Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) Opposes Lawful Gun Possession at Home

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:19 PM
Original message
Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) Opposes Lawful Gun Possession at Home
“I like making liberals shoot guns – I just don’t think we should be allowed to bring them home.”

She enjoys shocking the delicate sensibilities of her co-workers, but she doesn't believe in people possessing guns in their homes for self-defense. Now I LOVE Rachael Maddow. I enjoyed watching her take apart Bush and the Neocons. But she's wrong to oppose the Constitution and the basic human right of self-defense.

Why can't more liberals, progressives, Democrats, etc., accept the whole Constitution and all human rights?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's her opinion - the only one of which I disagree
I understand the gun grabbers, but they're just wrong
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. She's just dead wrong
So if some homophobic asshole decides to break into her home and attack her and her partner over their sexuality, she thinks that she should not be allowed to defend herself with a firearm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. nyuk nyuk nyuk

So if some homophobic asshole decides to break into her home and attack her and her partner over their sexuality

But what about if a meteorite falls through her roof on the night of a blue moon on February 29th??

What good will a gun do her then????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. She could fire shots in the air that attract the police who call for an ambulance? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. ah, but

She'll be dead, crushed under the mighty meteorite.

;)

Besides, I don't think the police work on February 29th when it's a blue moon. It's in their union contract.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Well to be fair most meteorites are fairly small by the time they reach the earth's surface. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
74. February never has a blue moon.
Since there are thirteen lunar months to the year, one month of the year must have two full moons. That second full moon is called a blue moon. So a blue moon occurs once a year.

However, it takes the moon 29.5 days to go through a complete cycle as seen from the earth. Since February has only 29 days, it does not have enough time for a blue moon.

Whomever negotiated the contract for their union got suckered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
86. oh you guys

Try telling the person lying crushed under the mighty meteorite that it was just a little one. ;)
(Velocity matters as much as mass here, no?)

Hmm, it must have been the Toronto cops. Their union reps tend to be goons. Probably thought they were putting one over on management ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #86
100. Velocity matters more
Double the velocity and half the mass... object has the same momentum but twice the energy!


A one-pound rock hitting the earth at Mach 10 give you not quite 2 million foot-pounds of energy (or about 2.7 MJ for you metric types :-) )

That's about 152 times the energy of the dreaded .50 BMG bullet's muzzle energy. It's the energy released by a pound and a half of TNT or a bit more than a pound of C-4.



If I detonated 17 ounces of C-4 on this poor hypothetical lady she'd be reduced to chunky salsa!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Ten Bucks says she has a gun
It's just you she wants disarmed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. yeah

Those liberals / progresives / d/Democrats ... they LIE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. I'm sure some do
But probably not as bad as Canadian Lawyers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. my my

But probably not as bad as Canadian Lawyers

Any you could name? Or shall we just add xenophobic ethnocentricy and, oh, all-round stupidity, to your list?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. That's your call
As I said, so long as you neither pick my pocket nor break my leg I don't care what you do. Oh. and you have to stop hitting on me. I told you I'm married
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. See post 27 for just the type of hypocrisy under discussion. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
27. Some of them absolutely lie. Or are blatant hypocites. Own your hypocrisy, iverglas!
Be proud of what you are--a card-carrying anti-gun hypocrite of the first order. Don't try to fool the newcomers with false indignation.

TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Thu Jun-18-09 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #37
73. For those of you who don’t already know iverglas,

Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 07:39 AM by TPaine7
I thought I'd help with the introductions:

Individual has obligation -- "moral" and, in civilized societies, legal -- to exercise whatever reasonable option is available, to avoid an assault, before choosing to use force...



Civilized, isn't it? Highly evolved. Refined. Doubtless iverglas is a fine example of what we should all strive to be.

Compare from yesterday (or so):

And no, I wouldn't rule out grabbing the person trying to make off with the purse from my shopping cart. ... And I wouldn't have ruled out beating up the person who did it, if I'd found him/her, frankly, but I'd recognize I was committing a crime ...


Source.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


One "principle" of gun control and other pseudo pacifist BS is that it's always for the other guy. She can rule out violence for us in standing our ground in our own homes. That is perfectly proper, civilized, and evolved. Her defending her purse in public? Now that's different.

Your home. Her purse. Can you see the difference? Can you tell why one is worth defending with force and the other is not?

Sadly, many gun control advocates are like that. Your life, your children, your husband or wife, and your property are in one category--theirs in another. That is why, for instance, Mayor Bloomberg can wonder--with his bullet-proof limo and 24 hr armed detail--why anyone would want a gun. "Guns kill people." Gasp.

Debating hypocrites is embarrassing sometimes; it feels like boxing a paraplegic.


Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=230532&mesg_id=230923
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. ah, my psychologist disagrees with you
Edited on Thu Sep-03-09 01:14 PM by iverglas

He - the Sigmund-Freud lookalike actual psychologist, you'll recall, not the misogynist quack masquerading as a psychiatrist - is absolutely convinced, in his professional opinion and with some 4+ decades of clinical experience, that I am not actually capable of engaging in violent behaviour.


He is a decent, honest and extremely intelligent chap. Not at all like many people I encounter. You'd never catch old N pretending that someone's words meant what they didn't mean. Nuh uh. In fact, that was the very subject matter of one of our discussions, and he just had no trouble at all distinguishing meaning from misrepresentation. If I see him again, I'll be sure to pass this all on, and we'll have a little chuckle.

He might give me the same advice he gave about coercing some responsibility-taking out of the co-vivant. Recognize that you are dealing with an adolescent boy who needs what he should have got a long time ago (in his case): one step at a time, clear, consistent setting of expectations to be met, and insistence that they be met.

So on that note: you will be expected to compose one post - just the one for now - devoid of deceit and disingenuousness. The task is time limited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. your problems with the truth are unfortunate
Edited on Thu Sep-03-09 02:34 PM by iverglas

but they are no one's but yours.


And if you think pig-ignorant filth like this is going to stand:

You are the one purposefully calling a black man a "boy." Do you think that a racist old bat can get under my skin with such tactics and prevent me from destroying her sophistries?

You're wrong.

You are apparently pretending to allude to my statement:

He might give me the same advice he gave about coercing some responsibility-taking out of the co-vivant. Recognize that you are dealing with an adolescent boy ...

which was about a discussion you were not privy to, which discussion was about A 50-YEAR OLD (white Anglo-Saxon) MAN.

I think you knew that.


You are the person quoting the alleged opinion of someone who may or may not exist to refute YOUR words about YOURSELF.

No, I was amusing myself by demonstrating how an intelligent person knows what my words meant, and a decent person doesn't pretend they meant anything else.



edited to insert omitted word
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #42
56. Give integrity a try, iverglas. It's not too late! I promise.
Edited on Thu Sep-03-09 03:16 PM by TPaine7
You are apparently pretending to allude to my statement:

He might give me the same advice he gave about coercing some responsibility-taking out of the co-vivant. Recognize that you are dealing with an adolescent boy ...

which was about a discussion you were not privy to, which discussion was about A 50-YEAR OLD (white Anglo-Saxon) MAN.

I think you knew that.


You apparently are incapable of thinking straight, but surely you know someone with a young agile mind--someone you trust?

How shall I break this down? Can I make the pieces small enough?

Let's see, in your alleged discussion you were advised to "{r}ecognize that you are dealing with an adolescent boy." That was in the past, so it was not referring to me. Are you still with me iverglas?

Now consider this:

ah, my psychologist disagrees with you

Edited on Thu Sep-03-09 11:14 AM by iverglas

He - the Sigmund-Freud lookalike actual psychologist, you'll recall, not the misogynist quack masquerading as a psychiatrist - is absolutely convinced, in his professional opinion and with some 4+ decades of clinical experience, that I am not actually capable of engaging in violent behaviour.


