Link for "Blue Steel Democrats" blog, with many good links there:

[old mark]

Here is a link to the Blue Steel Democrats blog, which is a pro-gun Democratic site out of Oregon, but has some good articles of general interest.

Their home page also features links to some great Democratic gun ownership sites, such as Pro-Gun Progressive, Black Man With A Gun, Pink Pistols, and a few more very interesting sites.(Also links to Second Ammendment Sisters, and Gun Toting Liberal, among others.)

http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/

I believe this may be an interesting site for many here, and I hope you enjoy it.

Thanks..

mark

[iverglas]

1. excuse me but

some great Democratic gun ownership sites, such as Pro-Gun Progressive, Black Man With A Gun, Pink Pistols

Pro-Gun Progressive: we must rely on its own publicity, having little in the way of experience to go by.

Pink Pistols: this outfit is the brainchild and a wing of the Libertarian Party; check out all of its past electoral endorsements.

Black Man with a Gun: the black man in question is a Republican, and there is nothing remotely Democratic or progressive about him or his campaign.

http://gunrightsradio.com/forums2/index.php?topic=36.0
(emphases in original)

Host of The Urban Shooter Podcast
Fun and gun, how-to’s, news and views, for law-abiding, fun-loving gun-owners of the city.
Kenn Blanchard {contact details omitted}

Re: Senator Barack Obama
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2008, 04:55:16 PM »

Well I don't understand why we are walking a fine line (of being called racist) if we disagree with this anti-gun position.

Maybe I am naive, but there seems to be a lot of positions that we can use to attack this guy on and everyone of them, at least with regards to guns, shows he is a liar. He says he believes that gun rights are an individual right, but he supports the right of a state/city to ban them. He said he supports 'reasonable' gun restrictions and said he favors Chicago's absolute handgun ban as a 'reasonable' restriction. He says he believes we can defend ourselves but as an Illinois state senator he voted against the rights of people to use deadly force (and he voted that way TWICE) when a man used a legally purchased gun to defend his children. This man was on the board of the Joyce Foundation and dispensed money to anti-gun causes and crusades during his tenure. This man is a liar. That is not a racist statement. It is a true statement.

Exactly why would Democrats link to this man's website?

Other featured links at the site are

- the piece of shit Second Amendment Sisters, whose front page says things like "Pelosi and her cronies in the House are after our guns again with a new Assault Weapons Ban ~ worse than the Clinton Bill" and links to the piece of crap "The Racist Roots of Gun Control". One of the founders (emphasis mine):

Marinelle W. Thompson, President
Mari is a 68-year-old mother of five, grandmother of 6, and is a 7th-generation, independent-minded Texan. She is active with the Heart of Texas Chapter of Free Republic and civic activism in general.

- J.P.F.O. - the piece of shit Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, about the farthest thing from Democratic / liberal / progressive you could hope to encounter.

Hey, one of the Blue Steel contributors appears to be an interesting guy, though:

http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/08apr/baractions.html

Note: More than 13,000 persons are eligible to practice law in Oregon. Some of them share the same name or similar names. All discipline reports should be read carefully for names, addresses and bar numbers.

C. MICHAEL ARNOLD
OSB #011873
Eugene
Reprimand

On Jan. 17, 2008, the disciplinary board approved a stipulation for discipline reprimanding Eugene lawyer C. Michael Arnold for violating RPC 8.4(a)(2) (commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects).

Arnold was the prosecutor for the City of Florence at a hearing in which a minor pled guilty to driving under the influence of intoxicants and entered into a diversion agreement. Arnold subsequently contacted the minor, ostensibly for the purpose of checking up on her, and suggested that they meet. Arnold drove the minor to a restaurant and purchased two glasses of wine for her in violation of ORS 471.410(2), which prohibits anyone, other than a parent or guardian, from selling, giving or otherwise making available any alcoholic liquor to a person under the age of 21.

Quelle surprise. One of the contributors was a Bill Richardson Democrat:

http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/dashboard/public/gG59v5


This "gun owners caucus" / "pro-gun Democrats" business really does seem to be quite the organized little effort, doesn't it?

