How the Brady Campaign Lies and Distorts

[TPaine7]

On a legal academic discussion list, someone said — quoting the Brady Campaign that “In two thirds of battered women’s households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner used the gun against the woman, usually threatening to shoot/kill her (71.4 percent) or to shoot at her (5.1 percent).” Given that there are a lot of women who are battered by intimates — the National Crime Victimization Survey reported 900,000 in 1998 — that sounds like a vast number of death threats.

But if you actually look at the cited study (which is limited to California), you’ll see that it reports on women staying in shelters for battered women. Women staying in battered women shelters aren’t just the typical battered women — they are women who feel so endangered that they decide to flee their own homes. It stands to reason that many of them would have been deliberately threatened with death or serious injury at some point, which may be what led them to flee in the first instance; they are probably more likely than the typical person, including the typical domestic violence victim, to have been threatened in an especially serious way. And it stands to reason that in those homes where a gun is present, and the woman’s partner is willing to deliberately threaten the woman enough to cause her to flee, at least one of the threats will have involved the gun.

Source: http://volokh.com/2009/11/02/how-statistics-get-distorted-an-example/

I consider this a lie, since Brady makes so many similar and convenient "mistakes."

[old mark]

1. Brady Bunch was organized and still is led by Republicans -

they lie just for the hell of it.

mark

[saracat]

3. Doesn't matter who started it. We need gun control and democrats have nearly always supported it.

[X_Digger]

6. Ahh, revisionist history rears it's ugly head..

'Gun control' was a rethuglican plank against blacks, minorities, communists/socialists, union / pro-labor agitators until the late 60's.

Then the high profile killings of JFK, MLK, RFK gave the more authoritarian voices in the party a new cause.

Check out some of the newspaper articles surrounding New York's 'Sullivan Act', the congressional debates surrounding 1934's National Firearms Act, and compare to the 1968 Gun Control Act. (The lists of those in support switched from (R)s to (D)s.)

[benEzra]

7. Here are some of them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x134977

[SteveM]

55. Actually, it is fear of "Negroes with guns" which prompted modern gun control (nt)

[TheWraith]

8. Okay, since most crimes involving a gun are committed by felons and the underage...

Both of whom are already legally proscribed from owning guns, what exact steps do you suggest to deal with it, other than harassing legal gun owners?

[spin]

12. Was Eleanor Roosevelt a Democrat?

She was the most famous spokesperson for civil rights, at a time when the idea of equal rights for people of color was very politically incorrect. "We can't afford to have two kinds of citizens," she insisted. "We must have equal citizenship for anybody in our country."

And though she was a well-known talker, she also walked the walk. In 1958, at age 74, she made plans to go down to Tennessee to speak at a civil-rights workshop at the Highlander Folk School.

The Ku Klux Klan learned about her plans. The day before her trip, the elderly, gray-haired woman was contacted by the FBI. "We can't guarantee your safety," they told her. "The Klan's put a bounty on your head, a $25,000 bounty on your head. We can't protect you. You can't go." But the little old lady answered, "I didn't ask for your protection... I have a commitment. I'm going."

And she did. She flew down to the Nashville airport, where she was joined by a friend, an elderly white woman aged 71. The pair got into the car, lay a loaded pistol on the front seat between them, and drove into the night. No Secret Service or police escort. Just the two little old ladies with a gun to keep them safe. They set out for their destination, a " tiny labor school<,> to conduct a workshop on how to break the law, how to conduct non-violent civil disobedience." They drove through the heart of Klan territory to teach people how to fight for freedom.
http://www.liberalswithguns.com/id2.html

Here you see the First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt shooting her revolver.







This is a public record copy of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt's Concealed Carry Application.

Note: last two images located at: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.firearmstrainingbyelrod.com/Ladies_Only_Classes.html&usg=__tOmvh0EOjZnapDV26tZ_d7FvNiw=&h=366&w=504&sz=109&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=E1kfa91MsTthRM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3DEleanor%2BRoosevelt%2Bshooting%2Bhandgun%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26um%3D1

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

33. I wish I could save indivual posts somehow. n/t

[spin]

49. You sould be able to bookmark them....

I just called up a post I had bookmarked in Sept 2006. It had move to the DU achieves, but it was still there.

