Assaulting Common Sense

[MrBenchley]

"Attention Al Qaeda sleeper cells , domestic terrorists, school shooters, David Koresh wannabes and bloodthirsty lunatics everywhere: Be sure to mark Sept. 13 in your day planners because—thanks to President Bush and his GOP pals in Congress—your murderous missions are about to get a whole lot easier.
You see, that's the day the 10-year-old federal ban on assault weapons is set to expire, making it perfectly legal to buy, sell and own a whole new line of domestically produced rapid-fire killing machines.
You heard me right: Unless something changes in a hurry, combat-ready weapons like the AK-47, the Uzi and the TEC-9 assault pistol—weaponry designed to mow down large numbers of people as efficiently as possible—could once again be flooding the American market. And thanks to the gaping loopholes in our gun laws, everyone from disgruntled teens to Osama bin Laden's henchmen will be able to legally obtain this kind of ferocious firepower at gun shows without even having to undergo a background check. It could be cash-and-carry mayhem.
Bowing to the demented demands of the no-gun-law-is-a-good-gun-law crowd at the National Rifle Association, Republican congressional leaders have steadfastly refused to bring to a vote legislation that would extend the assault weapons ban. And the president has failed to put any pressure on Congress to do so. This despite the fact that, during the 2000 campaign, he said, "It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society," and just last year White House spokesman Scott McClellan unequivocally affirmed that the president "supports reauthorization of the current law."
After all, recent polls show that more than 70 percent of Americans support keeping the ban on the books. So does every major police organization in the country. Even 64 percent of gun owners support the ban, realizing that outlawing weapons that feature flash suppressors, silencers, folding stocks, bayonet mounts and large-capacity ammo magazines is not an attack on the Second Amendment—it's self-preservation."

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/assaulting_common_sense.php

(What's that, a LIBERAL website cited in the gungeon? Is that allowed?)

[FatSlob]

1. Welcome back. We missed you.

Did you go on vacation?

[Romulus]

2. no-one has explained this one to me

How is this:



"more evil and more dangerous" than this:





When both:

1) are semi-automatic
2) centerfire rifles
3) that accept detachable magazines
4) that fire the exact same ammunition

:shrug:

well, actually, no one has explained it beyond stupid pithy non-responsive remarks . . . :eyes:


Edited to add:

Assaulting Common Sense
by Arianna Huffington

Oh, look - an article by conservative Clinton-hating pundit Arianna Huffington. How persuasive . . .:eyes:

[pnb]

3. And no one will explain it to you either...

...because there is no explanation.

And no explanation as to what makes anyone thing that why up to now the people mentioned in the original post HAVE had problems obtaining the weapons in questino up to now.

[MrBenchley]

4. Gee, rom...

If there's no difference, than you really don't need an asaault weapon, do you?

[pnb]

5. and that statement just shows that a ban is then useless

so why go through the hassle of attempting to enforce a useless, baseless law? To feel good?

Makes it just as idiotic as the WOD actually...

[MrBenchley]

6. No, that statement shows what a pantload

the "there's no difference" argument really is.

[pnb]

7. How so?

n/t

[MrBenchley]

9. Jeeze, if there's no difference

gun nuts wouldn't be screaming and raging and the gun lobby wouldn't have spent all this money trying to get them back on the market.

Nor would the gun lobby have scuttled their own scummy "immunity from liability" bill.

[pnb]

10. If that's all you've got...

...then you haven't even been listening to what the "gun nuts" have been saying. It is about freedom.

[MrBenchley]

13. That's all that's needed...

It's no more about freedom than it is about fellatio.

[CO Liberal]

15. They Wrap It In Freedom, They Call It Freedom...

...but it's really bullshit.

[MrBenchley]

16. You got that right...

And nothing shows it cleaer than this "it doesn't do anything" bullshit.

[RoeBear]

11. You know why you want the AWB extended...

...are you willing to admit it?

[MrBenchley]

14. I'm happy to admit that those guns are a menace

to public safety and don't belong on the civilian market.

I'm also happy to admit that's it's a splendid way to show voters what corrupt extremist fuckwits many Republicans are...and what a lying hypocrite this unelected drunk is.

[RoeBear]

32. You know something that...

...that Tom Diaz from the VPC doesn't know?

[MrBenchley]

41. I know how dishonest somebody has to be

to pretend Tom Diaz and the VPC want assault weapons back on the market...

http://www.vpc.org/

[RoeBear]

52. Who are you calling dishonest?

Because it sure looks like you directed that at me.

[MrBenchley]

53. Are you pretending the VPC wants assault weapons on the market

Because as the link to their website shows, THAT's a flat out lie. So maybe you just mis-spoke yourself.

[RoeBear]

65. Show me EXACTLY where I...

...said, implied or inferred that?


BTW- nice edit on your message #41

[MrBenchley]

68. Nuff said...

So any claim that Tom Diaz and the VPC want the ban to sunset is horseshit, just as I said.

