Pro control vs pro RKBA...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

What is your pet peeve tactic on either side?

What argument, slogan, graphic... annoys you most?

Please, let's keep it civil. These items, being viewed as annoyances, are serving to short circuit communication rather than to get a point across.

[baldguy]

1. Rampant Godwinism from the anti-gun control zombies.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. A vote against...

...Reductio ad Hitlerum. Sounds like a good one to me.

BTW, since Hitler ate dinner frequently, we should probably have supper instead. ;)

[DWC]

3. Denial of individual rights and individual responsibility

Civil Rights and Individual Rights are not a group function but belong to each and every adult citizen of the USA. Civil Responsibility is Individual Responsibility to exercise those Rights within the guidelines of the Law.

The actual or potential failure of others to comply with that Civil Responsibility shall in no guise limit or restrict my Individual Civil Rights.

Restriction of Civil Rights is not a Democratic or Republican or Independent precept. Neither are communism, socialism, or fascism.

RKBA including armed, self defense is one of my Civil Rights. Proper exercise of that Right is my Civil Responsibility. I have never failed to meet that Responsibility and, unless I do fail, I will vigorously oppose anyone that attempts to limit or restrict that Right.

Semper Fi,

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Agreed. n/t

[baldguy]

9. How about dismissing everyone who supports reasonable licencing & registration as "grabbers"?

(That's a majority BTW.)

By stooping to name-calling, you duck the issue entirely & don't have to defend your position at all.

[oneshooter]

10. Please describe for us what reasonable licencing & registration is to you.

You have been asked before but chose not to answer. Now that you have brought it up the question is asked again.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[baldguy]

11. "None" is not reasonable.

How's that for a start?

[gejohnston]

13. He knew that, so what is reasonable?

DC and NYC certainly is not.

[RSillsbee]

15. Good start

Now tell us what you think is "reasonable"

Here is what I think is reasonable

NICS at point of retail sale, private sales remain private

No registration period

Vermont Carry in all 50 states and U.S. possessions

Repeal of NFA.

[oneshooter]

16. Not even close to a "start". Why are you evading? I asked a simple

question to you and you give me this ""None" is not reasonable.". What kind of a cowardly crap answer is that?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[baldguy]

22. I gave you my starting position in negotiations.

You want cowardly? Look in a mirror.

[oneshooter]

26. When I look in the mirror I see only myself. Now answer the question. n/t

[baldguy]

39. 30,000 dead Americans each year. What do you consider to be reasonable licensing & registration?

I see you're whining about not getting an answer from me down thread. Who the hell are you to demand an answer from me? It's your hobby that's creating the problem - you find a solution!

You see, the problem is that no matter what minor concession I might make, there's ALWAYS going to be some unreasonable fool on your side - in typical RW fashion - who'll insist that it's not enough & demand more. And your side's gun control solution to ALWAYS ends up to be "NONE". So that's where I started.

Your turn.

[RSillsbee]

42. I gave you an answer

we're still waiting for yours

[baldguy]

51. Yeah, yeah. You've established that you're unreasonable.

But I was replying to oneshooter.

[RSillsbee]

52. How am I unreasonable?

Has Vermont carry caused any problems in Vermont? ( Or Arizona? Or Alaska? or Wyoming?).


You've decided I was unreasonable but you won't tell us what you think " reasonable" is.

Step up to the plate man,

what should I have to do before I can purchase and carry a hand gun?

[gejohnston]

44. 30K? let's look at that talking point

First, with three or four federal laws and 20K state and local laws, we are not starting at none. No one is talking about going to none. So, "none" is a straw man.

55 percent are suicides, that takes us down to 13,500. Our hobby has nothing to do with that. Licencing and registration schemes will not fix that.
How many were accidents and justifiable? All homicides in were 15,241 in 2009. 65 percent were shootings, that takes us to 9,900.
How many were gangster vs gangster? Drug dealer vs drug dealer? most.

Now that we cleared away the talking points, may we start over?

[iverglas]

48. not so fast

55 percent are suicides, that takes us down to 13,500. Our hobby has nothing to do with that.

Whoa. The hunting hobby of my friend whose 13-yr-old (depressed, disabled) son committed suicide with one of his hunting weapons had pretty much everything to do with it.


Licencing and registration schemes will not fix that.

Not entirely true; licensing can filter out some people who are at risk.

But yes, safe/secure storage legislation/regulations (with public education and awareness campaigns, and enforcement action / prosecution where possible) is the third prong that can't be ignored.

You also need to identify how many of those suicides were part of a murder-suicide event (which is not hugely rare) before dismissing suicides as irrelevant out of hand, even apart from the callousness of that choice in itself.


How many were accidents and justifiable?

Surely you can present numbers.


How many were gangster vs gangster? Drug dealer vs drug dealer? most.

How many were uninvolved victim of gangster/drug dealer / bystander? Not none. By what logic, then, do you dismiss firearms use by gangsters/drug dealers as irrelevant?


Why the fixation on deaths, anyhow?

How many people were seriously wounded, permanently disabled, intimidated in a life-affecting way, robbed, had their neighbourhoods terrorized and degraded, by individuals or groups with firearms?

What was the cost to those individuals and to the public of non-fatal firearms violence?


