what's up with all the eerily freeper-esque threads here?

"guess which part of a gun this is"

"stop the liberal dems from banning .50 cals"

"confiscation of guns!holy mother of God!!"

"I guess ted nugent isn't as bad as I thought"

"Diane feinstein, she's gonna take my guns away".

Chuckles ... Dont worry bout them: Loud they are, but miniscule in number .....

and maximize the effect.

At least I think it was Goju who psted them.

Of the DU members that stopped by to vote, RKBA was in the clear majority.

A dime a dozen ....

Try this one; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1791620

The one where most of DU voted for small bits of gun control and "NO other regulation."

and properly disposed of ....

I'm just pointing out that your poll doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Could possibly have framed the argument against gun rights any clearer than that?

Hell sakes, Im 100% for gun rights and you about had ME voting to relinquish our rights after reading that diatribe.

They must be freepers.

but the term 'political subterfuge' comes to mind ....

Deception ... Pretense ...

Yeah ... those terms work ...

Seems only certain 'liberals' hate the Senator from California so utterly and completely ... and they always seem to congregate in one forum here at DU .....

Hmmmmmmmmmmm .....

We know the facts: ... DU has a very small sector of gun 'aficiandos' who promote an extreme RW view of gun rights .... and not much else ....

That is a fact ....

but the term 'political subterfuge' comes to mind ....

Deception ... Pretense ...

Yeah ... those terms work ...

Something like Republican Sarah Brady pushing for more gun control?


Seems only certain 'liberals' hate the Senator from California so utterly and completely ... and they always seem to congregate in one forum here at DU .....

Hmmmmmmmmmmm .....

Please. There's some threads up in GD about Feinstein, you should go read them. She's not well liked among plenty of DUers and not just pro-RKBAers.


We know the facts: ... DU has a very small sector of gun 'aficiandos' who promote an extreme RW view of gun rights .... and not much else ....

That is a fact ....

Only in your dreams. DU is far more pro-gun than pro-gun control folks and Republicans like to pretend. Most every gun thread/poll outside of the dungeon back that up.

Besides, gun control isn't a LW/RW issue, it's an authoritarian/not authoritarian issue. The only people parroting the LW/RW thing are pro-control folks in the LW who don't like that people disagree with them and pro-gun folks in the RW who are afraid people are going to start noticing RW politicians are a bunch of gun grabbers.

They dont deserve a response ...

<Only in your dreams. DU is far more pro-gun than pro-gun control folks and Republicans like to pretend. Most every gun thread/poll outside of the dungeon back that up.>

Again: I can count on two hands (well nearly) the number of 'gun aficiandos' who inhabit the Gungeon and preach their PRO NRA swill ...

Out of 50,000 DUers: a mere handful ...

Get a grip .... you think were are THAT stupid, dont you ? ...

Dont take us for fools: we can cipher ....

I can count on two hands the number of extreme PRO-RKBA DUers who post liberal perceptions and beliefs in other areas of DU ...

You exaggerate your fellow supporters by an immense factor ...

Out of 50,000 DUers: a mere handful ...

Do you truly believe that there are 50,000 DUers here?

You realize that the site runs a script that keeps on adding to the counter as new members sign-up. Out of those 50,000 how many have signed-up and never posted or only posted a few times? How many have signed-up then completely forgotten about the site? How many of them are duplicate accounts? How many have been tombstoned? Honestly, I have no idea what would be an accurate and a fair assessment of the number of people posting here, but I can almost certainly say that it's not 50,000 (I doubt even the mods and admins could make an accurate guess). Every web-forum I've ever read or posted on is the same way.

so: the moon 'only' weighs 90,000,000,000,000 tons and NOT 100,000,000,000,000 tons ? ...

Your argument is factual ... but the result still miniscule ...

You accuse one poster of "exaggeration" in order to make their point, then you turn around and "exaggerate" your numbers in order to make a point.

We have been through this TIME and TIME again: The Extremist PRO NRA contingent in DU represents a VERY small percentage of DU ....

Just as I am libearl, but wouldn't shed a tear if Diane feinstein and Hillary Clinton fell off the face of the Earth.

It's just not an "all or none" proposition. That being said, I prefer none when it comes to firearms control legislation. I think things were perfect in that area until 1934.

That Sarah Brady is a Republican that some Democrats, the pro-control ones, seem to like? It seems pretty clear that that is the case, so there's no need to respond to that one.

That Feinstein isn't particularly well liked even here at DU? Well you don't have to respond or take my word for it. Just look up some threads about Feinstein in GD.



