Do you want a TOTAL ban on handguns in the USA?

[Pert_UK]

Thought I might kick this off, just to see the results. There have been a couple of threads recently which referred to "anti-gunners" who want a total ban on firearms.......I actually can't think of anybody on here who advocates that, so here's a poll for you.

[Pert_UK]

1. Well hush my mouth......

Somebody has already jumped in with a request for a total ban....

Care to explain your reasons sir/madam?

For the record, I went for the "restrictions" option.

[wryter2000]

2. Restrictions here, too

IMHO, the problem will only get solved if both sides give up their absolutist stances.

[FeebMaster]

5. The pro-gun side's willingness to compromise

has helped us get where we are today.

[MrBenchley]

6. Where's that, feeb?

We got 30,000 Americans dead by gun shot and another 60,000 wounded every year...how many more would you like to see?

[FeebMaster]

7. At our current level of gun control.

"We got 30,000 Americans dead by gun shot and another 60,000 wounded every year...how many more would you like to see?"

Hey don't look at me. I don't support the War on Drugs any more than I support gun control.

[MrBenchley]

9. They didn't fall on bullets accidentally, feeb...

"Hey don't look at me."
With all the unintentional comedy you provide in every post?

[FeebMaster]

18. Who said they did?

""Hey don't look at me."
With all the unintentional comedy you provide in every post?"

High praise, coming from the master.

[demsrule4life]

28. No, about half of your number falls on them on purpose

[Superfly]

4. Question: Do you live in the UK?

[Pert_UK]

8. Good point, Fly......

My personal opinion is that it would be sensible to have restrictions on the purchase of handguns and ammunition (e.g. some mandatory safety training), regardless of which country we're talking about.

However, it doesn't make much sense for me to vote on how I want the US to treat handgun ownership.

I've been criticised repeatedly on here, for trying to tell the people of another country what to do, and my defense has always been, "I'm not telling you what to do, I'm stating my opinion. It's up to the US to do whatever it wants."

I've overstepped that boundary here by giving my preference for how the US operates, which isn't really what I'm here for.

Having said that, I love the US and have many good friends there. I also believe that it would be a safer and better place if there was better regulation of the handgun industry. Therefore, it's only my desire for the US to become a better place that makes me hold my desire for better gun regulation, so don't judge me too harshly - I'm not really telling you what to do, I'm letting you know where I stand.

[Superfly]

11. Thank ya...

Your opinion, as far as I am concerned, is more than welcome here. You are very tolerant of others' ideas, though being convicted in your own. I enjoy your discussions immensely.

[Pert_UK]

16. Thank you.

I try to be fair - I just hate bad logic and bad argument!

[GOPFighter]

19. Guns have reached religious status in the U.S.

I know people who would choose castration to having their guns regulated. Europeans probably cannot comprehend just how emasculated many American men feel by the changes in society that require everyone to treat everyone with respect. IMO, having a gun (actually it's usually an arsenal) gives certain men the feeling that they are still king, that in the end, they have the ability to "even the score" with bosses who criticize, women who think they are equals, and the rest of society who frown on ethnic slurs, sexual harassment, and so many other "rights" that "real men" used to have.

Gun violence in America is merely a side effect of what I believe is a screwed up society here in America. We are uptight, unforgiving, conformist, and judgemental. We are incredibly scared of sex, we worship money, and we are secretly sure that anything that feels good is a sin. Our answer to everything we don't like is violence.

Only liberals can save us :evilgrin:

[dae]

21. For the record, anyone trying to remove my testicles will be shot. :-)

:evilgrin:

[Pert_UK]

23. You can have my testicles when you pry them from my cold, dead hands...

:evilgrin:

P.

[dae]

32. AMEN!

[iverglas]

29. and speaking of furriners

I offer this info as a public service. ;)

Some might recall my unfortunately misconstrued allusion to "trailer park boys" some months back. Now, you can see the source.

Youse USAmericans are finally going to get to see the funniest TV show in history -- TONIGHT, April 15, episode 1 on BBC America. Make friends with someone who subscribes, and get him/her to tape it.

Trust me -- this is *not* some effete, impenetrable Canadian literary work. This is not The Handmaid's Tale. No, this is not Roughing it in the Bush; it is not an award-winning National Film Board documentary. This is funny shit.

Do *not* watch the early evening expurgated version. I have no idea how they could bleep an episode of TPB and have anything left. Watch the late-night intact version.
http://www.bbcamerica.com/genre/comedy_games/trailer_park_boys/trailer...

Nestled in a low-rent, blue-collar district on the outskirts of the Canadian town of Halifax is Sunnyvale Trailer Park.

Filmed in spoof documentary style, this highly original new comedy turns the spotlight on a community at the margins of society, a place where crime and petty rivalries flourish but where love, friendships, and families also have a home.

At the heart of the community are Ricky (Robb Wells) and Julian (John Paul Tremblay), two guys whose lives were shaped growing up in the trailer park. They might love fast cars, talking dirty, and living on the edge of the law – but no matter how much trouble they get into, or how isolated and ostracized they become, they never stop trying to do the right thing.

Upcoming episodes include:

Episode 1: Take Your Little Gun And Get Out Of My Trailer Park
(Guns? In Canada???)

Episode 2: Fuck Community College, Let's Get Drunk And Eat Chicken Fingers

Episode 4: Mrs. Peterson's Dog Gets Fucked Up
(on the pot brownies Ricky is making, to sell, to buy more pot, to sell to prison guards, to get the money to restart his hydroponics operation ... but drops when his 8-year-old daughter Trinity shoots him in the bum, necessitating a joint emergency visit to the crooked veterinarian ... where the sound guy filming them gets shot by the irate farmer; my all-time favourite episode)

Don't miss it!!!

You'll have to wait for a subsequent season to see Ricky defend himself in court, on charges of illegally operating a gas station with the gas siphoned from cars in the trailer park (while Cory and Trevor sit in the box hooked up to oxygen tanks), by insisting that he be allowed to smoke and swear in court because otherwise his rights under the people's choices and voices act would be violated: "If I can't smoke and swear, I'm fucked". My sentiments precisely. ;)

.

[iverglas]

67. so did nobody watch it??

A floor-rollingly funny teevee show, with lots o' guns, not to mention pot brownies, and nobody tuned in??

Wot a dour bunch we are.

.

[MrBenchley]

68. TiVo'd it...haven't seen it yet...

[MrBenchley]

80. What a frigging scream...

"Number one because I'm on parole, and number two or three or whatever the fuck number we're up to...."

[iverglas]

81. we all have our favourite lines ;)

I'm sticking with "If I can't smoke and swear I'm fucked." (You won't get that one until season three, I think.)

Season four started here last Sunday night. You have many evenings of entertainment yet to come.

.

[xultar]

3. YES, no one can have a gun...EXCEPT ME :) n/t

[MrBenchley]

10. The more I hear what gun nuts have to say

the more I'm persuaded banning handguns isn't that extreme. Last time I looked, about 40% of Americans thought handguns should be banned.

[Superfly]

12. I think you meant to say...

"Last time I looked, 44 states have shall issue CCW laws in place, with more states joining constantly"

[MrBenchley]

27. No, I meant to say

who is surprised to see the RKBA crowd pimping for the GOP AGAIN?

[Township75]

45. No, what you meant to say was...

anti-gun groups don't have enough members to play 3-on-3 basketball...if they even could play basketball.

How is that for support for a handgun ban:eyes:

[FatSlob]

13. Could you cite that?

[Superfly]

14. Get ready for some horeshit from AGS

[FatSlob]

15. It would not surprise me.

For the poll to be legit, they should be willing to state the question, who was asked, how many were asked, who funded, and who actually carried it out.

[MrBenchley]

24. Maybe it was the little "l" libertarians, fat slob...

you know, the ones that seem to exist only in your mind...

[FatSlob]

38. Couldn't cite it, eh?

Too bad, I thought that, for once, you might rise to the challenge.

[MrBenchley]

48. For you, fat slob?

You don't present a challenge worth rising to.

[FatSlob]

63. Another dodge.

Why am I not surprised?

[iverglas]

55. how many times?

Maybe somebody could bookmark this one. I found it because *I* was curious. I opened a new window, I clicked "home", taking me to google, and I typed "united states" ban handguns 40%.

The "40%" turned out to be a red herring, but #3 on the list was this:

http://www.vpc.org/press/0003norc.htm

(Now, that IS NOT the source. That is a secondary source, which cites a PRIMARY SOURCE which you can all challenge if you like: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu)

A new report from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago details for the first time both gun ownership patterns and views on gun control for all census regions of the country while also looking at the states of California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The study, Attitudes Towards and Experiences with Guns: A State-Level Perspective, by Tom W. Smith and Luis Martos, was released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC). Among the study's findings are:

Handgun Ban. While only 25 percent of Americans own handguns, 37 percent of Americans favor "a law that would ban the possession of handguns except for the police and other authorized persons." A majority (51 percent) of Middle Atlantic residents favor a handgun ban. Nearly 47 percent of New England residents favor a handgun ban, as do 40 percent of East North Central residents. Nearly six out of 10 New Yorkers (59 percent) favor a handgun ban. For many regions, more residents favor a handgun ban than own handguns. (See Charts One and Two.)

This seems to be the original document: http://www.vpc.org/press/0003norc.htm

I'm not going to open it just now, as adobe acrobat crashes my trusty antique netscape and I'm doing too much stuff to go open IE, but anybody who wants to check it out is welcome.

.

[iverglas]

69. crickets?

A correction.
I said: This seems to be the original document: http://www.vpc.org/press/0003norc.htm
I meant to say: This seems to be the original document: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/guns01.pdf

And oh look:

Table 6. The Ownership of Guns (Continued)
B. Trends in Gun Ownership - Type of Firearm

% of Adults in Households with Handguns
1973 20.3
2001 21.7

% of Adults in Households with Longguns
1973 42.1%
2001 29.1

It's just amazing how good my guesses are, isn't it?? Read on:

Trends in Gun Ownership

The proportion of households with a firearm has been in slow decline over the last quarter century (Table 6). In the early 1970s about 50% of adults lived in households that kept a firearm. This now has fallen about 34-35%. Similarly, the percent of adults living in a household with a gun fell from a high of 51% in 1977 to a low of 32-33% in 2000-2001. These declines are partly the result of a decrease in household size.

From 1980 until 1997 the proportion of adults personally owning a gun held steady at about 29%. However, since then even this level declined to about 22-24% of adults personally owning a gun.

There has also been a shift in the types of firearms that people own. As hunting has declined as a recreational pursuit (Smith, 1997), the proportion of adults in households with longguns has decreased from about 42% in the early 1970s to about 27-29% today. Partly compensating for this drop, the proportion of adults living in a household with a handgun rose from about 20% in the early 1970s to 24-25% in the mid-1990s. However, this number is also now be waning with only 21-22% reporting living in a household with a handgun in 2000-2001. Likewise, the proportion ever having bought a handgun increased from 21% in 1996 to 25% in 1997-98 and then fell to 20-21% in 1998/99 (Smith, 2000).

