The Dilemma of the Pro-Gun Liberal Democrat.

[OpSomBlood]

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=245282&page=1

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=249736

http://www.glocksunlocked.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=9147

[efhmc]

1. Anything with glock in it is too scary for me. I have a real life dilemma

with guns. They are a part of our largest money maker (hunting) and yet I despise the basic thing that they do-killing. I do find historical guns interesting to look at and inherited several, but shoot one-ugh and ick.

[OpSomBlood]

2. Cars kill a whole lot more people.

But your opinion is duly noted.

[efhmc]

4. People always say that but the big difference (and my huband was

killed in an auto accident) is that killing is the sole purpose of a gun. Added: thanks for your courtesy about my opinion.

[MrBenchley]

3. It's about fucking time....

Gee, and just look at all the answers to "Are there any people here who also consider themselves pro-gun liberal Democrats?"

Tee hee hee.....

[RoeBear]

10. Speaking of courtesy...

...oh nevermind.

[OpSomBlood]

166. None displayed ever.

Nothing new.

[dae]

5. I consider myself Pro-gun and a Liberal Democrat but then that would

be by my definitions.
My pro-gun stance doesn't include allowing anyone to own fully automatic weapons(or those weapons that can be easily converted) or Cop killer rounds even with background checks.

I do not hunt but enjoy target shooting, plinking, and collecting firearms.

I read your posts on the two boards that didn't require registering. The anti-gun group in the Dem Party is vocal and well organized; however, there is a point at which they become ineffective.

[MrBenchley]

6. Don't let anyone stop you....

Maybe you can actually put something up proDemocrat and not just "Boo hoo hoo....mean people are picking on my precious popguns....Boo hoo hoo."

[dae]

9. Am I supposed to prove something to you. Who are you?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[RoeBear]

12. Why didyou attack this person?

Are you just mean? Or are you trying to push honest gun owners out of the Democratic party?

[MrBenchley]

13. Who attacked that person?

I merely pointed out that there were plenty of goddamn opportunities for a pro-gun Democrat to make a case for voting Democrat on those gun nut forums and urged him to do so.

"Maybe you can actually put something up proDemocrat"
That seems like an attack to you? It would be a fucking nice surprise if this person did, wouldn't it roe.

[dae]

44. Since I have a life and don't live on DU, I didn't get to see what was

deleted in the post above.
When you say, "Maybe you can actually put something up proDemocrat". What the Hell are you talking about?
I am a Democrat, I vote Democrat, I support Democratic candidates and the party any way I can, and I am a gun owner.
If, by your definition, owning a gun makes me a gun nut then to you, I'm just that.
However, as much as you may dislike it I am still a Democrat and won't be going anywhere.

[MrBenchley]

69. Sorry if you are mystified...

Fro some weeks now we have been "discussing" the near-absense of a Democratic point of view on any gun nut board...although such boards are lousy with far right wing ditto-monkey rubbish.

"I am a Democrat, I vote Democrat, I support Democratic candidates and the party any way I can"
Well, actually putting up pro-Democratic posts over there would be a good start....we sure get enough right wing horesshit posted here.

You'll find the URL's in post number one.

[Liberal Classic]

94. The issue is not the existance of leftist views on right wing boards

The real issue is the existence of Democrats in favor of softening their positions on gun control. It was totally unfair for you to unload both barrels on dae just because he or she had the temerity of disagreeing with you. No one who posts on this board is secretly a nazi trying to masquarade as a gay or lesbian for gun ownership. You owe dae an apology. The truth is that most democratic-sponsored gun control measures wouldn't have passed without some republican help, and republican-sponsored gun rights measures wouldn't have passed without some democratic help. Some, not all of course, democrats vote for concealed carry in state legislatures, and some, not all of course, in congress voted to put the sunset provision on AWB. The truth is that views on this issue are simply not as black and white as your would like to make them out.

This contentious argument you have been making for a lot longer than 'some weeks now.' From day one you have been implying anyone insufficiently soft on the gun control issue is a closet fascist. It may be viscerally satisfying to call gun owners like me nazis and say that I hate uppity women and blacks. Heaping this sort of abuse on anyone and everyone who passes by without regard to their positions may be a hell of a lot of fun, but it generally makes one out to be an ass. So what I am trying to say is, show some manners. I will not be so rude as to suggest that you do not have any.

[MrBenchley]

107. It sure as hell IS..

If there's this big groundswell of liberal support for gun rights, why does every gun wanker forum read like lucianne.com or the free republic? It's amazingly noticeable that in the couple months since I raised this issue, we yet to see any of our "pro-gun democrats" make much impact on those boards (and no, I don't count, "oh, poor me, some people hate my guns" as much of a contribution). Lots of excuses why not, but not much in the way of pro-democrat posts.

"No one who posts on this board is secretly a nazi trying to masquarade as a gay or lesbian for gun ownership."
In fact, such specimens earn tombstones here all the time.

"It may be viscerally satisfying to call gun owners like me nazis and say that I hate uppity women and blacks."
Who do you think you're TRYING to kid? You're in a thread linking to gun nut discussion boards...in one, we've got a thread defining a "good wife" as one who "Never cries "rape";

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=245623

The other sprouted this:
"when did we become a nation of 'n****rs'?, or is everybody just fucked in the head?
1... every store/resturant you go into is playing 'ogga booga iggabigga i's a muddafugging niga ' type music at disgustingly loud volume...
2... the words on store names and 'advertizin' are gwine done be spelled n****r style , ie: dawgz , ho'z , yowza mofo, etc...
3... the n****s is gwine done beze in de adz fa outta dere numbaz in relation to the population as a whole ...WTF???!!!
4... people just act and carry on like gutterfilth, every other word is 'muthafucca' or beyatch , or (fill in the blank)...
5... all the clothes in the stores look like they belong on bubbles, or Mr chuckles , or clyde ...
6... give me your own examples... "

http://www.glocksunlocked.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8977

You want to pretend gun nuts aren't the pieces of filth those posts say they are? Do something about it over there. We sure got no shortage of right wing idiocy being posted over here by RKBAers on a daily basis.

[John BigBootay]

116. My God, Mr. Benchly...

You are sadly misinformed about us gun-owners.

I can't say I've been on DU for long or have read every post in these gun threads, but I will say that I have never seen anything even remotely approaching the vitriol you are assuming from us. We own guns, we talk about guns-- not about that other vile filth you are attempting to paint us with.

By-proxy evidence of this sort is not admissible in this court-- show us where a DUer with more than a handful of posts makes such a statement...

You have chosen guns to be your crusade. Fine. We know your point of view, we know you do not approve of our chosen interest. Do you actually believe that your constant harrasment has been effective in shaming one of us to give up his interest in firearms? Trust me! No one has! I laugh at you. And I laugh at all of us for even taking the time to bicker with you ad nauseum-- we sound like a bunch of old queens who've been living together in the same cramped apartment for far too long.

But I think I understand what you're doing here-- you're trying to make DU an inhospitable climate to converse openly on the matter of guns. You want it known that a poster cannot ask for advice or show off a new purchase, etc. without that little fear in the back of their mind that Benchly will be there to "shame" him if he does.

I ask you: is this all you want to be known for? The guy on DU who "shames" gun-owning Democrats?

Pretty thin, stuff, Mr. Benchly. Pretty thin.

[MrBenchley]

117. Jeeze, John...I am not misinformed at all...

"I will say that I have never seen anything even remotely approaching the vitriol you are assuming from us."
Jeeze, I not only showed you the ugly vitriol, but gave you links to where gun nuts are posting it. Nor is that all of it...just a small sampling of the dirtbag stupidity and ugliness exhibited there daily.

"By-proxy evidence of this sort is not admissible in this court"
Whadda you, Judge fuckin' Judy? You want to pretend there's anything pro-Democrat over there (or even halfway intelligent) you better go post it yourself. Your fellow "pro-gun democrats" ain't doing dick.

"we sound like a bunch of old queens"
You said it, not me. But then I could never say anything half as damning as you "enthusiasts" do yourself.

"You want it known that a poster cannot ask for advice or show off a new purchase, etc. without that little fear in the back of their mind that Benchly will be there to "shame" him if he does."
What was the name of the folder? Oh, yeah...Justice/Public Safety...You guys may want to pretend that it's "gun nuts wank off over their toys," but it ain't.

"is this all you want to be known for? The guy on DU who "shames" gun-owning Democrats?"
Sounds good to me...especially since you guys seem to be all "gun owning" but hardly a speck of "Democrats." Shame on you for needing somebody to tell you to speak out against racism, hate and ignorance.

"Pretty thin, stuff, Mr. Benchly"
Big fat fucking shame, John. Go cry about it to somebody who gives a steaming crap. And like I said, if you don't like me pointing out what ugly racist scumbags post on those gun nut forums, go over and argue them down yourself.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

126. Gee, what a laugh...

I wonder what the downside for me on this is supposed to be?

[dae]

144. What's the problem MrBenchley?

Do you want all gun owners out of the Democratic Party? The proDem posting on the other boards make no sense to me. If they are nothing but freepers as you claim why waste the time.
Personally, I'm more concerned about the Democratic Party playing into the NRA hysteria hype by a, "taking all guns away from the citizens" or similar type plank.

