The Six Things

[schnellfeuer]

"The Six Things Americans Should Know
About the Second Amendment"

http://www.jpfo.org/sixaboutsecond.htm

For those here who still seem to have trouble with the 2nd Amendment.
This might help.

[meegbear]

1. Thanks ...

I think ....

[556]

4. That about.........

sums it up for me but then again I already know what the second amendment means without ever having to read that. Don't worry though you will soon be refered to as an RKBA nut and will also probably be told that times have changed hence the constitution should be changed. Some people will even go as far to tell you that it is a collective right. LOL.

Edited to add: See I told you so!

[MrBenchley]

2. From those loonies?

Yeah, ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght....

[Superfly]

3. Now you're anti-semetic?

You have a problem with Jews owning firearms?

Good God, will the surprises never end?

B

[MrBenchley]

8. Not even close to true

but thanks for showing us how desperate the RKBA crowd can get....

Meanwhile, a nice sampling from these scumbags:

"Will NAACP Sell Black People into Powerlessness and Oppression?"

http://www.jpfo.org/alert19990719.htm

"A Lost Cause, But an Honorable One, by Lewis Regenstein
      The controversy over the Confederate battle flag and what it symbolizes continues to rage. But it is rarely if ever explained why many decent people of good will are so proud of their Confederate ancestry. "
http://www.jpfo.org/unpopularsp-0302.htm 

[schnellfeuer]

10. So you by quoting those links...

are you saying you oppose "people of color" protecting themselves and people of Southern heritage from being proud of being Southern Americans?

[MrBenchley]

12. Gee, schnell, you sticking up for Confederate flags

and this racist gibberish?

[schnellfeuer]

14. Some of my ancestors fought and died for the Confederacy

Does that make me a racist? Are you one of those silly yankees who think the war of northern aggression was about slavery? I proudly fly the flag of the Confederacy, by the way, right along side the US flag.

[MrBenchley]

15. Peddle it to someone dumb enough to buy it

"Are you one of those silly yankees who think the war of northern aggression was about slavery?"
Says it all....

"I proudly fly the flag of the Confederacy"
Traitor.

[schnellfeuer]

17. Please do explain your reply at depth

I'm sure there are other besides me that would like to hear your answers to this.

[MrBenchley]

18. Happy to

[Superfly]

20. Wow! What a hyperbole!

Nice one. Way to stay true to form.

[MrBenchley]

21. Actually it's right on the money

so go cry to somebody else...

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

23. Gee, fly, I'm not the one pretending that the Confederate swastika

isn't shorthand for racism...

[Superfly]

24. But you are the one pretending to be

an anti-semite. Or are you not pretending? Inquiring minds need to know!!!

[MrBenchley]

25. No, I'm the one accurately pointing out what bigots

this handful of loonies at JPFO is.

Now go cry about it to someone who gives a shit.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

27. Yeah, one wonders who would associate themselves with JPFO

considering what bigoted and lunatic pieces of shit they are...

[556]

31. Boy, talk about............

someone actually believing the things they were taught in high school history class were the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. For those of us who have read actual history books and know better the Confederate flag and the Civil War had little to do with slavery.

[MrBenchley]

35. Yeah, surrrrrrrre....

Peddle it to someone dumb enough to believe it.

"the Confederate flag and the Civil War had little to do with slavery. "
In fact, the modern appearance of the Confederate swastika is based entirely on bigotrry and opposition to civil rights....

"Kweisi Mfume, President & CEO, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, today said the Confederate flag today represents evil in much the same way as the German Swastika.
"The NAACP believes it is time for Mississippi to have a flag that all of its citizens can support. This means one without the symbol of the confederacy," Mfume said. "Confederate flag supporters who are proud of the heritage it represents should understand that this includes the support of slavery and the belief that African Americans are not entitled to all of the protections of the Constitution."
Mfume said Confederate vice president Alexander H. Stephens made this clear in his famous Cornerstone speech in 1861 in Savannah, Georgia. Stephens said: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea ; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -subordination to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition." "

http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/0148.NAACP.Flag.htm

"he truth is that South Carolina's Confederate flag was only raised above the statehouse in 1962-to show defiance to the powerful civil rights movement, to proclaim white superiority.  And it is still there for that reason.
South Carolina State Senator Arthur Ravenel, in a typical comment made by the state's elected bigots, called the civil rights group "the National Association of Retarded People." He later apologized to "retarded people" for mistakenly associating them with the NAACP! "

http://solidarity.igc.org/atc/85Miah.html

[556]

37. That's just one man's opinion (eom)

[MrBenchley]

39. Uh-huh

[demsrule4life]

48. What flag was flying over the slave ships?

And it wasen't the stars and bars.

