaine7]

53. LOL!

"Not Found

The requested URL /duforum/DCForumID24/1638.html was not found on this server.
Apache/1.3.31 Server at www.democraticunderground.com Port 80"

That is one great quote!

[iverglas]

54. how sad for you

the link works perfectly for me. This is what it really is; I trust you can copy and paste it back together:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/ duforum/DCForumID24/1638.html#1

although even in the form you gave, minus the #1, it still works perfectly.

I'll try to make it simple.

dishonest right-wing demagoguery

(I have to use my own post for this material as the source I quoted in it is no longer available on the internet.)

[derby378]

75. Those who know me also know my history and my overall temperament

They know that I try to stay away from inflammatory rhetoric most of the time, unless someone richly deserves it (like a certain Wasilla pastor who suggested that marital rape might not be so bad after all).

They know how I feel about gun rights, but they also know I try to be measured about the whole affair. A cool head and hot lead. That's what I strive for. I may not always be perfect, but then again, I never shot up a high school or a restaurant, either. I'd like to think that I'm one of the good guys.

[Hoyt]

58. You get just as bad stuff from NRA and other pro-gun -- take the law into your own hands -- sites.

[oneshooter]

67. Name them. AND we still want to see your"cowboy" picture. if you ain't skeered! n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

85. *crickets*

forever, evidently.

[PavePusher]

122. Cite your evidence, please. n/t

[SteveM]

63. 10 years ago, perhaps. But DU's "Guns Forum" is becoming noted...

enough so that if a major media outlet deigns to "get the other side" in the gun-control controversy, they may have little to turn to among their more traditional brethren. And the Guns forum here has a stockpile of good research and critiques of that research for any journalist to peruse.

[DissedByBush]

79. We are stealing the issue!

Keep it up, the Repubs won't be able to claim gun rights as their issue.

One of their major planks pulled right out from under them.

The NRA already supported a bunch of Democrats over Republicans last cycle, let's go for more the next time around.

[iverglas]

82. outlaw abortion now!

the Repubs won't be able to claim fetuses as their issue.
One of their major planks pulled right out from under them.

Works for me ...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

87. of course

it works for you. :crazy: do you really have a vested interest in this subject?

[iverglas]

90. a vested interest in what subject?

Firearms policy in the US?

You bet your ass I do.

I live in Canada.

If you don't know what my interest is, from that, you aren't paying attention.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

101. somehow,

that statement does not have the ring of truth to it, coming from you. sorry.

[iverglas]

105. was this even intended to make sense?

I say:

a vested interest in what subject?
Firearms policy in the US?
You bet your ass I do.
I live in Canada.
If you don't know what my interest is, from that, you aren't paying attention.

and you "reply":

somehow, that statement does not have the ring of truth to it, coming from you. sorry.

What is this, random copy and paste of random accusation of lying just ... because?

The heights reached by incivil dumbness around here ... I guess that would be depths ... one keeps thinking they must have been plumbed to their full and then one is proved wrong ...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

107. are you being deliberately obtuse?

your entire comment:


a vested interest in what subject?
Firearms policy in the US?
You bet your ass I do.
I live in Canada.
If you don't know what my interest is, from that, you aren't paying attention.


does NOT have the ring of truth.

let me say it another way:

I highly doubt that the reason you are in this forum is due to any vested interest in Firearms policy in the US.

[iverglas]

109. goodie, a clear accusation of lying

Oh, no, of course, you're not saying I'm lying, you're just doubting that I'm telling the truth.

Now ask me how big the pinch of poop I give is.



http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ci-rc/reports-rapports/traf/index-eng.htm

Current Trends in Firearms Trafficking and Smuggling in Canada
November 23, 2007

Key Findings

The United States is the primary source for smuggled firearms or firearms parts entering Canada, due in part to its close proximity, differences in gun control legislation, and a large firearms manufacturing base.

"Differences in gun control legislation". Don't you just love the Canadian proclivity to understate?

There continues to be significant cross-border firearms movement, particularly in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic region, where many of the seizures are concentrated.

In British Columbia, a large number of firearms originate in the United States, with a high proportion coming from Washington State.
In Alberta, most of these firearms come from Washington State, Idaho and California.
In Ontario, the I-75 corridor is the main supply vein for illegal firearms from Florida, Georgia, Ohio and Michigan.
In Quebec, the following states are key sources for illegal firearms: Vermont, New Hampshire and Maryland.
There is an increasing number of illegal firearms reported being smuggled across the New Brunswick-Maine border, entering the Atlantic region.

Most firearms smuggled from the United States are high quality, semi-automatic handguns. Handguns are reportedly commonly traded for narcotics on the street: the price of the handgun correlates with the current street price for the specific narcotic. “High end” handguns are presently selling on the street for three times the retail price. Fully automatic rifles are also highly sought after firearms. Recent seizures have seen a marked increase in assault rifles and fully automatic submachine guns.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

110. that may be

but your posting habits seem to be usually more antagonistic and baiting than anything else.


perhaps I should find a Canadian Forum and start posting my views . . .

[iverglas]

113. the Canada forum is right in the forum list

Have at it.

Even the Liberal Party shills who hang out there would find your "views" about as distasteful as I do.

"Antagonistic and baiting"? Actually, hilarious. You just don't get the joke.

Time was when occasionally there was civil discourse in this place. Time long past.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

114. I get you alright

YOU are the joke.

[beevul]

117. Hahahahaa. That sure didn't take long did it.

"a vested interest in what subject? Firearms policy in the US? You bet your ass I do."

No, you really don't.

You DO have a vested interest in making sure that policy does not cross your border, if those on your side choose to have a policy that different. But that is a vested interest in YOUR policy, NOT ours.

And that brings us to this quote:

"We are all presumed to intend the foreseeable consequences of our actions, and considered to be responsible for those consequences." - iverglas


If your government chooses actions that DO NOT stop things they wish kept out from coming in over/under/through its own borders, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Or, to put it in your words:

Your government is presumed to intend the foreseeable consequences of its actions, where they are insufficient to keep things from crossing its borders, and considered to be responsible for those consequences.


Now, please, do a song and dance about how "thats different, with cites to canadian law etc etc etc.


Or just concede:

Your "vested interest" in gun policy ends at your border.

[iverglas]

120. nah

You DO have a vested interest in making sure that policy does not cross your border, if those on your side choose to have a policy that different. But that is a vested interest in YOUR policy, NOT ours.

