On being a "gun militant"

Originally, it was "gun woo woo". Search the archives for some entertaining examples.

Then there was "gun humper", "gun lover" "gun zealot"...I have even seen the term "gun-sexual" used a time or two.

Now its "gun militant" - in the political sense, of course, because I wouldn't want to accuse anyone on the other side of saying we're "gun militants" in the real true sense of the word "militant".

Its the same brush - meant to demean, with a slightly different hue.

The reality is this:


If defending this particular civil liberty from those that would regulate it into a state which would make its exercise far less than reasonable makes me a "gun militant", then I'll wear the term as a badge of honor. While it is intended to be nasty, it is also a reminder of why WE win - because there are more of us on OUR side that give a damn, than the other side...And we care far more about the issue than they do - and we act accordingly.



I guess I'm a gun mil...no...Proud gun militant.

Are you?

"Happiness Is A Warm Gun." John Lennon. Remember him? Victim of the RKBA.

The right to keep and bear arms, does not include the right to murder.


I apologize for your confusion.

Gun worshippers are like Gollum obsessed with the power of the ring.

"Gun worshippers are like Gollum obsessed with the power of the ring."

Yeah, and gun haters are like operation recsue, obsessed with dictating to others.


Ya know, if you changed your name from sharesunited to scaresunited, you could describe and represent every argument you and the entire anti-gun lobby make.


Oh, and on edit:

Until you are as visibly "concerned" about every single other "means to conveniently kill" as you are about guns...well...you words just wont mean much.

You're so right, I so am.

I think your point of view on this issue is ignorant, panicky and self-righteous, but I like the fact that you're not afraid to stand up and state your case as if it's the only possible legitimate viewpoint. With so many persuasive, fact-loving(see: boring) advocates on the anti-gun side here, I think you're going to be a very fun addition to our discourse here, and something of a foil for my style of debate. I hope you'll stick around!

And you have guns? Not a good situation.

And you have free speech. Not a good situation.


Should you be gagged?

Or someone who keeps, and has the ability to defend himself and never has to use it. Kinda like most people never have to use the fire insurance on their house - yet pay it every month.

And you have knives? Not a good situation

and you have a drivers license and a car? Not a good situation.

Made it that much easier for his killer. Is one's very survival something to be just left to chance?
Just hope for the best? Don't make it easy for an attacker. Get proactive and survive.

Everybody trying to get off the first shot on each other.

Utter madness.

We advocate choice.

You advocate removing that choice AKA presuming to make it for us.

To characterize it any other way is dishonesty in the most direct sense.

No justification sufficient to support it. The abject harm outweighs any supposed benefit.

"Cites supporting that asserting, please."

"No justification sufficient to support it. The abject harm outweighs any supposed benefit.


Or was that just your opinion...

Armed rebellion may have been a justification at one time. This has been rendered obsolete for several important reasons.

Nevertheless, the second amendment stands, as a restriction on the power of government, and correctly so - unless one completely disregards the writings of the framers, AND the preamble to the bill of rights itself:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

www.billofrights.org

Your only hope is to use the amendment process to change the amendment.

Any "end-run" type of approach will cause far more damage in the long run, and in a lot of areas having nothing at all to do with guns or gun rights.

I trust I don't need to provide examples, because you have had your eyes open for the last decade or so.

is the manifest harm done to real people by gun proliferation.

And the anemic justification put forward for suffering any of it.

So either you don't believe any lives are saved by the use/presentation of a firearm, or aren't willing to acknowledge them, or?


And whether you like it or not, see it as a justification or not, you are simply going to have to contend with the restrictions currently in place on the government which make your goal an impossible one, until such time as those restrictions are no longer in place - it just wont be changing in our lifetime.

Alternatively, you could try a more well reasoned approach, and attempt to lower gun violence by doing things we can all agree on.


As far as the all or nothing approach goes, look where its gotten the gun control lobby so far.

Eradication is my cause.

All it takes is for society to adopt a zero tolerance attitude.

Just like it did with the kiddie porn.

It is about CONTROL. You wish to make everybody dependent on the authorities for protection. This means that you propose a "Police State". Where the ruling party has all means of defense, and are not bound to protect the individual.

NO THANKS, I will respectfully refuse to become a subject. I will remain a FREE MAN, a CITIZEN able to defend my family against those who will harm them.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

it makes perfect sense that you would want to be able to shoot first, upon your sole suspicion that they are attacking or about to attack.

Now get a grip please. And be my fellow citizen.

misunderstanding of what oneshooter said.

"Oneshooter, if you think everybody is out to rob and kill you"

If you really believe (and I think you do) that oneshooter and virtually everyone else on the on the RKBA side, in fact, believes that "everybody" is out to get them, you must believe that we are all paranoid schizophrenic. This belief could, ironically, be a symptom of paranoid schizophrenia...just sayin'.

"It is about CONTROL. You wish to make everybody dependent on the authorities for protection. This means that you propose a "Police State". Where the ruling party has all means of defense, and are not bound to protect the individual."
Now where did it say that I would "want to be able to shoot first, upon your sole suspicion that they are attacking or about to attack".
Are you unable to grasp the meaning of three simple sentences?

And I am a citizen, what you want is for everybody to become a subject, unable to defend home and hearth, dependent on a non caring government.

No Thanks.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

.. and the murder rate has been cut almost in _half_ since 1992.. so what have you opened your eyes to? Decreasing crime at the same time as gun ownership goes up?



eta: graphic added, source DoJ preliminary 2008 data + historical data from FBI's UCR.



Source- DoJ sponsored study on the effectiveness of the '94-04 AWB
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

Statistics are one thing, and bullets in flesh and bone (ouch!) are entirely another.

are used to pull at heart strings and push an agenda.

After all, that's how we ended up with the patriot act. Look how well THAT worked out. :sarcasm:

html fixed


Would that be like when this instruction was isssued to the world at large on the internet:

He chose to be unarmed, as do many...
Don't make it easy for an attacker. Get proactive and survive.

saying, in response to:

Yep, that's the society you are advocating.
Everybody trying to get off the first shot on each other.

that

The word "everybody" originated from your yap.
We advocate choice.
You advocate removing that choice AKA presuming to make it for us.
To characterize it any other way is dishonesty in the most direct sense.

