I think the last time I used that word was during some DU purges in ... 2004 was it?

"You have a low post count and say things that no True Progressive could possibly say. Pepperoni or sausage?"


Then we got to see a dance move called the "Skinner stomp," which put an end to that.

is negative about guns, then they send out an army with talking points. You always get the same shut down the debate talking points with them.

err Jerbs!

The NRA does not protect rights.

I am getting attacked with the old ad hominem routine from people with thousands of posts because I don't toe the NRA line.

Check this out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=54079

--actually confirms everything one might suspect about the psychological make-up of the NRA apologist...

Another one of them interjected themselves into the swarm.

skill with the smilies and buttons, it's entirely possible that they've been here before.

or would spend any money trying to convince some of us that they're "right" on guns.

All they have to do is create doubt and they consider that a "win".

It's about sowing discord, and trying to pit us against each other. It's "divide and conquer", just as is the case with every other right wing troll that comes here, regardless of the subject matter. We saw it with the Trayvon Martin shooting, too, among other incidents.

It would not surprise me if they are taking offense at the comments on the board against people who own guns this past week. I know I have.

I think they just want us at each other's throats, as do all the other right wing trolls. That is why they're apparently sending people here to stir up shit. Anything to discourage people enough to make them stay home in November.

a day after the events and others who seem to want to be contentious for the sake of it (but they are everywhere these days).

I.e., Watch out for Karl Rove and his trolls
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002973944

Apparently, there are millions of voters who own firearms. Millions. Some formally identify themselves as Democrats, including gun-owning DU posters. There are also millions of gun-owning voters who identify themselves as independents.

In the 1994 election when the political advocacy for "gun control" was at its height, and when "gun control" was a wedge issue, a sufficient number of Republicans won to shift a 40-year control over the House to the Republicans. It's a fact. It's in the history books. It can easily be check on the web. Even Bill Clinton has publicly stated his view that advocating for gun control cost the 1994 election.

Now while you point out that you are wondering whether the NRA has sent out its members to post on DU, it may be worthwhile to wonder, instead, whether Karl Rove and his minions are doing so.

A distinguishing characteristic between so called "conservatives" and liberals or progressives is that the so called "conservatives" are authoritarians who demand lock-step thinking. They don't want actual thinking. They want orthodoxy. They demand it. For them, the actual thinking process and principles to be applied are less important than the orthodoxy.

If you want to find Karl-Rove types on DU, look for the demands for lock-step thinking. Look for the displays of virulent hatred directed towards DUers who haven't adopted the same point of view, who try to engage others with reason, and who ask for evidence. The Karl-Rove types who want to divide Democratic voters and alienate independents don't have to be consistently pro-gun-control or anti-gun control. Their consistency is that they demand orthodoxy. Look for the name calling. A liberal or progressive doesn't show a preference for name calling (although there can be lapses out of frustration) when trying to deal with other Duers. But a Karl-Rove type may immediately choose name calling. Such a person, for example, may readily pose as a anti-gun liberal or progressive when referring to DU gun owners as "gun nuts." Or they may pose as a pro-gun liberal or progressive when referring to anti-gun DUers and using other name calling. Their trick is to show disrespect and contempt for DUers.

"Gun control" is a wedge issue. If you can think of a better wedge issue to divide Democrats, and alienate gun-owning independents, what is it?

Just plain fear tactics, like you would be required to marry a gay person if gay rights passed. Pure idiocy.

and out and about on other forums the last couple of days.

I can smell their stink. I don't mean the average guy stink, I mean the death peddling ugly mean old fucker powermen and owners of congresspeople stink.

(I am not total anti-gun, just burns my ass that people are so fucking stupid when they are talking about their 'rights' and braced at any word against gun reform like Stalin was coming for them in the night)

It's always taken a thousand posts before anyone here isn't seen as the topical operative du jour.

I still say the TOS should have a clear statement that a forum for RKBA will be maintained and treated fairly but anyone openly supporting or promoting the NRA will be tomb stoned.

and had 4 FOUR people say (snidely) that they had been here a long time...
Put me in MY place, I'll tell you what...

The poll had about 200 or so posters at that time:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002979625

This is a great place for that! Build up your post total in the lounge, then move to the other forums.

... accounts here on DU to make sure any questioning of their wisdom is quashed.

