Let's Vet the REPUBLICANS' 2A Position For a Change

Why does the Republican Party treat the 2A as a Sacred Cow - not to be messed with? Let's ask two likely voters for their opinions, shall we?


VOTER #1: "The Republicans are true patriots, and only they can be trusted to uphold and defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Besides, they know that our RKBA is essential to deterring any bad guys from invading or otherwise overthrowing our Democracy."


Voter #2: "Just another cynical ploy by the Repugs to play the fear card and buy votes. They KNOW that of all the Rights granted to Americans, the RKBA presents the weakest threat to their plans for an Imperial Presidency wielding near-dictatorial powers. Now, Free Speech. A Free Press. Separation of Powers. Habeas Corpus. They must be dealt with. And how do the Repugs know their plan works? They've been proving it every day for nearly 8 years. "Sure! Why not? Tell them we unconditionally support the 2nd Amendment! They'll never even notice while we trash the rest of the Constitution, rob them blind, threaten their lives and health, pollute their air, water and food, send their children to fight illegal, unnecessary wars and make the United States of America a pariah and laughingstock to the rest of the World. Besides, gotta love those big checks from the NRA!"


Two extreme opinions, to be sure. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. But reading the posts offered up by so many here in the Gungeon, I have to believe that too many of you agree wholeheartedly with Voter #1.


Embarrassing. Depressing.

republicans are generally more rural minded so they are more supportive of gun ownership

democrats are generally more urban minded and are more supportive of gun control

your question was why do republicans treat the 2nd as a sacred cow

and i responded that it was because they are generally from areas that are more supportive of gun ownerhip

how is that not an answer- it may be one you disagree with but it is still an answer

im going to assume that you are referring to my answer as embarrassing and depressing so i will go onto a rebuttal of that

my answer endorsed neither of those 2 views, it just states why i believe the republicans are more supportive of the second amendment

whats embarrasing is that im still responding to your "posts"

whats depressing is that i have nothing better to do than respond to your "posts"

STOP! You'd be doing me, yourself and intelligent, progressive-minded people everywhere a huge favor.....

you are too funny...

may i ask what the purpose of your post was- if there was one?

why do i have this idea that you are some 12 year old kid just looking to piss someone off?

only someone that immature would post what you post

If you'd read beyond the first sentence in my post, maybe you'd grasp my purpose. Then again, probably not.
Hint: I'm talking about the Republican Party's 2A stance. Not Republicans in general. Hence, replying that "Republicans are generally more rural minded so they are more supportive of gun ownership (and) democrats are generally more urban minded and are more supportive of gun control" is not only simplistic and insulting; it fails to address the issue.

speaking about the party in general- which would be pertantent to its 2A stance

anything beyond your first sentance is just a hypothetical situation which are extreme and silly.

i think you would be hard pressed to find people on this forum that agree with either one of those hypothetical voters

your original question regarding why the republican party feels the second amendment is sacred is based in the fact that there base is more rural and more supportive of gun ownership

"Hence, replying that "Republicans are generally more rural minded so they are more supportive of gun ownership (and) democrats are generally more urban minded and are more supportive of gun control" is not only simplistic and insulting; it fails to address the issue. "

there is no real issue brought up in your post other than the question in the first sentace

George W. Bush? Dick Cheney?

its defined by a general spectrum of people

why dont you look an electoral map of red states and blue states- are the red states more rural centered or more urban centered than the blue states?

just because you can show anecdotal examples that could be contrary to a general idea does not invalidate that general idea

i could do the same when it comes to seat belts- i could find people that are alive today because they WEREN'T wearing their seatbelts- that does not change the fact that you are more likely to survive and accident if your wear your seatbelt than if you don't

a party is not defined by one man or a few men
its defined by a general spectrum of people

A party's policy positions and electoral platform are NOT defined by people who vote for the party, or by anyone else than the party's competent authorities.


just because you can show anecdotal examples that could be contrary to a general idea does not invalidate that general idea

My "anecdotal examples" are actually instances of the people who define and implement the Republican Party's policies and platform. The policies and platform ARE the "general idea", fer fuck's sakes.

What are you imagining we are talking about here?

"A party's policy positions and electoral platform are NOT defined by people who vote for the party, or by anyone else than the party's competent authorities."

No, but they are tailored to appeal to the people who vote for that party.

Edit: Apparently I just re-worded the OP's point.

"i think you would be hard pressed to find people on this forum that agree with either one of those hypothetical voters"


I admit I agree wholeheartedly with voter #2. In fact, I don't think he goes far enough. But, yes, I'm probably in the minority. And I think (too) many on this forum agree with Voter #1, but won't admit it. I'd love to be proven wrong.

But until then,

Embarrassing. Depressing.

just look at many of the posts- they are about how we feel OUR party's 2A stance is wrong

we talk alot about guns because this is the gun forum- i talk alot about hockey in a hockey forum- that does not mean my life revolves around hockey

But he spelled cheques wrong.

that is actually willing to vote for McCain. I certainly won't even though I strongly oppose our party platform on 'Assault Weapons'. I'm also strongly concerned we are driving away moderate votes, and energizing the NRA base to vote for the Republicans.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=154283&mesg_id=154283

Granted, it's a tiny cross-section, and hardly scientific, but I think it still reveals that there are in fact people here who have drunk the Republican Kool-Aid.

some people take this issue pretty seriously. I'm sure we've picked up some votes from Republicans uncomfortable with their party shitting all over the 4th amendment.

I'm surprised by the results of that poll though. Numbers were very different last time I looked at it. I wonder if it got raided by trolls?

I'm sure we've picked up some votes from Republicans uncomfortable with their party shitting all over the 4th amendment.

How many would you say? Twelve? 147 maybe? How about 45,000? Not exactly going to tip any balances, I'd think.

People I'm familiar with vote based on things that affect them, largely. Things like health care and taxes and jobs and the price of the things they need to buy. And they often do get tired of pouring money and lives (their own, in the US, where they don't seem to care much about anybody else's in the world) into expensive pointless wars.

The fourth amendment? Not a huge vote-getter, I think.

that were swayed on largely the 4th/patriot act, etc. But only a couple, and this is a pretty heavily blue state, so small numbers, anecdotal.

I can't believe that poll is accurate. With so many issues hanging in the balance, the 2nd is important, but voting republican would imperil the 1st, (also the 2nd, some republicans have no problems with mucking about with the 2nd) 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, etc etc etc. Not to mention voting, abortion, oh holy shit, there are too many issues to list.

That poll has to be crap, or knee-jerk un-reasoned responses... something.