Kinda like the US has a vested interest in making sure that no al Qaeda operatives fly planes into buildings in NYC ... but no vested interest in making sure that other countries in the world do not harbour and give succour to al Qaeda operatives ...


"We are all presumed to intend the foreseeable consequences of our actions, and considered to be responsible for those consequences." - iverglas
If your government chooses actions that DO NOT stop things they wish kept out from coming in over/under/through its own borders, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Sorry ... was I speaking a language you didn't understand? Was I typing in wingdingese maybe?

The governments in the US that fail to enact and enforce laws that are effective at reducing gun-running are presumed to intend the foreseeable consequences of their actions: guns in criminal hands in their own jurisdictions and elsewhere, including other states and other countries.

Yes, dear, I suppose that the Canadian government's failure to close the border to cross-border trucking (those truckers are pretty notorious gun runners) can be taken as an intention to flood Canada with smuggled USAmerican guns ...

If the Canadian government did that, our economy would be crippled. And oh yeah, yours would be in quite a bit of difficulty too.

But hey, that would be the foreseeable consequence, so we would have intended it.

Seeing the distinction here at all?

If the governments of all relevant jurisdictions in the US enacted and enforced laws that were effective at reducing gun-running (and other criminal transfers of firearms, obviously), the sky would fall. ... Oops, no, that's not right. Crime and injury and death and intimidation and underdevelopment would fall!

Huh. Ain't that an odd analogy you've got yourself trapped in there.


But fine:

Your "vested interest" in gun policy ends at your border.

So does the USofA's in anything that any other country in the world does, ever. Okay with you?

Of course, if you're a Paulite, it probably is ... but if you're a liberal / progressive / d/Democrat, there's actually only one answer, and it isn't "yes".



typo fixed ...

[beevul]

123. Never one to disappoint, are you.

That is, your reply didn't disappoint.

It is exactly as I predicted.

You respond with apples to oranges comparisons, and false dichotomies.

Its not really worth going into detail about, they are obvious as the day is long.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[DissedByBush]

95. Very dumb comparison

We are pulling the plank of supporting a right out from under the Republicans.

When we are done they can no longer claim WE are the ones against the rights of the people.

Your sarcastic comment is talking about pulling the plank of a systematic violation of a right.

Being opposed to them, WE are still the ones supporting a right.

[iverglas]

99. never mind the specious distinctions

If getting votes is good enough reason to adopt one policy, it's good enough reason to adopt another policy.

Simple as that. I'm sure you had no problem understanding it.

[DissedByBush]

104. It's not a reason to adopt a policy

This is an issue of rights, and we should be for it.

For years the powers that be in our party have dictated a platform of being against rights, mainly because of it being ruled by the big-city elite.

This allowed the Republicans to take the side of supporting rights, while we were against them.

It cost us votes, and for a very good and right reason -- our party was in the wrong on this issue.

Now the party is becoming more friendly to the issue of gun rights.

What I meant is that once we are firmly on the side of rights as we should be, the Republicans won't have this issue at all.

[iverglas]

106. "framing" doesn't work either, sorry

This is an issue of rights

Now I will say: this is an issue of purple unicorns.

I have just settled the argument.

I know you thought you had, but you hadn't. I did.


What an utter waste of time, talking to somebody who thinks they can win by begging the question, not to mention pretending there are no other questions. Cripes.

[DissedByBush]

116. The RIGHT to keep and bear arms

And unlike any other protection in the Bill of Rights, it is stated as a preexisting right that "shall not be infringed."

There, now that we've established as one of the Bill of Rights, it is a right.

Yes, it is an issue of rights.

If you are against it, you are against a right, same as if you were against freedom of speech.

Plain English is not so hard.

[iverglas]

118. "it is stated as a preexisting right"

Yer founding fathers got it on stone tablets from behind a burning bush, did they?

Whatever. You keep trying to change the subject. Cha cha cha.

My response was to a post about getting votes.

You do know that the anti-choice brigade frames their crusade as "an issue of rights" too, eh?

I think that's really all that needs to be said.

Adopt the anti-choice position, and pull that plank right out from under the Republicans. Done and dusted.


Anyhow, you're completely wrong:

And unlike any other protection in the Bill of Rights, it is stated as a preexisting right that "shall not be infringed."

Good grief.

Only read that one amendment do you? Framed on the wall above your bed, I suppose.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

They all sound pretty "pre-existing" to me. Ya just can't abridge something that doesn't exist. Where would Reader's Digest be without the pre-existing books?

:rofl:


If you are against it, you are against a right, same as if you were against freedom of speech.
Plain English is not so hard.

Haha. Interesting you should refer to English.

My constitution contains language rights. This particular constitution was adopted in 1982, but trust me, there were language rights before that. The language rights of the French-speaking populationin Quebec were recognized back in the 18th century under the British.

So those are pre-existing rights.

Tell me. Do you have the right to send your children to publicly-funded French language school? French speakers in Canada do. So you must have. It's a pre-existing right.

Are you against it?? Surely not! Surely you believe that you have the right to send your children to a French-language school. At the very least, surely you want that right enshrined in your constitution.

Are you against that right?????

About as much as I'm against the "right" to keep and bear arms, I would bet.

I am. Against the "right" to keep and bear arms. It's a right that apparently existed in your country and was recognized in your constitution. Good for y'all. It isn't recognized in mine, or where I am, and I like it just fine that way. Just as you're cool with not having the right to educate one's children in French in yours.

(The thing is, of course, that the possession of firearms is covered by the fundamental rights in my constitution just as the eating of pizza is. Any government that wants to limit the exercise of that right has to jump through the same hoops as it does to limit the exercise of any other right. And it has done so ... at least to the extent that no one has successfully or even seriously challenged those limits.)


What.E.Ver.

Stop trying to change the subject.

What you actually said was:

One of their major planks pulled right out from under them.

That's what I replied to and what you keep trying to pretend was not the issue in that post.

I don't look as dumb as you're pretending to think I do. Sorry.

[DissedByBush]

124. Congress shall make no law

That is a restriction on Congress. The 2nd makes an overall statement, shall not be infringed. Period, by anyone. It is automatically incorporated right down to the local sheriff.

"I am. Against the "right" to keep and bear arms."

Muslims in Muslim countries are against the "right" to freely practice religion too.