Hot damn. Facts and figures. As requested. And SHOWING EXACTLY WHAT I SAID THEY WOULD SHOW.


I would also note the distinction made between "Handguns for law enforcement only" and "Total ban on handguns" in the question respondents were asked. I would suspect that Pert_UK probably meant his question to be whether people favoured "handguns for law enforcement only".

.

[MrBenchley]

70. Not even a thank you

from those who were so eager to see a cite...

Are you surprised? I'm not surprised.

[FatSlob]

72. An interesting study.

I'll have to read through it when I have a chance. I did find, however, that 62% of folks support concealed carry with training and background check. Of course, I'll have to read more to find the questions that were asked.

[MrBenchley]

73. Speaking of another dodge...

How far afield does one have to gallop to spin THIS

"Less than 40 percent of Americans feel safer with a concealed weapons law. The only region of the country where a majority of residents feel safer as the result of a concealed weapons law is the East South Central. In none of the four states do the majority of residents feel safer with a concealed weapons law."

http://www.vpc.org/studies/norckey.htm

into

"62% of folks support concealed carry"

[FatSlob]

74. Like I said, I'll have to read more.

Good try, Bench. I looked at page six. I'll have to read it again to ascertain if I am correct. If I am incorrect, I'll offer my apologies to everybody. Even if I am not, it is irrelevant, as opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. The FACT is that concealed carry does reduce crime and the likelyhood of victimization. You can try to spin around that all you want. Opinion polls are great, but thank god that the United States is not run by opinion polls. I know you'll come up with some sort of half-witty remark, and I fully expect that of you. Fire away.

[MrBenchley]

75. Welcome to Mary Rosh's fantasy land...

"The FACT is that concealed carry does reduce crime"
In fact between 1987, when Florida introduced its idiotic cocnealed carry law, and 1993, when the Brady Bill was introduced and crime began to drop nationwide, violent crime in Florida INCREASED 31%, from 123,030 incidents in 1987 to 161,789 in 1993.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/total_Index/total_crime.asp

The claim that concealed carry reduces crime is made by crackpot right wing pseudoscientist John "Mary Rosh" Lott, who is synonymous with academic fraud and whose work is subsidized by the gun industry through a right wing foundation. And that's not spin but FACT, fat slob.

"Opinion polls are great"
And gun nut propaganda is horseshit.

[FatSlob]

76. Look at percentages

as in the violent crime per 100,000 people. :hi: Thanks for providing a link that showd that crime percentages went down. I love it when you make my argument for me!

[iverglas]

77. Eh?

From Benchley's link:

1987
Population: 12,043,608
Violent crime: 123,030

That's about 1020/100,000 population.

1993
Population: 13,608,627
Violent crime: 161,789

That's about 1188/100,000 population.

1188 is bigger than 1020. In fact, it's about a 16% increase from 1020.

What numbers were *you* looking at? Or am I looking at the wrong ones? Those seem to be the ones Benchley was looking at.

Me, I'm not suggesting any kind of linear cause-and-effect relationship, either between laws permitting the carrying of concealed firearms and a rise in violent crime or between laws tightening restrictions on firearms possession and a drop in violent crime.

I just wish we'd all get our numbers straight.

.

[MrBenchley]

78. More of that stunning RKBA "logic"

must be something you get when you're beset by imaginary little "l" libertarians as fat slob is...

[MrBenchley]

79. And when we do we see what a pantload the RKBA cause is...

[Liberal Classic]

17. My friend, I'm afraid I don't believe you

I believe you already believe in a total ban, as well as bans on all hunting. I believe it pleases you to portray yourself as a moderate who is leaning towards the extreme position, but in reality you are already at the extreme position and your just tring to score points in the debate as the disgruntled moderate. When I meet someone in favor of a total ban, I thank them for their honesty. There's little enough honesty in the political process these days as it is.

[iverglas]

20. and surprisingly enough

I don't believe you when you say you don't believe Benchley. What a coincidence, eh?!

.

[MrBenchley]

26. But yet I DO believe you

when you don't believe him...

[MrBenchley]

25. Gee, that just breaks my fucking heart...

Especially considering the high levels of "honesty" exhibited here daily by the bullets for brains bunch.

"There's little enough honesty in the political process these days as it is."
So true...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=170057

[MrBenchley]

49. For anybody who hasn't got bullets for brains..

I suggest you look at the April 2000 issue of American Demographics magazine: "Gun weary Americans applaud controls" wherein you will find that:
93% of all voters want a mandatory waiting period before handguns can be purchased;
89% want child safety locks required on all handguns
74% want handgun owners registered
68% want assault weapons banned
61% want ALL guns registered
51% want gun shows banned outright and
37% of American voters do indeed want handguns banned.

You will also find that not only do 65% of Democrats and 63% of Independents want stricter gun control laws, so do 56% of Republicans.

Anyone who wishes to buy a copy of the article can do so here...

http://demographics.com/ac/april_2000/

Anyone who wishes to argue about it can piss off.

[iverglas]

59. well that makes two "cites" now

I imagine that the stats in the article you cite come from the same source as I cited above (post "how many times?"), before noticing your post.

And now we'll see what the response is ...

(Is cricket season upon us yet?)

.

[MrBenchley]

62. You and I both know what the response will be

By the way, American Demographics got theirs from a Newsweek/Princeton Survey study. No wonder the NRA is trying to invent its own news.

[MrBenchley]

64. For a BIG laugh, check out fat slob above

who has clearly decided to pretend he cannot read.

[iverglas]

65. heh ... and maybe we can get "flaminlib" ...

(hey, he had the "flamin" part right, eh?) ... to address some of those statistics.

Like the one that says that 25% of USAmericans own handguns. (I haven't checked the source itself, but I'd be wondering whether and how it might have accounted for handgun ownership by individuals not generally available for surveying, those criminal types who have a bit of a propensity for owning handguns.)

I wonder whether 25% of USAmericans owned handguns in the 1950s? It would be sheer speculation on my part (actually, it wouldn't be sheer speculation, but we'll call it that for now), but I'd venture to say that 25% of USAmericans in the 1950s did NOT own handguns.

So that would be a fact of interest when we consider those figures about the percentage of USAmericans who own/owned firearms from the 1950s to now, the ~40% or whatever it was.

Noses, faces; circumstances, cases.

It may be that a relatively constant proportion of USAmericans has owned firearms in the last half-century ... but if the firearms that they own now are significantly more commonly handguns than they were in the 1950s, we've got ourselves a whole different kettle of fish.

Just as we have if the reasons why USAmericans own firearms have changed significantly, e.g. if hunting was, but no longer is, a primary reason.

Etc., etc., etc.

.

[MrBenchley]

66. All good questions

which the RKBA crowd will avoid completely.

I doubt there were any but the extreme lunatic fringe in the 1950s that announced they needed a gun because they wanted to shoot their fellow citizens when revolution broke out...today that gibberish is a common theme among the gun nuts, as we see here more or less regularly...

It is certain that hunting has declined to but a tiny fringe and that the percentage of citizens killed and wounded by gun shot has increased proportionately...it's also certain that in the 1950s we didn't have gun shows full of Nazi paraphernalia, hate literature and gun peddlers...

[slackmaster]

71. In the 1950s anyone could buy a handgun by mail order

Talk about a whole different kettle of fish.

[damnraddem]

22. Not too surprising:

most of us want restrictions, not a ban. For one thing, prohibition never works. For another, there are legitimate reasons that some people need hand guns.

[flaminlib]

30. This is interesting

10 people voted for a "total" ban, but no one would voice that in my post.. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=51397&mesg_id=51397



I wonder why.

[iverglas]

31. are you really this unable

... to distinguish between apples and oranges?

Pert_UK asked whether readers favoured a total ban on handguns.

You assumed that someone favoured a total ban on firearms, demanded that whoever that might be rebut your ludicrous "argument" against that alleged position, and pretended to think (or, who knows, genuinely think) that you had already given the final word.

C'mon, now. Put your face up to the monitor and squint. Are you seeing orange and not-orange?

Let me help you out. I just don't know anyone who's interested in talking to someone who is either too dim to grasp the meaninglessness of his/her "argument" or too disingenuous to acknowledge knowing just how meaningless it is.

Not that I've seen anybody like that around here lately ...

.

[flaminlib]

33. Why are you so hostile?

I would "assume" that someone wanting ban all handguns might "also" have an opinion on banning "all" firearms. Im sure you will find that assumption more than frustrating but try to keep it civil, please. If assumptions in which I "ask" for clarification are more than you are able to deal with, please acknowledge that.

The remainder of your arguments can be summarily dismissed after reading your following statement:

"You assumed that someone favoured a total ban on firearms, demanded that whoever that might be rebut your ludicrous "argument" against that alleged position, and pretended to think (or, who knows, genuinely think) that you had already given the final word."


Huh? Take that sentence in for a fitting, please.

[iverglas]

34. If I need instructions or advice from you

"... try to keep it civil, please."

... rest assured, I will ask for them.

And let me also assure you that I will not be looking in your direction for any model of civility.

Civility of discourse is not formal politeness. Civility, in discourse about ideas, is openness, transparency, honesty, sincerity, good faith, and like that.


"You assumed that someone favoured a total ban on firearms, demanded that whoever that might be rebut your ludicrous 'argument' against that alleged position, and pretended to think (or, who knows, genuinely think) that you had already given the final word."

Huh? Take that sentence in for a fitting, please.

If you think it wise to publicize your (claimed) inability to understand a perfectly straightforward and grammatically correct statement ... well, that's your choice. It's rather odd when the statement was merely summarizing the things you yourself had done, but there ya go.

But just for you, we'll break it down.

You:

- assumed that someone favoured a total ban on firearms

and

- demanded that someone who favoured a total ban on firearms rebut your ludicrous "argument" against that alleged position

and

- pretended to think that you had already given the final word.


*And* you wonder why nobody was impressed with your little charade. Goodness.


The remainder of your arguments can be summarily dismissed
after reading your following statement: ...

You just have the queerest notions about what entitles one to summarily dismiss the things people say, doncha, little fella?

First you decided that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's studies on the prevalence of hunting in the US population over time could be dismissed because Benchley doesn't like hunters and hunting ... and now you're busily dismisssing some arguments of mine (dog knows what they were - I didn't even make any argument in the post you're responding to) because you apparently can't follow a thought.

Maybe we should get back to that notion of "relevance" that you've expressed such fondness for.

.

[flaminlib]

35. Now that is desperation!

Thank you for your definition of civility but judging from your frequent use of ad hominems like "little fella", I fear the distinction is lost on you.