He is a decent, honest and extremely intelligent chap. Not at all like many people I encounter. You'd never catch old N pretending that someone's words meant what they didn't mean. Nuh uh. In fact, that was the very subject matter of one of our discussions, and he just had no trouble at all distinguishing meaning from misrepresentation. If I see him again, I'll be sure to pass this all on, and we'll have a little chuckle.

He might give me the same advice he gave about coercing some responsibility-taking out of the co-vivant. Recognize that you are dealing with an adolescent boy who needs what he should have got a long time ago (in his case): one step at a time, clear, consistent setting of expectations to be met, and insistence that they be met.

So on that note: you will be expected to compose one post - just the one for now - devoid of deceit and disingenuousness. The task is time limited.


There's also some stuff in there about the future:

  1. "If I see him again, I'll be sure to pass this all on, and we'll have a little chuckle."
  2. "He might give me the same advice he gave... {r}ecognize that you are dealing with an adolescent boy who needs...clear, consistent setting of expectations to be met, and insistence that they be met."
  3. "So on that note" you undertook to give the "boy" an assignment.


There you are iverglas--your desperate flailing accomplished nothing. I see through you. Like glass. And now, so do those readers with the least sensitive noses for bullshit.

Admit what you are. Own it. You're a desperate old hypocrite, a sophist through and through, but even your powers of sophistry are failing you now.

Embrace truth and integrity--it's not too late. Yes it will hurt at first, but think of the benefits. You won't have trouble keeping your stories straight. You won't have to engage in linguistic and hypertechnical gymnastics.

You'll be free!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. you know

You occasionally make sense. This isn't one such occasion.

Must be time for your nap, indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #60
66. I warned you...
You apparently are incapable of thinking straight, but surely you know someone with a young agile mind--someone you trust?

I told you you would need the aid of a fully functional mind...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #56
89. aww

did your post go bye bye?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #89
133. Yes, iverglas, my post was removed.
This means that:

  1. You are a young and vital woman--truly the "goddess of truth and beauty" you claim to be
  2. You are not a pathetic hypocrite who cannot keep her untruths straight from one hour to the next
  3. You have not called me, a black man, a "boy" by putting words in someone else's mouth in an imaginary conversation then accepting those imaginary words as truth and acting on them (and by other sophistic means in other threads)
  4. You actually are incapable of violence, your personal testimony to the contrary notwithstanding
  5. Repeatedly saying you would easily resort to violence while actually being incapable of it does not actually make you what speaking blatant falsehoods makes everyone else who does it

Congratulations!

Your posts remain. My character remains.

Enjoy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. "Now I LOVE Rachael Maddow."

I enjoyed watching her take apart Bush and the Neocons.

Sure you do/did.

Better sic those "progressive" Pink Pistols on her.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. She probably accepts the WHOLE constitution, and the second amendment
does NOT guarantee individual ownership of guns...was NEVER the intent!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Study history n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. The founders of the Constitution say that individual gun ownership WAS the intent.
Since they were there at the time and were writing the Bill of Right, I think they knew what they were talking about. There are many quotes from the founders that explain their views. Further guns were extremely common in individual ownership at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
38. everywhere the constitution refers to a right of "the people"
it refers to INDIVUALS rights. the 2nd is no different.

"the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Howardx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. a well regulated militia
why does that part always get left out? is it because none of you kooks is in a well regualted militia?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. ad hominem insults aside (Which only evidence your childishness)
Edited on Thu Sep-03-09 02:11 PM by paulsby
read the 2nd. the right is of THE people. it does NOT say the right belongs to a well regulated militia.

research "prefatory clause" or read any # of examples of prefatory clauses in govt. at that time, for NUMEROUS examples of same

here is one:
The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty .

note... ANY person (just like the people in the 2nd)

read the above clause from RI's 1842 constitution and answer this question: to whom does the right belong? 1) the press or 2) ANY PERSON

clearly, it;'s the latter. it's a PREFATORY clause, exactly like the 2nd

this is why HONEST legal scholars, even those OPPOSED to concealed carry and general ownership of guns amongst private citizens as a matter of POLICY will admit that the 2nd is an individual right, NOT a right of the militia (not to mention that militias don't have "rights", in the sense that individuals do. ). example: larry tribe at harvard. opposed to civilian carry as a matter of policy. but totally in accord with it as an individual right under the 2nd


also, although not relevant , *i* meet all the criteria of a wellregulated (regulated means well trained. look it up in common usage at the time), militia by my gender, age, and extensive training (i am a firearms instructor certified in the state of WA, HI, and under several other standards)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Howardx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. pardon me but thats bullshit speculation on your part
expected though, no links, nothing but your opinion on what the founders meant. no sale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. you dishonestly failed ot address the RI 1842 constitution
which is an exact analog of a prefatory clause.

imagine that. intellectual dishonesty from an ideologue. how surprising.

not surprising at all.

those open to evidence, like esteemed legal scholar larry tribe, admit the 2nd references an individual right.

close minded creationists like you, ignore evidence when it goes against your religion

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Howardx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. you have offered no evidence
other than the fact that apparently you think i should take the word of someone i dont know from adam about what the founders intended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. "which is an exact analog of a prefatory clause."

Actually, it isn't. I wondered whether you were pretending it was.

All I'm seeing is some pretty clear evidence that some people in 1842 had some weird ideas about how to write and how to run public affairs, and really hadn't quite figured out the whole "rights" business yet.


Boyoboy, you sure do get nasty when poked, don't you? Dumb nastiness, but you try.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #45
97. Uh, here, Howard...
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


billofrights.org

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, (declaratory clause)

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (restrictive clause).

The preamble to the bill of rights ITSELF makes it plain.

The second amendment is a restriction on the government, telling government what it may NOT do.


Please insert coin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backwoodsbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #45
139. here's some quotes
http://www.mindconnection.com/interests/guns3.htm

ALEXANDER HAMILTON (Member of Continental Congress, Aid-de-camp to General Washington, commanded forces at Yorktown, New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention, wrote Federalist Papers, 1st Secretary of Treasury for George Washington, wanted ‘President for life’)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Federalist Papers #29) (Member of Continental Congress, Aid-de-camp to General Washington, commanded forces at Yorktown, New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention, wrote Federalist Papers, 1st Secretary of Treasury for George Washington, wanted ‘President for life’)


PATRICK HENRY (‘Liberty or Death’ Speech, member of Continental Congress, Governor of Virginia, member Virginia convention to ratify U.S. Constitution, urged creation of Bill of Rights for Constitution )
"The great object is, that every man be armed.... Every one who is able may have a gun." (Elliot p.3:386)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #139
142. Some of my favorite "gun nuts".
It is funny when antis want to "use history" to back up the totally debunked "collective rights" nonsense.

There are so many newspaper articles, quotes, diary entries, letters, public minutes, and other historical documents from the period.

They all show completely a desire by the founding fathers that citizens be armed. As does the legislative and court records for the next century or so.

Gun control simply didn't exist (except in isolated cases) until anti-immigrant sentiment. Keeping immigrants unarmed made it easier to terrorize them.

Next example was disarming of newly freed blacks.

The great shining jewel for antis being United States v. Crukshank. How fucking progressive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

The racist Supreme Court ruled the 2nd (and the 1st) didn't apply to the states? Why? So the leaders of a racist mob who executed 200+ Blacks couldn't be charged. That is the historical roots of gun control.

