The NRA adds "Iraq was involved with 9/11" bullshit to Wikipedia 9/11 article

Wired Magazine readers have been tracking the most egregious censoring of stories on Wikipedia. The "top ten list" includes one where a zealous Republican warmonger idealogue who worked for the National Rifle Association entered false information that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

The Wired article is first and the Wikipedia edits-page is at the bottom.

These investigators found hundreds of edits to War on Terror stories that originated at ethernet addresses at the Central Intelligence Agency.



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=12244517

For two years, I've made it my mission to patrol and watch a specific Wikipedia page. I'm not telling you which one.

Just one person, just one page. I've made dozens and dozens of restorations away from Neocons altering the language.

I don't care if I make no difference. I can't stop the fascist takeover. Neocons WILL win, because Democrats don't fight back.

But my single territory will not be ceded.

That is very well conceived. :thumbsup: My method is that I write a letter to the editor once a week. I write polite letters. Some of my letters go to reporters and columnists.

They don't fight back; in fact, they are particularly afraid of the Far Right. Part of this fear comes from essentially junking their "New Deal" - "Great Society" outlook and approach to governing philosophy and replacing it with a pastiche of interest group positions to form a vague coherence around social issues. Part of it comes from a dislike of confrontation lest these "Democrats" have to use terms and positions that have been thoroughly framed and condemned by years of unanswered GOP attacks.

There is also a great suspicion of individual self-defense. I'm not sure where this came from. Maybe it is a miss-reading of the "give peace a chance" era combined with a bastardization of Gandhian non-violence, but there is a cultural revulsion against self-defense. Perhaps the obsession with gun-control comes from old prohibitionist tendencies whereby government will both police the culture and effectively dis-arm Americans.

You are right to fight the "fascists." Too many folks Revere-ride, warning of fascism while simultaneously advocating gun-control/confiscation. Doesn't make sense, does it?

Of course, when I say it, I'm referring to your statement:

There is also a great suspicion of individual self-defense.

Where did this statement come from?

What basis is there for saying that Democrats have a great suspicion of individual self-defense?


Just to head things off ... if you are intentionally conflating "possession of firearms" with "individual self-defense", why are you doing that?

Try this:

"The nonreporting of successful victim self-defense incidents lends spurious credence to another aspect of conventional wisdom on guns that dates back to early in this <20th> century. The conventional wisdom holds that guns are not useful for self-defense -- defensive gun ownership is a 'dangerous self-delusion,' Epitomizing this, Handgun Control, Inc. advises victims who are attacked by a rapist, robber, or other felon that 'the best defense against injury is to put up no defense -- give them what they want or run." -- your buddies Kates & Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate.

This outlook underlies many years of phony-liberal "how to deal with violent crime" advice. I've heard it. You've heard it. It's been a pervasive "philosophy" in many circles, and a passim argument used by many Democrats for gun-control.

Concerning your "conflation," speculation: Individuals have a right to self-defense, a right augmented by the generally unfettered possession of firearms in accordance with 2A.

You quote:

Epitomizing this, Handgun Control, Inc. advises victims who are attacked by a rapist, robber, or other felon that 'the best defense against injury is to put up no defense -- give them what they want or run."

Do you have a factual basis for disputing that assertion?


It's been a pervasive "philosophy" in many circles, ...

No it isn't. It's an assertion of fact. Is it false? I can give you anecdotal evidence that it's true, but that's neither here nor there. You appear to want to dispute it. On what basis?


... and a passim argument used by many Democrats for gun-control.

Oh, well then. You say so, so it must be so. Why do I not share this knowledge?


Concerning your "conflation," speculation: Individuals have a right to self-defense, a right augmented by the generally unfettered possession of firearms in accordance with 2A.

Bibbity bobbity. Boo. Can we not at least try to make sense?

Rights are not "augmented". If there's a right to self-defence, how could it be a greater or lesser right?

If you are claiming that possession of a firearm enhances ability to exercise a right, "unfettered" doesn't come into it, unless you're talking about some physical fettering of the danged thing. A firearm is either possessed or not possessed.

This "right to self-defence" simply is not a right. It is an exemption from a general prohibition on using force against other people. It is an exemption granted in recognition of the fact that in some circumstances the prohibition would be an unjustified interference in the right to life. If you were prohibited by law from defending yourself against the use of force against you, where you reasonably anticipated serious injury or death, that would be a violation of your right to life.

The exercise of a right may involve the use of an object, such as a big stick or a printing press or a chicken. This simply does not mean that a society may not regulate the possession and use of such objects.

My right to life has never been interfered with as a result either of my not having a firearm or of my not being permitted to have a firearm. Neither has the overwhelming majority of other people's. Your blanket statement, garbled though it was, simply is not factual, quite apart from the fact that it omits a whole lot of considerations relevant to whether and how possession of firearms may be regulated.

"Criminological data and studies have definitively established that, compared to victims who resisted with a gun, victims who submitted were injured about twice as often; also of course, nonresisters were much more likely to be raped or robbed." -- Kates, Schaffer, et al., "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda," 62 Tennessee Law Review (1995), at 538-39.

Get a hold of The Great American Gun Debate and understand "passim."

