A job for... DISARMAMENT MAN!

[Atypical Liberal]

A job for... DISARMAMENT MAN!

[iverglas]

1. and a tale

for people who enjoy seeing the serious problems of vulnerable individuals and groups exploited in the cause of an agenda that is contrary to their interests ... and are fond of gross and dishonest misrepresentations of the actions of people who actually do give a damn about them ...

What kind of sick person would produce a piece of shit like this? (to paraphrase the dialogue)

Not the person who posted it, I am quite sure.

[Atypical Liberal]

11. More like a tale...

More like a tale that demonstrates the kind of world we would live in if people didn't have firearms to defend themselves with.

Every victim of armed assault would have three choice: Flee if they are fast enough, submit if they are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their assailant, if they are strong enough.

I have no idea who posted it. I found it via reddit.

[Starboard Tack]

72. and you go out looking for inflammatory garbage like that

Are you toters so desperate? It really is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[Abin Sur]

12. Speaking of gross and dishonest misrepresentations...

What kind of sick person would produce pieces of shit like these?

[Atypical Liberal]

13. Well...

Well, you know, most school shootings end when someone with a gun to shoot back with shows up.

[iverglas]

16. damn me, I forgot

The NRA is an historically vulnerable, abused group, and its members are at real risk of harm from the people they trust, every minute of the day. NRA members are frequently beaten, intimidated into compliance and killed by ... I forget, non-NRA members?

Yes, the NRA is a class we should all be mightily concerned about, and an organization we should never ever mock. Its feelings are easily hurt and its self-esteem might suffer.

As a result (oh dog, I fear I am being infected by gun militant logic), exploiting a genuinely vulnerable and abused group in the service of one's agenda and mocking people who genuinely work to alleviate the harm done to them is A-OK.

Remember to remind me to remember, will you?

[Abin Sur]

17. What an odd thing for you to say...

I never asserted that the NRA was an historically vulnerable, abused group. I simply demonstrated that there were anti-NRA cartoons which were gross and dishonest misrepresentations.

Of course, you didn't disagree with me about that...so I can only conclude that you agree with my characterization of these cartoons.

[iverglas]

21. odd thing for moi to say?

I guess you meant to direct your first post to someone else, since it plainly has nothing to do with anything I said, as you have just said yourself.

I simply demonstrated that there were anti-NRA cartoons which were gross and dishonest misrepresentations.

Gosh, I missed that? Oh no, I didn't. Because you didn't.

Of course, you didn't disagree with me about that...so I can only conclude that you agree with my characterization of these cartoons.

Your characterization of the cartoons about the NRA was ... inaccurate. Happy now?

As for how I would characterize your attempt to portray cartoons whose point is to illustrate the foreseeable effects of the NRA's demands, i.e. the effects the NRA must be presumed to intend, as analogous to the nasty turd posted in the OP ... well, I'll let you fill in that blank for yourself.

[rl6214]

94. "Gosh, I missed that? Oh no, I didn't. Because you didn't."

Only a moron could miss it

[gejohnston]

18. what?

mocking people who genuinely work to alleviate the harm done to them is A-OK.

It is not mocking them as so much as pointing out that they are misguided and what they are doing can be counter productive. I don't know about Canada, but in the US it is counter productive.

[iverglas]

22. I hate to burst your bubble

... pointing out that they are misguided and what they are doing can be counter productive. I don't know about Canada, but in the US it is counter productive.

but your saying it does not make it so.

You are not "pointing out" anything.

You are making a claim.

You're free to try to substantiate that claim if you like.

[gejohnston]

33. that would be trying to prove a negative

and my bubble is hardly burst. Seriously, where I am from, most women would agree with the cartoon.

[Starboard Tack]

73. "Seriously, where I am from, most women would agree with the cartoon. "

Now why doesn't that surprise me? I assume you live in a survivalist compound or Wyoming.

[gejohnston]

74. I grew up in Wyoming

But given that Wyoming and Vermont are the safest states to be in, what's your point?

[iverglas]

75. safest states to be in ... for whom?

If you don't like this source, find another with different data. I find other consistent reports, including one for 2008 (ranking Wyoming 8th for female homicide victims) for which I can't find a source, unfortunately.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/dv2wy.htm

When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 1997 Homicide Data
Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single Offender Incidents
Wyoming
5 females were murdered by males in Wyoming in 1997
The homicide rate among females murdered by males in Wyoming was 2.09 per 100,000 in 1997
Ranked 9th highest in the United States

One by firearm, one by knife, one by bodily force, two by other weapons.

Not exactly the haven of domestic tranquility I think you have suggested.

http://mycoloradocounseling.com/Domestic_Violence_Facts.html

In 2002, Alaska ranked first as the state with the highest female homicide rate.
Following Alaska was (2) Louisiana, (3) New Mexico, (4) Nevada, (5) Wyoming, (6) South Carolina, (7) Tennessee, (8) Delaware, (9) North Carolina, (10) Alabama.

Not the haven of domestic tranquility we might have been led to believe?


Then there's Vermont.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/dv4vt.htm

When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 1999 Homicide Data
Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single Offender Incidents
Vermont
6 females were murdered by males in Vermont in 1999
The homicide rate among females murdered by males in Vermont was 1.99 per 100,000 in 1999
Ranked 6th in the United States

Four out of six with firearms, two of them handguns.

