Is that the term, I forget?

for you to monitor in the group you host so you can spend more time in your favorite gun group.

Since the Party Secretary dared give less than 115% support to der kommisar someone is throwing themselves on the floor, having a tantrum.
The self imposed penalty seems to be make themselves an un-person.
I guess ego is more important than support on a viewpoint.

Actually, I think he assumed that was his private forum and no one was pure enough by his failed standards, including EM.

Funny, last week when I suggested the gun control reaction to a new law would be "a temper tantrum, falling on the floor, kicking their little feet, wailing and gnashing of teeth" I just didn't expect it this quickly. But at least he's not doing it in "a calculus class with concealed carry".

I wonder if he'll go to Skinner now and demand a new gun control purist forum with ... one member.

Someone threw themselves a major temper tantrum, such a delicate flower that one is!

Thanks for making me go check out the other forum I needed the laugh.

had a sad I see.

I thought the gun owners were supposed to be the frightened, emotionally fragile types that reacted emotionally to any disagreement or correction. Or, am I mistaken?

as we have been saying all along.

took offense at EM's rebuke and packed up his marbles and went home.

Gotta give kudos to EM for calling him out.

Hope he continues to police the comments in his group like that.

And hasn't posted anywhere on DU since Wednesday night.

I have a pic in my mind of him sitting in a corner brooding on how dare EM could rebuke him.

without resorting to insults, slander of dumb-ass cartoons you show how morally bankrupt your position is.

You also demonstrate the inability of the pro-control side to pass any meaningful legislation for the past 20 years. Your precious "safe haven" is so fragile that it cannot handle someone posting neutral, factual information without referring to them as "gun humpers" or such.

I think he is the one that even managed an insult in his alert explanation on one of my posts. Work of beauty, it was.

Because the public as a whole rarely gets around to commenting. So the only people actually commenting were those who were vehemently opposed to the ban. It's what we see all over the place - polls showing 90% of the public against x, but x passes because the 10% are far more vocal. So government is 'listening' to the 10%.

It would seem to me, then, that people who supported the ban and didn't speak up have only themselves to blame.

But our politicians know exactly what's going on. If they wanted to know what the ENTIRE population believed, they'd simply run polls across the appropriate geographic unit (national in this case). That would give a far more realistic view than simply asking for self-selected comments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=158158

Normally you at least post cartoons with some color in them and a little dialog.

...(albeit a small part) the proposal failed.

For that matter, where were the gun control control orgs during all this?

and Bloomberg did not pay people for comments to the ATF.

Both you and I have asked posters to say what THEY did to support the ban they wanted and all you get is silence

My text was original in both, but I did cover basically the same points;
1. Fears of police for concealed carry in this caliber
a. Weapon is not likely concealable at between `17 and 23 inches in length, and around 4 - 5 pounds in weight
b. No officer to date has ever been hit with a AR-type pistol to date
c. Very few times AR-type rifles have hit police to date

2. Popularity of AR-type platform rifles overall
a. Language in both Heller and McDonald regarding popular weapons
b. Definitions of Armor Piercing ammunition and how, given the total lead weight in SS109/M855, round does not meet definition standards.

In my email, I did also state that I have not missed voting in an election in the past 22 years, for whatever that is worth.

Thus they wrongly thought that the ban was a good idea.

would prefer a benevolent dictatorship that does what is right (as defined by them, natch!) rather than having to allow those with differing opinions have a say.

so long as it's speech that supports their point of view.

where they can censor people they do not like.

Amazingly enough, I'm not banned but only because I've never posted there. I read where the host said that he will ban people for posts made outside of the group that don't support the guns are bad meme.

It's interesting to note that this group has one person on the ban list. Bans-a-lot has 41.

Yep, that's the place. So very busy over there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1102

1, and we are proud of that fact! All viewpoints allowed and not a "safe haven"

That is quite unlike the group you host

I replied to a thread on the front page that was posted in the BOG and then replied to a poster that had replied to me. Frankly I wasn't paying attention and didn't even realize I was entering BOG territory. Long story short, I wasn't sufficiently obsequious, and I was banned after those two posts.