[MrBenchley]

146. I got NO problem, dae...

I got no problem because I know that an overwhelming majority of voters favor gun control, and that our presidential candidate and most elected Democrats do too...

And I'm not trying to pretend that there are millions of liberals who believe in this rancid gun rights creed...I know it's a pack of lies from a handful of far right wing extremists trying to disguise their ugliness under a new sheet.

What I find hilarious is that these forums show perfectly well that what I say is true...and that those "pro gun democrats" claiming the opposite spend all day and night making excuses as to why they can't even try to demonstrate what they say is true by posting anything even remotely pro-Democrat, or liberal (or even halfway intelligent) in response to this mindless pusbrained right wing rambling over there. Although they're not at all shy about posting slurs against Democrats here, or trying to pass off crap from right wing cesspools like Newsmax seriously.

"The proDem posting on the other boards make no sense to me."
Yeah, why would a real Democrat EVER want to post anything pro-Democrat on a discussion board? It's an amazing fucking mystery, worthy of the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew. And you know what? I'm not even going to try to explain it to you.

[Free_Thinker]

71. Clinton knew it

Bill Clinton said it was the assault weapons ban that cost our party the control of Congress in 1994. It also cost Al Gore key states.

Howard Dean was smart enough to see that gun control is not a helpful issue for our party.

I like this and feel it expresses a lot of how I feel about the issue.


When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.

When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.

When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.

Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can only be quiet.

[library_max]

81. Where were you when they took the third amendment?

Since the theory is that all ten amendments are equally important, why don't you speak up for the third? I'm guessing you'll have to go and look it up first.

[slackmaster]

83. I support the Third Amendment

When they took away the Third Amendment, I didn't mind because there weren't any soldiers quartered in my home, drinking all of my beer.

[MrSandman]

115. They took the third amendment???

I didn't know it has even been brought before the Courts. I gues all those troops don't allow folks out of their homes.

BTW, I didn't look it up.

[MrSandman]

14. Welcome aboard...

Fully automatic weapons have not been easily available to the public since 1934. A moratoriun was placed on manufacture/importation/transfer of new auto-weapons into the civilian market in the late 80's.

Cop killer rounds? Armor piercing hand gun ammunition is illegal. Rifle fire will generally defeat most police body armor, regardless of bullet type. Limitations of wearable armor.

[dae]

55. Hello MrSandman, I was just stating what I don't support. I've seen

NRA members propose that those should be legalized as well. That I could not support, and Thanks for the welcome down here in the gungeon. It's been quite a while, and I don't recognize any of the names since I last visited.

[MrSandman]

58. Then I would tend to agree...

The problem with cop killer bullets and auto weapons for everyone is they are usually misrepresented by VPC and their ilk..

[Wickerman]

7. Good responses at glocksunlocked

Gotta tell you though, I think you are a little hard on the Gungeonites here at DU central. You do realize, don't you, that there are more gun rights folks who post here than anti-rkbaers? The rkba crowd gives it back fairly well, too - you guys are good.

One of the quandary is that the pro-gun side, at any given time, has a decent cadre of non-dems who enjoy coming in here and educating us heathen Dems. That's been a constant since I have been here. We clear out the obvious ones, but they cast doubt on the others among you. Obviously, they don't give a damn about the 2nd Amendment or they wouldn't even bother - all they wind up doing is making it harder for admin and pro gun control folks to decide who is serious and who is just pulling shit. You can blame the "anti" crowd for being unwelcoming all you want, but you've got a long string of RW trolls coming before you who have fouled the gun talk pool.

Even with the trolls you still out number the anti-crowd. The vast majority of Dems do not want you out of the party - and frankly, shame on anyone who would say so - I don't recall seeing such. People will disagree with you, and yes, people will even be rude to you. The majority of us on the board are either accepting, ambivalent, or uninformed enough that they don't enter into such discussion.

For the third time this week I will again appeal to all of you to remember that we are (mostly) all democrats and progressive here. Be nice to each other.

[MrBenchley]

8. It will be interesting to see

if anyone else at any of those forums identifies him- or herself as a Democrat.

[Paladin]

15. Well Said, Lunabush

Glad you decided to stick around.

[slackmaster]

16. Good points, but we have no control over RW trolls

Despite the constant couched accusations to the contrary, they aren't MY people.

I want to make the Democratic Party more appealing to a broader base of people. That's where votes come from. Taking on some kind of inflexible package deal position on a range of issues, creating an artificial nexus between one subject and another, tends to alienate more people than it attracts no matter what specific ideology you adopt.

[MrBenchley]

17. Tee hee hee....

"I want to make the Democratic Party more appealing to a broader base of people. "
By focusing on the tiny far right wing minority opposed to gun control? Uh-HUH...

--90% of Americans want to close the gun show loophole
--86% want increased penalties for gun trafficking
--79% want background checks for ALL firearm transactions
--77% want an assault weapons ban....
--67% want ALL firearms registered


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=29642

[slackmaster]

20. The problem with all of those statistics

Is that none of the surveys on which they are based included validity checks.

How many of that "90%" know what the gun show loophole is?

If the question was phrased more accurately and honestly, the number of people who want background checks on all sales would be EXACTLY THE SAME as the number of people who want to close the gun show loophole, because those issues are really two sides of the same coin - The largely unregulated secondary market in used firearms.

How many of those "77%" know what the AWB covers and what it does not cover? Someone here recently speculated that about half of people in the USA believe expiration of the AWB will result in fully automatic weapons becoming easier to acquire, which is nonsense. I think that's a reasonably accurate assesssment of the level of understanding among the general public.

I can't respect any survey result that has no verification that people understood the questions. Besides that problem, this country is a representative republic based on democratic principles, not a strict "majority rules" system.

[MrBenchley]

21. Too too funny....

"How many of that "90%" know what the gun show loophole is?
How many of those "77%" know what the AWB covers and what it does not cover?"
Pretty much all of them...which is why the gun lobby is desperately lying their ases off on those subjects.

"I can't respect any survey result"
Gee, and we know what THAT respect is worth....

[slackmaster]

22. Civility and respect?

Gee, and we know what THAT respect is worth....

Who is this mysterious "we", MrBenchley? That does sound kind of like an ad hominem attack to me, and I think at least a few others here agree with me.

----------------------------------------------------

MrBenchley claims smokeless powders used in Europe contain taggants. They don't.

"...about the assertion that taggants (such as are used in Europe) would make guns explode?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=44507&mesg_id=44563&page=

Rather than acknowledge that the Pink Pistols is a genuine pro-gun group of gay people, he'd rather believe that the Roman Catholic Church supports gay rights:

"A pastoral letter released today by the U.S. Catholic Conference encouraging families to accept their gay loved ones and reaffirming the basic human rights of gay people was welcomed by the Human Rights Campaign as an important step forward on the road to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20608&mesg_id=20675&page=

He claims proposed Iraqi constitution says "All gun owners must be registered and all guns licensed." It doesn't.

Under Iraq's proposed Constitution... ...All gun owners must be registered and all guns licensed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=49018&mesg_id=49135&page=

MrBenchley claimed that kits to convert semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic machineguns are legal (thanks to efforts by the gun lobby), and that anyone can buy one at a gun show.

Are you trying to tell us conversion kits are illegal? It happens that the gunbb lobby fought tooth and nail to make them legal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x50058#53363

Of course, that isn't true at all. See http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter37.txt

MrBenchley admits he hasn't even read a magazine that he's criticized repeatedly, and even posts images of its cover.

And who really fucking NEEDS to be told that a gun magazine for kids (with ads marketing guns to kids) is a crappy, irresponsible idea?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=55135&mesg_id=55138

And my all-time favorite, MrBenchley posted two links that were supposed to identify five "assault weapons",

"Uzis and AK-47's are not semi-automatic."
From gun merchant SecurityArms.com...

"Maadi AK-47 (Egyption)
Its caliber is 7.62x39mm, and it is semi automatic. "

http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1600/1635.htm

From gun merchant "Magnificent World"

"UZI SPECIFICATION
Models
UZI SMG
Mini UZI SMG
Micro UZI SMG
UZI Pistol
Ammunition
9mm Parabellum
Operation
Blowback firing from open bolt position (OBP)
Blowback firing from closed bolt position (CBP or OBP)
Blowback firing from CBP
Mode of firing
Semi-automatic, Automatic
Semi-automatic "

http://www.info.com.ph/~mwgs/specs_3.htm

I'll take my playmates ovber the scum the gun nuts associate with any day....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=55681&mesg_id=55811&page=

But he was wrong on 4 out of 5. Three of them are machineguns and the fourth is a post-ban semiautomatic AK variant which is perfectly legal under the AW ban.

MrBenchley claimed he typed an 88-word quote from a newspaper published 10 weeks earlier from memory with 100% accuracy, when he actually took the quote from a pro-RKBA source and didn't want anyone to read the rest of the article - http://www.2ndamendment.com/Miscellaneous/News/20040227-05.htm

Actually I didn't feel like paying the Kansas City Star for an archived article, especially since I remembered it 100% correctly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=56802&mesg_id=56915

And MrBenchley thinks 2003 - 12 = 1994.