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. They really really care about the Democratic Party, and they're really really worried that gun owners might not vote for it. That's why they're out in such force, making sure that the whole world knows how very very worried they are that gun owners might not vote for the Democratic Party, because Democratic Party policy is so terribly terribly bad for gun owners.


How much of this do we have to keep being subjected to here?

The Blue Steel Democrats may of course call themselves anything they like. I gather it's a biiiig tent. What they call themselves has nothing to do with what they are, and what they do. And what they and their ilk plainly do do is spend all their time yammering about how bad the Democratic Party platform is.

With friends like those ...

[Tejas]

2. for lack of an argument: kill the messenger

please, try to do better.

:rofl:

[apocalypsehow]

3. You get a lot of use out of that :rofl: smiley, don't yah?

Speaking of in lieu of an argument and trying to do better...

But in any event, just how conservative/reactionary/right-wing shit-filthy does a website have to be before you would frown on it being linked here? Is there any limit at all? How about Stormfront? Would it be "killing the messenger" to criticize a link to them?

I bet it'd depend on how "RKBA friendly" the article was, I reckon.

[SteveM]

9. What? Someone laughing more than you? The affrontery. (nt)

[apocalypsehow]

14. You're affronted, huh? That's cool. I thought there for a minute

that you were getting all riled up about some perceived effrontery.

Whew! Dodged a bullet on that one (no pun intended); glad to see I was wrong.

[iverglas]

5. the messenger is the message

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[SteveM]

8. Why so much text in your answer? (nt)

[jody]

4. Thanks, I've added it to my bookmarks. n/t

[old mark]

6. The key word in the title of the blog is

Democrats.
The title of this site is Democratic Undeground.

Democtar being the common thread.

If you don't like the content, dont click the link.

What are you guys, republicans banning books?

If the content doesn't meet your high ideals, don't read it.
Stay in canada.

mark

[jody]

7. ROFL, contents may not always agree with the label. Have a great day. n/t

[SteveM]

10. intellectual curiosity must be politically correct, DNC and Canadian-approved (nt)

[iverglas]

12. "intellectual curiosity"

intellectual curiosity must be politically correct, DNC and Canadian-approved

I'm sorry. That makes no sense.


Funny thing is, though, that the only one here who seems to have any intellectual curiosity is moi.

Other than that, I see "baaa, baaaa, adding that to my bookmarks".


And some messenger-shooting.

No comment at all about how the website in question links to

- a Republican who CALLS OBAMA A LIAR

- an organization whose president is a member of FREE REPUBLIC


Diversionary grooming time.

[SteveM]

13. Why do you go on and on about something that "makes no sense"? (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. Do you believe it possible that 25% of the Democratic party wants the party to drop gun control?

[old mark]

16. I believe it's closer to 40%.

FWIW, I found out about DU when I Googled "Democratic Gun Owners", and DU came up as one of the hits. I just did it again before posting this, so it still is in that category.

Does this make DU a right wing site?

mark

[iverglas]

17. good bleeding dog

I found out about DU when I Googled "Democratic Gun Owners", and DU came up as one of the hits. I just did it again before posting this, so it still is in that category.
Does this make DU a right wing site?


"Category"? You mean, "search criteria"? You mean you found things like this? --

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+site:www.democraticunderground.com+%22Democratic+Gun+Owners%22

Where ARE the non-racist gun owners? - Democratic Underground
Funny these Democratic gun owners don't speak out, isn't it? Or are you trying to pretend that no Democratic gun owners ever go near these gun owners sites?

Kinda like how if I google "ndp pro-life" (the NDP being my pro-choice party, and using the anti-choice language intentionally), I get:

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22ndp+pro-life%22&btnG=Search&meta=

Lifesite : NS Election 1999
NDP pro-life candidates do exist but would have minimal impact if elected.

?

Does that make my party an anti-choice party?

Yeesh.


typo fixed

[iverglas]

18. and if that were the case ...?

Do you believe it possible that 25% of the Democratic party wants the party to drop gun control?

Would there be some reason for the party to do it?

[iverglas]

11. "What are you guys, republicans banning books?"

You seem to be speaking to yourself.

Odd that you say "Stay in canada".

(Damn. Can you imagine what would happen if I failed to capitalize "United States of America"?)

