The NRA is heading to town this weekend...oh joy

[armyowalgreens]

Just what I fucking need. A big fucking rally to get all the ass-backward douchebags riled up around AZ.


I hate to say it, but Obama was right. These dumbasses really do cling to their guns and religions.

I kind of feel like protesting the president of the NRA and the lack of regulation at gun shows.

[jgraz]

1. To be precise, it's not about clinging to guns and religion

It's about clinging to guns AS religion.

[Taitertots]

2. I guess you feel like acting foolish

There are already tons of regulations on gun shows.

[armyowalgreens]

3. I hope you're joking.

[Taitertots]

4. If you are going to protest the NRA because....

You think there is some lack of regulation at gun shows then you are being foolish. There are already mountains of regulations gun dealers and buyers must deal with at gun shows.

[armyowalgreens]

6. No one is denying that dealers are regulated...

It's private sellers with a thousand guns up for sale that face basically no regulation. As long as you claim it to be a private collection up for sale, no body asks any questions.

No background checks
No waiting periods
Nothing

Not to mention the complete and utter lack of regulation on assault rifles and other automatic weapons. There is no logical purpose for owning an M4A1 and there definitely shouldn't be anyway a fucking teenager could buy one.


I remember not to long ago there was a story about a kid shooting himself to death *at a gun show* with an uzi because he slipped while firing it and hit himself in the head.

clarification*


You call that regulation?

You sir/ma'am are the fool.

[Taitertots]

10. Now you went right off the deep end

"Not to mention the complete and utter lack of regulation on assault rifles and other automatic weapons."
Absolute lie

"There is no logical purpose for owning an M4A1"
Clearly untrue

"there definitely shouldn't be anyway a fucking teenager could buy one."
Your unsupported opinion


"I remember not to long ago there was a story about a kid shooting himself to death with an uzi because he slipped while firing it and hit himself in the head"
Kid wasn't at a gun show


"As long as you claim it to be a private collection up for sale, no body asks any questions."
There are still numerous laws and regulations that make it not nearly as simple as you claim it to be.

[armyowalgreens]

11. Wow man

1. Assault rifles should not be legal to own or possess unless it specifically serves a purpose under mandated law enforcement.

2. There is no logical purpose for owning an M4A1. It is not necessary to hunt with and is not necessary as home protection. In fact it probably is much more harmful to everyone when used as a personal protection weapon.

3. Yes it was. It was at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo.

4. No there are at least 24 states that allow the private sale of firearms without background checks or waiting periods.

[Taitertots]

15. Prove how little you know about it

1. Highly regulated for over 70 years with 25 years without a new civilian sale.

2. M4A1 is an near perfect hunting and defense weapon. It has all the qualities that make a fantastic hunting, defense, or sport shooting rifle.

3. Machine gun expo not a gun show.

4. They still have numerous requirements other than just those two.

[armyowalgreens]

22. haha

1. Regulated heavily for 70 years? Yeah sure regulation, but you could still own assault rifles.

2. No, the ammunition in an M4A1 is perfect for hunting. The ability to fire up to 800 rounds a minute is not.

Buy an M1 Garand and enjoy the outdoors for all I care. But you don't need an M4A1.

3. It's still a gun show. If I had my way, there would be no such thing as private machine gun expos unless to show off war-era weapons.

[MrModerate]

28. If you go hunting with an M4A1, can I suggest . . .

you take Dick Cheney next time?

[virginia mountainman]

51. HA HA~

[pipoman]

14. Not to but into another subthread

but this post is complete shit spewn forth by those who know nothing.

It's private sellers with a thousand guns up for sale that face basically no regulation.

This is a state issue, private sales of guns that is, the federal government has no jurisdiction on intrastate sale of private property of any sort. If you set up at a gunshow without an FFL with guns you had better be able to demonstrate that they are part of your personal accumulation and not purchased for resale...people are jailed for this.

Not to mention the complete and utter lack of regulation on assault rifles and other automatic weapons. There is no logical purpose for owning an M4A1 and there definitely shouldn't be anyway a fucking teenager could buy one.

