Weapons of the National Liberation Army of Libya.

[Atypical Liberal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Army_%28Libya%29#Equipment

Take a look and ask yourself how many of these weapons currently being used to overthrow tyranny the anti-gun people you know would keep out of your hands.

[ileus]

1. I saw a bolt action with a hunting scope this morning on TODAY

I looked just like any hunting bolt action, nice wood and typical optic for hunting.

[DanTex]

2. Yeah! What kind of freedom-hater would oppose private ownership of RPGs and anti-tank missiles?

[Remmah2]

3. You forgot to add banana clips. (nt)

nt

[ileus]

12. you of course meant to say "killer clips"

[SteveM]

18. and "the things that goes up...."

[TheWraith]

4. Newsflash... you can in fact own those things in the US. They're just not common. nt

[WAFS]

69. You can own MOST of those in the U.S.

But some would like that to change, and not in your favor.

[Atypical Liberal]

5. Yeah, and besides those two things, how about...

Pistols
Shotguns
Carbines and assault rifles

SKS semi-automatic carbine
AK-47 Assault rifle
FN FAL battle rifle
M14 Rifle
Carcano bolt-action battle rifle
Lee-Enfield bolt-action battle rifle
Mauser bolt-action battle rifle
Mosin-Nagant bolt-action battle rifle

[DanTex]

8. You forgot the 9K32 Strela-2 surface-to-air missile. It's really just a basic hunting weapon...

The grabbers will say that it's "designed for military use", but actually, some of my earliest memories are of bringing down Mig-25s in the backyard with my grandfather.

[TPaine7]

10. That's some funny stuff there! Well put (though I obviously disagree with you on many things)! n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

No one has been advocating private ownership of those.

I think you're missing the point here.

No one has been advocating the private ownership, or restriction of ownership for that matter, of missiles, or tanks, or machine guns.

I'm talking about the small arms on that list. That would be the list with pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles.

Obviously.

[DanTex]

16. The point is...

...that gun control has nothing to do with fighting tyranny. As that list of weapons shows, to fight an actual civil war, you need the kinds of weapons (missiles, tanks, etc.) that (almost) nobody on either side of the debate thinks should be in private hands. Without actual military equipment, the tyrant is going to crush you, no matter how many handguns people own.

[Atypical Liberal]

17. And yet small arms are still necessary.

The point is that gun control has nothing to do with fighting tyranny. As that list of weapons shows, to fight an actual civil war, you need the kinds of weapons (missiles, tanks, etc.) that (almost) nobody on either side of the debate thinks should be in private hands. Without actual military equipment, the tyrant is going to crush you, no matter how many handguns people own.

And yet small arms (rifles, shotguns and handguns) are still necessary, as the list shows. Also, it's a lot harder to get your hands on military equipment when you are starting out with nothing.

[SteveM]

19. The Cubans, Algerians, Afghanis, Iraaqis, Viet Cong...

I saw the battleships! The B-52s! The drones! The.... oh wait, that was us and the French.

Oh, I know, the Vietnamese got aid later on. Held out for a long time before the "crushing," though.

[PavePusher]

20. How do you think a rebellion wins access...

to the heavy weaponry?

How did the Afghanis manage to bleed the Russians to the point of departure? (O.K., yes they got some help from the U.S. with Stingers. Care to wager that exactly the same thing wouldn't happen in a modern U.S. revolution? And we have a lot more coastline and land border...)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

89. Depends on the level of government

During the Civil Rights movement, small groups of black men armed with hunting rifles were able to defend themselves, their families, and communities against the local KKK and the law enforcement buddies to the point where the Feds rolled in.

Given the culture of the US, an armed rebellion is very unlikely and if something along those lines were to occur you would have some National Guard units, which have everything the regular troops do on the side of the rebels.

[WAFS]

70. Few can afford to own a tank, or an anti-aircraft missile system.

Most of us can afford a good quality rifle, pistol, or shotgun.

[ileus]

13. those were crows with a shotgun silly...

You were just so small it seemed like AAA and migs.

[PavePusher]

21. Well, some kids and their grandfathers, anyway...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJaZtAYM9KU

[dtexdem]

6. Most of them: as I would hope most gun-rights folks would agree.

Personally, I don't think people should have tanks, or even RPGs, in their personal armories -- certainly not in my neighborhood.

;-)

[TheWraith]

7. You can own both, although the tank will be "demilled."

That means having it's weapons removed or disabled. Oh, and the fuel economy is going to make it prohibitively expensive to take out of the garage.

[gejohnston]

9. given the average price for a tank

unless the Kochs are your neighbors, don't worry about it.

[iverglas]

11. weapons of the National Liberation Army of ...

Michigan?

What a joke.

I mean, your very obvious meaning was that you'll be needing that stuff to overthrow a government, right?

In that case, you will be wanting to stock up on some of the aircraft listed too, I would suggest.

:rofl:

[onehandle]

14. It would be very entertaining to see a right-wing militia take on the United States.

For a few seconds, at least.

[gejohnston]

15. We had AC-130s

AC-47s and B-52s. The Viet Cong did not.
The USSR had helicopter gunships like the Mi-24, the Mujahideen did not.

Yes, outside help is always good for your side.

[apocalypsehow]

23. Though I'm certain you don't jest, the impulse is to respond as if you do:

it's as if you had stated "Fiji had torches, and we had Apollo 17: guess who knew the landscape of the moon better?"

Yes, posting something that makes sense is always good for your side. You didn't quite get there.

What the Democratic Republic of Vietnam had on its side during the recent unpleasantness between it and our very own US of A was: 1. a guarantee of its sovereignty by a China it loathed, 2. a Soviet Union supplying and resupplying it to the hilt above and beyond what our Navy & Air Force could materially bomb out of existence beyond, say, simply DROPPING THE BIG ONE on Hanoi and bombing the Red River Dikes until half the country was flooded and three-quarters of it was starved to death, and, 3. a number of U.S. politicians anxious, eager, and desperate to find a way - any way - out of the entire morass, starting with Ike and extending all the way up through Nixon - the latter of whom did his fair share of bombing on the retreat, so to speak.

Do you really conceive, for even an instant, that had the United States decided to draft sixteen million men (as it did during WWII), and then launched a full scale invasion of tiny North Vietnam those villagers with AK-47's would have been able to hold those massed, organized, well-trained-financed-equipped armed forces off? To ask the question is to answer it.

The "Second amendment solution" died at Appomattox: technology, distributed and trained with en masse, by organized, standing armies had already outran it by 1865.

What we are left with, in the civilized world, is the "franchise solution": it involves a ballot box, a bit of marking with a pen or stroking an electronic pad with a finger or even pulling a lever here & there.