Again: I can count on two hands (well nearly) the number of 'gun aficiandos' who inhabit the Gungeon and preach their PRO NRA swill

That's great. I can count on one hand the number of gun grabbers who are so devoted to gun grabbing that they say they wouldn't vote for Kerry if he became slightly pro-gun.


Out of 50,000 DUers: a mere handful ...

Please. We both know there aren't 50,000 posting DUers. By that logic I could say that there are a mere handful of gun control supporters here at DU.


Get a grip .... you think were are THAT stupid, dont you ? ...

Dont take us for fools: we can cipher ....

I have a grip and stupidity doesn't factor into this conversation.


I can count on two hands the number of extreme PRO-RKBA DUers who post liberal perceptions and beliefs in other areas of DU ...

You exaggerate your fellow supporters by an immense factor ...


Well I guess that would depend on how you define "extreme pro-RKBA." If you define it as getting rid of all gun laws, it's probably less than two hands worth of DUers. There are only 3 or 4 of us that post regularly that I can think of. Maybe a couple of others that haven't posted in a while.

The fact remains that the majority of DUers are pro-gun to one degree or another. Most of those pro-gun people support some degree of gun control. Some of them support quite a bit of gun control, from my point of view, but no more than most pro-RKBAers in either party do. You don't have to take my word for it, the evidence is there for everyone to see in the many gun threads that there have been up in GD and GD:C2004.

I understand the difficulty in holding a minority position on an issue, I'm in the minority myself when it comes to gun rights. Don't let it get you down, though. Just accept that most people disagree with you and are going to disagree with you no matter how hard you try to convince them otherwise.

"Again: I can count on two hands (well nearly) the number of 'gun aficiandos' who inhabit the Gungeon and preach their PRO NRA swill ...

Out of 50,000 DUers: a mere handful ... "

that you can count on one hand the number of pro gun control aficiandos' who inhabit the Gungeon and spew their pro Republican Sarah Brady swill.

reagan (1986 MG ban) and bush 41 (1989 import ban) neither of which have sunset clauses in them like AWB does. the repugs have a better record of gun grabbing than we do yet they skillfully blamed us for it all.

Every poll conducted has clearly showed that MOST DU'ers who responded support gun rights. And I cant speak for everyone, but MOST RKBA'ers do not promote an "extreme RW view of gun rights". They promote a sensible position on the 2nd and most support sensible gun rights.

Those are the real facts.

"support gun rights"

What EXACTLY does that mean ? ...

Hell: I support 'gun rights' ....

chuckles .... cmon .....

Such phraseology is prone to misstatement and false meaning: ... pin down your numbers and meanings ....

I 'support gun rights' as I support the waiting period, gun registration, the AWB and other regulatory initiatives ....

Jump through the reasonable hoops ? .. you get your gun .... therefore: you maintain the RKBA .....

PRO NRA speakers generally want ZERO regulations ... all are an affront to there extreme view of the 2nd Amendment ....

And THAT is where the problem is: SURE: WE here at DU 'support gun rights' as we ALSO support decent gun regulations ....

In case you really didnt understand, I was referring to the divide between gun rights vs gun control supporters in response to your ridiculous insinuation that DU is some bastion of gun control.

"We know the facts: ... DU has a very small sector of gun 'aficiandos' who promote an extreme RW view of gun rights .... and not much else ...."

Well, I guess you find arguing for the preservation of one's rights as a "RW view".

Deception ... Pretense ...

Yeah ... those terms work ...


Indeed they do

Dont worry i'll bring him tissue.
Tom

Since libs are suppopsed to be in favor of inclusion - which I am - we RKBA'ers find that we have to shout nearly as loudly within the 'family' as we shout against the cons in order to gain the acceptance of (or at least tolerance of) neoprogressives who are becoming self-appointed societal nannys.

Let's make a deal. You leave my RKBA alone and I'll not rail on "insert favorite ultra left position here" activists that act within the law.

Sounds fair to me. Should I give up chocolate ice cream because the ice cream facists are against the fat?

Most liberal democrats want to see strong gun regulation in our nation ...

No amount of yelling will change that fact ....

Unless, of course, you live in an ultra enclave. I've worked for the party for many years here. Very few Dems and Libs in this area favor any cun control at all except for hitting the target at the range or the game in the woods.

You really should get out more. Interact with live bodies that share different views on issues. Constant support on an issuse from a small clique of like-minded individuals can ccause the misperceptions you're laboring under.

qualifying term like "this area" underscore a focused subset which do not represent a whole by any stretch ....

