Oh dear, Lo-Do was just scolding us about guns and Wisconsin.

[PavePusher]

I only caught the last two minutes, so I'm not sure what he was cross about. My guess is Wisconsins' imminent Concealed Carry laws?

I'm glad he gets off on being so patronizing, I guess someone has to.

But in my mind he's merely a fat-headed, fatuous, mealy-mouthed wanker.

There, I feel better now....

[baldguy]

1. The RW extremists in charge of WI make it easier for the anti-choice terrorist Ralph Lang to get gun

And you're pissed at Lawrence for pointing out the truth about how incredibly stupid they are for doing it?

Of course you are.

[Logical]

3. Wow, are you really that easily fooled.......

So you think someone who wants to kill abortion doctors will give up that dream because he cannot legally buy a gun? Really?
LOL. I guess you also think the war on drugs have stopped heroin sales!

[Hoyt]

7. You do have a point, gunners are "hooked/addicted" to weapons.

[spin]

8. No more than a golfer is hooked to his clubs ...

or a fisherman is addicted to his collection of rods and reels.

You ability to exaggerate is only exceeded by your vivid imagination.

[Logical]

9. Another brilliant post that means nothing......

How are you going to stop people who want guns from getting them illegally?

[ergot]

4. What is your magic solution to the problem of evil persons finding guns?

Make it illegal? Sure, that'll work.

[lawodevolution]

10. how about a gun ban, because you know a criminal will follow the law and turn in his guns.

[PavePusher]

5. As I stated in my post, I missed the majority of his rant.

What part of that did you not understand?

[gejohnston]

6. What does concealed carry have to do with Ralph Lang?

The two are different issues. By the way, where did Lang get his gun?

[petronius]

11. The problem with people like Lang has nothing to do with guns. You know that, don't you?

[baldguy]

12. When a terrorist wants to commit mass murder, the FIRST thing he thinks of is getting a gun.

The more bullets it carries & the faster rate of fire, the better.

If America was run by sane people, we'd try to prevent terrorists and others prone to violence from getting guns. Instead we encourage them, due to the influence of RW front groups like the NRA.

[eqfan592]

17. We don't limit an activity....

....that millions of people take part of legally and safely because of the actions of an extremely small minority, especially when such restrictions will do almost nothing to prevent that small minority from completing their tasks anyway (reloading a magazine is not the excruciatingly complicated task that people such as your self seem to think it is). That is NOT how a free society works. People like yourself miss the deeper issues at play because you are so hung up on a single facet, the implement used. You're so hung up on a single tree that you are blind to the forest.

[baldguy]

24. We register cars. We license drivers.

But we don't have the RW propaganda machine saying that Americans don't have freedom of movement - and the legion of moron drivers to believe it.

[cleanhippie]

26. Broken record nonsense.

Driving a car on a public road is not a right.

[beevul]

27. Ignorance is not a virtue.

"We register cars."

To USE in public, not simply to own.



"We license drivers."

To drive in public, not to drive on ones own property.

[PavePusher]

18. By that logic, there should be NICS checks for purchasing utility knives at hardware stores.

Phale.

[gejohnston]

20. How

Terrorists tend to use bombs. Given that the NRA is older than dirt, has various factions how is it a front group for anyone? How does it encourage terrorists to get guns? Some other anti asked me why I asked a series of questions about how much they know about current gun laws or of Europe. The answer is very simple. Since I have never found an anti with a logical argument, I wanted to see if their views are actually based on any thought or if they were parroting talking points they believed. Quite frankly, I have yet to find an anti who knows what they are talking about on the subject.

[petronius]

25. Millions of Americans own, use, and carry firearms safely, legally, and responsibly

Terrorists like Lang are few. Effective solutions to the few will not be found by piling unjustified limitations and restrictions on the many.

I think we have a basic philosophical difference: some people see a problem like Lang and they want to 'do something' - and if that something seems to make sense and doesn't interfere with anything they care about, they don't look any farther. On the other hand, I see a problem like Lang, but I don't want to just 'do something' until it's clear that that something will be effective, and will avoid as far as possible any undesirable side effects...

[gejohnston]

28. How?

How as Wisconsin making it easier for anyone to get a gun? They did not relax state laws, they can't trump federal gun control laws. What is this "truth"?

[PavePusher]

29. How did they make it "easier"? Please be specific. n/t

[Logical]

2. I think his intent is good, but he is clueless about it being practical.....

He acts like if CC licenses are required then criminals will not carry guns.

Like a criminal is going to say "well, I can't carry a gun now because I do not have a CC license"

His rant was very illogical. Made no practical sense.

[onehandle]

13. Conservatives are AWESOME!

Wisconsin is becoming the Perfect state.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[PavePusher]

16. So, you are O.K. with the state government that does this shit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4865948

...being the ones to decide who does and doesn't have access to another Constitutional Civil Right?

Serious cognitive dissonance, much?

[RSillsbee]

19. I thought DU rules permit you to tell another member you're putting them on ignore

provided you actually do so

[onehandle]

21. I've never put anyone on ignore, so I wouldn't know.

And that isn't why the above poster's post was deleted.

[PavePusher]

15. O.K., finally played his entire "lecture" from his MSNBC site.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43200593#43200593

Through the dripping paternalism, condescension, fear, and misdirection, he didn't actually address the subject at all. What does Lang have to do with Constitutional Carry?

Why does Lo-Do hate the Constitutions of both the U.S. and Wisconsin?


The best response I can come up with is to post this:

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/05/robert-farago/three-reasons-why-constitutional-carry-no-ccw-permit-is-not-insane/

"Three Reasons Why Constitutional Carry (No CCW Permit) is Not Insane

“ Republicans are considering two versions of the concealed carry law,” columnist Eugene Kane writes for jsonline.com, ”which I would label thusly: There’s the ‘sane’ bill and the ‘insane’ bill. The sane version – which I oppose – would allow gun owners to apply for permits and receive required training to carry concealed weapons in most public areas but with some restrictions. The insane version – which I vehemently oppose – would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public without any permit or training required.” So why is the second version bonkers? Kane reckons it’s so obvious he doesn’t really need to explain his position . . .


His dietribe starts with a restaurant shooting that has nothing whatsoever to do with legal concealed carry. It’s an excellent indication that the writer relies on rational thought to oppose permitless or Constitutional Carry like Lindsay Lohan relies on the Mormon Church to stay sober. In terms of explaining the “lunacy” of the “buy a gun stick it in a holster” concept, this is about as good as it gets:

Supporters of the latter, the so-called constitutional carry, don’t think that government can give permission for something they believe is guaranteed under the right to bear arms.

You can argue with these people until you’re blue in the face that it’s not 1776 anymore, but that won’t make them budge from their position."


More at link.

In fact, I think I'll make a seperate thread on this article.

[DonP]

22. Well, for 2 minutes you almost doubled his audience

OK, I'm exaggerating, but not by much.

I get the Nielsen's every week and dailies are available to me online. Based on his audience numbers, especially in the prime demographics, the condescending "professor lectures the class" style is not wearing well with the viewers. And advertisers pay for the numbers.

People vote with their remotes every few minutes.

[PavePusher]

23. Actually, if any Professor lectured like Lo-Do...

treating her/his students like mentally stunted children, I doubt they'd last long, or be at all popular. Treating your customers like they are brain-damaged doesn't win hearts and... errr... minds.