It is well known that this forum is chock-full of disguised freepers. I'm sure the poll is biased.

your original question regarding why the republican party feels the second amendment is sacred is based in the fact that there base is more rural and more supportive of gun ownership

The second amendment has nothing to do with rural/urban anything!

It has to do with standing on guard against those who would steal your liberty! (Not your homes or your health care, I know. Your liberty. Whatever that means.)

Why would rural folks be more worried about somebody stealing their liberty than the metropolitanos?

I've also heard tell that it has something to do with "defence of self". Surely the metropolis dwellers are no less concerned about defending their selves than the hollow dwellers!


Now surely you aren't suggesting that the Republicans are trying to scare the simple country folk into believing that the big bad Democrats are gonna take away their grandpappies' varmint hunting thangs ... when that gots nothing to do with the second amendment at all ...

"The second amendment has nothing to do with rural/urban anything!"

correct- but sentiment regarding the second amendment does which would affect a party's stance on the issue

sentiment regarding the second amendment does (to do with rural/urban anything) which would affect a party's stance on the issue

"The second amendment" and "firearms possession" ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS.

This thread is about THE SECOND AMENDMENT. It is NOT about FIREARMS POSSESSION.

The second amendment is not about hunting or plinking or varmint control or pride of possession.

It is about

- defending collective liberty and security against tyranny
and/or
- defending one's self against bad guys


Why would anyone think that rural dwellers are more concerned about either or both of those things than urban dwellers?

If there's no reason to think so, why would the Republicans be seen as the big brave champions of THE SECOND AMENDMENT?


edited for clarity

in public sentiment the 2nd amendment is very connected/intertwined with firearms possession

whether it is right or wrong that those two things should be seen as connected is irrelevent because they are

and since rural dwellers are more likely to possess firearms they are more likely to be supportive of second amendment rights

here is a little poll which supports some of my conclusions

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/Public-Believes-Americans-Right-Own-Guns.aspx

if you take a look 91% of people who own a gun believe the 2A is an individual right while only 63% of people who dont own a gun believe so

see the difference in the sentiment- now coupled with the fact that rural people are more likely to own firearms than urban people you could understand why the republican party with a more rural base would be more supportive of the second amendment

it always seems like that your arguement is based on idealistic conditions.

its like trying to understand real world problems in regards to physics using calculations designed to work under ideal circumstances

The second amendment is not about hunting or plinking or varmint control or pride of possession.

It is about

- defending collective liberty and security against tyranny
and/or
- defending one's self against bad guys


Why would anyone think that rural dwellers are more concerned about either or both of those things than urban dwellers?

Hopefully they aren't.

He brought up a very interesting point that you hit on in your post.

Most city dwellers are excessively dependant upon government services. This fact encourages a willingness to allow restrictions of their rights for the perceived public good. My friend calls this the "sheeple syndrome". He claims that people living in major metropolitian areas have adapted a herd mentality.

On the other side, those that live outside of the city environment adapt a more self reliant lifestyle and are easily offended by anyone mandating restrictions or infringements on their rights. These are the people less tolorant of crime and lawlessness. These people have been labeled with everything from "racist" to "isolationist" to "anti-social" and worse without any basis in reality.

I've never looked at the issue in this way before and I don't know how accurate his comments are but I do see what he is talking about. I just don't know how deep it runs. I do note however that metrolites are more willing to surrender their rights than those that live outside the city.

I do note however that metrolites are more willing to surrender their rights than those that live outside the city.

Guess I'll have to look that one up. "Metrolites". Who knew? (... Seems to be a rock band in the Quad Cities, a bit of middleamerica I'm intimately familiar with.)

Whatever. It's utter shit. In modern times, virtually all progressive impulses have originated in cities, among workers, students and intellectual workers. Unions, the peace movement at various times, the black civil rights movement, gay and lesbian rights activists, and the various outcroppings of the women's rights movement -- all largely urban phenomena.

The factual foundation of your argument is also shit. Rural economies depend heavily on public infrastructures -- in the case of farming, to get their products to market (you know, in the cities), just for starters -- and those infrastructures are heavily publicly funded. Then there's all the subsidizing of agricultural endeavours ...

They may come up somewhat short on health and social services and the like -- same is true in Canada; geography does matter -- but cities are coming up damned short on infrastructure these days.

The fact that someone has a firearm at hand to deal with bogeymen makes him/her no more "self-reliant" than someone who takes public transit to go out and work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, to support a family.

It's rhetoric like yours -- "sheeple syndrome" ... a herd mentality, in its demeaning of the large majority of the population in the US and comparable societies today, that is ugly and divisive.

The population concentration of the cities are the only places where things like large universities can exist and where labor-intensive manufacturing centers could draw workers, and the commercial enterprises that support them and fulfill their needs could not exist without that nearby pool of customers. Not much of a chance of that happening when you're staring at the back end of a mule plowing the north forty.

Or the north 16.19 for you metric types. :-)

Once the agricultural system got to the point of making large surpluses of food, significant portions of the population were available to do other things besides harvest grain and slaughter livestock, and thus rose the large cities. Which figured out how to make better agricultural tools and move produce further, increasing that surplus of food and letting even more people move to the cities to do things that don't involve plowing and slops.

So if it's no surprise to thee and me that the metropolises are the loci of progressive thought and action, why do I have to read crap at this site calling metrolites a herd of sheep?

Must educate the masses, after all.

I'll also point out that cities are the loci (good turn of phrase, by the way) for conservative thought and action as well. They are the loci for intellectual study and organization of all stripes. The Competitive Enterprise Institute isn't located in rural Oklahoma!

They {cities} are the loci for intellectual study and organization of all stripes. The Competitive Enterprise Institute isn't located in rural Oklahoma!

Yes, but is it indigenous to cities? ;)

In the sense that wealth is concentrated in cities, sure.

But I was talking more about individuals and the movements they create and participate in. Unions, the peace movement, women's rights, etc. Your example is more one of the implantation of institutions representing certain class interests in the places where they can be most effective and efficient.

There have indeed been progressive movements come out of the hinterlands. One precursor of Canada's New Democratic Party, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, was a prairie populist movement to begin with. It formed an alliance with the Canadian Labour Congress (like whichever of the AFL and CIO it was that wasn't all corrupt) and produced the NDP, in 1961. Prairie populism + trade unionism = modern social democratic party for a modern industrialized / urban society.

The prairie populism has kinda died out. The NDP still regularly governs in several western provinces, but it ain't the CCF of old.