EVERYONE 'in my household', 'on my street', 'in my church' loves guns .....

uh huh ....

To say that 'most' democrats or 'most' liberals support absolute gun rights, or RKBA in its most strict sense: is to speak utter nonsense ...

I refer you to your own words:

Most liberal democrats want to see strong gun regulation in our nation ...

To say that : is to speak utter nonsense ...<\b>

let's just susbtitute the first phrase for 'most' democrats or 'most' liberals support absolute gun rights, or RKBA in its most strict sense in the second quote from your posts.

It is this mindset (I'm absolutely right and you're absolutely wrong) that causes the greatest division within the liberal ranks regardless of the issue involved. Substitute welfare, public schools, etc. for RKBA and the problem is the same.

If Californians (NJ, CN, MA, D.C.) prefer strict gun control that's their right to throttle their own freedoms. To think that strict controls are a majority view is erroneous. I also remind you that there is a huge gray area between the two extremes.

Chuckles .... cmon: show me more of that 'liberal thinking' .....

Yeah: those damned citizens in CA and NJ are full of malarkey ! ....

Someone should shoot those bastards ! ....

Guess what: The polls are very clear on this: People of ALL types and political philosophies consider the current range of gun regulation IN PLACE to be reasonable .... Liberals even more so ...

Because the RW have control of government ....

We know someone by the company they keep ...

"The AWB is 'gone in 10 days' ...Because the RW have control of government"-Trajan

And all this time I thought it was because it had a sunset provision written into it before it was passed into law.

The sunset clause was one of several compromises needed to get it passed in 1994 when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.

The politicians, activists, and organizations that promote RKBA are overwhelmingly Republican and conservative. The politicians, activists, and organizations that promote gun control are overwhelmingly Democratic and progressive. Neither is entirely without exception, but that's the way the issue mainly runs.

I mean, there are Log Cabin Republicans too, but that doesn't make Gay Rights a Republican or conservative issue.

Oh wait, she's a Republican... :silly:

"Neither is entirely without exception, but that's the way the issue mainly runs."

Sarah Brady is the founder of the most prominent gun-control lobby (with several spinoffs) in the entire country and you want to call her the exception??? :crazy:

If not, then yeah, I'm comfortable with calling her an exception.

Zell Miller got to give the keynote address at the Republican national convention. He gets all kinds of attention. Would you say that prominence automatically makes him representative of other Democrats?

A more reasonable comparison for Sarah Brady would be Terry McAuliffe, who is another leader of a prominent organization. Would you consider him an exception?

Fascinating! Where do you get your information?

Thanks for pinch hitting whilst I was out running errands.

(See. Good people do things without being asked.)

:hi:

Let me get this straight. Since I support gay rights, abortion rights, and damn near every other item in the DNC platform, I must be a neocon plant because I believe in 2A rights.

That's rich.

Whatever happened to that all-inclusive party idea?

Awfully presumptious to assume that you are aware of what I know. I know a few things. I believe many things. Only I know the quantity and quality of each unless you're doing a Vulcan mind meld on me via the Internet. If that's the case, the signal got corrupted in the ether.

edited to add; Your argument is pretty good for a preadolescent. Try arguing with your head inseatd of your heart. It's more reasonable.

You are NOT a common liberal ....

Im not objecting to YOUR philosophy as a person: Im objecting to your claim that it is a mainstream liberal position ally itself with PRO Gun organizations and philosophies ....

Your OWN feelings about guns ? ... hey: have at'm ..

But DONT come int here and say "Most liberals support gun rights" ... in the deepest sense: then do not ....

As I said earlier: I CERTAINLY support the RKBA: but I support the REGULATIONS placed on their ownership, mind you, by the very representatives and senators whom the people have installed to do their bidding in the Congress of the United States, per the power vested in them by the US Constitution to create and pass legislation ...

There is nothing wrong with regulating arms ... a reasonable society does such things ....

to say that liberals, as a group, support the sunset of the AWB, for instance, cannot be considered credible by any stretch of the imagination ... likewise the other 'rational' legislation that is in place ....

It appears as though we may have to agree to disagree on this issue. I live in a rural area. It is indeed a rare household around here that doesn't have several friearms in it. The topic comes up at the coffee shop and various local political fora. I've not heard a single voice in favor of the AWB during those discussions.

Were I to hazard a guess, I would say that you likely live in an urban area. At any rate, you definitely don't seem to argue as one who resides in a rural area.