And if you still think the following sentence is grammatically correct, let alone sensible, then Im not sure how far we can go with this discussion:

"You assumed that someone favoured a total ban on firearms, demanded that whoever that might be rebut your ludicrous 'argument' against that alleged position, and pretended to think (or, who knows, genuinely think) that you had already given the final word."


As to your edited, point by point analysis of my post:

Yes, I did make an assumption that "someone" would admit to supporting a ban on all firearms. I have yet to encounter anyone who will do so.

I never demanded anything of anyone. I suggested an argument. Your first step should have been in answering the first question, did my assumption apply to you? If not, move on.

At what point did I give a final word? I'm not sure how you argue, but making an assertion, a definitive statement or conclusion, inherent or implied based on one's views, is the essence of debate. I realize personal attacks are much easier, but I was hoping for more.

[iverglas]

39. like I said

If not, move on.

When I am interested in your instructions regarding my conduct on an internet discussion board, I will be sure to let you know.

But you, you go right ahead with your digging and don't mind me. The hole should be pretty deep by now.

Yes, I did make an assumption that "someone" would admit to supporting a ban on all firearms.

Such funny words you use. "Admit"? Is "admitting" to supporting a ban on all firearms something like admitting to picking one's nose, or more like admitting to voting Republican, or to having killed one's baby brother?

I have yet to encounter anyone who will do so.

And what does this tell you, exactly? And why do you think that this fact is worth reporting, exactly?

I never demanded anything of anyone. I suggested an argument.

Let's have a look at what you did say. (First, This is directed at staunch anti-gunners, not gun control supporters necessarily. I noted the "necessarily". You wrote it, but perhaps you failed to note it.)

Now, you assumed that you were addressing people who want to ban firearms for 2 reasons. Accidents and intentional gun violence. Fine. Maybe there are such people. But now, here's your problem (emphasis added):

My question is, since gun ownership has remained fairly steady over time, since the 1950's (The Bureau of Justice Statistics Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics) how can you attribute the increase in gun violence to guns themselves?

You have ascribed an opinion to someone about whom you knew nothing. YOU have TOLD whomever you are addressing what S/HE thinks.

You have asked what is commonly known as a LOADED QUESTION.

To a person who does NOT "attribute the increase in gun violence to guns themselves", the question "how can you attribute the increase in gun violence to guns themselves?" is EXACTLY THE SAME as the question "have you stopped beating your dog?" when it is put to a person who has NEVER beaten his/her dog.

People really don't react well to loaded questions, you might be aware. Particularly, questions loaded with premises that, if true, would make them stupid and/or evil.

People don't like being asked whether they have stopped beating their dogs when they have never beaten their dogs. People wouldn't like being asked why they play in traffic when they have never played in traffic. People really just don't like being asked why they are evil or stupid, or whether they have stopped being evil or stupid.

Your loaded question obviously falls into the latter category. Asking someone "how can you attribute the increase in gun violence to guns themselves?" is easily translated to "why are you so stupid?"

WHO but a very stupid person would "attribute the increase in gun violence to guns themselves"??? Who is likely to answer such an obvious, and obviously totally disrespectful, loaded question??

At what point did I give a final word?

You simply defined any opposing view out of existence. You stated the opposing view as "attribut<ing> the increase in gun violence to guns themselves" and then demolished your little straw creation.

It's pretty easy to get the final word when yer arguing with yerself.


And if you still think the following sentence is grammatically correct, let alone sensible, then Im not sure how far we can go with this discussion: ...

If you insist on portraying yourself as a dunderhead, or making allegations that you do nothing to substantiate (if you are saying that the sentence in question is NOT grammatical, why don't you identify the fault(s) in it??), then I'll have to share your reservations.

Of course, I'm not seeing a discussion happening. I'm seeing -- in your other thread -- a number of posts by me raising issues and offering information, all of which was directly relevant to your posts, that you have completely ignored. Call me a fool, but a conversation in which one person says things and the other person ignores them is not what I would characterize as a "discussion".


I realize personal attacks are much easier, but I was hoping for more.

Well, if wishes were horses<*> ... and meanwhile, someone who really wants to ride might try buying a ticket rather than wishing.

________________________
<*> You do know what would happen if wishes were horses? Never hesitate to let me know if I'm using phrases or alluding to ideas that are foreign to you ...

.

[flaminlib]

40. just a side note...

Perhaps you could make your posts longer?

[iverglas]

44. well there ya go!

Perhaps you could make your posts longer?

A sincere desire for discussion if ever I saw one!

.

[flaminlib]

43. See post 42

And please, follow your own advice!

[MrBenchley]

37. I'm still bemused at someone

who demands to know why nobody answered his arrogant, dishonest nonsense with the respect somebody who argues in good faith receives.

The answer to that is so obvious as to seem silly.

[flaminlib]

41. Just maybe you can answer this one...

How was my post "arrogant, dishonest or nonsense" and when I "demanded" anything of anyone.


You are right though, some answers are obvious. You just have to get past the attack mentality to see them.

[MrBenchley]

47. Like I said...

"some answers are obvious. "
So obvious that the inability to see them becomes hilarious.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

53. Geeze, I had your number from the first...

"you could have acknowledged your incompetencies"
Jeeze, I'm not the one here pissing and moaning because people treat Pert with the respect he deserves.

[flaminlib]

42. Here ya go

"When I am interested in your instructions regarding my conduct on an internet discussion board, I will be sure to let you know."

"Civility of discourse is not formal politeness. Civility, in discourse about ideas, is openness, transparency, honesty, sincerity, good faith, and like that."

Well dont be afraid to contradict yourself, again!

"Such funny words you use. "Admit"? Is "admitting" to supporting a ban on all firearms something like admitting to picking one's nose, or more like admitting to voting Republican, or to having killed one's baby brother?"

What you are feeling is not "funny", its called uneasiness or apprehension or dissonance. It comes from holding contradictory opinions that you would rather not address.

"And what does this tell you, exactly? And why do you think that this fact is worth reporting, exactly?"

It tells me that you will try to argue a point without actually claiming to adhere to the point itself.

As for the rest of your post:

Just correct my assumptions!!

[iverglas]

46. wowsers

In appropriately random order ...




You say: I have yet to encounter anyone who will <admit to supporting a total ban on firearms>.

I say: And what does this tell you, exactly? And why do you think that this fact is worth reporting, exactly?

You say: It tells me that you will try to argue a point without actually claiming to adhere to the point itself.

You must have some kind of super power. Or be speaking a different language from the rest of us.

Your failure to encounter anyone who will "admit to supporting a total ban on firearms" tells *me*, on the other hand, that most people turn up their noses at discussing anything at all with people who make it plain that their sole objective is to make them look like evil idiots.

My conclusion actually makes sense.


Me: When I am interested in your instructions regarding my conduct on an internet discussion board, I will be sure to let you know.
Civility of discourse is not formal politeness. Civility, in discourse about ideas, is openness, transparency, honesty, sincerity, good faith, and like that.

You: Well dont be afraid to contradict yourself, again!

Don't you ever hesitate to make totally wild and crazy allegations for which you make no attempt to provide evidence, now!

And if you can point to the contradiction between (a) my not being interested in your etiquette pointers or other behavioural advice and (b) my statement that civility of discourse involves openness, transparency, honesty, sincerity and good faith -- well, do tell.

Me, I think that the two things are perfectly, and perfectly obviously, consonnant.


What you are feeling is not "funny", its called uneasiness or apprehension or dissonance. It comes from holding contradictory opinions that you would rather not address.

Such clairvoyance! Or is it telepathy?? Do you bend spoons with the power of your mind too?

You know that I hold contradictory opinions ... and yet I have not stated a single opinion on the matter at hand.

As for the rest of your post:
Just correct my assumptions!!

As for the rest of your post: just jump in a lake.

Me, I'm going home for dinner.

.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

52. actually

Semantics might be your hobby, but dont quit your day job

It *is* my day job, sweetie. And I'm paid top dollar for it.

Like I wuz saying: when I ... and the people who pay me, who all seem to read and write above the grade 9 level ... want your advice, we'll be sure to ask for it.

.

[demsrule4life]

54. Here is the perfect I'm an

arrogant ass post. Never had much use for your type since in reality we are all equal in the end. Equally dead that is. Yes some people are remembered for their accomplishments long after they are dead. I doubt you, me or anyone else on this board is going to be remembered for shit 100 years from now. And in my book that makes you no better then it makes me.

[iverglas]

56. ta ever so much

Now feel free to go lecture the individual who, so far, has started and ended with personal commentary, and done nothing much else in between.

Me, I'm just the person who isn't interested. Yer basic innocent by-stander, busily presenting facts and arguments, and being answered with etiquette tips and career pointers and NOTHING ELSE.

But hey, you feel free to answer some of what I posted in our new little friend's thread if you like. The stuff about the changing demographics of firearms ownership in the US, mostly down near the bottom of that thread. Strikes me as quite an interesting topic for discussion.

.

[demsrule4life]

57. What were you doing about 0400 central time this morning?

Myself I was pulling two 17 year olds out of the cooler and helping load them into funeral home cars. Trust me, we are all equal in the end.

[iverglas]

58. my dear fellow

Trust me, we are all equal in the end.

Like I wuz saying: perhaps you can explain this concept to our new little friend. He's the one doing the dissing hereabouts -- as you are perfectly aware. (And I will refrain from any observation about some rather obvious reasons why you choose to target the particular target, rather than the shooter, in this case -- since they are unrelated to our subject here and *I* am not the habit of psychoanalyzing or evaluating by internet).

Me, I'm an egalitarian libertarian. I believe fervently in the value of all individuals.

.

[demsrule4life]

60. How much value do you place on the likes of

Jeffrey Dahlmer, Ted Bundy and Charles Manson? And you know what the real kicker is? In spite of how much self importance you place on yourself, who are people going to be talking about in the future?

[MrBenchley]

61. Yeah, but dems...

Not all of us will go into the ground having pimped for the right wing scum of the earth...

"And in my book that makes you no better then it makes me. "
Yeah? Was that the book that said Ed Asner was a communist? Has it got even one good thing to say about any Democrat?

[enfield collector]

36. how are we going to enforce the handgun ban on crims? n/t

[Pert_UK]

82. Alrighty then......I suppose I should post my conclusions.

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to break with my normal tradition of rational, inoffensive, logical and structured argument.....

There are a significant number of people (39 at present) who have voted for "There should be virtually no restriction on owning handguns. (Exceptions might include convicted criminals and the insane)", and to me this begs the following question:

ARE YOU COMPLETELY INSANE???

Now I've probably just lost the interest of many DUers, but this is just one point that I can't get my head around without angry disbelief.

It is my considered opinion that people advocating the "virtually no restrictions" position have lost sight of reality and common sense.