I use Firefox as a browser and I have an add on called screengrab that will take an image of a web page that you can save to your hard drive.

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. The "Print Screen" key is your friend...

In Windows, you can open a new document in Paint (or Paint.net, et al), paste your screengrab and save it
as a bitmap (*.bmp). Macs do something similar:

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

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61544

Useful for saving interesting (or incriminating, or embarrassing) web pages what might get scrubbed later.

I've saved a lot of the crazier stuff I've found at FreeRepublic, and the page at GunGuys.com that claimed that
handguns hadn't been invented yet when the Bill of Rights was ratified. :wtf:

Got changed later, of course, but it proved that nothing *ever* gets completely scrubbed off the Internet, as long as
some alert reader saves it...

[spin]

54. The GunGuys said the handguns hadn't been invented...

when the bill of rights was ratified.

Absolutely fucking hilarious!

For those who suffer from a lack of firearm knowledge:

While some people believe that handguns did not exist when the Patriots were fighting for their right to arms, handguns were actually hundreds of years old by then. Handguns had grown common enough in the early sixteenth century that legislation was proposed as early as 1518 (by the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian) to address them; and by the latter part of the 1500s, handguns were standard cavalry weapons. When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, state militia laws requiring most men to supply their own firearms required officers to supply their own pistols.

The Revolutionary War handguns were mostly very large .50-caliber single-shot pistols, often built by the same gunsmiths who made the Pennsylvania Rifles. Colonel Samuel Colt's multiple-shot revolver lay decades in the future — although there were predecessors available, such as "pepperbox," which used revolving barrels, each containing its own bullet.
http://davekopel.org/NRO/2000/Guns-of-Our-Freedom.htm

[Euromutt]

56. They said *what?*

That's ludicrous. William I of Orange (aka William the Silent) was assassinated with a pair of wheellock pistols, and that was in 1584! Moreover, by that time, wheellock pistols had been around for several decades. During the late 16th and early 17th centuries, a sword and a pair of pistols (and sometimes a carbine) was the default armament of cavalrymen in western and central Europe (with the exception of dragoons, who were really mounted infantry, maneuvering on horse but fighting on foot). The French Wars of Religion (1562-1598), the Eighty Years' War in the Netherlands (1568-1648), the Thirty Years' War in Germany (1618-1648) and the English Civil War(s) (1641-1651) all featured cavalrymen armed with a sword and a brace of pistols.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. Found it-read for yourself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=135039#135152
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6926463



friendly_iconoclast (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-12-07 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #29
53. UPDATE - GunGuys have now changed their tune!
Edited on Mon Mar-12-07 06:30 PM by friendly_iconoclast
The paragraph that I screen-grabbed at:

http://www.gunguys.com/#post-1968

that said: "Handguns are a type of firearm that did not exist before or after the Constitution, until they became mass marketed after the Civil War. So how can they have been protected under the Second Amendment when they didn’t exist at the time?"

now reads: "Handguns– as we know them– did not exist at the time the Constitution was written, until the forerunner of the modern handgun became mass marketed after the Civil War. So how can they have been protected under the Second Amendment when they didn’t exist at the time?"

Just read what they're saying right now, and ignore those pesky
cached pages, mmmkay?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top
smb (755 posts) Wed Mar-14-07 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. Book-Jacket Version of Bellesiles' Baloney
That argument is a simplified version of the thesis of Arming America by Michael A. Bellesiles, who claimed that firearms ownership was quite rare in America until after the Civil War.

When his facts came under the microscope, it turned out that he made George W. Bush look as credible as George Washington....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top
benEzra (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-14-07 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. Printing presses "as we know them" didn't exist until after the Civil War, also...
http://www.gunguys.com/#post-1968

that said: "Handguns are a type of firearm that did not exist before or after the Constitution, until they became mass marketed after the Civil War. So how can they have been protected under the Second Amendment when they didn’t exist at the time?"

now reads: "Handguns– as we know them– did not exist at the time the Constitution was written, until the forerunner of the modern handgun became mass marketed after the Civil War. So how can they have been protected under the Second Amendment when they didn’t exist at the time?"