There are a whole load more reasons to impose tight controlson access to firearms, and in particular to particular types of firearms, than a "mere" 10,000 deaths.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

53. A bit off topic here but...

...I don't think that you can blame a suicide on a parent's hunting hobby.

[iverglas]

57. definitely off topic

because what I actually said was:

"The hunting hobby of my friend whose 13-yr-old (depressed, disabled) son committed suicide with one of his hunting weapons had pretty much everything to do with it."

I did NOT "blame a suicide on a parent's hunting hobby", which would be kinda moronic, if you think about it.

Why can't you just respond to what I DID say? I responded directly to what was said in the post I replied to:

"55 percent are suicides, that takes us down to 13,500. Our hobby has nothing to do with that."

It's easy, once you give it a try.

My point was that the presence of firearms in a household, firearms associated with the householder's hunting hobby, did not have "nothing to do with" the child's suicide. There was a very direct connection between the two. It is almost impossible to resist saying "duh" here. No one in my family committed suicide with a firearm when I was a child -- not because there were no firearms in the household, any more than the suicide I described occurred because there were firearms in the household. The fact that there were firearms in the household made it possible for the child to commit suicide with a firearm; that fact had everything to do with the child's suicide by firearm.

And no, in a small town in about 1975, the child would almost certainly not have gone looking for some substitute method and still be dead today.


So anyhow, let's get this straight.

Please do not tell me I cannot do something that I have not attempted to do.

[gejohnston]

58. Umm

"And no, in a small town in about 1975, the child would almost certainly not have gone looking for some substitute method and still be dead today."

Not very imaginative are you? A 13 year old has a lot of options. I grew up in a small town, a friend of my brothers killed himself in about the same year. Dad had guns, he had guns, etc. He chose to drink battery acid for some reason.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

79. with due consideration and respect

One of my pet peeves is:
An individual on the pro-control side of the issue recounts an incident, in this case the sad suicide of a 13 year old boy. ("The fact that there were firearms in the household made it possible for the child to commit suicide with a firearm; that fact had everything to do with the child's suicide by firearm.") Then offers no plan, suggestion or ideas as to how things should change.

What I'm looking for here is your take on what should be different about this situation. What EXACTLY do you think should have been done? I am 110% convinced that something should have been differently.

[iverglas]

81. I know I've already done this in the last 24 hours

Like I have said, I've been here since 2001. Do you imagine I've never offered a "plan, suggestion or ideas as to how things should change"? Or that you're the first one to demand such??

In the particular instance in question, what should have been done differently is that the firearms should have been stored securely (and separately from ammunition), as Canadian law now requires.

The father was employed in a law firm and later became an official in the justice system. He and his wife had two sons who were young teenagers at the time, and a younger daughter they had adopted, a First Nations kid from the small town where they lived in rural eastern Ontario. He hunted in season, with most of the male members of the local bar. Just your typical small-town family. No one then, 35 years ago, thought of locking up their firearms from their teenaged boys, who had grown up with firearms and shooting activities, just as I'm sure lots of people don't think of doing it now.

The wife was unable to cope after the death of the son, and left the home and sank into alcoholism. The fractured family was undoubtedly a factor in the adopted daughter's problems a few years later, when she dropped out of school and disappeared. Like I say, the statistics don't give a very good picture of the reality.


In any event, to answer your question -- one of very many, this one from 2008, just the easiest find on a quick google for iverglas licensing registration "safe/secure storage":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=191524&mesg_id=192495

One from 2006, cited there:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=127392&mesg_id=127412

Another one from from 2008:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=170803

citing this one from 2006:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=129303&mesg_id=129427


Note that I do offer this only when asked for my suggestions/recommendations/proposals, since to presume to advise when not asked might not be seemly.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

82. Do you imagine...

No, I had no evidence or thoughts on whether you've previously expressed what should/would/could be/have been done.

I agree that it is not responsible to leave a firearm (loaded or in the proximity of ammo) within access to an under-aged and/or emotionally compromised individual. There are jurisdictions in the US where civil liability would adjudicated on, among other premises, that weapon/ammo availability presenting what is termed an attractive nuisance.

I find those responsible in this case greatly negligent, probably criminally so.

[gejohnston]

56. my answers

Canada has a higher suicide rate than the US. Did your suicide rate change after the 1977 law passed? Your 1995 law? From what I found, a slight drop suicide by gun, but by other means filled the vacuum.

How? Our Bill of Rights, like 4th, and medical privacy laws prevent it. We take the Bill of Rights more seriously than your police and courts take the Charter. Safe storage laws work in Canada because you sign away some of your rights under the Charter. There is a flip side to safe storage laws, we have discussed before.

I dismiss gangster vs gangster because they are 1) in the contraband business, and 2) they choose the life and knew what they were getting in to 3)are violating current federal laws by possessing 4) if there was no drug demand, there would be no profit, and no killing each other for market share. In short, the typical bong owner has more responsibility than we are. So when ever some "progressive" puffs on their joint or snorts a line of coke while bitching about "gun violence" I say "fuck you". The rural idiots in rural and western Canada know that too, and they tell their MPs, as they should.

How many people were seriously wounded, permanently disabled, intimidated in a life-affecting way, robbed, had their neighbourhoods terrorized and degraded, by individuals or groups with firearms?