12 years (ending in 2003) would coincide with the passage of the Brady law... (ending in 2003 added by slackmaster for clarity - see the thread if you don't believe me)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=57473&mesg_id=57575

[MrBenchley]

23. And that's why I'm quoting and laughing

and you're paraphrasing and pouting...

"slackmaster
38. It's the Big Lie strategy"
"slackmaster
58. Nice try but it's still based on a major LIE"
"slackmaster
65. If I may be so bold as to speak for the entire "RKBA crowd"
We aren't saying they are lying."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20875&mesg_id=20875

[slackmaster]

24. Are you disavowing your own words, MrBenchley?

The parts in bold font are quotes. Your words. In the one about the pastoral letter you were quoting someone else.

You're quoting and laughing; I'm quoting and paraphrasing and laughing.

Mine's better than yours.

[MrBenchley]

25. And that's why I'm quoting you and laughing

and you're paraphrasing me and pouting...

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

27. Too fucking funny...

Let's take just one example....

"he'd rather believe that the Roman Catholic Church supports gay rights:
"A pastoral letter released today by the U.S. Catholic Conference encouraging families to accept their gay loved ones and reaffirming the basic human rights of gay people was welcomed by the Human Rights Campaign as an important step forward on the road to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation."

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

In fact if one follows that link, one finds YOU, slack, trying to desperately to distract the conversation from this phony astroturf crowd of faux gays by pretending that they've put the entire Catholic Church on their idiotic hate list (where they have indeed skipped every single right wing fucktard who wish gay people dead) when in fact all they've put on is the U.S. Catholic Conference--which in fact from the quote you provide (not mine but the U.S. Catholic Conference's quote) does indeed urge tolerance among Catholics for gays....yet another peculiar choice for a "gay group" to want to attack.

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/HRC/1997/welcomes.catholic.pastoral.letter-10.01.97

But then the entire rancid gun rights creed is built on that kind of outright deception, distortion and denial. As typified by the sort of "pro gun democrat" who angrily claims again and again that other people are lying and then denies he ever said any such thing, all within the span of thirty posts.

[slackmaster]

30. It's pretty clear that you were trying to weasel out of your statement

That none of the groups on the Pink Pistols' list were anti-gay. At least seven of them clearly are anti-gay.

[MrBenchley]

33. And that's why I'm quoting and laughing...

and you're paraphrasing and pouting.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Wickerman]

18. Excellent post

but must disagree with your first statement; you do have a degree of control, and its really easily done. Alert on trolls when you see them, even if they are prog gun. I can count the number of pro gun trolls that were alerted on by pro gun folks on one hand and I have been here 8 months. There were certainly more than 4 trolls in that time frame (I'm either a Simpson or I had a horrible woodshop injury - you decide).

[Columbia]

19. I might add

That the ignore function is quite a handy feature. It is greatly enhanced my experience down in the Gungeon. Of course, I only have one user on it, but that's all I need. :)

[Wickerman]

28. and I'll add that it seems to have done

a lot. Excellent usage! :thumbsup:

[slackmaster]

31. OK, I hereby throw in the towel

Ignore function goes on in 30 seconds.

Thanks for the encouragement.

[Columbia]

32. Your DU life will be much improved.

Trust me. :)

Welcome to the club. :toast:

[slackmaster]

34. I feel better already

Now it's off to Trader Joe's to get some food. I've eaten myself out of house and home waiting for the "unenjoyment" check that arrived an hour ago.

"Bob" give me the strength to keep my commitment.

:toast:

[MrSandman]

35. Dang Slack....

I was goin through your posts and trying to figure out who you were arguin' with. Guess I know.

[slackmaster]

36. I won't be arguing with anyone here any more

I'll be discussing and maybe debating, but not fighting.

[OpSomBlood]

37. I'm a frog's hair away from joining the club myself.

I fulfilled {Insert Name Here}'s wish to post as a pro-gun liberal Democrat at those websites. In fact, it has turned out to be a pretty pleasant experience...most everyone at those sites has welcomed me and responded warmly.

But I guess that wasn't the response {Insert Name Here} was expecting, so now he's pouting and making more demands.

Whatever, at least now he'll STFU about none of us ever posting there. Either that, or he'll find another list of websites so we can prove our loyalty to him.

[MrSandman]

38. I will be loyal to...

no one who requires prooof of fealty.
OTOH, I don't believe it was understood that I have no tactical tupperware.

[Columbia]

41. C'mon in! The water's great!

:party:

[MrSandman]

42. n/t

[FatSlob]

64. I'm in.

I'm sure my DU experience will be greatly enhanced.

[slackmaster]

65. My blood pressure has gone down

Welcome to the world of a little more sanity.

:toast:

You've lost nothing and gained some of your free time back. If you ever feel like arguing with a 2-year-old you can probably get friends or neighbors to lend you one.

[FatSlob]

66. I have one,

It is similar. It feels like arguing with someone who only knows the word "no".

[mosin]

68. Arguing with toddlers

I've been there twice. If you are in the right mood, it can be amusing. If you are tired and exhausted, it can be incredibly frustrating.

The big difference, I love my kids even when they drive me crazy. :hug:

[beevul]

72. I hear that...

"The big difference, I love my kids even when they drive me crazy."

So goes the life of a parent.

[Redneck Socialist]

53. I post at other gun sites

and I have found the response to be pretty civil for the most part. Sure there are plenty of issues on which I disagree with many of the other visitors to those sites, but in the end we can always find common ground on the RKBA.

[MrSandman]

39. I am guilty of it...

but I notice so many threads have a couple of people engaged in off topic flaming which walks the edge of the rules. I saw that pattern, and was not proud ...(on ed)... to have been a part of it.

[OpSomBlood]

43. The flame war at GlockTalk is really annoying.

n/t

[beevul]

46. Screw it...

I'll join the party. I'm tired of arguing. We have two daughters 18 and 12 who provide enough of that already.

[Columbia]

47. Welcome

:toast:

[Wickerman]

48. lol, I know of what you speak - eom

[solinvictus]

49. Jody recommended it to me last year...

When I first found the DU, Jody recommended the ignore feature for said offender. It took me three days to use it and I haven't looked back.

[JayS]

54. Where is Jody? n/t

n/t

[mosin]

63. Sigh

I'll give it a try too. Maybe I can spend even more time pointlessly posting in the lounge. :)

[MrBenchley]

29. And the responses include...

"Another factor in my writing them off is that in their haste to correct the “sins of white America’s past” they wish to totally forsake and eliminate every thing and value, good or bad, ever practiced and embraced by our founding fathers and predecessors. ...I am a liberal only on this board. I got banned from DU after a single non-gun-related post. ....Modern Conservatism is rooted in Classic Liberalism. Modern Liberalsm is rooted in Fascism. ....Lets not foget that the DU only allows One voice to speak, and that is the ANTI BUSH, Anti Liberty one. ...Democrats can't stand free speech. ...There is no such thing. Your deeds make you an anti-gunner, if you vote to put Democrats in office. Consider switching parties....I have to agree here. If your putting in Democrats then your helping them take away your own guns. ....Liberal ideals and gun ownership don't mix. One stands for govt control and one stands for freedom. Liberals, which are becoming more like socialists have notoriously hated guns and what they mean to a BIG government. It is a threat to them....Schumer, boxer, fienstien, Kerry, Kennedy, Gore... All of these men (emphasis mine) want your guns taken from you."

And an idiotic anti-Kerry photo-cartoon sprouted (ironically, showing Kerry while hunting).

Wonder what the counter-response will be?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[OpSomBlood]

45. Some of the "rancid cesspool" responses so far:

Yes I am a gun owning 2nd amendment quoting liberal democrat who should probably come out of the closet and admit he's a libertarian.
____________________________________________________________

Welcome - Glad to have a liberal on the board
____________________________________________________________

I have friends and family that are pro-gun democrat.
____________________________________________________________

I gladly voted for bush in 2000, but now, if wasn't for the gun issue I would vote against him in a second. He was a good governor but he has done some real stupid shit on the national level.
____________________________________________________________

I can understand being a liberal and a firearm's enthusiast. Personally, I am not.
____________________________________________________________

I welcome the liberal democrats who own guns and respect the 2nd amendment as an individual right. The more diverse the crowd of gun owners the better off we are. If more liberals felt this way we wouldn't be in the constutional crisis we are in now on the second amendment.
____________________________________________________________

Regardless of your political affilliation, if you are pro-gun, you are welcome here.
____________________________________________________________

Welcome aboard, as astute as you seem about guns, you'll learn even more here. Politics usually always makes for good discussion on ARFCOM.
____________________________________________________________

I'm about as "liberal" as you can get on most social issues - clean environment, equal rights for all, public education, taking care of those who can't fend for themselves, reproductive choice, etc.; but I insist that it be done without blindly throwing money at problems.
____________________________________________________________

I vote for candidates, not parties. George W. Bush is in my "timeout chair". If he signs any kind of reauthorization of the federal "assault weapons" ban I would seriously consider voting for Kerry. Bush has a lot of un-f***ing up to do.
____________________________________________________________

The Republican Party has the White House AND both houses of Congress yet ALL problems are caused by the Dems. Seems to me that a little introspection is in order.
____________________________________________________________

All who like guns are welcome on this board.
____________________________________________________________

Glad to see you came over to say hello.

