Woman Who Shot Intruder In Home Advocates Conceal-Carry Legislation - Chicago

[DonP]

Another "bloodthirsty gun hugger" looking for someone to shoot, or so we've been told, like Otis McDonald speaks out on CCW in Illinois.

But Rahm and his meat puppets like Kotowski says no, we need "a more reasonable and balanced approach". I wonder if, in the interest of balance, Rahm will set a "reasonable example" and give up the armed security details for him, his wife and his daughters?

If Madigan wants to stay the Speaker of the House for another term, he'd better come around, or even after redistricting he'll lose seats again.

We only need 3 more votes to get CCW, a veto override and overturn preemption. People like this will help us find those votes.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/17/woman-who-shot-intruder-in-home-advocates-conceal-carry-legislation/#comments

[Hoyt]

1. How many Democrats will you trash over guns?

[oneshooter]

2. The question is, how many will you and the other anti rights supporters trash.

[Hoyt]

5. Sounds like you guys are doing it right now. I support Dems who are rational on this issue.

You should too. Oh, I forgot -- guns are that important to you.

[gejohnston]

6. how can you be rational on an issue

when you have no rational arguments?

[Hoyt]

32. How can you be rational when you believe to carry a gun to venture out?

[Atypical Liberal]

34. They same way I'm ratianal for carrying a spare tire in my trunk every time I venture out.

[rl6214]

27. Your "rational" is really irrational to most.

You'll never learn though.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Self defense is a basic human right

[Hoyt]

4. But not with a gun that pollutes society. Are you saying you can only defend yourself with guns?

Or are you sticking up for your business interests that involve guns?

[gejohnston]

7. sometimes, yes

it is certainly the most effective.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. I am saying that there are those for whom it is the only effective answer such as

women, elderly, physically challenged people, GLBTs...the kind of people that we progressives like to support.

I have no business interest that involves firearms. I do not charge for classes and do not hold an FFL. It one of the things I do to give back to the community. It is well received.

[Hoyt]

9. Those groups might have some reason to carry something, not necessarily a gun though.

As to "the business interests," if you don't charge -- I retract my comments and apologize.

I'm still against carrying guns by most people, for example those who are hostile to GLBTs and other folks they don't like for some stupid reason like race -- ie, right wingers who are the majority of gun toters and owners.

[Marengo]

37. Then I take it you are not against left-wingers carrying? N/T

[Hoyt]

38. Problem is, to appease a few left wing carriers - you gotta allow a bunch of right wingers to carry.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

43. So which civil rights you are allowed depends on your political affiliation...

[Hoyt]

47. First, guns are not a civil right. Second, right wingers use guns to deny civil rights to many.

[Kali]

52. huh?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

64. lol --

yes, Kali....welcome to the real rabbit hole of DU ... see why I get confused

[spin]

22. Let me purpose a scenario. Please tell me what you would do in the situation.

Imagine that you are a senior citizen with degenerative disk disease and are also a candidate for a hip replacement. Your mobility is limited and you are legally considered physically handicapped.

You are walking through a parking lot when you find yourself facing an attacker who demands you turn over your wallet. He has picked you as easy prey because of your limp.

You realize that he has every intention of putting you in a hospital or in a casket even if you fully comply with his demands. He appears to be both irrational and extremely angry and is quite possibly high on drugs. Your attacker is in his early twenties and is in excellent physical condition and much larger than you. He is also armed with a handgun. Your attacker is standing ten feet from you, His handgun is pointed at your chest and his finger is on the trigger

You are not carrying a firearm. What methods or alternate weapons would you use to successfully defend yourself and survive the encounter?

[rl6214]

29. Crickets...

you're not going to get and answer.

[spin]

31. I don't expect to, but I will patiently wait. (n/t)

[Hoyt]

33. Let me ask you, are you a senior citizen with degenerative disk disease? If you are, why would you

be walking through a parking lot? Besides, the odds are so small of that happening it is all but insane to worry about it. Maybe you'd do better to concentrate on dealing with your diseases and improving your mind than getting caught up in the "gun culture" and all their worries of some boogeyman that is going to get them. Put the money you'd spend on lethal weapons into paying the copays and deductibles under Medicare and quit using that as an excuse to carry a gun. If you are that old and sick and likely on pain meds, I don't think it is safe to carry a gun.