For 2008:

http://crimeinamerica.net/2010/09/15/nevada-vermont-alabama-north-carolina-and-tennessee-rank-highest-for-men-murdering-women/

For that year, Nevada ranked first as the state with the highest homicide rate among female victims killed by male offenders in single victim/single offender incidents. Its rate of 2.96 per 100,000 was more than double the national average. Nevada was followed by Vermont (2.54 per 100,000) and Alabama (2.07 per 100,000).

Always worth looking a little more closely at statistics. Especially if you're a woman, I guess.

[gejohnston]

82. How about legitimate studies

Look, you bitch when someone uses the NRA or some source you don't like regardless merit or supporting data. VPC is not exactly the bastion of intellectual honesty, Crime in America cites VPC, VPC shows no links or source. That gives more reason to say bullshit.

The ironic thing is that Josh Sugarmann, an official at VPC, is the only FFL holder in DC using VPC as the address. Why? I have been wondering that too.

[iverglas]

87. how about you give up?

The figures are from official sources.

If you actually want to pretend to think otherwise, feel free. If you want to prove it, go ahead.


Look, you bitch when someone uses the NRA or some source you don't like regardless merit or supporting data.

I do not claim that anyone or anything is LYING when they present ACTUAL REAL NUMBERS about something.

Are you actually sitting there with your bare face hanging out and stating that the VPC is LYING about the numbers of women homicide victims, the weapons used, etc.?

http://www.vpc.org/studies/dv4cont.htm

When Men Murder Women is an annual report prepared by the Violence Policy Center detailing the reality of homicides committed against women. The study analyzes the most recent Supplementary Homicide Report data submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.f The information used for this report is for the year 1999. Once again, it is the most recent data available. This is the first analysis of the 1999 data on female homicide victims to offer breakdowns of cases in the 15 states with the highest female victim/male offender homicide rates, and the first to rank the states by the rate of these female homicides.

This seems to be the latest, dated September 2010:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2010.pdf

When Men Murder Women is an annual report prepared by the Violence Policy Center detailing the reality of homicides committed against women. The study analyzes the most recent Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) data submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).9 The information used for this report is for the year 2008. Once again, this is the most recent data available. This is the first analysis of the 2008 data on female homicide victims to offer breakdowns of cases in the 10 states with the highest female victim/male offender homicide rates, and the first to rank the states by the rate of female homicides.

They've been publishing the reports for over a decade.

I'm sure you will be able to find someone somewhere who has done what must be an easy task: prove that their figures are LIES.

Dog almighty.

I am not asking you to accept or even consider the VPC's OPINION about ANYTHING.

Allergic to facts??

Vermont had the second highest rate of female homicides in your country in 2008, btw.



The ironic thing is that Josh Sugarmann, an official at VPC, is the only FFL holder in DC using VPC as the address. Why? I have been wondering that too.

"Too"? Don't be counting me. I don't give a shit.

If you wonder so much, why don't you find out?

If I devoted my life to making myself hated by gun militants in the US, hell, I might get one too. I removed the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control sticker from my car last time I went to there.

Actually, I'd forgotten. In the late 80s when I travelled to the deep south for a couple of weeks of combined business and pleasure, I was actually planning to go take some shooting lessons when I got to Florida, and just check out the ambiance and all. Instead, I met a man in Georgia ...



edit -- I misthought "CCW" when I read "FFL". I might surmise that he has the licence in order to do things that only firearm dealers are allowed to do ... use the NICS system comes to mind, but hell, I'm just guessing. If I wanted to know, I'd ask. Do you actually think he is dealing in firearms?

[gejohnston]

90. Yes or

they are basing their number on bullshit numbers. But, they lie about a lot of other things.

Yes he has a dealers license. I doubt he would tell me, and since he can only sell to DC residents, his customer base is very small. I doubt DC has a CCW system.

The thing about ideologues and fanatics, the ends justify the means. They exist in all factions left and right. A secular variation of Pious Fiction

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

No offense to you, just VPC. I'll check it out. Out of curiosity, what exactly is a gun militant? Why did you devote your life go get people to hate you?

[rl6214]

95. Bullshit source gives you bullshit results

[iverglas]

98. yeah, I've heard there are people in the US

who have rather a bad case of animosity toward the US government.

... That being the "source" in question ...

[Starboard Tack]

80. I think you made my point.

Both states are rural with a survivalist tradition. Nothing wrong with that, but it has little to do with where most folk live.
Those who live in urban areas in close proximity to each other would very rarely consider even owning, much less carrying a gun. If I lived in either of those states I would very probably keep a gun in the house. Makes sense.

[gejohnston]

84. what the hell is a survivalist?

You mean people who move to Idaho from California and Ohio thinking Mad Max is a documentary? You know all of those Neo Nazis in Idaho some years ago? They were transplants from the Chicago area. They are not natives nor do they know or care shit about the local culture. The Scientologoists bought a ranch in Sweetwater County to store L. Ron Hubbards writings. Does that make us all Scientologist too?

[Starboard Tack]

85. I wasn't infereing that natives of Wyoming and Vermont are nutjob survivalists

though the sparsely populated western states do tend to attract their ilk, as you mention. No, my reference to those states being survivalist was in a historic context, which is about nature, hardship, fortitude and survival in a harsh environment. Survival that would have been extremely difficult without guns. I love and respect the peoples and the cultures of those states.

[SteveM]

27. Probably cartoonists who got paid royalties by the NRA...

The NRA gladly publishes this stuff in their magazines, newsletters, media productions, etc.