Since you keep up with others' posting history to decide if they are worthy of your group, I assume I would only last one post over there.

There's probably 3x as many banned DU'ers over there as there are regular contributors.

Banned members could start their own "safe haven", and we'd have more traffic than GCRA.

but it seems like an echo chamber of only a few loud voices. I wonder how many of those who are banned might actually agree with some of the group's principles but were canned after disagreeing with one or two points.

Thanks for making my evening!

Regardless of the merits, or lack thereof, of any particular gun control proposal with regards to addressing criminal violence, there seems one and only one heuristic determining whether or not to support it, and that is whether or not it goes after lawful owners.

Something that targets gun misuse *without* also targeting lawful owners tends to get a whole lot less support than something that targets lawful owners without addressing gun misuse at all. Compare the level of advocacy for prosecuting straw purchasers, or enhanced sentencing for career violent criminals who use guns in the commission of crimes, vs. the advocacy for banning the lawful ownership/use of big target rifles, or M855 non-AP .223, or legislating rifle handgrip shape, or harassing people with carry licenses.

if you don't spend 90% of your time pissing all over them, calling them vile names and conflating them with child killers they might start to cooperate and help define "common sense" more realistically.

Why, you'd almost think that if the gun control fans want to actually do anything, besides whine and carp online they might want to try and find common ground without the pissing, moaning and accusations.

You know threat gun owners with the common courtesy and respect they want for their own opinions.

I guess that might be too complex a concept and they'll just have to settle for arguing online and failing, middle school level genitalia references and losing more legislative seats and court cases.

Any win would have sufficed as long as it gave them the opportunity to proclaim
that they 'defeated' the NRA and the legions of "gun nuts" that pose a threat to society.

But, alas... it was not to be.

Just like when Charlie Brown finally believes that hes going to send that football sailing
over the goalposts, it gets snatched away from him every single time.

[img][/img]

Last edited Thu Mar 12, 2015, 02:14 PM - Edit history (2)

natural high: .. because the ATF opened the ammo ban proposal up to public comments and then actually paid attention to those comments.

Were the BATFE proposal to be put to a national referendum, it would likely gain more than 70% support from the public - 70%+ support to ban armor piercing green tip bullets.
The 'comments' your refer to, which were predominantly against the ban, were obtained during the 'comment period' BATF allowed, and were skewed far right by gun zealotry & fanaticism. They in NO WAY represent what the country would have voted for.
BATF did not cater to the needs & wants of the American public, but were end played into delay due the antics of the far right gun lobby, & it's sycophants, perhaps you included.

natural high: That's how it's supposed to work, right? The government is supposed to pay attention to the people. If it's not, then why bother to have elections and such?

Explain your reasoning to the 90% public which supported background checks, the bill which was shot down in the (edit out) senate due the filibuster tactic. You can't. Open your eyes, A SIMILAR THING HAPPENED HERE - the tail wagging the dog, is wagging it again.
You side with the anti-democrat approach to gun control. You side with the far right republican approach, not the democratic approach.

Fox News Poll "Requiring criminal background checks on anyone buying bullets and ammunition"
3/17-19/13.. 70 support 28 oppose 2
1/15-17/13.. 80 support 19 oppose 1

Live with it or change it.

was under Democratic control when the UBC bill proposed after Sandy Hook was defeated.

This issue is an example of how gun control is an issue that is 5 miles wide and 1 inch deep. As soon as one gets into the details most people who are not gun owners tend to lose interest and the issue winds up being decided by gun owners and/or those people directly affected by violence involving a firearm.

blueridge: The United States Senate was under Democratic control when the UBC bill proposed after Sandy Hook was defeated.

You are correct, a minor slip up I done did; with little impact on the points I was making, since the republicans controlled the background check outcome due the filibuster rules, but they did not control the senate per se.