On one side of the issue you have the founding fathers and on the other side a blatantly corrupt and racist Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
93. Sigh.
Time to buy more stock in aluminium foil companies. Apparently the hat business is really taking off. :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. She grew up in California and we who are from this state are more aware
of the gun violence between street gangs than rural gun owners are aware of so many of us feel this way. I'm not saying it's the answer for everywhere in the country, which is why I believe gun laws should be local and administered locally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Even if California were able to completely outlaw guns,
the street gangs would still have just as many. Private ownership of a gun larger than .380 handgun is illegal in Mexico, but they get them anyway. And they are getting genuine AK-47s and genuine RPG-7s. Those are not available for sale at all anywhere in the US, so don't blame us for them.

Of course a large part of the real solution is to legalize drugs and other vices, but that is beside the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
53. Actually, I don't think all of California should outlaw guns.
Residents of neighborhoods though should be able to pass laws keeping guns in the hands of responsible owners and out of the hands of gang bangers, drug dealers and other criminals. They have a right to be safe in their own homes as much as you have a right to own a gun, LEGALLY. One of the reasons outlaws get guns is because they are so readily available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. if gun laws are local and administered locally

then you're kind of going to have to build a moat around California, aren't you?

I do hope you see the problem.

There is no moat around California. So if handgun sales, say, are unrestricted three states over - no registration requirement, no licensing requirement, no quantity/time limits - there really isn't anything at all to prevent someone from buying all the handguns they can pack into the trunk and trafficking them into California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Well other than the fact that it is a felony.
Kinda like nothing can stop someone from committing murder except they might get caught and it is a felony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. uh huh

Kinda like nothing can stop someone from committing murder except they might get caught and it is a felony.

And you thought my point was ...?

I thought we were all fond of saying "criminals don't obey the law" here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #12
30. Three States Over
Would be Colorado and you pretty much just described our gun laws YOU ROCK!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raimius Donating Member (201 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
49. Much like those local Mexican laws...
Black markets thrive on restrictive laws, especially when demand is high.
Sure, your scenario would be highly illegal, but that is exactly the type of thing that happens all over the world. Blood diamonds, the African arms market, cocain from Columbia, poppies from Afghanistan, guns from the US, Korea, China, India, etc to Mexico.

Are you suggesting we need to make a perfect solution to black market sales? I doubt that was your intent. What was your actual point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. if you'd like to try to make some sense

I'll be happy to try to answer questions.

I think my point was quite clear, and it isn't refuted by imaginations of firearms dropping like lawn darts from the sky when they aren't readily available at retail for trafficking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raimius Donating Member (201 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #51
103. I don't understand your "like lawn darts" bit
Edited on Fri Sep-04-09 02:55 AM by raimius
What are you talking about?

By your logic, the entire world would need to enact strict gun laws, in order to ensure the black market stopped. We all know this world is imperfect, and that would not work perfectly either.

Sorry, but I'm not in favor of heavy restrictions for the purpose of supporting heavy restrictions in other places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #103
106. history
Edited on Fri Sep-04-09 09:43 AM by iverglas

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x50664

The mention of lawn darts was prohibited by a dear departed moderator of this place.

Guns do not magically appear in the hands of criminals. They COME FROM SOMEWHERE.


By your logic, the entire world would need to enact strict gun laws, in order to ensure the black market stopped.

Yeah, eh? Like laws against other things, and international agreements to enact and enforce such laws, and enforcement mechanisms ...

There are various multilateral conventions against trafficking in small arms, and international obligations that states can assume to apply domestic policies that counteract such trafficking.


We all know this world is imperfect, and that would not work perfectly either.

Such funny double standards.

Do we repeal laws against murder, or speeding, because they don't "work perfectly"?

What advocate of stringent firearms control has ever claimed that anything will "work perfectly"?



typo fixed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
54. California is a really big and diverse state. I never said build a moat around it
but people who live in inner cities and other criminal hot spots have a right to be safe in their own homes and if they want to pass gun laws for their community, it's their right. Anyone who doesn't like it can move.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #54
62. maybe you could try understanding what I wrote

and responding to it?

Gun trafficking is a huge problem. Within the US, and from the US to other places. Like where I am. Canada.

Trafficking is facilitated by inadequate legislation. Permitting sales of handguns without requiring a licence, without requiring that transfers be registered, and without limiting numbers, means that residents of a state are free to buy any number of handguns for trafficking with impunity, as long as they pass a basic criminal background check.

It is very common for people like truck drivers to buy firearms in southern states and traffic them into northern states where access to handguns is more difficult -- and into Canada.

"Local" laws that allow such purchases fuel trafficking into places where such purchases are more difficult.

You appear to be thinking more of regulation of firearms possession in local areas.

But the fact is that there is no way to enforce such rules, except in the breach: once someone has caused some harm with a firearm, or is otherwise "caught" violating the rule.

People who want to "pass gun laws for their community" will be bailing a sinking ship if their neighbours in other communities and states don't pass laws that limit access to firearms for trafficking into the communities that have those laws.

I hope my meaning is clearer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #62
68. Perhaps you need to understand what I said in my original post, mainly an
explanation of why Rachel may feel the way she does. Yet, I was subsequently accused of wanted to disarm the whole state of California. You are saying that it's easy to traffic guns. I don't disagree, but people in their communities have a right to decide how many guns they want in their community. Even in the inner cities 90% of the residents are hard working and law abiding. Their only fault is being poor, yet their children have a higher chance of dying of homicide because of gang violence. Many of them would like tough gun laws in their communities. People who don't like it can hole themselves up in gated communities in Ventura and Orange counties that are armed for bear and probably a small war anyway. That's the way they like it. That's where most of the complaints are coming from anyway, not the inner cities where gun laws are needed. Sure the gangs live outside the law so they will have firearms, but tough laws and law enforcement will make it easier for the police to apprehend them and put them and their guns away. Just MHO other than the fact it works pretty well in other countries. I know in Canada you have some really strict gun laws. Not everyone can have one. It keeps the supply low for trafficking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. oh well

people in their communities have a right to decide how many guns they want in their community

And I have a right to decide the speed at which I'd like to travel to the moon.


If you want public policy that has any actual effect on the supply of firearms, you're going to have to work on that.

Sure the gangs live outside the law so they will have firearms

Not if there is nowhere to get them.

but tough laws and law enforcement will make it easier for the police to apprehend them and put them and their guns away

Once they have caused the harm they cause.

Obviously there will be a constant supply of people to take over the activities they were engaging in (who will in fact undoubtedly be glad to see them put away), and as long as no action is taken to limit the supply of firearms, there will just be a constant supply of them too.

Barn doors and horses are what comes to mind.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #70
78. You just like to argue with me. The funny thing is that you and
are mostly on the same page. I know I read other posts of yours so I know that, but if I say black then you will say white. Buh bye!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #78
87. I know that
Edited on Thu Sep-03-09 06:25 PM by iverglas

you and are mostly on the same page

And I remember your considerable insight into healthcare issues long before most people at this site had heard the expression "single-payer".

But aiming so low, and at something so unlikely to be successful (it just doesn't seem that there is jurisdiction to address firearms problems at "local" levels in the US, and even if there were such measures would be totally ineffective) - and so easily dismissed by the adherents of the gun militant agenda - just seems unreasonable to me.



typo fixed

edited again - I actually said "I now that" ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #70
169. Not if there is nowhere to get them.
Yeah, let us know how that works out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #54
73. Anyone who doesn't like it can move.
"...if they want to pass gun laws for their community, it's their right. Anyone who doesn't like it can move."

True, as long as the laws are constitutional. The Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms; it is the supreme law of the United States of America. It also asserts that the Bill of Rights (the first eight amendments, at least) are binding against the states.

