"and do not want to admit Obama hasnot been an enemy of gun rights"

over the last four years, but prior to that?

Are any of the statements true in that article? Did Obama as a senator, Il state senator or candidate make any of those statements? You have to look at his entire body of work over his career.

You look at what Romney has said in the past about guns and gun control compared to what he said this week at the NRA convention and it just shows him for what he really is, someone who will sell out his values (if he had any) for a vote. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him with his anti gun statements he has made in the past.

Which is more accurate of Obama and Guns? The last four years when he had MORE POWER or the time he was a state senator?

The NRA is as much of a bunch of assholes as Fox News is. They both distort the truth.

I think your 100% support of the NRA should get you banned from the DU.

and have an undying love for the NRA.

There are plenty of posters who, like you say, only seem to post pro-NRA posts in the gungeon, routinely criticize Democrats and celebrate Republican legislative victories (under the guise of "civil rights" and "freedom", of course), and repeatedly link to sources like FOX News or WorldNetDaily or WashingtonTimes etc. On top of that, if you do some searching on gun nut internet forums, you find people discussing and bragging about their trolling exploits on DU Guns.

show us the evidence.

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=717138
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-2587.html
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-33227.html

On edit, a few individual posts:






Edit again:
I'm wondering if it is against the rules to post links to other forums where people are discussing trolling on DU. If so, someone please let me know, and I'll self-delete.

usually more times.

Glock Glockler doesn't say he comes to the gun board. He could have been going to GD.
That has nothing to do with any of us. That certainly doesn't have anything to do with me.
Boats and the guy from AR15 don't sound very bright and probably is too obvious.

Most of the other pro gun folks here have been here longer than I have. They are not "trolls". So if you are going for the guilt by association thing going (that is what it sounds like, complete with genetic fallacy).

You don't really expect that someone's going to post "I'm currently trolling on DU under the name _________", do you?

I know that not all pro-gunners here are trolls, obviously. For example, I'm pretty sure that you are not a troll.

But, yes, Virginia, there are a lot of trolls in the gungeon.

but I would not say a lot. I think they tend to go to GD. There are some "antis" I would describe as trolls. I was once accused of being one at Think Progress simply for explaining NFA-34 when the Al Qaida guy claimed you can buy machine guns under the "gun show loophole". So, it is not a term I use lightly.

The gungeon is troll-friendly territory because, as long as you don't ever make any comments about any topic except for guns, you can get away with expressing right-wing views, routinely criticizing liberal Democrats and prominent progressive voices while celebrating Republican legislative victories, citing FOX News and WashingtonTimes (and whining about "genetic fallacy" when you get called out) while complaining that progressive media outlets are "biased", supporting right-wing lobby groups like the NRA, and so on.

That's how it is. The rules are the rules. And like I said, not all pro-gunners are trolls. But let's not pretend that there aren't a good number of (sometimes pretty obvious) trolls.

One of the more vocal anti-gun people in this group (Screen name has 4 letters, starts with J and ends with K) has no problem criticizing people for using Fox for pro-gun articles and insinuating they're right-wing, yet he has no problem using Fox as a source when the article is anti-gun. Now, does the fact that he uses Fox make him a right-wing troll?

Just curious.

The reason I think there are a lot of trolls is not based on any single rule, but a pattern of voicing right-wing talking points, supporting Republicans and right-wing institutions, celebrating Republican victories, citing right-wing sources, demonizing progressive voices, etc.

But I have not and would not say something like "anyone who criticizes Rachel Maddow is a troll" or "anyone who has ever linked to FOX is a troll". That would be silly.

Like I told ge, not all pro-gunners here are trolls. For example, I think it's pretty obvious that gejohnston is not a right-wing troll, despite his pro-gun views. And I also think it's pretty obvious that jpak is not a right-wing troll.

And before I do, I appreciate the civil conversation.

Does it not make sense that if pro-gun articles are printed on "right-wing" websites, they'll be posted here by pro-gun people? I mean, I have looked and looked for a left-wing website that's pro-gun. I simply can't find one.

When a pro-gun story happens (This can be legislation, DGU, etc.), I look for it on CNN, MSNBC, etc. to find it there so I can use them as a source. If the article isn't there, I don't have much choice, do I? Personally, I could care less what source is used for any article. If the information is true, it shouldn't matter.

But that's just me.