There is a distinct difference between having the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and having a GOOD REASON to keep and bear arms. Even if there is the RKBA, it is criminally irresponsible to allow it to be exercised without proper control and restraint. It strikes me as bizarre that citizens can (in many areas) purchase weapon after weapon after weapon but not be compelled to explain WHY they might need so many, or to account for their whereabouts if they sell them on. In many places, there are no laws governing compulsory safety-training or minimum levels of competance before someone is allowed to purchase a weapon, and this astounds me.

For example, you don't let people drive cars unless they pass a driving test to prove they are competant, and you track car-ownership to ensure that if a car is used in a crime then its registered owner can be contacted and/or charged if they have acted illegally.

To me it seems obvious - you should not be allowed to exercise your RIGHT unless you can demonstrate:

- a good REASON for exercising it (which may be self-defence, or sport, or hunting....but there should be SOME reason)
- competence in exercising that right, e.g. passing a gun-safety training course
- sufficient levels of responsibility to exercise the right without endangering others (e.g. purchase of a gun safe, undertaking not to dispose of the gun to an inappropriate person etc.).

My personal belief is that people who exercise the RIGHT without good REASON are largely to blame for the increasingly casual nature of gun-ownership. Gun ownership is a huge responsibility that needs to be taken seriously, and current laws/restrictions (and the lack of them) just make gun ownership a trivial and casual thing.

For the sake of equality, I should also add that I'm surprised by the number of people voting for a "total ban" who don't concede that it wouldn't work.

IMHO handguns are such an embedded part of US culture that it would be political suicide to attempt a general ban. In addition, considering the number of gun-owners who are clearly willing to die defending their supposed right to keep and bear arms, and the absence of any effective means of tracking gun ownership, then I don't believe that it would be practically possible to confiscate all legally held firearms.

So, even if the vast majority of US citizens (and the government) wanted a gun ban, it just wouldn't be feasible.

And this is an incredibly sad fact about handguns in the US - I believe that you're stuck with them, whether you want them or not, purely because they are so embedded within society.

[GOPFighter]

83. Bravo!

I agree with you 100%. I believe the vast majority of DUers agree also. I think most of the "There should be virtually no restriction on owning handguns. (Exceptions might include convicted criminals and the insane)" votes came from conservative lurkers who freep polls here from time to time. I'm certain this poll is not Representative of the DU (or the American public for that matter).

[slackmaster]

132. Be certain at your own risk, GOPFighter

Whenever similar questions have been posted in the GD forum the results have IIRC shown the population of DU (at least those who choose to respond) split about 50-50, kind of like the nation as a whole.

[number6]

84. Armed Liberals

I think Liberals secretly like guns more than they admit publicly

[MrBenchley]

85. Funny...

We sure don't see much "liberal" from the armed enthusiasts down here...

[FatSlob]

86. We do see quite a bit of authoritarian

from the antis, though.

[MrBenchley]

87. Who is we, fat slob? The imaginary party you belong to?

[FatSlob]

88. We would be the people who read this board.

If you consider the Democratic Party to be imaginary, then perhaps you need more help than could be found here.

[MrBenchley]

90. Jeeze, fat slob...

show me anything in the Democratic platform that even mentions "authoritarianism"...

But then I'm not the one pretending there's some imaginary little "L" libertarians, either....

[FatSlob]

166. Nope, the party never utters the word.

But the antis on this board favor authoritarian policy in regards to firearm freedom.

[MrBenchley]

183. So few people actually have that particular mania

[FatSlob]

223. yes, most are sane and not authoritarian antis.

You are correct, few people have the authoritarian mania about guns as do the antis on this board.

[MrBenchley]

224. And so few people think "authoritarian"

has any political weight whatsoever....but then so few are beset with imaginary little "l" libertarians

[FatSlob]

225. I apologize for your lack of comprehension on the issue.

Hopefully you will someday comprehend that libertarian is the oppposite of authoritarian. The Libertarian Party is not particularly libertarian in all issues, even though it uses the same name. Similarly, a democratic form of government does not necessarily conform to the ideals of the Democratic Party.

[MrBenchley]

227. Jeeze, fat slob, I understand perfectly

You've go some half-assed rule by which you and no one else but you divides things into "good" or "bad"....and you seem to think it's worth spouting off about it every chance you get.

[FatSlob]

231. Obviously you don't understand.

It is a pretty simple concept. the authoritarian/libertarian is strictly personal freedom. Your view on the issue of firearms freedom is largely authoritarian. That does not mean that you belong to the Authoritarian Party, it means that your point of view on the issue is one of denial of freedom. That's all. You'll comprehend it someday. Somebody who is authoritarian on one issue is not necessarily authoritarian on all issues.

[MrBenchley]

232. I DO understand, fat slob...

You got nothing factual to add to the discussion, so you made up your own screwy little issues to bitch about.

"Your view on the issue of firearms freedom is largely authoritarian."
Which means that by you, these yobbos are freedom fighters. Nuff said.

[OpSomBlood]

233. Haven't you heard?

Benchley doesn't want to ban guns.

Of course, he also thinks that everyone who is pro-gun is an indecent, scumbag, redneck, piece-of-shit, Glocksmoking NRA drone. He thinks there is no such thing as safe and responsible gun ownership, and that the individual right to own guns is the result of gross misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.

But he doesn't want to ban guns. It's quite an interesting paradox.

[OpSomBlood]

89. One imaginary Democrat:

From johnkerry.com:

>> John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and he believes that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. <<

[MrBenchley]

91. And what does the stentorian say?

For that matter, where does John Kerry stand on the AWB?

"“For ten years, the assault weapons ban has stopped fugitives and rapists and murderers from purchasing weapons like AK-47s.  And for ten years, not one honest, responsible American has had their guns taken away because of this law.  That’s why gun owners across America support renewing the assault weapons ban.  And why they support closing the gun show loophole so that gun shows can continue uninterrupted without being magnets for criminals trying to get around the law and without serving as ways for terrorists to purchase guns within our borders.
“And gun manufacturers have a responsibility too.  I’m not for gun manufacturers being held liable for every crime that occurs.  But when they knowingly engage in transactions with dangerous dealers in order to make a fast buck at the expense of public safety – that is wrong.  One point two percent of licensed gun dealers supply 57 percent of firearms recovered from criminals.  And those who supply them should be held accountable.
“So let’s be honest about what we’re facing here.  The opposition to these common-sense gun safety laws is being driven by the NRA’s special interest leadership and lobbyists here in Washington.  This is not the voice of gun owners across America.  "

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0302.html

Funny how some people are eager to put up links to right wing cesspools but seem reluctant to link to

http://www.johnkerry.com/

[OpSomBlood]

92. The difference between you and me.

Kerry supports the AWB, and on that issue he and I disagree. But I support Kerry and don't call him an indecent shitheel over his views on one issue.

[MrBenchley]

101. Another difference is that I don't swallow crap from the stentorian

or pass it along...

[OpSomBlood]

103. You spent more time at that site than I did.

And you claim that I endorsed the site when all I did was reference an image that was hosted there. Talk about distortion, denial and deception.

[MrBenchley]

107. Jeeze, I didn't root through it for that photo....

All I did was go to the front page and write down the titles of two or three of the mind-numbingly ignorant and ugly dittohead rants there...

And of course, I pointed out that you were eager to link to the stentorian's dittohead rants but reluctant to link to

http://www.johnkerry.com/

[OpSomBlood]

109. See post 98.

I never referred to the rants, I linked to the image. As you've been so eager to ignore, I entered "feinstein AK-47" into Google and it was the first result that produced the photo I was looking for.

I guess if you repeat a lie enough times, two or three people will believe it.

[MrBenchley]

110. Gee, I haven't ignored it....

"I entered "feinstein AK-47" into Google and it was the first result"
Hey, anybody else can do the same...and see the mind-numbingly stupid gaggle of freeper sites that draws up...Hell, 11th one down is the Free Republic itself, in all its malignant glory...

[OpSomBlood]

111. Your point, what is it?

So I was looking for the image and I found it. Would the image have somehow been more valid if I had found it at a left-wing website?

I'm sure you have a point. Please let the rest of us in on it.

[MrBenchley]

113. Blindingly obvious...

"Would the image have somehow been more valid if I had found it at a left-wing website?"
Tell us, op, do you really think you would? That's SO pweshus.

[OpSomBlood]

115. Answer a question with a question. Thanks, Rumsfeld.

You're castigating me for linking to an image because it was hosted at a right-wing website. The actual content of the image seems to mean less to you than the site it was hosted at. So my question to you was why the site an image is hosted at makes the image itself less valid.

I don't know what the fuck pweshus means, but if it means I'm irritating you I'll take it as a compliment.

[MrBenchley]

119. "The actual content of the image"

What was that? You mean the picture of a respected Democratic senator holding an assault weapon that presents a public menace? And what the fuck does it have to do with whether assault weapons should be banned?

[OpSomBlood]

121. The Benchley strategy.

Is this how you "win" debates in your own mind? Do you just keep repeating the same questions over and over (regardless of how many times the question is answered) for days on end until the other person gives up? And when they don't give up, you accuse them of furthering the radical right agenda?

How old are you? You carry on like an infant.

[MrBenchley]

127. Gee, op...better that

that be sitting around on a Democratic website, posting crap from a right wing cesspool, mouthing empty phrases like "the actual content of the image"....

"you accuse them of furthering the radical right agenda"
Gee, I'm not the one pissing and moaning "Poor Pete Coors...people are picking him because he's a Republican..."

[iverglas]

134. eh???

Do you just keep repeating the same questions over and over (regardless of how many times the question is answered) for days on end until the other person gives up?

The question Benchley asks:

And what the fuck does it have to do with whether assault weapons should be banned?

was mine. And I did indeed ask it several times the other day.

And I haven't seen it answered ONCE. Of course, I notice that you don't actually say that it WAS answered.

If you do want to say that it was answered, kindly say it, and provide me with a link to said answer(s).

.

[MrBenchley]

138. And you'll notice he's still unable to tell anyone

what the point of his little right wing picture show was...

[OpSomBlood]

145. One more time:

THIS IS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION YOU TWO KEEP ASKING. I HAVE ANSWERED IT AT LEAST TEN TIMES BUT I WILL DO IT ONCE MORE:

DIANNE FEINSTEIN SUPPORTS THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN PART BECAUSE SHE CLAIMS THAT SUCH WEAPONS ARE INHERENTLY DANGEROUS AND ACCOUNT FOR MANY ACCIDENTAL DEATHS. THEN, SHE PROCEEDED TO HANDLE AN ASSAULT RIFLE IN THE MOST DANGEROUS WAY POSSIBLE. SHE SUBSCRIBED TO THE "IT'S UNLOADED AND SAFE" FALSE PREMISE THAT RESULTS IN ALMOST EVERY ACCIDENTAL GUN DEATH AND SHOULD THEREFORE NOT BE CONSIDERED AN EXPERT ON HOW UNSAFE GUNS ARE.