That one is a double edged sword, how about the many in the US that would be without? According to real criminologists, the best we would get would be a one for one. Numbers would be the same just different individuals. So, what would you tell the would be rape victim who saved herself with a pistol? Less lethal weapons like pepper spray are illegal in Canada. What about 14 year old Jessica Carpenter in Merced, California, who lost her siblings to a pitch fork wielding drug addict because of California's safe storage law. She escaped to get help from a neighbor to call the police. Of course, had that been in BC, the Crown would be giving the addict immunity to testify against Jessica.

Every reason is a counter reason, every action has an unintended consequence.

[iverglas]

59. if you want to make an argument

then you prevent the facts to substantiate it.

If you want to segregate the factors that go into a national suicide rate -- not to mention the variations in populations within a national population (Aboriginal youth in Canada have horribly high rates of suicide, and this obviously skews national figures when comparisons are attempted with nations that have differently composed populations) -- you go ahead and take a kick at it. I have generally found that attempts to explain suicide rates do not meet with high levels of success.

The characteristics of suicides and homicides alike vary enormously. Aggregate figures simply do not address the circumstances in which my friend's child committed suicide or the circumstances in which a individual man shoots his wife and then himself, for example.


How? Our Bill of Rights, like 4th, and medical privacy laws prevent it.

This is giving me some difficulty. Are you replying to something I said about licensing screening out some poor candidates for firearms ownership who might use firearms to commit suicide?

Wow, I guess I've been gone a long time. The multiple long discussions about medical privacy in the US when it comes to firearms acquisition laws (i.e. the total lack of medical privacy and the total disregard of a whole phalanx of posters in this place for such privacy) seem to have disappeared into the mists of time.

A person who wishes to acquire a firearm and who requires a licence for that purpose (as in Canada) is entirely free to provide whatever authorizations are requested for access to personal information -- or not. No one is compelled to apply for a firearms licence.

In the US, on the other hand, the medical information of individuals who have no desire whatsoever to acquire a firearm ever is released without their consent and stored in a database to be used for NICS checks. Some privacy.


I dismiss gangster vs gangster because they are 1) in the contraband business, and 2) they choose the life and knew what they were getting in to 3)are violating current federal laws by possessing 4) if there was no drug demand, there would be no profit, and no killing each other for market share.

Yes, and I point out that those activities loom large in the killing of NON-INVOLVED victims, and that your out-of-hand dismissal of gang/drug-related shootings is therefore unreasonable.

I do also have concern, myself, about the "choice" made by individuals who are children when they become gang-involved (and yes, I am referring to actual children), whose communities are already in the grips of those activities and the individuals perpetrating them, whose lives are devoid of any genuine choice -- and just don't dismiss them out of hand as a subject worthy of my concern as you choose to do.


That one is a double edged sword, how about the many in the US that would be without? According to real criminologists, the best we would get would be a one for one. Numbers would be the same just different individuals.

Hahahaha, I'm sorry, but "real criminologists"? C'mon, I really did not just tumble in here off some turnip truck.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=411463&mesg_id=411743

that's first up on my google for me, Kleck and "2 million". Here ya go, some more detailed analysis:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=230941&mesg_id=231367


C'mon. Jessica Carpenter was 11 years ago. And you have no more idea than the man in the moon of what would have happened had the circumstances been different. We just don't do alternate timelines in this life. You can be as sure she would have survived as I am that my friend's child would be alive. Neither of us knows -- but I do know that his life was ended when he used a firearm to do it.

What about the thousands and thousands of people -- over 300,000 -- who have died by gunshot since then?


Of course, had that been in BC, the Crown would be giving the addict immunity to testify against Jessica.

And here, you destroyed all credibility you had as a sincere participant in this discussion. Had I been paying attention and noticed that nasty ugly crap when I started, I would not have bothered. I'd have dismissed you out of hand as would have been appropriate.

[gejohnston]

63. first

NICS does not work that way. It is entered when a judge rules one to be mentally defective, due process. That is all the FBI is told. The dealer is just told sell or no sell. Not the same thing.

No I have not delved deeply in Canada's suicide problem. You said it is the highest with aboriginal youth, so? Are they still not Canadians? Their issues are most likely different than non aboriginals, but they are still Canadians. I would like to think that all Canadians would care.

About Dr. Kleck, not what I call detailed analysis. How about critiques by criminologists or sociologists with similar stature? That does not include economists funded by the Joyce Foundation. Have you ever read his books?

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/faculty/kleck/cr-fa-kleck.html

Neither of us knows what would have happened in an alternative timeline, but what about those who were murdered or committed suicide by other means? Jamaica, UK, South Africa, are good indicators of what would not happen. I really don't see how Ms. Carpenter's situation could have turned out much worse.

OK, that was a cheap shot, but that criticism does exist in Canada, made by Canadians. I hope it is not true, but I have read of it happening. David Chen in Toronto is an example of something similar, although he was acquitted. According to the accounts I read, the Crown did offer the robber immunity against his testimony against Chen. We did discuss the case in Ontario about the guy and the fire bombers. If IIRC, you were opposed to his defending home and hearth. We really have to stop meeting this way. People might start thinking we are married to each other or something.