Most of us have found it works quite well, even if we are occasionally dissatisfied with the outcomes. We still get to live in democratic states, under majority rule, with basic human & civil rights enforced by independent judiciaries.

[Atypical Liberal]

24. You are ignoring one important aspect:

Do you really conceive, for even an instant, that had the United States decided to draft sixteen million men (as it did during WWII), and then launched a full scale invasion of tiny North Vietnam those villagers with AK-47's would have been able to hold those massed, organized, well-trained-financed-equipped armed forces off? To ask the question is to answer it.

And yet the United States did not do that.

Why not?

Why, despite all its potential might, did that might go unused?

Because of a lack of willpower.

What places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Mogadishu, Iraq, and countless other places show is that you don't have to win militarily to win by attrition.

The "Second amendment solution", as you call it, has an even more potent aspect of it. It would cause devastating economic chaos, striking directly at the monetary resources of the government.

What we are left with, in the civilized world, is the "franchise solution": it involves a ballot box, a bit of marking with a pen or stroking an electronic pad with a finger or even pulling a lever here & there.

Most of us have found it works quite well, even if we are occasionally dissatisfied with the outcomes. We still get to live in democratic states, under majority rule, with basic human & civil rights enforced by independent judiciaries.

But you cannot make the assumption that such a system is going to work well forever. Even now our system of government has been largely corrupted by the influence of massive wealth in the hands of just a few people. Even now elections are almost always won by he who spends the most, which means that those with the most to donate can wield far more influence than those who vote.

[apocalypsehow]

27. Flabby nonsense.

It's good to see some things never change in some locales:

"And yet the United States did not do that.

Why not?

Why, despite all its potential might, did that might go unused?

Because of a lack of willpower."

None of which had one speck of anything to do with the folks toting around AK-47's in your fictional "Red Dawn"-type fantasy scenario, but, rather with the political leadership of the folks able to deploy aircraft carriers and B-52's making a calculated political decision to forgo using the degree of force necessary to terminate that resistance. There were many reasons the United States should have "lost" the Vietnam war, the first and foremost being we had no business there in the first place. But the notion that it was some kind of victory "by attrition" on the part of the North Vietnamese is simply false: we loaded up, and eventually went home. That is how they "won."

"The "Second amendment solution", as you call it, has an even more potent aspect of it. It would cause devastating economic chaos, striking directly at the monetary resources of the government."

No, it would not. The U.S. government has dealt quite effectively with such as embraced that laughable mindset in the past, from the Ku Klux Klan during both Reconstruction and the more recent Civil Rights movements of the Sixties to the Philippine insurgency the military crushed within months of being given free reign to subdue it to the post-WWII quelling of the "Werwolf" movement in Germany.

"But you cannot make the assumption that such a system is going to work well forever. Even now our system of government has been largely corrupted by the influence of massive wealth in the hands of just a few people. Even now elections are almost always won by he who spends the most, which means that those with the most to donate can wield far more influence than those who vote"

And your proposal to "solve" these problems, as you see them, is....? C'mon now: if you really believe you live under a government that is not representative of the people who live under it and does not respond to the ballot box it's your duty to speak plainly to what "solutions" should be taken in hand to set the 'ole listing ship of state aright. Let's have it, oh intrepid follower in the footsteps of Giap & Che: what is to be done?

[Atypical Liberal]

37. Lack of willpower.

None of which had one speck of anything to do with the folks toting around AK-47's in your fictional "Red Dawn"-type fantasy scenario, but, rather with the political leadership of the folks able to deploy aircraft carriers and B-52's making a calculated political decision to forgo using the degree of force necessary to terminate that resistance. There were many reasons the United States should have "lost" the Vietnam war, the first and foremost being we had no business there in the first place. But the notion that it was some kind of victory "by attrition" on the part of the North Vietnamese is simply false: we loaded up, and eventually went home. That is how they "won."

This is exactly what I said. The resistance that the North Vietnamese put up was sufficient to break the will of the United States to continue the fight.

No, it would not. The U.S. government has dealt quite effectively with such as embraced that laughable mindset in the past, from the Ku Klux Klan during both Reconstruction and the more recent Civil Rights movements of the Sixties to the Philippine insurgency the military crushed within months of being given free reign to subdue it to the post-WWII quelling of the "Werwolf" movement in Germany.

None of these things would have the economic impact of civil war on the home front, which is what I was talking about. Just look at the economic chaos caused by the DC snipers. And that was just two nut jobs.

And your proposal to "solve" these problems, as you see them, is....? C'mon now: if you really believe you live under a government that is not representative of the people who live under it and does not respond to the ballot box it's your duty to speak plainly to what "solutions" should be taken in hand to set the 'ole listing ship of state aright. Let's have it, oh intrepid follower in the footsteps of Giap & Che: what is to be done?

First, we must increase the tax rates on the highest wealth holders. The problem we have right now is that the tax base has shifted so far to the top end that the majority of the country is hardly worth taxing. We need policies that equitably and fairly effect a redistribution of wealth. This is necessary to broaden the tax base, it is necessary to weaken the influence that the richest Americans have over government, and it is necessary to stimulate demand for consumer goods, and thus the health of the economy. If these things cannot be achieved through representative government, then history says they are often resolved by force.

[apocalypsehow]

42. You are either unable to mentally digest what you read, or unwilling to do so.

"This is exactly what I said. The resistance that the North Vietnamese put up was sufficient to break the will of the United States to continue the fight."

From long acquaintance with the mentality of the "enthusiast," I'm not going to play this dreary game with you hours on end. Some of us are gainfully employed. Go back, read what you wrote, then read my reply, and get back with us when you actually have something on-point to offer. Thanks.

[Atypical Liberal]

57. Or perhaps I was just correct in my assessment.

From long acquaintance with the mentality of the "enthusiast," I'm not going to play this dreary game with you hours on end.

Oh, good.

Some of us are gainfully employed. Go back, read what you wrote, then read my reply, and get back with us when you actually have something on-point to offer. Thanks.

I am likewise gainfully employed. My reply was sufficient.

[iverglas]

30. hail, hail,

the gang's all here.

Bring on the coherent sentences. Wanna argue about something? It would just be such a nice diversion.

:toast:

[apocalypsehow]

31. And what they've done with the place in my absence! So many of the names have changed,

but the song remains the same, as the old Led Zeppelin tune noted.

Perhaps we could "practice argue," for the benefit of our enthusiast friends. They could get a gander at what that actually looks like - real debate, actual facts, first one to flee to the comforting arms of a logical fallacy is a rotten egg.