Hope you caught it that time.

[iverglas]

149. I guess I'll have to keep waiting

Can you maybe just highlight the bit of your post that allegedly answers the question?

Who advanced Dianne Feinstein as "an expert on how unsafe guns are"? You seem to be answering a question that no one has asked ...

Dianne Feinstein could stand on her head and shoot at road signs blindfolded for all I care. It wouldn't have any more to do with the advisability of the assault weapons legislation she advocates than your non-answer has to do with the question asked.

.

[slackmaster]

165. I've got your answer!

Who advanced Dianne Feinstein as "an expert on how unsafe guns are"?

Senator Feinstein has declared herself an expert on "assault weapons" many, many times.

Here's a recent example, a March 1, 2004 floor speech:

http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/04Speeches/assault%20weapons%20ban%203%201.htm

How many times has she gone on about how her first-hand exposure to violent crime has made her an expert on the guns themselves?

[iverglas]

204. mmm ... no

Who advanced Dianne Feinstein as "an expert on how unsafe guns are"?
Senator Feinstein has declared herself an expert on "assault weapons" many, many times.

You're going to have to copy and paste something from there where Feinstein declares herself an expert on assault weapons. I'm just not seeing it.

In any event, my comment actually went:

Who advanced Dianne Feinstein as "an expert on how unsafe guns are"? You seem to be answering a question that no one has asked ...

Yet another red herring, turned into yet another straw fella.

Like I said, Feinstein could stand on her head and shoot blindfolded, and it would have no bearing on the advisability of the assault weapons ban. Obviously, she could also declare herself supreme unbeaten world champion expert on assault weapons, and ditto.

How many times has she gone on about how her first-hand exposure to violent crime has made her an expert on the guns themselves?

So, like, do I get a prize for the right answer? To what authority shall we refer for verification?

And ... why do I care, again?

No, please. It's now a rhetorical question.

.

[slackmaster]

129. That AW was a menace BECAUSE of the way she was holding it

Not because of any of its inherent characteristics.

And what the fuck does it have to do with whether assault weapons should be banned?

It shows the hypocrisy and intellectual emptiness of the AWB enthusiasts.

[iverglas]

137. what we know

... at least, if we take the word of the Mayor of San Francisco for it, and I haven't run across any reason not to do so ...

That AW was a menace BECAUSE of the way she was holding it

is that this statement is one hundred per cent false.

If you can explain what there is about holding a firearm that is not loaded and has been disabled, regardless of how one holds it, that constitutes a "menace", I'd be interested.

.

[slackmaster]

148. Again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of gun safety

As well as the senator's. She violated three of the fundamental rules: Muzzle control, trigger discipline, and the requirement to visually check for ammunition each and every time you handle a firearm.

If you can explain what there is about holding a firearm that is not loaded and has been disabled, regardless of how one holds it, that constitutes a "menace", I'd be interested.

There's no such thing about a firearm that is not loaded and has been "disabled". That was the very first thing my stepfather taught me about firearms. You have to check them visually each and every time you handle them. My habit is to triple-check. Even when you just checked and are "sure" the weapon is unloaded you don't wave the thing around indiscriminately and put your finger on the trigger.

The senator didn't do the proper checks to ensure that the firearm in her hands was actually unloaded. If she had ever checked it previously, she should have checked again to ensure that nobody substituted a different, loaded one.

[iverglas]

150. more apparitions

There's no such thing about a firearm that is not loaded and has been "disabled".

Some of us really are capable of distinguishing between useful rules of thumb and, well, reality.

.

[slackmaster]

152. Some of us take gun safety seriously

That includes not blindly trusting someone who hands us what appears to be a real firearm and says "don't worry, it's unloaded and disabled".

:eyes:

Self-assured people who ignore the "apparitions" you refer to are the ones who become involved in accidental shootings. We who recognize the fallibility of our senses and our memories don't.

[demsrule4life]

184. You can read about reality everyday on Benchies posts

in GIN. How many posts has he posted on drunk teens waving "unloaded" guns around and someone dies?

[iverglas]

151. oops, I forgot

What did all that have to do with the advisability of an assault weapons ban?

.

[slackmaster]

153. Not much AFAIK

I'm not the one who brought up the photo of Senator Feinstein.

My contribution here is intended to communicate the importance of safe gun handling. Senator Feinstein set a poor example.

[iverglas]

155. and Jimmy Carter

committed adultery in his mind.

It's all crucially important, isn't it?

.

[slackmaster]

157. Close

President Carter told Playboy magazine "I've lusted in my heart". Just an honest disclosure. He didn't go waving his wanger around or anything stupid like that.

I like how singer/songwriter John Fogarty incorporated that quote into a song about television. I believe the title was I saw it on TV. A record company sued him unsuccessfully for quoting one of his own trademark guitar riffs in that song.

:evilgrin:

[iverglas]

202. hyperbole

I'll let you do the search, but I did accurately quote Jimmy Carter in a post earlier this week; well, I said "lusted in his mind", but I see it was "heart".

Don't know the song. Can't find it. Ah, that would be because you misspelled "Fogerty", and fortunately a few other people did too, so I found "john fogarty" "i saw it on tv" and identified the error. Oh, of course; couldn't place the name -- Creedance Clearwater. I have one of their albums because for some unknown reason my mother bought it back ~1971 and I ultimately relieved her of it.

... Well, that was fun. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000002L77/104-6389851-6640702?v=glance
It seems my speaker connection is fucked, but I finally got to listen to a clip by contorting myself and hanging onto the plug, unfortunately a most unenlightening one. A little John Prine-ish perhaps? Saw Prine for my birthday 3 years ago. The c.v. had never heard of him, I wasn't a huge fan ... but we wandered up to the front at the folk festival when it turned out that we were sitting right under a halogen light that wasn't going to be turned off for his performance, and a festival volunteer took pity on us craning over the snow fence to see past the bank of speakers (no, there is no snow here in August, snow fence just gets put to off-season use), and asked whether we were huge fans so of course we said "yes", and invited us up beside the stage for the duration. The c.v.'s a musician, and pronounced it an excellent show.

Blah blah, work to do ...

.

[slackmaster]

205. I Saw It On TV is on a John FogArty solo album called Centerfield

Not a CCR song.

[iverglas]

209. yes ...

The link I provided was, in fact, to the Centerfield album, not a CCR album, claro.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=fogerty+creedence+clearwater&spell=1
"Results 1 - 10 of about 15,800 for fogerty creedence clearwater."

John Fogerty
Official site includes news, discography, mailing list and forum.
www.johnfogerty.com

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=fogarty+creedence+clearwater&spell=1
"Results 1 - 10 of about 461 for fogarty creedence clearwater."

Sheesh, some people will argue about anything.

.

[OpSomBlood]

156. Mountain out of a molehill.

If you look at the original reference, you'll see that I posted it as a humorous aside for those who take gun safety seriously. I never claimed that it was the definitive proof that the AWB should sunset.

Benchley decided to dedicate the following 150 or so posts to the fact that said image was hosted on a right-wing website.

[Superfly]

93. How in the hell is johnkerry.com

a right wing cessp(ool)?

Benchley quote: "Funny how some people are eager to put up links to right wing cessp
http://www.johnkerry.com /"

[iverglas]

97. ah, curiosity

How in the hell is johnkerry.com0
a right wing cessp(ool)?
Benchley quote: "Funny how some people are eager
to put up links to right wing cessp
http://www.johnkerry.com /

I experienced some curiosity myself. So, on a hunch, I used that handy "view source" button. Sure 'nuff, there was my answer.

Removing the extraneous automatically-inserted codes from the relevant part of the "view source" page, we find:

Funny how some people are eager to
put up links to right wing cessp<ools
but seem reluctant to link to http://www.johnkerry.com

... where the "<" in "cessp<ool" was of course originally a square bracket, which evidently slipped in by a slip of Benchley's figure, and resulted in omission of the text that followed it from the posted version of that text.

Tsk, somebody shoulda used that spellcheck. But inquiring minds can usually figure out a more reasonable explanation of such obvious errors than the one you offer in this case.

.

[OpSomBlood]

98. No reluctance.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/crime/

Click "Increased Gun Safety".

[slackmaster]

126. Wow - I agree with him completely on 9 out of 11 points raised

At least that's how I count them.

[MrBenchley]

99. Where would the RKBA crowd be without distortion, denial and deception?

[OpSomBlood]

100. John Kerry is in the RKBA crowd.

Is the smoke coming out of your ears yet?

[MrBenchley]

102. IS he?

Perhaps you'd like to show me where he urged that the AWB be allowed to sunset...or where he pissed and moaned about Diane Feinstein...

[OpSomBlood]

106. "RKBA crowd" means....

...people who believe that we have the right to keep and bear arms. Doesn't it? Isn't that what RKBA stands for?

Or are Democrats running for president who support the right to keep and bear arms exempt from this crowd?

[MrBenchley]

108. Around here...

"RKBA crowd" stands for those folks peddling gun nut propaganda...you know, like "the AWB is purely cosmetic" and "the gun industry ought to be immune to liability" and "look at Diane Feinstein holding that gun"....

"Democrats running for president who support the right to keep and bear arms"
Funny Kerry deliberately avoided that phrase...wonder why?

[OpSomBlood]

112. For those without a dictionary:

"Right to keep and bear arms" means exactly the same thing as, "American adults have the right to own guns."

So John Kerry is in the RKBA crowd.

[MrBenchley]

114. You want to pretend that, be my guest.

It doesn't change his stance on gun industry liability, or the gun show loophole, or strengthening and renewing the assault weapons ban, or any of the other issues the RKBA crowd pisses and moans about here daily.

And I doubt he'd be fooled by the sites that came up on a google search for "feinstein AK-47", either.

But then it wasn't the gun control people who were wringing their hands and shouting they would "never vote for Kerry" because he was "evil" a couple weeks ago, either; that was the RKBA crowd.

[OpSomBlood]

116. Who's fooled?

Unless that image of Feinstein was doctored, how exactly did that website "fool" me? Are you implying that Feinstein didn't actually point an AK-47 at a crowd, and that the image is a hoax?

[MrBenchley]

117. It sure as hell ain't me...

I know exactly what it means when somebody posts crap from the stentorian, or is eager to put up a link to there but not to

http://www.johnkerry.com /

for that matter, I'm rarely fooled when someone sticks up for scum like Pete Coors, and cries "oh my god, you're only picking on him because he's a Republican" when his activities are pointed out in public.

[OpSomBlood]

118. See post #98.

Again, where exactly was I reluctant to post a link to johnkerry.com?

Are you lying or delusional?

[MrBenchley]

120. It's not aging into honesty...

"Are you lying or delusional?"
No I leave that to the bullets for brains bunch around here....