This issue is an example of how gun control is an issue that is 5 miles wide and 1 inch deep. As soon as one gets into the details most people who are not gun owners tend to lose interest and the issue winds up being decided by gun owners and/or those people directly affected by violence involving a firearm.

Imagine this if you can: you are correct again, or least mostly so. You help make my case against natural high's op, in a sense. A minority in the senate stifled the 90% will of the people.

in order to prevent the "tyranny of the majority". The Republicans did not "control the Senate" at all. Per the rules in place they exercise an influence in excess of their numbers as designed; just as the Democrats did when they were in the minority.


Re: what 90% of the people want; if they cannot take the time to log onto a website and express their opinion then how much weight do you want to give their voice? The "public comment" window is a national plebiscite of sorts; a lack of interest in expressing a vote is a vote to go with the majority that do vote.

blueridge: The Senate is designed to be "anti-democratic" in order to prevent the "tyranny of the majority".

Fair enough challenge; what I meant, in retrospect, was 'anti-democrat party' rather than an anti-democratic concept. Got lost in translating from brain to keyboard. I edited the title of that post, that's two edits you forced me into, stop it. (kidding)

I did get it right with one sentence in that post, demonstrates my true intent:
You side with the anti-democrat approach to gun control. You side with the far right republican approach, not the democratic approach.

The filibuster was as much meant to offset travel times in those days, where a congressman who was visiting his home state perhaps Massachusetts, when suddenly he was alerted a vote was needed on something important in congress. Since he (as well as others) could be days away from Philadelphia, or Washington, his political allies in congress would 'filibuster' in order to delay the vote which could be affected of course by the absent congressmen, to allow him to travel by horse or carriage.
In this manner they sought to filibuster to delay a rushed vote, in order to prevent a (sometimes pseudo) majority from 'tyrannizing' bills & law by some members intentionally calling for a vote when they knew opposing members would be away. That is how a majority could tyrannize, a planned unforeseen majority.
They should've put a time limit on it.

You had the same opportunity to comment on this ATF proposal as anyone else. How do you know they don't represent what the country would have voted for.

If proponents of the ammo ban didn't bother to comment on this proposal, then they're just like someone who doesn't bother to vote in an election.

and didn't get involved in a ban attempt that might expose his organization as the fringe ban group that it is.

Last edited Fri Mar 13, 2015, 02:31 PM - Edit history (1)

And yet they stopped short of saying they'd oppose it...which in this case, would be the textbook definition of "protecting the rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners, not banning bullets or other forms of hardware".

As always, listen to what they say, then watch what they do.


The odds of them matching? Lets just say you have a better chance of winning the powerball.

While riding a unicycle on a train rail juggling wild badgers who are themselves singing the national anthem.


In latin.

That goes for all politicians and professional fundraisers, especially the gun ban types who know they can't get much done but still need a cause to gather around and line their pockets.

If you put it to them dishonestly, calling them "armor piercing green tip bullets" like the above, then possibly yes, they would.

If you were to be honest, and say "ATF proposes to ban bullets that do not meet the legal threshold of "armor piercing", and in doing so exerecise authority they were never granted under that law. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?"

Well, I doubt you would get any real broad support.


You WOULD want people to have the facts before deciding, right?

beevul: If you put it to them dishonestly, calling them "armor piercing green tip bullets" like the above, then possibly yes, they would.

then, laughably, beevul says: If you were to be honest, and say "ATF proposes to ban bullets that do not meet the legal threshold of "armor piercing", and in doing so exerecise authority they were never granted under that law. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?"

That's being 'honest'? beevul counters his view of a biased question, with a biased question which is more offensive. Is it illegal to propose something? can the green tip penetrate mild steel?