Insofar as the House and Senate are concerned: we all are aware that political animals live and die by opinion polls. Rural folk rarely have the opportunity to participate in them because most face-to-face polls I've seen happen in shopping malls. Telephone polls are rapidly losing ground because of no call lists.

Before you assume that country life is the only life I've known, you should know that I've lived and worked in 3 of the top 5 metropolitan areas, by population, in the U.S. i've semi-retired and moved back to the family farm because of the quiet and slower pace of life here.

Have you read the Dem National Platform lately?

http://www.democrats.org/platform/index.html

"We will help break the cycle of domestic violence by punishing offenders and standing with victims. We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do".

Compared to the 2000 platform?

http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html

"Strong and Sensible Gun Laws. A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them - in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners. The Columbine tragedy struck America's heart, but in its wake Republicans have done nothing to keep guns away from those who should not have them.

Democrats believe that we should fight gun crime on all fronts - with stronger laws and stronger enforcement. That's why Democrats fought and passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent.

Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks, to protect our children. We should require a photo license I.D., a full background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun in America. We support more federal gun prosecutors, ATF agents and inspectors, and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime".

Seems like 4 years has made some difference. Politics can be slow and difficult to change. Perhaps with a few more years of us "yelling", the party leadership (and platform), will abandon the foolish pipe-dream of gun control altogether.

The only part of the 2004 platform I have any real problem with is the "assault weapons" ban.

As for "closing the gun-show loophole", that's a weak approach to the actual underlying weakness in federal gun laws: The lack of any means for private individuals to be sure that a person to whom they wish to sell a gun is not a prohibited person. Dealing only with gun show transactions would be like sweeping the dust under the carpet.

"I guess ted nugent isn't as bad as I thought"?

...makes up shit.

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

The Thompson just looks weird with that long barrel.

it does make a nice substitute for our tiny penises. :+

The NFA is a blessing in disguise with it's minimum dimension requirements.

It says nothing about girth or tumescence. Which is more fulfilling or satisfatory... length or girth?

Personally, I think it's the person behind the trigger that counts most.

That's the short barrel. If 10.5" is a ahort penile compensator...

A large part of the Democratic party is RKBA. That part may not fit as neatly into the little liberal box as some folks may like, but supporting RKBA does not a freeper make.

usually dished out to 'pro gun' dems who like to talk crap about other dems.

Having been registered for all of two weeks here.

and listen to the gossip about the JPS forum. trust me, stroll thru the lounge and GD forums and tell me this isn't the highest-freeped forum.

I've seen at least two freepers tombstoned in GD today and none in JPS, so I'm not sure how you are getting 50% tombstones in JPS.

lotsa tombstones.

That still doesn't prove your point.

Make that at least 3 tombstones in GD now - just caught another one.

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

Silly freepers, so obvious.

moran

freepish topics in the JPS forum. seriously, gun porn? how about pics of kerry at a rally?

And I do like the "gun porn" topics. It help educate posters who would otherwise not know anything about guns or gun laws. More comprehensive knowledge to form an opinion is better for all. Even if it doesn't change your mind, it may help you think up legislation that actually does something to combat violent crime rather than banning things like bayonet lugs and unworkable grenade launchers.

As for Kerry rally pics, that is what GD:04 is for. I don't suppose you would put such pics in I/P would you?

Edit: Just so you know, I'm probably going to bed soon, it is getting tougher for me to write coherently so if I don't answer all of a sudden, I've gone to bed or I am asleep at the keyboard.

i dont think social rights are freeperish either, but this isnt one of them.

You invite others to do the same with the ones you cherish. The best policy is the protect all of them, even the ones you find offensive.

Additionally, there are certain posters I am unable to see for the purposes of civility and thus am unable to comment.

you can't expect others to just nod and smile.

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

But I can see why some regulars would want to ignore that too. Personally, I don't think much of the Ignore function. If I wanted to talk only to people who agree with me, I could argue with a tape recorder.

Please. Aside from links to news articles there's very little substance and much bluster.

But folks who have him on Ignore would have no way of knowing that, I'll grant you.

to make his points.

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

I lobbied againt the ignore feature when it was first introduced.

:toast:

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

My user name "back then" was the same as it is now.

Nice implication. Get a life.

edited to add: Just to satisfy your curiosity, I've been reading the threads through my wife's account for a couple of years or more. I really don't remember how long for sure. I finally decided to join because of all of the misdirection, misinformation, and untruths posted about the soon-to-expire AWB.