And this right here is a complete and total lie. Nothing could be further from the truth. Automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since 1934, the registry was closed in 1984. There hasn't been a single violent crime committed i n the US with an automatic weapon in over 10 years. Sorry you have been mislead and lied to by the Rethug Bradys on this issue.

I remember not to long ago there was a story about a kid shooting himself to death *at a gun show* with an uzi because he slipped while firing it and hit himself in the head.

Initially reported at a gun show, turned out it wasn't a gun show at all, it was a machine gun shoot at a gun club. The Uzi was owned by a person who owned it legally, had the approval of the sheriff of his county, underwent a complete FBI background check, waited 6 months, agreed to allow the BATFE to inspect his gun unannounced at will, paid a $200 transfer fee. The father and the gun owner (who I am sure no longer is allowed to own automatic weapons) are the idiots in that story.

[armyowalgreens]

17. I'm not a strict federalist so I frankly care very little about state gun rights

Gun control should be regulated on a federal basis. To do otherwise defeats the purpose of gun control and leaves regulation up to states who, in many parts of the country, are filled with anti-regulation nutballs.

Again, you are using the effectiveness of regulation to argue against regulation. And to state that there hasn't been a SINGLE fucking crime committed with an automatic weapon in 10 years is a bit overly hopeful don't you think?

The assault weapons ban was put in place in 94 and lapsed in 04. Assault rifles weren't back on the market, in good quantity, for a good time afterwards. And you wonder why violent crimes with assault rifles and automatic weapons went down during that period? Are you mad?

The child killed himself at a Gun expo at a gun club. It was still a gun show. But regardless of your horrible obsession with semantics, my point still stands. No child should be allowed to touch an automatic weapon. Sorry but that shouldn't be an option.

[Taitertots]

21. Semantics?

It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

A "Gun Show" and a "Gun Event" are two non-interchangeable things. Assault rifles and assault weapons are two non-interchangeable things.

Please learn about what you are trying to discuss. If you can't even begin to get the terminology correct you shouldn't be preaching about it like you know something about it.

[pipoman]

24. Link to one crime committed in the last 10 years with an automatic weapon..

I'll wait right where (forever).

The assault weapons ban was put in place in 94 and lapsed in 04. Assault rifles weren't back on the market, in good quantity, for a good time afterwards.

Complete horseshit. The 94 AWB had not one single thin...nothing what so ever...to do with automatic weapons...nothing. Semiautomatics were readily available before, during and after the AWB, it did nothing except feel good to some people.

And you wonder why violent crimes with assault rifles and automatic weapons went down during that period? Are you mad?

Violent crimes with assault weapons didn't go down during that period. I'll wait (forever) for a study by anyone without an agenda (like a government study for instance) supporting your unsupported claim.

The child killed himself at a Gun expo at a gun club. It was still a gun show.

No, it wasn't a gun show by the definition you seem to be putting forth in all of your previous posts on this thread...it was an EXPOSITION. Not semantics.

[Paladin]

36. Lack Of Fully Automatic Gun Crimes: Proof Positive That Rigorous Gun Control Works.

Jeez, I never, ever get tired of pointing that out to Gun Nuts......

[pipoman]

37. Except there wasn't a problem with

automatic weapons in crime prior to 1934 (except when used by the Mob and a limited few gangsters) when you could buy a Tommy Gun at any hardware store.

[armyowalgreens]

46. So are you for or against automatic weapons being legal?

[pipoman]

49. I'm OK with the 1934 NFA system

I think that the registry should be reopened. There were not crime problems with legally owned automatic weapons prior to 1984. The 1984 act which closed the registry was done in the dark of night, literally, and has simply resulted in the cost of automatic weapons skyrocketing effectively making it a reserved class of arms only for the super wealthy. That said, I would probably never own one, I might like to shoot one some time. I really feel that the second amendment specifically allows for private ownership of firearms commonly used by our military and police. Not unregulated ownership mind you, but they shouldn't be forbidden by cost or attrition. I can't see that this belief is anything but progressive, in fact Liberal.