But, like I said to ge, the reason it matters is because we don't actually know whether things are true unless we either have witnessed it first-hand, or we have heard it from a reliable source.

As far as news articles go, if it's something straightforward (like a legislation that passed), then in theory it shouldn't matter where it comes from. The problem is that things are often not so simple, particularly when a story has political implications.

I agree that there are essentially no prominent progressive voices that would come down as "pro-gun" on this board (in fact I once posted an OP asking about this). There are some who own guns, or who like guns, or who have what some would consider gun-friendly views, but not enough to satisfy the pro-gunners here.

I take this as an indication that the extreme pro-gun point of view is basically not compatible with a well-informed progressive worldview. You also don't see many progressive voices standing up for "Defense of Marriage" amendments, or supporting tax cuts for the top 1%.

If a moderate or conservative Democrat disagrees with a liberal Democrat, they are still Democrats. DU rules say "a place for Democrats" all Dems in the big tent are welcome. You seem to have a problem with that. There are some very liberal gun owners go comment only here because they feel they have nothing to add any place else because of lack of knowledge on the subject or "me too". I don't do "me too" posts.
As for legislate victories, if I agree with it, I don't care who it comes from. If I disagree with it, I don't care who it comes from. If a conservative Democrat is against single payer, I disagree with him (I seem to recall those). If a Log Cabin Republican is for marriage equality, I agree with him just as I would any liberal Dem that would join him.
I support the Democratic Party and and vote Democratic because that is the party that currently shares most of my values and pushes an agenda I agree with. The party platform does not shape my views.
When it comes to sources, my rule is very basic. Is the information correct? If the information is correct, but bitch about the source, It is a genetic fallacy.
I hold my side to the same standards, if not a higher standard, as I would the other or neutral sources. If some blogger at Think Progress writes about buying machine guns at Wal Mart or the "wild west" nonsense, I'm going to correct it. If Faux can't tell the difference between a Hawaii birth certificate and one from a British Colony, I bust a gut laughing my ass off.
If I disagree, I disagree. I don't like ditto heads on the right, and I refuse to be one on the left. Rachel Maddow has a different view on guns than I do, but it has nothing to do with left/right. It also does not mean that either of us should conform to the other to be a true progressive.


There are some. They tend to get weeded out pretty fast.

No problems here, just pointing out that many pro-gun posters are conservative Dems, independents, and that some are outright trolls who come just to post pro-gun propaganda. But I've never suggested that people shouldn't be allowed to post pro-gun views. I do think that supporting the NRA, a blatantly right-wing organization devoted to fearmongering, is pushing it, but I don't make the rules.


Yeah, but the thing is, the whole reason we need sources in to begin with is to figure out if the information is correct or not. If the "absolute truth" were written in stone somewhere, then there wouldn't be any need for journalism.

But it's not, which is why the source matters. If something is reported only on FOX, especially on a politically sensitive topic, it is simply not reliable. FOX has a tendency to exaggerate certain facts, omit others, and color a story with right-wing editorializing. Not trusting FOX is not "genetic fallacy", it's just prudence.

One thing that always strikes me on this board is how few of the claims pro-gunners make turn out to be true, and a big reason for this is that they only trust sources that have a severe pro-gun bias. And in this way they are very similar to conservatives in general. It reminds me of the "smart idiots" phenomenon -- that more educated and better-read conservatives are actually more likely to believe that global warming is a myth or that Obama was born in Kenya, because they have been exposed to more FOX propaganda.

Think Progress does the same thing to the left, so what else is new. Most media sources do the same with whatever their editorial boards or ideology wants. The papers in the UK are even more so. Most of the time it supports a narrative to sell print. Most of the time it is also pro one percent. Guns is really a class issue, than a right or left issue.


That it is a coincidence.


I don't think they seriously believe it any more than I believe Ann Coulter is an Evangelical Christian.

You could maybe start...here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=28844

...to an example where you expressed a progressive viewpoint.

How silly of me!

Well, no, I really didn't.

Got anything... current?

Or not... there's this great tool called "google". You should learn how to use it. For example.
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1208324
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=874865
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1249776
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=654336

Let me pick some highlights for you:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/778683__ARCHIVED_THREAD____Just_registered_at_DU_and_am_now_behind_enemy_lines_________.html&page=2

"I've been posting on their 'Guns' forum as iverglas for some time and never had a problem."