By the way, the edit was to add the VPC website's URL. But then I guess you knew that.

[iverglas]

82. why don't YOU just tell us, RoeBear?

What does this post --

You know something that...
...that Tom Diaz from the VPC doesn't know?

MEAN -- in English, of the plain kind -- as a response to the post it was posted in response to:

I'm happy to admit that those guns are a menace to public safety and don't belong on the civilian market. I'm also happy to admit that's it's a splendid way to show voters what corrupt extremist fuckwits many Republicans are...and what a lying hypocrite this unelected drunk is.

What exactly might MrBenchley know that Tom Diaz doesn't know THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT to the present discussion?

(Y'know: I really don't care whether MrBenchley knows his own shoe size and Tom Diaz doesn't.)

The only way that something that MrBenchley knows that Tom Diaz doesn't know could be RELEVANT to this discussion is if Tom Diaz is missing a piece of information that would cause him to agree with MrBenchley.

And the only way that we would KNOW that he was missing this bit of relevant information would be if we knew that he did not agree with MrBenchley.

So here's my hypothesis about what your little question meant.

It meant that Tom Diaz does not agree with MrBenchley.

So you have two options:

- provide an alternate meaning for your little question, the one that you intended it to have;

- demonstrate that Tom Diaz does not agree with MrBenchley.


Have a picnic.

[RoeBear]

98. Quoting Tom Diaz:

"If the existing assault-weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets. So if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass."

[OpSomBlood]

99. Quoting Josh Sugarman:

"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

- "Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation" (March 1989)

Also note that this 1989 paper was the first documented use of the term "assault weapon" to refer to semi-automatic firearms. Historically, "assault weapon" has been used by militaries to describe select-fire fully-automatic machine guns.

He laid out the entire anti-gun strategy for the next 20 years in that one paragraph.

[iverglas]

101. I'll bet you had a point

Any chance you're going to share it with us?

p.s.

Here's your chance to pretend that nobody has ever responded to what you're going to say before.

You know, that's how discussions between people usually go.

One person says something, the other person listens to it and replies to it, and then the first person pretends that the second person didn't say anything at all and says the same thing again that s/he said in the first place.

Heck, I know that's how it works in my circle of friends.

[iverglas]

100. c'mon, you can do it

You obviously haven't found anything where Tom Dias states his disagreement with:

those guns are a menace to public safety
and don't belong on the civilian market.

So can you tell us, in your own words, how what he did say means "those guns are not a menace to public safety and do belong on the civilian market"?

I'm not seeing it myself, but maybe if you highlight the bits you're looking at, I'll see them.

[MrBenchley]

103. Gee, sure seems to me

that roe is doing exactly what he was angrily denying he ever did; i.e., pretending that the VPC wants assault weapons back on the market. Which as a glance at the VPC's website shows, is a flat-out lie.



http://www.vpc.org/

Now why do you suppose roe was demanding above that I show what he is doing right here?

[OpSomBlood]

104. Nice machine gun animation in that "assault weapon" graphic.

Speaking of flat-out lies.

[MrBenchley]

106. Yeah, and it's right to the point

Guess we all can see now what a flat-out lie these claims that the VPC is for assault weapons really are.

[alwynsw]

8. Neither of them are assault weapons.

One more time: Assault weapons must be select fire (capable of burst and/or fully automatic fire). Semi-auto is not select fire.

[FatSlob]

46. If there is no difference, then it shouldn't be banned.

Nice logic there, Benchy.

[MrBenchley]

48. Gee, but I'm not the one pretending there's no difference...

I know already what a load of horseshit THAT claim is.

[FatSlob]

50. Then tell us the difference.

I fail to see it, could you enlighten me?

[MrBenchley]

51. Sure...

Read the proposal currently before Congress. That's the one I support.

[FatSlob]

60. There is more than one.

To which do you refer?

[MrBenchley]

61. Pick one then...

[FatSlob]

108. In other words, you don't know what you support?

Or do you just support anything?

[MrBenchley]

110. Gee, fat slob, I certainly DO know what I support

you want to discuss a bill, pick one...but I'm not going to play half-assed gun porn games with the trigger-happy.

Although the gun lobby today argues that there is no such thing as civilian assault weapons, the gun industry, the National Rifle Association, gun magazines, and others in the gun lobby enthusiastically described these civilian versions as "assault rifles," "assault pistols," "assault-type," and "military assault" weapons to boost civilian assault-weapon sales throughout the 1980s. The industry and its allies only began to use the semantic argument that a "true" assault weapon is a machine gun after civilian assault weapons turned up in inordinate numbers in the hands of drug traffickers, criminal gangs, mass murderers, and other dangerous criminals.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/hoseone.htm

[enfield collector]

12. neither of those are effectwe by the AWB. the Ruger mini-14

was exempted and the Bushmaster XM15 is a post-ban, note absence of "evil" flashider and bayo lug.