?

Some would say it looks like a textbook example, given as how the author of the post actually being addressed obviously advocated everybody NOT "choose to be unarmed".

Y'know, things hereabouts actually do deteriorate every time I wander off for a while.

We advocate choice.

We also suggest chosing wisely.


Others, not so much of iether.

Of course, advocating choice and suggesting choosing wisely were never 2 different and separate things in your mind, were they.

But I think you misinterpreted Beevul's argument.

He chose to be unarmed, as do many...
Don't make it easy for an attacker. Get proactive and survive.

I think here he was making an appeal to the reader, not an instruction. It was meant to persuade, not to express a belief that being armed should somehow be compulsory.

You are correct. No choice in this matter.
No justification sufficient to support it. The abject harm outweighs any supposed benefit.

This seems to clearly express a belief that the government should eliminate access to firearms. To what extent Shares holds this view I don't know, but from his other posts it seems to be fairly absolute.

That's where the battle lines are drawn. Pro-choice versus anti-choice. I think Shares would gladly acknowledge that this is the case.

I see

Yep, that's the society you are advocating.
Everybody trying to get off the first shot on each other.

as a perfectly arguable interpretation of that attempt to "persuade".

Good grief. Do people commonly attempt to persuade with the intent of failing?

It was meant to persuade, not to express a belief that being armed should somehow be compulsory.

Interesting. If anyone had presented some interpretation that involved "being armed" being compulsory.

Nobody did.


This seems to clearly express a belief that the government should eliminate access to firearms. To what extent Shares holds this view I don't know, but from his other posts it seems to be fairly absolute.

I am not familiar with sharesunited's body of work, and I really have no idea what the "this matter" and "it" in the post in question relate to. I was not discussing that post. I was discussing the allegation that sharesunited had invented something in a previous post that was not there, and I maintain that the allegation in question was arguably incorrect and, at the very least, a disingenuous attempt to address hyperbole as if it should be read literally.

the law abiding? So what is wrong with good guys carrying firearms to defend against the non law abiding that carry firearms illegally? You know, kinda like off duty cops do.

"gun militant".

If that gets me labeled 'gun militant', so be it. I've never been one for labels one way or another.

Collecting antique guns is one of my hobbies.

I enjoy bird hunting and target shooting. I like owning guns.

But I'm not a fucking militant about it. There are far more important things in my life than guns.

And I pity anybody who can't make that statement.

Do you make phone calls to your senators when something bad comes down the having to do with guns?

Do you refute clearly unfactual information when it comes from the other side here on DU?


That IS what will get you labelled as such, hereabouts.

Doing such things is exactly what they mean when they call someone a "gun militant".

I've never made a phone call to my US senators about any firearms related matter. I have bitched at my state senator and assemblywoman about some fish and game regulations and some issues dealing with lead shot. And I once voiced those concerns directly to my congresscritter.


As far as DU is concerned there has been a lot of hysteria on BOTH sides here and I have argued with both "gun grabbers" and "gun nuts".

So no, I still don't consider myself a militant. If anybody thinks I am based on what I've posted here, screw 'em. Their opinion doesn't concern me, because they're stupid.

I'm 67 years old and if I was going to be militant about anything it would probably be health care.


But thanks for making me think about it.

I really don't consider myself one iether.

But if defined by the other side, I guess I am one.

That was basically my point.

"If anybody thinks I am based on what I've posted here, screw 'em. Their opinion doesn't concern me, because they're stupid."


That was exactly what I was getting at. I'll wear "they're stupid" as a badge of honor, lol.



Take care.

Do you make phone calls to your senators when something bad comes down the having to do with guns?

Do you refute clearly unfactual information when it comes from the other side here on DU?

That IS what will get you labelled as such, hereabouts.

Doing such things is exactly what they mean when they call someone a "gun militant".


And can you actually name names and cite examples?

If not, can you stfu?

"And can you actually name names and cite examples?"


"If not, can you stfu?"


I've been referred to as gun militant quite a few times. Most of them when I refuted unfactual information, or disputed something clearly false.

If you really wanted examples, you who are so fond of pontificating onto others about DUs search function, you could find them to your hearts content.

Here, heres 10 pages of results from a DU search for the phrase, to start you on your way:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=%22gun+militant%22&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&sa=Search&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en


Now, how about you have your own warm glass of stfu, kthx.

You could have said so in a lot fewer words. Really.


btw, you can't link to search results at DU.

Try this google search term:

site:www.democraticunderground.com "gun militant"

fr instance.

Not that I blame you.

Its all you or the side you pom-pom for have left.

Wish I knew who I was cheerleading for.

When the gun militant agenda is pushed in these parts by someone in the US, are the pushers pom-poming for, oh, Garry Breitkreuz?

See how ridiculous that looks?

You don't know or care who Garry Breitkreuz is, and I don't know or care what this "side" you pretend to think I'm "pom-pom"ing for is.

The term "pom-pom"-ing gets used in GD:P and GD too...so whatever.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=233677&mesg_id=233704

Here I am accused by Paladin of "spewing the usual gun militancy agenda", which presumably means I am a "gun militant".

Since I've not done anything any more militant than calling and writing my elected officials and refuting unfactual information here on DU, that would be an example.

You: About the only places where I agree with disallowing firearms are in government facilities like courthouses, jails, or seats of government ...

Paladin: You're just spewing the usual gun militancy agenda, which proclaims that essentially all non-gun-friendly places in this country are an abomination.


Pretty much sums that bit up.

The public spaces of the nation must be occupied. They must be the occupied territory of the right wing, in all its outcroppings and by all its machinations. They must not be spaces where the public and all its individual members (in particular vulnerable segments of the public, like women and ethnic/religious minorities and GLBT people ...) are welcome and feel secure.