Printing presses "as we know them" didn't exist until after the Civil War, either. So obviously the First Amendment does not protect books and magazines whatsoever. Or blogs, for that matter. Or broadcast media.

Surveillance technology "as we know it" didn't exist in 1791, either. Guess the 4th Amendment doesn't protect you from having the interior of your house under constant surveillance 24/7.

I wonder if the resident recipient of Joyce Foundation here at DU has the same level of honesty?

[spin]

64. To me the gunguys are the clowns of the anti-gun movement. (n/t)

[proteus_lives]

25. We already have gun control.

We don't need anymore.

[krispos42]

28. I'm sure Republicans are very supportive of a Democratic-passed gun-control bill.

And no, we don't need gun control. Crime and violence (gun and otherwise) are symptoms of our societal problems, not the cause.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Refresh my memory, did we support gun control when the KKK used it to disarm black people?

I forget, please refresh my memory.

Which side were we on then?

[rl6214]

29. Dosen't matter who it is

the fact remains they lie.

[saracat]

2. Yeah, like no women are "really abused" and we really" don't have a problem with guns".

Nice really nice. I don't get how some really don't care about gun violence and how any Democrat could not support the Brady Bill.

[benEzra]

4. Nobody is debating the Brady Bill

which was long ago superseded by the National Instant Check System. *Nobody* is seriously trying to repeal the background check for purchase, that I can see.

There are a lot of people fighting to ban the lawful purchase and ownership of the most popular civilian guns, though, including the Republicans at the Brady Campaign.

[TPaine7]

5. Fascinating points

Let's see:

1) No women are actually abused
2) Guns in the hands of abusers are not a problem
3) Democrats should not support the Brady bill

I just have one question: Did you read the entire OP or did you skip most of the words and fill in your own meaning?

[Euromutt]

21. Do you mean the Lautenberg Amendment?

The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (or more formally the "Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban) made it illegal to possess a firearm or ammunition for any person convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence, or who is subject to a restraining order on grounds of abuse of a partner, child, or child of a partner. Personally, I think that's quite a good piece of legislation, since domestic killings are typically the result of an escalating pattern of violence.

Yes, even Frank Lautenberg can introduce decent firearms legislation once in a while.

But you're missing the point here, which is not that "no women are 'really abused'" or that there isn't a problem with domestic abusers using firearms, but rather that the Brady Campaign massively overstated the scale of the problem by selecting a sample population that was not statistically representative of domestic abuse victims overall.

I'm all in favor of stripping domestic abusers of the right to possess firearms, but there has to be an element of due process to prevent the law from being abused, and the Lautenberg Amendment provides that by requiring that the subject have had a chance to defend himself before a court of law.

[slackmaster]

37. I support the Brady Act and feel it should be expanded in one important way

Make the National Instant Check System available to people who aren't licensed gun dealers, so they at least have a reasonable way of checking the background of someone to whom they are considering selling a used firearm.

[GreenStormCloud]

48. Woman shoots, kills, home invading ex-boyfriend.

http://blog.al.com/live/2009/10/burlgar_shot_and_killed_tuesda.html

MOBILE, Ala. - A woman shot and killed her ex-boyfriend Tuesday night after the 29-year-old man hid in the woman's bedroom closet then attacked her when she arrived home, according to Mobile police.

Police spokesman Officer Christopher Levy said today that the couple, who broke up nearly four years ago, had a history of domestic violence.

No charges have been filed in the shooting, which happened inside the home in the 700 block of West Louise Drive, near Cottage Hill Road and Interstate 65.

(Snip)

Two children, ages 9 and 15, were also inside the home at the time of the shooting and were not injured.
--------
It was not a restraining order, but a gun that saved this woman and her kids. The gun-grabbers would happily leave this woman defenseless against a violent psychotic.

[eqfan592]

50. Not only would they happily leave her defensless...

...but they would honor her more as a victim than they will as someone who defended themselves.