Of course I'm sure you know that the NDP in the prairie provinces doesn't hold with national party policy on firearms control. ;)

I read What's the Matter With Kansas? and the author goes into the froting progressive history of Kansas about 80 years ago and the insanity that is modern Radical Conservatism today.

prefer the republican party's 2A stance well i gues most of us do- but that is irrelevent to your hypothetical voter scenario. Whether we are supportive of the republicans are consider them more "patriotic" can be unconnected with our feelings on their 2A stance.

so when it comes to the second amendment we find ourselves agreeing more with republicans- big fucking woop- i dont need to be a party hack to call myself a democrat. Like most people on this board we agree and believe in many of the democratic party's ideals; that does not mean we agree with everything the democratic party stands for or does.

There is no issue, its simple, we dont agree 100% with the democratic party platform or any party's platform for that sake.

You said it yourself- the truth is somewhere in the middle and if you are looking to find evidence to the contrary well you are in the wrong place bud

whether voters might prefer the Republican Party's 2A stance. The problem comes when voters are duped into voting Republican because of this one single issue!

the single issue vote is often one of a tipping balance rather than a full determinent.

people dont usually base their votes soley on the second amendment (im talking about "gun lovers") Usually it is a tipping scale, they are unsure of who they want to vote for, they like some ideas from both party, so they vote for the party that they agree with 51% of the time rather than the one they agree with 49%.

when you keep adding straw to the camel, if you put on a single more straw and the camel collapses- does that mean that that single straw was heavy?- no- if that straw was put alone on the camel's back nothing would happen- it is insignificant

what i am saying is that the issue is no more than a tipping issue- it is not it is the most important thing, but that it is just happens to be one more thing that someone agrees more with one party than another

I agree with you!

Flying pigs and agreeing with nonsense.

No more for you.

Meant to add "sorta".
Forgive me.

firearms have always been a wedge issue

its like a pet peeve, whether it is logical or not does not negate the fact that it is present

if you throw them out of an airplane....wait a second actually they are in free fall....yeah so maybe they cant fly

:)

thats why gun control is a wedge issue- wedge issues are notoriously unimportant issues that stir up emotion and strong feelings within different individuals- it stems from the fact that we are not "vulcans" (sorry a bit of trekky got out of me) and do not always think logically. In a perfect logical world wedge issues would be almost non-existent but the world, and especially the world of politics, is far from logical

people will be voting against obama because they believe he is muslim- as rediculous/stupid/illogical as that is does not change the fact that it is going to happen

and what can be done about it- very little- its all part of humanity- how different and how the same we are

If only there were anything at all to back up this "tipping" hypothesis.

It's such a tiny fine line between Democratic Party policy and Republic Party policy for most people ... they agree with the Democrats on ending the war and leaving women's reproductive rights alone and ending discrimination against gay men and lesbians ... and they agree with the Republicans on ... well, I dunno, some earthshattering thing, like leaving the health insurance market to the mercy of corporations ... and they're just waiting to see how everybody comes down on gunz ...

Yeah. I'll buy that one. Sight unseen.

atleast 1/3 of the electorate are registered independent...which means there is a sizable amount of voters who dont fully agree with either of the two parties

people have different priorities and different issues are more important to different people.

firearms policy with regards to the rural electorate is generally seen as somewhat important

your problem is that you dont seem to realize that not everyone has the same feelings on issues that you do

why do i have this idea that you are some 12 year old kid just looking to piss someone off?
only someone that immature would post what you post

Projection comes to mind.


http://bluecentauri.com/tools/writer/sample.php

They'll never even notice while we trash the rest of the Constitution, rob them blind, threaten their lives and health, pollute their air, water and food, send their children to fight illegal, unnecessary wars and make the United States of America a pariah and laughingstock to the rest of the World.


Flesch Reading Ease: 40.61
... A score between 50 and 60 corresponds to a 10th/12th grade level. Below 30 is college graduate level. To give you a feel for what the different levels are like, most states require scores from 40 to 50 for insurance documents.

Fog Scale Level: 22.75
... A fog score of 5 is readable, 10 is hard, 15 is difficult, and 20 is very difficult.

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 20.26
The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level heuristic indicates that the average student in the grade level produced by the scale can read the text. ...

Perhaps this is your problem.


For further reading:

http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/unskilled.html

RKBA.

Did you read the post you replied to at all?

did you?

there was a question posed at the beginning of the post, and 2 hypothetical answers- i put in my two cents regarding the original question. I did mention the hypothetical answers because i disagree with both- i think both are extremes and are silly answers

cnom iverglas...this is a stretch...even for someone like you

You'll have to tell me the rules of that game!

Voter 1: I'm glad the Democrats support gun control. Because guns scare me, I've never seen a gun or held a gun, but they look very scary. I don't like scary looking things.

Voter 2: I really wish the Democrats would uphold their responsibilities to the Constitution and to the law abiding gun owners of this country.


David

First post here, but bear with me...

I think the stance the republicans take on the 2nd is the same as many people I know take...

I'll try to give an analogy...

Most people would be appalled if someone tried to pass federal legislation to ban certain books they didn't approve of or thought were "dangerous to children" etc. We all would rightfully scream that it's a violation of the first amendment.

There are millions of gun owners who see the 2nd in the exact same light. Trying to ban guns, especially a sweeping ban like the new AWB is to them the same constitutional rights violation as a congressman trying to ban books he doesn't approve of.

The proper way to ban guns, is to repeal the 2nd and/or replace it with a new amendment, not to try to chip it away with ever more progressive bans.. That type of policy gun owners see as the same right violation as progressively banning yet more and more books until all books are banned. They (and I) see it as also setting a direct precedent that can be used later to chip away at every other individual right.

That's why republicans treat the 2nd as "sacred cow" just as we all treat the 1st as "sacred cow".

Could you vote for a person that stated they would legislate a ban on 1/4 of the books in Americas libraries? That's the same feeling responsible gun owners have when they hear anti gun legislation.

And welcome to DU. You make some good points, but, like some others here, you missed the point of my post. (My fault, I guess, for not being clearer.) I wasn't trying to question the motives of rank-and-file Republicans, or of the gun-owning voter, but of the leaders of the Republican Party and the platform they've written. My position is that the GOP "supports" the RKBA not because of any genuine respect for individual rights, or respect for the Constitution (They have demonstrated their disdain for both oh so many times), but because it's a simple (if cynical) way for them to pander to a certain susceptible segment of the electorate. To claim they're for the "little guy". To trumpet their "patriotism". I believe that they don't give a tinker's damn about gun rights or any other rights, except insofar as they can exploit them for their own benefit.

They have figured out that a very large segment of the population sees this right every bit as important as any other constitutional right, and will not tolerate any infringement and they pander to it for all it's worth.

In doing so they also gain the backing, money and massive lobbying weight of organizations like the NRA, or here in Texas the Texas rifle association which helps them immensely.