Those who don't like that can leave too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #73
79. Sure they can. There are gated communities through the reddest redneck
areas of California that have so many guns they could have a small war. They like it that way and I would never say they can't do that as long as they are within the law and they should be able to make the laws within their community. Shit if they want to walk around like John Wayne, festooned in weapons, fine, let all those who like it that way move to those communities. I wouldn't live in such a place as my choice. So why can't the rest of us have a choice of communities that restrict gun ownership to people who can be deemed responsible gun owners just like the DMV issues drivers' licenses? We have a right to choice too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. The same reason you can't forbid "I love Bush" bumper stickers
or Scientologists, or peaceful KKK meetings. The same reason you can't allow police torture in interrogations or house-to-house random searches for drugs.

So why can't the rest of us have a choice of communities that restrict gun ownership to people who can be deemed responsible gun owners just like the DMV issues drivers' licenses? We have a right to choice too!

You do have a right to choose; the Constitution sets limits on that right. Unless of course, you exercise the ultimate constitutional right to chose under US law--the right to amend the Constitution itself. That is the legitimate path to your goal of community autonomy on RKBA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. You are saying the states don't have rights to issue drivers' licenses.
Edited on Thu Sep-03-09 05:49 PM by Cleita
According to you the Constitution says that anyone who can reach the wheel and the pedals can drive. That doesn't make sense nor did the framers of the Constitution intend such literal interpretation. I think they wanted us to make laws in our communities within the framework of the Constitution but not be bound to it like a fundie and his Bible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
91. Yeah! Right!
Uh.... except for the fact that that is not how it works here in the U.S.

Good night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. I agree with you that local laws can be passed against street gangs
as necessary--though I do see street gangs as terrorist organizations at war with the United States and subject to federal solutions as well.

I fully support a gun ban on members of terrorist organizations at war with the US. But I do not think that YOU should be stripped of constitutional rights because you are in US territory falsely claimed by those terrorist organizations--say Los Angeles or Chicago. The Constitution is not a local document.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. what?

I agree with you that local laws can be passed against street gangs

Against what, now?

What is a law "against street gangs"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. RICO? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. not a law against street gangs

A law against engaging in criminal activities for the benefit of organized crime, as it's phrased up here, and similarly down there, I imagine.

Outlawing membership in a gang, e.g., kinda runs counter to the first amendment to that constitution thing. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, in my case. Freedom of association.

Damn those rights and freedoms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #22
36. It's shorthand.
Edited on Thu Sep-03-09 02:03 PM by TPaine7
Laws against gang activities are laws against street gangs in the same way that laws against sophistry and hypocrisy would be laws against iverglas.

And as Treo pointed out, RICO was specifically targeted at the mob--it was against gangsters.

Get a non-sophist to explain it to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
39. constitutional rights are (thankfully) not administered locally
we don't accept it with other amendments, and we shouldn't accept it with the 2nd.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raimius Donating Member (201 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #39
52. Oddly, the 2nd IS.
We need incorporation under the 14th before the 2nd Amendment can be enforced against the states or local government.

Frankly, the BoR should be incorporated in its entirety. We just haven't had many cases of states breaking the 3rd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #52
88. It will happen soon....
McDonald v. Chicago will be on SCOTUS docket for next session which starts at the end of Sept. I expect oral arguments will be before year end and decision by spring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #52
95.  i am well aware of the incorporation issue
i think it's a gimme that it WILL be incorporated in the future... but...

you are correct. it has not been adjudicated yet.

my bad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raimius Donating Member (201 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #95
104. agreed
I don't see how the SCOTUS could do anything but incorporate, based on the arguments I've seen.


I'm wondering if they will take a different view from the Slaughter-House standards. THAT would be monumental, and VERY interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
57. I'm from California too, and I have no trouble distinguishing between good people and bad people
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
13. That's all we need
how did Gore lose several states? Aren't there enough important things to solve before guns and abortion come up? Geez.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. "how did Gore lose several states?"

Won't you tell us?

The tale is always better the 87th time around. And it will be just as false, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
safeinOhio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
21. BMI source equal to FOX or any other right wing crap
Not that they might misquoter her, I'd like to see this some where else to believe that it is not some twisted quote to attack renown progressive

The Business & Media Institute (BMI) was founded in 1992 as the Free Market Project by the conservative media watchdog group Media Research Center. BMI describes itself as an organization "devoted solely to analyzing and exposing the anti-free enterprise culture of the media." <1>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Business_%26_Media_Institute
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. "twisted quote to attack renown progressive"

Where were you seeing the possibility of that??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. How did they fake the video? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
34. Outright restrictions on ANYTHING are wrong
Guns, weed , whatever.

They're against human nature and thus they are always destined to fail.

And if someone says they support the 2nd amendment and still support the issuance of concealed handgun licenses, they don't really support the 2nd amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #34
102. I don't know about that...
Personally, I think licensing concealed carry is perfectly okay, as long as there are no restrictions on open carry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
37. not surprising and i am fine with disagreeing with rachel on SOME stuff
i can;t think of anybody i agree with on everything. sad that she doesn't support self-empowerment and the constitution.

also sad in that , as a lesbian herself, she should be well aware that certain groups (such as out homosexuals) are often prone to violent attacks. firearms are a great equalizer in that regards. that goes double for women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #37
44. awwww

certain groups (such as out homosexuals) are often prone to violent attacks. firearms are a great equalizer in that regards. that goes double for women.

Double the crocodile tears. We little women thank you from the bottoms of our hearts.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
41. If you have one, keep it. No new sales of guns or ammo though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. if you have an internet connection
keep it. no new internet connections.

if you own a copying machine, keep it.

no new copy machines, though.

after all, 1st amendment rights are dangerous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raimius Donating Member (201 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #47
55. No new cars
clunkers for all!
No new ink, paper, or toner either! Your 1st Amendment rights are not infringed if we ban items necessary for written communication, are they?
/sarcasm

Pretty weak argument, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #41
58. No guns for poor people
:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 03:47 AM
Response to Reply #58
105. Or left-handed people
Until fairly recently, nobody bothered to make handguns with a full set of controls (including the slide stop) usable by southpaws, and even now, there's no more than a handful: the H&K P2000, the S&W M&P, the Charter Arms Southpaw, the H&K P7 (though that one's no longer in production), the Wilson ADP, the SIG P250... that's about it. If you want something you can mount CTC laser grips on, the M&P is your only option (so guess what I own?).

Similarly, I think Stag is the only company that manufactures left-handed ARs (though I'm right eye-dominant, so I shoot long guns right-handed), and they've only been around since 2004, I think.

For left-handers in particular, the idea that one handgun or rifle is interchangeable with any other is utterly ludicrous. In addition, production of new firearms means there's incentive for innovation, for producing new models with safety features that older models don't have. If handgun production had been halted in the mid-1980s, say, the overwhelming majority of handguns in private hands wouldn't be drop-safe, a safety feature that has helped significantly in cutting down on unintended discharges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
solinvictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #105
141. HK
On their USP series ( I own one ) , you can move the controls for a left hand shooter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #141
171. H&K do make some guns that fit the bill, but not the USP
At the risk of seeming pedantic, I did specify the slide stop lever as well, and that the USP does not have. But to give H&K their due, the P2000, P30 and P45 all do have ambi slide stops, and I have a soft spot for H&K for being one of the first mainstream gun manufacturers to take an interest in the needs of left-handed shooters. (Unfortunately, that fondness does not translate to being able to afford their products.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #41
65. Let me know how that works out for you NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #41
75. If you've already had a trial by jury fine, the verdict stands, but no more such trials
they are just too likely to put murderers back on the street, which (you guessed it) puts the children at risk.

Can't we do away with trial by jury, for the children?