I'm also convinced that these efforts mostly fail but they do provide comic relief at times.

God forbid you come out in favor of gun control without having encyclopedic knowledge of guns. Every thread gets highjacked with descriptions of guns and ammunition in loving detail, videos of guys showing how fast they can re-load, etc.

It sort of makes me long for the porn wars of a few weeks back (but not really.)

And I haven't even said whether I am in favor of gun control.

I'm being told that the Supreme Court has decided that guns are an individual right so I'm not allowed, apparently, to even think of anything regarding what they call "a collective right."

Yes, it is mind boggling.

the "what I would have done if I had been there" scenario. I mean, if you seriously think you could have tackled this guy, disarmed him, or even shot him, you're living in the same fantasy world as the shooter himself.

Also: I have never met a single progressive or liberal in real life who was against gun control. Maybe because I'm in the northeast? But I can't help but wonder...

they don't resist gun control. It's really a no-brainer.

a bit on the conservative side, really into his guns, believes in some aspect of gun control. He thinks background checks should take longer (he made the comment about if you applied for a gun that day and expected to get it the next day, you don't deserve a gun.), thinks that everyone should have training classes in person with a licensed instructor, believes that every weapon should be covered with lots of insurance, etc.

His response about the NRA? "They don't give a sh*t about someone like me-a kid who grew up dirt poor, with no dad around and a non functioning mom who learned to hunt and fish in order to eat. All they care about is money."

Like I said, he's a conservative and he thinks like this. How many others out there would agree with a similar view?

Sometimes they aren't, but it's worth a double check.

Sometimes they are, and I'm better off for the correction. Doesn't matter what my thinking is on the issue at hand. I figure that some are here to vent; I'm mostly here to learn, and that sometimes means learning facts, sometimes thinking styles, and sometimes it means honing arguments. I'm also here to have fun doing them all.

You can think what you want. "The 2nd amendment is a collective right" gets two readings. It's at the same time plausibly an assertion of your opinion--like mine, fairly meaningless--but it's also identical to an assertion of fact, i.e., the SCOTUS' opinion. Got good will? It's your opinion. Don't got good will? You're wrong and need correcting. Note that "good will" is in really, really short supply in American politics. A lot of posts I've seen really negative reactions to I read and think, "What the hell? The responder took the post in the worst possible way."

There's a third reading, too, which is a kind of condemnation. When SCOTUS said the ACA "tax" was a penalty and that the ACA was unconstitutional, there was an outcry: How dare he say it was unconstitutional? The SCOTUS ruled, and he had no right to ... What? Speak his opinion? Disagree with SCOTUS, like that's never done here? Most just called him a liar, an asshole, or some other general term of abuse because he disagreed with them about something that they agreed with. And not just that, they agreed with SCOTUS because SCOTUS told them, in some sense, that they were right. Disagree with SCOTUS? The Romney aide was saying that the DUers were wrong and wanted to take away something they liked. Nasty business, that.

The individual~collective distinction is standard in all sorts of discourses and both standard and appropriate here. It's not necessarily a gibe at socialism, even if some "individual right" folk use it that way. Some people pushing for the collective-right approach use "individual right" with a sneer, sort of carping at the idea of "rugged individualism" in a well-knit society. There's no need for scare quotes.

I am not arguing the Supreme Court opinions. I am merely stating my opinion which is not constrained in any way by the opinion of the Supreme Court.

And frankly I don't care what the Supreme Court says. We need a dialogue and if we have to do away with the Second Amendment, so be it.

...as a snarky excuse to throw out entire discussions about reasonable controls, to ignore the blood on the floor, etc....

That's not just true of guns.

But when you--not you personally, but the 3rd person indefinite 'you'--start talking banning and issuing moral condemnations, facts are important.

It's like having yet another Rottweiler attacking a kid and maiming him, only to have people come out and say how this demonstrates conclusively that we have to finally ban dachsunds and the immoral folk who believe it's okay to own animals as pets. If you play an accordion while wearing boxing gloves you push an incredible number of buttons by accident. If you step into a controversial topic in which the trenches were dug long ago only to show you don't know what the basic terminology is, or if you have a condescending, dogmatic conclusion based on a misunderstanding, you're going to get knocked down and not just gently corrected.