[spin]

40. Yes. I was describing myself...

I may have a bad hip and DDD but that doesn't mean that I can't walk. Walking can be painful but my doctor is not opposed to my walking for exercise. I use a recumbent bicycle and a treadmill on alternate days. Exercise helps weight loss and weight loss is a positive factor in reducing the effects of DDD and a bad hip. I've dropped 20 pounds in the last 6 months and hope to lose another 15. With the exception of my back and hip, my doctor feels that I am in good health.

I realize that the chances of ever finding myself in the scenario that I described are extremely low. However my chances of being mugged in a parking lot are probably much higher than yours as my limp will attract a predator looking to cull the herd. I don't fear this will happen and I don't suffer from paranoia. The fact remains that street predators love easy targets.

Thanks for the advice on Medicare and how I should use my money for co-pays and deductibles rather than firearms. I have Medicare and I also have a excellent Medicare supplement plan so I usually don't even pay a co-pay at a doctor's office.

I have owned my carry weapon for fifteen years and have a collection of firearms that is more than adequate for my enjoyment of target shooting. Let me assure you that my interest in the shooting sports is not causing me to spend money that I would better use to improve my health.

You also were correct when you mentioned that I have a prescription for a pain medication. Unlike many other people, I rarely use it. I first use Aleve (Naproxen) and Gabapentin when I get the occasional bout of sciatica and usually the pain becomes manageable. I avoid the use of stronger pain killers such as Lortab as I fear developing a dependency and also because they don't really appear to be all the effective in alleviating my symptoms. On the days when I do try the stronger prescription med, I usually avoid walking and even driving. I am fortunate to have a good support system in my life.

I feel that you tend to exaggerate the dangers of an honest licensed and trained citizen carrying a concealed firearm in public. While people who do legally carry are not always angels, statistics show that they rarely misuse their weapons. I live in Florida and "shall issue" concealed carry has been allowed since 1987. I see no movement to repeal the law as the concealed carry program has been very successful. Before the law passed many people predicted that blood would flow in the streets and there would be shootouts at high noon and at every traffic intersection. Many truly believed, as you do, that the average honest citizen is not responsible enough to carry a loaded weapon in public.

I carry my snub nosed revolver in a quality pocket or inside the belt holster. In almost all cases the revolver stays in the holster from the time I leave the house until I remove it when I return. On rare occasions I might have to remove the weapon from its holster and leave it in my vehicle to enter a building or area where carrying a firearm is forbidden. Usually when I know that I am going to such a place, I simply leave the weapon behind in my home safe. I prefer to carry the weapon than to leave it behind in my car in a parking lot where it might be stolen.

I notice that you failed to answer what a person like me should do if caught in the admittedly unlikely scenario that I described and had neglected to take his legally concealed weapon with him on that occasion. I will admit that I set up a worst case situation and even having a concealed weapon might not guarantee that I would walk away without serious injuries that would cause me to spend time in a hospital or end up in a casket. However in the situation I described, my revolver could prove effective. I would rate the odds at 50/50 which is far better than my odds without a firearm.

I should also mention that if I face an armed mugger who appears to only want my wallet, I will willingly give it up. If he appears calm and rational and in control of his emotions, it would be far better for me to comply with his demands. I can always replace my money, credit cards and ID. I can't replace my life or my health.

[rl6214]

28. "Are you saying you can only defend yourself with guns?"

Most of us don't have your ninja skills to be able to break down a 1911 while disarming a person and throwing the pieces into the bushes.


"But not with a gun that pollutes society."

The only pollution is coming from the anti-gun zealots.

[Starboard Tack]

10. Carrying a gun has nothing to do with self defense. But you knew that already.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Tell that to the Pink Pistols

Or the growing number of people who have defended themselves with firearms.