You don't hate children do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
59. Her nasty little authoritarian streak surfaces once in a while
This is one of those occasions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. if only we could think of some other occasions

Funny how the left is right about everything except this.

And the right is wrong about everything except this.

Quite a puzzler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
61. She's a bright lady but she's wrong on this issue.
She's a fighter but she's willing to give up this right? Doesn't make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. wow, could you be more patronizing?

"Bright" "lady"?

Yech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. How is that patronizing, oh wise one?
I can't wait to hear your thoughts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. I'm not surprised

that you would think it perfectly reasonable to characterize a grown woman with an obviously steel-trap mind as "bright". A word commonly used to describe children and protégés. I wonder how often people describe, oh, Keith Olbermann as "bright"?

"Lady"? That one's patronizing by definition.

You didn't need my thoughts. You just need to do a little of your own thinking.

Not surprisingly, it's a term often applied to Hillary Clinton. (And, interestingly, Monica Lewinsky.) I wonder how often people described Bill Clinton as "bright". Or by some patronizingly euphemistic term like "lady" ... oh wait, there isn't one for men ... because there's just nothing wrong with calling a man a man.

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. I figured as much.
I don't see any childish attachments to the word "bright" I use the word often in response to someone or someone's thoughts.

Lady is patronizing? Not to me, it's polite. If you feel differently, that's your opinion.

Not surprising you would have a problem with it.

Don't worry, no one will ever call you a lady. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. it's really quite odd

how some people seem to think that this sort of thing:

Don't worry, no one will ever call you a lady.

is insulting.

I understand perfectly that the word is nothing but an expression of patriarchal and mysogynist baggage stereotyping women, and I'm supposed to be insulted if the word isn't used to describe me?

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #72
82. Actually it has to do with class.
And if you're ok with having no class....well good luck with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #82
124. "No class" includes missing the point on purpose, adding insults, OPing in another Forum to Call Out
the poster, violating DU Rules, feigning innocence and starting a poll to "ask" what you have stated here is your stubborn and obnoxious attitude.

:evilfrown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piwi2009 Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #71
92. I guess these types of hyper-sensitive hair trigger feminists

won't settle for anything less than "woman." Then they see the word "man" in there, and get pissed all over again. Wait-to-let people know just how to get your goat!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #92
96. Oh look!

It's a nobody!

I hear faint noise ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #92
98. Welcome to DU
:hi:

Don't mind iverglas, that's just her way. She bites everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #98
125. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #125
131. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #131
146. I am sure the sting of your disapproval will persist for many, many seconds
Minutes, even!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrCory Donating Member (862 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #131
152. How Is It That Such an Intelligent Person...
Has such difficulty following simple rules?

"Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board."

I look forward to your explaination as to how this is NOT a personal attack:

"iverglas (1000+ posts) Sat Sep-05-09 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #125
131. you are vile

beyond words."







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #152
155. you may want to check the rules

and how they might apply to posts calling women bitches. Not to mention the simple vileness of the post to which I replied.

And then consider the maxim about pots and kettles, and how you might be focussing a little too hard on a nicely burnished kettle and completely ignoring the big honking burnt-out pot in your eye. If I might mix the metaphors just a little.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrCory Donating Member (862 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #155
172. Is that your defense?
I would expect the "he/she did it first" from a child. There are methods for dealing with this issue available to you that do not require breaking rules.

"Not to mention the simple vileness of the post to which I replied."

Please reference where the rules of conduct permit a personal attack should you consider the contents of a post disagreeable.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piwi2009 Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #152
157. "" How is this not a perosonal attack "you are vile beyond words"

Iverglas would say he called me an adjective, not a name. Technicalities and splitting the split hair. We women know how it is. LOL we do a lot of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #157
159. we women

know that you are nothing of the kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piwi2009 Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #159
162. You know I am nothing of the kind what?

You trying to tell me I'm a man, even though I'm the one who should know? If you've got that kind of all seeing power, why don't you tell me something I can actually use--like next Wed's Powerball numbers?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #71
134. all ladies are women, but not all women are ladies
just as all gentlemen are men, but not all men are gentlemen.

i also have respect for politeness, manners, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #69
77. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #77
81. Zing!
Way to knock it out of the park!

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #81
85. yes indeed, that Keith Olbermann

He's a bright gentleman.

Way to keep making yourself look like a fool.

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off&num=30&q=%22a+bright+lady%22&meta=&fp=453f837c80fa8500

Results 1 - 30 of about 169,000 for "a bright lady".

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off&num=30&q=%22a+bright+gentleman%22&meta=&fp=453f837c80fa8500

Results 1 - 30 of about 3,100 for "a bright gentleman".


Oh look. Aren't you the clever clogs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9015951

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #77
83. gotta love old Sam'l

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
- Mark Twain
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #69
136. Keith Olbermann is a bright guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #136
138. I'd call him a sharp kid
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #64
135. You are a bright lady.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
76. Fortunately the constitution didn't put our rights in Rachel Maddows hands
If she doesn't want a gun at her house, then by all means don't purchase one, or allow anyone in to your house with one. That is absolutely your right.

Just don't try to infringe on anyone elses right to make their own decisions.

Kind of like opposing abortions is fine, not getting one is fine, trying to prevent someone else from getting one, well that's a problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
90. She wants to force people to shoot guns. Whatever?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piwi2009 Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
94. I'm going to ignore this lady and cling to my Charter Arms .38

I thought liberals stood up for the weak against the strong. And few things are more vulnerable than a woman on her own, with no man, physically weaker, living in a bad part of town. I like the idea of her having a powerful weapon on her side. If someone's coming through my window, there's gonna be a shooting before there's a rape.

The NRA may well consist of a bunch of half crazed lunatics, but liberals are wrong to take that out on guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #94
99. Welcome to DU...
Edited on Fri Sep-04-09 12:17 AM by spin
good luck and my best wishes that you never have to use your weapon. Be sure to get some practice just in case.

And if, God forbid, you do encounter an intruder I hope you survive the incident unharmed. An armed and capable woman is probably a rapist's worst nightmare.

edited for typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #99
107. rape rape rape

A fate worse than death, it seems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #107
108. Rape, rape,rape
A fate worse than death, it seems.

I'm guessing you'll never know.

Why are you so fixated on this topic (rape)? Is there some fetish you're not telling us about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #108
109. I'm guessing you're not guessing at all

And I'm thinking you should stfu.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrCory Donating Member (862 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #109
151. Yet Another Example...
Of "the rules for thee but not for me"?

"Do not tell someone, "shut up,..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #151
156. of your choosing to misrepresent?

Yup.

Not to mention the simple vileness of the post I was replying to ... and your failure to exhibit any concern about that.

You're quite a piece of work, aincha?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrCory Donating Member (862 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #156
173. Misrepresent?
Are you suggesting "stfu" doesn't mean what we all know it to mean?

"Not to mention the simple vileness of the post I was replying to ... and your failure to exhibit any concern about that."

Irrelevant. You could have referred to the post as vile, not the author.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #108
120. I think she has posted that she has been a rape victim. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #120
121. On the other hand, she's never died
Accepting that death is "the undiscovered country from whose bosom no traveler returns," we have no way of knowing whether anything is a fate worse than death, because we have no way of knowing how bad death is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #121
122. WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND HERE?

Someone do this one a favour and PM him notification of this.

If a poster at DU has another poster "ON IGNORE", that poster DOES NOT THEN persist in posting offensive personal commentary -- or ANYTHING AT ALL -- ABOUT the poster they claim to have on ignore.