[SteveM]

78. I suggest you search out the history of the Democratic Party Platforms...

I bet you will not find a mention of gun-control until, oh, Jim Hendrix's "Are You Experienced?" album. Before then? "The Sounds of Silence."

This is a contrived issue, born mainly out of the many civil insurrections of the 1960s, chiefly in urban ghettos. The fear of armed blacks was what prompted calls for gun-control legislation, more so (in my opinion) than high-profile assassinations. In fact, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was designed "to shut off weapons access to blacks... while leaving over-the-counter purchases to the affluent." -- Robert Sherill, journalist and early advocate for gun control. IOW, Jim Crow caught the bus North and to the Coast.

I care about violence. You care about gun violence. The reason you care about "gun violence" is you have put your stock into another prohibitionist scheme. And prohibitionist schemes are mostly about "My morals are more moral than your morals" and little about defining and correcting social problems. Oh, and getting votes (though I think we can agree that reason has passed by the Dems).

BTW, I have assisted local battered women/spouses shelters in properly maintaining automobiles, and in correcting "sudden" failures (chiefly, the removal of ignition wiring by certain someones to prevent others from escaping).

[Howardx]

9. "the typical battered women"

theres no low the nra shills wont sink to around here.

[eqfan592]

10. Well, if pointing out a potential flaw in a studies reasoning....

...is a "low," then I guess not? "I'm going to say all this stuff about battered women, but don't you DARE say anything counter to it, because if you do you will show yourself to be a horrible human being!!"

[Howardx]

13. what bullshit

trying to divide "battered women" into "typical" and not "typical" categories in order to defend the rights of batterers to keep and bear arms is doing exactly what the op complains about. lies and distortions. bunch of sick puppies hanging around du these days.

[eqfan592]

15. Orly?

Care to point out where anybody was trying to defend the rights of somebody that was in the act of committing a crime (which beating your spouse would fall under) to keep and bear arms? The point was that the study ONLY looked at the most extreme of cases, and using only the extreme for your entire sample is NOT a scientific way of doing things. What was quoted in the OP's post makes no commentary on the rightness or wrongness of the acts that were being committed, nor in any way condone the acts that were being committed.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

18. Indeed, it is bullshit to pretend that someone here is

defending "the rights of batterers to keep and bear arms," or the right of any other violent criminals to keep and bear arms.

Your point about lies and distortions is well taken.

[TheWraith]

26. Stuff a little more hay into that strawman argument.

Firearms ownership by people convicted of even a misdemeanor domestic violence charge is prohibited by the Violence Against Women Act.

[SteveM]

79. "Oh, that's you all over." -- Wizard of Oz (nt)

[paulsby]

65. not all victims of domestic violence are "battered", male or female

in my state, crimes of domestic violence can include, for example, vandalism. as long as the relationship between the offender and the victim meet the criteria of domestic (lived together in the past, had a significant dating relationship, have children in common, are related within the bounds of consanguinity etc.), then even a non-threatening act of vandalism can make the offender a person no longer allowed to carry, and a DV offender. heck, it doesn't evne have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in court. a conviction isn't needed. all that is needed is a preponderance of evidence in a civil trial, with the judge making the determination.

i've been to literally HUNDREDS of domestic incidents, from homicide all the way down the line.

i've also been the victim of domestic violence several times. slapped in the face by a girlfriend on more than one occasion, when i was younger.

i did not call the police. i never reported it. nor would i even now, if it happened. but, would that make me a "battered man?" under the law, it means the girlfriend committed a crime of domestic violence, i could have gotten a protective order, and possibly even a criminal conviction.

my point is that there is quite a spectrum.

[GreenStormCloud]

72. Battered men are invisible victims.

I know paulsby won't laugh, but some others might. But there really are men who are battered by their wives, even to the point of physical harm. Society doesn't allow them much in the way of relief. If they strike back at the woman, they become wife beaters. If they don't, they are wimps. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Just as with women with violent husbands, men with violent wives should leave them.