Public service arguing! :toast:

[iverglas]

32. yes, I returned a scant month or so ago myself

and I've taken the odd turn down cemetery lane, just for the nostalgia value. Some of the absent names are surprising. Each time I drop in, there is freshly turned earth. I went away quite some time ago and lost my pal DoNotRefill (don't get excited, newbies, he was one of you, he just happened to be a nice boy, and he named his firstborn after me). More recently, you will remember FirePlugDave, I believe. And I never know what happened! I was so looking forward to letting Dave know I've been banned from the genealogy board for life. (I mean, that me was. I've been banned for life from the eharmony boards about six times by now, I think. I figure that's where the Guns forum crowd goes when it's on lunch.)

So lemme see. Shall I propose: whose version of Vincent is better? ;)

Surely there's a fine point of firearms policy we can disagree on. C'mon, say something outrageous to the tender Canuckistanian ear.

[apocalypsehow]

22. Take a look and ask yourself how many NATO air-strikes, using sophisticated armaments beyond the

reach of even our most financially-endowed (or a million of them, for that matter) and technically-enabled "enthusiasts" down here, were necessary to render the Libyan military - not exactly up to even the standards of the Wyoming National Guard as a national military force - quiescent after months & months of dedicated targeting?

If only George III had a time machine...

Thanks for summoning me back here, BTW (this is a general gratuity, based on a recent PM that landed unsolicited in my Inbox...). You have my full attention: again.

[Atypical Liberal]

25. And yet small arms are still necessary.

And yet for all that, the small arms were still needed to do the job.

And if NATO had not been willing to come to the aid of the rebels, what then? Should the people of Libya been content to throw stones?

[apocalypsehow]

28. When you inaugurate armed revolution against a sitting government, you take your chances, regardless...

of the moral odor of that government. In this case, had NATO not intervened, it would have been disastrous for the insurgents in Libya to attempt to use "small arms" by themselves in armed struggle: the Libyan government would have slaughtered them, without compunction. The better part of valor in that instance would have been to put away their small arms, forget about stones, and attempt to persuade the West to come to their armed aid. And, oh look! That's exactly what happened. So your argument, like so much nonsense I see peddled in this place, when it comes down to cases, not only disproves the utility of bands of "citizen militias" taking on an organized military, it actually goes far to prove the opposite: the Second amendment, as some kind of guaranty against government "tyranny" here, is as superfluous and impotent for our modern context as quill pens are on the factory floor of a PC manufacturer.

[PavePusher]

34. Just because one situation played out a certain way....

does not mean all situations will be identical in circumstances and outcomes.

You are insufficiently imaginative.

[ileus]

35. That's what is nice about America...the government is the people.

We're never going to worry about fighting our government...

[Atypical Liberal]

38. I'll take my chances.

When you inaugurate armed revolution against a sitting government, you take your chances, regardless of the moral odor of that government.

Indeed.

In this case, had NATO not intervened, it would have been disastrous for the insurgents in Libya to attempt to use "small arms" by themselves in armed struggle: the Libyan government would have slaughtered them, without compunction.

Who knows? Maybe they would, or did, use those small arms to acquire more powerful hardware with which to fight.

The better part of valor in that instance would have been to put away their small arms, forget about stones, and attempt to persuade the West to come to their armed aid. And, oh look! That's exactly what happened.

And suppose no one came to their aid? Suppose they weren't sitting on one of the world's major supplies of oil that everyone and their brother were salivating over? What then? Just lay down and lick the boots of your oppressor?

And who is to say that should such events happen in the United States that there would not be outside influence here, also?

So your argument, like so much nonsense I see peddled in this place, when it comes down to cases, not only disproves the utility of bands of "citizen militias" taking on an organized military, it actually goes far to prove the opposite: the Second amendment, as some kind of guaranty against government "tyranny" here, is as superfluous and impotent for our modern context as quill pens are on the factory floor of a PC manufacturer.

Like you said, I'll take my chances with the tools available, thanks.

[apocalypsehow]

45. "I'll take my chances" - Duke Wayne couldn't have said it better himself, I reckon.

But I got news for you, Atypical Liberal: this country, on demographics alone, is trending Blue. In a generation, maybe less, states like Texas and Florida are going to "tip" solidly into the Democratic column. That means not just that the gun control laws such as one finds in Massachusetts, New York, and California are coming soon to a federal code near you (they are), but also that it is likely that a Democratic president will get the opportunity to appoint not just one but several Supreme Court justices.

And you know what that means, right? That means the asinine Heller ruling is reversed, and the Second amendment is redefined in the proper legal context in which it was drafted. That means dudes wanting to play with guns will have to join their local National Guard, and drill on the quad in the summer heat and winter sleet, if they want to collectively exercise their "Second amendment rights."

Of course, since you are good liberal Democrat - I mean, you post here at Democratic Underground, right? - I'm sure you have not one problem with Texas and Florida going "Blue," right? And I'm sure you have not one problem with a Democratic president appointing justices to the Supreme Court of a liberal bent, even if it means they are likely to overturn Heller, right?

Right?

[spin]

52. If the economy doesn't improve ...

and the Republicans can manage to nominate a reasonably credible candidate, Obama will be a one term president.

If the economy doesn't improve but if the Republicans foolishly nominate a Tea Party candidate without any credibility, Obama could still get reelected. However many people may decide to vote for Republican candidates running for the Senate and the House. In that case, Obama might not get his nomination of extremely liberal justices who favor draconian gun control approved.

There is a long way to go before the election and by the time the voters go to the polls, the economy could be showing positive signs of recovering.

Obama hasn't shown any tendency to support any strong gun control ideas at this time in his presidency. He does favor improving the NICS background check by requiring the states to input on a more timely basis the names of those who have a violent criminal record or have been legally adjudged as having mental issues that should disqualify them from buying firearms. I agree with him on this issue.

However many gun owners will go to the polls to vote against another Obama presidency as, despite his apparent lack of interest in passing draconian gun laws, they still do not trust him. If the election is close, these gun owners make make the difference as they have in past presidential elections.

The best you can hope for is the passage of another assault weapons ban. I can't see even a very liberal Supreme Court overturning the Second Amendment. Such a court may allow the sates and cities to set extremely high standards for gun ownership, but I doubt that they will rule current laws such as "shall issue" concealed carry unconstitutional or require a national system of firearm registration.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[Atypical Liberal]

55. We'll see.

But I got news for you, Atypical Liberal: this country, on demographics alone, is trending Blue. In a generation, maybe less, states like Texas and Florida are going to "tip" solidly into the Democratic column.

And I can't wait. The party of angry old white people is vanishing. They alienated the African-Americans, and they are now alienating the Latinos, and like you said, within 30 years they will be gone.