Personally I feel if the democratic party dropped gun control as a platform issue, I believe the repubs would be in deep deep trouble right now. We might even be able to take Texas back. Our republican governor now is even worse then Bush, and he's got an awful lot of people very upset these days. But it won't happen with the AWB and other gun control on the platform.

It's a much more fundamental issue with voters I know here than abortion or health care or even the economy..

why does the Dem platform contain language about reinstating the failed AWB, it wouldn't be 'because it's a simple (if cynical) way for them to pander to a certain susceptible segment of the electorate', would it?

But would we seriously lose any votes to republicans over it?

And neutralizing the NRA's solid repub stance would be bad thing?

Welcome to DU

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

That's vetting!!

and Obama an F and Biden an F.

The difference for millions of gun owners is that McCant's party platform doesn't promise new federal gun control, you know, a rerun of the failed ban which led to a decade of Dem losses at the polls..

The last thing we need is another liberal neocon in the White House. If the Presidency of George W. Bush proved anything, it proved the hazard of electing phony Republican conservatives. At least one is able to clearly see a liberal for what he or she is when they have a "D" behind their name. But put an "R" behind the name and suddenly their liberal, Big-Government, anti-freedom agenda is barely recognized, which makes a liberal Republican much more dangerous than a liberal Democrat.

Let me say it straight out: a John McCain Presidency would be far worse than a Barack Obama Presidency. With a Democrat in the White House, conservatives and Christians suddenly find their principles and are able to offer resistance. Put a Republican in the Oval Office, however, and those same people become blind, deaf, and dumb to most any principle they profess.

Nowhere is McCain's chicanery and duplicity more jeopardous than in the area of the right to keep and bear arms. On issues relating to the Second Amendment, John McCain is a disaster! For example, the highly respected Gun Owners of America (GOA) rates McCain with a grade of F-. McCain's failing grade is well deserved.
http://www.gunowners.org/mcgungrab.htm

To people who appreciate the Second Amendment, and to those that want to see this right protected, there isn't much support to be found within the Republican Party. George Bush, the Connecticut cowboy, used the U.S. Solicitor General in the Heller case to argue a position that gutted the very notion of a Constitutional right. Rudy Giuliani, the frontrunner of the GOP race for president early on, has a worse track record with guns than many Democrats.

It's common knowledge that the Democratic Party is notorious for their attacks on the Second Amendment, but the Republican Party is slowly edging towards that same level of hostility.


A John McCain presidency would futher ensure that gun rights are never a sure bet if the polling is off.
http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/republican-gun-grabbers

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Speaking to thousands of NRA members who packed the main convention center hall, CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre blasted Sen. John McCain.

The NRA chief harshly criticized McCain's efforts on behalf of the McCain-Feingold bill that would reform campaign financing.

LaPierre asked, "Is it possible that John McCain thinks you have too much freedom?"

LaPierre said McCain's new law would effectively shut the NRA out of the political system by not allowing independent groups from buying TV or radio ads 60 days before a general election.

Had this been true in the last election, LaPierre said, the outcome would have likely been different and Gore would have won.

Praising McCain's war heroism, and the fact for decades he was an ardent supporter of the NRA, LaPierre expressed exasperation. "But I gotta tell you, I don't know what's happening to John McCain."

He took the senator to task for appearing in public service commercials for a radical anti-gun group called Americans for Gun Safety.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/5/18/170346.shtml


McCain is no friend of gun owners, perhaps that's why he selected the moose hunter as VP.

edited to add another link and fix typo

The republicans are, and have always been hypocrites. My constant refrain is that if we kicked the gun grabbers to the curb we could be on the side of the Constitution, on the side of the defenseless and pick up a hell of a lot of votes that SHOULD be ours.

People who do NOT live in an inner city or a wealthy suburb are needlessly alienated to appease a loud and radical faction. I understand that a resident of San Francisco or New York legitimately wonders why the hell anyone needs or even wants an AR15 or Barrett .50. But many of those same people get indignant when a resident of Montana or Alabama wonders why a crucifix in urine or a burning flag should be protected speech. Enough intolerance to go around.

Believe me, we RKBA advocates are HIGHLY aware that the Republicans are weak on the right to bear arms; plenty of documentation on this board alone that Reagan was the spearhead of California's draconian gun laws and that the Brady's are Republicans. More than one poster has provided loads of proof that the roots of gun control are racist.It's love of party, it's the desire to see elected a government that will ensure health care for all, protection of the environment, and ending wars for oil and imperialism, that prompts me, and many, to proclaim "LEAVE GUNS ALONE". We are being played as suckers on this issue and yet our party leadership keeps doing the wrong thing; in my opinion also the wrong thing morally but in objective terms the wrong thing tactically as relates to getting and keeping power. Thus the frustration - as you point out, the Republican position is weak and built on lies, we COULD and SHOULD be winning elections that we lose while the Republicans never get called on their lies and hypocrisy!

They really don't care what they look like or what they do or what anyone else thinks about them, they will keep pestering folks for another "hit," even after the last one was knocked out of the addict's hand and into the gutter. They are fighting a culture war which has gone way beyond guns, and they are addicted to the "issue" even if they damage those around them, including themselves.

I cannot believe how a party, the Democrats, still post in advance the desire to pass yet another assault weapons ban and at the same time declare guns as "not an issue," or worse, tell others "not to talk about the gun issue," or worse yet, deny ANY responsibility for losing elections in favor of blaming the voters they could have reached.

They just gots to have another hit.

Funny thing is, given the overlapping if not virtually identical subsets, what you'd actually be doing would be kicking the pro-choicers, GLBT activists, African-American rights activists, peace activists, etc. etc., to the curb. Because all those people SUPPORT FIREARMS CONTROL in overwhelming numbers.

All in the faint hope of gaining enough misogynists, bigots, racists and war-mongers to take their place.

Hope you don't spend too much time in casinos.


It's love of party, it's the desire to see elected a government that will ensure health care for all, protection of the environment, and ending wars for oil and imperialism, that prompts me, and many, to proclaim "LEAVE GUNS ALONE".

Oddly, I understand that it's all those things that generally prompt most people who share the desire for them to vote Democrat.

And it's those people you're proposing to kick to the curb.

Hmm. A gamble, or something else?

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

... there's one part of it I believe:

Oddly enough...
I'm a pro-choice equal rights supporting democrat that will not be voting for Obama.

No shit. On that last part.

On the other parts ... I'm wondering how we're defining "supporting" here. "Voting to infringe", I guess.


when someone promises that they will infringe on my rights, then they do not get my vote.

You're all right, Jack, and fuck the rest of 'em. YOUR rights are what matter! I mean -- the rights YOU CLAIM TO CARE ABOUT are what matter. The other rights are YOUR rights too, you know.