[OpSomBlood]

122. "I know you are but what am I"

This sums up your last intellectually stimulating reponse. Way to go, Pee Wee.

[flaminlib]

124. LOL

[MrBenchley]

125. Tell it to the stentorian

[OpSomBlood]

130. Why don't you just put it in your sig line?

"OpSomBlood the traitor linked to an image hosted on a right-wing website."

It would save you the effort and help keep some of that Chee-toh powder off your keyboard.

[MrBenchley]

140. "Tell it to the stentorian" makes a much better headline

[flaminlib]

123. Major problem

The rabid gun controllers here are going to be forced to vote for one of us "gun toting liberals", or hand the election over to bush. I am wondering how they can reconcile that with their hatred of guns. Should they swallow their pride and vote for Kerry, or stand firm and write in their own names or some 3rd party candidate who shares their fears?

[iverglas]

131. a largish problem indeed

You appear to be seeing apparitions.

.

[flaminlib]

136. In what way

Youve already stated that you would prefer more restrictions than Kerry is willing to offer, but "Im" the one seeing apparitions?

[iverglas]

141. gee: compare and contrast

First, we had:

The rabid gun controllers here are going to be forced to vote for one of us "gun toting liberals", or hand the election over to bush. I am wondering how they can reconcile that with their hatred of guns. Should they swallow their pride and vote for Kerry, or stand firm and write in their own names or some 3rd party candidate who shares their fears?

And now we have:

Youve already stated that you would prefer more restrictions than Kerry is willing to offer

Amazingly, they just don't look like quite the same thing to me.

We have: a person who would prefer more restrictions than Kerry is willing to offer

whereas previously we had: rabid gun controllers with a hatred of guns who might write in a candidate who shares their fears.

Nope. I just can't get them to look like the same thing. Not without hallucinating.

.

[flaminlib]

147. Well clean your glasses

You said you want more restrictions.

Kerry wont give them to you.


What WILL you do?


Vote for Kerry and become hypocracy embodied, or vote for someone who shares your fear of guns?


Simple question

[iverglas]

154. you're a gas

Vote for Kerry and become hypocracy embodied, or vote for someone who shares your fear of guns?

What a cute little loaded false dichotomy. I'm not even sure that I could stuff all that many fallacies into a single sentence if I tried.

Fortunately for me, I couldn't answer it even if I wanted to and it were capable of being answered, i.e. even if you had asked a civil, unloaded question presenting a genuine choice.

Get somebody here to explain that to you, or just try reading the really obvious posts in this thread where you might find what you need. I have a doctor's appointment to go to.

.

[flaminlib]

158. I am?

Its not a false dichotomy if both options are true and they represent ALL the avaiable options.

You can either vote for someone who doesnt share your views, or vote for someone who does. Its that simple. Unfortunately, NOBODY with a chance of winning supports YOUR views.

You vote for Kerry, and you are effectively jumping into the RKBA crowd. Kerry has made it very clear that he supports citizens right to keep and bear arms.

What to do, hmmmm?

[iverglas]

203. duh

Its not a false dichotomy if both options are true and they represent ALL the avaiable options.

No shit. Now, I wonder why I called what you wrote a false dichotomy?

What you wrote was:

Vote for Kerry and become hypocracy embodied, or vote for someone who shares your fear of guns?

What you say now is:

You can either vote for someone who doesnt share your views, or vote for someone who does.

Do you see the difference, or are you maybe the one needing specs?

Word97 can see the difference. Run 'em through the "compare documents" function, and here's what you get:

Vote for Kerry and become hypocracy embodied,someone who doesnt share your views, or vote for someone who shares your fear of guns?does.


You vote for Kerry, and you are effectively jumping into the RKBA crowd.

Well, actually, I vote for Kerry and I probably go to jail.

But I'm still wondering how supporting the assault weapons ban, advocating the closing of the gun show loophole and advocating mandatory locks on handguns puts anybody in the "RKBA crowd". Have you tried running that one past some of your little friends in that crowd?

Kerry has made it very clear that he supports citizens right to keep and bear arms.

You tried reading anything *I* have written on the subject? Or is it not necessary to actually know what people think before ascribing policy positions and personality disorders to them? Actually, I should really ask whether it is regarded as proper to accuse people of saying things and taking positions when not only have they never said or taken, but they have expressly said quite different things and taken quite different positions.

I strongly believe in the right to cross the road. I also strongly believe that traffic lights are valid limitations on the exercise of that right. I wonder what opponents of traffic lights would call me. An RCRer? Somehow I doubt it.

But hey, if you want to call me an RKBAer, you feel free now.

.

[MrBenchley]

170. Funny, isn't it

Those "rabid gun controllers here" are calling for strengthening and renewing the assault weapons ban....just as John Kerry promised to fight for.

Those "rabid gun controllers here" are calling for closing the gun show loophole....just as John Kerry promised to fight for.

Those "rabid gun controllers here" called for the right of cities to sue the scummy gun industry for their crooked business practices....just as John Kerry fought for....(He and John Edwards took a day off the campaign trail to successfully lead the fight to block the GOP bill in the Senate).

[MrBenchley]

135. Gee, flamin...

I plan to vote enthusiastically for Kerry, who wil fight to close the gun show loophole, renew and strengthen the ban on assault weapons and generally push for gun control, just as the majority of voters want.

But then I'm not a screwloose trying to peddle right wing horseshit.

"SAN FRANCISCO -- Senator Dianne Feinstein, a past mayor of San Francisco and perhaps the most popular Democrat in California, announced yesterday that she was endorsing Senator John F. Kerry's presidential campaign."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/17/feinstein_endorses_kerrys_run_for_president/


""John Kerry's approach to the Second Amendment has been to regulate, regulate and regulate some more," Cheney told members of the National Rifle Association, adding that President Bush is the only one of the two candidates who "has shown you respect, earned your vote, and appreciates your support."
Interrupted by frequent applause and two lengthy standing ovations at an NRA national meeting, Cheney, in full campaign mode, also questioned the presumed Democratic nominee's policies on taxes, the economy and the military.
But the vice president swung few votes. The audience - 3,000 conservatives, virtually all white - was Republican to the core."

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=36320

[OpSomBlood]

139. Speculation.

As far as I can tell, John Kerry is a safe and responsible gun owner. I wonder how he would have responded if Dianne Feinstein had pointed an "unloaded and disabled" AK-47 at him.

[flaminlib]

143. Further speculation...

would any of the rabid gun controllers know the difference?

[MrBenchley]

144. As far as I can tell

nobody seems to give a shit except the freepers at the stentorian and some other right wing cesspools...and a handful of people here who want to slur Diane Feinstein for some fucking bizarre reason.

[flaminlib]

160. Thankfully, reality doesnt depend on "what YOU can tell"

Neither Feinstein, nor you, know what an assault weapon is. Yet you both claim to be "experts" on the issue.

[MrBenchley]

161. Lots of flamin' but

not a fucking bit of relevant content any more....

[flaminlib]

169. Funny, I was thinking the same thing

How bout you get off the worn out talking points and jump into a debate for once?

RKBA horseshit pet abusing gun nut racist right wing pimp.... the list goes on. And dont forget, all this describes us "gun toting liberals" as well as Kerry according to you.


Total comedy.

[flaminlib]

142. So, all your clamoring over RKBA is just talk then

Horseshit, oh yeah. You certainly have some "unique" perspectives on that.

[MrBenchley]

162. I certainly see enough horseshit from the bullets for brains bunch

Most days it's nothing BUT...

[flaminlib]

173. Hmmm

Since Kerry is a hell of alot closer to my views than yours, where IS this horseshit coming from.... I wonder?


The real difference between you and US, both Kerry and I ARE GUN OWNERS!

[MrBenchley]

175. Gee, who DO you think you're fucking kidding?

[flaminlib]

178. I guess the same person you are kidding, yourself!

[MrBenchley]

181. Bzzzt!!! Guess again.

[flaminlib]

182. Ok, why dont you tell me

Who pretends to support Kerry, but doesnt agree with his gun policy?

Who pretends to know everything about weapons in general and assault weapons in particular, but cant tell the difference?

Who pretends to be an expert on guns, but doesnt own one?

Who pretends to concern himself with societal violence, but does nothing to prevent it?

Who pretends to champion the gun control cause, but cant make an argument in support of it?

Who pretends that personal attacks are debating skills?

Who pretends that he is in the majority on gun policy?

Who pretends that only right wingers own guns?

Who is kidding themselves, really?

[MrBenchley]

186. That would be YOU kidding yourself, flamin...REALLY

"Who pretends to support Kerry, but doesnt agree with his gun policy?"
That would be op and you, flamin....op is having a spaz because he wants assault weapons on the market, and you've been screaming that gun industry ought not to be sued...Kerry opposes both of those.

"Who pretends that personal attacks are debating skills?
Who pretends that he is in the majority on gun policy?"
Again, that would be you.

[flaminlib]

188. Wow, you are truly lost

""Who pretends to support Kerry, but doesnt agree with his gun policy?"
That would be op and you, flamin....op is having a spaz because he wants assault weapons on the market, and you've been screaming that gun industry ought not to be sued...Kerry opposes both of those."

Are you still trying to tag me with someone else's post LOL? Hows that working for you?

Ive never said the industry should be completely "immune" from lawsuits. Show me a post which says otherwise (Note, it must be one of MY posts, not someone elses LOL)

I said very clearly to anyone who read my posts that "frivolous" lawsuits are not welcome! Kinda like suing McDonalds for getting fat, suing gun makers because someone got shot is rather, stupid! Comprende?

"Who pretends that personal attacks are debating skills?
Who pretends that he is in the majority on gun policy?"
Again, that would be you.


Personal attacks... LMFAO, you do make me laugh, Ill give you credit. Lets see, so far youve called me a NRA, right wing, pet abusing, gun nut, pimp and I believe there was some reference to a "humhole", whatever that means. Yeah, but IM doing the attacking LOL?? Nice one.

Who is in the majority? Look around you, its simply a matter of counting. Look at the polls, its simply a matter of reading. Note: you must keep both eyes open in the process. m'kay?

[MrBenchley]

189. In other words....YOU are....REALLY

"suing gun makers because someone got shot is rather, stupid! Comprende?"
Only to those desperate to make excuses for one of the scummiest industries around. By the way, which way did Kerry vote on that immunity bill? Oh that's right, he led the effort to defeat it.

"Look around you, its simply a matter of counting."
Quality, not quantity, son....

"Look at the polls, its simply a matter of reading."
Something you seem entirely un-fucking-able to do.
I'll post them here for you AGAIN, from this very thread. Have someone explain them to you.