Promoting the perception and feeling of insecurity is one of the right wing's most effective weapons. It has many ways of doing this. Religious displays by the dominant religious group are one way of making others feel excluded and insecure, as just one example.

The gun militancy agenda contributes in two ways:

- hammering constantly on the need for individuals to be able to "defend" themselves (both because there are bogeymen everywhere to be defended against and because the gu'mint can't/won't do it for you)

- actually making people feel insecure, by inserting firearms into every possible place and situation in the public sphere.


It's your own choice to be one of the engines of that agenda, if that's your choice.

You asked:

And can you actually name names and cite examples? as if no one was using the term. I provided the information you asked for.

The public spaces of the nation must be occupied. They must be the occupied territory of the right wing, in all its outcroppings and by all its machinations. They must not be spaces where the public and all its individual members (in particular vulnerable segments of the public, like women and ethnic/religious minorities and GLBT people ...) are welcome and feel secure.

Whose position is this? Certainly not mine. I welcome people all individual members of the public, in particular women, ethinic/religious minorities, and GLBT people to occupy public spaces. Of course, I also welcome lawful firearm bearers to those same places.

Promoting the perception and feeling of insecurity is one of the right wing's most effective weapons. It has many ways of doing this. Religious displays by the dominant religious group are one way of making others feel excluded and insecure, as just one example.

It's never had any effect on me. I just point and laugh at the people who talk to invisible men.

- hammering constantly on the need for individuals to be able to "defend" themselves (both because there are bogeymen everywhere to be defended against and because the gu'mint can't/won't do it for you)

Taking personal responsibility for your own safety is not just prudent, it's righteous and honorable. I won't make any apologies for advocating that people do it.

- actually making people feel insecure, by inserting firearms into every possible place and situation in the public sphere.

Since they are already there, especially in the hands of those bound by no law, I don't see how people could feel any more insecure by having more firearms in the hands of those who choose to be bound by law. But if they do, too bad.

It's your own choice to be one of the engines of that agenda, if that's your choice.

I gladly choose to be an engine of the agenda to defend our Constitutionally-enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Do you make phone calls to your senators when something bad comes down the having to do with guns?
Do you refute clearly unfactual information when it comes from the other side here on DU?
That IS what will get you labelled as such, hereabouts.
Doing such things is exactly what they mean when they call someone a "gun militant".
And can you actually name names and cite examples?


Then you didn't answer the question at all, did you?


I asked you for names/examples of the "they" who mean THIS:
you make phone calls to your senators when something bad comes down the having to do with guns
you refute clearly unfactual information when it comes from the other side here on DU
when they "call someone a 'gun militant'."


And you produced Paladin saying: You're just spewing the usual gun militancy agenda
IN RESPONSE TO you saying:
About the only places where I agree with disallowing firearms are in government facilities like courthouses, jails, or seats of government, among other things.


So what was that, then?

Was that making a phone call to a senator?
Was it refuting clearly unfactual information?


I don't think so. In fact I know it wasn't. So do you.

So why exactly would you produce it as an example of someone calling someone a "gun militant" for doing one of the two things you started out by saying would get you called a gun militant?

The mind boggles. Constantly.


The public spaces of the nation must be occupied. They must be the occupied territory of the right wing, in all its outcroppings and by all its machinations. They must not be spaces where the public and all its individual members (in particular vulnerable segments of the public, like women and ethnic/religious minorities and GLBT people ...) are welcome and feel secure.
Whose position is this? Certainly not mine.

Really. You must have been speaking in tongues then when you said:

About the only places where I agree with disallowing firearms are in government facilities like courthouses, jails, or seats of government

Certainly seems to be your position.

I welcome people all individual members of the public, in particular women, ethinic/religious minorities, and GLBT people to occupy public spaces.

On your terms. See how it's not quite the same thing as actually welcoming?


That's kinda the agenda in a nutshell.

Everybody else gets to stick around, on the terms of the right wing.

Like I said, if you choose to be an engine of the agenda, it's your choice. I don't know anything about anyone here other than what they say here, so I don't assign political labels here.

And can you actually name names and cite examples?

Then you didn't answer the question at all, did you?

I provided both.

I asked you for names/examples of the "they" who mean THIS:
you make phone calls to your senators when something bad comes down the having to do with guns
you refute clearly unfactual information when it comes from the other side here on DU
when they "call someone a 'gun militant'."


Since the term was directed specifically at me, and my "militancy" amounts to little more than those actions, I inferred that that is precisely what they mean by a "gun militant".

So what was that, then?

Was that making a phone call to a senator?
Was it refuting clearly unfactual information?

Oh my, you're right, Iverglas, I forgot one of the additional qualifications for being a gun militant. In addition to calling your senators, and refuting clearly unfactual information, you also have to advocate uniform and logical restrictions on where you can carry firearms. I forgot. Thanks for correcting me. Next you'll point out that we also breathe, and I didn't mention breathing. Here's you pedant pendant.

Really. You must have been speaking in tongues then when you said:

About the only places where I agree with disallowing firearms are in government facilities like courthouses, jails, or seats of government

Certainly seems to be your position.

And what does this have to do with welcoming women, ethinic groups, or GLBT people into public places?

On your terms. See how it's not quite the same thing as actually welcoming?

While I'm sure it may not be welcoming to those who don't embrace the right to keep and bear arms, I fail to see how it has any bearing welcoming women, ethnic groups, or GLBT people. If it is unwelcoming to people who don't support the right to keep and bear arms, I say "too bad." But I would say it without regard to sex, race, or sexual or gender identity.

Everybody else gets to stick around, on the terms of the right wing.

Everyone who wants to abide by our Constitution can stick around. This is not a right wing concept.

Like I said, if you choose to be an engine of the agenda, it's your choice. I don't know anything about anyone here other than what they say here, so I don't assign political labels here.

I will proudly continue to be an engine furthering the agenda of freely keeping and bearing arms. You can apply whatever label to that side you want. Looks to me like the best label right now would be "winning".