[Taitertots]

50. I support the NFA system

Even before the NFA system was created there was not a problem with automatic weapons. I think the 1986 and 1968 changes should be reversed. The registry should return to being open.

[slackmaster]

56. I'm OK with the NFA system too, but think states should not be allowed to implement their own regs

The federal system works just fine.

[X_Digger]

47. Because, unlike rifles and pistols..

..they were always rather rare?

Even if you stopped production of all weapons this very second, there would be 300m firearms in the country, and 875m guns in the rest of the world.

How exactly would you get criminals to turn in their guns? Hrmm? What's that?

[sl8]

31. Production of AR-15 type rifles increased after 1994.

The assault weapons ban was put in place in 94 and lapsed in 04. Assault rifles weren't back on the market, in good quantity, for a good time afterwards.

See table 5-4 here:
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf
"An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003"

And you wonder why violent crimes with assault rifles and automatic weapons went down during that period?

The 1994 AWB didn't have anything to do with automatic weapons.

[X_Digger]

42. "Assault Weapon" != automatic weapons

You keep saying assault rifle, when you mean assault weapon.

The '94 ban didn't actually 'ban' anything except a combination of features.

I bought my first brand new ar-15 during the 'ban'- it didn't have a muzzle brake or bayonet mount, and the stock was pinned so as to not be collapsible. I also bought an ak clone (semi-auto, of course) with the same modifications.

[slackmaster]

55. Automatic weapons have been strictly regulated for over 75 years

Please get your facts straight.

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Right. If you smoke pot at one, you'll probably get arrested.

However, fantasies of 2nd Amendment Fetishists notwithstanding, the right to purchase as much weaponry & firepower as one desires is barely restricted, much less under any kind of serious attack in this country.

[pipoman]

5. The regulations are no different at gun shows than anywhere else

in the state of the gun show.


According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Anyone who has ever been to a gun show knows they are crawling with law enforcement of every stripe from BATFE and FBI agents to local police and sheriff officers...they are not bastions of crime that the Bradys make them out to be.

[armyowalgreens]

7. Well hey lets increase regulation everywhere...

I'm specifically targeting gun shows because they inflate the risk of crappy gun control laws.

[pipoman]

8. I just edited my post...

and they do no such thing.

[armyowalgreens]

9. They do no such what?

Come on now I need you to be specific.

I remember reading some stats stating that somewhere around 1 % of inmates interviewed stated that they bought the gun used in a crime from a gun show. It's low, but still it's 1%.

And than you are now really trying to argue against regulation entirely. If gun dealers need background checks, than why don't private dealers? They are at the same shows selling to the same people. The regulation is in place for a reason. If we didn't have it, who knows how much higher that percentage rate would be.

[pipoman]

16. Again,

closing the "gun show loophole" (which is simply a name used to demonize gun shows, there is a garage sale loophole, a parking lot loophole, a craig's list loophole, a fraternal order of police picnic loophole...you get the idea) would have been done years ago if it were not for the pesky constitution which make intrastate sales of personal property a state issue. Further, NICS isn't even available to a person who wishes to sell their gun to a neighbor or another state resident. If anyone were really concerned about this issue NICS should at least be available to individuals who wish to use it..but alas it isn't.

[armyowalgreens]

19. Okay well than lets expand the service and make it more efficient.

That "pesky" constitution can be changed with a little thing called the amendment process.

[pipoman]

25. Go for it

That "pesky" constitution can be changed with a little thing called the amendment process.

but don't try to get around that impossible task by arbitrarily setting precedent which will allow federal control of unforeseen other intrastate commerce.

[Taitertots]

12. That doesn't begin to make sense

Gun show weapons are used in a tiny fraction of crimes. It should be obvious that they don't inflate anything.

[armyowalgreens]

13. So you are arguing against regulation because it is effective?

Seriously step back and think about that for a minute.