[paulsby]

73. true

in that, there are few crimes less likely to be reported than misdemeanor assault on males by their domestic partners. there was a study in canada a while ago, that we were introduced to in class that blindly polled men and women and asked them if they ever struck their spouse/partner. women were actually SLIGHTLY more prone to do so than men. ime, and according to the study, men almost NEVER report these (the only way we get aware of them is when a neighbor calls, and even then the men are extremely reticent to admit it), and women are more likely to report that men. the huge difference is that the vast majority of male on female assaults were either a push or a slap, and almost never resulted in injury.

when it comes to reported incidents of DV, i'd say the male is the primary aggressor ime between 80-85% of the time. but when it comes to "serious" assaults iow those that result in injury, it's men about 90-95% of the time.

my point also is that being slapped twice by a girlfriend in 5 years hardly made me a "battered man" imo, but reverse it and many domestic violence counselor WOULD consider it that way.

i also find it ironic that one of the most popular country/crossover songs in recent memory celebrated an act of domestic violence ... "next time he cheats", a woman taking a louisville slugger to her cheatin' boyfriend's truck

also, the fact that the right to carry or own a firearm can be rescinded PERMANENTLY based on a mere preponderance of evidence in a civil hearing without a jury, is a bit troubling. otoh, the idea is to intervene in the cycle of violence, but still it takes little more than a bald accusation to get the "preponderance" standard.

[katandmoon]

11. Yes, there is. After all they value guns above human life.

[divideandconquer]

14. The Brady campaign is pro Republican but the NRA isn't pro Republican

That's what the gun huggers around here want you to believe.:crazy:

[eqfan592]

16. Noooooo

The brady campaign is pro-republican, but I don't think many around here would try to fool themselves about the political leanings of the NRA. It's really a perfect circle if you think about it, one the dem's have helped create.

But then again, the drooling masses of the brady supporters really have no love for reality, just like their extreme right wing counterparts.

[SteveM]

81. The Brady's and the NRA: I believe the jargon-jiving DNC would call it a win-win? (nt)

[spin]

27. The NRA is pro-gun...

They support Democrats who are also pro-gun. One such example is Bill Richardson.


The National Rifle Association lent its endorsement this week to Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat. For governor. But as he mulls a run for president, Richardson’s history of close relations with the NRA could set him apart from other Democrats seeking the party’s bid.

As Richardson noted, he’s not the first Democrat to receive an NRA endorsement. “But there haven’t been very many,” he said. The NRA endorsement wasn’t the first time Richardson has garnered the group’s backing. “He’s been a pretty solid guy on the gun issue,” a member of the NRA’s board of directors said.

Whether that record could woo pro-Second Amendment voters into the Democratic fold in a national election is another question. The NRA endorsement cites Richardson’s support for a law that allows New Mexico residents to carry concealed handguns with a permit. Richardson said he has earned a concealed-carry permit himself.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Bill_Richardson_Gun_Control.htm
Source: By Michael Gisick, Albuquerque Tribune Oct 3, 2006

So take a moment and look through this list of the NRA ratings for the members of both houses of Congress (2006). You might be surprised. There are Democrats with A+ ratings and Republicans with F ratings.

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3492

[paulsby]

66. actually the NRA is pro gun RIGHTS

specifically.

is NARAL "pro abortion?"

no, they are pro the right to CHOOSE an abortion.

i think it's more correct to refer to them as pro gun RIGHTS or pro RKBA, vs. pro-gun.

guns are morally neutral. in the wrong hands, they can be an agent of evil. in the right hands, an agent of good.

[rl6214]

30. Grow up and save your gun hugger lable

When you can actually debate the issue ask your mom if you can use her computer again.

[SteveM]

82. Umm this isn't clear. Perhaps you can help...

Are you advocating that the poster save his gun hugger lable for future use? Why not now? Could you define the issue? Can you debate now or do you have to wait to grow up as well? As a practical matter, don't you think that "mom's" computer would be obsolete by the time someone grows up (technology and all)?

Or

Does your post indicate yet another scream in the night in support of a failed culture war?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

35. The NRA is partisan to guns... not partisan to political parties.

National RIFLE Association... it's even the name.