[MrBenchley]

50. Peddle that neoCondfederate rubbish elsewhere

"The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today decried South Carolina’s failure to pass legislation establishing a statewide holiday in honor of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., saying it represents "a significant setback to civil rights and African American groups." The measure was defeated after state House members attempted an end-run amendment which included language lauding the Confederate flag.
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, and Jay Kaiman, ADL Southeast Regional Director issued the following statement.
The South Carolina House's action represents a significant set-back to civil rights and African-American groups. "It is a disgrace that the legislators would tarnish the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr. by introducing language into the bill lauding the Confederate flag. It is inconceivable that the same piece of legislation could support both Dr. King and the infamous Confederate flag.


http://www.adl.org/presrele/CvlRt_32/3574_32.asp

[Terran]

51. That is empty rationalization

Are you trying to say that Americans had no part in the Atlantic slave trade? That that they had no complicity in the tens of thousands of deaths that occurred as a result of that trade?

[MrBenchley]

52. REALLY?

Are you trying to say that the Confederate swastika has nothing to do with racism when it's being waved around by the sort of scum who clog the aisles of gun shows?

[demsrule4life]

53. I wont answer for him, Iam saying

slaves were brought into this country under the stars and stripes. I have lived all around this country and have seen more racism on the east coast then I have in the south.

[Terran]

56. Oh, I get it

You were saying the the Confederacy had no part in the Atlantic slave trade! My mistake. And possibly true, in a remotely technical way, there may not have been an Atlantic slave trade anymore by 1860. By that time the South had a good-sized breeding population of slaves, so it no longer needed new ones.

It's still an empty rationalization, a weak attempt to apologize for what the Confederacy stood for.

[demsrule4life]

57. I'am not attempting to apologize for the Confederacy

I'am saying there were many people from the north that took part in the slave trade.

[CO Liberal]

59. And From the South

And anyone who thinks that slavery was not one of several major factors leading to the Civil War is ignoring the facts.

[Terran]

54. Uh, Benchley

I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to post #48. The one that notes so disingenuously that the ships used in the slave trade weren't American? (an assertion that I would like to see proven anyway, by the way).

Dirk

[MrBenchley]

55. Ho-kay

Sorry......

[CO Liberal]

58. Bogus Argument

Since the slave trade was ended before the Confederacy was born, it would have been impossible for the Stars and Bars to fly on a slave ship.

Are you implying that no slave ships were ever based in Southern ports? EVER???????

[demsrule4life]

61. You are correct, so what flag was flowen?

Ships from the north and the south brought slaves to the south flying the stars and stripes. MrB loves to post pics of the stars and bars and I'am saying there has been times when our country has committed shameful acts flying the stars and stripes.

[Terran]

64. Well, that I certainly agree with

Long before the Confederacy ever existed, slavery existed throughout the United States. But your original post about ships flying the "Stars and Bars" certainly sounded like an apology for the Confederacy.

Anyway...back the guns, folks! :eyes:

[schnellfeuer]

5. Please do enlighten us

as to WHY they are loonies. :bounce:

[MrBenchley]

9. Gee, have you read some of the crap on their website?

Somebody here was trying to peddle an ersatz psychiatrist these whackjobs had dug up a few weeks ago.

[schnellfeuer]

11. how about a link so I can read it? eom

[MrBenchley]

13. Considering you're sniveling about it above

I guess you really don't need it...

but since you asked SO nicely....here's a whole bunch more lunatic right wing drivel.

"Gun Confiscation is NOW in the California Reich"

http://www.jpfo.org/commonsense08.htm

"The United Nations is Killing Your Freedoms!"

http://www.jpfo.org/gpjack5.htm

[schnellfeuer]

16. I was looking for the "ersatz psychiatrist" link.

How about that one? Thanks.

[MrBenchley]

19. So I should dive back into the JPFO cesspool for you?

No thanks.

[schnellfeuer]

28. So what, there never was one?

I just wanted to see what they had to say, you brought it up. I figured you had a link since your the one making the claims.

[MrBenchley]

32. You should know better than THAT

and in fact, I'm sure you do...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=3498&mesg_id=3582&page=

Start with the bigoted rubbish from JPFO posted by Spoon in #42 and continue on...you will notice Iverglas exposes quite thoroughly what a fraud the "psychiatrist" is in #86....

[Spoonman]

60. schnellfeuer

The gun o phobes are so easy to get a rise out of, it's pathetic.
I love to toss them a bone every now and then to see them froth at the mouth with uncontrollable ranting and anger.
And they say we’re “hysterical” !!!
The JPFO had a story on it’s web site that really blasted the anti’s as having “mental issues”.

http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

It was written by Sarah Thompson, M.D.

http://www.therighter.com/biography/

After I posted it the “crowd” went wild. It was quite a lot of fun to sit back and see 1’s and 0’s fly!