Not just for you, Skippy - but for all others involved in this "sport" here.

thanks

"the confiscation of guns begins."

etc. etc.

Gun confiscation has existed long before it started in Illinois.

I'm saying "Gun confiscation begins" is false because it started long ago.

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

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

"so I'm not sure how you are getting 50% tombstones in JPS."

EOM/

Maybe they are assault tombstones. :)

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

Funny, we don't seem to get freepers or disruptors arguing in favor of gun controls.

At least none that have been caught. A few gun grabbers have been tombstoned in the past.

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

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

I said not lately.

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

Not just you, LM, this goes for anyone involved in this exercise.

rule have both been around from quite some time. You may discuss the issue, but you can't name names.

isn't calling them out and it's not necessarily calling them conservative or a freeper. Besides, there must be a hundred posts a day across DU calling tombstoned folks conservative or freeper.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to abide by the rule, even if it is unwritten or stupid. This is private property after all. It would be kind of nice if it were uniformly enforced, though.

Also, you might want to delete their names from the profiles list to avoid future problems.

you know how it works - if we are aware of it, we act on the rule violation. In this case I spotted it, I dealt with it.

The context in which these names were discussed started in terms of them being disrupters. Then listing their names is calling them out. They have no way of defending themselves.

We do not delete names from the forum profile for a plethora of housekeeping reasons.

thanks

but they clearly weren't being referred to as disruptors. They were just pointed out as having been banned.

"...Quite a lot of posters come in, thunder about RKBA, get exposed as disrupters or freepers, and disappear beneath a tombstone around here. Funny, we don't seem to get freepers or disruptors arguing in favor of gun controls."

---from a deleted post in this thread

Please, let us lay this to rest now.

moderator hell. Please read back to my post - that you replied to, that sounded kinda lie this.

lunabush (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-07-04 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #86
111. Please don't post usernames of banned members

Not just you, LM, this goes for anyone involved in this exercise.

YOu then asked if this was a new rule, I explained the process. Can we be done now, please?

If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine. Like I said, I'm more than happy to follow the rules, even the dumb and rarely enforced ones, this being private property and all.

This is not the forum for discussion of rules. Calling out is a highly enforced rule. Those who venture out of the Gungeon would be pretty familiar with it - in here you can typically count on someone already being in the thread.

At any rate, I think we have exhausted the possibilities for discussion. We've determined the statement or reinforcement wasn't directed at you anyway so I fail to see the point in the nonsensical continuation of this sub-thread.

If you have a problem with the "dumb" call-out rule I suggest you take it to the site owners in the ATA forum.

I mean, I wouldn't say I'd like it and I'd hate to see you in moderator hell, but

This is not the forum for discussion of rules.

Well, you brought it up.

Those who venture out of the Gungeon would be pretty familiar with it

Yes, well I've been out of the dungeon and I am familiar with it, but no one was called out in this thread. At least not in any posts I wrote or read.


"At any rate, I think we have exhausted the possibilities for discussion. We've determined the statement or reinforcement wasn't directed at you anyway so I fail to see the point in the nonsensical continuation of this sub-thread."

Well, there's nothing else interesting going on at the moment, but if you'd rather not have a philosophical discussion on calling out banned members or posting their names or otherwise discussing them, that's fine. There are a few posts on the AWB/nuclear weapons up in LBN and GD:C2004 that could potentially be interesting.


If you have a problem with the "dumb" call-out rule I suggest you take it to the site owners in the ATA forum.

I don't have any particular problem with the call-out rule. It's certainly not dumb. It's the apparently unwritten rule of don't post names of banned people that's dumb. I don't know that I care enough to lobby for changing it, though. I mean, how often does it really come up?

Yes, I brought it up. sigh. I did so as a courtesy so that you and your adversary could continue the thread. Regrettably, that didn't seem to be of interest. I guess in the future I will just lock.

The top portion of the post (which I didn't include) of the post I presented to you contained 6 names of folks who were banned - all RKBAers. Can you see why I didn't include them? My apologies if you didn't read the post before I removed it - I believed up 'til this point that you had seen that post - might have cleared some of this up.

I don't have any particular problem with the call-out rule. It's certainly not dumb. It's the apparently unwritten rule of don't post names of banned people that's dumb. I don't know that I care enough to lobby for changing it, though. I mean, how often does it really come up?

Calling out is a written rule. DU, as a policy, does not discuss why an individual was banned. To allow members to discuss why a user is banned is calling out - and in this case user were called disrupters, even though no longer on the board. Again, those folks can't defend themselves. Perhaps you can call it philosophy -or, if you like, call it enforcement of an unwritten rule - its neither to me - its how we enforce that rule infringement.