Maybe the reason why guns from gun shows are used so little in crime is because of background checks and waiting periods on licensed dealers. And you don't also want that to apply to private sellers? That is a ridiculous loophole.

[Taitertots]

18. No, they are irrelevant, not effective

The gun shows have the exact same rules as outside the gun shows. Yet the guns sold at them represent a tiny fraction of crime. If anything it shows clearly that there is no gun show problem.



Purchasing guns to sell for profit makes you a dealer. The ATF takes this seriously.
Buying guns with the intention to private transfer them to someone can be considered a crime. The ATF takes this very seriously.

[armyowalgreens]

20. No one is arguing that gun shows contribute massively to crime

Seriously man do you read my posts? Go back and read them again. I never said that there is an epidemic of crime extending from gun shows. I said that it's ridiculous to have a loophole for private sellers while regulation of dealers clearly protects against abuse.


Get rid of dealer regulation and what do you have? A basic free for all for whoever wants a gun. And that is why the regulation is in place. Private sellers should be looked at no differently than a dealer. They still sell guns, they just don't do it purely for profit. But they STILL SELL GUNS. It's not like the guns being sold by private sellers are less deadly.

[Taitertots]

23. They are clearly not being used in crime so what is the point

Why are you proposing this? It is not going to have a relevant effect of gun crime. There is no loophole. This is only going to hurt innocent people who want to sell guns they have. There is no abuse to protect against like with dealers who are selling quantity.

[aikoaiko]

26. But on the other hand, there are a lot of dumbasses who cling to useless gun control laws

thinking it will actually keep them safer.

The gunshow loophole is just anti-gun scare rhetoric.

I AM for opening up NICS to all private sellers of firearms and even making it a part states' laws to help reduce sales to unauthorized buyers.

As a Democrat, I would not stand with you in your protest, but I'm sure others would.

[pipoman]

27. OK, since this has been effectively determined to be nonsense

I kind of feel like protesting the president of the NRA and the lack of regulation at gun shows.

I will state my position on private sales which has never even been proposed by anyone at Brady, or any of the gun controlists in DC.

Since intrastate private sales of personal property will never be regulated by the federal government without an impossible Constitutional Amendment, why not make NICS (National Instant Check System) available to private citizens for the transfer of firearms on a voluntary basis? This could be simply accomplished by requiring FFL holders to transfer for private citizens for a fixed low cost, $10-$20. Give immunity from prosecution or civil liability to anyone who uses NICS for a private sale if the gun is later used in a crime. Then begin a public awareness campaign to be sure people know about this. Most private sellers would be happy to be able to sell their gun to a non-prohibited person. Further, at larger gun shows the BATFE, local police, or other LEOs could set up a voluntary private sale NICS check point. I suspect that this would be fully supported by the NRA and would breeze through.

[armyowalgreens]

29. I was wrong.

I was an ass.

I just checked again and realized that fully-automatic weapons were not regulated under the 94 ban but instead under the 1934 ban that was not effected by the 94 ban or the 04 lapse. I was misinformed and I acted like an ass.

I apologize.

[virginia mountainman]

30. Sadly, it is not really your fault..

The Brady Campaign, and the Violence Policy Center, have been blurring the line between Fully Automatic, and Semi Automatic for years..

It is so folks like you, will demand bans on things that you really do not understand.

They even admit it...

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.

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

You should be very upset at them, because they INTENTIONALLY used your confusion to further their aims. They have repeated their mantra so much, that it even gets ran on the nightly news as fact.

Many folks in here should be upset at them, but they are not

[pipoman]

34. Nothing to apologize for

I agree with Virginia mountainman above. I would add that once again the MSM isn't your friend either. To this day when there are stories about a possible assault weapon ban they show stock footage of people shooting fully automatic weapons. I really think that the right and the MSM wish to confuse rank and file Dems into supporting another failed AWB which will again cost us seats and Presidencies.

[X_Digger]

43. No worries, sparked quite a discussion! n/t

[spin]

45. A common misconception fostered by organizations...

like the Brady Campaign and the M$N.

