Is the "Gun Dungeon" a "fringe" or "extremist" forum?

[-..__...]

That is... does it attract a higher percentage of people (on both sides of the issue), that espouse beliefs/opinions that fall outside what could be considered the mainstream/consensus of DU?

If so... provide an example or two of extremist beliefs/rhetoric posted here; either pro 2nd amendment, or anti 2nd amendment.

[Tikki]

1. Some people love their guns so much....

that they think their guns love them back....


Tikki

[SteveM]

14. Thanks for allowing us an example of gun prohibition extremism...

saves me the trouble.

[Hoyt]

37. Seems like it, doesn't it? LOL

[rl6214]

99. And you backed up the OPs post

[cleanhippie]

78. I think you proved the OP's point.

[sakabatou]

2. delete

[Bragi]

3. They are proponents of fear, just like right wingers

Like right wing gun advocates, DU gun fans always try to justify carrying lethal weapons through fearmongering about how everyone you meet is a potential threat, and all the terrible things that can happen to those of us who live our lives unafraid and unarmed.

Their fear-based advocacy of arming citizens with lethal weapons is socially dysfunctional, and isn't at all typical of mainstream sentiment on DU.

[RC]

7. +10 What Bragi said.

[Katya Mullethov]

10. Scary aint it ?

[Bragi]

11. Here's an example from today of this kind of fearmongering

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x475298

[SteveM]

17. Your's is an example of distortion and, yes, fearmongering...

The poster provided an example of why firearms are necessary for self-defense, or in this particular case, defending others. It is not advocacy that everyone arm themselves, but a caution that one should not take actions like this without being properly armed.

Questions to you: What would you have done if you were in the victim's shoes?

[Bragi]

21. Which victim? The alleged "good samaritan"?

I would have declined to play pretend cop and refrained from rushing blindly into an unknown situation inflict harm on a presumed assailant using either a deadly weapon or a baseball bat.

I'd perhaps instead have called in the professionals who are licensed and trained to do this kind of work.

[SteveM]

23. You should read Gandhi...

You cannot bear to mention that a good samaratin was doing the right thing.

Gandhi followed Ahimsa, the say of self-defense which was to prevent an attack on yourself, your family, your community, without harming the attacker, even to the point of sacrificing yourself.

In the alternative (recognizing that comparatively few would practice Ahimsa), he said that using deadly force was not only justified, but a responsibility.

Oh, the third alternative? To watch it go down without taking action? He termed that "cowardice."

That's the problem with so many folks who follow an Americanized vulgar pacifism: They equate pacifism with standing by and letting someone else (the police?) "do this kind of work." It's called irresponsibility. It's called cowardice. And it breeds contempt for those who do take responsibility for self-defense.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starboard Tack]

43. What would you have done Steve?

There are many options between Dirty Harry and cowardice. Obviously a baseball bat was a poor one. Do you think adding another gun to the equation would have been better.

[Hoopla Phil]

73. Obviously the police think that "adding another gun to the equation would have been better".

So why not for the average law abiding citizen? I sure as Hell would have.

What would YOU have done? Would have done as the person upthread advocated and stood by on the phone with police and hope they get there in time? Or would you actually DO something to help your fellow citizen?

[Starboard Tack]

82. I don't know what I would have done, because I wasn't there

But I would have done something to hopefully defuse the situation, and maybe I would have gotten shot too, but I would not have stood by and I would not have killed anyone. When I see someone in trouble, I come to their aid in the best way I can. Where do you come up with the idea that the police thought adding another gun would have been better?

[Hoopla Phil]

116. Where do I get that idea???!!! Really? If you really cannot think of it

I'll be as plain as I can. Because they always bring one with them, sometimes two. So why not the average law abiding citizen?

So you will ask someone what THEY would have done but cannot answer the question yourself. Hummmm. . .

[Starboard Tack]

123. Good to know you're out there for us, Hoopla

You ask "why not the average law abiding citizen?" Apparently no reason apart from the fact that the idea of carrying a gun would never occur to the average law abiding citizen.

[Hoopla Phil]

124. Really? Have you seen the graphic of the US where CHL laws are sweeping the country?

Surely you have as it's been posted here on DU many times.

But I notice you did not answer the question, why should the average law abiding citizen be barred from the most affective tool for self defense?

[Starboard Tack]

127. I would prefer they not be barred. Most of us just have better sense than to carry them around.

For some, a handgun is considered the most effective tool for self-defense. For others, it is considered the worst tool for self-defense. Personally, I consider my brain to be the best tool.
I have seen the graphic that shows CHL laws sweeping the country. You assume that this phenomenon represents the thinking of the majority of the people. I think it demonstrates the effective lobbying and bullying of the NRA. Doesn't make it right or sane. Just more Faustian political dealing.

[Hoopla Phil]

132. So, even when CHL laws are placed on the ballet for the people to decide on

(as was done in Texas) you still think it is not the will of the people? So in the example of this thread how would you have used your head as self defense? As far as the most affective means of defense goes, I'll go with what the cops use.

[Starboard Tack]

135. The will of the electorate to buy into propaganda is very different

from the desire of the majority of people to tote handguns around on a routine basis. I don't know which example you are referring to and I really don't understand what you mean by "affective means of defense", but assume you mean that cops use the most emotional means of defense. I seriously hope you are wrong. We need cops to be level headed, especially if they are armed.

[Hoopla Phil]

136. Ok, I get it. The outcome of a vote is irrelevant if you decide it is.

Yeah, ok.

[SteveM]

92. Possibly. One can threaten, display, fire a warning, What would you do?

[Starboard Tack]

95. Dunno. I wasn't there, but I would have done whatever I could to defuse the situation

I definitely would not have introduced any other weapon into the mix. Increasing the threat level, in my experience and as happened in this case, usually leads to disastrous consequences.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. So you'd stand by and watch someone get savagely beaten, and possibly killed?

It's your choice of course. You are entitled to do so.

[safeinOhio]

77. Made me think.

Would you have stepped in with your side arm to protect Rodney King?

[AtheistCrusader]

81. I don't know.

I would like to think I was brave enough to do so. I would hold no illusions about my chances of surviving such an encounter, that's for sure. I would certainly die. I might be vindicated post mortem. Small consolation, but there is the whole 'doing the right thing', thing, and I'd like to think I would do so, even for a stranger.

Still, hard to say. One might, in the end, chicken out. That's a daunting hypothetical. Five power tripping assholes, believing themselves to be acting under color of law... The odds don't get much longer than that.

[RSillsbee]

64. A baseball bat IS a deadly weapon NT

[pipoman]

85. Reminds me of the 'caught on tape' attacks

on innocent people where 10 people stand around and watch someone get beaten to death. There was an example of this not long ago in a McDonalds. A group of people stood by and watched 2 women kicking another woman into a comma..Help yourself. When seconds count the police are minutes away.