[Starboard Tack]

12. Wrong, using a gun is not defending yourself.

It is admitting that you are helpless and incapable of defending yourself, so you need a gun to do it for you. Smart people know how to defend themselves without needing a lethal weapon to do it for them.
Selling the illusion of SD with a gun, only serves to demean an individual's self reliance. The classic quick fix solution without any thought beyond the moment, or any delving into one's mental resources for a better solution.

[gejohnston]

13. easy for you to say

some people do. The rest of your rant is too absurd to comment.

[Upton]

15. Yeah sure..

if I'm awoken in the middle of the night by the sound of one of my windows breaking, I won't grab my shotgun...I delve into my "mental resources for a better solution" instead.

[Starboard Tack]

19. Your mental resources tell you to grab the shotgun.

Nothing wrong with that. I would probably react the same way. Defending one's home has nothing to do with walking around town with a handgun, pretending that you are doing it for self defense. The reality is that you've been sold a bill of goods by the fear mongers who make and sell handguns and their wingnut allies.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. You approach limits options for those who need it most

Defending oneself is balancing of a number of options. Choosing one over another is not an admission of helplessness, it is just a choice of which tool to use. Firearms are a reasonable option and use of them demeans nothing.

[Starboard Tack]

65. A firearm may be a reasonable option in the most extreme and rare of circumstances.

But how does that justify carrying one on a routine basis? It doesn't. Those who engage in the practice need cognitive behavioral treatment to help overcome their fears and anxiety. Encouraging them to carry a gun is just enabling them and reinforcing whatever phobia they are suffering from. I know you think you are doing a good thing and I believe your heart is in the right place, but even the best intentions can be misplaced and often cause more harm than good.

[Glassunion]

66. Violent crime is extreme, however not all too rare.

Yes, the number of violent crimes continues to decrease and that is quite nice. But rare it is not.

To give you an idea, if you packed Yankee Stadium for one ball game, over 1000 of those in attendance will become the victim of violent crime within the next year. Violent crime effects 1 out of every 50 people in the US every year. Only 18% of those victimizations will occur within the home. The remaining 82% of violent crime occurs outside of the home.

"A firearm may be a reasonable option in the most extreme and rare of circumstances. But how does that justify carrying one on a routine basis? It doesn't."

I disagree. What I think you have to realize, is that what you are talking about is a low probability-high consequence event. These events are rare, yet they have life altering consequences. Look at it like this: In the US we have never had an airplane hit a nuclear facility. But there are plans, tools, design features and processes in place for just such an event. Do you think that those who put those plans, tools, features and processes in place to be suffering from fear and anxiety? Do you think that those who design and redesign these facilities to be suffering from a phobia of some sort; that they would spend billions preparing for an event that has never happened and in all likelihood never will? I would think not, because a negative outcome in just such an event would effect thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people.

Carrying a firearm is no different. Just because something has never happened to you, does not mean for certain that it never will and vice versa. If you were sitting in section 020 of Yankee Stadium and there was an announcement that 2 people in that section were going to be the victim of violent crime within the next year, do you think it would be natural for any one of them to alter their behavior and take a precaution of any kind?

[Starboard Tack]

69. 1 out of 50 out of 365 days is pretty darned rare. I'll risk those odds.

In fact it is a 1 in 18,250 chance of being the victim of a violent crime on any particular day. Exceedingly rare and certainly not a high enough probability to justify carrying a gun around EVERY day. Maybe carry on high risk days, the days you're threatened or when you're carrying a lot of cash, but every day, everywhere, as some do. And how many, if any, of those "violent crimes" justify the use of a gun?

The comparison to the hardened features of a nuclear facility make my point. Those features are there for PUBLIC SAFETY, not to protect individuals with irrational fears.

Just because something has never happened to one doesn't make it any more or any less likely that it will ever happen. However, carrying a gun in public increases the possibility of someone being shot. Every additional gun being carried increases that possibility even more. And that is a fact, just the same as every nuclear reactor built increases the possibility of a nuclear accident.