And I will report every such post and require that it be removed. At some point, I assume that persistent intentional violation of forum rules will result in sanctions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #122
127. you cause a lot of your own problems by being so nasty to people NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #127
132. when I'm talking to you

you will know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #132
137. Now don't start whining about people commenting on your posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #132
170. I'm sure I will. I just won't pay any attention NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piwi2009 Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #127
161. They can call me names, disapprove, opine to their hearts' content,
Edited on Sun Sep-06-09 08:02 PM by Piwi2009
as long as I can own my gun. Rachel Maddow isn't seriously proposing any new laws here and doesn't have any legislative power anyway. I only have this to say to her "Shoo, fly."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #108
123. for you and your friends
Edited on Fri Sep-04-09 06:24 PM by iverglas

with acknowledgement to spin for the handy reference:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=252089&mesg_id=252422


The odds are that any woman you come into contact with - socially, at work, at retail, in the movie lineup - has been the victim of a sexual assault.

This would cause decent human beings to pause before addressing vile pig-ignorant crap like:

Why are you so fixated on this topic (rape)? Is there some fetish you're not telling us about?

to any woman, ever, anywhere.



html fixed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #107
110. National Rape Statistics (United States)...
National Rape Statistics
• In the United States, over 70% of all rapes go unreported. (1)
• The United States has the highest rate of rape of any country that publishes such statistics; 13 times higher than
Great Britain and 20 times higher than Japan. (2)
• In 2000, there were 261,000 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault. (1)
• Of these 261,000, 114,000 were victims of sexual assault, 55,000 were victims of attempted rape, and 92,000
were victims of completed rape. (1)
• Approximately 62% of female rape victims knew their assailant. (1)
• Approximately 43% of victims are raped by a friend or acquaintance; 34% by a stranger; 17% by an intimate; and
2% by another relative. (1)
• 61% of rape victims were sexually assaulted before the age of 18. (3)
• 21.6% of women who reported being raped during their lifetime were under age 12 at the time of their first rape.
32.4% of these women were 12-17 years of age. Therefore, over half of all female rape victim/survivors surveyed
in this study were under the age of 18 at the time of their first rape. (4)
• Age 12-34 are the highest risk years. Risk peaks in the late teens: girls 16 to 19 are four times more likely than
the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault (1).
• Among people 12 and older, about 83.5% of the US population is white, and 82.5% of rape victims are white;
13.3% of victims are black, compared to 12.3% of the population; and 4.2% of both victims and the population are
of other races. (1)
• Blacks are about 10% more likely to be attacked than whites. In 2000, there were 1.1 victimizations per 1,000
white people, and 1.2 victimizations per 1,000 black people. (1)

http://www.sccadvasa.org/articles/63.pdf


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. faascinating

Are most "home invaders" there to commit a sexual assault, or to acquire property by theft, along with threats or violence if thought necessary or desirable?

You were the one who raised the "rape" cry in the post to which I replied. Why is that what would spring to mind when speaking to a woman and advising her about the dangers that lurk in the night?

Most women and girls who are sexually assaulted are acquainted with, or related to, the offender.

Most "home invaders" are not there to commit a sexual assault.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #111
113. Actually I was replying to Piwi2009 who said in post #94...
"If someone's coming through my window, there's gonna be a shooting before there's a rape."

So I didn't initially "raise the rape cry".

Be that as it may, the most interesting part of the statistics to me was the fact that:

• 61% of rape victims were sexually assaulted before the age of 18. (3)
• 21.6% of women who reported being raped during their lifetime were under age 12 at the time of their first rape.
32.4% of these women were 12-17 years of age. Therefore, over half of all female rape victim/survivors surveyed
in this study were under the age of 18 at the time of their first rape. (4)


Just damn. How anyone could molest a young girl is beyond my comprehension. Obviously there are a lot of really sick bastards out there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #113
114. I beg your pardon

I actually missed that. Obviously, your response is not as bizarre as it looked. Er, didn't look.

It is Piwi2009's bona fides that I must question, obviously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #114
117. No problem...
I've often posted about the incident that my daughter was involved in where she stopped an intruder breaking into our home by pointing a large caliber revolver at him. And you have often questioned the incident. I always considered that was fair as all too often people on the internet forums make up stories.

So your mistake is easy to understand.

Have fun irritating Piwi2009. She's new to the the Gungeon and you provide a challenge for all new posters and many long term posters. It should be interesting.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piwi2009 Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #113
126. Statistics don't matter if someone's coming through the window
If some bastard is breaking in the house, I don't say 'Well, guess this makes me the .0001% of home invasions that involve a rape" or whatever the stat might be. I'm thinking I need some serious firepower on my side for those 10 minutes it will take the police to get here. If that. I used to work for the police, and if the public had only known how short-handed we were some nights, they'd have been pretty dismayed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #126
130. dawg knows what you're on about

What you said was:

If someone's coming through my window, there's gonna be a shooting before there's a rape.

Women don't actually think like that. Not women I know. A woman hearing a break-in at her home at night does not immediately think "oh, no, I'm going to be raped". Your post reflected pornographic male fantasy more than any real woman's thought process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piwi2009 Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #130
165. "women don't think like that, not women I know"

Well, you don't know every woman, do you. Pretty arrogant. That reminds me of Pauline Kael, who said "How could Reagan have won---nobody I knew voted for him!" Women aren't monolithic, not even liberal or democratic women.

There's a lot of us prochoice,pro gay and pro gun rights women out here. You can hope for a smaller and smaller circle of people if you like and try to weed us out of the circle. But we're not going away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #165
176. pay attention

There's a lot of us prochoice,pro gay and pro gun rights women out here. You can hope for a smaller and smaller circle of people if you like and try to weed us out of the circle. But we're not going away.

What the fuck does that have to do with WHAT I SAID, which was that you chose to raise the rape flag as your justification for firearms in homes? --

If someone's coming through my window, there's gonna be a shooting before there's a rape.

Nothing, that's what.

Besides being incomprehensible gibberish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piwi2009 Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #113
129. Even if the statistic is as small as .00001%, I don't want to be that one.

I don't want to be raped even once. Maybe a gun would help.
So how much leeway are we to be granted, in the hopes of not being that .0001. Rachel Maddow would say ABSOLUTELY NONE! No right at all. I'm gonna ignore her. She will just have to learn to live with disappointment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #111
116. Why does "rape" fascinate you so much? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #116
119. post 94

If someone's coming through my window,
there's gonna be a shooting before there's a rape.



Why does "rape" fascinate you so much?

My question exactly - to that poster and all the other men whose fixation on the subject is in such evidence hereabouts.


No woman I know is going to be thinking "rape" if someone comes through her window. She's going to be thinking "injury", and most especially "death". Just like most men. Isn't that odd?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
101. Well, that's her opinion
And that's where it should stay. She lives in Massachusettes, which is heavy on gun control. I'm sure that brings her comfort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #101
118. Often people who live in very liberal states...
with strict gun laws, oppose firearm ownership. Since they have little contact with gun owners but often read of the violence committed with firearms in their local area, they suffer severe misconceptions about responsible gun owners.

People who live the in more gun friendly states have far more contact with gun owners including people with concealed carry permits. They have a different attitude toward gun owners as they constant are in contact with them.

Before I retired I worked for a company where the majority of my co-workers owned firearms. Some were hunters and used their weapons for hunting deer and hog. But most owned firearms for self defense and a surprising percentage had concealed carry permits.

We used to have tech reps from Massachusetts come into our facility to test and certify our equipment. I always had fun talking to them about firearms. Sometimes I would ask my co-workers to show them their concealed carry permits. They were not sure how to handle the fact that they were surrounded by people who could legally carry a concealed firearm. Then I mentioned that just down the street was a shooting range where they could rent fully auto weapons and "rock and roll."