.. why the sudden popularity in green tip bullets?: ..the proposed "green tip" ammo ban came from the ATF's decision to review all ammo exemptions to the 1986 law. The agency had seen a recent increase in the number of "sporting purposes" exemptions requested by ammunition manufacturers. From 1986 to 2011, the agency received "very few" exemption requests, Seward said. But it has received 30 requests since then {~2011}.

So evidently, ammo manufacturers are skirting the 1986 law restricting armor piercing ammo by calling this green tip bullet available for 'sporting purposes'. What are they using as game, rhinoceros? hahahahaha! poachers then! Winchester ammunition (if so) is creating a loophole.
.. even the legal 55 grain & 62 grain 0.223 bullet can penetrate mild steel to ~3/8 inch, so this green tip must be more potent than that I surmise, which is the rub. Would it be 'honest' in beevul's eyes, to substitute 'armor piercing' with 'capable of at least piercing mild steel'? I'd go along with that, still garner 70%+ support to ban 'em.

Last year, the ATF successfully banned Russian-made 7N6 bullets on the grounds they were armor-piercing. Some gun-rights groups objected, but that ruling stood.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/10/how-angry-gun-owners-shouted-down-a-ban-on-armor-piercing-bullets/









Well, I doubt you would get any real broad support.


You WOULD want people to have the facts before deciding, right?

Its only offensive to you, because its factually accurate and forthright.



Bzzzt. Wrong, James.

With so much discussion of this particular ammo, there seems little excuse to be had as to why anyone interested in the issue could remain pig-ignorant of the details, so the obvious question is, whats yours?

Here is the pertinent section of the law in question, as written :

(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium; or

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

(I assume the horses mouth is an acceptable source: )

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf

The ammunition in question does not meet the threshold of either i or ii, because it has a projectile made of 60-80 percent lead.

Therefore ATF proposed banning ammo they do not have authority under the law in question, to ban.


You don't have any excuse now.

Kind of like those assault weapons. They just look bad. Obviously they need to be banned for the children.

Yes! A thousand times YES, but no one must know, particularly when polled, that we don't actually have the legal authority to ban them...

If they did, it might cause them to be biased.

They stepped on their johnson big time with the whole "armor piercing" thing but by the time they realized they'd screwed up the ban was already out in draft form.

If the public comments had gone the other way they would have had to (a)back down (b)expand the ban to include virtually all center fire rifle ammunition or (c)defend the ban in court and they knew they'd lose credibility regardless.

The hysterical and bigoted "Mr. Tomorrow" --- not so much.

don't contain nuggets of truth that we should all live by? I'm utterly shocked!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026370840

All those people think your cartoon is so cool, but, but, but, they never seem to find their way to your "safe haven" to support your POV and rally to the cause of gun control.

Gee, I wonder why that is?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=158158

... or even bother to post in the activism group in support of your POV.

Do you even wonder why gun control is pretty much a dead issue politically?

You're never going to get even Universal Background Checks, not because of the NRA or SAF, but because gun controllers have no self control.

The legislators will pile every piece of "look at me" crap legislation on any UBC bill that comes along, just like they did last time, and Feinstein's AWB version 2.0 or some other amendment banning Marlin Model 60 .22s will sink it again.

Lather, rinse, repeat again and again.

I asked several gun control advocates (including your interlocutor), in several different
threads, the following question:

What did *your* email to the ATF say? How many others did you get to write them?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=163127

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1037370

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6352917

None of them bothered to answer- and the only people that did answer the question
said they wrote in against the proposed ban.

You're going to harsh his morally superior mellow with facts.

after some facts posted.

Kind of like how he or other controllers can not answer simple questions.

Seems like the "we must ban the evil green tipped bullet" people did not care enough to even make a phone call..

No wonder they get ignored so much.

to think that the Bloomberg billions will buy them the gun bans that they want. It's like they think they're the cool kids because they spout the same nonsense as the money types and some Hollywood stars. They haven't figured out those same people look down their noses at them and wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

But it is all part of the dogma of gun control... Cling tight to your faith, and Never doubt, Never question, just parrot what you're told too..