I've been reading your discussions at DU.

If I understand this correctly, the charge has been made that if any "gun totin' liberals" ever came here, they would be shouted down in a hail of hatred and spittle. Well, not from me. Obviously, our politics are different, but I for one, do not begrudge you your choices.
____________________________________________________________

I can be fairly liberal in some respects as well. I don't particularly care for the death penalty, I don't care about which adults screw each other and where, as long as its not in my front yard. I believe life begins at birth. I don't like censorship, either from the right or left.
____________________________________________________________

I would consider myself a liberal and I considered myself a democrat for many years, mostly because that's the way my parents voted. Frankly my interest in politics has been minimal. I'm inclined to think that anyone who has political ambitions is a nut case by definition. However it is apparent that it is a necessity to take a stance on certain issues, so I find myself in this dilemna.
____________________________________________________________

Also, if you report on DU that you participate here and are neither banned nor treated worse than gary and tommy, their heads will explode.
____________________________________________________________

Welcome to the site, by the way.
____________________________________________________________

Welcome, :hi:

[RoeBear]

50. There are thousands like this person...

..."I gladly voted for bush in 2000, but now, if wasn't for the gun issue I would vote against him in a second. He was a good governor but he has done some real stupid shit on the national level."

Too bad there are Democrats here who would rather fall on the sword of gun control then welcome these people into the voting booth this November.

[MrSandman]

52. It is not good enough to have a Democratic President...

It is more important to have an ideologically pure party.

[Township75]

56. Absolutely true...

I have always been and always will be registered independent for that reason. I find that many people who register for a party will begin to become loyal to its politicians rather than what the party is supposed to stand for.

If the Dem nominee is more concerned with the position than the idealogy, I don't have trouble voting 3rd party.

[MrSandman]

57. That is good in theory...

But it stinks in a closed primary state...

[OpSomBlood]

59. That's the story in Florida.

Not that it really matters, seeing as how our primaries are in March, when the nomination is already wrapped up.

[MrSandman]

60. Try 2nd Tue of May...

But then, there is still a lot on the local/state. A lot of places around WV, the Democratic Primary qualifies as the General election. It is less so than 20 years ago.

[Free_Thinker]

61. Professor Bob Cottrol

He is an African-American scholar with good progressive bona fides I can't find this article online or would have given a link to the whole thing.

A liberal Democrat's lament: Gun control is racist, sexist and classist

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.

—Hubert Humphrey, 1960

My background is probably atypical for a somewhat high-profile supporter of the right to keep and bear arms. I am black and grew up in Manhattan’s East Harlem, far removed from the great American gun culture of rural, white America. Although my voting patterns have become somewhat more conservative in recent years, I remain in my heart of hearts a 1960s Humphrey Democrat concerned with the plight of those most vulnerable in American society—minorities, the poor, the elderly, and single women—groups whose day-to-day realities are often overlooked in our public policy debates, people whose lives too often go unnoticed by our intellectually timid chattering classes. This is happening in the public debate over the right to bear arms.

[Free_Thinker]

62. Native Americans

Not having any luck finding a link to articles that really did a great job of exploring the subject but this is a quote from a progressive writer named Richard Roberts:

We revere Native Americans as keepers of
wisdom. We honor them for sharing their
teachings of prophecy, community living, and
caring for the earth. Every New Age bookstore
has shelves of books about the teachings and
sufferings of Native Americans. Ironically, many
of the people who buy "Free Leonard Peltier"
bumper stickers and mourn the Indians' loss of
land and life at the hands of the "power hungry
Christian, white, males of the United States", now
want the same State that took away the Indians'
lands and lives to take away the Indians' guns --
again!

All my friends who have significant Native
American heritage either have guns or support
people having guns. I wonder if that has anything
to do with remembering a time when their
grandparents' grandparents really needed a gun
and couldn't get one.

[MrBenchley]

67. And so today....

We got a chest-thumping thread about how swell Chimpy's speech is going to be....and this amazingly ugly puddle of pus........

"Gun nut 1: Do Hispanic women make good wives? Just wondering...what's the scoop on these Latin gals?....
Gun nut 2: Define "Good Wives"....
Gun nut 1: Does dishes Cooks Cleans Never cries "rape"

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=245623

Amusingly, one of the crooked gun dealers nabbed in the Nevada gun show raid was one of the regulars from this dreary little cesspool.

[Free_Thinker]

70. Isn't It Ironic?

Many support a woman's right to choose to continue or end a pregnancy, but not her right to use a gun to protect her child.

Many support a woman's right to control her own body, but not her right to protect it with a gun.

Many support the rights of the disabled to have access to bathrooms, theaters and restaurants, but not access to the effective personal defense of a gun.

Many support not "judging" others' lifestyles, but then immediately judge those who choose to protect themselves and others with a gun.

Many support respecting the diversity of religions, cultures and sexual preferences, but not the diversity of choosing a gun to preserve the well-being of our selves, our families and our communities.

by Rich Roberts

[FatSlob]

73. Those people are not true supporters of human rights,

because they seek to deny the right of self-defense. They are very hypocritical.

[library_max]

78. First, there is no "right to self defense."

Second, it's been well established that guns purchased for self-defense are far more likely to be used in a crime or involved in a household accident than to be successfully used in self-defense.

Third, your supposed right of self-defense is what's putting guns in the hands of criminals.

[FeebMaster]

80. No right to self defense?

How do you figure?


Second, it's been well established that guns purchased for self-defense are far more likely to be used in a crime or involved in a household accident than to be successfully used in self-defense.

Uh huh. 43 times more likely I'm sure.

Third, your supposed right of self-defense is what's putting guns in the hands of criminals.

Sure it is.

[library_max]

88. "Sure it is."

Well, where do you think criminals get their guns? From thin air? From the criminals-only gun tree? They get them from law-abiding gun owners and through channels designed and permitted to accommodate law-abiding gun owners.

[slackmaster]

90. The Genie is out of the bottle

The horses have left the barn.

Elvis has left the building.

It's too late to un-invent guns and make them all go away.

[FeebMaster]

92. Criminals get their guns the same way most people do.

"Well, where do you think criminals get their guns? From thin air? From the criminals-only gun tree? They get them from law-abiding gun owners and through channels designed and permitted to accommodate law-abiding gun owners."

They buy them. Some steal them, of course, and most people don't do that. Criminals who buy their guns have the advantage of buying them in an unregulated market, an advantage the law abiding don't have if they wish to remain law abiding. Let's not forget, as we're so often reminded, that it only takes a split second for a law abiding person to become a criminal.

I still don't understand how the right to self-defense puts guns in the hands of criminals.

[slackmaster]

93. Even more perplexing

I still don't understand how the right to self-defense puts guns in the hands of criminals.

Especially if that right doesn't exist, as our friend here claims.

:freak:

[library_max]

97. The idea that private citizens may and should own guns (for self defense)

has the effect of creating practically all the avenues by which criminals obtain guns, as outlined in your own response.

[FeebMaster]

98. No.

Human nature creates the avenues by which criminals obtain guns. People want to make a profit and some are willing to break the law to do so. It doesn't matter if you recognize a right to self-defense or to keep and bear arms. It doesn't matter if the law recognizes them either. Criminals will still get guns and they will still use them for criminal purposes.

So what do you want to do about it? How do you want to stop criminals from getting guns?

[library_max]

100. "Human nature creates the avenues by which criminals obtain guns."

:wtf:

We just finished agreeing that criminals mostly buy their guns, from gun dealers and gun shows that don't exist primarily to accommodate criminals (right?), and the rest steal them. They don't steal them from Fort Dix, do they? No, they steal them from law-abiding gun owners.

So you've got all these ways for law-abiding gun owners to get guns and those are exactly the same ways the criminals get their guns (and thank you for pointing out earlier that the distinction is actually largely meaningless). So how would criminals get guns except through these channels? And how would you keep criminals from getting guns except by closing off these channels? Or are you suggesting that it's a good thing that criminals can get guns?

[slackmaster]

102. Sources for guns exist all over the world

A former prison guard told me yesterday about an inmate he knew at the federal pen in San Diego. The guy worked for a company that imported bananas from El Salvador. Some of the banana crates had false bottoms, with enough room to fit two Kalashnikov rifles in each one. He got busted after importing hundreds of AK-47s - Real selective-fire AKs, not "assault weapons".

My point here is that even if you could somehow pass a draconian law that says all US citizens must turn in their personal weapons and everyone complied, criminals would still have sources for guns. (Not to mention the fact that none of the guns now in the black market would get turned in.)

We'd have lost one more civil right, and the problem of criminal misuse of firearms would not go away.

[library_max]

105. The "black market" is a tiny drop in the bucket.

As your own previous post agreed. Simple imports can be blocked by simple customs procedures, the way they are in countries which have effective gun control laws. Smuggling would become big-dollar for tiny numbers of weapons.