Seem to work for them.

[iverglas]

2. but I recommended it

as I sometimes do, because I think some of the things posted in this forum deserve a much wider audience.

All those who agree, rec and sign in!

[X_Digger]

5. Ahh the fervent politician..

"See which way the crowd is moving and get in front of it and pretend to lead."

[iverglas]

15. crowd? what crowd?

Not a lot of people seem to agree with me that this thread deserves a wide DU audience.

I'd recommend that the poster put it up in the Women's Rights forum. After all, isn't that what it's really all about???

[X_Digger]

24. For this forum? +7 is way above average for a thread that starts here. n/t

[X_Digger]

83. Make that +17 now.. n/t

[Abin Sur]

26. As I type this

It's more highly recommended than 90% of the first 50 threads in the Guns forum.

As for putting it up in the Women's Rights forum, I disagree, given that armed self defense isn't a gender-specific right but rather a human one.

A right which is (thankfully) being practiced much more often these days :party:

[SteveM]

28. See my post above; that audience is wider than you think. nt

[iverglas]

3. awwww

Somebody unrec'ed it?

Sniff.

[frebrd]

4. K&R! n/t

[DWC]

6. OUTSTANDING!!!!! Where did you get it? Is there more???? n/t

[slackmaster]

7. I've had several good laughs today

Thanks for adding one more!

[Common Sense Party]

8. Yup! Yup! And guns awaaaay!!!!

[Hoopla Phil]

34. LOL!!!

[Common Sense Party]

9. How do you recommend a thread multiple times?

Kudos to the artistic genius who came up with this biting (and clearly accurate) bit of social commentary!

[spin]

10. Sums things up nicely. K&R (n/t)

[ileus]

14. How impolite of her to be toting and ah pokin'

[iverglas]

19. so I'm lookin for the source ...

and frankly, I shouldn't have to; you should provide it.

I find it copied all over the internet, at some very interesting places. Not yet that I've seen at websites where genuine concern about violence against women and actions against violence against women are the subjects.

Ah, could this be it? (Don't be fooled; I wasn't.)

http://www.guncontrolnetwork.org/disarm_man.htm

It does say there: "Visit Dan's 'Pro-Gun' Gallery for other great political cartoons."

... Well, no, thelink to Dan is non-functional ... and Dan is nowhere to be found.

http://www.guncontrolnetwork.org/gcn1.htm

Congratulations. You've struck dirt once again.

So ... got any cartoons about violence against women -- or hell, guns -- from an organization actually working to combat violence against women? C'mon, there must be lots. If not cartoons, prose that coincides with the message in the ugly little piece of crap you have presented for us here at DU. Just one will do.

[gejohnston]

20. I get the sensitivity about violence

but it still makes a valid point, and guns ownership= misogyny is still crack pot.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[ileus]

31. I live with one...they're not really that hard to find.

[iverglas]

44. you live with one ...

... cat? chimpanzee? aardvark?

What on earth are you talking about?

[ileus]

55. Don't be so obtuse

Cheese...

[iverglas]

57. I still don't have the first clue what you're talking about

Maybe you just read the first line of my post:

You'd be hard pressed to find a woman in this world who has not been the victim of physical or sexual violence (or psychological abuse) at the hands of a man.

You live with one of them?

And? If she'd had a gun she would have shot him? What?

[ileus]

86. You said it not me.

[gejohnston]

36. you are assuming all

"gun militants" are men or right wing. It is safe to say most are men, but not all. Not all are right wing. Most are conservative but not reactionary, many are moderate. There are some hard left as well. There is a line between logical extension, and projection. The other side of projection is black helicopters.

[Abin Sur]

37. Many are Libertarian as well. n/t

[iverglas]

46. yes, and ... ?

Like "Libertarian" is not far right wing?

Thank you.

[Abin Sur]

51. It's rather more complicated than that.

Like "Libertarian" is not far right wing?

Yes and no. Classifying all political views on a left-right continuum is overly simplistic. An X/Y axis is much more accurate, such as the one used at http://politicalcompass.org/.

While Libertarians are indeed far right when it comes to economics, on social issues they're far left.



It should be noted that Ayn Rand isn't in the George Bush quadrant.

Thank you

Happy to be of service.

[iverglas]

58. ooooh, you want to educate me!

Yes and no. Classifying all political views on a left-right continuum is overly simplistic. An X/Y axis is much more accurate, such as the one used at http://politicalcompass.org /.

Very first one up on a google:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=47066&mesg_id=47181

iverglas
Fri Mar-26-04 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #35
48. did we get your location on the political compass?

"Sounds like the gene pool just got a little cleaner."

You're not actually standing over there with Gandhi when it comes to "the supreme value of the individual", I see.

I can think of a different name on the demo chart that such sentiments are in fact usually associated with.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1556593&mesg_id=1558182

iverglas
Fri Aug-10-07 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
27. unidimensional political thought in the US

The big problem here is that people disregard the two aspects of most systems of political thought, and of most people's own political thinking.

One aspect relates to choices widely regarded as "personal", that are made for inherently personal reasons and that affect individuals' own lives.

The other aspect relates to choices that are "social", including economic.