That means not just that the gun control laws such as one finds in Massachusetts, New York, and California are coming soon to a federal code near you (they are), but also that it is likely that a Democratic president will get the opportunity to appoint not just one but several Supreme Court justices.

And you know what that means, right? That means the asinine Heller ruling is reversed, and the Second amendment is redefined in the proper legal context in which it was drafted. That means dudes wanting to play with guns will have to join their local National Guard, and drill on the quad in the summer heat and winter sleet, if they want to collectively exercise their "Second amendment rights."

We'll see. One thing is for certain, right now the tide is going my way.

Of course, since you are good liberal Democrat - I mean, you post here at Democratic Underground, right? - I'm sure you have not one problem with Texas and Florida going "Blue," right? And I'm sure you have not one problem with a Democratic president appointing justices to the Supreme Court of a liberal bent, even if it means they are likely to overturn Heller, right?

Yes, I will be quite happy to see more blue states, though frankly, I'm beginning to doubt the effectiveness of the Democratic party. But yes, in principle, which has been sorely lacking since Obama took office, I want to see a bluer US, one that gets out of imperialistic wars overseas, one that stands up to corporate and wealthy influence, one that stands up for the American worker, and protects the environment. I voted for the President in spite of his second amendment track record for those reasons, but also because I was fairly confident he would be unable to move against the second amendment. Should that change, I may not be so generous. As you can see on my ballot from the last election, I voted for all Democrats save one, who received an F rating from the NRA. All my other Democratic candidates received high marks from the NRA, and 3 of them were the endorsed candidate.

So as you can see, being a liberal or a Democrat does not mean you have to be anti-gun.

It's going to a be a very very long row to hoe to try and reverse gun rights. We have had ever-more liberal firearm rights for the last 20 years, and yet crime continues to decline. Thanks to the internet, people are now more politically aware than ever before, and it is harder and harder to gin up scarey things like "assault rifle" bans when the data is instantly available to show that less people are killed with them every year than with hands and feet. It's harder and harder to say CCW is a bad thing when people with CCW permits are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm crime, and in fact are less likely to be involved in crimes than the rest of the public at large.

And of course all the while the number of firearms in circulation continues to grow.

So anything is possible.

What I will continue to work for, however, are progressive candidates who support the right to keep and bear arms. Politicians who do not let their enthusiasm for collectivism create a fear of empowering the individual.

Right now, history is on my side.

[apocalypsehow]

59. We are not talking about any issue other than guns, despite a clumsy attempt at deflection. On guns,

the Bluer the city/county/state the stricter the gun control laws present in that city/county/state. That is a fact.

San Francisco, New York City, Chicago - all very Blue; all with the strictest gun control laws in the country. California and Massachusetts? The Bluest two states in the Union also have some of the most sensible gun control laws on the book, laws our "enthusiasts" are constantly moaning about. That is a further fact.

As the country gets Bluer, our gun control laws are going to get more sensible, which means "progressive candidates who support the" gun militant movement are going to get more scarce than hen's teeth, as if some such specimen exists anywhere outside of the imagination of our "enthusiasts" down in the DU gun dungeon (he or she doesn't). That is yet another fact.

"I voted for the President in spite of his second amendment track record for those reasons, but also because I was fairly confident he would be unable to move against the second amendment. Should that change, I may not be so generous."

Uh-huh.

"Politicians who do not let their enthusiasm for collectivism create a fear of empowering the individual"

"enthusiasm for collectivism"? You're, like, kidding, right?

[gejohnston]

60. over simplify much?

Most people really don't give a rats ass about ideology or group think it produces. Most people try to separate the sensible from the absurd and vote for the least worst.

[apocalypsehow]

61. It's hard getting used to again, the Gungeon phenomenon where people just type random things that

, I guess, pop into their heads when they read a post, without the slightest attempt to align those random typed thoughts with anything related to the post they are replying to.

Since in the rational world we have names for people suffering from this condition, and try to render them all appropriate aid & assistance to overcome such tendencies, it's somewhat unsettling to to get into a groove where this manner of written interaction with other human beings is not only expected, but encouraged.

[gejohnston]

62. Nothing random about it

Portland is the bluest of the blue. Washington state is not too far behind. Mayor Rudy wanted the Sullivan Law nationwide until he wanted national office. Then there is Vermont and Howard Dean's NRA endorsements. From 1902 until 1965, South Carolina had an almost ban on handguns. In the late 19th century, Texas had a licencing scheme for pistols.

The biggest barrier to your quest for what you describe as sensible gun laws is not the gun lobby. It is the inability of your side come up with something better than stringing non sequiturs and other logical fallacies together, patronizing faux intellectual bullshit, and personal attacks.

Here is one, name one liberal or Dem that heads or holds a management position in one of the major gun control groups.

I would like you see a debate between you and Alan Keyes sometime.

Forgot to mention one thing. North Carolina, the home state of fine progressives like Jesse Helms, Lauch Faircloth, and Liddy Dole has gun laws more to your liking than many blue states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#North_Carolina0

http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/2009/03/65-congressional-democrats-tell-holder.html
Peter Defazio is a seriously good progressive.
http://ontheissues.org/House/Peter_Defazio.htm

[apocalypsehow]

63. More random noise, apropos of...well, there's gotta be something. Let's do an experiment:

Here's post #59:

"We are not talking about any issue other than guns, despite a clumsy attempt at deflection. On guns,

the Bluer the city/county/state the stricter the gun control laws present in that city/county/state. That is a fact.

San Francisco, New York City, Chicago - all very Blue; all with the strictest gun control laws in the country. California and Massachusetts? The Bluest two states in the Union also have some of the most sensible gun control laws on the book, laws our "enthusiasts" are constantly moaning about. That is a further fact.

As the country gets Bluer, our gun control laws are going to get more sensible, which means "progressive candidates who support the" gun militant movement are going to get more scarce than hen's teeth, as if some such specimen exists anywhere outside of the imagination of our "enthusiasts" down in the DU gun dungeon (he or she doesn't). That is yet another fact.

"I voted for the President in spite of his second amendment track record for those reasons, but also because I was fairly confident he would be unable to move against the second amendment. Should that change, I may not be so generous."

Uh-huh.

"Politicians who do not let their enthusiasm for collectivism create a fear of empowering the individual"

"enthusiasm for collectivism"? You're, like, kidding, right?"

Here's gejohnston:

"Portland is the bluest of the blue. Washington state is not too far behind. Mayor Rudy wanted the Sullivan Law nationwide until he wanted national office. Then there is Vermont and Howard Dean's NRA endorsements. From 1902 until 1965, South Carolina had an almost ban on handguns. In the late 19th century, Texas had a licencing (Sic) scheme for pistols.