The fact that there are so many guns out there already, not all in law-abiding hands, is pretty much the RKBA crowd's fault. Gun control would have to include bullet control and some control over components such as caps and powder. And no, it wouldn't be perfectly effective on day one, but it would get better as time went on. As witnessed in countries which have effective gun control laws.

[slackmaster]

106. So, besides blaming the "RKBA crowd" for criminal misuse of guns

What do you suggest to make the situation better?

[library_max]

109. Ultimately, end the civilian ownership and possession of guns.

There ya go. Made your day, didn't it?

[slackmaster]

113. You didn't make my day, but you made some Republicans very happy

Now they can link to your post and say "See? We TOLD you the Democrats want to take away your guns. Vote for our people and you get to keep them."

:eyes:

[library_max]

123. Yes, I am all Democrats.

I am the Presidential and the Vice Presidential nominee. See what happens when you spend to much time in the Gungeon and blow off the other forums?

[slackmaster]

128. I know full well your stated extremist view is out of step with our party

But what you posted makes good fodder for right-wing propagandists, whether you were being serious or not. (And if you aren't being serious you could at least put in a :freak: or something to make it clear you are being sarcastic.)

Everything posted on this forum gets read by the enemy looking for outrageous statements that can be used against the interests of the Democratic Party.

[MrBenchley]

131. Too TOO funny....

"Everything posted on this forum gets read by the enemy"
And so the only thing to do is to parrot their idiotic rhetoric, as if we were ALL pusbrained right wing bigots....

Guess that's RKBA "logic."

[library_max]

132. Well, heck fire, slackmaster

I'm sure sorry to lend aid and comfort to the enemy, if that's really what I did. But you were the one who kept insisting and insisting that I make my position plain, when you must have known damned well what it was. So maybe this catastrophe (if catastrophe it is) isn't entirely my fault.

Oh wait a minute. It is my fault, merely for having an opinion that differs from yours. Sorry, I forgot, my bad.

[slackmaster]

136. max, I sincerely respect your right to have and express your opinion

I expect the same from you in return, and please don't mischaracterize my reaction to your previous statement.

All I meant to say was that when you state an extreme position that is out of step with the real position of mainstream Democrats, especially on such a visible forum as DU, there is a risk that someone will MIS-represent your position as that of the party.

That sword cuts both ways.

There are people on the pro-RKBA side who say in public they'd repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, making it possible for anyone to buy a machinegun by mail order. I consider that position just as repulsive and unrealistic as wanting to ban all civilian firearms ownership.

I can sit down and have a beer and a civil conversation with people at either extreme. Issues don't matter to me nearly as much as how people treat others.

[MrBenchley]

140. And that's why he's in another thread misrepresenting what you said...

"Issues don't matter to me nearly as much as how people treat others."
Tee hee hee.....

[library_max]

153. What are you talking about?

What thread, where?

[MrBenchley]

154. Here you go...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=60237&mesg_id=60283&page=

[library_max]

156. Thanks.

[MrBenchley]

157. Anytime...

[library_max]

158. Regarding civil conversation and how people treat others.

I expressed an opinion on the topic of a thread and you demanded to know my complete views on gun control. You dogged me through two threads with this demand, and I finally answered it. Then you called me an extremist and a traitor to the Democratic cause. Maybe our ideas of civil conversation are not the same.

I've mentioned before the possibility that you and many of the other RKBA posters don't recognize your own bully tactics. I've been in other groups and clubs where a clique who all agreed with each other felt that they owned the place, and I've seen the various ways in which they let people who don't agree with them know that their opinions aren't welcome - the dismissive language, the name-calling (not of the person himself, but of his group or the people who agree with him), the one-way-only demands for supporting information, making snide remarks about a person back and forth over that person's head, and so on.

And it's not that hard to imagine myself doing the same thing, falling into a groupthinking group and becoming convinced that I and my buddies are so right that everyone who doesn't agree is a jerk who deserves to be treated with (subtle or outright) contempt. It's not hard to imagine that sort of thing creeping up on a person who might not be aware just how hostile his language and manner have become.

And then you went to another thread and pilloried me there, behind my back, for the purpose of taking a cheap shot at a gun control position that actually quite a lot of people agree with. Well, so much for me thinking that the horseshit is unintentional.

[slackmaster]

162. That's not how I remember the conversation, library_max

I believe I called the measure you were calling for extreme and ridiculous, and I said it did not reflect the view of mainstream Democrats or the official position of the Democratic Party. I may have even said your attitude hurts the prospects of Democrats winning elections.

But I have never, ever called you an extremist or a traitor. If you think you can prove otherwise please post links.

Maybe our ideas of civil conversation are not the same.

Maybe we have disparate notions of the difference between attacking an idea and attacking the person who presents the idea. I'm pretty sure I understand the difference.

And then you went to another thread and pilloried me there, behind my back, for the purpose of taking a cheap shot at a gun control position that actually quite a lot of people agree with.

I made one post with a link to your post where you said you supported ending civilian ownership and possession of guns. Your words, library_max. How can anything posted on an open forum be "behind your back"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=59554&mesg_id=60011

Frankly very few people on DU have ever openly made such an extreme statement. MrBenchley, iverglas, CO Liberal, billbuckhead, Paladin, and many others have repeatedly stated that is NOT their goal, Some have complained loudly when individuals on the pro-RKBA side have misattributed them as supporting complete disarment.

You are part of a very small minority on that count, library_max.

[DavidMS]

119. I must respectfully disagre...

firearms are a mature technology and as such any semi-developed nation can produce and export them. This keeps prices very low because there are very low bariers to entry. Primers, smokeless powder and other cartrege components are also mature technology and as a result easy to manufacutre. Combined with the open borders asociated with an open, democratic socity I can see no way if we cannot keep cocane out how firearms can be kept out.

I feel that Borders are too porous for prohibitonary controls on firarms or narcotics to be very effective. The best way to keep firarms away from people who have demonstrated poor jugement (convicted violent criminals, specific classes of drug users, spouse beaters, persons ruled incompent by the state and specific classes of white collar criminals) is to have legal but regulated markets to the greatest degree possible.

I don't have the time to address the socitial issues around crime and addiction but guns don't cause crime (Switzerland) and drugs arn't a sole cause of addiction (eliminate poverty and establish socitial structures that streinghten communities) and drug use will fall because people would be more likely to turn to people for help as opposed to pills.

[library_max]

124. The cocaine argument has been previously disposed of.

When you can get a million dollars worth of guns into a briefcase or $100,000 worth into a plastic bag you can swallow, I will say that the gun problem in this country is pretty well taken care of.

Open, democratic societies with gun prohibitions, such as UK, do a pretty effective job of keeping them out. Nothing's perfect, but again a few dozen guns are preferable to a few million.

[DavidMS]

145. Depends on what you would call sucess.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3189184.stm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/03/mps_take_aim_at_ebay/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/138233.stm

Notice in the last article that Mac 10 submachine guns were smugled as opposed to revolvers.

The problem isn't a few dozen guns in a briefcase but hundreds of smuglers moving a few at a time. Thankfully in the US its easier for a crook to get a revolver or pistol as opposed to a submachinegun. Requireing firearms to be smugled will increase the deadlyness of street shootings.

The fact remains that the US has long porous borders and enough port trafic to be extreemely expensive to monitor. So it will make as much sense as the "war on drugs."

[library_max]

148. The UK has one-fifth as many gun crimes per capita

as the United States. I call that success.

[FeebMaster]

150. Not to mention one-fifth the population.

Give or take a few million people.

[MrBenchley]

151. underwhelming knowledge of feebmaster....

Tell us, what does per capita mean?

[FeebMaster]

152. oops my mistake.

I missed the per capita. I must be taking reading lessons from the gun grabbers.

[FeebMaster]

110. I never agreed

that criminals buy most of their guns from gun dealers and gun shows. I said most buy their guns in an unregulated market. Legal gun dealers and gun shows are not an unregulated market.

I'll ask again, how do you intend to stop criminals from getting guns?

[library_max]

111. What is this unregulated market you speak of?

And how do guns get into it?

And aren't you the guy that wrote, "Crimals get their guns the same way most people do"?

[FeebMaster]

112. I said:

Criminals get their guns the same way most people do. They buy them.

The unregulated market is the black market. I just think unregulated market sounds better than black market. It's also more descriptive. Guns get into it lots of ways. They get smuggled into the country, they get built by gun smiths that don't care about the law, they get bought out of police evidence rooms when corrupt cops sell them, they get bought out of army arsenals when corrupt soldiers sell them, they get bought on the legal market by people without criminal records who then insert them into the unregulated market, they get stolen from the police, the army, gun stores, private citizens. There are probably billions of guns in the world. They aren't hard to come by, especially if you don't care about breaking the law.

Again, how are you going to stop it?

[library_max]

125. Your black market is a drop in the bucket.

Adding together all the guns that get smuggled into the country, built by gun smiths, bought out of police evidence rooms, bought out of army arsenals, and stolen from police and army arsenals, the total is diddley-squat compared to the number bought from private citizens, brought as private citizens, bought through private citizens, and stolen from private citizens. I posted a research study proving this a few strings ago. Do I need to dig it up and post it again?