The thing is that in most places in the world, you will find that people who are "left" on the social-economic scale are also "liberal" or "libertarian" on a personal scale. In the US, there is a lot more of the "socially liberal / economically conservative" stuff. And people get confused. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3020308&mesg_id=3022191

iverglas
Tue Oct-09-07 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. political compass to the rescue

"Left" and "right" can mean ... and be used to mean ... quite different things.

Two dimensions of meaning (there are more) are illustrated in the Political Compass's graphs. ...

There are loads and loads more where that came from.

FYI:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736166&mesg_id=2738750

iverglas
Mon Jul-24-06 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #17
38. progressive moi begs to differ

... Myself, I fall very far toward the lower left-hand corner of that graph (where each axis goes from -10 at the left/bottom to 10 at the top/right, with 0 in the middle):

Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03

at last count. I value both individual authority over decisions about personal matters and collective authority over decisions about matters that affect the society and other members of it, e.g. economic policy. ...

I must have been feeling particularly not-strongly about some of the vertical axis questions on the day this thread appeared:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x46869#46901

Too bad more of the forum regulars didn't participate. We could try again.


While Libertarians are indeed far right when it comes to economics, on social issues they're far left.

No, actually, that's not "left". That's ultra-individualist. It isn't "left" to oppose the provision of a public education system. It's just selfish. Yer "Libertarian" doesn't oppose public schools because it wants children and parents to be free; it opposes them because it doesn't want to pay taxes. And Ron Paul is still an anti-choice piece of scum.

Who put that pretty picture together, anyhow? It doesn't exactly coincide with Political Compass's own:


Somebody at yours seems to want to seriously flatter Milton Friedman, and pretend that Gandhi was actually a fair bit more both left and libertarian than the designers of the "test" think. Odd.

I'm sure you know this one ...

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

"Enlightened self-interest" isn't left; it's just pig-ignorant selfishness in fancy dress.

[Abin Sur]

59. So you don't like Libertarians...I get that.

But the fact remains that someone who wants to legalize all drugs, is in favor gay marriage, is pro-choice, and wants to slash defense spending isn't "right-wing".

[iverglas]

64. ah, facts

http://www.lp.org/platform

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic
success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each
person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of
government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a
legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute
wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of
individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want,
the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of
their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health
insurance across state lines.

And my personal favourite:

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

But hey, the private sector will self-govern itself into the land of perfect equal opportunity.

All of that and more "Libertarian" nonsense is right-wing.

And if you think that party and its people actually give a crap about gay marriage or drugs or reproductive rights ... well, you fall for propaganda more easily than I do.


Do you seriously think that Emma Goldman would vote Libertarian?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman#Capitalism
(I could have dug up a book off a shelf somewhere, but wiki is easier)

Goldman believed that the economic system of capitalism was inimical to human liberty. "The only demand that property recognizes," she wrote in Anarchism and Other Essays, "is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade." She also argued that capitalism dehumanized workers, "turning the producer into a mere particle of a machine, with less will and decision than his master of steel and iron."

Yeah, Goldman and Badnarik, a co-habiting partnership made in heaven.

[Abin Sur]

91. More facts

All of that and more "Libertarian" nonsense is right-wing.

And if you think that party and its people actually give a crap about gay marriage or drugs or reproductive rights ... well, you fall for propaganda more easily than I do.

So when the LP states its position on economic issues in the party platform, you take them to heart and know them for the villains that they are...but when they state their positions on issues such as these:

http://www.lp.org/platform

1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons,
homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held
by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights
of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without
victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,
immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or
restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices
and personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.
The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as
policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

We shouldn't believe a word of it! No Libertarian actually feels that way! It's just (insert ominous music) propaganda!

Gee...we're so lucky that you're here to tell what Libertarians really think, rather than relying on such dubious sources as Libertarians themselves!

Do you seriously think that Emma Goldman would vote Libertarian?

I never said or implied that she would. Given that she's to the left of Noam Chomsky on the economic "X" axis, why would you think that anyone would conclude such a thing? The word "Libertarian" at the bottom of the chart only refers to the "Y" axis on the social scale. Libertarians (and those that lean that way) are in the lower right-hand quadrant. That excludes Goldman, does it not?

[iverglas]

99. well, you tell me

Ron Paul was the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988 I believe it was.

Now, exactly how committed do I believe that party is to the interests of women?

The Libertarian Party very expressly omits any commitment to equality / non-discrimination rights in the private sector.

Now, exactly how committed do I believe that party is to the intrests of minorities?


So when the LP states its position on economic issues in the party platform, you take them to heart and know them for the villains that they are...but when they state their positions on issues such as these: ...

When it states that it opposes any form of public intervention in the private sector to provide services and redress historical inequalities that interfere in individuals' exercise of liberty, I know it is talking about what really matters to it: the self-interest of the people it represents, those being people who have what they need and want more.

When it talks about a few particular rights and interests of a few particular groups in society and says nothing about doing anything to advance their interests against the historical disadvantages they suffer, I know it's window-dressing to be served up in just such situations as this.

And when it talks about US foreign policy, I see unenlightened to the point of stupid self-interest.

The Political Compass has that question about "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's one of the questions measuring authoritarian attitudes. Strong agreement indicates such an attitude.

The Libertarian Party is not my friend, apart altogether from not actually being the enemy of my enemy.

Libertarians (and those that lean that way) are in the lower right-hand quadrant.

Duh.

The difference between that and the lower left-hand quadrant is actual commitment to individual liberty: "Libertarians" talk a fine game ... if you hold your head just the right way and the wind is blowing from the south. Believe what they're saying or not, it's still hot air.