I think everyone's a little tired of the half-baked psycho-sexual metaphors, and the lame attempts to equate gun-owners with terrorists. So perhaps the term "gun militant" is another side entrance to get into the same room. Perhaps we Second Amendment Activists should call ourselves that any time someone asks. Or maybe "2A defender."

After all the right to the killing tools in the first place is prefaced with belonging to a Militia.

Your reading the amendment in the wrong context.

A reminder of what the Bill Of Rights is:

A list of restrictions on the government, with the intent of preventing government from misconstruing or abusing of its powers:


THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org /


Some examples:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Self explanitory.




Amendment II

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Shall not be infringed by whom?

Government, of course. Why? Because a well regulated militia - comprised of the body of the people - is necessary to the security of a free state.




Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Soldier, being an agent of the government and all...





Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated , and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Shall not be violated by whom?

Government, of course.





Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime by whom? Be twice put in jeopardy by whom? Compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself by whom? Be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law by whom? nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation by whom?

Government, of course.

But noooo, that's not the American tradition.

Here any ding-a-ling with a personal score to settle can buy retail on his way to the workplace.

And any ding-a-ling with a personal bias against guns can spout off wholesale on a message board because "congress shall make no law..."

Guns in the civilian population not protected by the Second.

All it takes is the proper composition of the Court.

.. hey, you're not using that 4th amendment right now, either, are you? so sad, buh-bye.

..to infringe another?

Are you serious?

These compromises reflect evolution of the general welfare.

Social compact my ass.

Social compact is reality.

Weak tea.

Weak.

That's why there IS an amendment process spelled out in it.

You only need to judicially interpret correctly for the good of the nation.

the notes and citations in the year old Heller decision for you education on the subject. I dare you to open your mind.

The pity of it is how many innocents must die before this happens.

"The pity of it is how many innocents must die before this happens."

If I were you, I'd worry more about how many would die if you get your way.

I do.

I'm happy for all the people that will now be able to defend themselves against unlawful deadly force.

refuse to comply with the law. Then we'll be looking at the "sporting purpose" clause and 922.0. Yep. You ain't seen nothing yet. LOL

Heller must and will be re-visited.

As the saying goes, why don't you shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which fills up first while you wait?

Because you'r side can't be trusted to abide by the law of the land.

And the evidence of it, is all around us.

Twisting the bill of rights, and in doing so, the oath of office for elected officials at all levels, is the point which the good of the nation is farthest from.

Ok. You tell us all...Which guns are the equivalent of kiddie porn, and which are not?


Just the guns. Not whos hands they are in.


I won't hold my breath.

"Guns in the civilian population not protected by the Second."


Another way - debunked all to hell, btw - of saying that "the people" in the second amendment, really doesn't mean "the people".



You lost.

Be happy it didn't go the other way, because then you'd have REALLY lost.

We ALL would have.

They loved them some guns and made their stand against a government which they viewed as interfering with their gun love.

They hate them some people and try/ied to enforce thier beliefs on others...


And for the record:

Weaver was entrapped - which led to the millions him and his remaining family won in a suit against that same government you were talking about...


And the branch davidians...well, I believe they were fired upon first. The missing doors...the flir tape...the 911 call from the compound...people hellbent on fighting government don't call 911, I reckon. Oh, and the fact that after the initial gunfire, the davidians could have slaughtered a great many atf/fbi when they were removing thier wounded...yet didn't. And the fact that koresh could have been peacable arrested multiple times before the standoff.


I'm reminded of what our resident canadian has said:

It's deeply saddening that someone would consider his/her opinions about an important public policy issue to be worth spewing in public when s/he is so totally ignorant of the subject matter, and so deeply uninterested in learning the minimum necessary to have an opinion of even minimal value.

The only thing that matters in politics is how many people you can get to agree with you.

Which is why you are always posting the gun glamor stuff.

And which is why I am always rebutting it the best I can.

Moi always posting "gun glamor stuff" ?

Perhaps you have me confused with another poster.


If not, maybe some examples. so I can know exactly what it is you refer to?

Poring through (and disregarding) all the gun tragedy news for the occasional trigger-happy happy-trigger story.

Or spinning actual gun tragedy news as having some kind of pro-gun silver lining.

To paraphrase General Grant concerning the cause of the Confederacy: One of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.

Now if you can find one posted by me in any sense of the meaning of the word "recently" or hell, even meaningfully commenting on one in those same terms, be my guest.

Of course, it will have to be a great deal more than that to come anywhere near "always posting gun glamor stuff".

Wouldn't you agree?


As I said, I believe you have mistaken me for another poster. And I admit, hereabouts, posters get mistaken for other posters.


I don't believe that you would do such a thing deliberately, regardless of our difference on the gun issue.

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


____________________________________________________________
Weaver was charged with multiple crimes relating to the Ruby Ridge incident, a total of ten counts including the original firearms charges and murder. Attorney Gerry Spence handled Weaver's defense, and argued successfully that Weaver's actions were justifiable as self-defense. The judge dismissed two counts after hearing prosecution witness testimony. The jury acquitted Weaver of all remaining charges except two, one of which the judge set aside. Weaver was found guilty of one count, failure to appear, for which Weaver was fined $10,000 and sentenced to 18 months in prison. The reason he failed to appear was due to the fact that he was officially told the court case was on the 20th March when in fact it was on the 20th February. This was done to ensure a conviction.<15> He was credited with time served plus an additional three months, and was then released. Kevin Harris was acquitted of all criminal charges.<16>

In August 1995, the federal government avoided trial on a civil lawsuit filed by the Weavers, by awarding the three surviving daughters $1,000,000 each and Randy Weaver $100,000 over the deaths of Sammy and Vicki Weaver. The attorney for Kevin Harris pressed Harris' civil suit for damages, although federal officials vowed they would never pay someone who had killed a U.S. Marshal (Harris had been acquitted by a jury trial on grounds of self-defense). In September 2000 after persistent appeals, Harris was awarded a $380,000 settlement from the government.<17>
_______________________________________________________________

You really really need to bone up on your reference material. LOL

Every single piece of original information, every statement by the framers, and indeed all rational legal basis for 200 years has clearly established the Second Amendment as it was originally intended: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. That means, no matter what your attempted revisionism, it quite clearly protects an individual right to own a gun.