How often does it come up? With tens of thousands of posts a week - more often than I would like to recall. I suppose I deal with the issue weekly.

Now, if I don't respond to you Feeb, understand its not entirely that I have bored of our chat, I have other fish to fry.

:7

peace

fortunately a number of AWB/agent orange threads have popped up all over the place. Somebody must have said something about the AWB on that TV thing I've heard so much about. No need to respond further if you're busy or whatever, but I still don't think talking about banned people or posting their names is calling them out.

with me. i wish i had the balls to take on a moderator...except that i agree with him and his progressive ideas about the RKBA, as far as i know.

Simply discussing certain aspects of the rules at DU. Definitions are very important.

We get right-wingers in here all the time, bloviating about RKBA and then vanishing like the trolls they are. But when anyone brings this up in a discussion of whether RKBA is a progressive stance, the RKBAers pretend that it isn't so. And it's apparently against the rules to trot out the facts of the matter.

if I am missing your point, pm me.

to go if you want to see a deflation of the Big Tent theory of the Democratic Party. A lot of "freepers" like to come here to egg this deflation on.

I have seen a lot of good posters here banned by intolerant "progressives" that are so incredibly closed-minded as to defy all belief.

GD:2004 has filled a couple of graveyards lately.

There are a lot of gun owning Democrats out there. Many of which take exception to the perception that the Democratic Party is anti gun. That perception is largely fostered (to good effect mind you) by the pubs, but there is a rather vocal segment of our party that really is vehemently anti-gun. I believe that that segment does a disservice to our party and hurts us electorally. I suspect that many other of the pro RKBA posters here share that belief and speak up, not because we have some thinly veiled freeperish agenda, but because we sincerely believe that the Democratic party is harmed by taking positions that can and are perceived as "anti-gun."

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

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

Make that seven, not six.

Someone's little brain exploding perchance? :shrug:

Better, right?

get banned. maybe theyre freepers, maybe theyre not. but their official title is "disrupter".

They have no bearing on what I advocate or how I advocate it.

It is a well known fact that freepers are intolerant to others if their beliefs and values are not the same as theirs. So all you have to do is check the posts where people are calling other people names because they don't agree with them, and chances are they are a freeper.

Keep track of which posters get banned after half-a-dozen posts or so and note their positions and rhetoric (which are quite consistent). Then see which better-established posters are arguing the same positions and talking-points. It's enlightening to compare the successful trolls with the unsuccessful ones.

score one for the pro regulation people...

A supporter of the individual interpretation of the second amendment who remains untombed? I'm sure my day is coming. ;)

For all we know these 10 post disruptors are really whiny gun grabbers who come in posting pro-gun stuff in an attempt to make the pro-gun side look bad. It is, after all, the pro-control side who keeps bringing up that a bunch of low post pro-gun folks keep getting tombstoned.

For all we know these 10 post disruptors are really whiny gun grabbers who come in posting pro-gun stuff in an attempt to make the pro-gun side look bad.

Somebody use his/her gold star and search for words like "wolf" and "sheep" and "clothing", and see just how many whiny gun grabbers turned out to be no such thing at all.

I don't have any recollection of the vicey versey happening ever.

But then maybe us whiny gun grabbers are just smarter about making ourselves blend in. Or maybe it's just harder for a loon to pretend successfully to be a reasonable, decent person than it is for a reasonable, decent person to pretend to be a loon ...


You'll have to find a "sheep in wolf's clothing" pic for that event ... if it ever occurs. I've tried, but all I can ever find is the standard

tombstoned people. So have you folks caught anymore Garand smugglers up there north of the border lately?

I'm glad you know what was on the minds of all those
tombstoned people.

I guess I'm just left saying ... wot the fuck are you talking about?

Plainly not about anything I said.

Of course, if you can quote anything I said that is, or amounts to, or bears any resemblance to, "I know what was on the minds of all those tombstoned people" (which tombstoned people??), I'm sure you'll do it.

If you'd like to get the practice you evidently need, on the other hand, you could always try quoting something I did say (and maybe even responding to it), or, just for good measure, paraphrasing it accurately.

That's good. They must have caught them all.


Now tell us again how freedom is slavery.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=62366#62453

And then there was
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=80804#80955

And before that,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=77327#77492

And heck, let's not forget this little effort:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=62847#62863
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=62847#62881
(and I don't think he was tombstoned for being a whiny gun grabber masquerading as a loon, do you?)