And that whole states' rights thing ... beats me how it matters to a Libertarian who is banning same-sex marriage or outlawing abortion ...

Almost makes you think they just don't actually care, doesn't it? Kinda like how those states' rights types in an earlier era didn't actually care about that other group's rights ...

[Abin Sur]

106. Ok...I will!

Ron Paul was the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988 I believe it was.

Now, exactly how committed do I believe that party is to the interests of women?

I have a sneaking suspicion you're going to tell me in excruciating detail.

The Libertarian Party very expressly omits any commitment to equality / non-discrimination rights in the private sector.

Now, exactly how committed do I believe that party is to the intrests of minorities?

Er, women aren't a minority...they're a majority. In any case, it's not exactly a newsflash that Libertarians favor individual rights over group rights.

When it talks about a few particular rights and interests of a few particular groups in society and says nothing about doing anything to advance their interests against the historical disadvantages they suffer, I know it's window-dressing to be served up in just such situations as this.

And when it talks about US foreign policy, I see unenlightened to the point of stupid self-interest.

Yes, they're right-wing on a lot of issues...and not right-wing on others.

In any case, I have to take my leave for a while. As I said in the other post...vacation! I have a gun show to attend, and the Ruger I have my eye on isn't going to buy itself. After that? The islands, they call to me...



It's a tough job, but someone has to do it, right? :party:

[Upton]

62. Only some Libertarian philosophy is RW...

for they oppose the drug war and the interventionist imperialist foreign policy the two major parties continue to push and spend trillions on..

I don't see what's RW about that..In fact, I wish our Democratic leaders would take a cue from the Libertarians on some issues, such as the WoD, and do the right thing..

[iverglas]

65. that's not quite accurate, you see

they oppose the drug war and the interventionist imperialist foreign policy the two major parties continue to push and spend trillions on..

They oppose a lot more than that particular foreign policy.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should
emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding
foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,
including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and
defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of
terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by
political or revolutionary groups.

Genocide and famine? None of their business, these "Libertarians".


I don't see what's RW about that..

Well, I do.

[Upton]

66. Lets see..

if you count drones, Obama has mounted attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia...I may have left one or two countries out, but it becomes harder and harder to keep track what with all the pandering to the MIC. You see something LW about that?

Oh, I found it interesting your failure to address the WoD..is that another policy you approve of? After all, it's not Libertarian and Obama has a "D" after his name, so it must be all good..right?

[iverglas]

68. ah, it's one of those cute little "questions"

if you count drones, Obama has mounted attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia...I may have left one or two countries out, but it becomes harder and harder to keep track what with all the pandering to the MIC. You see something LW about that?

Did I say I did?

If not, what's with this purported statement of what I see? You're asserting (with the clever ass-covering punctuation) that something I said implied that?

Check out my political compass standings again. Check out Obama's. Take a guess.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=190&topic_id=30072&mesg_id=30089

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4924933&mesg_id=4951498

If I were in the US, which would mean my choices were very limited, I'd have voted for him (although likely not in the primaries). Doesn't say a whole lot.

So, you see, you can take your disingenuous "question" and any other you might have and try them out on someone else. They don't work on me.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[gejohnston]

49. well, there was

I always try to challenge my assumptions, might want to try it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Panther_Party

[iverglas]

56. like I said

... even though I spelled it wrong: there are fantasists.

In November 1968, Fifth Estate published the "White Panther State/meant". This manifesto, emulating the Black Panthers, ended with a ten-point program:

Full endorsement and support of the Black Panther Party's 10-point program and platform.
Total assault on the culture by any means necessary, including rock and roll, dope, and fucking in the streets.
Free exchange of energy and materials—we demand the end of money!
Free food, clothes, housing, dope, music, bodies, medical care—everything free for every body!
Free access to information media—free the technology from the greed creeps!
Free time & space for all humans—dissolve all unnatural boundaries!
Free all schools and all structures from corporate rule—turn the buildings over to the people at once!
Free all prisoners everywhere—they are our comrades!
Free all soldiers at once—no more conscripted armies!
Free the people from their phony "leaders"—everyone must be a leader—freedom means free every one! All Power to the People!

Of course they oppoesd a handgun ban.

They opposed EVERYTHING.

Free all prisoners. They are your comrades. Right?

You do need to learn the difference between individual and collective.

The White Panthers -- and of course the Black Panthers, and other groups of the era -- weren't interested in you constitution. They were believed they were engaged in a revolution.

Now, this may connect up with yr militia and yr tree of liberty, but it has bugger all to do with carrying concealed weapons to fend off bad guys.

Remember: all prisoners everywhere are your comrades.

[iverglas]

101. oh dear ...

Someone seems to have thought that some speech needed suppressing and so alerted on a post.

For some reason, I am not to respond to an allegation ABOUT ME: "sensitivity about violence". I find it just so odd that someone would think that ...

My reply went along these lines.

You would be hard pressed to find a woman alive who has not been the victim of physical or sexual abuse at the hands of a man.

Are women "sensitive about violence"? Am I a woman? Do we have a pointless personal remark, evidently made to dismiss a speaker as speaking from something other than the bias of personal experience while all others are cool, calm and objective? Questions, just questions.

guns ownership= misogyny is still crack pot

YEAH, IT IS. That would be one reason I have never said such a thing.