The article is actually extremely accurate in describing the psychiatric terms and conditions known to exist in a variety of mental disorders.
Having an abundance of resources at my disposal, I presented the article to my wife. She fortunately for me, and my expensive hunting and fishing hobbies, is a Physiatrist.
She agreed with about 90% of the article, and was quite surprised that the RKBA issue has not inspired more writings about it.

If you read it and compare, what it say’s to what you read here, you will see some amazing similarities.

Not all pro-gun control advocates demonstrate the conditions outlined in the article. Some are just totally convinced by the blatant lies and propaganda of the gun control groups to solicit donations and grant monies.

I’m sure this post will do one of two things.
1. Generate a short burst ad hoc reply from hmmmmmm
2. Generate a long winded thesis on the qualifications of the doctor by those who have no expertise in the field themselves from hmmmmm

The best part about the JPFO is the fact that it is a Jewish organization. Every time I see the broad brush application of racism applied to pro-RKBA people it further demonstrates the desperate nature of the anti crowd.

[CO Liberal]

62. Their Faith is Immaterial

And it doesn't mean that their positions are correct, accurate, or factual.

[Spoonman]

67. Who are you trying to kid

RKBA = KKK, Confederate swastika, etc.

What you don't think those accusations might be a little offensive to their faith?!
You better wake up!

"And it doesn't mean that their positions are correct, accurate, or factual."

And broad brush statements do not mean your position is correct, accurate, or factual either!

[MrBenchley]

72. Yeah, but they're all "minorities" to some people

usually the kind of bigots who rant about "professional victims."

[MrBenchley]

63. Gee spoon....

"The best part about the JPFO is the fact that it is a Jewish organization. Every time I see the broad brush application of racism applied to pro-RKBA people"
It's 100% accurate....as the crap the wingnuts at JPFO have abundantly proved...

[Spoonman]

65. LMFAO

It's 100% accurate - yeah surrrrrre.
Blatant BS

[MrBenchley]

66. Yeah it is...

Now go cry about it to someone who cares....

[Spoonman]

68. Waaaaa Waaaaaaa

racist KKK right wing ted nugent NRA JPFO cesspool is all wrong and against me, waaaaa waaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaa.
is all I here from you.

You got nothing and your 100 & 10% wrong period.

See ya!

[MrBenchley]

71. Gee spoon, that's about the depth of all your posts

"ted nugent NRA JPFO cesspool"
Yup.....nice playmates you got there, spoon.

[Spoonman]

69. And the crowd goes wild

1. Generate a short burst ad hoc reply from hmmmmmm

Now let's see if #2 chimes in.

[iverglas]

70. why don't you try

getting that wife of yours to tell us something herself.

I'm afraid that hearsay -- especially when what was allegedly said, was said by an alleged person -- just doesn't impress me much.

Nor, in any event, am I ever impressed by anyone who pretends that s/he can diagnose collectively, or by internet, or in any other manner than the proper way of diagnosing people.

I notice that you aren't describing the author of that silliness as a "psychiatrist", since all of the available evidence establishes that she is not and never has been a psychiatrist, despite the JPFO's unequivocal statement that she is.

"Generate a long winded thesis on the qualifications of the doctor by those who have no expertise in the field themselves from hmmmmm"

What a fascinating non sequitur. While I have no qualifications in astronomy, I surely can tell you whether someone else has or not, by reading his/her curriculum vitae.

As far as the value of anything I might say about the opinions expressed by someone with no qualifications in the field -- which might be reasonable nonetheless, even a stopped clock being right twice a day and all that -- I'd leave it up to a reader with knowledge of the subject to decide. I'd point out that I have studied and worked in the fields of law (including the practical aspects of forensic psychiatry), sociology and social policy, and other related fields. And I'd mention the widespread and in many cases authoritative opinion that psychiatrists really don't know very much about psychology at all.

But of course, I didn't express any opinion (in the posts on this subject in that other thread that you chose simply to ignore) about the validity of the views expressed by the individual in question. I demonstrated she is in fact a great big web-footed quack, despite her apparent qualifications for being something else (the holder of a doctorate in astronomy can, after all, still assert that the stars control our fate, and therefore still be a quack), and that the JPFO had chosen to misrepresent her as something she is not by way of lending weight to the views of a quack.