(read more all about moi here:
http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&complete=0&site=webhp&q=site%3Awww.ar15.com+iverglas&oq=site%3Awww.ar15.com+iverglas&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...22672l27543l0l27933l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0.frgbld)

That quacked me up.

In fact if you do a search you will find where I specifically say that I don't belong to the NRA so I don't have a dog in the fight (those exact words to help you find the posts).

There are, on other hand many poster here that say they do belong to the NRA and they do support them, I am not one of those.

All Presidential candidates have their feet planted to the left or to the right, so whatever they do before getting sworn into the Oval Office is moot. Everyone moves center when they're in office (they still lean one way or another, but left center and right center are still center.)

Or at least that's the way it looks to me.

...though groups like the NRA sure do try to paint it as such.

I own several firearms, yet I'm somewhat to the left of Bernie Sanders. I go shooting on a regular basis with friends who are also politically liberal. We see the GOP as posing a far more serious threat than the Democrats pose to our civil liberties.

And our numbers are growing. (Or at least I like to think so.)

seem to place a higher importance on gun ownership alone rather than gun ownership and responsibility. There's one particular couple who are Paulbots and Infowars supporters/fans. They just got a gun for their 7 year old son, having instructed him to use it on anyONE who threatens his liberty. I literally threw up upon hearing about this. I personally have no problem with gun ownership, or even conceal carry, but am I just muddying the whole "right to bear arms" concept when I say I don't believe that those who are mentally ill or those who have been convicted of a violent crime should be allowed access to guns? Aren't ex-cons not allowed to vote?

I've gotten off topic. But yeah, these are just my views, and they may be misinformed, so I'd love if someone were to update "my files" lol

Did George Bush "move to the center" while in office?



Please stop.

Cheney's and Rumsfield's marionette.

Not entirely, as Dems seem more willing to compromise. But he did implement a few liberal policies. I'm not saying he went so extreme as to champion a single payer health care system, or push stronger gun laws, but despite his wars and tax breaks he did continue many liberal traditions (NAFTA, Increasing Gov't, etc). My point was, you can't run on a far left or far right platform, polarizing voters more than the party system already does, and expect to have a resounding win.

Clinton moved to the center during his time in office, and that's why the 2000 election wasn't a landslide either way (Nader aside). Bush and Gore were both running on a moderate platform, despite historically pushing for far left or far right views. If Santorum had stayed in it, and somehow won the Republican nomination, do you think he'd go into November hypercharged with Tea Party rhetoric? Obama has advocated many far left policies, but has ultimately shifted further right than many of us would probably like to see, no?

That's where I was going. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Give me a few of the "many"

You're correct, though. I got carried away in my explanation and said far left when I shouldn't have.

Anyway, aren't the Dodd-Frank and Lilly Ledbetter laws examples of left policies? I mean, at their core? They're certainly not free-market, and they're government laws governing business.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not so naive as to say that Obama is as left as I'd like him to be, or that he's an unabashed corporatist, but he's moved to the center as I said in my OP. He just hasn't done it with the same finesse as Clinton did.

I'm guessing you have a conflicting opinion. So long as you don't give me "The Treatment," then maybe I might learn something, by all means, be my guest.

I do not belong to the NRA so I have no reason to defend them. I know what his record has been the last three years while in office, I want to know about his years in the senate, the IL state senate and his record while running for office.

"I think your 100% support of the NRA should get you banned from the DU."

Please show me ANYWHERE ON DU that I have supported the NRA. You and I have gone around on this one before and you have had to backpeddle because you could not provide any "support" I have shown towards the NRA.

What you said:

"They ignore the last 4 years "

What I said: True

That is true. How is that defending them?

What you said:
"and do not want to admit Obama has not been an enemy of gun rights"

What I said:
"over the last four years,"


Over the last four years they do not want to admit Obama has not been an enemy of gun rights.

How is that defending them?


Also what I said: "but prior to that?"

But prior to Obama's record the last four years, what was his record like?

Bush did the same re abortion rights. Not much legislatively, but Roberts and Alito will be on the court voting against abortion rights for decades.

I own a handgun, 3 shotguns (including a single shot 12 gauge that I've considered sawing off). and a deer rifle. And I don't get all crazy about them. Is something wrong with me?

It this is the case, you should consider an inexpensive (around $250) 12 Ga. pump that already has a short barrel as an alternative.