Why would you insinuate that I have? Most especially, why would you insinuate that I have said that when I have said something completely different over and over, and expressly have said over and over that I do not say that?

Please, just state your reason. That is all I require.


As far as the misogynist piece of shit "cartoon" in the opening post, no, it does not "make a valid point" (and no one's "sensitivity about violence" has the first thing to do with that statement, you see).

You can say it "makes a valid point" til you are blue in the face, and it will not make a valid point appear. Valid points cannot be conjured up where they don't exist.

The "points" this garbage makes is that firearms are an effective way to deal with the problem of violence against women and that people who advocate firearms control wish violence on women.

Only a piece of right-wing misogynist gun militant shit would say that.

I refer, of course, to the author of the piece of shit in question, because I know ever so well that no member of this website would ever make such "points".

I mean, no one here has ever said of me that I want women to be victims of violence ...

[Atypical Liberal]

41. As I said elsewhere...

I found it on reddit. I have no idea where it originated, nor do I care. The sentiment is accurate.

[Remmah2]

54. Face it.

You've been uber owned on this one.

[Upton]

23. That's great!

:rofl:

I wonder if DISARMAMENT MAN is Canadian?

[SteveM]

29. Best post of the day! Thanks. nt

[Abin Sur]

30. A relevant quote from the greatest science fiction writer of all time:

'"Sir, it is not the natural limitations of this globe that I object to; it is the pantywaist nincompoops who rule it - these ridiculous regulations offend me. That a free citizen should have to go before a committee, hat in hand, and pray for permission to bear arms – fantastic! Arm your daughter, sir, and pay no attention to petty bureaucrats."

---Red Planet, by Robert A. Heinlein

Timeless advice.

[Blown330]

32. Some more..

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8yBmwXW4XEM/THvHQD6v5mI/AAAAAAAAKUk/RhwCOENNJJM/s1600/GUN+FREE+ZONE.jpg

[SteveM]

76. Thanks. You've got quite a catalog! nt

[Hoopla Phil]

35. Great thread. K and R

[RSillsbee]

38. Screw talking

she should have shot.

Whoops , did I say that out loud?

[-..__...]

39. Cartoons aside...

the message and lesson to be learned is very reminiscent of Oleg Volks work (although 1 out of 10 shriekers would disagree)....

[Abin Sur]

40. Excellent images! (I especially like the last one)

And they send messages that truly empower women, as opposed to the disarmament crowd's "Be a helpless victim and hope a man saves you" mentality.

[iverglas]

71. okay, maybe you can tell me

I have long wondered where the voices of all the women who spout your line are to be found in this forum ... or anywhere at DU ... or anywhere in the liberal / progressive / d/Democratic world ...

Are they just too busy cleaning their guns to join us here?

There have been hundreds of men of your kind here over the years. I recall one woman who had been the victim of an armed robbery in a parking lot when someone came up behind her and put a gun to her head. For some reason, she thought that toting a gun was going to keep her safe from such things. What I saw from her writing was someone with fairly severe post-traumatic stress whom I would not want within 50 feet of a gun ...

No recollection of any women posting Oleg's crap here ever.

Whazzup?

[Abin Sur]

93. Why would you think I would know such a thing?

There have been hundreds of men of your kind here over the years.

Men who don't want to disarm women? I would certainly hope so.

I recall one woman who had been the victim of an armed robbery in a parking lot when someone came up behind her and put a gun to her head. For some reason, she thought that toting a gun was going to keep her safe from such things. What I saw from her writing was someone with fairly severe post-traumatic stress whom I would not want within 50 feet of a gun ...

How lucky for her that you don't have the ability to prevent her from defending herself!

No recollection of any women posting Oleg's crap here ever.

Whazzup?

Given that this is an anonymous message board, it's pretty much impossible to know whether or not any women have indeed posted such things here. Let's look at some of the screen names just on this thread alone:

Atypical liberal
iverglas
Abin Sur
starboard tack
ge johnston
X_Digger
frebrd
DWC
Slackmaster
Common Sense Party
spin
ileus
Remmah2
Blown330
RSillsbee
onehandle
Euromutt
jpack

Given handles like this, how exactly does one determine gender? Email everyone?

If you'd like to research this, please feel free to contact everyone who has ever posted Oleg's "crap" on the board. Do let us know the results!

(I'm certainly not going to do it for you, after all).

[iverglas]

100. "how exactly does one determine gender"

Well, one way is to click on profiles ... at least for those who don't hide theirs.

If it says "male", I tend to take it at face value. Then, of course, there is all the talk about being The Dad of the family, blah blah. Women in tuxedos?

If you'd like to research this, please feel free to contact everyone who has ever posted Oleg's "crap" on the board. Do let us know the results!

I don't need to do that. I've been at this place for a decade, and I've seen this filthy right-wing misogynist racist bigoted shit posted in this forum over and over and over. (Do you actually think anyone would DARE post the wit and wisdom of Oleg Volk elsewhere on this site?) And I tell you that if one woman ever posted it, I somehow managed to miss that. But I'll allow you one woman, or heck, two women, for the sake of argument. I've never said there are NO women in the gun militant crew. There are African-Americans like Roy Innis, and there are women like Wendy McElroy (you know she's Canadian, eh? ... two reasons to be ashamed of her ...). Oh, and Connie ("Mrs.") du Toit, let's not forget her. I know from experience that most hereabouts don't even know who Kim du Toit is ... a sad reflection on the education of a gun militant when he doesn't know that famous racist (oops, and misogynist) "libertarian".