[Glassunion]

70. Are you psychic?

Maybe carry on high risk days, the days you're threatened or when you're carrying a lot of cash, but every day, everywhere, as some do.

What is a high risk day and how does one forecast that?

"However, carrying a gun in public increases the possibility of someone being shot." Yes indeed it does.
"Every additional gun being carried increases that possibility even more." Yes indeed it does.

We do not live in utopia. Since the dawn of time there have been those who would pray upon others weaker than themselves. This continues today and it will continue until we can locate the gene that prompts this behavior and take measures to abort or drown those who have this gene at birth. I’m sorry, but this is just a simple truth.

[Starboard Tack]

71. Psychic? No.

Situational awareness does not necessitate psychic powers. Increasing the risk of someone being hurt by adding more guns to the equation doesn't require psychic powers either.
Your solution of genetic selection seems to be far more draconian than abolishing handguns, though I don't recommend either. Humans are predatory by nature. You'd have to drown a lot of people. The best solution is behavioral modification. The fewer people who carry guns leads to fewer incidents of gun violence. That is a simple truth.
"What is a high risk day?" Every day you carry a gun is a higher risk day than every day you don't. Another simple truth.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. So now LEOs, those with protective orders, carrying large sums of cash, etc

are all in need of mental health treatment in your opinion

[Starboard Tack]

68. Not at all. They are high risk targets. That has always been my point.

Same as high profile celebrities and politicians, professional security etc.. It's all about common sense, not paranoid fantasies.

[DonP]

18. And what "gun free" technique would you recommend for the woman in the story?

I'm sure you're much smarter than she is about her actual experience and what she needs to defend herself. Share your wisdom with the rest of the group.

So, sitting comfortably in your home in front of your screen, just let us and her of course, in on the combination of techniques not involving a firearm, she "should have used" to deal with two home invaders?

Then you can explain what the 5 women murdered at Lane Bryant did wrong too.

[Starboard Tack]

20. The woman in the story was in her home.

I've stated many times that I support defense of the home, including armed defense. Her home was invaded. She responded appropriately. Now she wants to take it to the street and that's a bad choice. She has far more options on the street without resorting to carrying a firearm.

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. The 5 women murdered at Lane Bryant failed at their job...

which was to avoid confrontational situations:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117215365#post77

Starboard Tack
77. A cop is paid to go into confrontational situations...That's part of his job. A citizen's job is to avoid them.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. #77

[Clames]

30. Ah...so now we can add...

...that guns are sentient to the list of hysterical rhetoric of anti-gunners.

[PavePusher]

39. The gun does it for you?

How odd, I have to practice quite frequently. I must be doing it wrong.

"Smart people know how to defend themselves without needing a lethal weapon to do it for them." Yeah, 'cause your assumptions fit all circumstances.... Seriously?

"Selling the illusion of SD with a gun, only serves to demean an individual's self reliance." Self-defense with a firearm is pretty obviously "self reliance".

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. you have no idea, as a woman, how offensive I find Hoyt's (and also ST) remarks to be in this thread

but, do you think a jury would even begin to understand how sexist are his comments?

I really do not know how much longer I can participate in this group.

You are going to think I am nuts but, I miss iverglas. even if she is Canadian, she at least, made a worthy adversary. I am ashamed of the comments posted by most of the women I have seen in this group. So much edcuation still yet needs to be done. I grow weary, bone tired.

Am I the only pro 2A woman on all of DU?

where are my sisters?

[shadowrider]

35. Where are your sisters?

They're here, in the hot tub having a glass of wine and laughing at the ridiculous anti-gun posts. Didn't you get an invitation???

BTW, where's my coffee???

[Tuesday Afternoon]

36. 'Mornin...shadowrider

have a cuppa

thanks for the smile.

[iverglas]

44. so you have nothing at all to say

about the ugly right-wing meme/smear (of a majority of DUers and Democrats) in the post you are replying to?

Quote Of The Day: The Definition Of Gun Control
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2173501/posts
28 Jan 2009 – The idea that a woman found raped and strangled with her pantyhose is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her ...

