The Internet and Gun Rights Victories.

[GreenStormCloud]

I do not think it is an accident that gun-rights victories began to steamroll the opposition, beginning in the late 1990s and have picked up so much steam today. That was the same time that the internet changed from the province of geeks to an everyday item.

Prior to the internet, the mainstream media controlled what views Americans were exposed to. One had to search to find alternate views, and usually there was a subscription fee for the magazine. There were no pro-gun commentators on the TV news. The Bradys and those like them had the stage almost to themselves. They could lie and distort and there was only a faint voice against them.

Then the internet broke their stranglehold on information. People could do their own research. Databases of government statistics became available to anybody with a connection. Suppressed voices began to be heard, and then were heard louder. And the gun-controllers had no answers. Their predictions of doom became laughable. They were ridiculed. The light of truth exposed their lies. When the MSM publishes an anti-gun story or anti-gun editorial the comments section is immediately deluged with comments, many of the comments providing rational counter-arguments to the article. They can't speak in any hardly any forum without being countered, unless it is a forum that exercise complete control over.

Now they fight desperate rear-guard actions, trying to hold onto the few power bases that they do have. I believe that is because the internet has enabled people to see for themselves.

[onehandle]

1. The Internet and Conservative Victories.

I do not think it is an accident that conservative victories began to steamroll the opposition, beginning in the late 1990s and have picked up so much steam today. That was the same time that the internet changed from the province of geeks to an everyday item.

Prior to the internet, the mainstream media controlled what views Americans were exposed to. One had to search to find alternate views, and usually there was a subscription fee for the magazine. There were no pro-conservative commentators on the TV news. The Democrats and those like them had the stage almost to themselves. They could lie and distort and there was only a faint voice against them.

Then the internet broke their stranglehold on information. People could do their own research. Databases of government statistics became available to anybody with a connection. Suppressed voices began to be heard, and then were heard louder. And the anti-conservatives had no answers. Their predictions of doom became laughable. They were ridiculed. The light of truth exposed their lies. When the MSM publishes an anti-conservative story or anti-conservative editorial the comments section is immediately deluged with comments, many of the comments providing rational counter-arguments to the article. They can't speak in any hardly any forum without being countered, unless it is a forum that exercise complete control over.

Now they fight desperate rear-guard actions, trying to hold onto the few power bases that they do have. I believe that is because the internet has enabled people to see for themselves.
______

Wait... Where have I heard this before?

[benEzra]

2. The chief proponents of new gun bans were corporatist authoritarians, not liberals...

and to this day, it is corporatist authoritarians (Helmke, Feinstein, Bloomberg, the MSM) that constitute what little power the gun-control lobby still has.

The OP is right, though; back when the MSM had a monopoly on gun information, it was a lot easier to sell the public on demonstrably false claims regarding guns, e.g. that modern-looking rifles constitute a large percentage of gun homicides or are "the weapons of choice of criminals," or that the "assault weapon" issue is about automatic weapons. That is no longer the case.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Where does Daley fit in?

[GreenStormCloud]

14. He is like the "Old Guard" at Waterloo.

For those not familiar with the reference, at the battle of Waterloo, the battle was basically over with most French formations having been destroyed or routed. Three battalions of Napoleons Old Guard remained. Further fighting by the French was completely futile. The Old Guard had fought stubbornly. Wellington had brought his cannon up to bear on the Old Guard. He offered them honorable surrender. THe OG were Napoleon's best and most loyal troops. General Cambronne is reputed to have answered a call to surrender with the words “The Guard dies but does not surrender”. Other versions say that he yelled, "Shit". Wellington'c cannons roared and the Old Guard died.

Daley is spending millions on a very high profile case that he is almost certain to lose.

[benEzra]

17. Elitist, I'd say.

Chicago seems to have a tradition of laws for "the little people" and separate rules for "the important people." Daley doesn't have a problem with guns, he just doesn't like the little people having guns.

[DonP]

18. Accurate description

Daley of course has a 24/7 armed Chicago Police detail for himself and his family.

Aldermen are considered "law enforcement" by Daley and allowed to carry concealed. Of course we've also had 29 aldercritters convicted of felonies since 1975 and sent up the river, so their law enforcement credentials shouldn't be examined too closely.

Other officials, that don't need to bother with the gun law, include a senior official in Streets & Sanitation with the nickname "Little Gun", because he carried a small semi auto in his coat pocket everywhere he went. Last month the head of the Chicago School Board committed suicide with a gun he owned and carried illegally. But I'm sure he never carried it near or in a school, that would be breaking another law.

Two sets of rules, one for the elite elected officials and another for the folks on the street.

It's particularly heinous since we are down 1,000 cops now from the number the union contract calls for. But Daley won't sign a union contract with the cops either.

[TPaine7]

3. Was that when Reagan won his first election?

I do not think it is an accident that conservative victories began to steamroll the opposition, beginning in the late 1990s...

[TPaine7]

4. Dupe

[GreenStormCloud]

8. Your effort is a failure because Democrats have won

both houses of congress and the presidency. Now please show me any major gun control victories to support your analogy.

[SteveM]

12. Hmm, Reagan and GHWBush (1980-92), the "Ginrich" revolution in '94...

I think the right wing had quite a running start WELL before the Internet became moved beyond bird-watching and best fishing holes in South Carolina.