[iverglas]

71. look, I'm not your grandmother

but I still don't need lessons in egg-sucking.

NICS does not work that way. It is entered when a judge rules one to be mentally defective, due process. That is all the FBI is told. The dealer is just told sell or no sell. Not the same thing.

I know how NICS works. Please refer to what I SAID, not what you might wish I said.

I said:

In the US, on the other hand, the medical information of individuals who have no desire whatsoever to acquire a firearm ever is released without their consent and stored in a database to be used for NICS checks.

The information is released without their consent and stored in a database.

And no, it does not happen only "when a judge rules one to be mentally defective", it is done to people who have been committed for psychiatric treatment.

People who do not want to own guns, but their personal medical information is stored in a database that has nothing to do with their own health care.

Not the sort of thing we go for up here, where people have rights.


No I have not delved deeply in Canada's suicide problem. You said it is the highest with aboriginal youth, so? Are they still not Canadians? Their issues are most likely different than non aboriginals, but they are still Canadians. I would like to think that all Canadians would care.

I'm getting disgusted, as usually happens.

Your twisted attempt to make my statement about not "caring" nauseates me.

My statement was about the nature of suicide events in different populations, and the difficulties of comparisons across populations, cultures, geographic situations, economic situations, etc. etc. etc. The tragedy of suicide among Aboriginal youth (and the difficult history and present circumstances of the First Nations here) is not a situation shared by some other societies, so it makes Canada's suicide figures difficult to compare with them.


David Chen in Toronto is an example of something similar, although he was acquitted.

"Similar"? To what? Not to what you are alleging.


Kleck is a dishonest moron, and has been exposed as such by others more qualified than him. Enough of that.

FYI, a Cdn govt agency published a study of mine in the criminology field when I was in law school quite some time ago.

As I say, I'm not in need of lessons in much of anything.

[gejohnston]

72. God I hope not,

who have been committed for psychiatric treatment.

Only if court ordered. Even then, only the information that a judge ordered it without details. If you commit yourself, it is not. So, no you don't know how it works.

Your twisted attempt to make my statement about not "caring" nauseates me.

Sorry, that is how it sounded. The same could be said for the US and its populations. The same could be said for murder rates by various countries. If you are going to be nuanced on one, be nuanced on all.

Not to what you are alleging.

yes, just to a different degree.

Kleck is a dishonest moron, and has been exposed as such by others more qualified than him. Enough of that.

Like who? The small band of economists and MDs that take money from the Joyce Foundation? He started with one hypothesis and got the opposite result.

FYI, a Cdn govt agency published a study of mine in the criminology field when I was in law school quite some time ago.

Cool. Not sure what that means, but I'm sure they liked it.

From what I understand about Chen, he detained a robber for police by binding him up, and the Crown thought that was vigilantism, please explain where that is wrong?

[beevul]

77. For aproximately 15000 of those, it was their own choice.

Can we assume that in your view, that choice isn't their s to make?


Do you own your own life 100%?


If not, who does?

[iverglas]

29. the kind of answer it is

is an answer that seeks to establish a minimum of common ground before proceeding.

It doesn't mean that anyone has to agree that "no licensing" and "no registration" are not reasonable starting points.

It simply means that if there is no agreement that "no licensing" and "no registration" are not reasonable starting points, then there is no discussion to be had.

Made perfect sense to me.

See?

[oneshooter]

54. The question was not directed to you. You were not part of the conversation

So if you would be so kind as to let baldguy answer for himself.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

60. nah

I'll do what I damned well feel like doing, if it's all the same to you.

And if it isn't.

If you don't want to reply to anything posted in the thread, you do as you please. Silence sometimes speaks volumes.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. "...licencing & registration..."

Has changed and evolved over time. If you'd prefer a discussion devoid of the term "grabber(s)" that's okay with me.

Please elaborate on your idea reasonable "...licencing & registration...".

[SteveM]

84. What bothers me is the disingenous of many gun-controller/banners...

Especially those, when posed a specific on-topic question, repeatedly refuse to answer the question, but instead go off on tangents, ones wherein he/she accuses the "other side" of smear and personal attack; I suppose for merely asking the question.
Others:

(1) Straw man "arguments;"
(2) Belittling women who choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights;
(3) Attacks on 2A defenders, calling them pro-GOP, pro-RW, etc.;
(4) Spam posting, sometimes by both sides, but pre-dominantly by gun-controllers/banners;
(5) Refusal by some controller/banners to state whether or not they support the right to self-defense;
(6) Posting data from GOP-founded, GOP-led organizations in support of gun-control, even while engaging in (3) above; and
(7) Persistent (and apparently overlooked) disruption by some controller/banners.

That's all for now.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[rl6214]

95. Right, and this quote is A-OK

"Rampant Godwinism from the anti-gun control zombies."

[iverglas]

27. but please don't stint on the dog's breakfasts!

What joy would I have in life if I could not occasionally come here and read bizarre screeds like that one??

[RSillsbee]

69. O r the cat NT

[RSillsbee]

4. Distraction / Empathy

Originally posted by Lawdevolution

Distraction: “no one is trying to ban your guns” is often used in the same post in which they then talk about their sensible gun laws to ban “assault rifles”. Obviously they want to ban guns but they feel that they might be able to lighten you up and dumb you up a little so you can allow them pass their sensible gun laws, then when they progress to the next step they will do the same thing again.

Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” KKK and Neo-NAZIs own guns and would support a ban on guns in the inner city so that minorities couldn’t own guns. The Brady’s themselves own guns, yet are willing to ban others from owning guns. This is another deceptive method to get you to support their Agenda. They want you to feel they are on your side, so you can either back off or aid them.


The empathy trick is running rampant these days

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. Okay.

I get the distraction angle.

I'm missing how the Brady bunch, by both owning and restricting guns, is a play for empathy.

[RSillsbee]

7. Empathy

Is when a grabber comes into the gungeon and states that they are a gun owner or a permit holder but they think further restrictions are fine (for the rest of us)

"I bought a gun at a garage sale w/ out a background check once but I think we should outlaw private sales"

"I have no problem w/ guns in the home. I'm a gun owner but there's no reason for you toters to carry 2 or 3 guns every time you leave the house"

" guns are evil but I have a washington CHP"

Get it now?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. I got it.

I particularly appreciate the irony in, "I bought a gun at a garage sale w/ out a background check once but I think we should outlaw private sales." :)

[RSillsbee]

12. FWIW That quote was taken directly from one of our under cover antis NT

[gravity556]

17. How about the

"Toters are scared of everything, that's why they strap on a couple of guns. If I (the anti-gunner) don't feel a need to carry, then nobody should!" Also, the "what are you compensating for?" snide remarks. You know what-I am compensating-if I could kill someone 50 yards away with my dick, I probably wouldn't carry a gun. Since I can't, the gun will have to do.

Oh, and stop with the "Toter's are just looking for an excuse to shoot a minority! They just want to murder someone and get away with it!". I have no desire to kill someone, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let some criminal assault me and mine. So on that score, go fuck yourselves.

You also can't buy a machine gun at a gun show without a background check, nor are there "no background checks at all at gun shows". A private citizen can sell a gun to another private citizen without a NICS check, primarily because there is none required by law. FFLs are still required to have a 4473 and NICS run on their buyers.

Also, it's only about 17% of the firearms siezed in mexico that can be traced back to the US. Which is 90% of the guns THAT ARE TRACEABLE. The rest are gotten from other means. You sure as fuck can't buy a full auto AR15 or AK47 at a gun show, cash on the barrelhead, and there's no fucking way in hell you can buy live grenades, 40mm grenades for 40mm launchers, nor can you buy a 40mm launcher without a form 4 and ATF approval, a 200 dollar transfer tax and 4 to 6 months of waiting. On top of the 3 or 4 thousand dollars the launcher costs.

A full auto transferable AK costs about 6 grand, and full auto transferable M16 variant runs about 12 grand. A transferable M2 .50cal machine gun goes about 30-35 thousand dollars.

All of those are cheaper for them to steal or buy from the Mexican army or to get from countries further south.

Mostly, I'm tired of ignorant mouthbreathing fucktards denigrating every fucking gun owner with their asinine half truths and outright fucking lies.

yup.

Ignorance, half truths and lies vomited forth by people who haven't a fucking clue.

yup yup yup

[RSillsbee]

19. Words like "Fucktards" are insensitive and have no place on a progressive website

Other than that I agree w/ you

[PavePusher]

23. Seems like a perfectly reasonable and descriptive word to me...

if used sparingly, when it's appropriate and fitting.

[RSillsbee]

68. IMO "Fucktards" is insensitive to the mentally challenged

I can't think of a situation where it would be appropriate when there are so many different ways to call some one a dumbass

[PavePusher]

73. You know what?

Every insult is insensitive to someone. It's rather the nature of insults, dontchya know.

The phrase "thicker skin" comes to mind.

[RSillsbee]

76. I was just expressing my opinion NT

[PavePusher]

83. I apologize for the flippant answer, I do understand your point.

And I could have phrased mine a bit more diplomatically.

[iverglas]

32. I give up; how about

"Toters are scared of everything, that's why they strap on a couple of guns. If I (the anti-gunner) don't feel a need to carry, then nobody should!"

... you cite a source for that quotation? And this one:

"Toter's are just looking for an excuse to shoot a minority! They just want to murder someone and get away with it!"

... and this one:

"no background checks at all at gun shows"

... etc. ...


Case in point, folks; case in point.

[iverglas]

33. "Get it now?"

Forgive me, but ... no.

I googled phrases from the "quotations" you posted and found ... nothing.


Of course, my personal favourites are the gun militants who come into this forum and pretend to be ardent firearms control advocates.

[X_Digger]

36. Here are a few..

Re #1,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=438442

(yard sale, not a garage sale..)

Re #2,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=435837

search for 'toter'..

Re #3,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=395363

search for 'Wa CWP'

(a bit of hyperbole, but we do have one poster who likes to post 'crime blotter' stories who also has a Washington state license to carry.)

[iverglas]

37. 3, 2, 1 ...

Well that third one's interesting, I must say. ;)

I know nothing whatsoever about the poster, except that the namesake is one of my favourite actors. So whether that poster has a licence to carry a firearm, I wouldn't know (even if I knew who the poster is otherwise).