If you do cut down the barrel, make absolutely sure it's at least 18 inches long by the time you're done, with an overall length of at least 26 inches. Err on the side of caution! You're do not want to be in possession of an illegal sawed off shotgun!

And I already knew that. I'm not really concerned about self-defense. I just want to shoot stuff when we're in the country.

of course everyone knows he's full of shit.

as opposed to the conclusions drawn from purported facts.

What are the factually incorrect statements? How do they differ from the truth?

This is infinitely more interesting than

1. Whether particular posters sound like GOP supporters
2. Whether particular posters are trolls
3. Where particular posters do or do not post
4. Subjects on which particular posters do or do not opine
5. Sources particular posters do or do not cite
6. Whether particular posters are or are not politically pure in their views

And please do not conflate opinion with factual claims. "Obama is going to suppress gun rights in his second term" is obviously an opinion. "Obama supported banning concealed carry nationwide" is a factual claim.

I understand that you despise the NRA. I understand that you do not agree with their views. But I don't see where you've supported your claim of "lying" in the OP.

What Obama did the last 4 years is much more important that what he said 8 years ago. Where has the NRA said "Obama has not been an enemy to gun rights?"

I am sure the NRA is telling you what you want to hear but they are pulling up quotes from Obama that does not reflect his actions now.

People like you and GOP voters believe them 100%!! And think he is ready to ban guns in 2012!

Are you saying your NRA is not misleading on this topic?

Are you saying "Obaa has already signed on to destroy the 2nd amendment" is a factual statement?

NRA = Fox News! You I assume are ok with Fox News also! What a joke!

I am not supporting the NRA at all.

If you accused Hitler of cannibalism--of eating Jewish children fried in their mother's fat--I might ask you to show your evidence. If you immediately leaped to the conclusion that I am a fan of Hitler, you would be way off base.

The fact is, if Hitler actually did practice cannibalism, and if your statement was supported by responsible historical research I would like to know that fact myself. I would like to be able to cite your credible sources--to make them my own.

No. I read it as a statement of opinion, based on factual claims.

The NRAs contention, whether it turns out to be true or false, makes sense and is consistent with the facts. Obama was virulently anti-gun before he was running for president. It is true that he hasn't acted on the very anti-gun opinions he held years ago, but what you are missing is that the NRA admits that in your citation.

There are two possible reasons for Obama not acting against gun rights:

1. He has had a change of heart.
2. He has found it politically advantageous to behave as he has.

If the second reason is correct, it is perfectly reasonable to think that he might change his tune in his second term. Obama is certainly not above changing tactics in his second term--as he himself said in his accidentally overheard microphone slip-up.

There is nothing deceptive about discounting Obama's behavior in his first term if you believe in the second of the two branches. And both branches are consistent with the facts. Only Obama knows the truth, and even though I voted for him twice he is a politician--prone to say what he needs to to get or maintain power.

In evaluating two theories, you can make no progress by citing evidence compatible with both. All of the evidence I've seen on this issue is compatible with both the change of heart and political advantage theories.

My acknowledging that is no more supportive of the NRA than it is supportive of you. It's just seeing clearly, as far as I can tell.

What Obama did the last 4 years is much more important that what he said 8 years ago. Where has the NRA said "Obama has not been an enemy to gun rights?"

Question for you:

Do you believe that the president has not moved on gun control in the last 4 years because he has had an honest change of heart concerning gun control, or do you think he has not done so because of the political fallout from doing so?

In other words, do you think he still believes what he said 8 years ago?

http://factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

not saying that the NRA is correct in everything they have ever said.

Let's stick to the subject at hand.

He supported a national ban on CC. He has never retracted that statement. So, how is the NRA statement a lie?

Regarding hunting ammunition:
He voted for 2005 Kennedy Amendment intended by Kennedy to ban all common center-fire rifle ammo. Kennedy, in his speech named the .30-30, first made in the mid 1890s, as a cop-killer to be banned. The .30-30 is one of the most common hunting rounds in America. Reference to Kennedy’s speech, Congressional Record: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=S1634&position=all


A ban on the .30-30 would have banned ALL common hunting ammunition. Since Kennedy wrote the amendment, and since he specifically named the .30-30, then we must assume that he did intend to ban the .30-30, and ALL hunting ammo.