One of many falsehoods that these organizations use to promote their agenda.

But while it's a effective technique to stir up the wrath of people who have little or no interest in firearms, the bullshit infuriates those who have some understanding of firearms. Some estimates show that one half of all households in the United States have at least one gun owner.

In close elections, gun owners who fear new draconian gun laws such as another assault weapons ban can make the difference.

Note: since I've started posting on DU, I've found I had a lot of misinformed opinions on a variety of subjects. I can easily change my opinion. Life is a learning experience.

[slackmaster]

57. I think I may have a heart attack

I'm coming to join you, Elizabeth!

[benEzra]

61. Not an ass at all, just misled by the media.

An actual ass wouldn't have checked the facts, and wouldn't have admitted he/she was mistaken.

You have my respect.

[spin]

40. I totally agree and I believe the NRA would also. (n/t)

[baldguy]

32. NRA=GOP

[pipoman]

35. I am neither a member

nor an apologist for the NRA-ILA (important distinction..that between the NRA and the lobbying group NRA-ILA). But in truth the NRA-ILA is no different than any other single issue lobbying group. They support politicians who support their cause and oppose politicians who oppose their cause. They have and do regularly contribute to and endorse pro 2nd Amendment Democrats, there unfortunately aren't as many pro 2nd Dems as there are pro 2nd thugs. They still contributed more money to Democrats last election cycle than Brady and Violence Policy Center combined.

[spin]

41. I am an NRA member...

and I enjoy reading the articles in their magazine about firearms and history. The NRA is very active in teaching firearm safety and training for civilians, law enforcement and security guards. They do far more than just promote and lobby their pro-gun position.

I find the NRA-ILA annoying as they flood my mailbox with junk mail and propaganda and constantly attempt to contact me on my phone. A few NRA members that I've known in the past have canceled their membership because of this.

It is true that the NRA does support Democrats if they hold a pro gun viewpoint. Just one example was Bill Richardson the governor of New Mexico who ran for President in the last Presidential primary race and had a "A" rating from the NRA. Many local Democratic politicians in the area of the country that I live are pro-gun and proud of their NRA rating and advertise it.

[rustydog]

54. I used to be a member until they went right-wing batshit crazy

Only one way with the NRA.

[virginia mountainman]

38. Not nearly as GOP as the Brady Campain....NT

As correctly pointed out, the NRA gave far more to Democrats, then the Brady Bunch, and VPC gave together...

[Paladin]

39. And How Many Millions Of Dollars Did They Use Against Obama?

And just because the Brady Campaign was founded by Republicans does not by any means make it a Republican organization now. It's really easy to see what the Republican Party's stance on guns is; just look at the politicians who are turning up at the NRA's convention right now. Find another NRA talking point that's harder to refute....

[spin]

44. You probably are right, however...

the net effect of their efforts have served to drive many gun owners to the polls to vote for Republican candidates. Perhaps that's why so many liberals suspect them of being a clandestine Republican organization. It could be argued that the Brady Campaign cost the Democrats many congressional seats and two very close Presidential races.

The Brady Campaign has faced criticism over their frequent use of inaccurate information and selective use of statistics; such as labeling semi-automatic or self-loading rifles as "assault weapons," trying to conflate them in the public imagination with assault rifles, raising criticism over the use of an incorrect term (traditionally, an assault weapon is one used for breaching obstacles such as the Bangalore Torpedo, SMAW, SRAW, APOBS, and Flamethrower), labeling of hollow-point handgun ammunition as "cop-killers", despite the fact that hollow-point ammunition, by design, expends the greater portion of its kinetic energy on impact, reducing penetration power compared to conventional jacketed rounds or solid slugs, and is incapable of penetrating ballistic vests.<13> Additionally, the Campaign has in the past called for a ban of non-existent "plastic guns".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign

I sincerely believe that the great majority of gun owners are not opposed to well thought out gun legislation that reduces the legal sale of firearms to criminals and those with severe mental problems. They also support enforcement of the many effective gun laws already on the books. "Feel good" laws such as those proposed by the Brady Campaign which accomplish little or nothing but to pacify the very liberal base of the Democratic Party, merely serve to drive up the sales of firearms and ammunition to unbelievable levels. The Republicans can use the threat of draconian laws to revitalize their party and help promote their objective of a return to power.