The biggest barrier to your quest for what you describe as sensible gun laws is not the gun lobby. It is the inability of your side come up with something better than stringing non sequiturs and other logical fallacies together, patronizing faux intellectual bullshit, and personal attacks.

Here is one, name one liberal or Dem that heads or holds a management position in one of the major gun control groups.

I would like you see a debate between you and Alan Keyes sometime."

Uhhhhh, ho-kay. "Non sequitur," indeed....( :eyes:)

[gejohnston]

64. sorry can't hear anything with all of the

noise you are creating. I meant to type I would like see a debate between you and Alan Keyes. You seem like mirror images of each other.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[Atypical Liberal]

67. No deflection...

I was just addressing your insinuation that I wasn't really a "good liberal democrat", which is common around here for anyone who is pro-firearm.

San Francisco, New York City, Chicago - all very Blue; all with the strictest gun control laws in the country.

And also very urban.

Uh-huh.

I am quite serious. I'm not going to vote for candidates who actively move against the second amendment or who I think are likely to do so.

"enthusiasm for collectivism"? You're, like, kidding, right?

No, I am not kidding. Why would you think so?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[Atypical Liberal]

72. It read like one to me.

That is not an insinuation.

It read like one to me. But then, I'm sensitive to this sort of thing because the "no true Scotsman" thing is rampant around here.

"And also very urban."

Now, that is, on the other hand, is an "insinuation," of a sorts. More like an ugly online wink & nod. But you know, I've found over time that folks that like to dog-whistle at DU eventually trip up when that mask slips a bit too much, and are shown the door.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The places you named - San Francisco, New York City, Chicago - are huge cities. This is what I meant by "urban". Yes, gun control is at its strongest (and least effective) in these large cities.

My point is that just because a place goes blue does not mean that it is going to follow the gun-control antics of the city-dwellers.

I guess you were insinuating that I had some sort of racial insinuation by saying "urban"? Well, it is true that most of the crime in places like New York City is committed by African-Americans and Hispanics. In New York City, for example, 89% of homicides from 2003-2009 were committed by African-Americans and Mexicans, and 88% of the victims were, likewise:

http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homicides/map

But this is neither here nor there with regards to the city-dwelling vs. the urban-dwelling mentality towards firearms, which, I suspect, will matter a lot more than whether or not a location goes blue or not.

Because it's a transparent right-wing meme that has been around since at least the sixties, when ranting about "collectivism" was a big hit with the John Birch Society & Co. Imagine that: right-wing memes being spread in the Gungeon by a "pro-gun liberal."

Shocked, I'm shocked, I tell you!

And I suppose that was no insinuation, either.

As I have said numerous times, to me, the whole meaning of being a liberal or progressive is the empowerment of the weak against the strong, through collective action. We empower workers to stand against corporate interests through the power of collective action. We are for the defense of the environment against strong, wealthy interests. We seek to protect the rights of minorities from the abuses of the majority. We seek quality education for all through the collective resources of all. And on and on. The liberal or progressive often seeks to stand up to power through the power of the collective, because this is what it takes to overcome the wealthy and powerful interests in this country. Too often, though, they also develop a distrust, or even a hatred, of empowering the weak individual to likewise stand up to power.

Collectivism is great - it's why I support the NRA - the collective power of NRA members is extraordinarily powerful.

[apocalypsehow]

73. You read it correctly the first time: I don't "insinuate" it, I maintain it as an oft-proved fact.

"I was just addressing your insinuation that I wasn't really a "good liberal democrat", which is common around here for anyone who is pro-firearm""

It's no insinuation: the values of the gun crowd are not the values the vast, vast majority of progressives cherish and hold as political ideals, period. Name one member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who supports the "RKBA" cause. Name one governor of a consistently Blue state that supports the mayhem caused by policies promulgated by the "collective power of the NRA" you seem to fancy so much.

"I have no idea what you are talking about"

Oh yes you do.

"And I suppose that was no insinuation, either"

By jove, you're starting to catch on.

"it's why I support the NRA"

An organization that has spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to defeat Democratic candidates and put Republicans in power across the country. Nice.

What was that you were saying about "being a liberal or progressive" again?

[Atypical Liberal]

77. And also spent money on Democrats.

It's no insinuation: the values of the gun crowd are not the values the vast, vast majority of progressives cherish and hold as political ideals, period. Name one member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who supports the "RKBA" cause. Name one governor of a consistently Blue state that supports the mayhem caused by policies promulgated by the "collective power of the NRA" you seem to fancy so much.

So, in spite of all my other progressive ideals, which you ignored, because I support the right to keep and bear arms I'm not a "good liberal democrat"?

There is no doubt that the Democratic part and liberals and progressives in general are on the wrong side of gun control. That does not mean that there are not good liberal democrats who also support the second amendment.

Edit to add: I notice that unlike the Democratic Party Platform, there is not one word for gun control in the mission statement for the Progressive Caucus:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=63§iontree=2,63

Oh yes you do.

No, I really don't.

By jove, you're starting to catch on.

Well then why not man up and have the guts to say what you mean, instead of resorting to insinuation?

An organization that has spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to defeat Democratic candidates and put Republicans in power across the country. Nice.

What was that you were saying about "being a liberal or progressive" again?

The NRA is a single-issue group. Yes, they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to defeat any candidate who does not support the right to keep and bear arms. The Democratic party could turn the NRA into its biggest fundraiser overnight by embracing the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA donates money to Democratic candidates who are pro-gun. Yes, sadly they are few and far between, which means they don't get much money from the NRA. That is the anti-gun crowd's fault, not the NRA's fault.

Like I said, I voted for the Democratic candidate in all offices save one, who received an F rating from the NRA. You can see my ballot in my sig.

If that doesn't make a good liberal democrat for you, I don't know what the hell does.

Edit to add: Feel free to search for my other posts in other forums on this board, also.

[apocalypsehow]

80. Yada, yada, yada. Bottom line is: you proudly support an organization that's devoted almost

exclusively to defeating progressive Democrats. All the rest is justification, and pretty poor justification, at that.

"Well then why not man up and have the guts to say what you mean, instead of resorting to insinuation?"

Putting aside the fact that I plainly stated it was no insinuation - willful obtuseness has its charms, I reckon - what kind of "progressive" uses the language of misogyny and patriarchy to convey an opinion? "Man up"?" Really?

Which brings us to...

"If that doesn't make a good liberal democrat for you, I don't know what the hell does"

It doesn't, and you're not really fooling anybody. But I'd watch that dog-whistling, even down here: eventually, done often and egregiously enough, it catches up with even the cleverest among our "pro-gun liberals."