Hell, if I were to express an opinion of her writings, I'd say that they are obviously symptomatic of a rather severe personality disorder, if not an actual paranoid psychosis. I do in fact have quite a good deal of experience in dealing with paranoid psychotics. And I could very definitely dredge up a few highly qualified experts to agree with me.

Some people have real enemies. Some people have real enemies and are *also* paranoid. Some people have real enemies and are *also* lousy human beings. It can sometimes be hard to distinguish between a paranoid and a lousy human being, when the apparent paranoia manifests in the form of, say, racial hatred or complete disregard for the safety of others in the pursuit of safety from one's alleged enemies. I certainly see some reasons to pursue these questions further in the case of both the JPFO and its "expert".

"Not all pro-gun control advocates demonstrate the conditions outlined in the article. Some are just totally convinced by the blatant lies and propaganda of the gun control groups to solicit donations and grant monies."

And if your implication is -- and it clearly is -- that this is the sum total of gun control advocates ("pro-gun control advocates" being just a wee bit of a redundancy), then your statement is demonstrably false.

If you admit of no other subset of the group, and your alleged wife would like to try diagnosing me by internet in order to establish and state publicly which category I fall into, in her professional opinion, I'll be fascinated ... and also likely to report her to her governing professional body.

.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

74. Practically frothing at the mouth

and delusional as usual....including the peculiar belief that one individual is a crowd...or a militia...or a people...

[Spoonman]

76. Like taking candy from a baby

The gun o phobes are so easy to get a rise out of, it's pathetic.
I love to toss them a bone every now and then to see them froth at the mouth with uncontrollable ranting and anger.

It works every time, and demonstrates the true hysterical nature of the anti-RKBA crowd.

[MrBenchley]

77. Gee, spoon, the only hysteria here is yours

[iverglas]

75. hee hah

"Yea, your alleged professional opinion means dick here, because you cannot and have not ever proven any expertise outside of your inability to comprehend simple statements."

I wonder who alleged that I had a professional opinion of the matter? Is your reading comprehension really all this bad? Or is it not your reading comprehension that is deficient ...

And I'm afraid that pretending that I have claimed that I even have a professional opinion of the matter, let alone that I have stated one, and then cackling about how I can't prove that I have something I never said I have, just doesn't do much to respond to what I already said, which was that your statement about your wife is even one step farther removed from reality. You did allege the professional-opinion-ness of an opinion that you advanced second-hand -- i.e. you merely allege that there was any source for that opinion at all. At least if I had stated an opinion, professional or otherwise, I wouldn't have been attributing it to some alleged other person.

But you can have my opinion anyhow, although not about the subject matter of the article by your "expert", which is mere crap. What the hell: oops, that was my opinion. Now here's my opinion on the author. Your "expert" is a paranoid. The delusion of grandeur (she is infinitely wiser than all the real doctors and all their real medical schools and real practice standards), the feelings of persecution by those authorities because of her superiority to them (being an outcast from their profession and claiming self-exile on principle, rather than the obvious reason, incompetence and insanity), the irrational resentment and blaming of other groups (Jews, blacks, women) who are perceived as threats to her "rights". Classic symptoms. If she were from East Germany and the problem people in her world were the Stasi and the communists (and anyone else who couldn't see how she'd been persecuted by them), and of course it were those same Jews she resented for their greater success at having their victimization recognized and doing something about it and who therefore were all part of the conspiracy, I'd know where to send her for diagnosis of "Eastern European syndrome".

And that is my humble, experienced and informed layperson's opinion. I'm not interested in any other paranoids' opinions of it.

"I have a two year associates degree in sociology, and met my wife in one of my classes I might add, but I can’t prove it to anyone here. I also do not go blowing my cake hole open proclaiming to be an expert either."

Up here, we speak plainly, and we call that particular piece of paper a community college diploma, usually granted for non-academic study related to an occupation. We don't fancify such things by calling them "degrees"; degrees come from degree-granting institutions.

I can't help but wonder what a psychiatrist was doing in one of those places. Don't they go to universities, normally? Perhaps she was studying auto mechanics in her spare time ... maybe she can give me a professional opinion on a car problem I'm having.

"Psychiatrists are Psychologists that went on to become medical doctors (M.D.)."

If your wife is feeding you this crap, then she ain't no psychiatrist.

Psychiatrists are MDs with specialized training in psychiatry -- that three-year residency. Most people get MDs after doing undergraduate studies usually in the hard sciences.

Psychologists -- where that term is restricted to members of self-governing professional bodies, or otherwise restricted, as it is anywhere I know of -- most often must have Ph.D.s in clinical psychology. Or, as you point out, and perhaps in some jurisdictions but not all, someone with a different doctoral degree in a clinical practice. (An "X"Ed. degree would be in counselling, e.g., rather than in school administration.)