[Fescue4u]

17. The Ban has expired early.

Must have.

Because down at my local gun shop, they have AR-15's and ak-47s..brand new for sale..manufactured within the last 6 months.

Either that or the article is nothing more than propaganda.

[MrBenchley]

18. Amazing, isn't it?

You wonder why folks who claim they can buy all the assault weapons they want, and that those assault weapons are no different than plain ordinary guns, are screaming and frothing about keeping the ban from being renewed.

And the answer is so simple as to seem silly.

[FeebMaster]

19. Yes it is simple.

It makes you wonder why the gun grabbers are so insistent on renewing the AWB. Well, not really.

[CO Liberal]

20. For The Last Time.....

...not everyone who favore gun control is a "gun grabber".

Using that "logic", I should be able to refer to all gun owners as assholes, because a few are assholes. Right????

[FeebMaster]

21. I haven't labeled any individual on this board

a gun grabber. I've clearly only referred to gun grabbers as a group. If you take offense to the gun grabber label, which I clearly haven't applied to you or to any other individual, then that really is your problem and not mine.

[CO Liberal]

22. Oh, I Get It

Using that "logic", you could also use the "N" word to refer to African-Americans as a group, or the "C" word to refer to women. And if someone took offense, then that would be that person's problem and not yours.

Right?? Wrong.

"Gun-Grabber" is an offensive term intended to besmirch an entire group of people whose opinions differ from your own. And continually using such an offensive term after being told it was offensive does not seem to be the hallmark of a progressive Democrat, in my opinion.

[FeebMaster]

25. I'm simply obeying the rules of DU.

Personal attacks are frowned upon while attacks on a group are acceptable.

"Using that "logic", you could also use the "N" word to refer to African-Americans as a group, or the "C" word to refer to women. And if someone took offense, then that would be that person's problem and not yours.

Right?? Wrong."

I suppose you could look at it that way. On the other hand, you don't choose to be born a woman or black. A person does choose to be a gun grabber, although I've long suspected there might be an authoritarian gene.


"Gun-Grabber" is an offensive term intended to besmirch an entire group of people whose opinions differ from your own. And continually using such an offensive term after being told it was offensive does not seem to be the hallmark of a progressive Democrat, in my opinion.

The hallmark of a progressive Democrat? What would that be? Looking at a picture of someone and saying they obviously can't be trusted with guns? Calling people who kill someone in self-defense with a gun assholes? Calling for restrictions that will make it more difficult for people to defend their lives?

You're going to have to define progressive or progressive Democrat for me. You can pick just about any thread on just about any issue on DU and have people arguing both sides. Mandatory national service? Who's progressive, the people arguing for it or against it? Gun control? Who is progressive? The people arguing for it or against it? Restrictions on smoking in public? Who is progressive? The people arguing for them or against them?

[iverglas]

34. well gosh

Mandatory national service? Who's progressive, the people arguing for it or against it? Gun control? Who is progressive? The people arguing for it or against it? Restrictions on smoking in public? Who is progressive? The people arguing for them or against them?

I guess it would kinda depend on the perspective from which they were arguing for or against any of them, doncha think?

F'r instance, I argue *for* smoking bans in all public places, including bars, because, smoker though I am, I don't believe that anyone (i.e. bar staff) should be denied the occupational health and safety protections that other workers have. But someone else might have good reason for believing that imposing such a ban will cause many of those workers to lose their jobs altogether, and so would argue *against* such bans. I think both of us could fairly be called progressive.

You see the common thread? Neither of us is saying "I hate smoke so ban smoking" or "I want to smoke so let the workers get another job". Neither of us is arguing from pure self-interest. Both of us are arguing in favour of a policy that we understand to be in the public interest -- what ya might call "for the general welfare" -- and in the interests of other people who are in some way disadvantaged and vulnerable, in ways that we are not.

Both of us are speaking honestly and sincerely, not dissembling, not concealing our true motives and interests, not wrapping ourselves in the cloak of some high principle while we pursue our own interests at someone else's expense. And both of us are engaging, with complete good will, in an exchange of information and ideas with the aim of achieving a solution to something we both perceive as a problem.

My goodness. I've just described what goes on in the gun dungeon every day, haven't I?!

har. har. har.

[FeebMaster]

37. So as long as I argue for something in the public interest

and not my own that would make me a progressive. Well, since that's how I've been arguing the gun issue from day one here, I guess that makes me a progressive. I guess my not having a personal stake in the gun issue at all makes me really progressive. Good to know.

[iverglas]

47. uh, no

So as long as I argue for something in the public interest and not my own that would make me a progressive.

You might go back and read it again, and they try repeating it back without leaving out the equally important bits.

You know, the ones about arguing in the public interest honestly and sincerely, and engaging in a good will effort to address a problem, and not dissembling or concealing one's own interests.

And yeah, I guess there would really have to be some bare-bones "progressive" understanding of "the public interest". I've never had much difficulty with that concept myself, and I know that a lot of other people generally don't, but who knows, some may.