[RC]

62. I t sure is.

Not so much the guns themselves, it is the mind set of too many people that guns are the only answer.
This can be compared to everything looking like a nail when your tool of choice is a hammer. Never mind the other tools in the tool box. That is the scary part.

[Hoopla Phil]

74. Guns ARE in fact one of the tools in the tool chest. That's why cops carry them.

Are you suggesting that the average law abiding citizen should not have access to that tool?

[safeinOhio]

165. We need a screw driver forum

here at DU.

[gejohnston]

107. who here ever said

that guns are always the answer? There are rare times where they could be the only answer, which is quite different.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

19. Todays fearmongering, brought to you by...

The republican founded repuvlican led brady campaign to prevent guns - aka the brady bunch:





Anything anyone might be accused of, or even have really done, on the pro-rights side of the equation, PALES in comparison.

[Hoopla Phil]

75. Were they not the ones that gave a revolver to a toddler to play with and

take pictures of it for their propaganda?

[safeinOhio]

80. Yup ,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy8RIiTyhMI

[aikoaiko]

22. Is that like the anti-gun folks who think every legal owned gun is a murder weapon waiting to happen

:shrug:

[DrDan]

28. aren't guns all about killing? Isn't that their purpose?

[ileus]

29. No they're for saving lives, hunting, target shooting.

[DrDan]

33. "saving lives" by inflicting injury/death on others, hunting is killing, target shooting

is to improve one's aim so as to be more effective in shooting something/someone

[ileus]

35. You say potato, I say orange.

My self defense firearms are charged with saving/protecting the lives of my family and I or other innocents (depending)I could hardly careless about someone that desires to bring harm to anyone.

Hunting is a a wonderful sport, I don't get to go that much 5-10 times a year maybe with the kids, on the rare occasion we may harvest some critter.
I do enjoy varmint hunting. Eh....you say kill I say harvest/reduce, I'll give you 50% credit on this one.


target shooting...is target shooting. If you don't hunt (most don't) and if you don't carry a SD firearm (most don't) it's just target shooting. Maybe you shoot skeet or clays, maybe you shoot circles or X's on paper to see the tightest group you can manage...it's not practice for hunting or SD.

Training isn't target shooting.

Sighting in isn't target shooting.

Cowboy action and 3 gun matches....well you'd just have to attend to understand how much fun these sports are.



Or it's all killing...rabbit season

[oneshooter]

53. "Physician heal thyself" How many have your fellow "doctors" killed by "accident". n/t

[pipoman]

86. Tell it to these people..

US Olympic Shooting Medalists..bunch of blood thirsty murders in training?

[hack89]

88. You leave out shooting for the pure enjoyment of it

the skill involved, the social interactions with friends and family, the pleasure of holding and using well made machines.

In 30 years of shooting I have never killed anyone - am I doing some wrong in your eyes?

[DrDan]

90. did I say anything about killing "anyone" - the killing could be an animal being hunted

the purpose of the gun in that situation is clear.

[hack89]

91. So what is the purpose of guns that are never used to kill?

but are use solely for fun and recreation? When I purchased my AR-15 I never considered using it to kill anyone - it is too big for self defense and I don't hunt. I bought it simply because I like shooting rifles. So why do you need to take it away from me?

[jmg257]

42. I think we refer to that as 'stopping the threat' and 'harvesting'. nt

[DrDan]

83. eases the conscious, I guess

[aikoaiko]

45. Killing, however does not equal murder

[DrDan]

84. agree

[gejohnston]

137. feel the same way about archery?

fencing? Kendo (ok, that is redundant when you think about it.) Same concept.

[ileus]

30. Or that all gun owners are hidden criminals, not yet discovered....

[Union Scribe]

52. Exactly. The only fearmongering I see in this forum

comes from people who insist that their fellow law-abiding citizens are all ticking time bombs that cannot be trusted with a weapon.

[DrDan]

27. What Bragi said

[TheWraith]

4. Any activist group is going to be a minority.

Only a small percentage of people who care about an issue are going to care so much about it as to participate in discussions like this. That doesn't mean the others aren't there, it just means a group like this is self-selecting.

[MineralMan]

5. That seems like a question for the ATA forum.

The Guns Forum was here when I joined DU in 2008. The administrators of DU apparently thought it was a good idea to put firearms discussions in a separate forum. Why they made that decision is something I do not know. The ATA forum is a great place to ask such questions, since an administrator will answer the question directly. Mostly they don't join discussions like this one, so everyone is just guessing.

[Ptah]

8. The OP is a result of this ATA question, I think.

"Are we going to be able to hide all of the fringe and extremist forums in DU3?

9/11, IP, Guns, Lounge, etc."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x4859

[iverglas]

13. snork

Not that I can figure out why anybody ever wants to "hide" anything (or "ignore" other posters). Strikes me as weird, but there you go.

There's a commonality among the forums named (well, other than the Lounge thing), isn't there?

"Extremist" doesn't exactly do the idea justice, though.

:rofl:

[rl6214]

101. That's why you're here, right?

:rofl:

[-..__...]

9. ATA forum?

Thanks... wish I had thought of that sooner...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x4859

[iverglas]

6. can you make that a poll? ;)

On second thought, no, because it's a pointless question.

I'm an "extremist" on the subject of reproductive rights, by many people's definition, I would imagine. I brook no interference in the exercise of those rights, just as I brook no interference in the exercise of the right to life, without a complete demonstration of justification. So what?

Extremism can be a good thing. So there's very little point in simply characterizing someone's position as "extreme" or the person as "extremist".

The very concept depends on context. In a society where women were fully recognized by the mass of the society's members as equal human beings, the position that virtually no interference in women's reproductive rights is permissible would just be mainstream, and those who held it would simply be "centrists", I guess.

I don't see many firearms control "extremists" here -- people who want to prohibit firearms possession, say. And those I see generally turn out to have short lives, because they are wearing another mammal's coat in any event.

I also don't see many anti-firearms control "extremists", really -- people who want to eliminate all regulation of firearms possession.

I do see other kinds of "extremists", like people who simply reject basic concepts, as expressed in their constitutions, like the right to life. People at the opposite end of that particular spectrum from me.


typo fixed

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[LAGC]

38. That's funny.

Whenever anyone considers free speech controls: the right of the 99% to peaceably assemble, etc. its pretty clear the authorities are against the First Amendment.

Yet when people suggest gun controls, on a right that "shall not be infringed" -- that isn't trampling on the Second Amendment?

Sounds a bit hypocritical to me...

[TheWraith]

60. You're not against rights, you're just against people exercising those rights.

Got it.

By the way, your language sounds amazingly like that of the people who insist that gay people getting married is somehow an outrageous "special right." It's worth reexamining your assumptions when your language suddenly flips a 180, like defending the "terror watch list" as a precaution against people buying guns instead of the violation of due process we all agreed it was when applied to airline travel.