I'm sure there are a few psychiatrists with Ph.D.s in psychology. A very few. Did you wife pick up an "associate's" Ph.D. at the local community college?

The rest of your cutting, pasting, evasion and attempts to pretend that you didn't say what you said and project what you said onto me ... well, maybe you could ask your wife for a diagnosis on that last score. I'm bored.

.

[MrBenchley]

78. Remember

you're talking to someone who claims that the CATO Institute isn't right wing....

[iverglas]

79. more waterfowl

Quacks, loons ...

How 'bout these, where Dr. Thompson publishes her stuff?

http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/AboutUs/AboutUs.htm

Raised in Springville, Utah, George Sutherland represented Utah in the U.S. House of Representatives and later the U.S. Senate. He was appointed by president Warren Harding as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and served from 1922 to 1938. He was one of the "Four Horsemen" who consistently questioned the constitutionality of the New Deal programs. Sutherland was committed to individual freedom, limited government, and private initiative.

Yup. Sounds to me -- ignorant foreigner that I am, I can decode that stuff -- like a died in the wool Democrat. Just the sort of place one would expect to find Democrats publishing their scribblings, I'd say.

Its trustees can be found in all the finest places ... like ... well, Utah. More specifically, for example, the "School of Family Life" at Brigham Young University.

Here's the current chair of its board:
http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/AboutUs/Trustees/GaylordSwim/GaylordSwim.htm

GAYLORD K. SWIM is the founder of the Sutherland Institute and chairman of its Board of Trustees. Gaylord's personal commitment to a strong community has carried him into the leadership of numerous policy groups and philanthropic organizations. He is chairman of the board of American Heritage School, a board member of Rural Health Management Corporation, and a board member of the State Policy Network. Gaylord has previously served on the boards of Covey Leadership Institute, Deseret International Foundation, Eyring Research Institute, and the Central Valley Medical Center. He has been involved with the National Right-to-Work Legal Defense Foundation, Heritage Foundation, and the Philanthropy Roundtable. His business career includes management of an investment brokerage office for Dominick and Dominick and acting as president of Swim Investment Management. Mr. Swim is a graduate of Brigham Young University.

Another link in the chain: http://www.heritage.org/about/ --



Do you suppose that if the Democratic Party embraced the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd amendment, this guy might take out membership?

Can anybody think of any reason why any credence would be given by a Democrat to someone (regardless of how dangerously unbalanced she obviously is) who puts her ... talents ... to work for the likes of these people?

I can't ...

.

[CO Liberal]

80. "Finest Conservative Minds" ... What an Oxymoron

With the emphasis on "moron".

[MrBenchley]

82. Almost indistinguishable

from the weakest conservative minds...

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
--John Stuart Mill

[iverglas]

81. and btw

If you read (or were straightforward about the content of) your links, you'd avoid embarrassment.

You say:

"Psychiatrists are Psychologists that went on to become medical doctors (M.D.)."

... and refer to a three-year residency.

Apart from the inaccuracy of your statement, the fact is that this individual doesn't qualify as a psychiatrist no matter how you slice it. Here is what this self-styled psychiatrist says about herself at the link you gave, http://www.therighter.com/biography/

I attended college at Tufts University, majored in chemistry and French literature, minored in sex, drugs, rock'n'roll and war protesting, and after two years left to go to medical school.

I spent five years in the Johns Hopkins University combined B.A. - M.D. program.

I just ain't seeing any "psychologist" in there.

I say "self-styled" because she reproduces that article from JPFO, the one where it says "psychiatrist" under her name, at her own site. But NOWHERE on her own site does she come right out and call herself a psychiatrist, either past or present. She says what you quoted:

I have specialty training in emergency medicine and psychiatry

and for all I know, that could mean that she took an optional one-semester "intro to psychiatry" course in med school. Which would not surprise me.

And again, I expect all good Democrats to share her life goals, which include:

to make it onto the Southern Poverty Law Center "hate list"

I doubt that if they had such a list they'd waste their time on such a quacker, of course.

She devotes some of her scribbling to railing against the involuntary treatment of people with mental illnesses ... and makes particular mention in her biography of "corrupt state licensing boards". Anybody else smell a loon in victim's clothing? Lordy, talk about projection ...

.

[iverglas]

84. I could just go on and on

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16950

Yup, WorldNetDaily.

Salt Lake Olympic gun ban

... "This is not a local issue," warns Dr. Sarah
Thompson, a long-time gun rights activist. "If it
can happen in Utah, it can happen anywhere
else.

"First it will be the Olympics, and then all
international competitions, then the Super
Bowl, the NBA playoffs, the World Series, all
sports events, all concerts, and eventually any
gathering of three or more people, the current
definition of a gang," she warned.