It is impossible for an honest person to read the history of the 2nd and 14th Amendments and the Constitution itself and not conclude that there is an individual right for individual, private, non militia attached citizens to bear arms for their private purposes.

Now an unprincipled, deluded, terrified person--or someone under the gun control reality distortion field--would probably come to a different conclusion. (Assuming they could be bothered with the facts to begin with.)

That's the most I can give ya.

The kind the framers knew of.

How about canon?

Or rifles with a 20 round magazine?

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

"It fired a .51 caliber ball at a velocity similar to that of a modern .45 ACP and it had a tubular, gravity-fed magazine with a capacity of 20 balls. Contemporary regulations of 1788 required each rifleman, in addition to the rifle itself, to be equipped with three compressed air reservoirs (two spare and one attached to the rifle), cleaning stick, hand pump, lead ladle, and 100 lead balls, 20 in the magazine built into the rifle and the remaining 80 in four tin tubes."

then why are we having this debate?

Unless you are arguing in favor of canons and .51 caliber guns in the civilian population as well?

Truly mystifying.

Honestly, it's a retarded statement that one right should be limited to the technology extant at a certain time.

Would you say the same with other rights? "The press" doesn't refer to the internet? The fourth doesn't apply to DNA?

is that it is a claimed "right" which can deprive you of all your other rights.

By killing your stubborn hide.

.. do you use to back up the supposed different treatment of the second amendment?

Or did you just pull that out of your backside?

"What is different about the 2A is that it is a claimed "right" which can deprive you of all your other rights."

First, it is not a "claimed right".

A reminder of what the Bill Of Rights is:

A list of restrictions on the government, with the intent of preventing government from misconstruing or abusing its powers:


THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org /


Some examples:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Self explanitory.




Amendment II

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Shall not be infringed by whom?

Government, of course. Why? Because a well regulated militia - comprised of the body of the people - is necessary to the security of a free state.




Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Soldier, being an agent of the government and all...





Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated , and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Shall not be violated by whom?

Government, of course.





Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime by whom? Be twice put in jeopardy by whom? Compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself by whom? Be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law by whom? nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation by whom?

Government, of course.

Second, while the second amendment may enable someone to deprive you of your life, it does so no more and no less than the first amendment does if someone incites a riot and you are trampled or beaten to death because of it.


Theres just no refuting that.

Words evoking mob action require rhetorical skill inspiring others and may or may not result in an outcome involving death or injury.

Pointing a gun and pulling the trigger require little if any skill, and do not depend whatsoever on inspiring others to achieve an outcome involving death or injury.

"Words evoking mob action require rhetorical skill inspiring others and may or may not result in an outcome involving death or injury."

True enough.


"Pointing a gun and pulling the trigger require little if any skill, and do not depend whatsoever on inspiring others to achieve an outcome involving death or injury."

Thats where you are wrong. Completely wrong.

Firing a handgun, at anything farther than point blank range requires quite a bit of skill, if one hopes at all to hit what one is aiming at.

1/4 inch deviation at the muzzle of a handgun equates to quite a few feet at a distance of say 15 feet. Far more at say 30 feet. Even more at 45 feet.


Bullets are simply not magical. It takes a LARGE amount of skill to be accurate at all.

Pointing a gun and pulling the trigger AND hitting what your aiming at where your aiming at it, requires a GREAT deal of skill, and depends on whether you have a moving target, wind etc. Bullets are simply not magical. It takes a LARGE amount of skill and practice to be accurate at all.

They didnt just pull the word marksmanship out of a hat.



And none of that refutes what I posted - that the second amendment is a restriction on the power of government.

Lack of marksmanship is more than compensated for by the capacity of the magazine.

And thats why, in the famous LA shootout, the perps wearing body armor and using machineguns with hundred round mags didn't kill anyone, and wound up dead in the end?

I was referring to the skill of the average rampage goof with retail handgun kill power.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

"I was referring to the skill of the average rampage goof with retail handgun kill power."

"Like shooting fish in a barrel."


Shooting a handgun, at anything father than point blank range/nearly point blank range, is far more difficult, and requires far more skill than you attribute to it. This is not television, it is reality.


"Shooting fish in a barrel" is the farthest thing from the truth, at anything other than point blank range/nearly point blank range.


Thats not my opinion.

That IS FACT.

that you have no experience in, or ability to do. It is like saying that pole vaulting is simple because you saw people doing it on TV. Just using a pole to get over a stick.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

I first read your header as:

Keep shouting until you hit something

which I thought was just the most perfect demonstration of the idiocy of any comparison between speech and guns. ;)

Of course, the comparison is really one of comparing the restrictions on the governments power to restrict one, versus the other...it got off track.

Not that I expect you'll to touch that with a ten meter pole.

Of course, the comparison is really one of comparing the restrictions on the governments power to restrict one, versus the other...it got off track.


And only a moronic concrete thinker, or somebody playing one on television who is actually a deceitful demagogue, would pretend not to get that nobody was saying that "speech" and "guns" are the same thing!

Have a word next time you get a chance, 'k?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=233339&mesg_id=233730

Somebody needs your wise words.


Now, in our instance here, we really do need some relevant points of comparison, though.

The mere fact that the government regulates both X and Y doesn't in itself mean that there is any similarity between X and Y. See that?

Like I said ... keep shouting 'til you hit something!

"Somebody needs your wise words."

They may be wise, but they don't apply to that other conversation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=233339&mesg_id=233828

a book of essays.

Do let beevul help you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=233666&mesg_id=233809

when you get it.

sharesunited (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-28-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Keep shooting until you hit something.
Lack of marksmanship is more than compensated for by the capacity of the magazine.





that you have no knowledge whatsoever of firearms or the physics of how they work.

makes defending against murder much more likely.

