It's not so much what you say

[Katya Mullethov]

It's what you do .
http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=california+senate+exempt+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=8028bb1e4b0dc902&biw=1680&bih=911

[bluerum]

1. Have to agree with that.

[sharesunited]

2. Come on, now. You don't think legislators who are trying to stop gun violence are specifically

threatened by a deranged cross-section who are armed and want to kill them?

To paint them as elitist is entirely unfair.

No secret service detail is assigned to them.

Are you somehow equating your imaginary needs for self protection with their genuine ones?

[eqfan592]

6. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

OMFG that is possibly the richest post I have ever seen on this forum.

Somebody needs to set this one in some sort of hall of fame. If it was coming from anybody else it would likely be accompanied by a "sarcasm" tag.

[sharesunited]

7. So who can you legitimately say is after you? Anybody? Is it all in your head?

Yeah that is one scrambled mess up there.

[eqfan592]

9. Lol, nobody is after me.

Or at least, not me specifically. But having run into street crime a handful of times, I know for a fact every day folks have very legitimate reasons to wish to have a means of defending themselves.

And really the only scrambled mess is your first post I replied to. I mean seriously, that was classic!

[NewMoonTherian]

11. Local members of a certain gang which I'd rather not call by name.

Stems from when a close family member confronted one of them(unknowingly) about his affair with another relative of mine. That led to an attempted murder, a self-defense shooting(the gang member survived), multiple(very graphic, specific) death threats, and a restraining order.

Without going into further detail, do these circumstances satisfy your criteria for a genuine threat?

(I'll redundantly note here that, for my purposes, I don't really care whether you approve of my decisions. This is sheerly for the sake of the debate.)

[RSillsbee]

12. Psychotic ass drug dealing, ex-con former SIL

suspected of several murders both in and out of prison

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. I can not post who is after me ... that would be revealing too much personal info.

[one-eyed fat man]

10. So are you signing up for the palace guards?

But, again, you claim Chicago as home. Your alderman have for years had the right to carry concealed at the same time they do everything they can to subvert their subjects the same.

No wonder you think that is normal, you should kowtow to your betters who rule your glorious city.

[RandomThoughts]

3. In case someone gets a different google search result.

The first response had 'this aint hell' no duh, I have said that is a false thing used against people.

However there are places of hardship that people are in, and other things that are layered behind or within existence.

The other comment said something about the Senate being better, most likely a comment about censorship, including the modifications to things like searches, forums, and video clips.

I am not on that level, and actually not playing a game.


And you don't understand, first off, if it was that lack of justice and lack of compassion was existence, then nothing would matter anyways, so the best decision is to do things with the assumption it does, and within that assumption, those that don't correct what they should will be removed or depleted of what they have that allows them any influence. And eventually dependant on amount of years and survival time, the beer and travel money will be sent.

As far as the 'senate' being better, it is not about some vague noun like the Senate, becuase how does that change that I am due beer and travel money.

And how could you say they are 'better' you can only say that based on your determination of what that means, not my determination of what that means, and why would I even worry about who was 'better' I have posted many times that it is about everyone having some good and bad.

And that I am due beer and travel money.


Here is the thing, becuase society should be more just and compassionate, it will be corrected. Not sure who will live longer, and how long it will take, but that is not the point, it will be correct, or it will continued to be shown to be wrong until death.

Your statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the reason and rational. You think it is might makes right, and you will ultimately live in that existence.




Brothers in Arms - Dire Straits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5JkHBC5lDs

Bonnie Raitt - I Can't Make You Love Me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW9Cu6GYqxo

Bonnie Raitt - Nick Of Time
http://www.123video.nl/playvideos.asp?MovieID=407128

Dire Straits - Walk of Life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CknuCTRAW_I

[Euromutt]

4. That's 28 state senators who need a remedial civics class

It's an essential element of democratic rule of law via the separation of powers that the legislative branch of government in no circumstances be permitted to exempt itself from laws it imposes on the general populace. Nothing provides a better deterrent against the legislature passing bad legislation than the knowledge it would apply to the members themselves.

It would be nice if I could find corroboration of this story from another source, though.

[Euromutt]

5. Hold on, the Washington Times got it wrong!

SB 610 did originally contain a provision that the "good cause" requirement for a CCW permit would be deemed to be met for "any applicant who is a member of Congress, a statewide elected official, or a Member of the Legislature, for purposes of protection or self-defense," but that provision was struck before the bill was voted on.

[Katya Mullethov]

8. THen the right thing to do

WOuld be to retract this vicious rumor . I should have known better .

[Doctor_J]

16. The Moonie Times retract a slander against Dems?

:rofl:

What YOU should do is delete the OP and post an apology for spreading right-wing lies here.

[Doctor_J]

17. uh, no, they LIED

"got it wrong" implies a mistake.

[Euromutt]

30. I have no way of telling whether the falsehood was knowing and deliberate

As I said, the bill did previously contain a provision in effect exempting members of the state legislature (among others) from having to show "good cause" when applying for a CCW permit, so the WT wasn't fabricating that out of whole cloth. The error lay in failing to notice that provision had been struck from the bill, and I can't tell whether that was due sloppy research or done deliberately.

[ileus]

13. Classic we're better than you decision.

[slackmaster]

14. George Orwell is proved right once again

Some animals are more equal than others.

[Doctor_J]

15. Oh, man. The gun culture once again goes to the Moonie Times for propaganda

It's a travesty that that rag is allowed to be used as a source at the democratic underground.

[Upton]

18. Oh, man..this is the Democratic Underground

not the Anti-gun Underground..

And if considering it my responsibility and not relying on the government to protect myself and my loved ones makes me part of the "gun culture"..then I'm proud to be considered a member..