I don't know what point the second link is meant to make. There have very certainly been many posters here who advocate what is referred to in post 46 there. Whether those posters themselves are sincere or mere provocateurs, I would have no way of knowing, but a crowd usually gathers to cheer them.


For the first link, again, I don't know what the point is. The poster in post six refers to buying a firearm at a yard sale and having it checked by police. ?

I'd be more concerned about the statements in the opening post in that thread, myself. And about the fact that they are being made at this website, of course.

[X_Digger]

38. I'm trying to be circumspect, but..

If you search the history of those posters, you'll find the statements in the start of this thread match them pretty well. (With the 'evil guns' one chalked up to hyperbole.)

[RSillsbee]

45. Yeah , the evil guns one is hyperbole NT

[RSillsbee]

41. AAAARGHH !!!!

The first one is some thing that a particular poster that thinks all handguns should be registered and that all sales should go through an FFL. This person mentions buying a Walther PPK at a garage sale ( the very act he is so against us doing) frequently

The second is from a poster who calls us all "toters" and likes to talk about how we can't leave the house w/ out a gun.

The third is from a poster who routinely does drive bys of current events hit pieces and has talked in the past about how no one should carry a gun but has recently started mentioning that he has a Washington state permit.

[iverglas]

43. and I take from all this ...

what?

Not everyone here is what they claim to be?

:rofl:

[RSillsbee]

46. In the context of the thread

The thread is asking what is your most disliked tactic by the other side of the debate. The empathy schtick is mine. If you are an anti come right out and say "I'm an anti" and this is why I'm an anti.

Don't give me the "I am a true progressive but I think you should vote for Sarah Palin" bullshit.

If you're a horse say you're a horse

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

30. conversely ...

Distraction: “no one is trying to ban your guns” is often used in the same post in which they then talk about their sensible gun laws to ban “assault rifles”. Obviously they want to ban guns but they feel that they might be able to lighten you up and dumb you up a little so you can allow them pass their sensible gun laws, then when they progress to the next step they will do the same thing again.

... they might simply not realize that they have found themselves, at Democratic Underground, addressing someone who owns (legislatively defined) "assault weapons" or takes the position that possession of such weapons should be permitted.

Cut them that little slack and educate them, eh? Yes, Virginia, there really are people posting at Democratic Underground who take that position ...


Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” KKK and Neo-NAZIs own guns and would support a ban on guns in the inner city so that minorities couldn’t own guns. The Brady’s themselves own guns, yet are willing to ban others from owning guns. This is another deceptive method to get you to support their Agenda. They want you to feel they are on your side, so you can either back off or aid them.

This one I don't really get. I know someone who has posted here, personally, who is a gun owner and who supports much of the same policy as I do. How does he become "they"?

What is he, a liar? a chimera? Are you implying that he is an adherent of KKK or Neo-Nazi ideology? Spit the mealies outa your mouth and say what you're saying plainly, if you would, so I can consider its merits.

[iverglas]

31. uh oh uh oh

I guess the events were coming on top of themselves, but

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=439998&mesg_id=439998

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=262680

... I just responded to a copy and paste of something spoken by a dead man. Oops.

[baldguy]

65. The fact is European countries have massacres like this once a generation.

America seems to have them once a year - or more. Guns' rights advocates don't seem to have a problem with this.

[gejohnston]

66. population difference and nothing like this

and do gun laws have anything to do with it? Major over simplification don't you think?

[Euromutt]

92. That's a highly disputable claim

United Kingdom: Hungerford 1987, Dunblane 1996, Cumbria 2010...
Germany: Eppstein 1983, Erfurt 2002, Emsdetten 2006, Winnenden 2009...
Finland: Jokela 2007, Sello Prisma hypermarket 2009...

Seems to be a bit more than "once a generation" lately, and that's not counting terrorist attacks, which occur a sight more frequently in Europe than they do in the United States.

Guns' rights advocates don't seem to have a problem with this.

Thanks for the smear. Of course we do, we just think that more stringent gun control isn't going to stop single-perp mass shootings from happening.

I know I'm starting to sound like broken record, but have you ever considered that the frequency of mass shootings has increased with the introduction and proliferation of 24-hour rolling news channels on TV and, later, internet news sites? There's no more effective way to become instantly famous and have everybody in the industrialized world obsessing over you, at least for a couple of weeks, than to shoot a bunch of people.

The Globe and Mail had an excellent editorial yesterday. Allow me to quote:

Any country can produce a man like whatshisname. Perhaps it is a surprise that there aren’t more such people in the world. There are certainly lots of people walking around with an extreme sense of grievance. When they do kill, they receive their 15 minutes and then depart the stage, never to be heard from again.

Maybe if we stopped giving every whatshisname his 15 minutes on dozens of channels in dozens of countries, we'd see less of this kind of thing occurring in the first place. It's been pointed out that mass shootings in K-12 schools stopped in 2001 and did not restart until 2005 (with the Red Lake massacre), because the news media stopped talking about them when 9/11 happened.

[iverglas]

100. that's odd

It's been pointed out that mass shootings in K-12 schools stopped in 2001 and did not restart until 2005 (with the Red Lake massacre), because the news media stopped talking about them when 9/11 happened.