One final thing:

"So, in spite of all my other progressive ideals, which you ignored, because I support the right to keep and bear arms I'm not a "good liberal democrat"?"

As noted above, someone who proudly supports an organization that dedicates literally hundreds of millions of dollars and virtually all of its effort to defeating "good liberal democrats (Sic - and a telling one, at that)" really shouldn't be roaming around trumpeting their "progressive ideals." It's a contradiction in terms.


Edit: typo.

[apocalypsehow]

81. Addendum: where's that member of the progressive caucus or consistently blue state governor?

"Edit to add: I notice that unlike the Democratic Party Platform, there is not one word for gun control in the mission statement for the Progressive Caucus"

That's not what was asked: answer the question put to you.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

90. I would scarcely call the California laws sensible. Capricous would be more like it

[apocalypsehow]

92. That's nice. n/t.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

95. Trying living with them

You would be much better informed.

[apocalypsehow]

97. I travel to California for several weeks every couple of years, and stay with friends. They love it.

And I always enjoy it - the weather alone makes the trip worth it. But even (far) beyond that the wine is great; the people are even better; the food is fantastic; and the quotient of right-wing assholes to decent human beings is quite low.

What ever could be the problem from your perspective?






...ah yes: California is a solidly Blue state, in Democratic hands, with sensible regulations on the handling, transfer, ownership, and general playing-around-with of guns.

You need say no more: gotcha.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

98. Glad you enjoy our wine and food.

If you friends are not involved with firearms they would not understand the capricious nature of them any more than you do. Has nothing to do with our blueness...or your greeness

[apocalypsehow]

100. More likely, my friends are liberals of a particularly pleasing progressive stripe, and you're the

one with the "understanding" problem when it comes to such matters, and such persons. I reckon.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

102. No level of politics can overcome the absence of knowledge and data

Learn about things before you make such broad pronouncements.

[apocalypsehow]

105. That's nice. n/t.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

107. 'tis true bucko...though drink enough of our better wines and it may seem that fantasizes come true

[apocalypsehow]

109. The California penal code is about as real as it gets - perhaps you're a couple of bottles off. n/t.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

114. It is not what is on the books, it is who enforces it

The same defensive household shooting in Los Angeles gets handled very differently that in Kern County. The latitude is tremendous, and is one of the reasons I described California laws as capricious. Same with CCWs.

Again, you need to learn about these things before you pontificate

[apocalypsehow]

115. More non-responsive, semi-coherent nonsense. n/t.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

117. Snork

[apocalypsehow]

116. Addendum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=452256&mesg_id=453460

[PavePusher]

26. You seem to assume that in a U.S. Civil War...

the military would remain a monolithic entity on one side of the conflict.

That may well not be the case....

[apocalypsehow]

29. Gee, I don't recall seeming to assume any such thing, since I don't sit around fantasizing about

getting involved in a shooting war with my fellow Americans under any circumstances. My thought processes just don't run to considerations of which Army units or Air Force squadrons or Naval assets might hearken to any "side" in any civil disturbance. That is as remote from the normal train of thought for the vast majority of Americans as serious contemplation of an invasion from Mars, or the sudden rise from the ocean floor of the mythical city of Atlantis.

[PavePusher]

33. Remote" Hardly. Frequent topic in several fiction genres...

Lots of people play "what if..." games, commonly called "thought experiments".

Expand your horizons...

[Marengo]

36. How can you know this?

"That is as remote from the normal train of thought for the vast majority of Americans as serious contemplation of an invasion from Mars, or the sudden rise from the ocean floor of the mythical city of Atlantis."

Can you cite evidence to support this statement? Are you in some way privy to the thought processes of the vast majority of Americans?

[Atypical Liberal]

39. That's obvious.

Gee, I don't recall seeming to assume any such thing, since I don't sit around fantasizing about getting involved in a shooting war with my fellow Americans under any circumstances.

Well, my advice would be to stop burying your head in the sand and open your mind to the possibility that the government may not always operate with the best interest of Americans at heart. You don't have to fantasize about it, but you should at least think about the possibility.

[apocalypsehow]

44. I'm content to leave such breathless daydreaming in the capable hands it currently resides, our

"enthusiasts" and their cartoonish fetish for and juvenile attachment to inanimate objects that make them feel just like Jed Eckert up there in that Colorado range, fending off them Russkies.

[Atypical Liberal]

54. Good plan, you clearly are out of your depth.

[PavePusher]

40. P.S. I'm in the USAF, it's my job to think about stuff like that.

If you don't theorize about things that could happen in the future... well, you must not plan much.

What's for dinner?

[apocalypsehow]

43. Uh-huh. And I'm chairman of the JCS...

"I'm in the USAF, it's my job to think about stuff like that."

Tell us, General, are you sitting in the bowels of the Pentagon right now, plotting air strikes on Peoria in case of an armed uprising?

:eyes:

[PavePusher]

48. Let me be a little more specific.

It's my job to think about such things under the aegis of the UCMJ, my position of leadership as a senior NCO, and my role as a U.S. Citizen and Resident.

[apocalypsehow]

50. Allow me to be even more specific: that is utter nonsense. n/t.

[PavePusher]

51. How so? n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

56. Because he just can't conceive of it.

Therefore it must not be true.

[apocalypsehow]

58. You don't understand what the sentence "that is utter nonsense" means? Which part are you having

trouble translating? Is it a singular word, like "utter" or "nonsense," or is it the whole enchilada, all four words of it? Is the phrasing unfamiliar to you? Am I writing in a vernacular with which you are unfamiliar?

Please, by all means, do let me know.


Edit: typo.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[ProgressiveProfessor]

96. He is not the one with a comprehension problem

[apocalypsehow]

104. You mean "he is not the ONLY one with a comprehension problem," which is true: you share the prize.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

110. Since you clearly have no military credentials or experience you have no idea what he may do

as a senior NCO. Contingency planning is almost a daily activity in the military.

[apocalypsehow]

112. That's nice. n/t.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

118. Your concession is noted

[apocalypsehow]

121. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=452256&mesg_id=454690

[Marengo]

76. No, it is not nonsense. This is a fairly common topic of discussion...

among military personnel.

[PavePusher]

84. Thank you. n/t

[spin]

53. In a situation where militia groups of extremely right wing "patriots" ...

launch a rebellion without the support of the majority of citizens, our military will quickly suppress the insurrection.

If at sometime in the far future, the citizens in this country find themselves under the heel of a dictator and a government that bows to his whims, an uprising may be very popular among the majority of the citizens. The military who is often composed of the most poor and oppressed classes in our nation may refuse to kill their fellow citizens. They may well join the movement to overthrow the tyrannical dictator and his henchmen in Congress.