It is disingenous to lump guns stolen from private citizens and guns bought by private citizens who intend to sell them illegally into the "black market" group. Cutting off guns to private citizens cuts off these avenues too, whether you want to categorize them as "black market" or not.

[FeebMaster]

130. Of course it's a drop in the bucket

compared to the legal market. The vast majority of people who buy guns buy them legally and never commit a crime with them. That's because, wait for it, the vast majority of people don't commit crimes at all.

[library_max]

133. It's a drop in the bucket of the sources of guns used to commit crimes.

[FeebMaster]

134. Right. So what do you want to do about it?

I think I've asked that before.

[library_max]

135. I think I've answered it before.

And when I did, I got accused of aiding and abetting the Bush campaign in taking back the White House in '04. So, thanks but no thanks.

[FeebMaster]

139. Oh, I missed the post at first.

I see it now. At least you're honest.

How do you plan on ending civilian ownership and possession of guns? Do you think some congressman is going to just introduce a bill one day banning guns? Do you think something like that will ever pass? You know, I think I've mentioned, once or twice, how to accomplish your very goal.

[MrBenchley]

95. Hilariously...

There's a long hysterical thread currently in one of these gunwankers cesspools bemoaning the fate of one of their members, nabbed at a gun show for criminal activities.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=245485

[slackmaster]

82. What state do you live in?

Here is the very first section of the California Constitution:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.... (underlining added for emphasis)

I'm wondering where on Earth you got the idea there is no right to self-defense. I think you're completely off base.

[library_max]

86. Well, where do you get the idea that there IS a right to self-defense?

Outside California, anyway? Surely there's enough crackpot stuff in the California Constitution (such as the recall mechanism) to disqualify it as an authority.

[slackmaster]

87. I want to know what state you live in so we can look at its Constitution

If that's too much personal information, never mind.

It seems pretty obvious that defending one's self is about as fundamental a natural right as exists.

Surely there's enough crackpot stuff in the California Constitution (such as the recall mechanism) to disqualify it as an authority.

Red Herring, and regardless of your opinion it IS the supreme law of my state.

[library_max]

89. So that's it. If it's in the California constitution or some other state

constitution, it's holy writ. There's my answer.

[slackmaster]

91. The right to self-defense goes back a lot farther than that

Have you ever seen the English Bill of Rights from 1689?

Subjects (well, Protestants at least) have the right to have arms for their own defense.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/england.htm

If you're really interested in the topic of self-defense I suggest you do some reading on your own. I don't have time to straighten out your deeply flawed notion of rights.

[library_max]

96. Okay, fair enough.

Setting aside the snarls and personal jabs, I will concede that you and the others made a case for self-defense as a right.

Do believe that it is an absolute right, which cannot be restricted and to which restrictions cannot be defended? Because even freedom of speech has restrictions. You can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, for example.

[slackmaster]

99. No rights are absolute

All rights, including the right to live, are subject to reasonable restrictions. The debate always comes down to one person's idea of "reasonable" vs. another's.

I oppose the death penalty for a variety of reasons but not everyone agrees with me on that subject, so I can't call the right to live "absolute".

If you look into the statutes that cover actions taken in self-defense, you'll see that they all define the circumstances under which a particular action, e.g. use of deadly force is justified. Those conditions differ from state to state and nation to nation.

[library_max]

101. Okay, so the right of self-defense isn't absolute.

Why, then, are people automatically condemned as anti-rights if they recommend limiting the ownership of firearms? I refer you to Fatslob and Freethinker's posts which started this sub-thread.

[slackmaster]

104. It gets back to what you or I or anyone else considers reasonable

I think the set of restrictions we have on gun ownership in the USA right now is just about where it should be. The problem is enforcement.

For example, when someone takes out a restraining order against an estranged significant other because of a domestic violence situation, there is no mechanism in place to take guns away from the person under the order even though federal and state laws require that person to get rid of all firearms. Here's a thread I started on the subject.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=58046&mesg_id=58046

I support changes in California law to make sure that people under that kind of order actually give up their guns. Yet only ONE gun control supporter expressed agreement with my position. I thought some of the other reactions were bizarre. I'm supporting what I consider to be a reasonable gun control measure, yet some of the hard-core gun control people couldn't contain their hostility.

[library_max]

108. I think your suggestion was fine as far as it goes.

Which isn't very far. Even if Lucy Nash had had a complete inventory of all of Bill Hoffhine's guns and even if the police had been able to get every last one of those guns from Mr. Hoffhine, it would hardly have prevented him from buying a new gun, borrowing a buddy's, etc.

I read the whole string. Only one gun control supporter expressed disagreement with your position, and the whole crowd ganged up on her, not unusually. One gun ownership supporter also expressed disagreement and got a mild, explanatory response from you only.

The problem is that anybody can get his hands on a gun in this country. The kind of measure you advocated will not solve that problem.

[slackmaster]

114. Perhaps you are not familiar with California gun laws

All handguns are registered, including the one Hoffine used to kill his son. The police could easily have obtained a complete inventory of his firearms.

All firearms sales have to be done through a licensed dealer, with a background check.

The restraining order would have prevented Hoffine from buying any firearm from a legal source.

You cannot borrow a firearm from anyone in California unless you are standing near the lender at a shooting range. Any actual loan constitutes an illegal transfer.

Only one gun control supporter expressed disagreement with your position, and the whole crowd ganged up on her, not unusually.

Yes, after she put her foot deeply into her mouth with her initial knee-jerk response.

The problem is that anybody can get his hands on a gun in this country. The kind of measure you advocated will not solve that problem.

The measure I'm advocating isn't intended to stop all criminal misuse of guns. It would (hopefully will) ensure that people who are put under domestic violence restraining orders in California actually surrender their firearms. That seems likely to save lives.

Are you saying you oppose the proposed change to California law because it wouldn't fix the whole problem?

[library_max]

127. Not living in California and not being a "gun enthusiast," good guess.

But it doesn't matter. You are demonstrating the kind of willful blindness you guys often accuse gun control advocates of - if it's illegal, it can't happen. The fact that it's against the law will not prevent one of Mr. Hoffhine's buddies from lending him a gun. Only getting guns out of the hands of civilians would do that.

I wish you all had some sense of your own bias when you justify personal attacks by saying that someone you disagree with "put her foot deeply into her mouth." It is a fundamental lack of respect for other people's right to their opinions, and it is continual in this forum.

Am I saying I oppose your proposal? Well, let's see, what did I say on that subject? Oh yes, it was "I think your suggestion was fine, as far as it goes." How you read opposition into that, God only knows.

[slackmaster]

137. I don't believe my position is as extreme as you are painting it

If seven or eight layers of laws don't stop someone from committing a crime, why should we believe that one more would do the trick? I advocate disarming people who are subjected to TROs because it's easy and an obvious way to reduce the risk to battered women and others who are threatened by specific, known individuals. It's already illegal for them to have guns but the law has no "teeth". I want to give it some teeth.

I wish you all had some sense of your own bias when you justify personal attacks...

We all have biases. I'm well aware of mine. I don't "attack" anyone without ample provocation.

When I first make acquaintence with someone I've never met I treat them with basic courtesy and respect. I continue to treat every person that way until they've made it abundantly clear that they aren't willing or able to treat me with the same respect and courtesy. Anyone on this board that you believe I don't treat well has a well-established history of bad-mouthing me.

I have two people on Ignore. They've both earned it through months of constant ad hominem attacks directed at me. If you can continue to show fundamental courtesy toward me, we may disagree but I will never attack you personally.

Am I saying I oppose your proposal? Well, let's see, what did I say on that subject? Oh yes, it was "I think your suggestion was fine, as far as it goes." How you read opposition into that, God only knows.

It sounded to me like damning through faint praise. I didn't say you opposed it, I merely asked for clarification.

[MrBenchley]

74. Not really....

Unless one thinks being a triggerr happy gonzo is the natural state of affairs....

"Many support respecting the diversity of religions, cultures and sexual preferences, but not the diversity of choosing a gun "

[MrBenchley]

75. Ah, this morning's "reading pleasure"...hold your nose

before reading....

"WSJ: Precursor WMDs Stockpiled in Iraq (It's over Libs)
Tuesday's Wall Street Journal reports that U.S. inspectors have found within the last few months "warehouses full of commercial and agricultural chemicals," which, if mixed and packaged properly, "could quickly become chemical weapons."
U.S. forces in Karbala have also recently uncovered 55-gallon drums loaded with chemicals that were said to be "pesticide," some of which were stored in what military sources described as a "camouflaged bunker complex."
The alleged agricultural site just happened to be located alongside a military ammunition dump, reports Insight magazine."