One can only hope that whoever you vote for doesn't infringe your rights if they get elected, I guess. We sure know they'll be doing their damnedest to infringe as many other people's rights as possible.


Good luck in your future endeavours!

...for revealing the mindset and intentions of those to whom I dedicated my OP in the first place. And thank you for validating my gut-level reaction to what you and your fellow travelers are planning on doing to the country you profess to love.

EMBARRASSING. DEPRESSING.

I'm a pro choice equal rights supporting right-leaning independent who will be voting for Obama. I'm very pro-gun rights. Most "common-sense" gun laws will not quell violence in this country. I don't think any effective laws can be passed that are within the scope of the 2nd amendment. It is my opinion that if the left wants to change gun rights in this country their only choice is to amend the Constitution.

But... the war we've been led into (even if fighting terror is the right thing to do) is an asinine approach, it's tanked our economy, and so much more could have been done for far less effort and money. I wash my hands of those that got us there.

I'm voting for Obama because I think he's going to get us back on track. After that I'll go back to fighting Dems on gun control (and gun control remains one of the main reasons that this race is tight).

The ideological purity of your worldview matters not a whit if you are not in power.

Or, What Would Jeremy Bentham Do?

I argue, in accord with post #47 above:

Abandonment of gun control in the interests of getting the Pubbies out of power
would relieve pain, suffering, & human misery far in excess of any harm caused
by greater availability of guns. Said harm having been greatly and demonstrably
exaggerated by gun control opponents.

Also, "the pro-choicers, GLBT activists, African-American rights activists, peace activists, etc. etc." aren't going to vote Green
or stay home in protest in numbers large enough to offset the gains made by abandoning the quixotic "quest for the assault weapon ban."

The fact that you find some gun owners to be "misogynists, bigots, racists and war-mongers"
is irrelevant. Plenty of people truly believe "abstinence-only" sex education works.
Faith is only evidence of faith, not of truth

Abandonment of gun control in the interests of getting the Pubbies out of power would relieve pain, suffering, & human misery far in excess of any harm caused by greater availability of guns.

Sez ... you.


Said harm having been greatly and demonstrably exaggerated by gun control opponents.

Sez ... nobody with a brain cell and shred of integrity.


Also, "the pro-choicers, GLBT activists, African-American rights activists, peace activists, etc. etc." aren't going to vote Green or stay home in protest in numbers large enough to offset the gains made by abandoning the quixotic "quest for the assault weapon ban."

Interesting hypothesis, and possibly true.

Are they going to not vote Democrat in numbers small enough to be offset by the numbers of racists, misogynists bigots and terminally stupid people who decide to vote Democrat because they're satisifed that the Democrats aren't going to grab their gunz?

Or is there really some huge pool of people who support reproductive choice, equal rights, non-discrimination, peace, better health care, creating jobs, and all that good stuff who will vote Republican because they're not satisifed that the Democrats aren't going to grab their gunz?

And if you say "yes", do you really expect people to believe this?

You are trying to get people to switch their vote to Democrat.

You are saying that pledging to end the war, work against discrimination, stop interfering in reproductive choice, improve access to decent health care, start healing the economy, etc. etc., won't get people to switch their vote ... but satisfying them that the Democrats aren't going to grab their gunz will?

Well, we know of one such person -- one of those people has spoken up in this forum just now.

If you believe it.


The fact that you find some gun owners to be "misogynists, bigots, racists and war-mongers" is irrelevant. Plenty of people truly believe "abstinence-only" sex education works. Faith is only evidence of faith, not of truth

Uh, pretty much that whole block of prose was irrelevant. Actually, I'd say meaningless.

I find some poodle owners to be misogynists, bigots, racists and war-mongers. That's irrelevant because we're not talking about poodle owners.

We are also not talking about gun owners.

I was not talking about gun owners.

I was talking about PEOPLE WHO DO NOT AT PRESENT VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

SO HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH?

"You are saying that pledging to end the war, work against discrimination, stop interfering in reproductive choice, improve access to decent health care, start healing the economy, etc. etc., won't get people to switch their vote ... but satisfying them that the Democrats aren't going to grab their gunz will?"

I think there is more evidence in FAVOR of that being the case than there is against it. Including Bill Clinton stating the same. Advocating increased restrictions on firearms gains nothing and risks losing everything just to appease irrational gun haters.
I think the only other issue that has as many 'one issue' people is Abortion. In both cases there are an electorally significant number of people for whom that issue trumps all. For others of us, the Republicans are just as unconstitutionally fascistic as the Democratic party so the issue comes down to the entire range of issues.

If the Democrats lose it *WILL* be because of this stupid, irrational loathing of guns and snide denigration of gun owners and shooting sports enthusiasts.

You are saying that pledging to end the war, work against discrimination, stop interfering in reproductive choice, improve access to decent health care, start healing the economy, etc. etc., won't get people to switch their vote ... but satisfying them that the Democrats aren't going to grab their gunz will?
I think there is more evidence in FAVOR of that being the case than there is against it. Including Bill Clinton stating the same.

... to substantiate that underlined assertion.

Many have tried.

I'm voting Obama/Biden purely and simply because the country needs them. I will be voting with gritted
teeth because I think their view of the Second Amendment is unconstitutional.

Now, I made the argument that clinging to the current gun control approach in the Democratic Party
hinders the Dems chances and ensures the Republicans more votes than it gains us

So therefore

Your reply: Sez...you

My rejoinder: Are guns *that* harmful, or are the Republicans more benign than I thought?




Gun laws have certainly gotten laxer, and the violent crime rate has gone down in the US. The crime
rates in Ohio and Minnesota haven't exploded with their new gun laws, and there are certainly enough
poor urban areas in both of these states to have seen them do so if they were going to




Maybe not a "huge pool of people", I would say there is more than enough to offset the PO'd
lefties who will stay home or vote for Cynthia McKinney. I'm trying to get votes to ensure
a Democratic victory, not vet people for country club membership.

Even the stupid and shallow have the right to vote. Piss off enough of them, and you will be
sitting at home writing position papers instead of getting the country back on the proper track.

Look, if Obama wins in a landslide my argument becomes moot. If he loses a squeaker, it becomes
truer than ever. If he wins a squeaker and tries an assault-weapons ban, we lose Congress.

Now, I made the argument that clinging to the current gun control approach in the Democratic Party
hinders the Dems chances and ensures the Republicans more votes than it gains us

So therefore
Abandonment of gun control in the interests of getting the Pubbies out of power would relieve pain, suffering, & human misery far in excess of any harm caused by greater availability of guns.