I guess my not having a personal stake in the gun issue at all makes me really progressive.

And yet ...

On a one to ten scale; how important is the issue to you?

On the RKBA Meter®
Mine goes to eleven.

Just a hobby(horse), I guess.

[FeebMaster]

54. if you say so

"You know, the ones about arguing in the public interest honestly and sincerely, and engaging in a good will effort to address a problem, and not dissembling or concealing one's own interests."

But I do argue for the public interest honestly and sincerely. I do engage in a good will effort to address a problem. I'm not dissembling or concealing my own interests.

"And yeah, I guess there would really have to be some bare-bones "progressive" understanding of "the public interest". I've never had much difficulty with that concept myself, and I know that a lot of other people generally don't, but who knows, some may."

I don't know about anyone else, since I can only speak for myself, but I certainly understand the public interest.


I guess my not having a personal stake in the gun issue at all makes me really progressive.

And yet ...


On a one to ten scale; how important is the issue to you?

On the RKBA Meter®
Mine goes to eleven.
Just a hobby(horse), I guess.

I'm not denying that the gun issue is important to me. But I certainly don't have a personal stake in it one way or the other.

[iverglas]

27. one just has to wonder why ...

I haven't labeled any individual on this board a gun grabber. I've clearly only referred to gun grabbers as a group.

Yes, but that wasn't the issue, was it now?

It wasn't whether you were calling someone nasty names.

It was why you refer indiscriminately to anyone who advocates stricter firearms control than you do a "gun grabber".

If you aren't referring to any individual on this board, then what the hell's your point? Why don't you identify whom you *are* talking about ... and let us know why you're taking about him/her/them in response to people here?


What you said was:

It makes you wonder why the gun grabbers are so insistent on renewing the AWB.

I don't know; does it? It doesn't actually make me wonder. And if it does make *you* wonder, is there some reason why the question or the answer is relevant here?

Why aren't you addressing why people here advocate renewing the ban? Why are you insinuating and surmising about why someone else wants to renew the ban?

Maybe there are "gun grabbers" here. I don't know, and don't particularly care.

But if you want to know why anyone here advocates renewing the ban, and you don't actually know already, why don't you ask? What basis, otherwise, would you have for labelling anyone a "gun grabber"?

If you know why someone here advocate renewing the ban and you choose to characterize what you know as "gun grabbing", well, feel entirely free. You can certainly use the dictionary of your choice, all unpublished as it may be.

Just don't be pretending that this is not what you're doing, if you don't mind. If "gun grabber" means "person who wants to renew the assault weapons ban" in your personal lexicon, just let us all know so that we can follow along, okay?

[FeebMaster]

28. If you have a problem with the rules of DU

perhaps you should take it up with the administration. I have no control over them.

If you'd like to discuss the AWB, I'd be more than happy to. Do you support the renewal of the AWB? Why or why not?

[MrBenchley]

30. Gee, feeb....

The only one pretending there's any problem with the rules is YOU.

"If you'd like to discuss the AWB, I'd be more than happy to."
Yeah, it shows.

[FeebMaster]

31. Where have I pretended there is a problem with the rules?

I have no problem with the rules.

[MrBenchley]

33. No, the rules aren't what YOU have a problem with

[FeebMaster]

36. Are you implying that I have a problem of some other kind?

Perhaps you could enlighten me on my potential problems. I am unaware of them.

[MrBenchley]

38. I'm not IMPLYING that at all...

I'm just noting that you're dodging Iverglas' common sense questions to pretend she has a problem with DU's rules....for what seem to be pretty transparent reasons.

[FeebMaster]

40. What reasons are those?

Perhaps you could point them out, if they are so transparent.

[MrBenchley]

43. Pehaps you could answer her questions...

[FeebMaster]

56. Perhaps I could.

But that's really between me and iverglas now isn't it?

[MrBenchley]

57. Yeah, feeb, perhaps you could

when pigs fly

[iverglas]

44. if you have a problem with reading comprehension

Perhaps you should take a class. Wanna try it again?

"I haven't labeled any individual on this board a gun grabber. I've clearly only referred to gun grabbers as a group."

Yes, but that wasn't the issue, was it now?

It wasn't whether you were calling someone nasty names.

See? Now?

Hold onto your hat now. This is the issue. Here it comes.

It was why you refer indiscriminately to anyone who advocates stricter firearms control than you do <as> a "gun grabber".

Why are you so busy telling us (or not telling us, actually) why "gun grabbers" want to renew the assault weapons ban?

Why would you be doing this UNLESS you were calling those here who want to renew the assault weapons ban "gun grabbers", because in your private lexicon, "wanting to renew the assault weapons ban" = "gun grabber"? -- Or UNLESS you are trying to represent anyone who advocates any restriction on firearms possession that you oppose as someone who secretly wants/plans to confiscate all firearms in private hands.