What is different about the 2A is that it is a claimed "right" which can deprive you of all your other rights.

By killing your stubborn hide.

It is also the right that insures you all of your other rights.

By killing stubborn oppressors.

on larger than .50 caliber guns. That restricting of the 20mm rifles was B.S!

That's the most I can give ya.

The kind the framers knew of.


If you have any principle at all, and you really mean what you say, you'll cease using the internet, right?

any current restriction on firearms that makes an exception for antiques?

I can buy a Mosin Nagant M39 with an 1895 receiver and there is no background check. In fact I could order one right now and have it delivered to my door tomorrow.

Now if I wanted a Mosin Nagant M39 with a 1936 receiver I would need to pass the background check and have it shipped to an FFL.

Both are equally deadly (7.62x54R, about the same ballistics as a .303, .306), and infernally accurate. These rifles were used to great success during WWII to repel (for a time) the Soviets. Oddly enough they were restocked and re-barreled Russian guns.

So yes antiques are exempt from most restrictions.

Also rifles suck as the M1 Garand, Swiss K31, Karbiner 98K etc. can be covered by the Curio & Relic licenses issued by BATF.

That the M39 with an antique receiver is a far more accurate (and a bit more powerful) rifle than the WWII Italian Carcano that was used to assassinate JFK. LHO was the reason that "Mail Order Guns" were banned, but a superior bolt action gun from the same conflict can be ordered through the mail no questions asked whereas the Italian bolt action rifle would require a C&R or I would need it shipped to an FFL.

Also, what makes a gun an antique is the receiver - the other parts can be newer.

It makes collecting old guns a bit less onerous and really is not a public danger imo.

the difficulty in regulating firearms technology any more than it already is IMHO.

...explain why you feel that you may spew such drivel on the internet. A technology the framers didn't know of. Or are you claiming to be a Luddite with a severe blind spot?

"I'll let you have a single-shot, front-loading flintlock."

:rofl:

"That's the most I can give ya."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Stop, you're killing me!

"The kind the framers knew of."

I can't catch my breath.

shareunited, you seriously overestimate your power. And your knowledge of history.

several flint rifles, ranging in bore size from 36cal to 62cal. Also both original and repop Brown Bess muskets (75cal) and Charleville muskets(69cal).
While they are fun and effective hunting weapons,and they can be used for self defense, my personally preference is the SIG 220 on my side and a AR-15.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

I'll let you have a single-shot, front-loading flintlock. That's the most I can give ya.

Even if the Constitution only applied to 18th century technology, which it clearly does not, where are the laws that make exceptions for 17th century arms?

If this is what you are going to allow us, can I concealed or open carry a flint-lock pistol anywhere?

just read the works of the people that wrote it. I dare you to open your mind.

Guns in the civilian population not protected by the Second.

This is an absolutely ridiculous assertion, and completely unfounded in history. The entire point of the second amendment was specifically intended to preserve an armed citizenry that could server as a replacement for, or at least a counter to federal infantry power.

This was the whole point in having a decentralized military system - to protect the States from an oppressive central government.

The State Militias were to be made up of armed citizens from the states and led by officers from the states.

Right?

contains 9 amendments limiting the power of government and guaranteeing rights of the states/individual (mostly individual) that had historically been trampled on by oppressive regimes like the one we had just seperated ourselves from.

And one guaranteeing the right of the government to form a military, a collective right that had never been disputed, or infringed upon or had any need to be guaranteed against the abuses of a tyrannical government.

To some people this makes sense.

You get it, but damn...so many that dont.

And I just can't fathom, beyond lack of education, why.

which makes their tact all the worse. They know they are arguing against legitimate rights and continue to do so unfazed.

No different than people who insist we must have bible classes in school, or who seek to limit our freedom of speech.

People like you and me.

From the United States Code:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311Prev | Next § 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=militia&url=/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

HTH

the right is referenced as belonging to the people. it does not state any requirement as to belonging to a militia.

Where's the Militia in all this? After all the right to the killing tools in the first place is prefaced with belonging to a Militia.

First of all, the recent Heller Supreme Court decision has made it the law of the land that the right to keep and bear arms as enumerated in the second amendment is irrespective of membership in any organization such as a militia.

Second of all, the militias our founders intended to exist as a replacement or counter to federal infantry forces ceased to exist in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act, which federalized the state militias, creating the Organized Militia (National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia (all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia).

I've owned guns all my life although I am not a firearms enthusiast. I live in an area that does not lead me to believe I will need a firearm for self defense. I don't hunt. I haven't fired a gun in years. (I guess I should get my ass to the range, I may not be able to hit a cow in the ass with a boat paddle at this point.) But nevertheless, it had occurred to me to have another look at the whole gun issue for a fresh perspective.

Last fall I read the comments in Alternet about the story of the guy in Texas who shot the burglars after calling 911. Much to my surprise the comments that went along with the story looked interesting and insightful. I had never really been interested in the whole internet forum thing until then, but I decided to have a look at DU for more than just the Top Ten Conservative Idiots.

On balance, posts from those who could be considered "anti-gun" are significantly more insulting, unreasonable, arrogant, provocative, and juvenile. Granted, this site is partisan and designed to be so, thus equally annoying posts from the "pro-gun" side are much more likely to be deleted whether they come from members or trolls and the fact that so many thinly veiled insults are allowed to get through is telling in itself. But this ain't my site, and it's none of my business how it's run. If I get tired of it I'll just go elsewhere.

Even when taking into account the uneducated, the fear-biters, and those who have some personal axe to grind and are just feeding off the efforts of others for their own amusement, I have yet to hear a convincing argument against personal ownership of firearms, the current legislative trends regarding the transportation of firearms or how current firearms configurations are regulated. Well, for the most part anyway. There are always questions regarding "where the line gets drawn" and I will continue to consider them.

It does occur to me though that this is a public forum, and it would well behoove those who consider themselves a proponent of progressive values and the civilized behavior that goes along with them to produce more solutions than rhetoric and to stop treating the Democratic Big Tent as their own personal playground or they might find themselves standing outside it. If they really want to change things, stop acting like an ass and help find a solution to the problem.