What a surprise to see such filth in this forum.




editing to add the attributed source of the quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Neil_Smith

Smith joined the Libertarian Party in 1972 (just after its beginnings in 1971). He served on the Platform Committee 1977 and 1979, and in 1978 ran for state legislature in Colorado (winning 15% of the vote with a total expenditure of forty-four dollars)[citation needed].

In 1999, Smith announced that he would run for President in 2000 as an independent if his supporters would gather 1,000,000 online petition signatures asking him to run.[3] After failing to achieve even 1,500 signatures, his independent campaign quietly died. He next tried an abortive run for the Libertarian Party nomination, which ended almost as quickly when, in the California primary, Harry Browne overwhelmingly defeated him, 71% to 9%.

... Smith and the "Ad Hoc Conspiracy to Draft L. Neil Smith" helped influence the 2004 Libertarian Party selection of Michael Badnarik for President[citation needed]. Badnarik was influenced by Hope, a novel written by L. Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman (founder and Executive Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership)[citation needed]. Smith endorsed the Free State Project and Badnarik's campaign for President in 2004.

Forgive the source here, but sometimes the right wing is just the best source about itself:

http://www.wnd.com/2004/09/26486/

Pink Pistols, a homosexual gun-rights activist group, has endorsed Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik for president.

Incestuous little bunch ...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

46. I don't even know where to begin. ---

It is so pervuasive in this forum and it permeates society.

All I know is that, as a woman, I resent men telling me what is the best way to defend and protect myself.

iverglas, I am so confused.

I know that I disagree with gun control on a philosophical principal.

How it all works in a patriarchal society is confusing me.

I like to think of us as individuals regardless our gender orientation.

and how do we make the rest of the DU board aware of how 2A (regardless of pro/con) fits into the structure of feminism?

Are you as offended as I am? Being that we are on two opposites sides of the issue then, I would think that, if you are as offended as I am it stands to reason that it is
the sexism that is offensive and NOT the pros and cons of the issue itself.

Is any of this making sense to anyone?

edited for grammatical and spelling errors.

[iverglas]

48. well, that's a good one

and how do we make the rest of the DU board aware of how 2A (regardless of pro/con) fits into the structure of feminnism?

If ordinary DUers could come to this forum and express opinions in favour of various gun control measures without being met with a barrage of ugliness, and if the forum itself weren't so chock-a-block with, um, hostility to Democrats to start with, maybe that would be a start.

Being that we are on two opposites sides of the issue then I would think that if you are as offended as I am then it woud stand to reason that it is the sexism that is offensive and NOT the pros and cons of the issue itself.

I don't even have any idea what the sexism alleged in this instance is.

The day I see gun militants doing anything to actually combat violence against women is the day when I will believe they give a damn about women victims of violence.

Until then, all I see is women being used as pawns in their game, and women's experiences being exploited to their ends, and women's voices being appropriated for their purposes.

And no, I don't really care what Woman A or Woman B or the woman in this particular tale in this thread might have to say to the contrary. There are individual members of every disadvantaged/oppressed group on earth and in human history who have decided their interests lie elsewhere than with that group. Some women are gun militants, some people of colour are Republicans, some of every group belong to the 1%. Their positions are demonstrably contrary to the interests of the groups in question. If it's true of Phyllis Schlafly, it's true of others.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

50. I wish we could shout this from the roof tops:

If ordinary DUers could come to this forum and express opinions in favour of various gun control measures without being met with a barrage of ugliness, and if the forum itself weren't so chock-a-block with, um, hostility to Democrats to start with, maybe that would be a start.

This is one of the most maligned and ridiculed groups on DU and I, for one, am sick of it.

on edit: do you regard me as a gun militant?

[iverglas]

54. "This is one of the most maligned and ridiculed groups on DU"

And you think it shouldn't be??

What I said was exactly the reason why it is.