And what unpublished dictionary *do* you have to be using to call advocating the renewal of the assault weapons ban "gun grabbing"?


To make CO Liberal's point perhaps a little more directly, why do we bother talking at all?

Why not just line up, and have one side say "gun grabbers!" and the other side say "violent rednecks!" or, oh, "so's your old man!"

"Gun grabbers" could be understood to mean everything from advocating that the assault weapons ban be renewed to sending the local constabulary out to arrest anyone who hasn't turned in his/her hunting weapons by sundown. And "violent redneck" could be taken to mean everything from advocating that machine guns be sold at the 7-11 to wanting to be able to keep firearms, under lock and key, to hunt for food.

Nobody would actually know what the ones on the other side thought about anything, but who the hell cares, eh?


"If you'd like to discuss the AWB, I'd be more than happy to. Do you support the renewal of the AWB? Why or why not?"

I've said it before, but I'll be happy to say it again.

I don't generally bother having opinions about things when my opinion doesn't matter.

Basically, I think that your assault weapons ban is a fairly useless bit of window dressing. If my opinion mattered, it would be that handguns should be largely removed from circulation, since they have virtually no legitimate use and are the cause of thousands and thousands of deaths and injuries, and are used in tens of thousands of crimes, every year in the US. And because they are used too often for that purpose in Canada, even though it is quite difficult to get authorization to possess one here, to a significant extent because they are smuggled here from the US where they are a dime a dozen.

Of course, such a "ban" (actually, very strict regulation) would also cover what your assault weapons ban now covers in that respect, and more, the way the prohibited weapons regulations in Canada do now.

There ya go. I still do not advocate prohibiting the private possession of firearms that are commonly and reasonably used for subsistence and sport hunting, although I certainly advocate requiring that people who possess them be licensed for the purpose, and their possession of them be registered.

And I have absolutely no doubt that if I looked up "gun grabber" in your internal dictionary, I'd find my picture.

[FeebMaster]

49. My reading comprehension is fine. Thanks for your concern.

"It was why you refer indiscriminately to anyone who advocates stricter firearms control than you do <as> a "gun grabber"."

I think I covered that somewhere in this thread. Maybe you should read it.


Why would you be doing this UNLESS you were calling those here who want to renew the assault weapons ban "gun grabbers", because in your private lexicon, "wanting to renew the assault weapons ban" = "gun grabber"? -- Or UNLESS you are trying to represent anyone who advocates any restriction on firearms possession that you oppose as someone who secretly wants/plans to confiscate all firearms in private hands."

Here. I'll go over it again. Just because someone isn't advocating going door to door and confiscating everything from machine guns down to BB guns and air-soft guns doesn't mean they aren't a gun grabber in my book. Anyone advocating restrictions making it harder for someone who wants to obey the law to get a gun is a gun grabber as far as I'm concerned. I guess you could look at it as if the gun grabber was grabbing that hypothetical gun that someone might otherwise have bought if it weren't for whatever restriction is in place keeping them from doing so.

Since the AWB generally removed bayonet lugs and flash suppressors from various rifles, supporters of the AWB are gun grabbers because the AWB prevents people who want those new rifles with bayonet lugs and flash suppressors from getting them. Sure, they could buy a used one, but maybe they want a new one. In effect, supporters of the AWB have grabbed away the gun that person wants before they ever got a chance to buy it.


Since I advocate no restrictions on guns, I guess you could say that I think of anyone who advocates more restrictions than I do a gun grabber, which would include most of the pro-gun people on this board, who, for the most part, support much more gun control than most people give them credit for.

Was that clear enough?

"To make CO Liberal's point perhaps a little more directly, why do we bother talking at all?"

Well, I've got nothing better to do.

[iverglas]

62. well tarnation, I was right

Just because someone isn't advocating going door to door and confiscating everything from machine guns down to BB guns and air-soft guns doesn't mean they aren't a gun grabber in my book. Anyone advocating restrictions making it harder for someone who wants to obey the law to get a gun is a gun grabber as far as I'm concerned.

And since I would advocate making it harder for people who want to obey the law to get narcotics on prescription (if it weren't already sufficiently difficult to do so), I'm a medicine-grabber. Okay.

The assault weapons ban, you see, doesn't actually "make it harder for someone who wants to obey the law to get a gun", it makes it harder for someone who wants to get the particular kind of firearm that the assault weapons ban affects to get a gun.


Since the AWB generally removed bayonet lugs and flash suppressors from various rifles, supporters of the AWB are gun grabbers because the AWB prevents people who want those new rifles with bayonet lugs and flash suppressors from getting them.

And since the computerized system where I'm at prevents people from double-doctoring and getting multiple narcotics prescriptions filled, supporters of that system are medicine-grabbers because the system prevents people who want those narcotics from getting them.

Hey, nobody's saying firearms are like false drugs. Narcotics are just tools for relieving pain, inanimate objects that don't harm anyone unless somebody, be s/he criminal or moron, misuses them. Kinda like firearms.