[Doctor_J]

20. If you consider the Moonie Times a source for reliable,

or even rational, information, then I will take EVERYTHING you say with a large portion of salt. Gun lovers are not my problem. DUers who use the Moonie Times, Reason Rag, foxnation, the Murdoch Journal, or World Nut Daily as evidence of anything are.

[gejohnston]

25. ever heard of gentic fallacy?

Do you think Think Progress would publish a paper by a criminologist that points out how absurd the AWB was? No. They do blindly print any easily debunked nonsense Brady talking point, and even takes Al Qadia leader seriously even though he had no idea what he was talking about. Rachel Maddow and Thom Hartmann even jumped on it, even though they know better.

[Euromutt]

32. "Allowed to be used as a source" - see, I don't even get that mindset

The idea that certain sources of news should even be out of bounds, I just don't get it. Just because you refer to it doesn't mean you automatically endorse that particular item, let alone anything else the source says.

And leaving aside the gratuitous sniping at Democrats in that particular piece (the two Democrats who proposed are highly regarded by the Cal. Rifle & Pistol Association, btw), and the fact the author didn't bother to find out that the provision he took exception to had been struck from the bill, it would be a topic worthy of debate if any legislature wrote itself a de facto exemption to the law.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. As usual, extremely anti-Progressive.

This is a perfect example of gun control at its finest. The rich, powerful, and connected will always have the means to protect themselves. Either they will hire themselves private security details or they will procure arms for themselves.

The average citizen, however, will have none of those benefits. They will have to either submit to their assailant or engage in a physical contest of strength trying to resist. The weak will be at the mercy of the strong.

Gun control is the antithesis of Progressive.

[Doctor_J]

21. No, this extemely INACCURATE

as is everything published in the Moonie Times. As for gun control being anti-progressive, if you believe that, then your definition of progressive is anti-reality. It's the far right who is 100% against any limitations on citizens' fire power.

[eqfan592]

22. Simply because some...

...who ID themselves as progressives don't support what is a progressive ideal doesn't make the ideal not progressive.

This is an issue where the far right is actually right, and has been schooling us on it for some time.

[Doctor_J]

26. Poll 1000 right-wingers and 1000 libs & Dems, on the question

"Do you think there should be any limits on the 2nd Amendment" and see how the %ages come out. Complete freedom to own & carry guns is identified almost solely with the fringe right. So calling it a progressive ideal is ridiculous

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. just goes to show

that the left can be brainwashed as easily as the right has been on abortion.

[gejohnston]

28. define complete freedom

I doubt you would get more than two percent on any side to repeal any of the current federal laws. There is also a fringe left that was behind Diane Feinstien's recall when she was mayor of San Francisco on this same issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Panther_Party

If you make the mix of
rural Dems
urban Dems
rural Rep
urban Rep

your numbers would be more clear.

[spin]

31. True, "Complete freedom to own & carry guns is identified almost solely with the fringe right."

However many Democrats favor existing laws or minor improvements to them and do not favor the draconian ideas supported by the most liberal portion of our party such as another assault weapons ban, gun registration or idiotic schemes such as micro-stamping ammunition.

The fact is that many Democrats own firearms and the highest percentage of Democrats own them for self defense.



While it is true that A lower percentage of Democrats own firearms than Republicans, many Democrats live in firearm unfriendly urban areas of the nation such as Chicago, San Francisco or New York City where owning and carrying firearms is restricted and difficult compared to other areas of the nation.



Note source for graphs: http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

It always amazes me that many Democrats fail to understand just how progressive firearm ownership is. Trusting in the ability of the average citizen to own an use firearms and even use them to overthrow a tyranny is truly necessary is an extremely progressive idea. The founding fathers were extremely progressive for their time and even today they would be considered progressive in many areas of the world. The First and Second Amendments in the Bill of Rights were some of the most progressive words ever written.

Power to the people!

[gejohnston]

23. Only because it serves their purpose for the moment.

Most if not all of the gun laws being repealed were written by the right to disarm union rights activists and minorities in the late 19th early 20th centuries. Until the 1960s, many southern states had very strict gun laws, for example South Carolina banned handguns from 1902-1965 by anyone "not appointed as deputy by the sheriff" which meant the Klan could have all of the guns they wanted, but not me.

[Atypical Liberal]

24. What, specifically, is inaccurate?

No, this extemely INACCURATE as is everything published in the Moonie Times.

I am not familiar with the Moonie Times, so perhaps you could let me know what in my post you are referring to as inaccurate?

As for gun control being anti-progressive, if you believe that, then your definition of progressive is anti-reality. It's the far right who is 100% against any limitations on citizens' fire power.

To me, being Progressive means standing up for the little guy in the face of powerful interests. For example, people unionize so that their voices together can counter the interests of powerful corporations. Progressives stand for racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities in the face of more powerful majority interests. Progressives stand to protect the environment against the predations of powerful profit-driven interests. Being Progressive means standing up for the weak in the face of the strong.

But gun control is the exact opposite of this. Gun control affects only the common man. In New York, the only people who can obtain concealed carry permits are wealthy or politically-connected individuals. If the dream of people like sharesunited came to pass, and all firearms were banned, the only people really affected by this would be the common man. Rich and powerful people would still have firearms, or they would hire private security details to protect them. And criminals almost certainly would still have access to them.

But even if we could somehow get rid of every firearm in the world, so that criminals did not have them, it would not end violent crime. All it would mean that is that every time there was a violent crime the victim of that crime would have three choices: Run if they were fast enough, submit if they can survive submission, or fight back if they are strong enough to win a contest of physical strength against their attacker.

No matter what the choice, the weak would be at the mercy of the strong.

This is completely at odds with the Progressive ideal as I hold it.