The key word in this discussion is:



Speaking, of course, of Blue Steel "Democrats" and their ilk.

[Athelwulf]

19. Please avoid blanket accusations.

"Speaking, of course, of Blue Steel 'Democrats' and their ilk."

I won't argue with you that some people who identify with this group have questionable motives. They link to some odd stuff, and now that I'm aware of it, I'm pretty suspicious of the group myself. But there's one link of theirs I'd like to call your attention to, a link to the blog of one of the contributors, Chuck Butcher. He ran in the Democratic primary in 2006 for the seat of my representative, the only Republican one from Oregon, Greg Walden. He lost in the primary to Carol Voisin, but his blog lives on. You may be right about some Blue Steel Democrats not being real Democrats, but I've looked into him, and Chuck Butcher is a real Democrat.

To back up my assertion, I'll present the several pieces of evidence. This post contains this notable quote:

How is it exactly that your health became a product? I scoff at (Clinton's and Obama's) so-called (health care) plans. There is exactly one thing that makes any sense at all and that is single payer not for profit health care - yes socialized medicine done openly and straight forwardly as socialized medicine instead of as a shell game.

As for his thoughts here on Bush's treatment of our civil liberties:

I am an ardent opponent of capital punishment but the actions of BushCo lead me to question that stance. The behavior of an individual acting in defiance of our laws to perpetrate horrid crimes arouses many to to blood lust, but I cannot see how that is more despicable than the behavior of these people acting under cover of governmental force to deny basic human rights to people taken at gun point in a foreign land. . . . I spit on them and George II better never get within that range of me or he'll get wet.

He has this to say about Oregon's Republican senator, who is up for re-election this November:

Gordon Smith, collector of million dollar golf clubs and quick to make international Senatorial jaunts that involve that sport, can't seem to make up his mind how he wants Oregonians to view him. His votes say he's a Right Republican Bush Diehard and Big Money shill. His ads say he's an independent thinker who likes to hook up with Democrats...Democrats like John Kerry. That would be the 2004 Presidential candidate Kerry whom Gordon characterized as "French" as an insult and as a socialist. Oregonians might want to think about that as Gordon touts his "bipartisan" approach to politics. In view of the condition of the nation's economy and Smith's view of Kerry and Bush one has to wonder if that is the course we'd really want to follow.

On Sally Kern's homophobic comments earlier this year, he says:

I don't get it, the meanness of Sally Kern. It is as though someone was trying to do something to her. The reaction is more in line with a physical or verbal assault being committed on her. I can understand a level of discomfort in regard to homosexuality, hell I don't 'get' the attraction between same sexes. I'm wired wrong to understand at more than a rational level, but I do not understand what is upsetting about it. . . . What is it about the existence of homosexuality that sets these people off?

And he says this about government-sponsored lies about abortion from pregnancy centers controlled by religious organizations:

Abortion is not a desirable thing, everybody's lives would be much better if there were none needed. The problem is that circumstances keep creating the necessity. Lying about health matters, whatever your religious orientation, is a serious matter, and considerably more serious if you represent yourself as a medical resource. Isn't it odd how lies and lying seem to surround George II and serious matters? Does it make you miss the days of an Oval Office blow-job as corruption?

Perhaps some of these Blue Steel Democrats deserve criticism, but clearly not all of them do. Please don't use such a big paintbrush.

[iverglas]

20. please excuse my bad grammar

Speaking, of course, of Blue Steel "Democrats" and their ilk.

should have read

Speaking, of course, of Blue Steel "Democrats" and its ilk.

I referred, of course, to the organization, a collective entity.

You may find these earlier discussions on the subject of collective nouns amusing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=91866&mesg_id=93771

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=43605&mesg_id=43747

Dang, I can't find my favourite, but I'll take another look later.


html fixed

[old mark]

21. Sarah Palin wants to ban books, some Dems want to ban

links.

I posted this link with the assumption that anyone reading this was able to think for themselves and, that any "right wing" information on that site would be read and undrstood as such, and taken with a grain (or a pound) of salt. I hope all readers interested in guns are mature enough not to be instantly converted to rabid Republicanism by reading any of that post.
My intent is to give Democrats with an interest in possibly owning firearms some support and information that may help them making the personal decision whether or not to own a gun.