Thompson, once a member of the Utah
Shooting Sports Council board, and founder of
Women Against Gun Control, worked closely
with Republican Sen. Michael Waddoups on
various gun bills in the past. Waddoups once
sponsored a bill to liberalize a formerly strict
concealed weapons permit.

Waddoups has been the number one pro-gun
legislator in Utah for years, but now Thompson
is calling him a traitor for sponsoring a bill to
ban guns at Olympic event sites.

Damn. More nutty than the nuttiest Republican??

I look forward to many more citations of many more sources with such good liberal credentials.

Here's a fan of hers:
http://www.ccops.org/granpajack.html
http://www.ccops.org/gpjack7.html
http://www.jpfo.org/unpopularspeech.htm
(Don't miss "No Democracy for Whites in the New America" ... although I personally managed to restrain myself ...)

Something called "Conservative Consensus" also speaks quite highly of her. And excuse my foreign ignorance ... but is NewsMax one of our favourite sources?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/9/150556.shtml

Could it be that for some radical feminists, who fear their own inner violence (i.e., "reaction formation"), the subconscious male castration that they desire for their liberation is abnormally channeled toward gun control, civilian (male) disarmament and the end of manhood itself? He quotes authorities, such as psychiatrist Dr. Sarah Thompson, who affirm that this indeed may be the case.

(Given the special offer -- "Liberals' attacks on America – in their own words!" -- I kinda think not.)

But no, it seems that no sane or decent organization or individual has really bothered to take any notice of Dr.T.

The whiff of paranoia (in the clinical sense, of course) ... tinged with just a soupçon of racism and a few other bits of detritus ... just keeps getting up my nose ...

.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

86. ding dong (oops, html edited)

"Down here we call it an associates degree, anyone capable of performing a search can figure that out, but once again you failed to educate yourself prior to mouthing off."

You really should have taken Reading Comprehension-Readiness while you were there. I'm perfectly aware of what it is and what you call it, and never hinted that I wasn't. How the hell else would I be able to tell you what we call it up here?? Are you projecting again -- imagining that everyone else is as ignorant of the world outside their borders as you might be?

It's a bit of paper from a barely post-secondary institution where people go when they can't get into universities. (Yes, people go there who can't afford to go to universities, I'm aware of that too. The poor are denied the good stuff. That doesn't make the stuff they are given good. Would you say that baba ganouj, the "poor man's caviar", is equivalent to "caviar"? They're unrelated except that they're both food. So are "associate's degrees" and "degrees" except that they're both bits of paper.)

I also know that WalMart calls its wage-labour employees "associates". Many people like to dress various kinds of mutton up as lamb (or eggplant as fish eggs), in the hope that those being served it won't notice. Me, I notice. Calling something an "associate's degree" does not make it remotely similar to a degree (that which I have two of).

My, my, you do seem exercised about all this. A psychologist might call your reaction "defensive".

"You do not even know the difference between the two, and what it take to become one!!"

Your lack of ... reading comprehension skills ... is still no excuse for your bizarrely false allegations.

"Maybe your short term memory has been effected by that inflated ego ..."

I'm sorry ... are you actually pretending that you think that when I wrote:

I'd mention the widespread and in many cases authoritative opinion ...

... I was referring to MY opinion, and thus "claimed that I even have a professional opinion of the matter"?? Again, how bizarre.

I have "professional opinions" of things relating to the law. I'm qualified to have those "professional opinions". I would no more claim to have a "professional opinion" about things relating to medicine than I'd claim to have a professional opinion about the existence of your wife ... and I didn't.

Fellow Canadian Alex would be so proud if you get this right.

A person finds themself in a situation where their abilities and attitudes are denigrated or rejected by other people. He / she then strives to develop themself according to their own standards and values. He / she strives to develop themself so as to provide their own justification of themself, to provide their own sense of satisfaction in their own worth as a person.

Since I don't see an answer in there, to which one could get the question either wrong or right, I'll assume that what you were asking me to do was edit and correct your appalling grammar and style. Yup, I can surely get that right. But you'd need to pay my going rates, and I don't take WalMart cards.

"Your paranoia is truly beginning to show, no one here “projected” any thing towards you in the context of which you imply."

Please try occasionally to follow your own thought. You're bold, I'm bold-italic.

It doesn't take paranoia to recognize when one is being called either insane or stupid.

Not all pro-gun control advocates demonstrate the conditions outlined in the article. Some are just totally convinced by the blatant lies and propaganda of the gun control groups to solicit donations and grant monies.

And if your implication is -- and it clearly is -- that this is the sum total of gun control advocates ..., then your statement is demonstrably false.