Really good post, and well said.

C'mon. We all know it's all about moi.

I wuv my fan club!

For anyone in need of context:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=202439&mesg_id=202597

One thing I'm not ignorant of, believe me, is the gun militant agenda and what the right wing will do to advance it ... I mean, the right wing agenda, and what the gun militants will do to advance it ... my sister ... my daughter ...

Anybody wants to be a member of that club, have at it.

Oh, and it's been done before, for anyone in need of meaning:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=174189&mesg_id=174354

Don't get me wrong. I do not use the word "militant" as a pejorative. But I do use it as what it means, and it doesn't mean "anyone with strongly held views". So even if your characterization of most anyone who owns a firearm <as> a strong holder of the views you posit were accurate, it would not support a further characterization of those people as "militants".

A militant doesn't just believe in something, a militant adopts the promotion of the thing s/he believes in as a cause, and militates for it.

... If you'd like to get back on track -- we're not talking about gun owners, militant or otherwise -- feel free to rejoin the conversation at some point.

Oh, and a cautionary tale of the days of once upon a time, when there were "liberal" Democrats ... and right-wing gun militant Democrats lost elections to Republicans. Anybody here actually remember Spiro Agnew, and how he got where he got? ... "Your home is your castle; defend it" ...

http://abacus.bates.edu/Library/aboutladd/departments/special/ajcr/1970/Tydings.shtml

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – SENATE

July 9, 1970

Page 23393

SENATOR TYDINGS AND GUN CONTROL

Mr. MUSKIE: Mr. President, in the June 27 issue of the New Republic, Alex Campbell has written a perceptive article about the political situation in which the Senator from Maryland (Mr. TYDINGS) presently finds himself being the object of attack from both the left and right. I think this short piece clearly demonstrates what happens to a public figure when he takes on the tough issues without ducking. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the RECORD.

...

TYDINGS OF NO JOY

And, because Tydings is also pushing for saner gun laws, lavish displays of posters and bumper stickers paid for by you-know-who tell Maryland voters, "If Tydings wins, you lose."

What?

Their guns; therefore, they seem to fear, their manhood. Both fears are groundless; nevertheless Tydings, a self-confessed liberal, is now being depicted as a castrator as well. Tydings is Maryland's senior senator and faces in September a primary fight with George P. Mahoney, a Democrat who is an eight-times loser and is so far from being a liberal that in 1966 Spiro T. Agnew won the governorship from him largely by appearing to be by contrast a moderate.

Mahoney is counting confidently on gun lobby backing. Should Mahoney lose a ninth time, the gun lobby doubtless will back Republican J. Glenn Beall Jr. against Tydings in November.

Unregistered guns killed two of Tydings’ close friends, John and Robert F. Kennedy. The 1968 Gun Control Act is a flop; only three states require gun licenses and in 35 states, lunatics may legally own guns. Tydings wants guns registered and licensed. His assurances to hunters that this will not interfere with sport and to collectors of antique guns that these won't count, have failed to abate the trumped-up hysteria against Tydings' modest proposals; so have Tydings' terrible statistics – 99,000 armed robberies annually, more than doubled since 1964, and 9,000, Americans shot to death each year.

... The senator has written a book, Born to Starve, to expose his views on population control. He says that 5.4 million American women who are poor don't want large families and do want family planning assistance, but fewer than 800,000 get it. The Nixon Administration has adopted elimination of unwanted births as a national goal, but Tydings is urging larger financial provision, $984,000 over five years. His less rational accusers blow up over his family planning stand. Some blacks say he's a rich white who aims to sterilize the black poor; others profess shock at his proposal to leave abortion "to individual conscience." If he politically survives the attacks generated by what seems to be everyone else's castration syndrome, Tydings may look good in 1972, when he will be only 44. Many of his liberal ideas match with those of Senator McGovern – and of Senator Ted Kennedy. Tydings would also fit a Muskie ticket, or a Hughes ticket. But sometimes, reading his hate mail, Tydings becomes a bit glum. The storm that is being worked up against him in his state is contrived by the gun lobby in part because he is a liberal, and people who fear and hate liberal views readily believe that Tydings is plotting to disarm them so as to leave them helpless prey of vaguely glimpsed powers of evil. But, meanwhile, Tydings' efforts to protect poor and black people from the criminals who prey on them are rudely rebuffed.

Those were the days, my friend.

Its not about you.

Its about language, and how those on the other side like to use it to label and demean.

And how it and its use has evolved/devolved.


Same brush, different hue, like I said.

Oh, and if you see anyone hereabouts "militating", do fire off a flare.

So long as you um...hold those on both sides of the issue to the same standard, mmkay?


Ta.

typo fixed


Its about language, and how those on the other side like to use it to label and demean.

Kinda, though.

It's pretending that the term "gun militant" as used in this forum, mainly by me but also by a couple of others, means what you decide it means and not what those people use it to mean.

Which is pretty kin to using language to label and demean, since you're are obviously engaged in an effort to portray these unnamed "those" as dishonest, by misusing language.

"It's pretending that the term "gun militant" as used in this forum, mainly by me but also by a couple of others, means what you decide it means and not what those people use it to mean."

Ok, well, heres 19 pages of search results here on DU that come up when one searches for the term "gun militant". One person and a couple others, is by definition, 3 posters. No more, no less. Yall sure have been busy havent ya? :rofl:

I think maybe theres more people using it than you know, but whatever.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=%22gun+militant%22&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&sa=Search&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en


When applied to those, hereabouts (meaning posters here at DU, and yes we all know its been aimed in our direction, or it wouldn't be said much at all - and a lot of it that "filthy innuendo" you are so fond of pointing out) it can only be applied to those of us hereabouts to describe us because of things we say here abouts, since the people saying it hereabouts can not know the things we do or say that are not done or said, hereabouts.

With me so far you of vast verbiage?