Join them if you want to quash the rights of others. I'll remain on the side that supports rights.

"That's what I replied to and what you keep trying to pretend was not the issue in that post."

That's exactly the issue. Our party IS in the wrong on this issue.

We pull the plank by not letting the Republicans have this over us.

Wow, what a concept, being in the right, being a supporter of rights, gets you votes.

[iverglas]

125. Congress shall make no law

Still wondering whether some people have only ever read one sentence of their constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Are there laws prohibiting the distribution of child pornography?

Are there laws prohibiting the advertising of snake oil to cure cancer?

Is it lawful to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre where there is no fire?

Is it lawful to lie under oath in a court? Are there restrictions on jurors' communications during trials?

Is it a punishable offence to make a death threat against the President of the United States?

Shall I go on?

Are there laws abridging the freedom of speech?

Are you one of the ones who says all firearms legislation should be repealed?

If not, what leg are you standing on here?

[DissedByBush]

127. Simple reading

The First is a restriction on Congress, later incorporated into the states, and prevents abridging freedom of speech, which is interpreted as the right to free speech. The Second flat-out prohibits infringement BY ANYONE of the right to keep and bear arms. It is by its very words incorporated down to the city level.

I recognize those restrictions on USE of speech; likewise, it should be unlawful to threaten an innocent with a firearm.

It should be unlawful to murder someone with a firearm.

It should be unlawful to discharge your firearm in a crowded theater with no reason.

Keep and bear arms. Not keep and bear and do stupid and dangerous shit with arms.

Note the consistency between this and the First Amendment: Restrictions on actual MISUSE of that freedom in order to harm or generally be a danger to others.

"Are you one of the ones who says all firearms legislation should be repealed?"

I fully support laws restricting or punishing MISUSE of firearms.

In fact, I support rather draconian punishment for those who willfully misuse firearms, and reasonable punishment for those who did not intend the misuse (negligence, ignorance, etc.).

The problem is most gun "control" laws do not address that at all.

They address the constitutionally protected purchase, creation, possession or transportation of firearms, not MISUSE.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was the epitome of idiocy. Take a perfectly legal civilian Ruger Mini-14 varmint rifle, slap an ergonomic stock on it, and suddenly it's an "assault weapon."

Do you see any First Amendment equivalent to these gun laws?

[oneshooter]

115. "We are pulling the plank of supporting a right out from under the Republicans"

Not really, as long as the renewal of the 94 "assault Weapons Ban" is included on the Democratic Platform.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[sudopod]

2. He was trollin like a boss with stuff like that all day, yesterday.

Had some threads locked.

[MineralMan]

3. Wonderful! The Gungeon winds up representing DU in the international press..

Just peachy...:sarcasm:

[-..__...]

4. Damn!

Now I wish I had gotten in on that thread.

Had one of my comments been chosen, I would have been honored to be the Ambassador of DU to the international community.

I guess I'll just have to try harder. :smoke:

[MineralMan]

8. You have to say things like "shoot their crotch until their junk

falls off" to get quoted. You don't see that the Guardian is using the idiocy of that comment to make DU look ridiculous?

Sorry. The Gungeon is not DU. Not even close. I'm not Skinner, but I'd not be happy today about this if I were.

ETA: That quote was deleted, by the way, but not before it got quoted by the Guardian. The poster is gone, too. You still thing he represents DU well?

[-..__...]

20. At least they didn't make DU seem even more ridiculous...

by publishing... "One (unnamed),poster, on democratic.underground.com, commented: "Need to ban them all... yep".

[drpepper67]

61. Ok, now that was funny.

[AzWorker]

5. Full of so much win....

I've no doubt more then a few folks read that and said 'you know what, he's right'

Only thing that would have been better is if the article pointed out that the laws only succeeded in disarming the victims..

Now the gun topic forum might make #1

[DanTex]

18. Umm...

I'm pretty sure most people who read that were able to recognize the stereotypically misinformed gun zealotry for what it was.

After all, the Guardian is a center-left paper with a relatively informed international audience. We're not talking about some WND-style rag that caters to teabaggers.

The unfortunate thing is that the quote has "DU" attached to it.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[virginia mountainman]

6. lol..... Pass some certain DU members some duct tape..

To help them keep it together... ROFLMAO!

[iverglas]

7. and I'm the one whose reply to one of his posts

was deleted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=439206&mesg_id=439474

I wonder whom the majority of DUers would rather have representing them in the international (progressive) press?

:rofl:

[TPaine7]

10. Complaining about the mods are we? n/t

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

17. misrepresenting again, are we?

You need a new hymnal.

[petronius]

14. That depends, what was your reply?

:shrug:

Is the Guardian progressive? I'd thought it was pretty strongly in the climate denial camp, but I've been impressed with their global development coverage...

[iverglas]

29. I gave a link

I had reposted the essence of my reply.

I'm sorry but I find "Is the Guardian progressive" just a weird question.

The Guardian broke the Murdoch / News International etc. story in 2009. It was ignored.

I haven't followed its climate coverage closely myself, but for anyone interested:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/nov/05/ultimate-climate-change-faq

See also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/wikileaks

You can tell who's on the left by looking to see whom the right hates. ;)

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/07/13/terence-corcoran-this-fox-hunt-not-about-hacking/

And we have The Guardian, revered organ of the British left, leading the charge against News of the World, reviled organ of the Murdochian right, for breach of journalistic ethics — the same Guardian that became the British home of WikiLeaks’ illegal dump of U.S. diplomatic communications. Clearly a large double-standard reigns at The Guardian. It is good and just for the media to engage in illegal activity to wage ideological war on causes and political powers those same media have determined in their wisdom to be wrong or immoral, but it is reprehensible and immoral to engage in illegal activity to probe the private affairs of celebrities, royalty or common people.

Um ... yes. ;)

[Cirque du So-What]

33. Even the most casual of observers

realizes that the UK Guardian is solidly in the 'progressive media' category. You won't find it referenced very often in the Gungeon. More commonly, you'll see links to FAUX News, the Torygraph (UK Telegraph), the Moonie Times (Washington Times). I still say Moonie Times, but before sticklers for detail point out that the 'Rev.' Sun Myung Moon no longer owns that fishwrap, it's still a mighty Wurlitzer for the right wing...proudly parroted right here in the topic forum with the second-highest volume of postings on an ostensibly 'Democratic' discussion board. Funny, that.