I don't characterize individual posters here.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

57. yes, I think it shouldn't be. I think it is one of the MOST NEEDED groups on here

good gawd, yes. this stuff needs to be discussed and the stigma removed!!!

[gejohnston]

55. for example?

If ordinary DUers could come to this forum and express opinions in favour of various gun control measures without being met with a barrage of ugliness, and if the forum itself weren't so chock-a-block with, um, hostility to Democrats to start with, maybe that would be a start.

The ones that show up who are respectful and have at least a half way valid point (even if operating under faulty assumptions) are and are welcome. Too many show up with ugliness, hostility, and disdain.

The day I see gun militants doing anything to actually combat violence against women is the day when I will believe they give a damn about women victims of violence.

For example? The day I see gun control groups actually do anything to combat violence, will be the day I believe they give a damn about violence.

If a gay or person of color is one of the one percent, the Republicans do represent his interests.
I still don't see the connection between misogyny and RKBA. Maybe it is a uniquely Canadian thing.

[iverglas]

60. bullshit

The ones that show up who are respectful and have at least a half way valid point (even if operating under faulty assumptions) are and are welcome. Too many show up with ugliness, hostility, and disdain.

The ones who show up in any way are treated to exactly that: ugliness, hostility and disdain. From people who very often end up not being here very long, to boot.

As is so often the case, I just don't know what the rest of that is about, quite possibly because you just fail to bother understanding most of my posts that you reply to. But feel free to research anything else you don't understand.

[gejohnston]

61. bullshit

shall I drag out the examples? Read through the current threads for a start.

learn to think out of the box, maybe you will. If your posts were more coherent, perhaps it would be easier to understand what you are talking about.

[Kali]

53. well there is at least one other

she doesn't post in this group much, but sometimes follows a link or jury case in...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

56. hey Kali

I am over there and I have made my statement... thanks

[iverglas]

41. I guess you need to be told again

that the Pink Pistols is a right-wing Libertarian-affiliated organization that is best known for harassing real LGBT groups at their events by showing up with guns, and that was ruled inappropriate for citing at DU2 because of its right-wingery.

So I'm not sure why anybody here at DU would be bothered telling anything to the Pink Pistols, let alone listening to anything it has to say.

Awww, they seem to have taken down their blacklist:
http://www.pinkpistols.org/antigun.html
"LIST of ANTI-GUN, GROUPS, ORG’s, COMPANIES, PRODUCTS & PEOPLE:"

As I said about it only a few months ago:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=468279&mesg_id=468610

Not a word about ANTI-GAY groups, orgs, etc.

But they got Ellen Degeneres on the blacklist. And Melissa Etheridge ... k.d. lang ...

Snork.


You fly your colours again, but they don't seem to be the rainbow flag.


http://gaytoday.com/garchive/events/050102ev.htm

Reno, Nevada-- The National Rifle Association, holding its annual convention in this dry desert city, took an opportunity Sunday to demonize the gay and lesbian community with inflammatory homophobic rhetoric.

Anti-gun talk show host Rosie O'Donnell was called a "freak" by one speaker for her recent admission that she's a lesbian. ... Debbie Schlussel, a frequent guest on The Howard Stern Show and an avid supporter of the NRA referred to O'Donnell when she said, "She's not cool. She's a freak." Schlussel went on to bash actor Jude Law who recently admitted in an interview that he hesitated to handle a gun in the filming of his latest movie fearing it would contribute to people thinking guns were cool. Schlussel referred to the heterosexual Law as a "girly-man".

Kelly Anne Conway, a conservative pollster, droned on for some time about how the "liberal" media has forced changes in the public school curriculum that put gay and lesbian tolerance ahead of the basic studies of math, English and History. "They're so worried now about how many mommies Heather has that (the teachers) run out of time" Conway went on to state venomously that gay and lesbian issues aren't important to "real" Americans.

Grover Norquist, an NRA Board Member and columnist for American Spectator Magazine, not to be outdone, put forth the barb; "we don't have annual parades for gun owners so everyone can appreciate that gun ownership is an alternative lifestyle and look at how great we are." He also quipped that liberal Americans "don't want (men) to date women."