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=41d516d033ecf1893de371d9e6289c0d&threadid=248645

"The true story of a liberal role model
PYONGYANG, North Korea - Nearly 40 years ago, Charles Robert Jenkins allegedly deserted his U.S. Army unit to start a new life in North Korea (news - web sites). He taught English, acted in propaganda films, married a woman 20 years his junior and had two daughters. "

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=41d516d033ecf1893de371d9e6289c0d&threadid=249921

"What every hunter needs to know about John Kerry
John Kerry participates in hunting photo-ops and claims he supports our hunting heritage. But his voting record in support of radical anti-hunting animal rights groups tells a different story."

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=41d516d033ecf1893de371d9e6289c0d&threadid=250644

It's inspiring to see our "pro-gun democrats" sitting around mute as stones in the face of posts like that....funny, they're not at all shy about dredging up right wing turds from cesspools like SAF to wave around over here.

BONUS LAUGH: The weeping and gnashing of teeth over the gun nut at one forum nabbed selling illegal weapons at a gun show continues unabated....up to eight pages now!

"This board has it's bloviators about killing Democrats, Muslims, Abortionists, but they keep a tight lid on illegal firearms activities. Why? because it's against the law, and whether you agree or not., Ed Sr and Goat Boy don't want it done here.

Originally Posted By Wolfpack:
Talking about paranoid...I never understood why if a camera is taken out at the range why everyone hits the dirt and acts like criminals......this has nothing to do with Larry as the DBS'ers post pics here all the time. I was at a shoot at Casa Grande range near Phoenix and a German camera crew showed up...they were almost lynched....hell even if you were shooting an illegally converted AR-15 to shoot full-auto it is nothing that could be told from a picture taken 25 feet away.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
you obsly dont remember how they twisted the footage to make us look like a bunch of nutjobs do you?
I was there I remember it.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=245485&page=8

[library_max]

76. Wow! Cool!

So let's see . . . first, you go find a bunch of Republicans and tell them about a wedge issue that they can use to hurt Democrats in just about any election . . . then, you invite them to come and troll and disrupt at DU! Say, that is pleasurable reading!

[slackmaster]

77. Blame the idiot who suggested it

OpSomBlood made those posts in response to what amounts to an old-fashioned schoolyard dare by a "bully".

[library_max]

79. Heck, and here I thought nobody around here takes orders.

I read you guys' posts and I read MrBenchley's, and while he's inclined to go for the personal remark and the angry challenge, it's nothing compared to the attacks and slams and cheap shots you guys take at him. Not to mention the ganging-up effect. And now I understand you've all boldly decided to put him on Ignore. Kind of calls into question the interest in open debate around here, amongst all these freedom-loving folks. Seems like opinions that differ from y'all's are given very little toleration indeed.

[JayS]

103. If you had been here longer it would be clearer to you. n/t

n/t

[Columbia]

118. We have plenty of tolerance for true debate

Otherwise would these nice folks be discussing the issue with you politely and rationally? What we do not tolerate is when others do return the same kind of respect. Ignoring a certain poster is not done to close debate from differing viewpoints, but to establish a level of civility that does foster open and tolerant debate from all sides.

[library_max]

129. Okay, but consider this.

In the first place, folks have not been uniformly nice, polite, and rational with me either. Not by a long shot.

Also, MrBenchley is very often the one and only pro-control voice on a thread. Iverglas is the only other pro-control poster who posts anywhere nearly as regularly, and the wolf-pack tends to savage her also.

I suspect it may take a little more effort to take a critical look at the rhetoric of the posters on your side of the fence (the vast majority). I'm going to try to get MrBenchley to cut back on the personal stuff. Think you could do that with your side?

[slackmaster]

138. Good luck with your quest

You aren't the first person to try to get people to treat each other better on this forum.

Thanks for trying. I hope you can make some progress, but I'm not going to place any bets on your prospects.

:toast:

[Columbia]

143. With apologies to Lunabush, I am not the hall monitor

And nor do I want to be (Thanks Luna!).

My advice to you is this:

1. If you see someone posting a blatant personal attack on yourself or another, hit alert.

2. If you see someone posting a borderline, impolite reply, then respond to de-escalate with your own rational and civil post. Set the good example for others.

3. If neither of these tactics work with certain posters, I encourage you to utilize the ignore function. Sometimes your civility and respect will not be reciprocated no matter how hard you try.

You'll never be able to control the actions of another, but through your own behavior you can influence the tone of the forum as a whole. Flame wars do not often just flare up automatically. It may only take one to ignite it, but it takes several to fan it to the point of conflagration. You won't be able to prevent others from feeding it, but you can do your part by not participating or trying to douse it with your own civility.

Good luck.

[MrSandman]

120. Reading posts in ask the Admin's...

the ignore function has a purpose. I would go to one of the RW gun forums if I wished ro ignore the other side.

[MrBenchley]

85. That's SO fucking funny, slack...

I'm STILL waiting for any pro-Democrat posting over there.....but it's hilarious to see you guys pretend this melancholy bit of lachrymose drivel is it....

[MrBenchley]

84. Guess that whiny self-pitying mush

is as close as some people can get to saying anything pro-Democrat....

[MrBenchley]

121. For your reading "pleasure"--this morning's pusbrained ramblings

from the "polite and courteous" folks infesting the gunwanker forums...and you already know there's not a pro-Democrat word in response over there:

topjimmy (responding to the warnings of terrorist attacks this summer) : "The answer to this is simple, deport everyone immediately. No more aliens... if you are not a citizen of the United States of America, then you can get out. We need to end the process of naturalization as well. Once the deportation process is complete, INS can be officially disbanded … Anyone found to be in the US illegally, or trying to cross the border, should be executed."
Hardcase: "No. My criticism, however, is thazt is is far too reasonable, straight-forward, and logical to ever be implemented. Likewise, NO politician would ever have the balls to advocate it."
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=245959

DriftPunch: Is Kerry dirty with the Big Dig? Just wondering, I know little about it, but know it's a sink hole of money, political patronage, and corruption..."
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=245995

A post linking to some Newsmax drivel about Democrats being anti-Semitic draws these charming responses:
Banjoboy (who identifies himself as a Member of the Sons of Confederate veterans and the League of the South): "Since most Jews are leftists, and vote as a block as blacks do, about 90% democrat I fail to see what the man is whining about. One must remember it was a German Jew that gave us communism, Karl Marx and two other Jews who got the ball rolling in Russia, Trotsky and Lenin. I am forever amazed at how conservatives cry about the liberal media and never wonder about why every major newspaper as well as the television networks are all owned by liberal Jews. They cry about the liberal trial lawyers which are 62%, according to Michael Medved liberal Jews. The most ultra liberal organization in this country, the ACLU is founded and run by Liberal Jews. It looks to me like the Democratic party is true to its socialist roots."
Artfulhogster: "There were many political Jews who were communist spies during FDR's reign also, so I agree there is a history of Jews and socialism that goes way back….The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin. He wasn't Jewish as far as I know but he did hire Jews."
http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=8231b65e43421c4ed735dc2abfdd6de2&threadid=250814

Another dimwit posts to some WorldNutDaily gibberish about Democrats being fascists…
Wulfenite: "He's right, although he only sees the tip of the iceberg. He does not address at all the democrats in ability to look objectively at failures of democrat policy; great society, welfare, afirmative action, gun control. These platforms circulate in that sphere of PC, power politics, and facism."
mr. Mxyzptlk: "Fascism is the father of the modern Democrat Party. The Democrats have inherited racism, gun control, abortion, and the socialist ideals of the Fascists."
http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=8231b65e43421c4ed735dc2abfdd6de2&threadid=250813

schumacker : "Sedition….I'm getting real fucking sick of it!…Today I accidentally turned on headline news and what was I greeted with? At least 8 viewer E-mails calling the president everything but a white man, a glowing review of that fat bitch Michael Moore's latest treason, and more bullshit about how we are losing the war."
GunNutJuell: "Yep! It's the "I support the troops, but not the war" type of people. Usually liberal commie douche bags who don't have the balls to actually pick a side to fight on….Rather than saying, "Fuck America! I want us to lose!" They use their method of double speak to thwart any ideas that they may be anti-American, so that they don't have to explain themselves. Because if they did, they'd lose."
http://www.glocksunlocked.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9199

railman44: "Okay, okay. The only perfect human being was hung, on a cross over 2000 years ago... We have a choice. Every vote counts. We'll have the choice of a liberal further left than Teddy Kennedy or George Bush. Most of you bitch about the Assault ban. Well, that was the brain child of liberals. Incrementally, liberals will take the 2nd away. A vote for anyone but Bush gives a vote to the Poodle. Am I in love with Bush? Nope. But, he's the best we've got. Yeah, he gave lip service to signing the ban again. That's politics folks. Lots of ignorant soccor moms out there..."
GunNutJuell: "Time for some good old revolution. It should take about 5 minutes, as the liberals are the only people who don't know guns!"
http://www.glocksunlocked.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9215

[OpSomBlood]

141. Guilt by association.

There are tens of thousands of members between those three sites. Way to cherrypick the posts from the most radical and insane few.

[MrBenchley]

142. No, just the scummy rambling of right wing fuckwits...

"There are tens of thousands of members"
And thousands and thousands of mind-numbingly stupid posts among them.....racist, ignorant, and dishonest. You're welcome to them, op....and it's clear you're not going to provide anything in response but snivelly self-pity.