I don't know what your idea of professional and ethical journalism is, but you might be interested in what Time magazine had to say about the gun-control issue in a form letter, sent to a reader who objected to the magazine's coverage:

"The July 17 (1989) cover story is the most recent in a growing number of attempts on the part of Time editors to keep the gun-availability issue resolutely in view. Such an editorial closing of ranks represents the exception rather than the rule in the history of the magazine, which has always endeavored to provide a variety of opinions and comment, in addition to straightforward news reporting, as a way of engaging readers in interpreting the significance of issues and events as they arise. BUT THE TIME FOR OPINIONS ON THE DANGERS OF GUN AVAILABILITY IS LONG SINCE GONE, REPLACED BY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT IT REPRESENTS A GROWING THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY." (emphasis added) SEE: The Great American Gun Debate, Kates & Kleck, 1997, p. 86

I wonder what other issues Time believes have moved beyond "opinion" in favor of "resoluteness." BTW, Time is considered to be a "pro-Republican" publication.

[rd_kent]

13. What you have posted was, for the most part, quite true.

But not any longer. It would seem that prior to the internet, conservatives DID have it right on this issue. Not sure what your point is, since it is true that people no longer need to rely on what they being told, but can actually find out the truth for themselves. This is very true regarding the lie that is the gun control argument: that removing guns from the hands of citizens will somehow reduce the amount of crime and in particular, gun crime. That lie can no longer hide in the empty arguments of its proponents because the FACTS do no bear it out. The FACTS prove something quite the contrary, hence the "steamroll" of pro-gun, or pro-conservative as you want to call them, victories.

The smart liberal and democrat Will be quick to learn this lesson, since the true values we all hold dear are the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and any politician that would try and impose a restriction on those rights, especially in the face of FACTS and EVIDENCE that do not support those restrictions, will be left behind at the voting booth.

You should re read the OP, for there is a valuable lesson to be learned there: you can no longer get away with repeating the same old arguments, as the FACTS are there for all to see. This is no longer a "conservative" issue, onehandle, its a civil rights issue.

[krispos42]

15. Except the "anti-conservatives" have the presidency and both houses of Congress

And the internet broke the power of the RW radio monopoly and defanged the corporate media.

So... time for another re-write?

[onehandle]

20. No one in this forum got my point.

Which is no surprise whatsoever.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. Then your point was poorly made.

Or perhaps we did get your point, soundly rebutted it, and you are trying to deflect.

If you really believe that we all missed your point, there is nothing stopping you from explaining your point.

[rd_kent]

22. What point? Perhaps you should read and respond to my post to you.

there is a point there.

Here ya go, have a look...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=288116&mesg_id=288188

[X_Digger]

6. I remember hitting the local library and having to ask..

.. for published studies via inter-library loan (it was a small town library with limited resources.)

I paid my $0.01 per page to have them copied, and then had to almost get out a magnifying glass when the pages were so blurry, then lather, rinse, repeat for journal articles listed in the footnotes of those. (Though we did have the 'index of indices' or whatever it's called, that lists all the published scholarly articles sorted by topic and/or date.

Sometimes it'd take two weeks to get a good picture of a particular topic. And for some of the more esoteric (for that area) subjects, I was completely out of luck- I didn't even know the right questions to ask, so I had to stumble around and hope to find the relevant journals.

The first step out of that quagmire was bulletin board systems (BBSs). Many of them were linked together via FidoNet, and you had people from around the globe gathered into topic forums. There were text files associated with many groups that listed the journals, references, and even article titles relevant to the subject- of course I still had to visit the local library, but hey, I didn't have to pester the librarian with multiple requests for material.

The only thing I wish were more accessible on the internet are scholarly papers, articles, studies, and journals. I think there's a serious perversion of publicly funded research and studies being made available only via paid, for-profit journals.

[eqfan592]

7. I couldn't agree with you more!!

I'd love to see more of these works made open to the general, non-paying public.

[burrfoot]

9. FWIW,

I think that Google is making inroads with this. GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks are two resources I didn't really know about until I just took Eng 1101 (I'm doing undergrad 2.0 for a career change, and a SNAFU with UW-Madison testing meant I had to take the class in Florida even though I tested out of it twelve years ago). I was able to write a college level paper, complete with references, without stepping foot inside a library or- more amazingly to me- actually touching a physical book.

I'm not saying I necessarily like this, nor am I trying to be a Google fanboy; but I do find it interesting and, if nothing else, convenient for those master-procrastinators who suffer as I do. :evilgrin:

[Glassunion]

10. Your doing what?!

"master-procrastinators"...?

Dude, what you do with your time on the internet is your own business. I just don't what to know about it...

:sarcasm:

[X_Digger]

19. Thanks for the heads' up.

It's been a while since I checked out google scholar.

[MisterBill45]

25. YES!

"The only thing I wish were more accessible on the internet are scholarly papers, articles, studies, and journals. I think there's a serious perversion of publicly funded research and studies being made available only via paid, for-profit journals."

ding ding ding ding!! Abso-LUTELY!

[spin]

11. Excellent point.

Watch for the government and the big multinational corporations attempting to find a way to control and censor the internet.

But it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

[Indy Lurker]

16. We have already seen it

Their solution goes in the opposite direction. Since they can't censor the internet, they will bury us in data.

Their solution is to make subjects so complicated and convoluted that no one (or very few) will take the time to understand it.

This can been seen in the 2074 pages of the health care bill.

Or in the machinations of the credit default swaps and financial derivatives.

Since these subjects don't fit nicely into a 2 minute news segment, we are left with American Idol, Balloon Boy and Tiger Woods.

As evidence, I give you Google's most searched topics for 2009

[spin]

23. I wonder how many pages the French heathcare bill takes up ...

I would bet far less than 2074.

The U.S. Constitution takes up 6 pages. Pages 1-4 are the base text. Pages 5 is the letter of transmittal. Page six is the Bill of Rights.

[Indy Lurker]

24. I have an idea,

the congress members have to wring out their bills long hand before they can be brought to the floor.

[spin]

26. That just might work. LOL...(n/t)