Sure, they could buy a used one, but maybe they want a new one.

Sure, they could buy 222s over the counter (up here, anyhow), but maybe they wanted Demerol.


In effect, supporters of the AWB have grabbed away the gun that person wants before they ever got a chance to buy it.

In effect, supporters of the computerized pharmacy system have grabbed away the Demerol the person wants before s/he even got a chance to buy it.


Since I advocate no restrictions on guns, I guess you could say that I think of anyone who advocates more restrictions than I do a gun grabber, which would include most of the pro-gun people on this board, who, for the most part, support much more gun control than most people give them credit for.

Was that clear enough?

Oh, indeed.

You have either called a bunch of people liars, or called a bunch of other people stupid. Or said something else. Any suggestion as to what it might have been?

[FeebMaster]

66. I'm glad we understand each other.

"And since I would advocate making it harder for people who want to obey the law to get narcotics on prescription (if it weren't already sufficiently difficult to do so), I'm a medicine-grabber. Okay."

I'm glad we're seeing eye to eye.

"The assault weapons ban, you see, doesn't actually "make it harder for someone who wants to obey the law to get a gun", it makes it harder for someone who wants to get the particular kind of firearm that the assault weapons ban affects to get a gun."

No kidding.


"And since the computerized system where I'm at prevents people from double-doctoring and getting multiple narcotics prescriptions filled, supporters of that system are medicine-grabbers because the system prevents people who want those narcotics from getting them."

Sounds about right.

"Hey, nobody's saying firearms are like false drugs. Narcotics are just tools for relieving pain, inanimate objects that don't harm anyone unless somebody, be s/he criminal or moron, misuses them. Kinda like firearms."

I think you might have gotten mixed up here. Your first sentence doesn't seem to go with the rest. I'm in full agreement about narcotics though.

"Sure, they could buy 222s over the counter (up here, anyhow), but maybe they wanted Demerol."

I don't know what 222s are. If someone wants Demerol they should be able to buy it though.


"In effect, supporters of the computerized pharmacy system have grabbed away the Demerol the person wants before s/he even got a chance to buy it."

Yeah, drug warriors suck. Kind of like gun grabbers.


"Oh, indeed.

You have either called a bunch of people liars, or called a bunch of other people stupid. Or said something else. Any suggestion as to what it might have been?"

Stupid might be a bit strong. I believe I used ignorant. Just because someone is ignorant doesn't necessarily make them stupid. Now if they remain willfully ignorant, well then, that's a different story. I might call someone like that stupid, but certainly not on DU. Calling someone stupid would be a personal attack. I'd say something like "people who remain willfully ignorant when given a chance at enlightenment are stupid, in my opinion." See, I'm only attacking willfully ignorant people as a group.

Oh, the something else would be authoritarians or possibly asshole authoritarians although I don't believe I've used the phrase "asshole authoritarians" in this particular thread.

[MrBenchley]

24. And for the hundredth time...

It shows the utter dishonesty of the RKBA cause...

[MrBenchley]

23. Gee, feeb....

Is THAT what it makes you wonder?

[FeebMaster]

26. Well, I don't really wonder.

Some people support the AWB because they're ignorant and think it bans bazookas and machine guns or something like that. I'm sure there are many gun grabbers who fall into this category, but for the most part, gun grabbers support the AWB simply because it's a restriction on guns. They don't care what the AWB does. They don't care what guns, if any, the AWB bans. The see "assault weapon" and "ban" and that makes them feel good. The law could say "potato gun" and "ban" and they'd feel just as warm and fuzzy about it being a federal law. The facts of the issue are irrelevant.

[MrBenchley]

29. Too TOO funny...

"Some people support the AWB because they're ignorant"
Yeah, that's why only the intellectual elite -- Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, and David Duke -- oppose it.

"The facts of the issue are irrelevant."
They are when you ignore them as assiduously as you do.

[FeebMaster]

35. Where have I ignored the facts on the AWB issue?

I understand quite clearly what the AWB says and what its effects were and are.



""Some people support the AWB because they're ignorant"
Yeah, that's why only the intellectual elite -- Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, and David Duke -- oppose it."

Do you deny that some supporters of the AWB think it bans machine guns? Do you think their support for it would be the same if they knew otherwise?

[MrBenchley]

39. Stick with that "braintrust," feeb....

I'm sure "jeniuses" like Roscoe Bartlett and Larry Pratt can give you even more talking points...

[FeebMaster]

42. What do Roscoe Bartlett and Larry Pratt

have to do with anything? Or is this lame attempt at guilt by association all you have to offer?

[MrBenchley]

45. Gee, feeb, YOU were the one

trying to pretend people supporting the AWB were somehow ignorant...

I'm just pointing out the sort of brain-dead fuckwits on the public stage who oppose the AWB...

[FeebMaster]

55. I didn't say everyone who supports the AWB is ignorant.

Just some of them.