[RSillsbee]

64. Between YOU and LAW?

This is a rhetorical question right?

[iverglas]

72. perhaps you failed to notice

that my reference was to DUers ... not posters in the Guns forum. The vast majority of DU members refuse to even look at this place.

But yes, you're right. It was a rhetorical question.

I mean, is somebody really going to answer that they would rather have a tombstoned right-wing troll representing them in the international progressive press??

[RSillsbee]

76. Wow "No true DUer" huh? NT

[iverglas]

83. nail on head

You said it, mon cher ami!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

108. isn't that sort of like the pot calling the kettle black?

I notice you post a lot in this forum . . .

so then, I surmise:

that by your own admission you, are NOT a TRUE DUer. . .

[iverglas]

111. you really can't stitch two words together to make sense, can you?

I notice you post a lot in this forum . . .
so then, I surmise:
that by your own admission you, are NOT a TRUE DUer. . .

No, you don't take it at all, and certainly not from any "admission" by me. Yeesh. Do you really fool people with this kind of silliness in the real world?

I ask whether the vast majority of DUers would rather be represented in the international progressive by a certain lawodevolution or by moi, and you come up with this horseshit.

Sad and sick, sad and sick.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

112. yes you are

sick and sad.

[Starboard Tack]

121. Interesting that you are a far better representative of DU and Dems in general

than most members of this forum and especially lawofdevolution and his ilk. And you're a fucking Canerican.

[madrchsod]

11. to bad it was about our obsession with guns....

[MineralMan]

16. Or "some people's obsession with guns," anyhow.

DU is not the Guns Forum. And the Guns Forum is not DU. And that poster has a tombstone. Nice that he got to represent DU, despite that, eh?

[Upton]

22. And you don't speak for DU ...

despite your tendency towards self grandiosing board nanny posts..

The Guns Forum represents the legitimate debate that is going on within the party and it's future as it pertains to gun control..If you don't like it..too bad

[MineralMan]

26. No, I don't. I speak only for myself. And I will continue to do so,

thanks.

[Upton]

13. Poster in now gone anyway..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=262680

[Cirque du So-What]

21. Wonder if this pizza was delivered

BEFORE or AFTER the embarrassment of finding vitriolic shit reposted in the UK Guardian? :eyes:

[cbayer]

25. Before.

[MineralMan]

27. Thanks. That's really good to hear.

[Cirque du So-What]

28. I'm impressed

A hearty 'well-done' to the mods!

[iverglas]

38. hm

Before or after my reply to him in the thread I linked to was deleted?

;)

[MineralMan]

40. I may be out of line, but there's always a way to reply to

idiotic or offensive posts without violating the rules. It sometimes takes a little thought, but it's always possible. It's more effective, too, since your post remains, often even if the other post is deleted.

[iverglas]

43. since you presumably didn't read any of the posts in question

I'd say yes, you may be out of line.

[cbayer]

44. After

[iverglas]

31. my my

Only 1000+ posts later ...

Profile's gone now, but google finds me posts going back to September 2010.

The sword of justice is swift and ... er, is sharp.

[iverglas]

42. hm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=439478&mesg_id=439929
mopinko DU Moderator
Sun Jul-24-11 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
70. locking
member has left the building


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/24/norway-strict-gun-laws-circumvented
Simon Tisdall
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 July 2011 17.46 BST


BST = British Summer Time

BST is 5 hours ahead of Daylight Savings Time in the Eastern Standard Time zone, i.e.,
5:46 pm BST = 12:46 pm in the eastern US.

The "locking" message was posted 1 hr 3 mins after the publication time on the Guardian article, in what appears to be the last thread lawodevolution posted in (barring posts deleted after the times in that thread ... there's a deleted subthread in that thread, starting just after midnight ...)


I was just curious. Given the 1000+ previous posts over a 10-month period and all.

[cbayer]

45. It was before. We did not know about this until this thread was started.

That's the truth Iverglass.

[iverglas]

46. well, I guess I can say, once again ...

My work there is done.

:rofl:

Ten months, 1000+ posts, and I seem to be the only uncommon denominator!

[Tesha]

56. What difference does that make?

He was only saying the same things that dozens of posters say
in this forum every day. The Guardian can come here any day
and find his sort of post by the hundreds.

Tesha

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Trollin', trollin,' trollin' OH SHIT MY BOAT HIT A ROCK *glub glub*

[jpak]

30. obay (sic)

and way to show some DU class

:thumbsdown:

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Danger Mouse]

47. Because one idiotic troll totally represents the views of all of Democratic Underground.

Oy vey.

[iverglas]

48. you've missed some content here

The "idiotic troll" in question has been posting at Democratic Underground since September 2010.

His profile cannot be consulted now, but his remaining posts indicate a post count of 1000+.

If he was an "idiotic troll", how did this happen?

That's a rhetorical question; I am not challenging administration decisions or demanding an explanation of administration action.

I am saying that if Democratic Underground and/or other members of Democratic Underground do not want to be represented in the progressive international press by "idiotic trolls", then perhaps something more should be done about the idiotic trolls who do post in the Guns forum, with apparent impunity.

The post of mine to which I have referred in this thread, the one written yesterday addressed to the troll in question that undoubtedly addressed him in the tone I do use when addressing trolls, was deleted.

This is his post in question

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=439206&mesg_id=439474

and basically I challenged the "logic" he used in reaching the conclusion that the mass murder was the "result" of firearms legislation.

It is an interesting coincidence that after 10 months, his account was deleted after I replied to him and, it appears, just before he was quoted in The Guardian. (When I posted a fresh reply I was not aware that his account had been deleted.)

The idiotic troll in question does represent the views of a very large majority of posters who have frequented the Guns forum over the last decade.

Whatever reason this site has for tolerating what goes on in this forum, the article in The Guardian is an entirely foreseeable consequence.

[Danger Mouse]

50. Our system isn't perfect.

Unfortunately, sometimes cretins slip through the cracks for longer than they should. This particular post brought this poster into our radar, and we was quickly dispatched.

:shrug:

[petronius]

52. Since you're apparently willing to discuss a TSed DUer in this case,

may I ask whether this was a zombie or a sock? Although Law certainly got people's goat, I don't recall seeing much from him that actually transgressed the rules (unless it was hidden in deletia I never saw)...