[hack89]

89. So the government has the power to put bounds on individual right?

So laws prohibiting OWS from camping overnight are not an un-Constitutional infringement on the 1A?

[iverglas]

96. um, duh

Tried shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre that isn't on fire lately?

Perhaps you have somehow acquired the weird notion that there are only two options:

- no limits on the exercise of a right are permissible
- all limits on the exercise of a right are permissible

I'm sure that when you see the absurdity of that in black and white, like, you'll come up with another possibility.

[hack89]

100. Oh for sure

fortunately we have found a good balance in regards to the 2A.

I was just tweaking him to see how he would respond - usually hyperbolic posters like him can be comic gold if you get them going in the right direction.

[flamin lib]

15. It's a religious forum.

Praise Glock from which bullets flow,
Praise Glock all gunners here below,
Praise Glock above ye legislators,
Praise Glock the Second and NRA.
Amen

[SteveM]

18. Actually it's a respectable way to hate...

as the extremists gun-controllers regularly do.

[gejohnston]

49. Why Glock?

How about mix it up? Ruger, Colt, Walther, HK, FN,
at least then it will look like you know what you are talking about.

[oneshooter]

54. because he is honest. He doesn't know what he is talking about.

[iverglas]

66. I think they may have actually missed the theology here

Allow me to help out. Those in the dark deserve to appreciate!


Praise God from whom all blessings flow;
Praise Him all creatures here below;
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Amen.


It wouldn't be quite the doxology if the second and third lines were changed to "Thor" and "Shiva", for example.

iverglas, atheist for 40+ years, always happy to lend a hand to the theologically challenged

[rl6214]

102. Actually I'm not at all fond of glocks

[ileus]

20. Is there a more progressive right than the 2A?

As a moderate when it comes to the 2nd I don't think there's a more important right than to live peacefully and safely in an unpredictable society.

[iverglas]

44. wtf is a "progressive right"?

Can't we at least try to make sense here occasionally?

A right is a right. It just is. Some exercises of rights are good, some aren't. Eye of the beholder and all that.

The second amendment to your constitution is just a notion a few old dead white guys put down on parchment with a couple of quills.

Constitution-wise, I got the right to vote, you got some kind of right to do something or other with guns. I get the right to equality under the law and the equal benefit of the law, you didn't. I got language rights, you didn't. You got a right not to be deprived of property without due process, I didn't (in so many words, anyhow).

Anyhow, you're just talking weird here:

a ... right than to live peacefully and safely

Good lord, next thing you'll be saying there's a right to food and health care.

How many times have we been told in this forum that there is no right to safety? let alone peace, ye gods. Let me count the ways ...

If there actually were a right to safety (and in fact there is a growing consensus that there is), you and your guns might find yourselves on the outside looking in, I hate to tell you.

[TheWraith]

61. Presumably, a right which empowers average people.

In this case to protect themselves and their family without dependence on someone else. And more importantly, it conveys trust in people. The fundamental tenet of conservatism, it seems to me, is a lack of trust in common folks. That "those people" need to be controlled and governed "for their own good." The public being armed is in large part the opposite of that--it signals trust in the people, and that on the whole most folks when given the opportunity to make their own choices will make the right ones. Same as the government not controlling who you sleep with, your uterus, your choice of recreational drugs, etcetera.

[iverglas]

65. sorry, it's just gibberish

We can all use the word "right" to mean whatever we might like, and descend into the Twilight Zone world where meanings are just arbitrary choices. I prefer not to.

In this case to protect themselves and their family without dependence on someone else. And more importantly, it conveys trust in people. The fundamental tenet of conservatism, it seems to me, is a lack of trust in common folks.

Again, this "liberal" and "conservative" is not a language I speak.

I will say the exact opposite: the fundamental tenet of the right wing is the rejection of collective responsibility and requirement that all collective action be rejected.

And that sounds a lot like what you're saying.

That "those people" need to be controlled and governed "for their own good."

Nonsense, and you know it. The right wing does not do things for anyone's good but its own.

The public being armed is in large part the opposite of that--it signals trust in the people, and that on the whole most folks when given the opportunity to make their own choices will make the right ones.

Actually, that's right-wing libertarianism. If you advocate this approach in this instance, you must surely advocate the elimination of public schools, just for starters. People will just all make their own individual right choices. How they get the means to make those choices, that's no one's concern.

Just like whether people have safe communities is no one's concern. Let them have guns.

Same as the government not controlling who you sleep with, your uterus, your choice of recreational drugs, etcetera.

Not remotely same as, and you know that too.

[Starboard Tack]

24. The ongoing debate surrounding 2A is bound to attract a few extremists.

I find it similar to discussions between Creationists and Darwinists. The fundamentalists, who are well represented in the Gungeon, argue for the infallibility of the Bible/Constitution.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

34. Let's not forget that 2A extremism certainly exists on both sides of the issue...

There are people who think that there should be no restriction on firearm possesion and others who think nobody should be allowed to have any guns at all. 99% of people fall in between and the middle 75% percent probably don't care enough either way to set foot in a forum that can be as hostile as the gungeoun.

I don't think the issue is a fringe issue at all as nearly everyone has an opinion on the great firearm debate.
I think the fringe groups are the people that are vocal enough to beat their heads against the walls in the gungeon.

For what it's worth, I'll bet there are more true gun control extremeists than gun rights extremists on DU... I've never seen any serious comments that guns should have no restrictions here on DU. And it's likely to be opposite on republican based websites, where gun rights extremists outnumber control extremists. Even so, I would not consider most posters extremists.

[Remmah2]

25. Passion. nt

nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

31. I think there's a number of people who don't feel strongly about guns either way...

And choose not to visit here due to all the vocal people who feel strongly about the issue. I don't think this makes gungeon regulars extremists extremists by any means. The subforum visitors may possibly be fringe because not too many people on DU take the time to bang their head against the walls of the gungeon... but not necessarily extremists. I see alot of middle of the road stances on gun control/rights around here (and quite a few extreme views too).

For exapmle... I don't really care either way about 9/11 conspiracies, isreal/palestine, or religious debates. So why in the world would I want to visit those landmines and wade through dozens of zealots' posts. At the same time, not everyone with an interest in those issues is an extremist. :shrug:

[petronius]

32. I'm disappointed - I guessed you'd get "I thought we were an autonomous collective" within

the first ten posts... :(

[Euromutt]

76. You're fooling yourself

We're living a dictatorship, a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

[petronius]

79. Thank you. Faith has been restored...

:)

[rrneck]

36. Yes.

Firearms give liberals the heebie geebies. Conventional wisdom requires Democrats to root for peace, progress, and the nurturing of others so they can achieve their greatest potential. Shooting holes in people doesn't do that. Guns symbolize all that is opposite of most liberal ideals.