[MrBenchley]

58. You're welcome to that "brain trust"

[FeebMaster]

59. Which "brain trust" is that? (nt)

[billbuckhead]

63. Republicans and their fellow travelers are soft on terrorism

The Dems are being handed an opportunity to crush the RepuKKKes about the war on terror. Let's see if the usual suspects get on their knees before the NRA and their ilk.

[MrBenchley]

64. It's a win/win issue for us...

[FeebMaster]

67. If Bush renews the AWB

are all of the gun grabbers going to vote for him?

[MrBenchley]

69. Of course not...

But pResident Turd WILL piss off many of the neoConfederate fuckwits that make up the core of his support.

And if he doesn't, he shows (again) what an extremist loony he really is.

Win-Win.

[FeebMaster]

70. I'm surprised.

Boy, if he does renew it, that would make just about all the gun control in the last 30 years or so Republican, except for Brady.

[MrBenchley]

71. underwhelming knowledge of feeb

[FeebMaster]

72. Are you trying to say that most of the gun control

in the last 30 years wasn't passed by Republicans and that if Bush signs an AWB extension that the only gun control left that will have been signed by a Democrat would be the Brady Bill?

[MrBenchley]

74. underwhelming knowledge of feeb

but then you ARE the guy who said you had no idea what Trent Lott had been up to in his career...

[FeebMaster]

76. I've mentioned this before

but your underwhelming knowledge of feeb bit really doesn't make much sense. While you don't really know anything about me it hardly seems like something to brag about.

Here's my old post on a suggestion for improvement:

You may be underwhelmed by me or my opinions but I don't understand how you could describe your knowledge of me as underwhelming. It just doesn't make sense. You should say something like "My overwhelming knowledge of FeebMaster has left me underwhelmed with his opinions and character." or something like that.

[MrBenchley]

78. You've mentioned lots of things before

few worth taking seriously.

[FeebMaster]

81. Just trying to be helpful. (nt)

[Fescue4u]

79. No they are different

The ones for sale are identical except you cannot put a knife on it.

So tell me, why ARE you frothing at the mouth to keep this knife attachment ban in place?

[OpSomBlood]

80. Because the "knife attachment" has no effect on...

...the mechanical operation of the weapon. It's a useless, cosmetic law.

[OpSomBlood]

73. Semi-automatic centerfire rifles are obviously much more lethal than...

...semi-automatic centerfire rifles. Isn't it obvious?

[MrBenchley]

75. What IS obvious

is how desperately the RKBA crowd has to spin...

[OpSomBlood]

77. No, you're absolutely right on this one.

Semi-automatic centerfire rifles are much more dangerous than semi-automatic centerfire rifles.

And terrorists who want to rapidly kill lots of people always buy semi-automatic centerfire rifles from legal gun shops, voluntarily subjecting themselves to waiting periods and background checks.

[MrBenchley]

83. Alas the poor RKBA "enthusaist"

Only he and a handful of specimens like Tom DeLay anmd Ted Nugent know the "truth" (snicker).....

[OpSomBlood]

86. Right-Wing Guilt by Association when backed into a corner?

Not from MrBenchley...I'm astonished!

[MrBenchley]

88. Gee, op, just an ACCURATE description

of which politicos are peddling this horseshit...

[OpSomBlood]

90. I've had month-old doughnuts less stale than your act.

Kthxbye.

[MrBenchley]

92. Tough titty, op...

Maybe you can find something at the stentorian to enlighten us...

[OpSomBlood]

93. Maybe you can find some new material.

Don't get out much, do you?

[MrBenchley]

95. Why bother?

It's not like the RKBA crowd has anytthing but the same tired pile of right wing horseshit and lameass sarcasm...

[OpSomBlood]

96. I truly hope you one day find closure.

...to whatever it was that caused this much anger in you. From one man to another, I really hope you are able get through it.

All "lameass sarcasm" aside.

[MrBenchley]

84. Alas the poor RKBA "enthusaist"

Only he and a handful of specimens like Tom DeLay and Ted Nugent know the "truth" (snicker).....

[FeebMaster]

85. Well the gun grabbers certainly don't seem to have a clue. (nt)

[OpSomBlood]

87. They have about as much of a clue as Osama bin Laden.

Because all terrorists know that U.S. gun laws make it very easy to buy machine guns legally. That's why we need to renew the Assault Weapons Ban, which has no applicability to machine guns whatsoever.

It's all so simple. Why are you gun nuts so dense?

[FeebMaster]

89. Besides, everyone knows you can just convert a

semi-auto into a machine gun using only a rubber band and a paper clip.

[OpSomBlood]

91. This is the part where MrB posts the image of the semi-auto convert book.

He ought to get that book and actually study what tools and techniques are involved. But that would require intellectual effort.

[MrBenchley]

94. No "intellectual effort" needed at all...

which is why so many ignorant dittomonkeys push this RKBA rubbish.

[OpSomBlood]

97. No intellectual effort required for a MrB argument.

You just summed it up lovely.