You've heard of arguing in a circle? Begging the question? Petitio principii?

You do it very well, so I'm sure you must have. Maybe you took a course.


You didn't make an argument. You made an assertion. Then you restated it as a premise. It's still an unsubstantiated assertion: clinging to the current gun control approach in the Democratic Party
hinders the Dems chances and ensures the Republicans more votes than it gains us.

I simply have never seen a single shred of evidence that anyone has voted Republican because of Democratic Party positions on firearms, or would have voted / would vote Democrat if those positions were abandoned.

None. Not a shred of evidence.


Even the stupid and shallow have the right to vote. Piss off enough of them, and you will be
sitting at home writing position papers instead of getting the country back on the proper track.

And if you haven't pissed them off enough by being pro-choice, pro-equal rights for women, GLBT people, people of colour and immigrants, then advocating an "assault weapons ban" will do it. Interesting theory, that I'm still not buying.

You said: "But reading the posts offered up by so many here in the Gungeon, I have to believe that too many of you agree wholeheartedly with Voter #1"

Both of your hypothetical voters exist, to be sure, they just don't exist here in what's styled the "Gungeon." To be more precise, a watery parrot of "voter #1" exists under the pretenses of being an "RKBA Democrat," but I'd wager that if you stripped away the anonymous nicknames and asked the flesh & blood typists for a voter registration card, nine times out of ten you'd find a big fat "R" in the little box next to the words "party affiliation."

But no matter: for whatever reasons there is a passionate (and tiny) minority of posters here who care about politics only through the lens of what they style "RKBA/2nd Amendment" issues, and that is pretty much all they chatter about.

About half of mainstream DU'ers, from what I've seen, occupy the middle ground between your two hypothetical voters, on a sliding scale from moderately supportive in the abstract of "RKBA" to interested only to the extent that raising the issue hurts/helps any given election to just flat disinterested.

The other half supports the progressive position: firearms should be heavily restricted, with the heaviest restrictions falling on those that are ubiquitously fungible & deadly (handguns and assault weapons, respectively); that "concealed carry" laws for those who don't have damn good reasons to carry around firearms in public are ludicrous on their face in a civilized society; and that safe storage/gun lock laws simply make the commonest kind of sense, in that purloined firearms kill lots of people in the commission of lots of crimes.

In the strictest sense, however, most of the fascinating revels in the "Gungeon" are about a game of tag, and, as we all remember how the game went, the longer a participant dodged being sent back to base, the more incentive he had to find unique ways to needle his pursuers.

"Both of your hypothetical voters exist, to be sure, they just don't exist here in what's styled the "Gungeon."

I refer you to comment #52.


"The other half supports the progressive position: firearms should be heavily restricted..."

I take strong issue with calling this the "progressive" position. Progressives I know (many, including myself, gun owners) oppose the Dems' position on firearms. We just don't get all bent out of shape when that folding-stock carbine we've had our eye on is suddenly banned. We oppose such laws because they're ineffectual and are based on ignorance, not because they somehow threaten our "freedom". And, sorry, but when the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments are trashed; when the elections are rigged; when the President thumbs his nose at the Congress and the American people; well, the 2A just pales into insignificance.


Okay, make that Two Little Quibbles.

Maybe now's the time for apocalypsehow to ask for my hand.

:-)

"I refer you to comment #52."

And I refer you to so the fuck what? Seventy-seven people voted in one of those notoriously reliable online polls, one posted in the very "Gungeon" of which I opined about above. Count me as *not* particularly surprised that 48 fecal splats voted in the affirmative that they care more about their own selfish, childish obsession with a long, hard, tube-shaped contraption capable of propelling something at very high speeds out of the tip of its orifice than they do about the rest of the country, and all the real issues we face (like health-care; war; the environment; etc., etc.).

In fact, your linked "poll" rather adds heft to my reply above, I should think; it certainly does nothing to lessen its veracity.

"I take strong issue with calling this the "progressive" position. Progressives I know (many, including myself, gun owners) oppose the Dems' position on firearms. We just don't get all bent out of shape when that folding-stock carbine we've had our eye on is suddenly banned. We oppose such laws because they're ineffectual and are based on ignorance, not because they somehow threaten our "freedom". And, sorry, but when the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments are trashed; when the elections are rigged; when the President thumbs his nose at the Congress and the American people; well, the 2A just pales into insignificance."

I take strong issue with the confusion that reigns whenever I try to communicate in vernacular English with just about anyone down here. Are you saying you support gun control, just not the people who speak up in support of it? Or, er, eh, ummmmm...where'd I leave those X-ray specs?

:shrug:

"Both of your hypothetical voters exist, to be sure, they just don't exist here in what's styled the "Gungeon." (My emphasis.)

"Count me as *not* particularly surprised that 48 fecal splats voted in the affirmative that they care more about their own selfish, childish obsession with a long, hard, tube-shaped contraption capable of propelling something at very high speeds out of the tip of its orifice than they do about the rest of the country, and all the real issues we face (like health-care; war; the environment; etc., etc.)."

So, which is it?


Hey, I agree with you on most of your points. Why do you find it necessary to insult and berate even your supporters?

NRA Republicans with too much time on their hands. In fact, most of them seem to get a vicarious thrill out of playing "Catch me if you can," with visions of Leonardo DiCaprio swimming in their heads.

Get it?

"Hey, I agree with you on most of your points. Why do you find it necessary to insult and berate even your supporters?"

Well, that's plum dandy: welcome to the fan club. But cryptic makes me cranky, and cryptic is what this:

"I refer you to comment #52"

and this,

"I take strong issue with calling this the "progressive" position. Progressives I know (many, including myself, gun owners) oppose the Dems' position on firearms. We just don't get all bent out of shape when that folding-stock carbine we've had our eye on is suddenly banned. We oppose such laws because they're ineffectual and are based on ignorance, not because they somehow threaten our "freedom". And, sorry, but when the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments are trashed; when the elections are rigged; when the President thumbs his nose at the Congress and the American people; well, the 2A just pales into insignificance"

is. Actually, that latter is more like a CliffsNotes summary suggestion, but we'll put that aside. Now that we're bestest chums, let me ask you a straightforward question: do you support gun restrictions as put forth in the Democratic platform? If not, to what extent and in what fashion do you support gun restrictions/control on firearms in the United States?

No crossword puzzle answers, please: I'm in the middle of a Scrabble game on the side as we speak. Thanks. :thumbsup:

Stop bickering. One of you can be the groom, and the other can be the matron of honour.

I actually agree with fingrpik that many US firearms control laws are "ineffectual", although not really based in ignorance; based in timidity and disarray, I'd say.