The most vociferous critics of guns are those who most passionately embrace their self image as liberals and have probably spent their entire lives identifying themselves as such. Such acolytes cannot be expected to approach the issue objectively.

Supporters of RKBA on the other hand are more likely to have moved to the left from somewhere in the political center or the right. They are much more likely to have considered the gun issue and care enough the express their views in an abashedly liberal forum. Liberalism for them was a choice and converts to a cause generally care more about it than those who were handed their convictions by default.

The children of the rude, crude, gun toting, hardhat wearing white guys that were aleniated by identity politics are coming back to the Democratic party where they belong. And they're bringing their guns with them. Instead of confronting them with some sort of wedge issue litmus test Democrats would do well to welcome them with open arms because those who don't move this way are joining the Tea Party.

The labor struggles of the ate nineteenth and early twentieth century are no longer a living memory. The identity politics of the sixties and seventies brought long overdue social justice to a lot of people, but somehow in the process they turned "solidarity" into "nurturing". That was fine in a time of peace and prosperity, but now liberals need to think less about the latter and more in terms of the former. The term "solidarity" assumes conflict, which has finally begun. If that conflict can be resolved by voting and peaceful demonstrations we will be fortunate indeed. But income disparity in this country is worse than it was in the Gilded Age, and it took a helluva fight to get an even shake then.

And that may explain why gun ownership in on the rise generally and among Democrats in particular.

[Hoyt]

39. Those "gun toting . . . . .white guys" you post about should be real concern to those in this party.

I'm sorry, the gun carrying sons of Archie Bunker are a concern.

[rrneck]

41. Trust you to be first in line with the litmus test. nt

[oneshooter]

56. Now I do agree with you, you are sorry. n/t

[gejohnston]

58. Archie had one daughter

unless he cheated on Edith and had sons with the other women. In which case, the probably still live in Queens. Odds are they don't have the money to give to Bloom campaign or bribe NYPD, so none of them carry guns unless they are cops or criminals.

Remember, Archie did kiss Sammy Davis Jr.

[Hoyt]

67. Made a lot of gunners stroke their guns too.

[oneshooter]

69. Everybody has the right to say stupid things, don't abuse yours. n/t

[SteveM]

94. You are really into stroking things. Try cats; they like it. nt

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[rrneck]

48. Were your parents liberals? nt

[iverglas]

50. were your parents right-wing assholes?

[rrneck]

51. Yes.

At least in terms of politics. I loved my father deeply and I still miss him.

[iverglas]

57. I'm sorry; apparently I wasn't clear

I don't give a shit what your parents were, and what mine are/were is none of anyone's concern. But what the hell. My father cut off contact with me for some time when I was 17 mainly because of my left-wing politics.

That is hardly the sum total of influences on the development of my values and views, but that was the question.



What a whole bizarre bit of trash.

Having seen the light, are all our newly minted "liberals" here not going to transmit their values to their children?

I guess all children should be reared in right-wing compounds so they can have the distinction of converting once they reach middle age. The world would obviously be so much better that way.

The insults directed at, and contempt expressed for, people who have managed to live their lives without being a committed part of the problem just staggers me, very seriously.

[rrneck]

59. There are extremists on both sides of the aisle.

You aren't likely to find any life long emotionally committed partisan conservatives here. Not for long anyway. But you will find liberals like that. They are unlikely to be swayed because they are intensely wedded to their understanding of the traditional liberal position on guns. They will not change their minds no matter what. Most liberals are not that partisan or that rigid. But guns are a big wedge issue and it's no surprise that those who feel most passionately about their ideology will be the most voiciferous about it.

Actually, after having enjoyed the sanctimony of the Southern Baptist Convention and the tender mercies of the Tennessee public school system, I'm sure my life would have been much better had I been born in Berkeley.

[iverglas]

63. just keep it up; the insults only reflect back

But you will find liberals like that. They are unlikely to be swayed because they are intensely wedded to their understanding of the traditional liberal position on guns. They will not change their minds no matter what.

Yeah, they're braindead dipsticks who acquired their values by some sort of osmotic process and who have never bothered to reflect on or examine the goo inside their heads.

Most liberals are not that partisan or that rigid.

And here's where the vocabulary does the whole thing in, because liberals actually are devoid of any real values or analyses.

You really need to define your terms, and stop using this strange catch-all term belovèd of the right wing for demonizing people whose values don't stop at the ends of their noses.

Myself, I have very well-developed analyses of a lot of specific issues and of the underlying / overarching ideologies and philosophies involved.

Progressive theology, very limited exposure to bigotry and racism, a broader society in which tolerance was growing into an embrace of diversity, belonging to a lower middle-class family with working-class roots, and having an unusually broad and stimulating academic experience in my childhood, and also being a victim of bigotry and abuse of power myself while very young, not to mention sexism of course, all played a role in my choices from adolescence onward, obviously. But many who made similar choices did not have those influences, and many who had similar influences did not make those choices.

I don't doubt that it can be difficult to shake off the influences of an upbringing full of right-wing theology and bigotry, in an intolerant and narrow-minded community and/or family, with little exposure to the world of ideas.

But I'm damned if I'll bow to someone who has managed to scuttle a couple of points leftward on the social or political spectrum as if they were somehow better than a lifelong committed adherent to progressive values and activist for those values. I'll give them all due respect if they do make it all the way over to a respectable leftish position, but then too not if they demand it based on their superiority to someone who doesn't share their less savoury past.

If they can leverage themselves leftward an inch, they can do it a little more thoroughly, I'd say. The brain death involved would seem to me to be what occurs when someone says "There, now I'm a liberal, so I don't have to think about all that stuff I believed when I wasn't. Guns are good, amen."


it's no surprise that those who feel most passionately about their ideology will be the most voiciferous about it.

What's no surprise is that to someone who adheres to the entire spectrum of genuinely progressive values and does so consciously and mindfully, and frankly I'm just not sure how else one would do that, it is simply self-evident that every single aspect of the agenda promoted by what I will call gun militants stems directly from a completely inimical set of values. That agenda runs counter to everything that a genuine progressive/leftist values and promotes and works for.

[rrneck]

68. A passionate and vociferous response. Bravo. nt

[spin]

46. Nope. It's simply a forum where people with opposite views on gun control ...

can debate.

I used to post on gun forums but I got bored as most of the posters agreed with many of my views. I find the gungeon to be far more challenging. By posting here, I have learned a lot. Much of what I have learned has been from other posters but in order to support my views, I was forced to do far more research into the subject of gun control than I ever had to do elsewhere.

Of course, posting on a very liberal and progressive forum and being an advocate for RKBA and "shall issue" concealed carry is challenging. There was always the chance and that chance still exists that I might be convinced to change my views on firearms. Through the years, I have changed my views on many subjects.