... Also in attendance was Tom Boyer, President of the Pink Pistols, a gay pro-gun group from San Francisco. Boyer left the panel discussion shortly after the gay bashing began. He promised to take the matter of the gay bashing up with "NRA Brass" at their next general meeting.

Which one of those people (let alone the NRA, whose convention attendees found it all uproarious) ended up on the Pink Pistols' blacklist?

Why none of them, of course. But Rosie O'Donnell did.

Yeah, let's all get our memes from the Pink Pistols.

[gejohnston]

42. black list?

well, I got a 404 not found.
when were the Pink Pistols ruled as inappropriate by DU2? Can you prove it? You made the claim, you do the homework.
Rosie O'Donnell would be on the anti gun black list, the NRA convention speakers would be on the homophobic asshole black list.
Those are two separate lists.

Oh yeah, the NRA mostly takes the credit for SAF and others. While SAF beat DC's hired corporate defense lawyers, the NRA tried to undermine it but took credit for it in their fund raising propaganda.

[iverglas]

45. oh my god, I'm back here

I seem to recall saying in my post that the blacklist had been TAKEN DOWN. What did you imagine I meant by that? Yes, error message page. Duh.

when were the Pink Pistols ruled as inappropriate by DU2? Can you prove it? You made the claim, you do the homework.

No, you post in this forum, you figure it out.

No idea what the rest of that is about or what it might have to do with anything I said.


But damn, what the hell, took me about 15 seconds.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=90711&mesg_id=91337

Wickerman
Mon Oct-25-04 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
44. I'm locking

1. Congrats on getting the chapter up and running.

2. I think this topic has run its DU course.

3. The group supports a candidate for President that is NOT John Kerry.

4. If there is concrete evidence the group supports Kerry then we'll have some Pink Pistol threads, without it, I don't see how this supports DU's mission of unselecting Bush*.

Now, YOU (or anybody) got any evidence that the group supports Democrats?


edit: the author of the OP in question has long since been tombstoned ...

[gejohnston]

49. Their issue about Kerry was

specifically about guns, I am guessing they are not going to support Mitt for both his homophobia and the gun laws he signed and supported in Mass.

If they support any of the clowns in the current GOP race, especially Mitt, then you may have a valid point.

If the race were between Mitt and Brian Schweitzer, and they chose Mitt, then I would agree with you.

[iverglas]

51. oh bullshit

The Pink Pistols were initially set up as a wing of the Libertarian Party, and they have consistently supported Libertarian Party candidates at all levels. I expect them to do the same this time around, assuming the Libertarian party fields candidates.

Whether you agree with me (about something I didn't say) is not of the remotest interest to me.

They support THE FUCKING NRA which is a massively homophobic outfit, fer chrissakes. They blacklisted virtually every progressive LGBT person in the public eye. They harass genuine LBGT organizations and disrupt their events. They are a fucking right-wing front. Everybody knows it.

Why else would they get cited so often in the Guns forum?

Here's another link that no longer works:

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0111/pinkpistols.html

Here's what it used to say:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=97352&mesg_id=98499

Founder of Pink Pistols gun group becomes a Libertarian Party member

A founding member of the Pink Pistols -- a gun-owners organization composed mostly of "sexual minority community" members -- has defected from the Green Party and joined the Libertarian Party.

David Rostcheck, who became a member on August 22, said he joined because the LP is the only political party opposed to the "illegal expansion of government power."

"No party that cannot name and oppose the erosion of Constitutional law will ever be able to stop this erosion," he said. "Only the Libertarians have the courage and clarity to name the enemy and stand firmly against it."

Rostcheck had helped launch the Pink Pistols in September 2000. The organization, which views the Second Amendment as crucial to the freedom of minority citizens, now has 27 chapters nationwide.

Find me a single thing in the media that has Pink Pistols or its mouthpieces engaging in any advocacy for the LGBT community that doesn't involve using that community to advance the gun militant agenda. I'll find you dozens like this that are pure gun militant drivel (again, forgive the source, but that's where you go to find these people):

http://cnsnews.com/node/5260

Oh, and just by the bye ...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101025
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/davidr.html

Snork. He originated that Controlled Demolition thing.