The single most effectual kind of law would be the kind that restricts access to handguns to at least the extent it is restricted in Canada. That hasn't been whispered in a couple of decades. Licensing / registration and safe/secure storage are the others.

So when apocalpysehow refers to "the heaviest restrictions falling on those that are ubiquitously fungible & deadly (handguns and assault weapons, respectively)", he isn't actually talking about Democratic Party policy, in the case of handguns, which truly do present the more significant danger to the public interest and welfare.

So we kind of have one side supporting an ideal policy that no party in the US is advocating, and the other side critiquing the acqual policy of the Democratic Party.

Of course, the fact that you're disagreeing about different things doesn't actually mean you agree on anything.

Once again, you say it better than I can and in more precise language. "fingrpik," this post nails the point I was (clumsily) trying to make above.

You have failed to realize that apocalypsehow is the arbiter of what constitutes a progressive platform, and that he really, really, knows that most who disagree with him are right-wingers.

LOL, let's see, which one were you, "Dr."? Ah, yes: the international man of mystery who has seen global oppression at the hands of them evuuuul gun grabbers.

Just what are the credentials which enable you to so confidently condemn those who disagree with your beliefs as right-wingers? Are you the definition of "progressive" that all others must conform to?

"the international man of mystery who has seen global oppression at the hands of them evuuuul gun grabbers."

There's that American arrogance again. Surely no one who posts on DU has ever had any experience whatsoever and in any way, shape, or form with repressive regimes!

"repressive regimes" I remember from a while back. I'm sure you take your vodka martini shaken, not stirred, no?

You're also the savant who spent a gazillion posts explaining why you would not answer - on a political website - the straightforward question: who are you voting for in the U.S. presidential election of 2008?

Alas, you'll have to peddle it to someone who gives a shit: I don't.

But perhaps you & your buddy the curious gun-control advocate who dislikes gun control advocacy could palaver back and forth with each other about your respective "credentials." I sense a match made in heaven....

Edit: grammar.

You're also the savant who spent a gazillion posts explaining why you would not answer - on a political website - the straightforward question: who are you voting for in the U.S. presidential election of 2008?

That REALLY galls you, doesn't it? Someone who DARES to invoke a right of privacy to YOUR face.


Alas, you'll have to peddle it to someone who gives a shit: I don't.

You care enough to continuously respond to my posts. Yet, curiously, you never answer the question as to why you believe you are the pinnacle of progressiveness. What credentials do you possess which give you the authority to decide who is a "genuine" Democrat?

I'm sure you take your vodka martini shaken, not stirred, no?

No, actually. I hate vodka. Now, Moutai on the other hand...

A "right of privacy" on a public discussion board, eh? That's a hoot.

It really is difficult for you to grasp isn't it? I didn't respond to your inquiry because I am not obligated to. It's really that simple. Now, what about a public discussion board requires me to do so when such in not otherwise obligatory in other venues? What's so puzzling is that you assume I must not be what I say BECAUSE I won't respond to you in the manner you wish. It may be hard to believe, but there are some who value the concept of the secret ballot for valid reasons.

On to other matters. Tell me, is anyone with the temerity to challenge your views of the RKBA a right-winger, not a "genuine" Democrat?

And what of your political status? I would imagine that even a most cursory inventory of your daily existence would find behaviors and actions which other "progressives" would find inconsistent with your self-proclaimed progressiveness. We can start with some simple questions. Do you eat meat? Do you own a petrol-engine vehicle? Do you wear clothing manufactured by outsourced labor?

We shall see...

Hey, I'm not obligated to drink this jar of Diet Coke sitting in front of me.

And yet ... I'm drinking it.

So no, it really isn't "that simple".

People don't not do things because they're not obligated to do it.

They don't do things because they don't want to, or they can't.

Just the way people don't do things because they have a right to do them. They do them because they want to, or they are compelled to.

You evidently don't want to say whom you're voting for. That's why you're not saying.

Why you don't want to say, only you know.


It may be hard to believe, but there are some who value the concept of the secret ballot for valid reasons.

Yeah, like the original one: so that the electoral process will not be corrupted by voters' hope of favour or fear of reprisal. If no one knows whom they vote for, no one can reward or punish them for their vote. "No one", here, of course refers to the executive and legislative branches of government and their members, not to mummy and daddy or even the boss.

So ... on an anonymous internet board? "Punishment" by internet site administrators and moderators doesn't count.

An informal valid reason might be the hope to sway others' voting intentions, which might be better done without disclosing one's own intentions, since one's personal credibility may be a signficiant factor in one's ability to sway. I know all about this: once I had been a candidate for office for an opposition party, my voice in the community in my other capacities was diminished.

On the other hand, disclosure of one's personal intentions might heighten one's credibility, by demonstrating one's commitment to transparency in public discourse.


We can start with some simple questions. Do you eat meat? Do you own a petrol-engine vehicle? Do you wear clothing manufactured by outsourced labor?

Hey. Good questions. As long as you don't plan to practise demagoguery and insist that only yes/no answers will be accepted, or take any part of the answers out of context and use them for purposes to which they are not suited.

Lipstick on a pig ... ;)

So no, it really isn't "that simple".

It most certainly is, since the subject in question seems to think that only sinister or deceptive motives would cause one not to answer the question. My reasons are perfectly valid from a historical perspective, but the other chose not to accept that and denigrate them in lurid terms. My interpretation of my discourse with him? Fail to respond in the manner he wishes and you simply cannot be a "genuine" Democrat.

It is seems that anyone who disagrees with his position of the RKBA cannot, in his mind, be a "genuine" Democrat. That's rather simplistic, wouldn't you agree?

So ... on an anonymous internet board? "Punishment" by internet site administrators and moderators doesn't count.

Since it is my privilege to divulge the information, whatever venue I decide is inappropriate DOES count. Neither you nor him have the right to decide for me.

Hey. Good questions. As long as you don't plan to practice demagoguery and insist that only yes/no answers will be accepted, or take any part of the answers out of context and use them for purposes to which they are not suited.

I am curious as to how his answers will withstand scrutiny from other progressives as he has established his own views as a monument to the progressive ideal. Providing, of course, that he answers honestly and with the same transparency he demands of others.

You are not refusing to answer a question on the ground that you don't HAVE to answer it.

How can you even say such a moronically illogical thing?

You are refusing to answer a question on the ground that you don't WANT to answer it.

For whatever reason(s).

You don't even want to tell us the reason(s). Fine. End of story.


Since it is my privilege to divulge the information, whatever venue I decide is inappropriate DOES count. Neither you nor him have the right to decide for me.

And not a soul has said otherwise. So why would you think this worth saying?