That pretty well limits its meaning, as you and others use it when aimed at us, because of the things we say - since say is all we can do here. Or, are you claiming that its simply never aimed at anyone hereabouts? I guess, if there aren't any "gun militants" hereabouts, I might ask why you bother to use the term at all, and why you defend it as you are attempting to do now.

And if there are, how about some names and examples please.

I mean, you sure ask for them right quick, don't you? Lets see if you are as keen on providing them as you are to ask for them.


As far as I know,btw, the term "gun militant" as used the majority of the time, is as a deliberate perjorative describing anyone that will not capitulate, just the same way as "gun nut" gun woo woo" "gun humper" etc. By all means though, Describe for us all how you and that "couple" of posters use the term, and what exactly you mean when you use it. Oh, and tell us all how it differes in definition and use from "gun nut" gun woo woo" "gun humper" etc. We're all ears.

Just make sure you get the right "couple" of posters, since you wouldn't want to be speaking for anyone other than yourself and them, k?

:rofl:

You CAN'T LINK to search results at DU. Really.

(Pardon me, that may have been my NoScript interfering. I do the google search via the DU search page and I get 84 results for "gun militants". Just do it my way. It's better.)

Try this one:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=30&q=site%3Awww.democraticunderground.com+%22gun+militants%22+-iverglas+-paladin&btnG=Search&meta=

"gun militants" used at DU, minus moi and Paladin.

Gets you exactly 14 results.

A goodly proportion of which are actually for "anti-gun militants".

(Eek! "Anti-gun militants"?? Who would say such a rude thing???)

Do report on your own mileage.


When applied to those, hereabouts (meaning posters here at DU, and yes we all know its been aimed in our direction, or it wouldn't be said much at all - and a lot of it that "filthy innuendo" you are so fond of pointing out) it can only be applied to those of us hereabouts to describe us because of things we say here abouts, since the people saying it hereabouts can not know the things we do or say that are not done or said, hereabouts.

Vast verbiage indeed. Not even making any sense.

You just can't back your allegations up with anything at all, can you?


If defending this particular civil liberty from those that would regulate it into a state which would make its exercise far less than reasonable makes me a "gun militant", then I'll wear the term as a badge of honor.

Feel, uh, free.

When **I** use the term, I'll use it to mean what I have always used it to mean, long before you decided to pretend it meant whatever you want it to mean.


As far as I know,btw, the term "gun militant" as used the majority of the time, is as a deliberate perjorative describing anyone that will not capitulate, just the same way as "gun nut" gun woo woo" "gun humper" etc.

Try some of that google stuff, and see whether you can find something to back up that claim, will you?


Just make sure you get the right "couple" of posters, since you wouldn't want to be speaking for anyone other than yourself and them, k?

Paladin, the other frequent user of the term, can speak for himself if he feels like sullying his keyboard here. If you find someone else using it, you offer up the prose and we'll see how it deconstructs.


By all means though, Describe for us all how you and that "couple" of posters use the term, and what exactly you mean when you use it.

Why? Why would I jump to your specifications, to respond to misrepresentations you choose to post, when if you want to know the answer you can find it yourself in any of dozens of places right here?

Do you really think that your decision to post something places some onus on ME to refute what you've posted? What rock do you live under, on what planet?

Oh, and tell us all how it differes in definition and use from "gun nut" gun woo woo" "gun humper" etc. We're all ears.

Or maybe how it differs from "exfurpodingermables". I don't know what the definition of that is, and I don't know what the definition of any of those other things. Why don't you ask somebody who seems to know what the definitions of those terms are to explain them?

Far be it from me to put definitions of someone else's words in their mouths, hm?

I say:

As far as I know,btw, the term "gun militant" as used the majority of the time, is as a deliberate perjorative describing anyone that will not capitulate, just the same way as "gun nut" gun woo woo" "gun humper" etc.

And you reply:

Try some of that google stuff, and see whether you can find something to back up that claim, will you?


I do not need to back up a claim that starts out with "as far as I know...". I thought you knew how to read...

Then I write:

By all means though, Describe for us all how you and that "couple" of posters use the term, and what exactly you mean when you use it.


"Why? Why would I jump to your specifications, to respond to misrepresentations you choose to post, when if you want to know the answer you can find it yourself in any of dozens of places right here?"


HAHAHAHAHAH. Explaining yourself and what you mean by the words you say, is jumping to someone elses "specifications"? Man, thats good.
You think its all about you. Your fans... Yet can't be bothered to explain yourself when asked. In other words, "no I will not explain myself". Much better to leave room for people to misunderstand you, then jump them when they do.

Color me shocked.

You write:

"Far be it from me to put definitions of someone else's words in their mouths, hm?"



Yeah, really. You aren't even keen on providing your own definitions for your own words from your own mouth...


But then even if you did, it would just be another "I said X but I meant Y", wouldn't it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=166774


So transparent.

typo fixed


I do not need to back up a claim that starts out with "as far as I know...".

Here in the Guns forum, you are free to spew any sort of vile and false crap, as long as you preface it with some mealies.

You, of course, have no onus of doing any actual investigation that would establish that what you "know" is false. Just spew it.


HAHAHAHAHAH. Explaining yourself and what you mean by the words you say, is jumping to someone elses "specifications"? Man, thats good.

Oh dear. So it really is all about moi.

If that were what I'd said, you wouldn't be spewing some more false shit.

The spewing of false shit, by anybody, places no onus on me to refute the false shit.

I really do think that is quite plainly stated, and quite universally acknowledged.

What on earth have **I** said that requires any "explanation"??

Hint: NOTHING.

But even so, I did offer those handy google search links. Is somebody here not capable of going "click"?

Me, "so transparent"?

You betcha. Transparency is a fundamental requirement for democracy. I highly recommend that everyone here consider adopting it.

Accountability is another big one. So here's me, ready and willing to hold y'all accountable for the things you say, just to help you out.

Substantiate what you said in the OP, or demonstrate your contempt for democratic values.

Your choice.

Yeah, he was an idiot.

The term "gun militant" suggests someone who is militant about the right to keep and bear arms, which I am. No problem here.