From the first link above, this is where it all started:

Libertarian activist David Rostcheck is the Executive Director of the North Bridge Training Institute (www.northbridgetraining.com), an education and training company. He teaches the Engage! series of political action training classes and is producing the CounterAttack 2003 conference for gun rights activists. Rostcheck also works as a civil rights activist with the Pink Pistols, a gay-friendly pro-gun group.

... but it's been wiped from the net since.

The right-wingery came first, and from it was born the Pink Pistols.

Now you can continue your independent study.

[gejohnston]

58. ever hear of the expression

the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

Personally, I always equated right wing with authoritarianism, feudalism, and narrow mindedness.

While the average libertarian (or classical liberal if you prefer) is idealistic without realizing feudalism is the probable outcome. Greens, who are basically left wing libertarians, have the same problem. That makes them useful idiots for the plutocrats, but does not make them plutocrats.

[iverglas]

59. yeah; google this:

iverglas "the enemy of my enemy is not my friend"

I've said it about Ron Paul and a number of other enemies.

We are not talking about THE AVERAGE libertarian, for fuck's sake. We are talking about the movers and shakers of the Libertarian PARTY.

Do we have to engage in this circular twaddle every time you reply to a post of mine?

I am a left-wing libertarian, by the way, and I'm neither an idiot nor useful to anyone other than my social democratic party and the people whose interests we represent.

www.politicalcompass.org

edit to add because I remembered Badnarik being there in 2004:



See? Way far RIGHT-WING, and pretty nominally "libertarian". I mean, you know they want to abolish the public school system, right? For starters ...


And edit to add the other pseudo-enemy of my enemy, Dr. Paul himself:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/us2012.php

(rats, the image isn't showing, so you have to click)

... Interesting, eh?

[gejohnston]

62. so am I,

in principle, but I also know what actually works beyond small populations. Ron Paul is not a Libertarian, he is a Republican with libertarian leanings. That is why the militarists and theocrats that run the GOP don't want him to win.
Dr. Paul and Bernie Sanders (independent and self described socialist) agree on the Fed and most foreign policy. I'm not a Ron Paul fan beyond that.
It seems that the image only shows on jpg for some reason.

[iverglas]

63. oh god

Please google "analogy" while you're there.

And I said "Dr. Paul" only in the most sarcastic way, I assure you.

To return to our sheep: the Pink Pistols are an arm of the US Libertarian Party, which is a right-wing, non-libertarian organization.

They are not my friend. Maybe they are yours.

[DonP]

14. So you support "Dems" that bust unions and create "Free Spech Zones", good to know

So far Rahm has refused to negotiate with the Chicago police or firefighters unions, has dictated to the Teachers Union that they will work 2 extra hours a day with no additional pay as well as no negotiation on it and has already defined the Free Speech zones for the G8 and NATO summits about 2 miles out on West Madison, far away from everyone, the same way he did for the OWS people last summer.

Nice to see someone blindly following a "D" even when they act more like Scott Walker. That's about what I expect from gun grabbers that celebrate people like Scott Walker and Bloomie. Keep up the predictable work.

Feel free to send Rahm a check for his next campaign.

Oh that's right, you don't really ever DO anything, you just whine online.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. He almost ran for office once IIRC

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. whine

and offend a woman's right to defend herself. blatant patriarchal nonsense. has he not learned anything from what is going on elsewhere on this site?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. You go, girl!!

sing it sister!

[Warren Stupidity]

72. I am totally in favor of conceal carry inside your home.

[DonP]

73. Thanks to the 2nd Amendment Foundation, the NRA, ISRA and Otis McDonald it's now legal here too.

Prior to that case you would have been SOL in your own home in Chicago.

Now she just wants to be able to protect herself walking to and from her car.

She had over 200 attendees at her first Logan Square meeting with two more scheduled.