What fun ... for the "libertarians" among us ... just to illustrate the difference between Libertarians and libertarians (I'm omitting the link as I'm wary of it; easily found):

People like McVeigh, Breivik and <insert Islamist terrorist of choice here> are just the spiritual descendants of the Anarchists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The only difference is that instead of killing just a single person (an Austrian Duchess, a U.S. President or a French Socialist), this modern breed kills dozens of victims at a time.

But they're the same people, regardless of their moronic philosophy.

Posted by Kim du Toit at July 27, 2011 05:40 PM

Bedmates ...


Now, how about you find me a woman currently posting who is a fan of Oleg Volk or who spews any of the gun militant line at this site?

[Abin Sur]

105. I'm not going to do your homework for you...

Well, one way is to click on profiles ... at least for those who don't hide theirs.

As you point out, many profiles have undeclared genders.

If it says "male", I tend to take it at face value. Then, of course, there is all the talk about being The Dad of the family, blah blah. Women in tuxedos?

I'm certainly not going to go through the profiles and posting histories of all those people! As fun as this is, I've got a life.

I don't need to do that. I've been at this place for a decade, and I've seen this filthy right-wing misogynist racist bigoted shit

Yeesh...crank it down a notch, why don'tchya.

Now, how about you find me a woman currently posting who is a fan of Oleg Volk or who spews any of the gun militant line at this site?

Since you made the initial assertion, that's your job...not mine. In any case, I will stipulate that the majority of gun rights supporters are male. This may be in large part simply because of a difference between men and women. Lots of guys (most?) think guns are cool. Lots of women (most?) don't.

It wouldn't surprise me if there weren't any women currently "spewing" (as you so amusingly put it) the gun "militant" line...but I'm not about to spend the time necessary to investigate the posters in question. If you'd like to, go for it.

And on that note I'm going to have to bow out of this thread. I have a gun show to attend, and then I have to pack for my trip to the Cayman Islands. Some of the best beaches and snorkeling in the world, 5 star restaurants, playing with dolphins...sometimes life is good!

[GreenStormCloud]

107. She wan't using situational awareness. Having a gun is not a magic talisman.

You have to get training and learn to be aware for it to do any good.

[iverglas]

60. it's that belovèd piece of shit OLEG VOLK!!!

And yes, I can say what I like about him here, because at Democratic Underground ... he is one of these:



So my goodness gracious, I wonder why anyone would be touting his artistic endeavours hereabouts?

You can't get into his porn collection without an invite, these days. That would be because back in 2006 I posted some reviews of it here at DU ...

[-..__...]

63. Guess he really got under your dust ruffle, huh?

And yes, I can say what I like about him here,

And who here even suggested that you couldn't. Certainly not moi.

Likewise... anyone of us (including myself), can voice our opinions on Mr. Volks work... be it praise or scorn.

because at Democratic Underground ... he is one of these:

<insert pic of "Tombstone" here>

And... without knowing the reason for the headstone, the significance and importance of that is what?

You can't get into his porn collection without an invite, these days.

O'rly?

Here's your invite...

(note: remove extra "h" to view site. I'm uncertain if hotlinking to a website hosting photos of an erotic and sensual nature is allowable here).

hhttp://olegvolk.net/gallery/various/nudes/

That would be because back in 2006 I posted some reviews of it here at DU ...

]

Interesting... you would have us believe that it was by your almighty hand and misguided sense of outrage that prompted Mr. Volk to make his nude collection, "invite only"?

I submit that your off the wall melt downs gave him a piercing headache and he simply said "fuck it".

Then again... that's assuming he even bothered with giving your posts any mind to begin with.

[iverglas]

67. you and Volk

A couple of cards.

Interesting... you would have us believe that it was by your almighty hand and misguided sense of outrage that prompted Mr. Volk to make his nude collection, "invite only"?

Nope. I tell you that it was my discussion of his vulgar, misogynistic "art", by which I was not actually referring to his "nude collection", although it does fall pretty much entirely under that rubric, that prompted him to make it inaccessible to the prying eyes of the general public. Or maybe the fact that it happened all in a week was just coincidence.

I guess his profound narcissism has since overcome whatever his problem at the time was.


Then again... that's assuming he even bothered with giving your posts any mind to begin with.

Ha. You seem not to have google. Is he still the admin at (if I may cop a phrase) high road rage?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=58295&mesg_id=58295

just for starters.

From a former moderator:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x165622#165676

Now, why anybody wants to promote at DU the ideas of an individual who was tombstoned virtually immediately after "joining" DU ... yup, grand total of 11 posts showing on the one I find (although that wouldn't count deleted posts, so don't know why I can't find others) ... up to them, I guess. Unfortunately I can't find any posts of his in this forum, only one from July 2006 that survives in Drug Policy.

But for such posters' info, another Volk-fest attempted here back in 2006:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=126325&mesg_id=126325

with that moderator's comments:

Fear, Terror and Bill Clinton bashing
crap, I logged on this evening and thought I got my URL's mixed up. Nope. This on is a real head scratcher.

Locking
flamebait and a waste of bandwidth on a progressive board.

He got under my dust ruffle? What a charmingly Laura Ashley turn of phrase. Actually, he makes me puke.