They support politicians (even democrats) who support gun rights.
There is ample evidence of such. See Here.
What evidence do you have to refute this?

[Euromutt]

36. Depends on which part of the NRA you're talking about

It's undeniable the national political leadership of the NRA leans fairly right-wing; socially conservative, jingoistic, etc. Whether that applies across the board to the membership is open to question. Certainly, the Political Victory Fund doesn't examine and rate political candidates on anything other than their support of private ownership of firearms. And there are most assuredly NRA members (like myself) who consider themselves liberals, and who have to hold their noses to some extent, but remain part of the organization because it's the 400-lb gorilla of gun rights organizations.

Why does this not apply to the Brady Campaign? Mostly because the Brady Campaign doesn't have any members; it has "supporters" but it counts as supporters anyone who's ever written or phoned them. What applies to the leadership applies to the organization as a whole, because the leadership is the organization.

[eqfan592]

19. Naa, they don't value guns above human life...

...they just don't see the two as being in direct opposition with each other.

And remember, after all, the Brady campaign values a dead, defenseless victim more than a living, would-be victim that defended themselves. (yeah, two can play at that game. :P ).

[PavePusher]

20. Cite, please? n/t

[proteus_lives]

23. I'm a gun-owner because I value life. Mine and my family.

Self-defense, you are aware of the concept?

You'd rather people die then defend themselves. Grabbers and the anti-Rights crowd are the ones don't value the lives of others.

[SteveM]

57. Ooooo! The horrible "They" has crept into the crypt (nt)

[slackmaster]

71. katandmoon reminds me of General Jack Ripper in the movie Dr. Strangelove

"Your commie has no regard for human life, not even his own."

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. And we're here to pollute America's precious bodily fluids!

BWAHAHAHA!

[SteveM]

80. Another eruption from beneath the sheets (nt)

[GreenStormCloud]

22. Why did you dissapper from that other thread when I found and posted updates to the story?

You were so adamant that we didn't know the full story and that the resident may not have been actually defending himself. Remember? Here is a link to the updates in that thread. How come you never came back after the updates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_progressivity_in_federal_income_tax

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=264206&mesg_id=264866

[proteus_lives]

24. Brady = Liars.

I've known that for years.

Racist/Republican and elitist. Fuck'em.

[philly_bob]

31. UNREC "Volokh Conspiracy" is not reliable source. Neocon, anti-regulation,

pro-Bankruptcy Bill, with a smug aren't-liberals-ignorant tone.

[Euromutt]

32. In your case, they have a point

If you refuse to examine claims of fact on their merits, rejecting them simply because you don't like who's making them, and thus limit your sources of information to those who tell you only what you think you already know, then yes, you are and will remain ignorant.

If Eugene Volokh told you that "2 + 2 = 4," would you deny the truth of that statement because it was Eugene Volokh making it? Very few people are always right, or always wrong.

[philly_bob]

34. Reply includes gratuitous Insult: "You are and will remain ignorant."

FU

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. Reading only people you already agree with does lead to ignorance.

You didn't argue what was said, you dismissed it entirely because of who it came from.

That's like dismissing what the EPA says about the environment because it was started by Richard Nixon.

[philly_bob]

40. I merely identify source's ideological bias. I take no position on the issue.

Volokh's website is described as conservative or libertarian here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volokh_Conspiracy

Because I've watched the dueling professors there for a long time, I know that to be true. They're clever but likely to be wrong. They're elitists, with a kind of Ayn-Randian self-regard.

My role in identifying the source as being conservative/libertarian is important for the health of DU as a whole. Using volokh.com in a source for an OP is like using a Fox News source or a Politico source.

And you guys exhibit the typical neo-conservative snotty superiority and bullying behavior, by twice implying that I'm "ignorant" simply because I blow the whistle on a right-wing source.

[eqfan592]

41. LOL!

I love how you can exhibit so much "snotty superiority" while claiming others are doing that very thing. Pointing out that the source of information is not, in and of itself, automatically demonstrable of the veracity of the information, is not being "snotty." Nor is pointing out that anyone who attempts to do so is forcing themselves into a state of ignorance on the subject at hand.