The situation in our nation would have to deteriorate tremendously before a rebellion would ever gain the necessary popularity for success. In my personal opinion, it will never reach that point in my lifetime. It MIGHT during the lifetimes of my daughter or my grandchildren.

But at the rate that we are losing our rights to privacy and the speed at which the surveillance ability of agencies in our government is increasing, any insurrection might be squashed when it was in its infancy. Anyone who opposed the tyrannical government might simply be "disappeared" without trial and killed or tortured.

It might be wise for liberals to be aware that a government that would deserve to be overthrow might not be progressive in the least. It might be run by the rich and enormous multinational corporations who would treat all citizens except a very privileged few as slaves or serfs to be oppressed for profit.

We need to protect all of the rights we were granted by the founders and not foolishly throw them away because of programs such as the War on Drugs or the War on Terror. Those rights include the right to keep and bear arms.

I believe a successful revolution could occur without civilian firearm ownership. Libya had extremely strict gun control laws. It was obvious to me as I watched the news videos that many of those who were engaged in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi had little experience with firearms. It is also true that without NATO the uprising would have had little chance of success. Still air power alone would have had little chance of success in getting rid of Gaddafi. Without arms in the hands of the rebels or the boots of foreign armies on the ground, the Libyan rebels would have simply slaughtered until they decided that their efforts were futile.

[iverglas]

78. "the citizens in this country find themselves"

How do these things happen?!?1?

If at sometime in the far future, the citizens in this country find themselves under the heel of a dictator and a government that bows to his whims, an uprising may be very popular among the majority of the citizens. The military who is often composed of the most poor and oppressed classes in our nation may refuse to kill their fellow citizens. They may well join the movement to overthrow the tyrannical dictator and his henchmen in Congress.

So, like, you need your guns because ... ?

The dictator has a few friends in Congress.

You have the military.

What's the deal, Beal? Escort the dictator to the nearest launching pad.


It might be wise for liberals to be aware that a government that would deserve to be overthrow might not be progressive in the least. It might be run by the rich and enormous multinational corporations who would treat all citizens except a very privileged few as slaves or serfs to be oppressed for profit.

Wow. That's pretty far-fetched ... only a crazy person could conceive of that happening ... anybody who thought it had already happened, and nobody so much as lifted a gun to say nay, well, they'd be some kind of insane (it's a small-d) democrat ...

[Marengo]

75. How can you know the mind of the vast majority of Americans? N/T

[iverglas]

85. oh dear ... you've heard of public opinion polling?

I don't have jstor access so I can't view the entire thing. (I know a couple of people with academic access who've got me stuff before; maybe I'll ask.)

Summary here -- evidently the quantity published there is not regarded as a copyright violation, and I reproduce only a portion of that below:

http://business.highbeam.com/435453/article-1G1-91086481/public-opinion-gun-policies

Public opinion about Gun Policies. (Public Perspectives).

Article from: The Future of Children | June 22, 2002

... This article outlines the level of public support for gun control measures. It begins with a description of Americans' broad-based support for virtually every type of firearms regulation and an assessment of how strongly gun control supporters feel about the issue. The next section of this article focuses on Americans' attitudes toward firearms regulation to protect children and youth. The article concludes with an examination of historical trends in public opinion about guns--making the point that American public opinion about gun control is fixed and unlikely to change much over time.

The article relies primarily on public opinion polling data from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. The NORC General Social Survey currently polls 3,000 Americans biennially regarding their attitudes on social issues. Since 1972, it has assessed Americans' attitudes toward firearms regulation. From 1996 to 1999, NORC also conducted the annual National Gun Policy Survey. Taken together, the NORC data provide the most complete picture available of American public opinion about guns and of how public opinion has evolved over time.

Support for Gun Control Measures

From 1996 to 1999, NORC conducted four National Gun Policy Surveys, each of which asked a representative sample of 1,200 Americans their views on three types of gun control policies: general gun control, gun safety, and restriction of criminals' access to guns.

As Table 1 indicates, large majorities of respondents to the NORC National Gun Policy Surveys support this type of gun control, particularly when it comes to handguns. In the 1999 poll, for example, nearly 81% of respondents supported a background check and a five-day waiting period before a handgun could be purchased; 80% endorsed mandatory registration of handguns; and some 54% to 58% wanted to ban domestic manufacture of "small, easily concealed, and inexpensive handguns." Of the 11 general gun control measures that NORC asked about in 1999, the average respondent supported 7. Women, residents of large cities and their suburbs, liberals, and Democrats are most likely to support general gun control measures, whereas men, residents of rural areas, conservatives, and Republicans are least likely to support such measures. People with higher levels of educational attainment also are more likely to support general gun control measures. Support does not vary by marital status, age, or income.

The second type of gun control measure, gun safety, consists of policies designed to make guns safer and less accessible to unauthorized users such as children. These measures include establishing federal consumer product safety standards for guns, requiring that guns be childproof, and requiring gun owners to store their guns safely (that is, locked and unloaded). As Table 2 shows, support for safety-related gun control measures is even stronger than support for measures to regulate the sale of guns. Substantial majorities consistently support most safety-related policies, especially federal safety standards for handguns and requirements that guns be childproof. (See the article by Teret and Culross in this journal issue.) Of the 11 gun safety measures that NORC polled in 1999, the average respondent supported 8.

As with general gun control measures, women, residents of large cities and their suburbs, liberals, and Democrats are most likely to support gun safety measures, whereas men, residents of rural areas, conservatives, and Republicans are least likely to support them. Support does not vary by income or education, but younger adults are more likely to support gun safety measures than are people over age 50.

Finally, the NORC surveys asked about policies aimed at restricting criminals' access to guns. Such measures include prohibiting gun purchases by people convicted of certain crimes and increasing sentences for those convicted of using guns in crime. As Table 3 shows, most Americans want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals--even those convicted of misdemeanors-- and to punish the criminal misuse of guns. In the 1999 poll, as Table 1 indicates, nearly 70% of the respondents agreed that "the government should do everything it can to keep …

... I think we can complete that sentence with something like "guns out of the hands of criminals".

I trust that will help.

[Marengo]

86. Where does this poll address the issue raised in post 29?

I may very well be missing something, but I'm not seeing data relevant to the statement I was responding to. I was asking how he can know that the vast majority of Americans don't think about what, of or how, military assets may be used against them in a civil disturbance.

"My thought processes just don't run to considerations of which Army units or Air Force squadrons or Naval assets might hearken to any "side" in any civil disturbance. That is as remote from the normal train of thought for the vast majority of Americans as serious contemplation of an invasion from Mars, or the sudden rise from the ocean floor of the mythical city of Atlantis."