I felt when I started posting here that if my views had value, they would stand up to the arguments posed by those with the opposite view. So far they have.

One main advantage of posting here on DU is that I no longer have to read some of the some of the posts made by ultra conservatives on subjects other than firearms.

I am a life long Democrat and come from a family who worked at the steel mill in Pittsburgh. My father worked at Jones and Laughlin Steel Company but left for a job as an insurance inspector and later moved to Ohio. My Uncle worked his entire life for Jones and Laughlin and often spent many weeks on strike in an effort to improve working conditions and benefits not only for himself but also for those who followed him.

A English teacher in my high school in Ohio accused me, while in the classroom and in front on my fellow students, as being a Communist because I expressed support for Social Security. I feel that I defended my position effectively and definitely did not back down by her authoritarian and confrontational attitude.

edited for typo

[krispos42]

55. No

May 19th, 2011

[Tuesday Afternoon]

71. slow tonight , I am

can you please explain what those numbers represent? thanks.

[krispos42]

72. Popularity.

Based on number of posts. :-)


:donut:

[SteveM]

93. And to think, some gun-prohibitionists would like to see the forum sequestered...

into another department or division because they have so bulked it up with their own "fringe extremism," vitriol, animosity and insults.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x4859


Over the years, I have warned that this is the PRECISE purpose of the "fringe extremist" gun-prohibitionists: Crap on the carpet, then demand the home-owner clean it up to their satisfaction.

Let's hope the Mods don't let them profit from their own errors.

[iverglas]

97. the gibberish just grows exponentially

Are you actually not aware that this little mat on the doorstep is provided to keep the busiest element here from puking on the broadloom in the rest of the house?

[SteveM]

126. Yes, it does -- among the gun-prohis. Isn't that "their" plan? nt

[SteveM]

128. Yes, gun-prohis pump out more gibberish -- evan as their numbers fall.nt

[iverglas]

130. how do you pronounce that "prohi" thing?

Just curious, I hate hitting a glitch when I'm reading ...

pro-ee?

pro-high?

pro-hihhh?

[SteveM]

167. I believe "prohi" is pronounced "pro-hee"...

It is a Cracker corruption of "prohibitionist," referred to in

South Moon Under -- Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings (The Yearling, Cross Creek, etc.)

[Euromutt]

70. Is that really the right question to ask, though?

It strikes me that if you want to determine whether the "Gungeon" attracts people who hold "fringe" or "extremist" beliefs, by the standards of this forum, we shouldn't be looking at opinions that directly pertain to private ownership of firearms. Rather, what we should be looking at is whether the regulars (be they pro-RKBA or anti-RKBA) hold opinions concerning other topics, not directly related to firearms, that seem incompatible with a political point of view that would be considered (socially) liberal, progressive, etc. So what we should be looking at a given poster's stance on abortion, GLBT rights, workers' rights, civil liberties, criminal justice, economic interventionism, immigration (legal and illegal), the environment and conservation, etc.

I mean, speaking for myself, I don't venture outside the Gungeon very often because overwhelmingly, I don't disagree with people on other topics all that much, so there's not a whole lot of room for discussion. My position on private firearms ownership alone doesn't define me as being "non-liberal" because frankly, I think I am. I'm pro-choice on abortion, pro-equal rights for GLBTs, pro-legalization of marijuana (and, frankly, most other drugs), I'm a paid-up member of the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, I think more and longer prison sentences is an ineffective way to deal with crime (at least in the long term), I think civil rights and liberties should be inviolate against infringement by private entities (e.g. one's employer) as well by government, I'm generally supportive of the principle of trade unions (if not always of the way trade unions operate), and while I'm generally supportive of free trade and opposed to protectionism, I do believe government has a legitimate role in assisting those who are at risk of falling by the economic wayside, and I believe there are certain services that are better provided by government than by private enterprise. I'm slightly left of center in western European terms, and I reckon that puts me well left of center in American terms, and would continue to do so even if I were to get downright fundamentalist about RKBA.

[JoeyT]

87. Views that are held by the majority of the country

and have been for a good long time and probably will be for a good long time can hardly be defined as "fringe" unless the person doing the defining has no idea what the word means.

[iverglas]

98. yes indeed, a solid majority!

As shown in these instances for instance:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

"Should the federal government be allowed to ban the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, except for use by the military or police, or is it more important to protect the rights of gun owners to purchase any guns they wish to purchase?"

6/20-21/11

Allowed to ban 62%
Protect rights of gun owners 35%
Unsure/Refused 3%


"Overall, do you think that gun control laws in this country should be more strict than they are now, less strict, or are gun control laws about right now?"

6/20-21/11

More strict 51%
Less strict 7%
About right 39%
Unsure/Refused 2%


"What do you think is more important -- to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership?"

8/25 - 9/6/10

Republicans
right to own guns 70%
control ownership 26%
not sure 4%

Democrats
right to own guns 30%
control ownership 67%
not sure 3%

Independents
right to own guns 46%
control ownership 50%
not sure 4%

Pretty darn clear picture, isn't it?!

[Upton]

103. Gallup has something for you...

a poll you conveniently forgot...I wonder why that is?

[iverglas]

105. how could I "forget" something I wasn't talking about?

The poll on strict/less strict laws shows about a dead heat; I guess a lot more digging would have to be done to determine why the Time and Gallup polls come up with significantly different results.

The poll on assault weapons asks a different question. Interesting, eh?

I didn't post anything about handguns.

And you haven't offered anything to address the biggie:

"What do you think is more important --
to protect the right of Americans to own guns,
or to control gun ownership?"
Democrats
right to own guns 30%
control ownership 67%
not sure 3%

That's a whopping great margin there, eh? With Republicans pretty much oppositely divided. Huh. Now who would ever have thunk that??

[gejohnston]

108. even more interesting

did the pollster explain what an "assault weapon" was? How informed are those people on the subject.

[rl6214]

104. Yeah, that's why politicians that are anti-gun control keep getting elected

[iverglas]

106. no, it's why claims that gun militant legislative victories

are reflections of the public's wishes in relation to firearms are false.

[rl6214]

121. You can't give a good reason why lawmakers are getting elected

that are not for gun control and are for gun rights. Your "gun militant" line is bullshit. If there were that many people that were for gun control then the results at the polls would reflect it, even in canada. The 4 million members of the NRA may have clout but not enough to sway all of the elections in North America. If the gun control movement were that strong, they would have the financial strength of the gun rights groups.

[iverglas]

125. why do you say that?

You can't give a good reason why lawmakers are getting elected
that are not for gun control and are for gun rights.

(I can just never figure out when guns got rights. Visions of "clams got legs" dance in my head ...)

They get elected because they are right-wing scum, and sadly, there are a whole lot of people happy to vote for right-wing scum.