Even conservative/libertarians have the ability to make sense from time to time, and be logical. So, maybe for the "health" of DU as a whole, you should admit the above as factual, and attempt to actually discredit the claim itself instead of (or at least as well as) the source, which is NOT the tactic of an intellectually honest person.

[philly_bob]

42. Again, I have no opinion as to the claim. I have an opinion as to the source.

"Pointing out that the source of information is not, in and of itself, automatically demonstrable of the veracity of the information, is not being 'snotty.'"

Uh-oh! I'm trapped in a college dorm debate with a bunch of armed Ayn Randians, each with their own thesaurus.

I hope DUers will check on my claim that quotation source of OP (volokh.com) is definitely right-wing.

Otherwise, I'm out of here. I've got schoolwork to do.

[eqfan592]

44. *sigh* you fail in such a major way....

...seriously, you DO have an opinion to the claim BECAUSE you are attempting to discredit it based only on the source alone. If this is NOT the case, then you are just wasting your and everybody else's time with this totally pointless discussion. I don't care if GWB himself were pointing out the logical flaws in the study, because if he's right, he's right, no matter what other BS he's spewed out before. If he's wrong, then it would be fairly simple to counter with facts. You have failed to do this, and instead have only succeeded in lowering the level of discourse on the issue.

Good luck at school. I hope you apply more sense there than you do here.

[TPaine7]

46. Come on now, you know better than that...

1) If we could prove that Pythagoras had unfortunate political beliefs, bridges everywhere would fall down, as the truss designers used the Pythagorean theorem in their design
2) If we could prove that Heisenburg had unfortunate political beliefs, printed circuits would no longer work--no iPods, iPhones, Flat screen TVs, modern cars, ...
3) If we could prove that Voltaire had unfortunate political beliefs, nothing electronic would work--not even electric stoves
4) If we could prove that the Wright Brothers had unfortunate political beliefs, planes would fall out of the sky

Everyone who has unfortunate political beliefs is incorrect in anything they say. Obviously.

[eqfan592]

47. And let's not even get into Newton and Einstien, or we'll all be flung into oblivion! :P (nt)

[SteveM]

60. HA! Just grab onto some fractal geometry and reproduce ad nausem (nt)

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. It's called the 'genetic fallacy', and you've been using it to avoid the issue

Not all RW sites are open-air looney bins like Free Republic or Hot Air (National Review Online is getting that way).

Volokh and Little Green Footballs occasionally have something cogent to say, and you would be well advised to peruse
them once in a while because of that, not because you like their politics.

To dismiss something out of hand simply because of where it comes from *is* ignorant.
To continue to do so after this is pointed out is, indeed, willful ignorance.

[PavePusher]

52. And yet you continue to attack the source, and not the merits of the article.

FAIL.

[westerm]

43. hurp durp

Please, dude. What is it with you anti gun type guys? Who gives a damn if the source is ? You're either too lazy, too mis/uninformed, or plain old too dumb to argue against the actual arguments presented. You are unable, for whatever reason, to actually defend your beliefs against statistics that contradict them so you resort to "wahhh you big meanie that source doesn't agree with me! they don't count!". If you aren't going to contribute, get out of the thread.

[SteveM]

59. No one needs "blowing whistles." We are aware of Volokh...

You accuse folks here of "snotty superiority and bullying behavior." This is a reference to attitude in the first instance, and intimidation in the latter. I'm not really concerned with attitude (I think you really mean that the arguments presented by 2A folks are well-founded and well argued), and true intimidation comes from brute force and threats, which are kind of hard to accomplish on the Internet. You may feel "intimidated" because you have little to present in way of countervailing arguments.

BTW, after drifting through Volokh a few years back, I became aware of a small split in how conservatives view the Second Amendment: one side wanted court decisions to incorporate (under the 14th Amendment) the right for all Americans, thus superseding the states -- much like the 14th was used in the 1960s and 70s to supersede the states in matters of right of assembly, suffrage, public accommodation, integrated schools, etc. Other conservatives do not like the "incorporation clause" of the 14th, and are torn as to how to shoe-horn their philosophy into a court decision. They are in the minority, which suggests that this hoary tenet of conservative thought (suspicion of the incorporation clause) may be fossilizing.