[Chemisse]

51. It was this troll's reaction to the Norway tragedy that really made us sit up and

take notice of him.

It's quite a coincidence that he happened to be quoted elsewhere on the same day he got nuked!

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[onehandle]

57. I've been alerting on that, one of our OBVIOUS TROLLS for a long, long time.

Finally.

Jeez.

I would note his IP address and look for his zombies, if I were the mods. That's what we would do in Bartcop's forum when I was an active mod.

You know where to find them...

[gejohnston]

80. most people have dynamic IP addresses

how did you deal with that?

[krispos42]

59. I don't see where he was wrong

Norway has in place the very measures that many anti-gun people in the Gungeon routinely want to see put into law anytime there is a mass shooting here in America. Lawrence O'Donnell has a promo clip on MSNBC where he's saying something to the effect of "I blame the shooter for the first 10 rounds. I blame the politicians for all the rest", in regards to the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Giffords and the expiration of the ban on selling new 11+ magazines.

It didn't work; there are 80+ people killed by a person who met all the requirements to buy a gun in Norway and who would have met all the requirements to do so even in a strict state such as California, New Jersey, or Massachusetts.


And is anybody going to seriously argue that when a madman opens up on the public, he SHOULDN'T be shot by a person attempting to stop the violence? I certainly am not.


And considering that the UK's draconian gun-control laws and intrusive CCTV citizen-monitoring program have been a abject failure to curb violence and murder in that country...

[iverglas]

62. considering what, now?

And considering that the UK's draconian gun-control laws and intrusive CCTV citizen-monitoring program have been a abject failure to curb violence and murder in that country...

What's the homicide rate these days? Firearms homicide -- still something like 50 or 60 a year?

And you know what the figures would have been absent the laws? Do tell.


Norway has in place the very measures that many anti-gun people in the Gungeon routinely want to see put into law anytime there is a mass shooting here in America.

Me not included, of course.

The laws under which he obtained the firearms in question were very similar to Canadian laws -- under which people like Kimveer Gill obtained the weapon he used in his attempted mass murder in Montreal, and the drunk killed a pedestrian outside a bar in Toronto. Same deal: members of sports shooting clubs, in legal possession of a semi-automatic rifle in one case and a handgun in the other. Possession in the locations where they took them was of course illegal, but the guns don't have the power to stay put.

So the measures that I have long advocated have included prohibitions on access to both types of weapons outside the facilities where they may be used.

I seem to be getting vindicated repeatedly.

[gejohnston]

66. do you view cases of self defense as vindication on our side or

not? That is more common, it just does not make the news.

[iverglas]

68. as long as you dribble out silliness like

That is more common, it just does not make the news.

... I don't feel any compulsion to view anything you say as anything at all.


In cases like Breivik and Gill and all the multiple murderers doing their thing in the USofA virtually every day, we know that people are dead. We don't know whether better public policies would have prevented the deaths, but we know people are dead.

If someone could come up with 10,000 cases of "self-defence" a year in the US, where a death was averted by use of a firearm, we could talk.

You can't. Because it is absolute nonsense to even imagine that.

You would be talking about the small fraction of the population that has a firearm at hand when they find themselves in a homicidal situation having averted a huge number of deaths ... while the huge majority of the population that does not have a firearm at hand simply never experienced situations in which they were at risk of death. If they experienced homicidal situatios at the same rate as people with firearms at hand -- and why would they not?? -- there would be tens of thousands more homicides in the US every year than there are.

It's utter nonsense on the face of it, and you know it.

[gejohnston]

70. the feeling is quite mutual, since you simply

scream "right wing nut" or claim some criminologist is dishonest without evidence, let alone half baked bullshit. Your posts have that yelling feel to it, like you are yelling.
DoJ stats come up with 700K but not necessarily potential homicides. That is based on the National Crime Victim Survey. How accurate, who knows. Some estimates including some economist that tried to debunk Kleck put it in the millions, basically the same as Kleck's. I hope they are all wrong. If they any of them are close, that would make the US problems larger than imaginable. That many more rapes, armed robberies etc, is not good for any reason.

If we don't know if better public policy would prevent cases like Breivik and Gill, then what is your point? Feel good legislation for the hell of it? The hard part is finding what that better public policy is, if it exists for cases like this. For every policy, there are unintended consequences, some good, some bad, and some neither.
Yes people are still dead for no good reason, that is obvious. While neither one of us know what those policies are, you even said you don't know but you are fixated on this. So be it. Why do you care about US gun laws anyway? I do know Canadians that come to Florida in the winter. I don't picture you as one of them. Some have guns there and bring them here. I was buying ammo one was asking if he could legally buy one here, so he could shoot while here without the hassle of customs etc.


Did Canada's murder rate go down after 1977? UK? Or how about those countries that have gun laws stricter gun laws than Norway or Canada but have murder and violent crime rates that make the US look like Singapore or Japan? Places like Jamaica and South Africa, or even peaceful Costa Rica? Given our wealth gap and other problems that put us in "third world status" as many of the left claim, maybe that is what does keep us from being like them. Maybe not, it is not like we can look at alternate time lines. That is like trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

It's utter nonsense on the face of it, and you know it.
Just because you think something is true, does not make it so. It also does not mean anyone who does not think it is in denial. Don't assume what I know.

[iverglas]

71. talk about "without evidence"

you simply scream "right wing nut" or claim some criminologist is dishonest without evidence, let alone half baked bullshit. Your posts have that yelling feel to it, like you are yelling.

Yeah, I'm probably hysterical too. After all, I'm a woman.

What is this supposed to mean now: "some criminologist"?

The only criminologist we've mentioned is Kleck. And I have presented argument to refute his ludicrous claims. Dishonest? I don't think I've said that.

If you cared to read anything but gun militant news, you'd know exactly what the refutation of Kleck's idiotic survey results show.

How often should I have to repeat myself for those who don't lift a finger to do their own homework?

Once a year? Once a month?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=230941&mesg_id=231367

http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/

you may need to search for "Kleck" there; here you go:

http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/06/09/debating-the-gunloons-part-mm/

http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/06/10/debating-the-gunloons-part-mmcontinued/


Kleck's figures are NONSENSE. Try responding to what I actually said about them instead of raving about my ascribed emotional state, won't you?



typo fixed

[gejohnston]

73. Comments on a blog?

Sorry, that does not count. I really don't need you to do my homework for me. Besides, why should I do the work to make your point for you? That is your job. Kleck is the main one that actually did the study, he chose this field because it was wide open. That made him the most known.