"iverglas  (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-16-04 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #13
55. how many times?
Maybe somebody could bookmark this one....
A new report from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago details for the first time both gun ownership patterns and views on gun control for all census regions of the country while also looking at the states of California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The study, Attitudes Towards and Experiences with Guns: A State-Level Perspective, by Tom W. Smith and Luis Martos, was released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC). Among the study's findings are:
Handgun Ban. While only 25 percent of Americans own handguns, 37 percent of Americans favor "a law that would ban the possession of handguns except for the police and other authorized persons." A majority (51 percent) of Middle Atlantic residents favor a handgun ban. Nearly 47 percent of New England residents favor a handgun ban, as do 40 percent of East North Central residents. Nearly six out of 10 New Yorkers (59 percent) favor a handgun ban. For many regions, more residents favor a handgun ban than own handguns. (See Charts One and Two.)"

"MrBenchley 
49. For anybody who hasn't got bullets for brains..
I suggest you look at the April 2000 issue of American Demographics magazine: "Gun weary Americans applaud controls" wherein you will find that:
93% of all voters want a mandatory waiting period before handguns can be purchased;
89% want child safety locks required on all handguns
74% want handgun owners registered
68% want assault weapons banned
61% want ALL guns registered
51% want gun shows banned outright and
37% of American voters do indeed want handguns banned.
You will also find that not only do 65% of Democrats and 63% of Independents want stricter gun control laws, so do 56% of Republicans.
Anyone who wishes to buy a copy of the article can do so here...
http://demographics.com/ac/april_2000 /
Anyone who wishes to argue about it can piss off."

[flaminlib]

193. Really really really ??? Am i??? LOL

"By the way, which way did Kerry vote on that immunity bill? Oh that's right, he led the effort to defeat it."

Uh huh, and was that ever in contention? Id like to see ONE post showing support for complete immunity from lawsuits? Still waiting.....


"Quality, not quantity, son...."

Thanks DAD lol... that is not what a "majority" is. Need a definition?


"Something you seem entirely un-fucking-able to do.
I'll post them here for you AGAIN, from this very thread. Have someone explain them to you."

OH thank you! "37% of American voters do indeed want handguns banned."

Can this be ANY MORE clear????????

Please try to be honest here, m'kay?

[MrBenchley]

196. Yeah, you are...

"Uh huh, and was that ever in contention?"
Yes it was...the lawsuits the gun lobby was trying to wriggle out of with that bill were lawsuits like NYC's, Chcago's, etc....the ones you were pissing and moaning about here at such length.

"Please try to be honest here"
I've been honest..and you haven't. Simple as that.

[flaminlib]

200. Again with the straw man????

Whether the gun industry CAN be sued was never in contention HERE, by me. If you would read more carefully, you would know that. The lawsuits that you are so eager to translate into automatic guilt, are frivolous. That is what is in contention. You would like to see more frivolous lawsuits, I would not.

And please, point out ONE instance of dishonesty or inconsistency on my part. Remember, you must refer to MY posts, not someone else's.

[MrBenchley]

207. No strawman at all....

"The lawsuits that you are so eager to translate into automatic guilt, are frivolous."
<sarcasm>Yeah, that wacky Chicago...what a kidder!</sarcasm> Your rubbish notwithstanding, those are exactly the lawsuits that the Republicans and the gun lobby wanted to pass...and John Kerry led the successful fight to block it.

"please, point out ONE instance of dishonesty or inconsistency"
Gee, which one of us was pontificating about a book it turned out he never read, attempting to prove that the most famous case of corproate corruption in history somehow vinidcated the gun industry?

Why, it would be the same guy trying to pretend that people who want to hold the gun industry liable for their actions and close the gun show loophole, and take assault weapons off the market are terrified of John Kerry because he wants to hold the gun industry liable for their actions and close the gun show loophole, and take assault weapons off the market .

[flaminlib]

212. Ok, utter dishonesty then

"<sarcasm>Yeah, that wacky Chicago...what a kidder!</sarcasm> Your rubbish notwithstanding, those are exactly the lawsuits that the Republicans and the gun lobby wanted to pass...and John Kerry led the successful fight to block it."

Come now, reality time. Gun lobby acting in its own interest is no different than any other industry. Frivolous lawsuits are unfair and costly. Get it? Kerry made sure that the industry wouldnt be completely exempt from lawsuits, and for that I applaud him.

"Gee, which one of us was pontificating about a book it turned out he never read, attempting to prove that the most famous case of corproate corruption in history somehow vinidcated the gun industry?"

Again you prove YOUR dishonesty. Unfortunately you have learned yet. You asked whether i heard of it, not whether i read it. Chalk one up for the real lib!

"Why, it would be the same guy trying to pretend that people who want to hold the gun industry liable for their actions and close the gun show loophole, and take assault weapons off the market are terrified of John Kerry because he wants to hold the gun industry liable for their actions and close the gun show loophole, and take assault weapons off the market ."


LMAO... hey Benchley, you dont know what an assault weapon is yet, you want to take them off the market!!!



Total comedy

[OpSomBlood]

214. Facts don't matter.

>> hey Benchley, you dont know what an assault weapon is yet, you want to take them off the market!!! <<

But they sound so scary!

[flaminlib]

215. LOL

My 9 year old is still afraid of the dark. He doesnt know why, he just is. We put his older brother in with him and he's just fine!

Hmmm, I smell an analogy here. Sounds like some folks need the comfort of an "overlord" to help calm their fears and make everything all better.

[MrBenchley]

220. FActs sure don't matter to the RKBA crowd...

I support John Kerry, who wants to take them off the market. To quote Gilda Radner: If you don't love it, you can shove it.

[FatSlob]

168. They'd be right where they are now.

Because it is generally not practiced here. You, however...

[MrBenchley]

171. Gee, fat slob, the RKBA crowd would be mute as stones

without denial, distortion, and outright deception.

[FatSlob]

174. Get real.

You know the truth, I know the truth. We are right, you are not. Get over it and get over yourself. I'm done with this conversation.

[MrBenchley]

176. Gee, fat slob, what is real

is that you ain't been within shouting distance of any truth yet. Now go ahead and pout.

[iverglas]

94. gosh

John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and he believes that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns.

I'm neither, but I believe that Canadians have the right to own firearms.

And that they may be required, by valid, constitutional law, to obtain a licence in order to exercise that right; and may be required, by valid, constitutional law, to register their ownership of their firearms; and may be prohibited, by valid, constitutional law, from owning certain firearms or from owning any firearms.

Kinda like how it works for a lot of other rights they have.

Canadian women have a right to have an abortion. And they are required, by valid, constitutional law, to have it in an approved facility, performed by an authorized person. Canadians have a right to express opinions. And they may be prohibited, by valid, constitutional law, from expressing opinions in a manner that causes a public disturbance. Canadians have a right to cross streets. And they may be required, by valid, constitutional law, to cross at the lights.

Saying that one has a right to do something really isn't saying much at all. Some people just never tire of saying it, though.

.

[Superfly]

95. So the fuck what?

Yay for Canada!

We're talking about John Kerry, an American presidential nominee and the impact of his ideas on American (read: not Canadian) rights.

[OpSomBlood]

96. This isn't Canada.

The point is that MrBenchley believes that Americans do not have the right to own guns (as evidenced as his condescending references to "the RKBA crowd"), and that pro-gun Democrats don't exist. John Kerry's views seem to contradict this.

[iverglas]

104. really????

(I ask, of course, in respect of your other statements, not the one about how "this isn't Canada". That much I'd figured out all by my lonesome, really.)

The point is that MrBenchley believes that Americans do not have the right to own guns

That one -- really? Can you give me a quote? Are you aware that disagreeing with your interpretation of your second constitutional amendment does not equate with believing that anyone doesn't have the right to own guns?

There is no second amendment to the Cdn constitution. And yet Canadians have a right to own firearms. Truly amazing, isn't it?

There's nothing in the Cdn constitution about having a right to cross the street, either ...

... and that pro-gun Democrats don't exist

Well, that one, of course, just doesn't make sense. I've never yet figured out how anyone could be "pro-" an inanimate object.


Anyhow ...

John Kerry's views seem to contradict this.

Actually, as anyone who is capable of abstract thought understood, what I was saying was that Kerry's views, as stated in that single unelaborated remark, don't contradict anything that most firearms control advocates might advocate.

Having a right to do something is simply not conclusive as to the restrictions that may be placed on the exercise of the right. And others of Kerry's views, as presented by Benchley above, certainly indicate that he is of the opinion that the exercise of the "right to own guns" may be restricted.

I hope this helps anyone else who may not have grasped the point of my post.

.

[MrBenchley]

105. For that matter, people

have the right to own houses, cars, tennis rackets, pets, wristwatches and rosebushes...

You'll notice Kerry didn't say a word about any fucking thing else.

[iverglas]

128. ah, the sin of omission

... and what was really said (my emphasis):

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/crime/

John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and he believes that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands. John Kerry strongly supports all of the federal gun laws on the books, and he would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced, cracking down hard on the gun runners, corrupt dealers, straw buyers, and thieves that are putting guns into the hands of criminals in the first place. He will also close the gun show loophole, which is allowing criminals to get access to guns at gun shows without background checks, fix the background check system, which is in a serious state of disrepair, and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock.

Now ... whose interpretation of the "right to own guns" is all of this most consistent with?

And speaking of straw ... exactly which straw person might the Kerry reference have been intended to knock down?

I would undoubtedly advocate policies that go farther in the "restriction" direction than Kerry if I were in the US; so, I imagine, would MrBenchley.

But while I'm seeing a fair bit in Kerry's position that is not consistent with that of the "RKBA"ers hereabouts, I'm not seeing anything that is Benchley or I, e.g., would *not* support.

Oh look:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1030.html
(press release, no copyright issues; my emphasis)

Democratic candidate for President John Kerry wrote a letter to the hundreds of individuals, celebrities, authors, religious organizations, and businesses blacklisted by the NRA, to join him in standing up to the divisive agenda of the gun lobby and standing up for gun safety.

In a letter to the many prominent Americans put on the NRA’s publicly advertised “anti-gun” list, Kerry said, “The NRA’s blacklist is the modern day equivalent of Richard Nixon’s enemies list. This blacklist is precisely the politics of division and distortion that have turned too many people away from participating in the process. We can’t let the NRA scare people into silence. I know what it’s like to be targeted by the NRA, and I refuse to sit idly by during my campaign for the presidency while they push their divisive agenda on America and slander those who stand up for gun safety.”

Kerry also promised to continue his fight for gun safety during his campaign for the presidency: “Why should those on the NRA blacklist courageously risk their livelihoods when Democratic candidates for President aren’t willing to stand up against powerful interests and risk their political capital? I believe that standing up for gun safety is important, and I refuse to be a candidate who retreats from the issue out of political fear or one who tries to have it both ways. I’m a hunter and a gun owner, but I’ve never gone hunting with an AK-47. I’ll stand up to the NRA when they call law enforcement officers ‘jackbooted thugs’ or stand in the way of common sense efforts to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of felons and children. The Democratic Party will never be the choice of the NRA — and I’m not looking to be the candidate of the NRA.”