You said "not all Xs are Ys. Some Xs are Zs." You can pretend all you want that you admitted of a third or fourth subset -- that there are also Xs that are As, Bs, and Cs -- but I won't believe you.

If you had said "not all horses are white; some horses are black", a normal person would assume you to be saying that all horses are either white or black -- and hence it would be quite odd (and false) for you to say such a thing, since there are of course other coloured horses. That particular fact would normally be expressed by saying something like "not all horses are white; some horses are black, some are brown, and some are other colours". Of course, a person who wanted to mislead his reader would make the former statement, so that when someone who replied to the apparent statement by saying that he had said "all horses are either black or white" he could leap up in righteous indignation and cry "I never said that!" But one would reasonably demand that he then say exactly what he claimed he did mean, and of course he could do it: "not all horses are white; some are black, some are brown, and some are other colours". (The fact would remain that his formulation was misleading, and arguably intentionally misleading.)

So -- did you mean to say that there were other colours of gun-control advocates besides the two you cited?

You can try to convince me, if you like. Tell me what other subset there is of these "pro-gun control advocates" -- some group of them that does NOT "demonstrate the conditions outlined in the article" and that ALSO is NOT "just totally convinced by the blatant lies ...".

And I'm just afraid that if you can't do that, and can't tell me which such subset you are now saying that *I* belong to, then your (barely decipherable) protestation --

"Your paranoia is truly beginning to show ... ."

... is just too much. Really. Too much silly shit.

Either you are saying that there are only 2 types of gun-control advocates, or you are saying that there are more than 2 types of gun-control advocates.

If you want to claim that you were saying the latter, let's have some credible substantiation for that claim. What are the others that you had in mind at the time?

If you want to claim that you were indeed saying the former, and that there really are only those two types of gun-control advocates, and knowing that I am a gun-control advocate, by what definition would it be "paranoid" for me to infer that you have called me either (a) a victim of the mental disorder invented by your "expert", or (b) so stupid that I believe lies told by dishonest fraud artists?

Of course, if you do settle on the former option, you might explain how that is not a personal attack.

But do go ahead and shovel yourself out of the hole; pick the latter option -- and tell me that you had in mind a third category of gun-control advocates, those who have carefully and sincerely examined all of the issues involved and concluded, in a spirit of respect for both individual liberty and collective security, that limitations on private access to firearms are justified.

And when you get a minute,

"... no one here “projected” any thing towards you in the context of which you imply"

... ask your wife to explain "projection" to you, and try upgrading your own skills so that you won't mistake my talking about your "attempts ... to project what you said onto me" as something other than what it was (and, if you could follow your own thought as well as understand these concepts, you would have recognized it as being): your projection of your own characteristics onto me.

Had you understood the Thompson article you're so enthused about, you would have got the allusion; saying that someone who says someone else is "projecting" is "projecting" -- she said gun control advocates are projecting and are the loons, and I say she's the one doing the projecting -- is a fancy way of saying "takes one to know one". In Thompson's case, the projection is on her part is patently obvious; she's an obvious loon, and she is making a career of calling other people loons. In your case, I was referring to the various allegations of stupidity and ignorance made by you against me. You were "projecting" those characteristics of your own onto me -- It takes one to know one. Get it at all?

Maybe someone who does could explain it to you ...

.

Oh, btw -- which rotten right-wing source did you pick your Dr. Thompson article up from?

.

[acerbic]

85. Handicapped parking permit for personal attacks...

You obviously feel this was directed at you, and this is symptomatic of a rather severe personality disorder, if not an actual paranoid psychosis. (look them up, they fit like a glove!)This would be my opinion.

:eyes:

[iverglas]

87. it's an either/or, ain't it?

Either

- he said that I am either mentally ill or stupid, the only two explanations he offered, and implied were available, for being a gun-control advocate;

or

- he said that I am paranoid for thinking that he said I am either mentally ill or stupid.


(I'll share the first either/or with anyone who wants it, of course ... so far, I'm apparently the only one with the "paranoia" option.)


No other options.


The question is ... where ISN'T the personal attack?!

.

[iverglas]

29. allow me to oblige

The thread

The post where the issue in question arises.

I remarked in that thread on the sounds of silence heard in response to the revelation that the empress "psychiatrist" in question was devoid of anything but ersatz clothing, and never heard that silence broken. Didja want to take up the torch?

.

[iverglas]

30. more specifically

My post in which I did the debunking in question.

.

[MrBenchley]

34. In fact, you did a good job

showing up this bigoted bit of rubbish for the right wing crap it was.....