And this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=9528#10668

(Links are to my own commentary on the pretty fluffy sheep-clothed wolves.)


You should forgive me for sticking to the topic at hand, eh?

Got a list of sheep in wolves' clothing for us yet -- all those hypothetical "really whiny gun grabbers who come in posting pro-gun stuff in an attempt to make the pro-gun side look bad" you posited -- or even one?


As for your Garand-smuggling problem ... you might recall that this wasn't MY problem. I can't think why I should give a toss about someone smuggling firearms into the US from Canada; can you??

Posting names of tombstoned people is apparently calling them out and against the rules. You should read the rest of this thread. I had an interesting discussion with lunabush about it.



Yes, yes. I got your point the first time. Everyone who gets tombstoned, whether they're on the pro-gun side or the gun grabby side, is actually an RKBAer. Thank you for clearing that up for us.

New one on me too.

Fortunately, the solution was easy, since I'd egotistically linked to all my own posts on the subjects anyhow. Knock out the names, and gentle reader can do the work for his/her own self.


Everyone who gets tombstoned, whether they're on the pro-gun side or the gun grabby side, is actually an RKBAer.

If only there were any links to show to discussions involving whiny gun grabbers masquerading as gun loons, eh?

Then your statement might actually qualify as sarcasm rather than as a somewhat muddled but relatively accurate statement of fact.

Speaking of muddle ... no, no, I'm not. Speaking of muddle... .

involving whiny gun grabbers masquerading as gun loons? There has been a discussion of two about whiny gun grabbers voting in polls to make it look like pro-gun people here are going to vote for Bush, but I guess that's different.

How's the gun registry going? Hit $3 billion yet?

The Cdn firearms registry has been operating quite nicely for a couple of years now, getting lots of use for the purposes for which it was intended -- plenty of bang for very few bucks. Funny how time marches on, isn't it?

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/general_public/program_statistics/monthlystats.asp

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/general_public/program_statistics/quickfacts.asp

Between December 1998 and August 2004, 720,444 transfers have been completed. Of these, 24,014 were processed over the Internet, which came on-line in July 2003 (Business-to-Business transfers, 9251; Business-to-Individual transfers, 13,073, Individual-to-Business, 1,690).

... A special hotline annually receives thousands of calls from people expressing public safety concerns about individuals owning firearms.

Between December 1998 and August 2004, 13,316 licences have been refused or revoked by public safety officials; 6,084 applications have been refused; 7,232 firearms licences have been revoked.

Some reasons why firearms licence applications have been refused or licences revoked include: a history of violence, mental illness, the applicant is a potential risk to themselves or others, unsafe firearm use and storage, drug offences and providing false information.

Law enforcement officers have queried the Canadian Firearms Registry On-line (CFRO) database over 3.3 million times since it was launched on December 1,1998. (http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/portals/police/cfro/default.asp)

As of August 2004, the RCMP Tracing Unit and the National Weapon Enforcement Support Team conducted more than 60,000 firearm traces through the Canadian Firearms Registry.

As of August 2004, more than 2,600 affidavits have been provided by the Registry to support court proceedings.

http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/news/20040520_e.asp

Funding for the Firearms Registry component of the Program will be capped at $25 million per year, starting next fiscal year. The Government of Canada proposes to establish a separate appropriation in law for the Registry starting fiscal year 2005/06 to allow Parliament to monitor and enforce this cap. The annual cost of the Firearms Registry itself is already down to $33 million from a high of $48 million in 2001/02.

Gosh. About a buck ten per Canadian per year. I'm groaning under the weight of it. If I bought take-out coffee, I'd have to be giving one up. But I guess I'd just better plan ahead for New Year's Eve so I don't find myself 3 cigarettes short and cursing the damned gummint for relieving me of that last loonie.

You're overpaying on cigarettes. I only pay about a nickle each.

You're overpaying on cigarettes. I only pay about a nickle each.

But that's about $29.76 Canadian for 25, isn't it?

Oh damn, those metric cigarette packages of ours are going to screw up the calculations. They come mainly in packs of 25 up here ... but 8 packs to a carton, so if we work backwards from 200 ...

I don't know the exchange rate. Most people in the US are overpaying as well. A pack of 20 around here goes for around $5 which comes out to around 25 cents a smoke. I make my own. The taxes on bulk tobacco are a lot lower than prepackaged cigarettes. I suppose if making your own became popular enough, they'd raise the applicable taxes, but for now I'm saving a small fortune.

5 cents per cig in your locale = $1.00 per pack of 20, right?