Think "Meathead correcting Archie." It's never pretty for either side. And, if you're either Meathead or Archie, not terribly amusing.

they just sent in some newbies to overwhelm the posts and push their talking points

is it possible to be a sincere progressive and oppose gun control?

You must support basics like education, registering and licensing. If you don't think passing a basic test is common sense then you are not thinking progressively. If you don't think there should be some restrictions on what type of weapon you can own then you are not being practical. Should someone be allowed to own a surface to air missile or nuclear weapon? If you say no then that is gun control. Now where do you fall on automatic weapons? One can be progressive and disagree on a few issues. You must look at every issue and see where you stand. I am conservative on money issues. I think people should be able to own guns. I think they are allowed because Congress hasn't outlawed them not because of the constitution. I don't think we should have private armies and mercenary soldiers, it kind of puts a crimp in civil discussion.

So that might be a clue if DU members are pro-AR.

The US arms industry IS the NRA and they want less regulations just like all other US industries simply for greed's sake.

I'd like to read the survey... thanks

He's also a gun owner and straight shooter too. ha.

He added that 80 percent of gun owners support extending the Brady Bill and that the National Rifle Association, a strong gun lobby, represents only a small percentage of gun owners.

http://www.qchron.com/editions/eastern/what-s-an-ak--doing-in-queens/article_d181f6db-defa-5a43-b14e-0dee863855cf.html

off to read some more

Yes, that's the kind of thing that gets knocked down, even if it was a screw up on Gallup's part in not having a clue what they were asking.

I like the assault rifle ban. I'm surprised that more NRA folk don't and thought it would have been much closer to 100%.

It will keep happening with each high profile shooting, too.

What I find worse is when the gungeon gate is blown off and the guns-as-religionists flood GD like lost sheep.

Are they cowards or what?

why they call it the Gungeon.

You don't recognize them because they stay down there, and only come boiling up to GD like locusts after events like Aurora.

I had one essentially call the victims cowards because they didn't shoot back.

It's pretty incredible.

Twelve years ago, before there was a DU, I participated in some other political message boards. Whenever there was a shooting, like the guy that shot up a bunch of kids in a pre-school in Los Angeles, the boards were swarmed with pro-gun advocates that no one had ever seen before. If it's not organized, then there are many people on the same page who seem to have a system of alerting each other whenever there is a discussion of gun control and will swarm the place to obliterate any dissenting voices from their own.

It's probably still happening, not only here but on other boards.

Maybe they just haven't thought about it that much.

they swear up and down that the gun control debate is over, and the NRA "won", yet they feel they have to defend themselves and the NRA every time another slaughter occurs.

Not saying it isn't happening. Just saying I haven't noticed it.



Don

One was caught posting an online ad last year.

I hate guns, I see no need for guns (except for hunting), and I don't like being around guns.

I came here out of coincidence and happenstance.

We're just not that important.

But what happens is that after an incident people Google to find more information. DU's crawled by search engines. So web searches bring them here. Every Big Event leads to baby DUers. Some don't know the netiquette and learn. Some get deep-dish pizza because they're trolls. Some are mistakenly pizzaed.

Some newbies agree with you. They're good and kind and you don't notice their low post count. If they disagree, then they're a problem and you notice them.

Some newbies and some oldbies (?) are antagonized by blatantly wrong assertions and Phakts (tm). Some are unnerved by the overweening condescension shown. Sometimes it's bad logic or poor grammar that's the bugaboo of doom.

Insinuating that those who disagree must be "put up to it" or somehow infiltrators in need of the NKVD to stamp them out falls into one of those categories. Then again, there have also been complaint-posts about how inconsiderate those pushing for gun control have been, so the innuendo and belligerance goes both ways.

robocalls from the NRA Saturday defending assault weapons. They have so much money, and control the political parties there is nothing I wouldn't put past them.

and get some idea of where they hang out in the 10-20 minute gaps between the replies.

They spewed pure propaganda NRA talking points.

of posts suspicious of new members, and of watching middle-school-like cliques form, leaves me not really willing to jump on that bandwagon.

A big issue hits and we are inundated with newbies urping the industry boilerplate.

Also, it is pretty well known there are RWingers here who post primarily in the Gungeon and generally only surface when a gun issue hits the front page. Easy as pie to spot.