[DissedByBush]

91. One immediate glaring problem

Response bias. No verification was made for possession of firearms. For example, there is the growing environment of heavy unconstitutional regulation, more and more people are unwilling to admit whether they own guns for fear of forced registration or confiscation.

Another part is interesting. NORC puts guns under general subject. It's not under the people responsible for human rights, emergency preparedness, or homeland security. That's an instant bias framing it as just any issue, not an issue of infringement of constitutional rights.

And for a kicker, NORC's gun surveys are often supported by the anti-gun Joyce Foundation.

But here are some actual questions for you.

First, the bias in the term "limiting" in the published results. "Limit" in these cases means a total ban for civilian use.

Response: % for Limiting Sales of Semi-automatic Assault Weapons 82
Actual question: Should semi-automatic, assault weapons or semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles be sold to the general public or should their sales be limited to the military and police?
Bias: Using loaded, vague term of assault weapons. Factual error misusing the term "assault rifles," which describes selective-fire military rifles, to describe semi-automatic civilian rifles.

Response: % for Limiting Sales of High Power/50-caliber Rifles 85
Actual question: Currently under federal law, very high power, 50-caliber rifles that can penetrate armor from a mile away are available to people on the same basis as standard hunting rifles. Should such very high power rifles be 1) restricted only to the police and military, or 2) available to civilians like standard hunting rifles as they are at present?
Bias: Lack of information, it poses the .50 BMG as a crime issue, or having special danger. The fact is that a .50 BMG has not been used to kill ONE person in the United States. Also, any medium-sized rifle can penetrate low-level body armor, and many larger ones can do it from a mile, and they are considered hunting rifles.

Most questions otherwise generally rely on the ignorance of the person polled, keeping it out of context of the rights issue and into the crime issue in order to decrease pro-gun (pro-rights!!!) responses.

[PavePusher]

41. P.S. May I ask what your military credntials are? n/t

[apocalypsehow]

46. Sure. n/t.

[PavePusher]

47. With all due respect, what are your military credentials? n/t

[gejohnston]

65. may I answer for him?

He watched the movie War Games, Top Gun, and Patton. He also was squadron commander of the 1234 Debate Squadron, who's motto is "rant, ridicule, never thoughtful"

[PavePusher]

74. Well, it's been 24 hours....

I'll give it another 24 in case s/he's in a job with unusual shifts, but it ain't looking good....

[PavePusher]

82. Nigh on 48 hours, I call bullshit. n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

49. I thought the number of FN-FALs I saw was very strange.

I figured they would all be of some AK variant.

[Marengo]

87. There seem to be a fair number on the African continent...

surplussed off cheaply perhaps?

[WAFS]

68. Anti-gun people would like to keep all of those out of your hands.

Makes it easier for them to get the armed government agents to enforce their choices upon you. The elites don't like the idea of a populace that can defy them.

[iverglas]

79. yes, those "anti-gun" people, they want it to be ...

... easier for them to get the armed government agents to enforce their choices upon you. The elites don't like the idea of a populace that can defy them.

They are going to make you stop watching that NASCAR stuff and make you drive small, fuel-efficient foreign cars and make you drink wine -- that comes in a bottle. No more beer and pick-up trucks for you.

Like that?

The elites don't like the idea of a populace that can defy them.

I think you left out a word.

The librul elites don't like the idea of a populace that can defy them.

'Cause that's who these anti-gun people are, am I not right??

[ProgressiveProfessor]

88. You are not correct

Though your attitudes clear hearken from the right.

[apocalypsehow]

93. "Though your attitudes clear hearken from the right" - Care to explain how, exactly?

:shrug:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

94. Gun control has clear racist and classist roots

I consider those right wing values, don't you?

[apocalypsehow]

99. I consider someone who makes the statement "Gun control has clear racist and classist roots" with

any kind of straight face to simply be beyond a waste of time - especially considering that over the years in this locale that dreary, false meme has been debunked time & time & time & time &time & time & time & time & time & time & time & time &time & time & time & time & time & time & time & time &time & time & time & time & time & time & time & time &time & time & time & time & time & time & time & time &time & time & time & time & time & time & time & time &time & time & time & time & time & time & time & time &time & time & time & time & time & time & time & time &time & time & time & time & time & time & time & time &time & time & time & time & time & time & time & time &time & time & time & time & time & time & time & time &time & time & time & time & time & time & time & time &time & time & time & time & time AGAIN by the most consistently progressive voice in this place, as you well know.

I consider assertions of such nonsense in the face of the oft-stated & constantly stated truth to be right in line with a dedication to a certain set of "values," alright - and I'll be damned if the descriptive "right wing" doesn't cover it well!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

101. Actually it has not been debunked...its a clear historical fact.

and the antis with integrity admit it, but claim this is another day. Given that, their claim of different circumstances has some merit. Those who remain in denial are laughable.

Not clear who you consider the most progressive voice in this place. If it is who I think you might nominate for that honor, the only proper response would be "Snork"

Deal with the facts and don't cry "right wing" etc. It is personal attack under DU rules.

The current stats are showing personal firearms, even those being carried by civilians. are not a problem in US society. You may not like them, but that is no reason to limit others.

[apocalypsehow]

103. Actually, it has been debunked, "professor," REPEATEDLY - and my post above stands un-refuted.

"The current stats are no showing personal firearms, even those being carried by civilians. are not a problem in society. You may not like them, but that is no reason to limit others"

Incoherent silliness.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

106. Snork

Nothing has been debunked by you. All you have posted is unsupported assertions and refused to address meaningful questions. However, you are providing some mild entertainment...

Who is the most "the most consistently progressive voice in this place" Inquiring minds want to know.

Do you have and stats to show that personal firearms are creating additional problems in society?

Glad to see you are backing of the personal attack content

Antis who hate/are sacred of/want to get rid of guns but are open about why have integrity to their positions. They state why they believe what they believe, and do not claim their assumptions as bedrock facts. They get considerable respect from me and others for that. I recall a now departed anti who claimed that he could not control his anger in a couple of situations so he knew he should not own a firearm. He also projected that on to others. I respected the integrity but vehemently disagreed with the projection part. Nonetheless, he was respected, while many other antis are not.

[apocalypsehow]

108. More nice, semi-coherent stuff. n/t.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

111. Snork**2

And not even the mildest attempt to answer the questions or address the issues on your part

[apocalypsehow]

113. That's nice. n/t.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

119. Your concession is noted

[apocalypsehow]

120. Your inability to construct a coherent reply is apparent, and needs no "noting." n/t.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

122. When you abandon the thread and post what you did, no reply is needed

You still have not responded to points well up thread

[oneshooter]

123. And I bet he won't answer. Fear does that to some people. n/t