Now, I find that a little hard to believe, but I'll take your word for it.

$1 for 3 cigs in my locale = $8.33 per pack of 25, which is actually pretty close to the price here I think. (I'm not in charge of the cigarette-buying in the household, and I don't pay attention.)

My suggestion that $1.00 US for a pack of cigarettes was equivalent to ... what was it, $29.76? ... CDN was wait for it some o' that fine dry self-deprecating Cdn humour.

Either that, or it was a set-up for an episode of Talking To Americans. You know, the one where ya get USAmericans to say things like

"Congratulations, Canada, on 800 miles of paved road!"
"Congratulations, Canada, on getting a 24-hour clock!"
"Congratulations, Canada, on making Beaver Balls your national dish."
"Congratulations, Canada, on preserving your national igloo."
"Congratulations, Canada, on having running water in all five states."


http://www.canoe.ca/TelevisionShowsT/talkingtoamericans.html

"Every time, usually at the start of every shoot, I'm saying, 'I can't say this. Somebody's going to get me,' " Mercer says. Yet, time and time again, the Yanks fall for the gag, even when Mercer asks them to salute prime minister Tim Horton, sign a petition to legalize insulin or travel across the Peter Mans Bridge.

Tim Horton is the hockey player who founded the iconic national coffee&doughnut chain before killing himself in a sports car; insulin was discovered by Canadians; Peter Mansbridge is the anchor on CBC's The National ...

And $1 CDN is generally about $0.75 US these days, which is excellent for our exports. We raised interest rates 1/4 of a per cent today, which might bump the loonie up but for some reason exports are not expected to take a hit. And hey, we're getting some cheap hamburger here these days, finally -- the bogus ban on Cdn live beef imports to the US had caused a market glut but benefited only the wait for it oligarchic US-owned packing industry until recently.

Hopefully, the effects of the bird flu on chicken production will taper off soon, 'cause I like skinless boneless chicken breasts a whole lot more than meatloaf, but I refuse to pay $16/kilo for 'em.

I don't tend to make them personally. The US Dollar is hardly something to go bragging about given the joy the government seems to take in inflating the money supply.

As for the cigarettes, I assure you I only pay slightly more than a dollar a pack, including shipping. Some of the products I use are even imported from Canada. I buy tobacco in 14 oz packs for $16, and empty cigarette tubes in cartons of 200 for $2. I generally buy 2 pouches of tobacco and 4 boxes of tubes at a time to cut down on shipping and handling. Altogether that's less than $50 for 4 cartons. Add in a one time cost of $25 for the injector, which basically pays for itself after one carton, and you're making cigarettes for a buck a pack.

If you're interested you can go to www.ryomagazine.com , they review pretty much everything related to making your own cigarettes. I personally prefer D&R's Rowland tobacco and Windsail tubes and use an Excel injection machine.

There, that's a proper political insult. Or so some hapless Tory backroomer thought during the 2003 Ontario provincial eleciton campaign ...

http://www.portaljuice.com/evil_reptilian_kitten_eater_from_another_planet.html

On September 12, 2003, during the provincial election campaign in Ontario, Canada, a press release disseminated by the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party contained a line at the end that referred to rival Ontario Liberal Party leader Dalton McGuinty as an "evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet. (Sorry.)"

A big part of the problem was that Dalton is actually a dead ringer for Norman Bates, and that's what he was usually called anyhow.

22 Minutes greatest moment:

http://www.portaljuice.com/stockwell_day.html

One of <Stockwell Day's> policies was famously satirized during the 2000 federal election campaign by Rick Mercer when he was on the political satire troupe This Hour Has 22 Minutes. He had proposed to require the federal government to hold a referendum on any subject if 4% of the electorate signed a petition requesting this. The comedy show riposted by putting an unofficial petition on their website to hold a referendum to require Mr. Day to change his first name to Doris. Although such a petition would not have been recognized by Elections Canada, the troupe considered their point made when in the end, the website's counter claimed more than a million signatures - substantially more than the 4% that Day had proposed.

Day also ran into trouble with his remark that Canadian jobs were flowing south just like the Niagara River, when in fact the river flows north. He was also mocked for holding up a sign which said "No Two Tier Medicine" in large letters during the leadership debate. When informed that props were against the rules he claimed it was his lecture notes.

How often has a USA'n comedy show had the nation's leading women politicians drop around for a sleepover? ;)

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/t/th/this_hour_has_22_minutes.html

ppl who got tombstoned.

i'll add that to the list.