[MrBenchley]

102. Yeah, I did...

But then I'm not trying to pretend that high school metal shop represents the apex of intellectual achievement...or that the sort of shitheads clogging gun forums are polite liberal intellectuals...

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

107. Tsk tsk tsk....

"You have proven over and over that it is way too much to ask for you to back up your vitriol with technical research."
Gee, op, go sulk about that to somebody who gives a shit. I back up what I say.

[DoverFrank]

109. What does it take?

To go from semi auto to fully automatic?

Just curious, does anyone really know?

[MrBenchley]

111. Tee hee hee

"does anyone really know?"
Yeah, it's an amazing fucking mystery, up there with "Who built the pyramids?" If only there was some sort of manuals or literature or dicsussion boards that you could find through any search engine that would outline for lethal little "enthusiasts" exactly how to do such a thing ....

[DoverFrank]

112. Of course there are manuals or books on it

But Im sure you can find a book on building a dirty bomb too. That doesnt mean your average Joe could accomplish it. My question was, does anyone really know how to do it? Has anyone ever done it? What is involved? That was my intent. Of course its possible to find the information but that can be said about anything.

[MrBenchley]

113. Gee, it don't take plutonium to convert one either...

"Has anyone ever done it?"
I haven't...but then I'm not a bloodthirsty loony either.

"Of course its possible to find the information but that can be said about anything. "
Yeah....and most people are plenty satisfied with that. Is there something sacred about popguns that requires some sort of mystical "other" sort of knowledge? Are you looking for people who "know" in the bibilical sense?

[DoverFrank]

114. Im not following you

"Gee, it don't take plutonium to convert one either..."
What does it take lol? That was my question. You havent converted one but, what does it take? Do you, or anyone else, know?

"Yeah....and most people are plenty satisfied with that. Is there something sacred about popguns that requires some sort of mystical "other" sort of knowledge? Are you looking for people who "know" in the bibilical sense?"
Plenty satisfied with what? That its possible to find information on it? I dont quite understand how they are satisfied with that or why you bring it up. I dont know what you mean by sacred or biblical either. I was asking if anyone had ever done it before, meaning technical knowledge. Since converting to a full auto is an issue, I wondered if anyone has done it. I assumed it was something that required tools, knowledge etc??

Anyone know what is involved?

[MrBenchley]

115. You asked me I told you.

Don't feel like playing with popguns...

You know, there's plenty of gun loony forums all over the internet, and even links to three of them in another thread. It's certainly seems to be too much to ask for any "pro-gun democrat" to say anything pro-Democrat at any one ofthem, but does it really have to be a struggle to get you guys to keep your gun porn over there?

[DoverFrank]

116. Whoooaaa

Not to criticize but you need to calm down a bit. You got the claws out today :) I just asked if anyone had ever done it, I thought you might have misunderstood my question. I never said I was pro gun or anti gun, I was just asking the more knowledgeable posters if they knew about that since it had been brought up. Arent you curious to know what is involved in transforming a gun to fully automatic?

Im sure you cant walk into a gun store and buy a kit to do it but, I bet you can get the parts and information somewhere. I think that's not -gun porn- thats a serious issue.

[MrBenchley]

117. Too TOO funny...

"Arent you curious to know what is involved in transforming a gun to fully automatic? "
No.

"I bet you can get the parts and information somewhere. I think that's not -gun porn- thats a serious issue."
By jinkies, seems like somebody mentioned that earlier.

Think it makes another good reason why the assault weapon ban ought to be renewed and strengthened...as do most voters, most liberal columnists, and most elected Democrats.

[DoverFrank]

118. Well

So rather than know what is involved in the process you would rather NOT know? Or do you dismiss the details as irrelevant? That is kind of like saying you disagree with the patriot act but not knowing what its about or how they use it.

[MrBenchley]

119. Too fucking funny...

"do you dismiss the details as irrelevant"
Gee, you mean that wasn't clear?

"That is kind of like saying you disagree with the patriot act but not knowing what its about or how they use it."
No it's more like pretending I have to know the academic credentials and measured IQ's of every one of the pirates of Halliburton before I can criticize their idiotic failed policies.

But then I already told you where to go to get the information you want...and you'll find a whole bunch of trigger-happy yobbos who'll wallow in it with you all day and all night.

[DoverFrank]

120. Ok then

I guess it wasnt clear. Im a little surprised to hear someone say they dont want to be informed about an issue while they are voting or making comments about it. Its not really about knowing the IQ's of people who are doing the work, its about knowing the details of what is involved in the process and how easily it can be done. Learning those details I think, would provide a way to rebut arguments. I just thought this would be the best place to actually learn about it without the frills.

[Wickerman]

121. locking this thread

before I go get some duct tape and a file and convert the damn thing into a full auto bullet hose and take out the entire gungeon.

Geez, its a beautiful day - go get some sun - or, hell, do some freakin' work.