It has been pointed out that <insert unsubstantiated statement here>.

I can point out that the sky is blue.

I can't really point out that the sky is blue because the gods painted it that way.

See?

Unless you can prove causal connection, you just can't "point it out".


More to the point: since a high proportion of mass murderers kill themselves (or plainly intend to be killed), it could be hard to argue that mass murderers are motivated by the lust for publicity.

edit: not to mention that it really is just plain ridiculous to the point of beyond moronic to suggest that the press in a liberal democracy would or should suppress information about events of significant public interest and concern. Yeesh.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. Well there it is.

:rant:


One of my own pet peeves is the drive-by paster... er, I mean poster. You know, they copy and paste some article (could be for either side of the discussion) and hit 'post'. No commentary is provided, no summarization or quotation or pointer to an illustrative/relevant passage that agrees with the poster's position (or even what that position is).

They just leave a smelly pile of spam to pollute the board, annoying others as they go.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[S_B_Jackson]

24. Without doubt, my #1 pet peeve of those who advocate for gun controls...

is the non-stop attempts to equate fully-automatic weapons (i.e. machine guns) with semi-automatic, so-called, "Assault Weapons".

They are not identical. And all modern semi-automatic rifles which are available for sale ARE NOT easily convertable to fully-automatic. This continued conflation of the two is a L-I-E.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. I have similar feelings.

I hesitate to park that one in my pet peeve spot because while enthusiasts who support firearm ownership tend to be more technical (IMHO) than their detractors. I have to acknowledge that some gun control campaign folk have deliberately used this confusion as a means to an end, which, in my book, is lying.

[oneshooter]

28. They call for"reasonable, progressive and sane" gun controls.

But when asked what they conceder to be "reasonable, progressive and sane" laws run away. Or refuse to answer, or say "you know what that is" or some other tripe. So far this is most of the anti's that post here.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

34. yeah

google this:

site:www.democraticunderground.com iverglas "licensing" "registration" "storage"

Any time you're ready ...

[RSillsbee]

55. Why we're not into registration

Once a gun is registered it can't be unregistered and in several places guns were registered, then confiscated.

I don't want my gun registered because i don't want Diane Fienstien's wet dream to come to pass

"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein



Is that really that hard to understand?

[iverglas]

61. why I don't care

Because paranoid fantasies are not the stuff of public policy discussions, in my world.

Nor are outright falsehoods, of course.

Tell me again. What did Diane Feinstein say she wanted to do?

[RSillsbee]

64. She said she wanted to ban firearms

unless you can document that she didn't

[iverglas]

78. Here ya go

Take your pick. And then retract your false statement once you have educated yourself, if that's what was actually needed.

iverglas refutes the lie about Feinstein

Remember ... I've been here since 2001. There ain't a gun militant ... line ... I haven't seen and refuted.

[RSillsbee]

80. Interesting

I didn't know that. I'm still not registering my guns because almost every single one of them (the long guns anyway) is considered an "assault weapon"

[DWC]

99. I went there

Nothing to refute.

This is nothing but Yes, But BS.

You failed then and nothing has changed since.

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

101. sad and sick

the statement made was: She said she wanted to ban firearms

That statement is false. It is universally recognized (by honest, informed people) to be false. The person who made it here has recognized it to be false.

Are you still claiming it is true? Please make a straightforward statement in this regard.

Was the statement by Dianne Feinstein that was quoted a statement that she wanted to ban firearms?

Now, you can answer "yes" if you are also willing to say that my statement that I don't like bananas means that I don't like food. Feel free. Unless you agree to that corollary, your statement that Dianne Feinstein said she wanted to ban firearms will be false.

Do you make that statement?

Yes or no.

[DWC]

106. Yes

Except for herself and other elitists / authoritarians.

Semper Fi,

[SteveM]

85. SHE wanted to pack. And did. Thought you knew that. nt

[DWC]

97. Self - Delete

[DWC]

98. OK, Here you go - again

Senator Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995

and again...

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

-- Sen. Dianne Feinstein quoted by AP on Nov. 18, 1993

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

104. fail

You have not proved what the "them" in the statement by Feinstein was.

This is not what "is" is. "Them" is a pronoun. It REFERS TO SOMETHING.

Prove that it refers to "guns".

Prove that you can do more than parrot false crap you find in gun militant cyberspace.

[DWC]

107. This is a liberal gun discussion forum, not an L- D debate site.

I am here to try to work through personally held views on the 2nd amendment and opposing views of those individuals in my own political party.

Are you a citizen of the USA?

Are you a member of the Democratic Party of the USA?

I think not therefore I have nothing but distain for your flaming input.

It would not surprise me to find that you are a TBagger, RW, Republican Plant / Troll.

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

105. PS -- is this DEMOCRATIC Underground?

I absolutely cannot believe that this lie about an elected Democratic is still being allowed to be propagated here: that Dianne Feinstein made a specific statement and that what she said was that she wanted to ban all guns.

The individual who made the statement has recognized that it is false; he had apparently been misled.

Nonetheless, I am still being told that it is true.

At Democratic Underground.

After the total falseness of the claim has been proved over and over and over again, year in and year out.

Where am I?

I like to think that quite apart from the "Democratic" element of this site, there is the "democratic" one.