Amazing. A Democratic candidate who isn't willing to sell out his principles and his constituency for the few pieces of uh, road apple, who claim they'd vote for him if he did.

.

[OpSomBlood]

133. And furthering the sin of omission...

Was you neglecting to read that I disagree with John Kerry on the AWB issue but still respect him and will support him in this election. I don't call him names like "indecent bullet-for-brains Glocksucker" because I happen to disagree with him on one issue.

[iverglas]

146. my, my

Was you neglecting to read that I disagree with John Kerry on the AWB issue but still respect him and will support him in this election.

I also neglected to mention the price of tea in China.

I'm at a complete loss to understand how your voting plans are relevant to the depiction of John Kerry's policy position we were treated to.

I don't call him names like "indecent bullet-for-brains Glocksucker" because I happen to disagree with him on one issue.

And far be it from me to call Hitler a Nazi because he was one.

If you can tell me what earthly sense it would make for you to call John Kerry an "indecent bullet-for-brains Glocksucker", I might have a clue where you think you're going with this.

Me, I'll just keep calling things what they obviously are.

.

[OpSomBlood]

159. Learn to read.

I said names like "indecent bullets-for-brains Glocksucker."

Because to MrBenchley, everyone who believes in the RKBA is subject to such namecalling.

[MrBenchley]

164. Gee, op....

Last time I looked Kerry agreed with my positions on guns...

[OpSomBlood]

167. Verify for me, please.

So you agree that Americans have the Constitutional right to own guns?

[flaminlib]

172. The only positions you will claim are...

all gun owners are RKBA gun nut right wing nra racist pimps.

And Kerry is WAAAY more in line with MY views than yours.

Who are you voting for again?

[MrBenchley]

180. Me, I'm voting for Kerry, of course!

"all gun owners are RKBA gun nut right wing nra racist pimps."
I'm sure there must be some somewhere that aren't. If you run across one, put him on the keyboard. It will make a nice change.

[MrBenchley]

179. No....

They have the same right to own guns responsibly as they do to own any other thing, and society has the right to expect that guns be regulated owing to the public menace guns present, just as any other hazardous substance is. You will notice Kerry also says "But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=51439&mesg_id=52864&page=

But the only right enshrined in the Second Amendment is the right of each state to have a well-regulated militia, as the courts have affirmed again and again and again and again.

[flaminlib]

185. Try again...

"But the only right enshrined in the Second Amendment is the right of each state to have a well-regulated militia, as the courts have affirmed again and again and again and again."


Presser v. Illinois,
The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the States. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive them of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.

[MrBenchley]

187. Not interested....

And here's the REST of that sentence...

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think <116 U.S. 252, 266>   it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect. "

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=116&page=252

and here's the paragraph BEFORE it...

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities <116 U.S. 252, 265>   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 , 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. <116 U.S. 252, 102>   139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' See, also, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. State, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cow. 819;Com. v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Ired. 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455. "

[flaminlib]

190. LMAO

Ill give you credit, you ARE persistent.


"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities <116 U.S. 252, 265> and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 , 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. <116 U.S. 252, 102> 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' See, also, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. State, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cow. 819;Com. v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Ired. 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455. "



Translation: Congress CANNOT infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, but municipalities, or cities, can make laws governing their ownership so long as those laws are not surrendered or restrained by the constitution of the United States.

Dont even try the militia crap, it aint gonna work

[MrBenchley]

192. More reading and thinking, less laughing might help

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&...

And it's hilarious to hear somebody sputter "Dont even try the militia crap" while discussing a case that involves Herman Presser's private "'Lehr und Wehr Verein" militia and their march through Chicago.

[flaminlib]

195. Try a link that works LOL

And somehow, if you can, try to relate it to ME if you are responding to ME!!!!!

[MrBenchley]

198. Here you go...

"try to relate it to ME if you are responding to ME"
And this link goes right to the heart of YOUR contention about the Second Amendment, about which YOU seem to have not the first fucking clue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=49341&mesg_id=49341

[flaminlib]

201. Heheehee, aw shit this is fun lol!!

Hey benchely, read my posts, k? Please read them, Im begging you, READ lol

Scroll up a few and read what I JUST FUCKING WROTE:

Translation: Congress CANNOT infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, but municipalities, or cities, can make laws governing their ownership so long as those laws are not surrendered or restrained by the constitution of the United States.


I hated to throw that at you but, you kinda earned it lol. Now, who is it that doesnt "seem to have not the first fucking clue."???

[MrBenchley]

208. Well, you still seem not to have a fucking clue

and you're getting less and less coherent...

[flaminlib]

213. Hey, good one.

Just be careful you dont respond the actual post or, well you know what happens when you try that.


:nuke:

[slackmaster]

199. Today's lesson in Structured Query Language...

Following query failed:
SELECT m.u_id, u.username FROM dcmoderator AS m, dcuser AS u WHERE m.u_id = u.id AND forum_id =

Thank you, MrBenchley. Now tell us about those taggants in European smokeless gunpowders.

[OpSomBlood]

191. Strange...

I'm curious why every other amendment in the Bill of Rights is clearly interpreted as inalienable rights of the individual, but the second was referring to rights of the state. It actually seems pretty clear to me that the intent of the amendment is to say that individuals must have the right to keep and bear arms, or else there's no point to having a well-regulated militia...not that the only reason to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of a militia.

[MrBenchley]

194. Gee, opp, those of us who read something other than right wing propaganda

don't find it all that strange...

Here's the ACLU, a much more reputable sourc than the stentorian: "We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

"every other amendment in the Bill of Rights is clearly interpreted as inalienable rights of the individual"

Too TOO fucking funny...the source of that claim is the National Rifle Association, which none the less has been quick to run into court as a collective entity. For example they were first in line to try to overturn the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act, screaming that their "collective" freedom of speech was infringed. It wasn't and not because only individuals have freedom of speech.

In its entire history the NRA has NEVER tried to overturn a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds, although if that lie were true they certainly could. That's never as in not ever, no where, no how. Think they just forgot?

[OpSomBlood]

197. Sorry I confused you.

>> Too TOO fucking funny...the source of that claim is the National Rifle Association <<

Perhaps you misread my post. The source of my claims was me.

[MrBenchley]

210. You didn't confuse anybody

You mean you think that you're the only one who posted that specious bit of crap? That IS funny.

[OpSomBlood]

211. Interesting philosophy.

So what you're saying is that any time a person has an idea that happens to be shared by other people, they are merely ripping the idea off? That no one is capable of developing independent thought if that thought happens to coincide with thoughts shared by others?

Wow. I had no idea that the NRA was controlling my mind like this. Maybe if I just agree with everything you say, I will truly be set free.

[MrBenchley]

216. Wish yours was....

"I had no idea that the NRA was controlling my mind like this."
You seem to have a real shortage of what the rest of us would call ideas...manybe that's why we still haven't heard what the fuck your picture has to do with the Assault Weapons Ban.

"Maybe if I just agree with everything you say, I will truly be set free."
Or maybe you could just think for yourself. Peddling second rate propaganda, like you been doing, won't do it.

[OpSomBlood]

217. Like talking to a wall.

You should take a break. Your keyboard is getting clogged with Chee-toh powder.

[flaminlib]

218. LMFAO

Now that is funny!

[natasha1]

219. The crux of the matter.

Here's the ACLU, a much more reputable sourc than the stentorian: "We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

I very much agree with the first half of the ACLU's conclusion:

"...the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government."

I believe the founding fathers intended for the populace to be armed, so that the states could form the populace into militias just for the reasons stated above - to assure their own freedom and security against the central government.

I disagree with the second half of their conclusion:

"In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles."

First of all, I do not think that just because the average citizen is not equipped with state-of-the-art military hardware does not mean that they do not have the means resist - even resist a state-of-the-art military like our own. 2 nuts shooting out of a peep-hole in a car made a considerable impact with nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle. Imagine tens of thousands of such individuals motivated to overthrow a government rather than shoot random people.

Secondly, if you believe that the founding father's original intention is, as they said, to assure their own freedom and security against the central government, and if that intent is still valid, then the correct course of action is to make sure that the citizens and states still have that ability.

Today, they do not. The National Guard is, for all practical purposes, merely a reserve extension of the Regular armed forces. The National Guard does not serve any prppose to assure the freedom and security against the central government for the states.

Nat

[MrBenchley]

221. Between you and the ACLU, I'll take the ACLU

[OpSomBlood]

222. So will Rush Limbaugh.

Does that make you a Dittohead?

[iverglas]

206. learn to ...

... well, it's hard to know what to say, and how to phrase it politely.

Learn to think? Learn to speak with unforked tongue? It's quite obvious that you know how to read, so there seems to be some other problem here.

Because to MrBenchley, everyone who believes in the RKBA is subject to such namecalling.

Funny, he's never called me names. I don't see him calling John Kerry names. How ever do you explain this phenomenon???

I believe in the right of the individual to do anything s/he bloody well pleases.

I also believe in the entitlement of the collective to place limits on what individuals do in the exercise of their rights. (You do realize that absolutely everything you do is an exercise of a right, right?)

I'm 100% convinced that you believe in the collective's entitlement to do that, too.

So unless you regard the right to possess firearms as completely different from every other right you might have, and advocate that every single restriction on every single individual's choices in respect of the acquisition, transfer, handling and use of firearms that now exists be abolished, I guess you aren't an RKBAer at all.

Welcome to the club.

Or maybe just stop equivocating on the meaning of "RKBAer" as used hereabouts and wasting everybody's time.

.

[OpSomBlood]

163. Great poll!

I see the "ban all handguns" crowd at this Democratic/left-wing website are holding strong at a formidable 12%.

[Wickerman]

177. Interesting

If this actually meant anything we would see that DU is evenly split between having some sort of control vs. no control. Of course, website polls are meaningless - someone always has to say it. But, I think it also sums up nicely the attitudes I see around here. Some want full freedom, some want some sort of restriction - some want all restrictions.

cool.

[Something Blue]

226. I think you're right

and if the results are to be believed at all, it says that we pretty much hand this as a wedge issue to the republicans without a fight.
And that's unfontunate for us, because there's no way to compromise anymore.

[MrBenchley]

228. Hand WHAT as a wedge issue?

Most Americans want gun control (hell, even a majority of Republicans want gun control).

As has been cited here more than once.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

229. You left off a choice: things are just fine right now

[Pert_UK]

230. I also left off......

"I think that armed Americans should just shoot themselves in the goddamn nuts!"

Somehow, neither position seemed quite right.......

P.

P.S.
I suppose that I should have made that "...shoot themselves in the goddamn nuts/fanny" for the sake of sexual equality.

P.P.S.
In the UK, "fanny" means "vagina".