If you cared to read anything but gun militant news, you'd know exactly what the refutation of Kleck's idiotic survey results show.

Actually, I read his study, read a couple of his books. Even very anti-gun criminologists like Marvin Wolfgang could not find any problems with his methodology. The only counter studies I could find were done by conservative economists and a couple of MDs. I found several flaws in each of their studies. All of the studies were underwritten by the Joyce Foundation, who also funds VPC and Brady. Critical thinking 101: That alone raises red flags.
Funny thing, my daughter has a friend that took one of his classes. Kleck and I exchanged emails. He is a liberal Democrat. Personally, he does not like guns or owns any. I guarantee he did not vote for Rick Scott. He supports regulations that each some of us have proposed ourselves about private sales, although he has no problems with campus carry. While he may not be "anti gun" to your liking, but he does certainly does not describe himself, nor would I describe him, as "pro gun". I would describe him more like "non gun"

[iverglas]

74. somebody needs to do your homework for you

Fortunately, someone has. I can't find my other posts about it all at the moment, but I found this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x428987#436540

Enjoy.

Kleck's results were nonsense, and he cannot but have helped know that, so yes: he's dishonest.


Even very anti-gun criminologists like Marvin Wolfgang could not find any problems with his methodology.

Sorry I can only offer the blog at the moment -- it really isn't my job to do your homework, it really isn't -- but the refutation of that statement is right there, in Wolfgang's own words, at the link I gave you.

Parroting what you read on gun militant sites really is just not a wise tactic.


While he may not be "anti gun" to your liking

If he were "anti gun" at all, he wouldn't be to my liking. He'd obviously be suffering from a delusional illness, under the effects of which he had emotional reactions to inanimate objects ...

[gejohnston]

77. show evidence of Kleck's dishonesty and motivation for

his dishonesty. I am not parroting shit.

Please no blog comments

[gejohnston]

78. If the refutation is what I think it is,

he said both. Here they are in context.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Remarks+of+Marvin+E.+Wolfgang+at+the+Guns+and+Violence+Symposium+at...-a018359853

Sorry, I would describe you as "anti gun". Difference of opinion I guess.

[iverglas]

81. nope

Sorry, I would describe you as "anti gun". Difference of opinion I guess.

Not difference of opinion.

False statement.

If spoken from ignorance: again, EDUCATE YOURSELF.

It really is not that difficult. I'm the only iverglas in the universe (other than a river in Ireland in ancient name, and someone who once posted at a movie review site ... oh, and of course, the odd person who has used my name to intentionally deceive when signing a petition or some such).

[gejohnston]

84. I don't have time to research individual posters, assuming I wanted to

besides, but if you insist, I might.
Still a difference of definition, you are by mine.

[krispos42]

69. All homicides matter.

Since total homicides are trending upwards the past couple of decades, the fact that they're not gun homicides is hardly a positive.

Neither of us knows what the figures would be. We can have opinions, but since the hamster in my parallel-timestream-cross-portal is dead, we'll just have to guess, I guess.



The absolutest position means never admitting it's impractical and gives you plenty of opportunity to say "I'm right! See?". It reminds me strongly of the days I get this from my mother. Typically, there are two things she gets absolutist about: organization and diet. Easy enough to be right about that... after all, people generally know how to eat healthy even if they don't.

The difference is that I don't wander around taking the absolutist every time I see mom carving a slab off of a block of cheddar.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[gejohnston]

88. No less enlightened than some posts by "antis"

like this one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x387436#439910

Which is not really that unusual among the "anti" crowd. The mods deleted the worse ones, others that I wanted to use. While snobbery, regional bigotry, etc. is part of it. Most of it is being conditioned by propaganda outlined by civil rights lawyer Don Kates:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=346898&mesg_id=347032


one difference is lawodevolution was referring to terrorists bent on mass murder regardless of ideology. The above poster on the other hand, was hoping that people in a peaceful protest, violating no laws, would kill each other simply because he or she disagreed with them. As of 27 Jul 2011 at 1712 Eastern time, still stands, as it should.
Please mods, leave it there. I wish there were a few more that the mods had not deleted.

[iverglas]

89. how not clever is it

to give a link to something and then completely misrepresent what it says?

You linked to this post:

Maybe all of these idiots will accidentally
shoot themselves or each other.

and spun that into this:

The above poster on the other hand, was hoping that people in a peaceful protest, violating no laws, would kill each other simply because he or she disagreed with them.

To answer my own question: really, really not clever. If one is going to weave a web, one really has to make it more difficult to follow.


Don Kates, like a load of people hereabouts, needs to get his vocabularies drycleaned. It's dirty and nasty.

"Bigotry" does not mean anything some jerk might choose to pretend it means.

And one jerk quoting another does not a case make: anyone who does actually vilify all gun owners is a jerk. But I just can't tell from what you linked to:

Why, then, is it enlightened and liberal: to vilify the 50% of American householders who have guns as barbaric and/or deranged ("Gun Lunatics Silence Sounds of Civilization"{24}), "gun nuts", "gun fetishists", "anti-citizens" and "traitors, enemies of their own patriae"{25}, as sexually warped{26} "bulletbrains"{27} who engage in "simply beastly behavior"{28} and represent "the worst instincts in the human character"{29}; or to traduce pro-gun groups as the "pusher's best friend"{30} and their entire membership as "psychotics", "hunters who drink beer, don't vote and lie to their wives about where they were all weekend"{31}; to characterize the murder of children as "another slaughter co-sponsored by the National Rifle Association"{32} and assert that "The assassination of John Lennon has been brought to you by the National Rifle Association"{33}; and to cartoon gun owners as thugs and/or vigilantes, intellectually retarded, educationally backward and morally obtuse, or as Klansmen?{34}

who the subjects of those remarks actually were.

Should I track down all those footnotes and check it out?

Nope. Kates, good honest person that he is, should have spoken clearly. He should have said exactly who was being described as "gun nuts", "gun fetishists", etc. etc. etc.

All gun owners? In each case he cited? Allow me to doubt that. In fact, allow me to completely disbelieve it.