It's pretty simple, really.

[rl6214]

129. "there are a whole lot of people happy to vote for right-wing scum."

So you are saying the majority of people DO NOT want gun control?

[Major Hogwash]

109. "We have the right to chase down the niggers that escape into the Northern States."

Sometimes, the majority is wrong.

[Major Hogwash]

110. The Constitution wasn't written the way it was to protect the majority.

It was written the way it was to protect the minority in order to protect everyone's rights.

[iverglas]

112. bibbity bobbity boo

If only you had said something that meant something ... anything at all ...

[iverglas]

111. how 'bout you direct your ugliness

at old JoeyT, the one who apparently thinks his alleged majority is right?

[Major Hogwash]

115. What?

[iverglas]

117. excuse me

I had misread your post as a reply to myself.

I'm unclear at this point as to whether there is an issue between you and JoeyT ...

[Euromutt]

113. While I can't dispute the veracity of your assertion...

...it really doesn't refute JoeyT's point. Even when the majority holds opinions that are wrong, those opinions are still not "fringe" or "extremist" by dint of the very fact that they are held by a majority.

[Major Hogwash]

114. I was talking to Joey about the Dred Scott decision, that was supported by the Supremes in 1857.

And overturned by Lincoln abolishing slavery in 1863.

Some standards today are not held as standards tomorrow.
And the issue of firearms is one of the issues that has been outdated by technology.

"Majority rule" is not the standard we use in deciding legal issues in the US.
So, my comment thoroughly undermines Joey's point.
One of the first things they teach in Legal Issues 101 in college is that we do not use majority rule in deciding legal issues.

[Euromutt]

118. Again, all true, but beside the point

Well, almost all true; the claim that "my comment thoroughly undermines Joey's point" is incorrect. Because Joey's point did not address the correctness of a point of view, but its popularity, or lack thereof. Modern society may consider the Abolitionists' views to have been the correct ones regarding slavery, but as late as the 1850s, their views could accurately be described as "extremist" and "fringe" (as many opponents of slavery, including Lincoln, advocated containing slavery to a limited area and letting it die out, rather than taking active measures to eradicate it).

I reiterate for clarity: the question here is not whether the views held by certain individuals who frequent the "Gungeon" are correct, the question is whether they are "fringe" or "extremist." As you yourself point out, "popular" doesn't necessarily mean "right" (or we'd have to conclude that Elton John's "Candle in the Wind 1997" is the greatest piece of music ever written and performed) but it does mean "popular," i.e. "mainstream," non-"fringe", etc.

[onehandle]

119. Reasonable regulation is not extremist.

But nice dog whistle.

[oneshooter]

120. That would depend on your definition of "reasonable" wouldn't it.

[apocalypsehow]

122. Nope: it's right in the mainstream of current right-wing, Republican thought.

About gun policy and, one sometimes glimpses, much else.

Of course, it's appended to one of the largest progressive discussion boards on the internet and for some time the apparent contradiction - though not officially sanctioned still deliberately allowed - had me stumped.

Growing up, pretty much all of my people were Heat & Air men, what the fancy schmancies call today "HVAC technicians." Uncles, cousins, cousins of cousins once removed, even the spare sibling or two. That stuff can get into your blood, odd as it sounds, and if I wasn't doing what I'm ah doing now, I'd probably be pumping refrigerant or replacing blower motors. I had an uncle who developed the habit of adding his own modification to split units that, while completely safe, was not, shall we say, part of the original design and would today be prohibited on environmental grounds. It prolonged the life of the unit while slightly impeding efficiency, which in the glory days of R-22 without end was not a consideration.

Every time we'd run across one of these improvisations on maintenance checks my unc would just smile and say "yeah, yeah, I know it ain't supposed to be there, technically. But it sure does keep a lot of other shit from backing up somewhere else it ain't supposed to be, neither."

The formula applies in other places, also.

[SteveM]

131. Considering Regan's gun-control policies (1967), I agree...

Since he didn't particularly like the notion of armed Black Panthers marching into the capitol bldg.

IIRC, the Democratic Party didn't mention squat about "gun control" in its platform before 1968.

You are aware, are you not, of the efforts of some gun control/prohibition advocates to label this forum as extreme, and have it moved to a "third tier" location in DU -- evidently they pump their extreme gas, then seek some self-fulfilling prophecy. No surprise: They can't handle rational argument, so they want to hide it.

How many "other places" should be hidden?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

138. I was under the impression that we would be able to hide any forum

we wanted. This is the first I am hearing about "tiers" :shrug:

interesting.

[SteveM]

142. Evidently, some of the more "extreme" and "fringe" gun-controllers...

are pushing to put "guns" and a few other forums into a "DU 3," or some other sub-stratum, because it is to -- voila! -- extrme and fringe; in other words, create the mess, then demand others clean it up. Something I predicted gun-controller/prohibitionists would attempt to do; now they are making their move.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x4859

[Tuesday Afternoon]

144. but, if we could hide any forum we would not need the tiers --

right?

I guess this needs to be asked in ATA.

also, while I am at it, I thought we would also have the capability to hide threads containing any certain word --

as in "guns" or "Sarah Palin"

this seems more User Friendly to me and actually would be easier to implement, would it not?

:shrug:

I know. I know. I am asking the wrong person.

more of a rhetorical, thinking outloud sort of thing going on here.

[SteveM]

145. One could easily, using present "remove" features, accomplish a hiding...

of the topic, individual by individual. But this is not the goal of the gun-control/prohibitionists. They wish to censor or otherwise remove "Guns" from the main forum list because such a listing (the second most popular within the named DU forums), gives legitimacy to the Second Amendment, and violates their doctrinaire approach to "liberalism."

The only way they can do this is by creating an "extremist" and "fringe" atmosphere by their OWN actions, then requiring others (the mods?) to clean it up. Voila: They profit from their own errors, and they reinstitute an anti-gun hegemony into an alternative Democratic Party site.

I don't have the links at my finger-tips, but you can see how the gun-controller/prohibitionist operates within the pilot house of the Democratic Party. In the months leading up to the convention, a rule was instated which forbade amendments from the floor on any platform plank which mentioned (iirc) drugs, pornography, and guns.

That's how the prohibitionist operates: Hide folks' eyes from the very mention.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

146. one can take the guns off the "my forums" list but, one can still see

new threads in the scroll of the "discuss" page. What I am talking about would hide this from appearing in that scroll. Any thread that contains the word "gun" in the subject line would not appear in the scroll.

If this is the anti's agenda, that is their prerogative but, I can't see where it would behoove the Admin to handle it that way.

After all, this place is a business and their livelihood. Why would they want to hide one of their most popular forums?

[SteveM]

151. Yes, "hiding" "guns" from the scroll is the objective...

or relegating it to "DU3" (whatever that would be).