If you do not like or want a gun, that is fine with me - If you think you might be interested, there are several posts on this forum that may be interesting and helpful to you.

FWIW, I am a lifelong Democrat, and a former Union Steward.I learned to shoot in tht Cub Scouts when I was 10 and I am now 61. I served in the 82nd Airborne Division during the Vietnam war, and I was also a professional musician, a draftsman, artist and published poet. I attended college in Pennsylvania and California.
I am US citizen and I have voted Democratic in every election in which I have been able to vote. I advocate freedom of choice on the gun issue, without namecalling and hateful conduct from one side to the other.

Thanks for reading this and for your patience.

mark

[tburnsten]

22. Thanks for the post

I think most DUers who read it will probably be safe from the right wing brainwashing rays it gives off. Some of us though, have an extreme adverse reaction to anything that can be connected to anything remotely right wing, even if it is just a connection to a connection a connection to a connectiona connection to a connectiona connection to a connectiona connection to a connectiona connection to a connectiona connection to a connection to something right wing.

[old mark]

23. For those people, I suggest aluminum foil hats....

shiny side out to reflect the rays.


mark

[tburnsten]

24. Or they could always focus

on their own political process instead of ours...

[iverglas]

26. I give up

How, exactly, does exposing the untruth in material posted in this forum constitute focusing on any political process at all?

Is there a head-scratchy idiotfacethingy for this?

Untruth is untruth. Nothing to do with anybody's political processes.

"Black Man With A Gun" is a website owned by a right-wing Republican.
"Pink Pistols" is a branch of the Libertarian Party.
"Second Amendment Sisters" is tight with Free Republic.

What does exposing these FACTS have to do with focusing on anybody's political processes?

[iverglas]

25. well phew

Sarah Palin wants to ban books, some Dems want to ban links

At least you weren't talking about me this time! Me not being a "Dem", and not having evinced any desire to "ban" anything.

Gosh. I wonder whom you WERE talking about?? What "Dem" wants to "ban" links??


I posted this link with the assumption that anyone reading this was able to think for themselves and, that any "right wing" information on that site would be read and undrstood as such, and taken with a grain (or a pound) of salt.

Actually, no, you didn't.

You posted this link and SPECIFICALLY CITED:

links to some great Democratic gun ownership sites, such as Pro-Gun Progressive, Black Man With A Gun, Pink Pistols, and a few more very interesting sites.(Also links to Second Ammendment Sisters, and Gun Toting Liberal, among others.)

NONE of them is a "Democratic gun ownership site" (with the possible exception of the first, whose owner professes to be a Democrat).

"Black Man With a Gun" is owned by a RIGHT-WING REPUBLICAN.
"Pink Pistols" is a wholly owned subsidiary of the LIBERTARIAN PARTY.
"Second Amendment Sisters" has a co-founder and president who is an official of FREE REPUBLIC.
("Gun Toting Liberal" I won't waste my time on.)

Can you not READ?


I hope all readers interested in guns are mature enough not to be instantly converted to rabid Republicanism by reading any of that post.

I don't give a crap. What I want to know is why a group of DEMOCRATS is linking to these ANTI-DEMOCRAT sites. And why YOU are promoting a site that does that, and the ANTI-DEMOCRAT sites it links to. ???


My intent is to give Democrats with an interest in possibly owning firearms some support and information that may help them making the personal decision whether or not to own a gun.

What the fuck do the overtly ANTI-DEMOCRAT, POLITICAL websites you linked to have to do with this?


FWIW, I am a lifelong Democrat, and a former Union Steward.I learned to shoot in tht Cub Scouts when I was 10 and I am now 61. I served in the 82nd Airborne Division during the Vietnam war, and I was also a professional musician, a draftsman, artist and published poet. I attended college in Pennsylvania and California.
I am US citizen and I have voted Democratic in every election in which I have been able to vote. I advocate freedom of choice on the gun issue, without namecalling and hateful conduct from one side to the other.

Bully for you.

Now. Why do you wander around this forum REPEATEDLY starting threads with links to RIGHT-WING, ANTI-DEMOCRAT websites?