He actually does conflate gun owners with the National Rifle Association himself, amusingly. I'd say that if he wants to identify himself with the National Rifle Association and take comments about them as made about him, more power to him; his choice. What he may not do -- or rather, what an honest person may not do and retain that title -- is claim that anyone making a statement about the corporate entity called the National Rifle Association is making that statement about all gun owners (especially keeping in mind something that he knows very well: that most laypeople who refer to the NRA in this context are actually referring to the NRA-ILA).

To quote myself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=245448&mesg_id=246027

Mon Aug-10-09 07:47 PM

Not all gun owners, even here in Canada, are right-wing scum, or gun militants, or Stephen Harper supporters. Or present any significantly elevated risk to themselves or anyone else. Some have farms with livestock and crops that need protecting, some live in remote areas with problematic wildlife (no more, percentage-wise, here than in the US, but some, and even in non-remote places there can be such problems), some work in the tourism industry and are employed as hunting outfitters and guides and whatnot (and some communities depend on that trade for their economic survival), some are First Nations members engaged in hunting as a way to practise and preserve their traditions and culture (as are some non-Aboriginal people), some people hunt for sustenance or just for recreation (as my mum put it the other day, that's fine: I just wouldn't want to live with one of them; hunting is a legitimate practice, but I have my druthers). And some people engage in sports shooting for recreation (also perfectly legitimate, just no reason to keep handguns, especially, in a home).

... Like the anti-abortion crew. As long as they aren't proposing or supporting proposals to deny women the exercise of reproductive rights, who cares what they think? They can think women who have abortions should be lined up and shot too, but if they acknowledge that outlawing abortion is not permissible and don't do anything that would prevent access, I don't care what they think.

And yet ... how many times have I been called a "bigot" in this place?


I'll distance myself from anybody who actually does propose "ban all guns", if there's some possibility the person is not just a gun militant troll. Ordinarily, I'll assume they're a person who doesn't have much of a clue.

I was looking to see whether anybody here wanted to distance themself from old lawodevolution ... by telling us how one could distinguish between him and them ...



typo fixed

[gejohnston]

92. I stand by it

The poster wanted them to shoot themselves or each other for good reason. They were violating no law in a peaceful protest. That is the context, no spin. That makes this worse than lawodevolution's post. Instead of distancing yourself from them, you are spinning to make them seem innocent or denying their existence.
I also stand by that such things are not uncommon among antis or control advocates. There was an Alternet post that said that there should be a law that all gun owners should walk around with the barrels in their mouths. That is also worse than lawofevolution's post.

What do you define as a gun militant? But thank you for clarifying yourself. I would distance myself from him by simply not going there or pointing out how juvilile and unrepresentative he is of us. How would you distance yourself from antis who think peaceful law abiding gun owners should commit suicide?

Nope. Kates, good honest person that he is, should have spoken clearly. He should have said exactly who was being described as "gun nuts", "gun fetishists", etc. etc. etc. All gun owners? In each case he cited? Allow me to doubt that. In fact, allow me to completely disbelieve it.

Don't need to find links, just read posts from some right here in DU. Gun fetishists is a common term used by "antis" that post here. You should read them. Shall I provide links and screen shots?

It seems like anyone who disagrees with you is a gun militant or a right wing loon.

[iverglas]

96. nope

The poster wanted them to shoot themselves or each other for good reason.

The poster said maybe they would shoot themselves.

Quite likely, the poster would not have cared a hoot if they'd done so, very true. But saying maybe all of these idiots will accidentally shoot themselves or each other IS NOT expressing a hope or wish that they will do so. It's making a joke. Grow up.

For you to cite a throwaway comment on a discussion board intended to express contempt for certain people's behaviour as hoping that people in a peaceful protest, violating no laws, would kill each other simply because he or she disagreed with them, that's just contemptible.

You knew perfectly well that you had no basis for claiming that the poster hoped or wished that anyone would die. And you also knew perfectly well that the basis for the animus the poster had against those people was NOT "because he or she disagreed with them". Not to mention how utterly bizarre it is to suggest that the poster actually wanted these people to start shooting at each other at the rallies they were trying to disrupt. Ye gods.

People at this site do not despise the Tea Party and all its adherents "because they disagree with them". That doesn't even make sense. They despise them because they are despicable. Because they are ugly, nasty, anti-democratic right-wing scum.

If you have an argument to make, you should be capable of making it without misrepresenting reality.

If you can't do that, you either don't have an argument to make or have taken a position for reasons having nothing to do with its validity.


There was an Alternet post that said that there should be a law that all gun owners should walk around with the barrels in their mouths. That is also worse than lawofevolution's post.

You are aware that concrete thinking is a sign of mental illness? The inability to grasp nuance, analogy, hyperbole, the insistence that "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" means "if you live in a glass house and throw stones you will break your house" ... tests for mental disorders.

Either you know perfectly well that what that poster was saying, crudely, was that if people want to put others at risk by possessing firearms (I would have limited the remark to walking around with firearms, myself -- and for all I know, if what you say actually was said, that is what was said), they should be compelled to assume some risk themselves in return ... or you should avoid reading things on the internet as you are likely to be distressed by them when you misinterpret them.


Don't need to find links, just read posts from some right here in DU. Gun fetishists is a common term used by "antis" that post here. You should read them. Shall I provide links and screen shots?

Absolutely. Because all you have done is what Kates did, which was precisely what I objected to.

Are those posters calling ALL GUN OWNERS "gun fetishists"? If not, what was Kates', and by extension your, point? And if not, how is it honest to call the use of such terms "bigotry", if they were not being applied to ALL GUN OWNERS?

If someone here calls an African-American who carries out a multiple shooting in a public place as an apparent part of a gang conflict a "thug" (as was done in a thread not far away), is that bigotry? (Okay, it quite probably is, since "thug" in this context actually is applied pretty exclusively to African-Americans, but we'll pretend it was used in the generic sense.)

If someone calls a gun owner who won't go outside their home without a gun on their person, and who has a large firearm collection and talks about it constantly, a "gun fetishist", are they calling all gun owners "gun fetishists"?

Any chance you will acknowledge that Kates, and you, need to provide substantiation for the notion that gun control advocates are "bigoted" against gun owners, way beyond what he has done, let alone what you have? And that his dishonest, out-of-context quoting of the things he tries to prove his argument with was ... dishonest.