I cannot explain why the Administrator would want to make such a structural change, if such is made; but the prohibitionists have had this strange power to lock in hard to bureaucracies and, despite being very few in numbers, have great influence in controlling agendas (witness the GOP-founded, GOP-led Brady Center and its influence within the Democratic Party). I think it is their association of "guns" with all that is evil, corrupt, smelly, sexual, RW, "easy," etc., which affects people: Just keep yelling the same stuff, over and over again, and eventually, the decision-making structure will work to rid itself of the loudest drunks at the party, even if they number but a few in a crowded hall.

The DU's Guns Forum is singularly unique in all the Internet: A topic about guns and their attendant issues WITHIN a large, pro-liberal/progressive "Democratic" site. The controller/prohibitionist knows this and they will work tirelessly to "rid" the Party of what they see as not only heresy, but reflecting -- if not causing -- a turning-point in the discussion of RKBA and its place within American politics, esp. progressive politics.

On a secondary note, I think the named forums could just as well include a discussion of the 5th Amendment, given the hostility shown its provisions within the controller/prohibitionist camp.

[petronius]

155. DU3 isn't a tier, it's the next version of this site, with new software

We had a preview of it a few months ago.

The last thing Skinner said in ATA was that there probably would be, down the road, the ability to hide any of the minor sub-forums from the Latest - like is possible now for GDP and state forums - but that function may not be there at launch.

Honestly, I don't get any sense that the Admins have any ill-will toward Guns, or any desire to treat it differently than any other sub-forum (if they did, they could demote it to a 'Group' right now, which would cut it down to donors only). And as far as the Admins having 'taking sides' due to their own opinions on firearms policy, I just don't see it in any of their ATA comments; they seem to have a pretty clear grasp of the dynamics here..

[Tuesday Afternoon]

156. yes, and while the antis may have an agenda, I think the admin

want to offer the best website possible to all DUers. They all seem to be fair minded and go a long way to accomodate all comers.

Thanks for clarifying about the DU3/tier thing. I was confused as to what SteveM was trying to convey.

[SteveM]

162. I am not saying the Admins have any ill-will toward guns...

I don't know if they would treat Guns any differently than other forums, or take sides. My main concern was with the "antis" trying to push for a diminution of Guns from its current status. I may have not been "on the air" when he preview was made, since my computer was down. I'll wait and see on this one.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

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

[jpak]

133. both - and a cheering squad for GOP gun legislation

yup

[slackmaster]

134. Good Lord, I hope so!

:nuke:

[Paladin]

139. During The Last Presidential Election There Was A Gungeon Poll....

...wherein 45% of the respondents expressed a willingness to vote Republican over gun issues, with another 3% stating that they might stay at home and not vote, just to piss off Democrats. All this, in a Democratic site.

The DU Guns Forum has been a hotbed of extreme right-wing sentiment for years. Democratic office holders are constantly vilified, while Republicans are lauded. Don't gripe about the exclusionary measures that have been imposed on you here at DU---you've earned them fair and square.....

[rrneck]

140. Did the poll ask of they would

vote Democratic were it NOT for the gun issue?

[iverglas]

153. hahahahaha

Did the poll ask of they would vote Democratic were it NOT for the gun issue?

Now that is the real question, isn't it just?

There's only so much honesty one can expect in a DU poll, though.

:rofl:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

160. would love to see this poll -- anyone got a link?

[iverglas]

161. it's in my post 152 ...

[spin]

143. Why do you believe that supporting gun rights is a right wing only issue?

If I am interpreting your post correctly you associate gun ownership with extreme right-wing sentiment.

A recent Gallup poll shows that a large percentage of Democrats are gun owners.



source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx



A previous Gallup poll showed that it wasn't only those Democrats who are hunters who own firearms.



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

I will agree that the right wing and the Republicans have successfully adopted the gun rights issue and have used it to beat numerous highly qualified Democrats in close elections. That merely shows me that we need to wake up to reality and stop pushing for draconian gun laws. Our own party is divided on the issue and we lose far more votes than we gain by threatening the investment of time and money that the 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation have in their love of shooting and firearms.

[iverglas]

150. "... you associate gun ownership with extreme right-wing sentiment"

If I am interpreting your post correctly you associate gun ownership with extreme right-wing sentiment.

Why would you say that?

Simple question.

What are you relying on in the post you replied to for your "interpretation"?


I'm not willing to believe that you interpreted it any such way, for the simple reason that there is nothing in that post that could be interpreted that way, even if it were held upside down and turned inside out.

[spin]

157. That's why I asked the poster if he held that view ...

I felt that I might have been assuming far too much, but to me it looked as though it was possible that he did indeed feel that supporting gun rights was a right wing only characteristic.

I based my interpretation on this statement in his post:

The DU Guns Forum has been a hotbed of extreme right-wing sentiment for years.

Obviously those who hold extreme right-wing sentiments do not advocate gun control and indeed through the years there have been some posters who I suspected did hold extreme right wing views.

However, the fact that a person supports the right of honest and sane citizens to own and even legally carry firearms does not automatically mean that he is a right-winger. Far from it. As the Gallup poll shows, many "Democrats/Dem leaners" own firearms. I believe that many Democrats support existing gun control laws and even improvements to them, but oppose far more draconian gun laws that would ban or restrict the sale of semi-auto firearms (another assault weapons ban), require registration of all firearms or numerous other "feel good" laws that would make owning firearms more difficult and expensive but accomplish little to reduce gun violence.

In the United States the Democratic Party is a indeed a big tent.

In the United States, the Democratic Party has some big-tent features according to the dominant understanding of the US political spectrum. It has liberal and progressive, moderate, social democratic, and conservative wings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_tent

Perhaps the poster will decide to reply to my post and explain his views. That is entirely his choice.

Let me politely ask you a question. Do you feel that those who support gun rights in the gungeon are in a large part right-wingers and not true Democrats? If so, why?

edited for typo

[iverglas]

158. no you did not ask the poster that question

You said:

If I am interpreting your post correctly you associate gun ownership with extreme right-wing sentiment.

Now you claim that you based that assertion on this:

The DU Guns Forum has been a hotbed of extreme right-wing sentiment for years.

and that is an utter nonsense.

There is simply no way that anyone, let alone someone who has posted in this forum for years as you have, could claim to interpret that sentence as meaning that the person who wrote it associates gun ownership with extreme right-wing sentement.


Perhaps the poster will decide to reply to my post and explain his views. That is entirely his choice.

Yeah, that's how civil discourse works.

Person A posts an insulting and baseless allegation about Person B.

Person B is welcome to respond.

What a sad and sorry state of affairs.


Do you feel that those who support gun rights in the gungeon are in a large part right-wingers and not true Democrats? If so, why?

Do you not know better than to ask me questions loaded with silly/false premises?