[damnraddem]

6. Lots of blather that offers no new insights.

A right to self defense is clear, with or without the Second. That does not mean a right to possess any and all firearms; in fact, a right to self defense suggests a right to limit what types of firearms, and other weapons, are owned by others. Militias were essential to a frontier country that had just stolen land from original inhabitants; but the amendment only recognizes those that are well-regulated. Despite all of the blather from both sides, it appears to me that the Second Amendment confers both collective and individual rights, but it delimits both. There is certainly no basis for an argument that government has no power to regulate gun ownership, only saying that the state cannot prohibit individual ownership of arms. Most, but not all, militias in fact WERE incorporated into the National Guard, so the amendment applies to the Guard as well. In that respect, I have wondered about the constitutionality of attempts by the regular armed forces to take away certain weapons systems from the Guard and reserve them for the regular military (e.g., strategic bombers).

Support gun control!

[slackmaster]

7. I support sensible gun laws

Laws that prevent unqualified people from getting guns.

We have one in place - the Gun Control Act of 1968. That's the one that:

- Ended mail-order sales of all firearms.

- Established the system of federally licensed gun manufacturers and dealers.

- Prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons, people adjudicated as mentally incompetent, people dishonorably discharged from the military, etc.

Before the GCA was enacted, literally anyone in the US could get a firearm by mail order with no questions asked.

It became enforcable with the coming of computerized background checks, known as the National Instant Check System or NICS.

The problem is it still isn't being enforced. A person who is a convicted felon and fails the NICS check has already committed perjury by providing a false answer on BATF Form 4473 (or whatever it's called now). Yet only about 1% of the more than half million people who have failed a NICS check have been prosecuted.

It makes NO sense to support additional restrictions on legal gun owners until ALL of the laws currently in place are adequately enforced.

My evil shadow will now say something about how the government cannot enforce gun laws because its hands have been tied by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[jody]

33. I see by the number of "ignored" replies to your thread that you've

provoked the gun-haters. Will you never learn to "let sleeping chihuahuas lay"? :evilgrin:

[iverglas]

36. please! someone ask jody for me!

"Will you never learn to 'let sleeping chihuahuas lay'?"

... Eggs?

And here I thought chihuahuas were mammals.

Oh well, I guess jody's the expert.

.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[slackmaster]

40. There's a bug that allows you to see most of them if you want to

If a reply by an ignored user is not a direct reply to the original post, you can see it by looking at a reply to the ignored post and clicking on the link that indicates what the later post is a reply to.

Or if you really want a laugh just log out and browse.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

46. Ew!!!

"These types of people represent everything that is wrong with America."

Spare me the ignorant ethnocentrism.

I represent NOTHING about "America". I do, however, represent the views of the civilized, thinking rest of the world fairly well.

.

[acerbic]

47. That's an absolutely brilliant parody of Lush Limpball:

These types of people represent everything that is wrong with America. I, on the other hand, am all about truth and what is right.

Only a real intelligent liberal could make fun of typical megalomaniac wingnuttery like that. :-)

[MrBenchley]

41. Run and hide from fact

Seems to be the RKBA crowd's stock in trade, doesn't it?

[iverglas]

42. and never forget

to call the facts lies on yr way out the door, eh?

Moderators are on supper break, I imagine.

.

Y'know, I just don't give a crap if someone wants to call me a liar. All I ask is that s/he make some bona fide effort to demonstrate that s/he is not the one who is lying ...

.

[slackmaster]

43. You're not a liar, iverglas

Neither is CO Liberal. And I have never had either of you on Ignore.

To get on my Ignore list requires repeated denial of facts no matter how many times or how clearly they are presented, combined with constant uncivility. (Incivility? I'm fatigued.) I can take only so much of either before concluding that a person is more interested than putting people down than in engaging in meaningful discussion.

[acerbic]

44. The usual source of yap attacks...

Surprising it is not.

[DavidMS]

49. I made a quick read...

unfortunately whatever nugets of rational argument were buried under heaps of libertarian-amarchist ideology.

Essentialy they view espoused by the site is that "goverment" is a big slightly rabid attack dog that is best kept chained.

While in reality a legatamate goverment is just the collective will of the populace with a list of prohabitions of specific activities based on cultural mores of the time (generaly since moral improvement occurs, sucessive ages have better goverments). Representative goverments are at their worst no worse than the majority of the populace and at best no better. Non representative goverments, or those taken over by a small clique or dominated utterly by one faction are by defination immoral and aught to be overthrown (hopefully what replaces these non-functional goverments is more democratic).

Of cource the document ignores the history of the concpet in relitively free societies like Classical Athens but thats kinda expeccted.

I could go on, but I do need to get some sleep.