This is the passage from Kates:

Why, then, is it enlightened and liberal: to vilify the 50% of American householders who have guns as barbaric and/or deranged ("Gun Lunatics Silence Sounds of Civilization"{24}), "gun nuts", "gun fetishists", "anti-citizens" and "traitors, enemies of their own patriae"{25}, as sexually warped{26} "bulletbrains"{27} who engage in "simply beastly behavior"{28} and represent "the worst instincts in the human character"{29}; or to traduce pro-gun groups as the "pusher's best friend"{30} and their entire membership as "psychotics", "hunters who drink beer, don't vote and lie to their wives about where they were all weekend"{31}; to characterize the murder of children as "another slaughter co-sponsored by the National Rifle Association"{32} and assert that "The assassination of John Lennon has been brought to you by the National Rifle Association"{33}; and to cartoon gun owners as thugs and/or vigilantes, intellectually retarded, educationally backward and morally obtuse, or as Klansmen?{34}

Our tombstoned friend did not provide the citations, which was really wholly improper of him, and I find them only at an apparently pirated copy of the article so I won't link to it:

24. Braucher, MIAMI HERALD, July 19, 1982; see also his Oct. 29, 1981 column "Handgun Nuts are Just That -- Really Nuts."

25. Wills, "John Lennon's War", CHICAGO SUN TIMES, Dec. 12, 1980, "Handguns that Kill", WASHINGTON STAR, Jan. 18, 1981 and "Or Worldwide Gun Control", PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, May 17, 1981.

26. The psychiatric evidence for and against this aspersion is discussed infra. Its advocates include Harriet Van Horne (N.Y. POST magazine, June 21, 1976, p. 2), Dr. Joyce Brothers, Harlan Ellison ("Fear Not Your Enemies", HEAVY METAL, March, 1981), U.S. CATHOLIC magazine (editorial "Sex Education Belongs in the Gun Store", August, 1979).

27. Grizzard, "Bulletbrains And the Guns That Don't Kill", ATLANTA CONSTITUTION Jan. 19, 1981.

28. Gun Toting: A Fashion Needing Change" in 93 SCIENCE NEWS 613, 614 (1968).

29. WASHINGTON POST editorial, "Guns and the Civilizing Process", Sept. 26, 2972.

30. Guest editorial by Senator Edward Kennedy, "Pusher's Best Friend, the NRA", March 22, 1989 NEW YORK TIMES. See also P. Hamill, NEW YORK POST, "A Meeting of NRA's Harlem Branch", April 4, 1989, LOUISVILLE COURIER-JOURNAL MAGAZINE, Aug. 7, 1988, p. 6 ("The National Rifle Association, its propagandists and it supporters work day and night to make sure that every hood in the country can get his hands on a gun. They couldn't be more guilty if they stood there slipping pistols to the drug dealers and robbers. If justice were done, they would be in prison."). In fact (though it has often obtusely opposed even reasonable controls that affect law abiding citizens), the NRA has consistently supported, indeed is the principal architect of, laws comprehensively barring gun ownership by anyone who has been convicted of a felony. Cf. 82 MICH. L. REV. 209-210 (citing state laws dating from the early 20th Century and federal laws from the 1930s through the present day).

31. A remark by N.Y. Governor Mario Cuomo who subsequently wrote the NRA to apologize because it is unintelligent and unfair" to "disparage any large group." TIME, May 27, 1985.

32. Editorial cartoon, MILWAUKEE JOURNAL, Jan. 22, 1989, p. 12J.

33. Ironically, the assassin, who was himself a gun control advocate, was legally licensed in one of the highly restrictive states that (over the NRA's fervent objection) require licensure to purchase a handgun. Moreover he obtained his license as a security guard, a status that would carry legal entitlement to a handgun under even the most stringent anti-gun proposals. Jacobs, "Exceptions to a General Prohibition on Handgun Possession" 49 LAW & CONTEMP. PROB. 5, 6-7 (1986).

34. Morin (Miami Herald) cartoon, ARIZONA REPUBLIC, March 21, 1989 (showing gun store with sign "drug dealers, gangs, welcome), Herblock cartoon, WASHINGTON POST, March 21, 1989 ("these guys who want to spray the streets with bullets"); SAN JOSE MERCURY-NEWS, March 3, 1989 ("I.Q.-47"), LOS ANGELES HERALD EXAMINER, January 31, 1989 (showing "Crips, Bloods and NRA" as "Three Citizen Groups Opposed to Outlawing Assault Rifles"), Interlandi cartoon, LOS ANGELES TIMES, Dec. 16, 1980.

This is the basis on which Kates makes his accusation of "vilify(ing) the 50% of American householders who have guns".

And that accusation is a flat-out lie in virtually every example he cites. I am not seeing ANYONE in those citations who has vilified "the 50% of American householders who have guns".

What is the good Don Kates actually up to here?

The great civil libertarian Don Kates is actually trying to suppress speech by vilifying people whose views he disagrees with.

Quelle irony, eh?



edited for typos

[gejohnston]

97. concrete thinking?

still not that different than law's. The intent was the same and I really don't care about your distinctions without a difference.

[iverglas]

100. this is your reply to my demonstration that Kates

is a dishonest demagogue?

:rofl:



edited typo
why I can't type subject lines, I don't know ...

[gejohnston]

103. If you say so,

but you seem to say that about a lot of people that challenges your paradigm. I really don't know that much about the guy other than that he clerked for William Kunstler and did civil rights work in the south in the bad old days.

Good headlines are hard to write. Sometimes that is how I start the first sentence.

[iverglas]

91. just a point of amusement

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=346898&mesg_id=347032

to which you linked -- posted by:



Ah, jazzhound, I never knew ye ...

[gejohnston]

93. So?

Kate's observations are still accurate, based on my own lying eyes.

[gejohnston]

94. I do miss him though, the place is not quite the same.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=217350

[iverglas]

98. somebody I've linked to?

I don't think so.

I'm not responsible for what anyone else posts here ... and I don't agree with anything they say unless I expressly say so.

I do certainly know that I have kept special distance from some supposedly "anti-gun" posters who were too obviously nothing of the sort, and been pleased to be right ... after they'd been merrily attacked for varying times by their true fellow travellers. Circuses.

We just never hear from all the fellow travellers when one of their crowd gets tombstoned. Up until the burial, they're all hail-fellow-well-met and +1, and never a red face once they're gone.

[gejohnston]

102. no, I found his posts kind of umm interesting and

and kind of miss him. Has nothing to do with you.