Obama could eliminate the Brady Campaigns detrimental effect by flat out saying that he would not sign any legislation such as another assault weapons ban if it reached his desk. It might infuriate the liberal base, but it might also insure control on congress at the midterm and his reelection to a second term. This is vital to the future of this country.

[Paladin]

52. Nothing Obama Can Say, I Mean NOTHING......

....would be believed and accepted by the gun militancy movement in this country. To think otherwise is breathtakingly naive. If Obama made the sort of statement you're talking about, the DU Gun Dungeon would explode with naysayers, dredging up his past talking points to discredit him. No sense in his trying to placate the gun obsessives; after all, he is a Democrat, is he not? You people will never, ever change. You did it with Carter, you did it with Clinton, you did it with Gore, you did it with Kerry, and you continue to do it with Obama to this very day. While I appreciate the civil tone of your comments, Obama obviously has a few more important things to deal with right now; he can't afford to waste time making overtures to a radicalized constituency that will never change. And he sure as hell doesn't need to be infuriating the liberal base any more than he already has, recently....

[spin]

53. Obama does seem capable of rethinking policy..

but you probably are correct. The majority of gun owners might not believe anything that he said.

Politicians have an amazing ability to change their views. Remember Bush the Senior and his comment.

Read my lips, no new taxes.

The argument that gun owners hate all Democrats is false. Use Bill Richardson, the Governor of New Mexico, as an example. He has a concealed carry permit and has an A rating from the NRA. Howard Dean was endorsed by the NRA eight times as VT governor.

True, many prominent Democrats favor draconian "feel good" gun legislation. The gun control issue is very important to the liberal base of the party. In other areas of the country, many Democrats support the Second Amendment and the right of honest citizens to own firearms. I received a phone call from the office of one local politician running for a Florida congressional office. The first pitch was that I should vote for the candidate as he supported gun rights and they were very important to the voters in our district. The candidate is a fine man. He got my vote.

I also cast my vote for Obama. While he does have a history of supporting gun control, he rose to power in a very anti-gun state. He would have never made it to the national stage if he had been a pro-gun advocate from Illinois. I may be proven wrong, but I sense that he is capable of making good decisions on this issue.

The answers to two questions helped form my viewoint:

Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?


A: I don’t think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Obama is a very intelligent leader. I suspect he has had some exposure to Sun Tzu's The Art Of War Perhaps that's why as you suggest:

Obama obviously has a few more important things to deal with right now; he can't afford to waste time making overtures to a radicalized constituency that will never change. And he sure as hell doesn't need to be infuriating the liberal base any more than he already has, recently..

[Paladin]

59. Compliments Once Again On Your Civilized Tone. (n/t)

[spin]

60. Insulting others gains nothing...

often people have different viewpoints than mine. Sometimes (rarely), I can change their minds. Often, I consider their argument and do some research which can change my viewpoint. A rewarding life is a process of continuous education.

My most recent example of changing my mind occurred after I posted a thread on the Miss California incident. While I was not opposed to civil unions with ALL the rights of marriage (similar to the published viewpoints of Obama and Hillary Clinton), I objected to using the term marriage to describe the union. I like to use correct terminology, for example an assault rifle is a fully automatic or select firearm while an assault weapon is a semi-auto firearm with features that make it appear evil. Confusing the two terms leads to misunderstanding.

But in the post on Miss California, one reply pointed out that if the union between gay partners was called a marriage, so many laws exist on the books that the same rights as a heterosexual union would be guaranteed. I was impressed with the wisdom and changed my view.

“A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation.”
Moliere

“The way to procure insults is to submit to them: a man meets with no more respect than he exacts.”
William Hazlitt

[slackmaster]

58. Apparently not enough

They pissed away quite a bit.

:D

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.