[MrBenchley]

147. Hold Your Nose--Another Dose of "Reading Pleasure"

This morning's ditto-monkey babbling...

Garandman: "Do you fear for America??? I mean do you seriously think America is doomed - like within our lifetime?? If so, what will be our downfall?? Liberals? Terrorists??"
TNFrank: "Even if the country falls completly apart the People will survive. That's what America is all about, survival. Like in the Postman, pockets of people set up cities and got life back to as normal as possible under the conditions that they were given. It might be one of the biggest blessing for the American people to have their government fall apart. That way we could start over and rebuild it around the Constitution and this time we wouldn't have any breuacrats to mess things up for us."
Garandman: " have ZERO fear of terrorism. …What I am afraid of is the Liberals won't ALLOW us to win the war against terrorism. They've hamstrung us within our country and our military across the world."

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=246235

sixgun_symphony: "The peacenik Left are now in control of the Democratic party and they want Kerry elected so that the US will run from Iraq. Most interesting was Al Gore's expressed loathing of US unilateralism. He thinks "international law" is a higher authority than US soveriegnty. Reminds me of how John Kerry declared himslelf to be an internationalist and would put the US armed forces under control of the United Nations. These Leftist democrats are all internationalists, and they are angry that the US has made war on its enemies without the permission of the United Nations. They are angry that this is a "colonialist war" meaning that Western Civilization is fighting back against a 3rd World menace."
railman44: " For a guy that invented the Internet, Gore is one moronic asshole. To think he came within an eyelash of being our President. Just goes to show how dumbed down our population has become. At least that fucktard isn't sweating out his pits like he used to. Maybe he has underarm protectors like the women used to wear... "
GunNutJuell: " Thats what it all boils down to. You pick a side to fight on, or stand in the middle. Pussies are in the middle. Many liberals obviously want us to become europe, and lose this war, but they'll stand behind their "I support the troops but not the war" mask, just like their lying arab counterparts. For some reason, I think I have more respect for anybody willing to physically stand up and fight, on both sides, rather than Those who just "Talk about it" Are liberals worse than insurgents perhaps?!?"
ParaBear: " I often wonder what the lilly white leftys hope to gain by having the the whole world, turn into the Third World? Any guesses?"

http://www.glocksunlocked.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9236

[FatSlob]

149. You dilemma is that certain authoritarians

will never believe you are a Democrat.

[MrBenchley]

155. This Morning's "Reading Pleasure"

Megadittoes, Rush!
mr. Mxyzptlk quotes the flabby junkie himself, then says: " Gore shows again why he should not have been president. We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists, democrats and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad!"
pizzaaguy: " I'm thinking he and Teddy have a bet going to see who has a stroke, first!"
V Creed: " Gore is a liberal, and all liberals are whacked-out psychotics. It's what and who they are, which is why Gore looks and acts like a nut-case! "Liberalism" is a disease of the mind, a mental illness, a psychotic false religion.
Fast Shadow: " It's so funny when libbos have their public implosions. It happens to all of them. Algore, Howard Dong, Rosie O'Donut, Barbara Streisand, every single one of them. The bile and venom that pumps through their veins won't let their true colors be hidden forever and they expose themselves to the world for what they really are: Vile, hateful worms with no logic and no souls, just empty shells that bleat conformist rhetoric. "
Verybigstick: " Public rhetoric like this during a time of war? se·di·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-dshn) n. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state. Insurrection; rebellion."

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=48cbeb1284bf4dbd55088c0b8e47c1e1&threadid=251290

And this charming (and psychologically revealing) bit of speculation…

Loaded: " Saddam Insane, Where is he? What do you think the "day in the life" is for him? "
JAYTEAM: " OK, I'm not supposed to say anything, but I'll tell you guys since we're all friends here. We keep him tied up in a box with a rubber ball in his mouth stuffed in a box down in my basement. He now only answers to the name Gimp when we walk him on a leash. His reprogramming has come along nicely."
GunNutJuell: "Bring out the gimp!"

Good googly-moogly…imagine the uproar that would occur here if I were to try to portray gun nuts as barely repressed closet cases with S&M fantasies?

Finally, here’s a bit of RKBA "sociology" ….

sgtar15: "… I have noticed something recently about some VN vets and how they view this current war.
They are overly critical of everything Bush or Rummy does. They are not only against this war, but are often aggainst all war...even when attacked! They also seam to care very little about anyone other then American lives and firmly thing if we leave people alone they will leave us alone.
Basically, they are cry baby peacenics. They blame Bush for everything right now (including 9-11), and firmly believe that this is another VN. They believe everything on the TV, even though they kknow the TV was biased in VN.
Basically, they are just fucked up whining liberals!"
Bumblebee_Bob: " Maybe it's because most of the draftees were from more economically challenged sector and thus already inclined to a liberal political leaning?"
danno-in-michigan: " I don't think the symptoms you described are related at all with service in Vietnam. Instead, it's the generation you're describing: they took drugs and bad-mouthed their country when they were young, got greedy and wealthy through a total lack of ethics in the 90s, and want to bankrupt this country into paying for their retirement and health care. In contrast to the "greatest generation," baby boomers have to be the "worst generation." Like I said, I don't think it's related to Viet Nam. Bill Clinton, for example, probably couldn't even spell Viet Nam."

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=246052

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

160. Gee, op, I didn't go whining to them

about how mean some people were to MY "pweshus widdle guns"....

Nor was I pretending these fuckwits were anything BUT the scum of the earth that they show themselves to be on a daily basis.

That was YOU...

[OpSomBlood]

161. Some of them ARE the scum of the earth, most aren't.

Gun owners are like any other cross-section of society. Some of them are ignorant racist bastards. Most of them are law-abiding and responsible citizens.

A lot of them are even Democrats.

But then again, you've never demonstrated the ability to see gray.

[MrBenchley]

163. Who the fuck do you think you're kidding?

"A lot of them are even Democrats."
Yeah, we can tell by all those pro-Democrat posts...WHOOPS!

[MrBenchley]

164. A hilarious dose of "reading pleasure"

A bunch of these gun wankers became outraged and upset by Mothering magazine for some bizarre reason:



The resulting responses, showing what's rattling around in these pointy little heads, are too funny for words. Yeah, these are the voters we ought to be pandering to….NOT.

FellintoOblivion: "I cant believe these people actually think like this"
Triumph955I: " this is what i think is funny....come a time when the SHTF and martial law happens....everything they own, just became yours."
Bigscrun: " hippie fuckin vegan sluts....."
motown_steve: " Just keep in mind, they have a TANDEM NURSING SMILEY! And another one that looks alot like a child that is waaaaayyyyy to old to be nursing, nursing! Don't spend alot of time over there, you might go fruity!"
dinkydow: " These breeders all want to have their tits sucked.Some of them seem to be involved in a kind of incestous sexual thing with allowing their pre-teen children to keep on suckling at mommies breast. Nothing wrong with sucking on tities as far as I'm concerned,but who is doing the sucking seems like an "Issue"with these women. They also do not believe in "genital mutulation"so .........I guess this means no jews allowed? They are way into treating their male offspring as little girls so that later in life their kids will be un-biased toward their own gender and thus free to chose a man or a wife for themselves later.Also no punishment ever for their children. "We live in a world filled....... with peace......... and love,where no-one ever hurts another."etc....etc...They are way into having 2 kids sucking at the same time(they do seem like they like this twiced at once thing).They also have a group hug icon.It is so far left that it will shrivel your male sac."
2whiskeyP: "Dick Head Dip Shit Dumb Democrat Attention liebrals....Keep your hands off of my bullet hose!!!"
Crimson_Trace: "The truly frightening this is that somewhere, somehow, some time ago...some idiots thought it was a good idea to let them vote. (and drive)"
Shotar: " In short, what happened was that a few of us went over there after being pointed to it, and tried to talk some sense on a few key issues where we thought we could be helpful. A couple guys started talking about the place and a few more people from here jumped over there and started trolling. Therefore everyone, even those that were actually trying to be helpful got banned."
Doubleclaw: " "Trying to be helpful"...hell, those sorry excuses for human beings don't WANT help. They just want to be left alone to enjoy their own warped little Orwellian utopia."

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=246402

There’s 11 hilarious pages worth of this near-psychotic rambling. By the way, don’t miss the woman from Mothering who wanders over to say hello because she owns a gun, only to be told "she is what’s wrong with America" and asked "how many kids have you aborted?"

[OpSomBlood]

165. And to think...there are only 53,521 members at AR15.com

And the board is largely unmoderated. I guess if you cherrypick a cross-section of the internet that large, you will always find offensive ramblings.

I wonder how many people at DU would be talking about revolution and assassination if these boards were unmoderated. There are insane assholes on both sides of every issue. That's part of the reason I own guns.

[MrBenchley]

167. And to think...they're all gibbering fuckwits

"I guess if you cherrypick"
Cherrypick? It was right on the front fucking page of that klavern when I posted it.

"I wonder how many people at DU would be talking about revolution and assassination if these boards were unmoderated. "
Hell, op....you trigger happy "enthusaists" already do that, moderation or no.