"Support gun rights" is meaningless babble, and I would not answer a question that required me to accept the premise that I was talking about "those who support gun rights". I don't, and I won't.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I have a list of posters in my head that is the same as the list of posters in your head whom you used those words to describe, and that your question is about them, you know perfectly well that of the two possible answers to that question, one would be a violation of the rules here.

So in my own opinion, it is entirely improper of you to ask it. Even declining to answer the question puts me in the position of incriminating myself by exercising my right against self-crimination. I don't think it's proper to do that.

What you do know, or have no excuse for not knowing, is that I have never "associated gun ownership with extreme right-wing sentiment", and in fact I have made it plain on many occasions that I do not equate the two at all.

[spin]

159. Thanks for the reply ...

I see little or no value in going round and round with you as there is a great college football game on between the two best teams in my nation.

Have a good night.

[iverglas]

147. oh, not just that

Democratic office holders are constantly vilified

Lied about. Over and over and over. And then vilified.


Don't gripe about the exclusionary measures that have been imposed on you here at DU---you've earned them fair and square.....

Sadly, actually, not even ordinary measures seem to be applied.

[iverglas]

152. you shoulda kept it kicked ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=154283

hogwyld
Wed Jan-16-08 12:14 AM

Poll question: How much do guns mean to you in this upcoming election?

If the choice was between a gun loving repuke, or a Dem nominee that was advocating much stricter gun control, how would you choose?

Poll result (111 votes)
I would vote for the rethuglican to save my guns (49 votes, 44%)
I would sit out the election to spite the Dems (3 votes, 3%)
I would vote Dem at the risk of my guns as there are other, more important issues. (32 votes, 29%)
I would vote independant as a <sic? (3 votes, 3%)
move to another country (0 votes, 0%)
This poll is stupid, and the OP is a gun grabbing nutcase... (24 votes, 22%)

If we exclude the last question (on the over-assumption that they were all kibitzers), we ... somebody has stolen my calculator, hang on ...

87 votes
49 votes for voting Republican
03 votes for not voting
03 votes for voting independent
32 votes for voting Democrat

Something like 63% doing something other than voting for a Democrat.

Gosh, Dr. Paul must have been disappointed. ;)

[iverglas]

154. and this interesting little poll was posted there after the election

CNN exit polls re voter gun ownership
	
Anyone in Household Own a Gun?

Total     Obama   McCain
Yes(42%)   37%     62%
No (58%)   65%     33% 


(a) way more non-gun-owning households than gun-owning
households
(b) gun-owning households were less likely to vote Republican
than non-gun-owning households were to vote Democratic

That is, a higher proportion of gun-owning households voted
for Obama than the proportion of non-gun-owning households
that voted for McCain.

Isn't that interesting?

At least 37% of gun-owning households are not actually gun
militants (or if they are, they're not stupid enough to think
either that Democrats will act contrary to their interests or
that Republicans will act in their interests, on guns or
whatever else).

In fact, it's only unfounded conjecture that anyone in either
type of household voted on the basis of gun policies, let
alone their own gun ownership.

But really, one can be pretty damned sure that a healthy
segment of the Mc-Cain voting gun owners would have voted that
way even if Democrats had promised an AK-47 in every pot.
Hell, there are the  anti-choice militants just for starters.

I wonder why nobody ever suggests it would be wise to go after
that 33% of non-gun owners who voted for McCain? Strikes me
they're not likely to be swayed much by adopting the NRA
platform.

[DissedByBush]

141. It an interesting view of rights

People who act as if they'd lay down their lives to protect the Bill of Rights seem to do their best to pretend that one of those rights doesn't exist.

People who rightly take the most expansive view of those rights suddenly turn and try to take the most restrictive view of only this one.

People who are rightly afraid of authoritarianism and jackboot thugs suddenly don't mind it when it is used against gun ownership.

It is interesting what this one issue does to the beliefs of some liberals.

[iverglas]

148. hahahahaha

It is interesting what this one issue does to the beliefs of some liberals.

I'd say it is interesting what beliefs some liberals seem to have on this issue ............

........... except I'd be assuming a false premise.

:rofl:


Did you have an answer to the question, or did you just want to spout a bunch of trash?


Here's my favourite part of your Bill of Rights:

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, ...

No, actually, I have to say I have a soft spot for this one:

Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

And of course this one:

Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Damn! You'd almost think that Bill of Rights thing was not pristinely perfect when it was written.

Or that people shouldn't exercise the right in that first amendment to oppose claims made by others about the second one ...

[DissedByBush]

163. It's not about the exercise, it's the attitude

"Or that people shouldn't exercise the right in that first amendment to oppose claims made by others about the second one ..."

The white supremacists exercise their First Amendment rights to convince others to deny blacks their rights under the Constitution.

Just because they have the right doesn't make their position admirable.

[iverglas]

164. you got that right

And the attitude of gun militants is that everybody they don't agree with should shut up.

That's the attitude expressed in posts like yours with your ... um, tasteless comparisons betwen firearms control advocates and white supremacists.

Yech. Just looking at it gives me a nasty taste in my mouth.

But I'll do it just a little bit longer.

What, exactly, is the analogy between people who "oppose claims made by others about the second <amendment>" and "white supremacists" who "convince others to deny blacks their rights under the Constitution".

Break that down for me, will you?

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

168. well, in case of mishap, DissedByBush,

I'll just quote the part of your post I'm replying to:

You both oppose rights
Simple as that.
While most of us work to have rights recognized universally and expand rights, you're working to remove a right.

"Both" being ... me and ...

The white supremacists exercise their First Amendment rights to convince others to deny blacks their rights under the Constitution.

? Okay, well, I was going to try to reply, but replying to something that makes no fucking sense is not an easy undertaking.

Let's just stick to the burble about expanding and removing rights.

Abolitionists worked to "remove the right" to own human beings.

Done and dusted on that one, I think. You need to work on that analogy stuff a little harder.

And I can assure you, chum, that I have done more in a week of my life to have rights universally recognized and to expand rights than you'll do in your lifetime.

Real rights. Human rights. Not silly noise made up by a little clique in a little corner of human history and geography, nigh on 250 years ago in a place that doesn't matter to anybody else in the world, to serve their own interests, and promoted by a particular segment of that particular society today to serve their interests.

People who actually give a damn about rights don't generally focus so much on themselves.

Me, was out there promoting the rights of really truly genuinely oppressed and victimized people, both inside and outside my own country, very possibly before you were born -- through work for them individually, through collective action and through political action.

So I'm working to remove the right to be intimidated or injured or killed by somebody with a gun, to have communities reduced to underdeveloped war zones by people with guns, to have organized crime of all sorts conducted by people with guns, to have the economy burdened with the costs inflicted by people with guns.

Shoot me.

But if you want to accuse me of dishonesty, you'd better come up with some substantiation.