I am curious as to how his answers will withstand scrutiny from other progressives as he has established his own views as a monument to the progressive ideal. Providing, of course, that he answers honestly and with the same transparency he demands of others.

Hang about, then. I spoke overbroadly. I meant "good questions" in a general sense.

Do you eat meat? Do you own a petrol-engine vehicle? Do you wear clothing manufactured by outsourced labor?

are not good questions in this context / forum. They're completely irrelevant to anything under discussion here. They would be good questions if the discussion were about hunting, reducing one's carbon footprint or free trade, respectively.

If you want to engage your interlocutor in a discussion in which those questions would be relevant, have at it. But you don't get to simply throw them into a discussion about something else altogether. What would be the purpose? Looks like nothing more than to lay the groundwork for an ad locutoram argument, to me.

Me: Since it is my privilege to divulge the information, whatever venue I decide is inappropriate DOES count. Neither you nor him have the right to decide for me.

You: And not a soul has said otherwise. So why would you think this worth saying?

You DID say otherwise by suggesting the right to invoke political privacy doesn't "count" here:

Yeah, like the original one: so that the electoral process will not be corrupted by voters' hope of favour or fear of reprisal. If no one knows whom they vote for, no one can reward or punish them for their vote. "No one", here, of course refers to the executive and legislative branches of government and their members, not to mummy and daddy or even the boss.

So ... on an anonymous internet board? "Punishment" by internet site administrators and moderators doesn't count.

Since it is my privilege to divulge the information, whatever venue I decide is inappropriate DOES count. Neither you nor him have the right to decide for me.
And not a soul has said otherwise. So why would you think this worth saying?
You DID say otherwise by suggesting the right to invoke political privacy doesn't "count" here: ...

I DID SAY that the right to maintain the secrecy of the ballot doesn't count here.

I DID NOT SAY "otherwise" than what you said in the first bit quoted.

You have the right to FREEDOM OF SPEECH, which includes the right NOT TO SPEAK whenever you choose not to speak.

You don't have to justify that choice to me or anyone else, or to the state unless it produces justification for interfering in your choice.

But it is YOUR CHOICE. You are not making that choice BECAUSE the ballot is secret or BECAUSE you have a right to choose not to speak.

Those ARE NOT REASONS to choose not to speak. They are PROTECTIONS against being COMPELLED to speak (which can be invoked only as against the state in any event, as I pointed out).

You can "invoke" whatever the fuck you want here, pointless as it will be every time you do it.

No one here has the authority to compel you to do anything or to punish you for not doing it.

We are peers here. We are voluntarily engaging in discussion. The fact that you choose NOT to discuss something that your interlocutors consider to be relevant to the discussion IS YOUR CHOICE. Your choice, only your choice, nothing but your choice.

You really should give it up.

Have you expended so much effort explaining something which I already know and understand?

I DID SAY that the right to maintain the secrecy of the ballot doesn't count here.

If this is my stated reason, an extension of the secrecy privilege to other venues, than you HAVE said otherwise.

"If you want to engage your interlocutor in a discussion in which those questions would be relevant, have at it. But you don't get to simply throw them into a discussion about something else altogether. What would be the purpose?

This forum is devoted in part to the discussion of the politicalissues surrounding firearms. As "ah" routinely questions the political integrity of those who express disagreement with, or challenge, his beliefs, I would say that such a discussion regarding his political integrity is appropriate where ever he chooses to make such accusations.

They would be good questions if the discussion were about hunting, reducing one's carbon footprint or free trade, respectively.

Oh, they are good questions in the context I stated above. As for hunting, etc., discussion of those topics belong in another forum:

Currently, the outdoor life group hosts discussions related to a number of outdoor activities, including hunting, fishing, skiing, hiking, climbing, and camping.

Unless of course you are trotting out the old tired canard that you can't be a liberal/progressive/Democrat if you support the RKBA. If so, get back to me when you get some new material.

Now, go ahead and snivel us up a weepy 'ole epistle about the poor, misunderstood, Tommy-gun toting pinko, and his travails in life. All this other jazz you're yammering on about is usually the prologue to that.

Nobody likes a denigrating arrogant prick. Make note to self. Tack up on wall:

"You Can Be Right On The Issues -
And Still Be A Denigrating Arrogant Prick"



Might help.
You're welcome.

flirt with Fire Medic Dave. You two can let me know which one is left, as it were, standing.

Edit: tell Dave to mind his manners.

Oh, Tantalus. Not Targus. Never mind!


No, no, no. Not goodspock/badspock; blackwhite/whiteblack.

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2799667&mesg_id=2812791

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4238548&mesg_id=4241665


Let this be your last battlefield, eh?

when they think a new suitor has come a courtin'!!!

;-)

you mock me.

Ne'er mind. Are you ready to play nice?

I do not feign a swoon. And on yonder dawn a balcony opens, uh, eh, ah,...sheesh, I forgot how that line from the Bard goes.

In any event, my answer is yes: I stand chastened. :thumbsup:

:-)

http://ontheissues.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Gun_Control.htm

Require background checks, licensing, and fingerprinting

* Which principles do you support regarding guns:Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks.
* Require background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows.
* Require a license for gun possession.
* Establish a national database of ballistic "fingerprints" to track guns used in criminal activities.
* Renew the ban on the sale or transfer of semi-automatic guns.
* Strengthen the enforcement of existing federal restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.

Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
Vote to pass a bill requiring anyone who purchases a gun at a gun show to go through an instant background check which must be completed within 24 hours (instead of 72 hours).

Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.



and for good measure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield

Everybody (pretty much) can spot a precious, too-clever poseur from about a mile away. Go knit yourself one of these:

"Pretense is an art that requires subtlety -
Not the ham-handed clumsiness of a smarmy half-wit."

By the bye, it seems to me you got a couple of posts waiting for your attention above (#77 in particular), my #1 fan. Howz 'bout you work your way around to answering them, and then we'll swap some more pithyisms?

"You Can Be Right On The Issues -
And Still Be A Denigrating Arrogant Prick"

No I can't.

Hahahahaha.

Fooling in what way "professor"?

but there isn't a party affiliation listed anywhere on it. Is that odd? There isn't even a place for it.

The Republicans wouldn't have an issue if the Democrats didn't give them one.

But no, Democrats keep handing them the damn card. And then win or lose, Democrats and the country lose. Either we're running things and restrict guns, which disproportionately disarms those evil communist-filled blue states and give the Repubs something to bash us with, or we're not running things, which lets the Republicans give massive tax cuts to their campaign donors, enhance corporate power, and raid the Treasury.

And the stated purpose for the gun control, reduction of crime, never materializes because the root causes for most violent crime are social and economic, not hardware.