[rl6214]

96. "back in 2006 I posted some reviews of it here at DU"

Well aren't you special. Tooting your own horn again.

[iverglas]

97. "special"?

Well, if "didn't just fall off the turnip truck" is "special", sure enough.

Why is the oeuvre of the piece of right-wing shit Oleg Volk posted over and over and over here at DEMOCRATIC Underground?

Why is the lying ugly demagoguery produced by lying ugly right-wing demagogue Oleg Volk posted over and over and over here at DEMOCRATIC Underground?

Enquiring minds want to know.






http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x126325

The fact that people post this piece of shit's shit at this website should make every decent, normal member of the site hang their head in shame; the people who post it obviously have none.

[PavePusher]

102. Puritanism seems to raise it's ugly, festering head in some odd places.

It's a good thing this site is exceedingly tolerant, eh?

[iverglas]

103. "tolerant"

Puritanism seems to raise it's ugly, festering head in some odd places.

There certainly are some ugly, festering heads in some places. Maybe it's a result of where they're kept most of the time.

You do need to learn your own history, and what "Puritanism" is really all about.

It's on display here every minute of the day, in all the posts about bad guys having no rights.

Who was it who burned those witches?

Oh yeah. Those witches ... they were women.

Quelle coincidence.

[PavePusher]

104. Jello. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. "You do need to learn your own history..." I did- *You* got it wrong

May we assume your other posts are of similar accuracy?

Who was it who burned those witches?

Not the Puritans- they hanged them. Burning "witches" was a Catholic thing.

Oh yeah. Those witches ... they were women.

Quelle coincidence.

Unfortunately for your need to see misogyny everywhere, the Puritans executed several men right alongside the women- save for
poor Giles Corey, who was pressed to death:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giles_Corey

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

On August 19, 1692, Martha Carrier, George Jacobs Sr., George Burroughs, John Willard and John Proctor were hanged.
...on September 22, 1692 (Mary Eastey, Martha Corey, Ann Pudeator, Samuel Wardwell, Mary Parker, Alice Parker, Wilmot Redd)

[onehandle]

42. Yeah, that Freeper loved cartoon is famous over there.

Only in the gungeon...

[gejohnston]

43. famous in the UK?

Things like UK police uniform, 999 instead of 911 that sort of thing. Is he a Freeper or just that guilt by association thing going? Or is he just a consistent liberal like me?

[iverglas]

48. aren't words grand?

a consistent liberal like me

You can make them mean just anything you want. Especially that "liberal" one.

I know what it really means, and I didn't apply it to myself 40 years ago, and I certainly don't know.

Google Phil Ochs.

[iverglas]

47. ah

I didn't google hard enough.

Ta.

[Euromutt]

50. And Hitler believed smoking was harmful to your health

Got anything other than a genetic fallacy? Or is an act of purest optimism to even pose that question?

[iverglas]

69. sure

How about that fine and time-honoured figure of speech:

If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.

[SteveM]

77. It's always guilt-by-association, ain't it 'handle? Amateurish. nt

[jpak]

52. A "just so" story - for morans

yup

[spin]

61. Thanks for another extremely fascinating bit of wisdom. (n/t)

[SteveM]

78. Just so you know.

;-)

[iverglas]

81. just so they do know ...

... because I doubt that any of them has a clue:

http://boop.org/jan/justso/

My favourite complicated imperialist champion of the downtrodden. ;)



Just because I like it ...

TOMMY

by Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

[holdencaufield]

53. Family Resemblance?

Is it just me or is there a distinct similarity between Foreskin Man and Disarmament Man? Physically and ideologically

[iverglas]

70. oh, it isn't just you

Is it just me or is there a distinct similarity between Foreskin Man and Disarmament Man? Physically and ideologically

You're not the only one in this place who would make the claim to see such a thing.

I get that you're claiming a similarity between firearms control advocates and anti-Semites.

But I have to admit to not getting what's going on in that wee pic, though.

What function is the half-clothed bimbo performing?

[holdencaufield]

88. Foreskin Man...

...was a comic created by group who sought to introduce a ban on ritual circumcision via ballot issues in two California cities this year (both ballot issues have been removed), in violation of the 1st Amendment protection of religious freedom.

The gist of that particular comic -- published by the group -- was Foreskin Man saving the Jewish child from the "Monster Mohel" (the rabbi who performs the ritual circumcision.

The connection I was pointing to wasn't a connection between Antisemitism and gun control, but the idea that those people who seek to remove Constitutional rights from other people see themselves as heroes (in this case super-heroes). The cartoon I submitted (the front cover of a pretty vile piece of propaganda) illustrates how they see themselves, the comic at the subject of the thread satirizes it.

[iverglas]

89. huh

Assaults on children are "constitutional rights" now. Maybe female genital mutilation and human sacrifice are too ...

You may have picked yourself a bad apple from the analogy barrel here.

But that's okay, since the idea of advocating gun control = anti-Semitism came through loud and clear.

Still don't know what the half-clothed bimbo was doing there.

[gejohnston]

92. since she has her hands behind her back

I'm going to guess that she is FM's sidekick that was captured? Or it is the mother, reformed or secular, wearing summer Florida attire? The latter would explain the pool table. I guess have to find the comic to find out.

[petronius]

108. That's the baby's mother - she didn't want the child circumsized, but her scheming

husband betrayed her. All three thrilling issues here... :)

[SteveM]

79. There does seem to be a generic, not-ready-for-prime time quality. nt