Here's another one from Kates & Kleck: "As far back as 1932, a noted homicide scholar stated that 'the possession of firearms gives a false sense of security and encourages recklessness and arrogance. Those most experienced in such matters generally agree that it is almost suicidal for the average householder to attempt to use a firearm against a professional burglar or robber' (Brearley 1932, p. 76). Those views have been echoed almost without modification in subsequent decades by scholars and gun control advocates (e.g. Newton and Zimring 1969, pp. 66-68; Yeager et al. 1976; Shields 1981, pp. 48-53, 125)."

You have heard of the MSM "echo chamber?" And you've seen many times in this forum ample evidence of successful home defense.

Gun-controllers listen to MSM's conch shell and completely ignore evidence (yes, passim in Kates & Kleck) which shows a revulsion to even talking about guns: "Some scholars feel that shooting or threatening to shoot another person, even in self-defense, is so morally repugnant and utterly barbaric that it is preferable not to address the subject at all." (Goode, William J. 1972. "Presidential Address: The Place of Force in Human Society." American Sociological Review 37:507-19, and others)

That you cannot see how this affects the Democratic Party's big-city pols and hacks is not my problem.

Boop, boop, boop-bee-do-Boop:

The right to self-defense is about as natural a right as you can get; it is not granted (though some governments may restrict or abrogate it altogether by force). "Unfettered" is used in the context of other BOR rights where restrictions are (or should be) small and secondary. The natural right to self-defense is indeed augmented by the Second Amendment (which also serves the purpose of community defense through its "militia clause"); in fact, I would argue that were a person to use a gun to defend him/her self, and where possession of that gun was illegal, that defending person should not suffer any legal consequence for using that gun. That is what the Second is for. Except for a few old-line Democratic gun-control strongholds, people using a gun in self-defense don't have to worry about legal consequences.

I note you parse "self-defense" from "right to life." In this discussion, the two should be conflated.

are wobbles.

Wiki needs more honest truthiness police.

for self-defense" that Skinner says "belong in the Guns Forum"?

the campaign for president as affected by the divisive, polarizing RKBA issue when posted in DU's General Discussion: Presidential forum may be transferred to the Guns forum.

The important thing is Obama now frequently reasserts his support for the Second Amendment and it's possible he might still withdraw his support for the useless Assault Weapons Ban before the election.

I'm :rofl: now that Obama has joined the majority of DUers who support the Second Amendment and implicitly acknowledges what we pro-RKBA DUers have been preaching since 2001, RKBA can win or lose presidential elections in swing states like PA, OH, MI, and FL.

Have a great day and thanks for doing an outstanding job as a moderator. :hi:

that guns are bad - where gun deaths claim a fair amount of the City's youth, but as he see's the countryside he does seem to be embracing a stance many will find more tolerable.

Hey, I want a president that can change his mind now and again. I've seen more than enough mindless rigidity over the last 7+ years.

which bans guns has a homicide rate of over 15/100k but Cheyenne where guns are not banned has a much lower homicide rate about 3.5/100k.

That seems to imply the greater risk of homicide to a law-abiding citizen, the more support Obama would give to banning firearms but he may have a different explanation or he misspoke. :shrug:

Like you, I hope Obama wins, :hi:

of both cities. Chicago had a murder rate of 29 per 100k in 1992. The city took some drastic action to reduce those rates. It has; the murder rate in 2007 is half what it was in 1992. In Cheyenne, violent crime simply doesn't occur. 1 to 2 murders a year.

Obama is saying that you need different strategies location to location. The populations of the two cities and the crimes committed in each are apples to oranges.

in this forum, that effect does not appear to be caused by allowing law-abiding citizens to possess firearms or banning firearms altogether.

I'm concerned that McCain's campaign will use this issue against Obama in the last few weeks of the campaign.

Biden is sponsor of S.2237 that includes the "Assault Weapons Ban Renewal Act of 2007" and it could be a lightening rod.

Biden proclaims his support for the Second Amendment but the companion bill to S.2237, House bill H.R. 1022 "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007", does allow banning of most semiautomatic firearms by the attorney general.

Damn it, I'm tired of losing presidential elections when opposition to RKBA tilted the race to Republicans.

I hoped this election our party could take RKBA out of play because of SCOTUS's decision in Heller but NO, my party had to include the AWB in our platform.

That seems to imply the greater risk of homicide to a law-abiding citizen, the more support Obama would give to banning firearms but he may have a different explanation or he misspoke.

-- is that so many here make so much of the fact that "city" homicides are just those worthless gang members shooting one another up anyhow, so we don't need to worry about any of that.

jody himself seems to think that race is a big factor in this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=176965&mesg_id=177580
(and the related posts you will see there)

I'm curious why he refers to a greater risk to "a law-abiding citizen", when he doesn't actually seem to think that such a greater risk actually exists.

You could ask him ... at the risk of being banished to invisibility as I was long ago ...


html fixed

That seems to imply the greater risk of homicide to a law-abiding citizen, the more support Obama would give to banning firearms but he may have a different explanation or he misspoke.

Obama wants "law-abiding citizens" to get killed.

Can't see another option.

Did see the Department of Defense editing the Iraq page, though.

public policy issues”.