[paulsby]

69. you said they were UNRELIABLE

what evidence do you have of this.

i've read it for years , as well as scotusblog. their legal analysis is excellent, and there is often intense INFORMED (On the law, which is rarely the case in DU) debate on various issues.

so, please present evidence they are UNRELIABLE.

[SteveM]

83. You call it "bullying," we call it sound argument. Get over the bully business...

The worst thing to yell at a bully, btw, is "you are bullying me!" Only eggs them on.

But the reality is that the arguments in support of 2A found here are far, far better than the arguments of the anti-2A and gun-controllers.

I think "your role in identifying source(s) as being conservative/libertarian is important for the health of DU" is imperious and certainly overwrought. Those of us who research the web, printed sources, T.V., radio, and have a good education can glean the good from the "agenda-driven" stuff; it's called intellectual inquiry.

You seem to have a very hostile attitude toward those with whom you disagree: "...you guys exhibit the typical neo-conservative snotty superiority..." and bullying behavior, etc.

Get over your 'tude and prejudice. I'm willing to bet that the average pro-2A poster here has just as many credentials for being liberal/progressive/left as any other DU poster; perhaps more, in your case.

[paulsby]

68. i agree

i make a point to read the nation, reason, and national review.

i think people who only get their news and opinion from one side of the political spectrum are generally uninformed, and fail to understand most debates completely.

[oneshooter]

39. So you are insulted by the truth? N/T

[Euromutt]

53. "A statement of fact cannot be insolent."

Note also the conditional "if."

FU2

[SteveM]

58. Actually, if you can't stand them so much, you SHOULD read them...

in that way you can "know thine enemy." Some of us read this (and other conservative) source in order to keep tabs on what "the other side" thinks.

Wasn't there some Chinese general which recommended such?

[Euromutt]

61. Sun Tzu, more or less

At the end of chapter 3 of The Art of War, he advises that:

So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win numerous battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.

So Sun Tzu does advise to "know thine enemy," but cautions that it is equally important to know yourself.

[SteveM]

62. Sun Tzu comes in and out of popularity. I heard of him first in Vietnam era (nt)

[paulsby]

70. the more i read stuff from

all over the spectrum, the more i realize that many ideologues on the left and the right are EERILY similar in their arguments.

for example, some people on the left are just as dogmatic and anti-science when it comes to certain topics (like biological gender differences), as a rightwing creationist is on evolution.

you see the SAME logical fallacies on both sides of spectrum (on all sorts of topics), the same sophomoric debating tactics, the same cognitive dissonance overdrive engine, etc.

if there is one thing i am convinced of, it's that exposing oneself to a narrow spectrum of viewpoints is a bad idea.

[paulsby]

67. rubbish

please cite where prof. volokh et al have posted INACCURATE information. if they are "unreliable", that should be easy for you to do

i've read the volokh conspiracy for years. that website and scotusblog.com are GREAT sources for legal analysis. and if you actually read the blog entries, there is a fair gamut of people from across the political spectrum.

yes, prof. volokh leans libertarian.

but if you have EVIDENCE the site is unreliable, please post it.

just because somebody has different political views than you or i does not make them unreliable.

also note that there are numerous bloggers at volokh conspiracy, not just prof. volokh

[virginia mountainman]

75. The current down turn in violent crime, does not jive with Brady's promise..

Of much more blood in the streets, from the accelerated gun sales we have experienced over the past year and a half...

Once again, they get caught in a WHOPPER.... There has been no "blood in the streets" you lying bastards....

They have promised time and time again, that Gun sales=Crime....

Boy that just got tossed out the window...

[TPaine7]

76. There is a place where the crime has gone up just as the Brady

Bunch predicted:

The Gun Control Reality Distortion Field

[virginia mountainman]

77. CUE "Twilight zone music" NT....ROFLMAO!!!