They never bothered to visit the range. Instead they played golf.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piwi2009 Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #118
128. Hit it right on the head!
If they live in the big cities where gun crime is commonplace, violent and visibly black (as Clarence Page said) that's gonna distort their views. Guns are bad, BAD!

Out of those venues, guns aren't so bad. You might even call them good. People shoot them for fun even, to hone their skills. I liked how I got better and better with practice. I want to get better still.

Actually, its not even that guns are good or bad. They're simply powerful.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OttavaKarhu Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
112. She's rich. She has cops and security guards protecting her.
She thinks nothing bad can never happen to her because her daily round of life and work is so well bastioned against what most people have to live with.

Amazing how a woman who benefitted so much from the right to privacy at home, and the doing of formerly illegal acts (I refer to her sexual expressions) in that venue, is so eager to take away others' right to privacy with legal acts in their homes.

That is the problem with liberalism now. It's the same kind of thinking, just different categories. No wonder we're going to be used as floor cleaner in 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #112
115. I am pro gun rights and your comments make me cringe.
I don't think you will be around long but "WELCOME TO DU!".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
140. People are going to take this waaaaaay wrong but,
I think it is absolutely insane for a person of Jewish descent to support ANY gun control law
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #140
143. here's an idea

Why don't you tell Rachel Maddow that, and let us know what her response is?

No need to talk about her behind her back. Do it to her face, or at least her email account, and let her be the one to tell you what a foul twit you are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #143
144. I wondered where you were How's your weekend going? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #140
145. This may help explain why they do...
The effort to call Jews to arms in self defense could have significant, and troubling, effects on our society. Arming ourselves to the teeth in a quest to protect our community would be questionably effective in accomplishing its goals, but it would undoubtedly lead to a greater balkanization within the United States. We would alienate ourselves from the larger society, and we would be seen (correctly in this case) as arming ourselves in direct opposition to those with whom we share this country. Just as most of us would be dismayed to see the African-American community or the gay and lesbian community self-segregate and stockpile weapons, so would the rest of America view Jews who did the same with suspicion and fear. The inadvertent but inescapable effect would be heightened incidents of prejudice, vandalism, and hate-fueled violence.

Our tradition calls for each of us to participate in tikkun olam, repair of the world. For us to insist that America's culture of gun violence — and the epidemic of killing that it has wrought — is important to us only as it effects our fellow Jews is to turn our backs on the rest of America. Admittedly, addressing society's problems is an overwhelming and perhaps unattainable goal, but our tradition demands no less. It is not up to us to complete the task, but neither are we free to desist from it.

We face a critical time: a period of unprecedented technology, of wondrous prosperity, and yet of great fear. We can choose to turn inward as a community, to protect only ourselves and our narrow interests, or we can look beyond our community, into our nation and our world, seeking common solutions, and working for the general welfare. The latter is the much harder path, but I believe that it is the one that will provide our children a better world, the one to which we as Jews are committed, and the one to which we should all rededicate ourselves. Let that commitment be our resolution for the new year.

Note: This op-ed ran in Jewish newspapers nationwide.

http://rac.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=935


In my opinion misguided and very foolish. The Jews in Israel don't seem to have a lot of problems with firearms.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #145
147. you really want to go there?

The Jews in Israel don't seem to have a lot of problems with firearms.

I mean, I'm rather astounded that you would say such a simply bizarre thing. A lot of people who collectively use firearms and other force to occupy territory that isn't theirs "don't seem to have a lot of problems with firearms". Good grief. What is your point?


http://www.pointsofjew.com/2005/10/more_jew_on_jew.html
<from The Jewish Telegraph>Shraga Rosenberg will now face trial for intent to cause grievous bodily harm and inflict permanent disablement after a late night confrontation with three recent French immigrants.

Rosenberg, a prominent member of the English-speaking community in Beit Shemesh, claimed to have acted out of self-defence.

He faced a charge of murder before reaching a plea bargain with the state prosecutor.

The prosecution and defence agreed that an inebriated Rosenberg encountered friends Yonatan Atlan, 22, and Yonatan and Yigal Hayat, 24 and 20, in the early hours of Saturday, April 16, while out for a walk.

An argument broke out and Rosenberg, a civil guard volunteer, shot his CZ pistol three times.
One of those who he shot, Yonatan Atlan said: "I don't want to go back to France, but I feel like Israel is more dangerou. What happened to me is like what happens in Harlem or the Bronx. There is violence in France, but people here in Israel are crazy."

One of the comments is from the sister of Yoni Atlan; she reported that he was now blind in one eye and in rehab, and had returned to France.

Seems like some Jews in Israel have problems with firearms. Pretty much the same problems people all over the world have with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #147
149. The problem in that area of the world may well be insolvable...
Edited on Sun Sep-06-09 07:13 PM by spin
and I can offer no solutions nor do I expect any solutions will be found.Who is at fault? Can you blame the Jews because the The United Nations decided to partition Palestine? Can you blame the Palestinians who were displaced?

If I were living in Israel, I definitely would want to own a firearm for self protection. If I were a Palestinian who had been displaced, I definitely would want to own a firearm to resist the Israelis.

But there is truth to the fact that if you allow people to own firearms, tragic accidents will occur. If you allow people to drive cars, some idiot will get drunk and kill some innocent people. I know many people will state that comparing firearms and cars is like comparing atom bombs and apples. They base their argument on the fact that guns are designed only to kill and cars are design to transport. I argue that the primary purpose of a firearm is recreation, hunting, collecting and self defense. True, a firearm could be said to be designed to kill. For example to kill an animal while hunting or to kill in self defense. It was not designed to murder, which is a misuse of the firearm. A car was not designed to murder either, but it can be misused to accomplish that purpose. A car can be considered a deadly weapon if someone decides to attempt to run over another individual.

Would you suggest disarming all Israelis to prevent tragedy like the one you mentioned? The Palestinians would like that.

Actually Israel has fairly strict gun laws which the anti-gun groups should examine.


a. Part-time reservist (volunteer) for 3 years- may own 1 handgun
b. Such a reservist (volunteer) is a member of a gun club- may own 1rifle
c. Professional, licensed public transportation driver, transporting a minimum of 5 passengers- may own 1 handgun
d. Licensed animal control officer- may own 2 hunting rifles, *not*full automatic weapons, or semi-automatic weapons with a limited capacity magazine.
e. Full-time dealer of jewelry or large sums of cash or valuables-may own 1 handgun
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/israel-firearms.htm


And some pro-gun people would like parts of the law in Israel also:

Here in Israel, where weapons permits are issued to those that need them, and are limited to a single weapon per person, there is no such thing as concealed carry.

Or open carry.

Weapons permits for private citizens are granted as Carry Permits.

So you can chose based on fashion, comfort, tactics, or personal preference how you want to carry your weapon. As long as you have your valid Carry Permit and ID on your person, you can legally carry just about anywhere in the country.

I've carried my pistol openly in government offices, military installations, malls, supermarkets, sports arenas, and synagogues. I've even been to political functions and open carried with our current Prime Minister in the room.


At the cell phone counter
How's that for a patriotic custom pistol on the salesman?
http://doubletapper.blogspot.com/2009/08/open-carry-israel.html


But my main point is that Jews is Israel have a far different viewpoint on firearms that those in the United States. In this case I was not arguing for or against firearm ownership or carry, just merely replying to a post that said "I think it is absolutely insane for a person of Jewish descent to support ANY gun control law."

I merely posted an op-ed that ran in many newspapers and explained how many Jews in the United States feel.And I mentioned the Jews in Israel have a different view.