And democratic discourse just does not admit of deception, falsehood, misrepresentation ... anything but absolute candour is not just not democratic, it is anti-democratic.

[Euromutt]

93. Also, Haynes v. United States (1968)

We have jurisprudence stating that a person who possesses a firearm illegally cannot be punished for failing to register it, because requiring him to inform the authorities that he is in illegal possession of a firearm would violate his right against self-incrimination. Which obviates the whole purpose of registration; at least, the ostensible purpose.

[gejohnston]

35. and t hat is after not coming up with a

reasonable, progressive or sane argument. When they do try, their arguments are riddled with logical fallacies and nonsense.

[baldguy]

40. I don't see any solution coming from your side.

Other than "NONE", as I've said.

[gejohnston]

47. None making the whole country like Vermont and repealing all existing going back to the 19th century

or the 1920s (Uniform Pistol Act 1927) and 1930s (National Firearms Act of 1934 and Federal Firearms Act of 1938) of course there is CGA-68 and Brady on a federal level. Of course, there are the various local and state laws.

[oneshooter]

62. I see that iverglass is doing your talking for you. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

75. I see this now and then...

...a call for laws/enforcement/sentencing/etc along with some pasted article that drips blood. You ask what in particular should change and the response is: another pasted news story with more blood, a denouncement of the crime from a public figure or an exasperated reply containing a non-answer.

[DissedByBush]

67. lies and ownership

Lies: The anti-crowd just can't survive without pouring forth the lies. Pretty much every article, every speech has anything from an element of untruth or distortions to flat-out lies.

Ownership: The Republicans think they own the issue of protecting this right. It's disgusting, more so because we let them do it thanks to the anti-rights portion of our party having some muscle.

[tortoise1956]

70. Some on both sides

On the pro-control side, I get pissed when an OP posts misleading information and then follows up with complete BS non-responses (you know who you are...)

On the RKBA side, I am really tired of reading pseudo-macho comments. Some examples. They may not be word for word, but they're pretty close:

"good thing they shot straight."
"I guess that'll teach them."

I know that most of the time these are sarcastic responses to inane posts, but it still presents a bad image to the rest of DU, or in a recent case, the rest of the world. That's the last thing we need to do.

Ok I'm done. Fire away!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

74. "...when an OP posts misleading information..."

You mean something like 'every day in the US 10 children from gun violence'???

I'm with you on that.

[SteveM]

86. Why are the paraphrases you post "pseudo-macho?"

"good thing they shot straight."
"I guess that'll teach them."

When someone is shooting back in self-defense, I should think shooting "straight" would be a good thing; you need to be sure of your target." And anyone who home invades or attempt armed robbery would hopefully learn from that experience. I see nothing "macho" about this, pseudo or otherwise.

I agree that posters here should select their words better for "world" consumption. Trouble is, almost ANY MSM news outlet will cherry-pick postings until it has found the one which supports its favorite stereotype. I would venture to say that if all the language and all the argument and all the data were immaculate, MSM wouldn't bother to acknowledge DU and the Guns Forum. It wouldn't fit their gun-control agenda.

[The Green Manalishi]

87. Misunderstanding of "well Regulated"

"regulated" did not mean "controlled extrinsically", it meant properly functioning.

FTR, I believe that individuals should need to demonstrate competence in operation and a full understanding of all safety operations, as well as being held accountable in "strict liability" for anything that happens with their weapon. And before receiving licensure to carry it or have it in functional possession outside of home and gun range, a background check in not unreasonable, either. But the foregoing should be coupled with a unambiguous authorization to own and/or carry any weapon, anywhere once the requirements are met, with said requirements being completely objective.

[oneshooter]

88. And if, in the future the law is changed, and confiscation arise? n/t

[The Green Manalishi]

90. Exactly.

I live in California.
Something the gun restricters don't seem to get; we know people who have played by the rules only to have the assholes in Sacramento say "That gun is now illegal, turn it in". That is why we are justified in saying the onus is on the gun control folks to prove their honesty, they've already blown it once.
Just like the dipshits who asked "Why do you need a .50 cal". A) because it's cool, which is all the justification any american needs for anything short of owning a nuclear device or a slave and B) because shooting at 300 yards with my 300 win mag is getting a tad jejune.
No registration or tracking of firearms unless and until the inalienable right of a civilian to own anything owned by the military of any nation in the world is writ in stone.
My post was referring to the ;lcensing of the individual, not the ability of the state to regulate what the individual may possess. For me, with firearms as with basses, my goal is "1 of everything", that would mean from flintlock to a ma deuce.

[iverglas]

102. and if one day the bogeyman does creep out from under your bed?

n/t

[gejohnston]

89. OK back to pet peeves instead of pissing matches nt

[aikoaiko]

94. This thread reminds me of the good old days in the Guns Forum. Only one addition is needed....

[iverglas]

103. what a pantload

[gejohnston]

96. What pisses me off

are patronizing and condescending pseudo intellectuals who failed critical thinking and logic 101, and people who resort to personal attacks.

[Katya Mullethov]

108. Rivers and Pipelines (often iron)Fueling Border Violence

Even the kids in school will tell you it's the piles of cash , 'n besides , cast iron'll blow up in your face .




lol

How they used to do it .