{edited for html error




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #145
148. Extremely foolish given history NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #148
150. Some Jews support RKBA...
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership or JPFO is a 4,000 member<1> group dedicated to the preservation of gun rights in the United States and "to encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for everyone". The group was founded by former firearms dealer Aaron Zelman in 1986. The JPFO interprets the Second Amendment as recognizing a pre-existing natural right of individuals to keep and bear arms. They point out the link between gun control and government sponsored genocide. Members do not have to be Jewish. The only membership requirement is support of the United States Constitution and United States Bill of Rights, with a specific focus upon the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

JPFO publishes the "Gran'pa Jack Freedom Booklets" and offers videos, documentaries

, T-shirts and other items. Their lapel pin is a star of David with the JPFO symbols in gold-tone. JPFO is noted for producing materials (bumper stickers, posters, billboards, etc.) with messages that equate gun control with totalitarianism. The most famous of these are the "All in favor of Gun Control raise your right hand" materials, which features a drawing of Hitler giving a Nazi salute.<2>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_the_Preservation_of_Firearms_Ownership


On their website they advertise themselves as America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership.The website is at http://www.jpfo.org/

Obviously this group understand history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #150
153. To me
a Jewish person that supports gun control is like a chicken that thinks Col. Sanders was an alright guy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #153
154. Good point. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #153
160. to me

a Jewish person that supports gun control is like a chicken that thinks Col. Sanders was an alright guy

Those are the words of an ignorant bigot. Any reason you're spewing those words here? Surely you're not an ignorant bigot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #160
163. Not I dear
I was stationed in Germany my first tour, My Battery Commander drug us all to Dachau as an object history lesson. We also did a border tour. I've seen what happens when only the State has guns.

Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.
Heinrich Himmler, head of the Waffen SS

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piwi2009 Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #163
166. I understand your point

Why do Jews resonate so much to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. It can't be because the Jews were calling the nazis nasty names. It must be because the Jews were SHOOTING BACK-- and making them spill some of their blood for a change. What else can you do to a nazi?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #166
167. Warsaw Ghetto uprising...
January 1943 rebellion

On January 18, 1943, the Germans began their second deportation of the Jews, which led to the first instance of armed insurgency within the ghetto. While Jewish families hid in their "bunkers", Jewish Military League (Żydowski Związek Wojskowy, ŻZW), joined by elements of the Jewish Combat Organization (Żydowska Organizacja Bojowa, ŻOB) fighters engaged the Germans in two direct clashes.<13> Even though the ŻZW and ŻOB suffered heavy losses (including some of the leaders of both organizations, among them Yitzhak Gitterman), the deportation was halted within a few days; only 5,000 Jews were removed instead of the 8,000 as planned by Globocnik. There were hundreds of people in the Warsaw ghetto ready to fight, adults and even children, scarcely armed with handguns, gasoline bottles and a few other weapons that had been smuggled into the ghetto by the resistance fighters.<3>

Two resistance organizations, the Jewish Military Union (Żydowski Związek Wojskowy, ŻZW) and the ŻOB took control of the Ghetto. They built dozens of fighting posts and executed individuals who collaborated with the Germans, including Jewish Police officers, members of German-sponsored and controlled Żagiew organization as well as the Gestapo agents (like Judenrat member Dr Alfred Nossig on 22 February 1943).<14> The ŻOB established a prison to hold and execute traitors and collaborators.<15> Józef Szeryński, the former head of the Jewish Police, committed suicide in hiding.<16>

****snip****

The Ghetto fighters (numbering some 400 to 1,000 by April 19) were armed, if at all, mostly only with pistols and revolvers, which were of limited value in combat and were practically useless at larger distances; just a few rifles and automatic firearms smuggled into the Ghetto were available. The insurgents had little ammunition, and relied heavily on improvised explosive devices and incendiary bottles; more weapons were supplied throughout the uprising or captured from the Germans. Some weapons were hand-made by resistance: sometimes such weapons worked, other times they jammed repeatedly.

****snip****

Ultimately, the efforts of the Jewish resistance fighters proved insufficient against the German forces. The Germans eventually committed an average daily force of 2,090 well-armed troops, including 821 Waffen-SS Panzergrenadier troops (consisting of five SS reserve and training battalions and one SS cavalry reserve and training battalion), as well as 363 Polish Blue Policemen, who were ordered by the Germans to cordon the walls of the Ghetto.<22>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_ghetto_uprising


Another interesting tidbit of history:

Deacons for Defense: true story of armed resistance

The Scene. It is the mid-1960s in Bogalusa, Louisiana, 60 miles northeast of New Orleans, and the Ku Klux Klan is up in arms. Literally.

After years of struggle undeterred by billy clubs, fists, guns and white-supremacist mobs, the civil rights movement had finally wrung the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act out of Congress. But there is no evidence of this victory in Bogalusa. And city politicians, businessmen and their gun-toting KKK cronies mean to keep it that way.

****snip****

Marcus and his coworkers hold a meeting. (In life, this meeting occurred not in a church, as the movie places it, but at the Black labor hall.) It does not take long for these disciplined union men and war veterans to form an organization of self-defense that is willing and able to meet force with force — the Deacons for Defense and Justice.
Ossie Davis, playing a well-meaning liberal minister to the hilt, urges the men to disavow any kind of violence. He offers to meet with the mayor and get that worthy to "guarantee the safety of the Negro people," in return for which he will see to it that no more rallies take place in front of City Hall.

No way, the Deacons say. They elect officers and begin buying citizen band radios for their roving car patrols. With the help of longshoremen in New Orleans, they also lay in guns and ammunition.

Pacifism vs. self-defense. A common KKK terror tactic was to send carloads of men speeding through the Black community and firing guns into homes. After one of these nightriding attacks, the Deacons return fire. The Klan speeds away, and that is the end of nightriding in Bogalusa. Says the minister to Marcus later, "Fear of the Klan made me less than a man. You freed me, son."
http://www.socialism.com/fsarticles/vol24no1/review.html







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #148
158. you have all the foul gun militant talking points down pat, don't you?

Yup, you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #158
164. Of course, I'm a foul gun militant NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #145
174. The author touches on some valid points, but fails to identify them
Just as most of us would be dismayed to see the African-American community or the gay and lesbian community self-segregate and stockpile weapons, so would the rest of America view Jews who did the same with suspicion and fear.

I can't argue with that assessment, but note that the author has slipped in the element of self-segregation, which--to my mind--is where the real source of distrust would lie. Yes, I'd be quite leery of any group that withdrew itself into enclaves and refused to associate with the rest of society, but that's to some extent distinct from members of that group arming themselves. Take the Pink Pistols; while they're proponents of GLBTs arming themselves against gay-bashers, they don't require you to be GLBT to wear the t-shirt. In other words, while they may arm themselves, they don't self-segregate, and thus don't contribute to any supposed Balkanization.

The author's previous sentence rather sticks in my craw as well:
We would alienate ourselves from the larger society, and we would be seen (correctly in this case) as arming ourselves in direct opposition to those with whom we share this country.

From my perspective, as a non-Jew who grew up in a city that has a neighborhood that recognizably used to be the Jewish quarter--until 1943, when the Nazis, aided by collaborationist local police, rounded up the inhabitants and shipped them off to points east, whence most did not return--I would not see any movement on the part of Jews to arm themselves as being "in direct opposition to those with whom we share this country"; rather, I'd see it as being directed against those who think they shouldn't have to share this country with Jews. Of whom I am not one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #174
175. I personally would have problem with Jews arming themselves...
and I don't believe that any of the other gun owners I know would either. All American citizens should be able to enjoy the rights our Constitution grants.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madville Donating Member (743 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
168. US Constitution debate aside, most gun laws are local and state
The Florida Constitution says individuals have the right to bear arms and the specific right to do so for self defense. Sounds good to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC