"Liberals With Guns"

[Romulus]

I came across this while surfing the web instead of working:

http://www.liberalswithguns.com/index.html

From the "About Us" page:

"While this site uses terms such as "liberal," "left", "socialist" and "progressive" almost interchangeably, it must be stated that there are many different opinions that constitute the umbrella term "the Left." Liberals want a kinder, gentler capitalism. Marxists want to abolish it. Liberals favor a foreign policy conducted through the United Nations. Socialists want the United States out of both the internal affairs of other countries and the United Nations.

However, there is one thing Second Amendment liberals and leftists agree on. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens leaves us at the mercy of both criminals and the federal government. Second Amendment liberals and leftists also realize that crime is caused by the deep-seated economic and social injustices inherent in the capitalist system. Simply taking guns away from citizens constitutes a mere cosmetic change that will not solve these systemic problems.

Governments act to serve the interests of the rich and powerful. As leftists and liberals, we may find the politics and theology of groups such as the Branch Davidians to be repugnant. However, if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms can go after the Davidians it can also go after the Greens, MoveOn.org, the Socialist Party or any other group that is simply exercising its First Amendment rights and legally working for radical change."

*snip/more*

I am in full agreement with these paragraphs.

I'm not sure what to make of the whole site, but it does have a link to Buzzflash & CommonDreams.org. . .

[aden_nak]

1. I look at it this way.

If what happens on November 1st is what I think will happen on November 1st, we might need lots and lots of guns.

[Gman]

3. And there's a whole lot of liberals and pacifists that better

start realizing this. If the elections are postponed the constitution will have been abolished and then...

[library_max]

142. Guns to do what with? Shoot yourself?

What do you think you're going to do with "lots and lots of guns"?

[amber dog democrat]

2. by this logic,

its better if you make purchases from private individuals who won't need to report the transaction I have an old Markarov and a mini 14 just sitting around not that I think of them as self defense weapons, but posts like this make me glad to have them.

[Romulus]

4. uh, oh, tin foil hat time!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/index.html

Officials discuss how to delay Election Day

Talks stem from recent fears of terror attack timed to vote

Monday, July 12, 2004 Posted: 9:29 AM EDT (1329 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials have discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day, a Homeland Security Department spokesman said Sunday.

The department has referred questions about the matter to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, said spokesman Brian Roehrkasse, confirming a report in this week's editions of Newsweek magazine.

*snip/more*

[MrBenchley]

5. Too TOO funny...

It reads like what a not very bright right wing loony pretends "leftists" think....

"it does have a link to Buzzflash & CommonDreams.org."
Gee, wonder why they don't link back (snicker)....

[CO Liberal]

6. When You Use The "Contact Me" Link...

...it contains no address or phone number for this supposed organization. All it does have is an e-mail link. When you click on it, it starts to send a mesage to someone with the address [e-mail], which is probably a free e-mail account.

This does not sound like a legitimate organization; rather, it sounds like somebody's internet wet dream.

[TX-RAT]

7. Branch Dravidian's compared to MoveOn.org. (what a stretch)

(However, if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms can go after the Dravidian's it can also go after the Greens, MoveOn.org, the Socialist Party or any other group)
If they are involved with the sale or purchase of illegal weapons then the answer would be yes.

[MrBenchley]

8. That IS funny...

Funny, I somehow doubt that MoveOn is going to be selling illegal weapons, or shooting cops, or that its members would hole up in an armed compound while Wes Boyd rants for six weeks about a "fiery end."

For that matter, I sort of doubt that Wes Boyd HAS a compound or an arsenal ...

[iverglas]

27. now y'see

"If they are involved with the sale or purchase of illegal weapons then the answer would be yes."

Them there ARE some apples and oranges!

The Branch Davidians are like MoveOn.Org because ... uh ... because they both like puppies.

[TX-RAT]

34. I agree it's apples and oranges

Romulus was trying to make that comparison not me.

[iverglas]

35. I know I know!

I was laughing with you, and just got too cryptic again.

[DavidMS]

51. Some intresting reading on Koresh....

http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2000/08/04/waco/index.html?sid=937237

http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2000/06/19/waco/index.html?sid=849033

There are some civil liberities implications. Koresh was still a kook but even kooks have basic rights.

[library_max]

144. "Even kooks have basic rights."

These basic rights, however, do NOT include the right to shoot at cops.

[MrBenchley]

145. How about the right to hole up in an armed compound

and then barbecue your own followers?

[DoNotRefill]

159. How about the basic right....

not to be shot in the head while keeping and bearing an infant that poses a danger to close-flying aircraft?

[CO Liberal]

9. I Just Did a "Whois" Search On "liberalswithguns.com"...

...and received the following information. (I have blocked out the individual's name to preserve his identity.)

* * * * *

Whois : liberalswithguns.com

'whois -h whois.internic.net liberalswithguns.com'
Registrar: REGISTER.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.register.com

'whois -h whois.register.com liberalswithguns.com'


The data in Register.com's WHOIS database is provided to you by
Register.com for information purposes only, that is, to assist you in
obtaining information about or related to a domain name registration
record. Register.com makes this information available "as is," and
does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a WHOIS query, you
agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that,
under no circumstances will you use this data to: (1) allow, enable,
or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial
advertising or solicitations via direct mail, electronic mail, or by
telephone; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to Register.com (or its systems). The compilation,
repackaging, dissemination or other use of this data is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of Register.com.
Register.com reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.
By submitting this query, you agree to abide by these terms.


Organization:
Liberalswithguns
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
12345 9th St.
Portland, OR 12345
US
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Registrar Name....: Register.com
Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com

Domain Name: LIBERALSWITHGUNS.COM

Created on..............: Sat, Feb 28, 2004
Expires on..............: Mon, Feb 28, 2005
Record last updated on..: Fri, Mar 26, 2004

Administrative Contact:
Liberalswithguns
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
12345 9th St.
Portland, OR 12345
US
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Technical Contact:
Liberalswithguns
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
12345 9th St.
Portland, OR 12345
US
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Zone Contact:
Liberalswithguns
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
12345 9th St.
Portland, OR 12345
US
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

* * * * *

BTW, the address given appears to be bogus, since the ZIP Codes for Portland are all between 97201 and 97299, according to www.addresses.com. And the phone number listed for this site is the phone number for an organization in Seattle called "Socialist Alternative".

Nice try, Romulus, but this is obviously yet another bogus pro-gun organization. Just like the Pink Pistols.

ON EDIT: I also did a Google search on the name listed as their site owner, and came up empty. So to summarize, this is a fake organization, registered under an assumed name, with a fake address and someone else's phone number. Yep, we can really believe anything that's on that web site...NOT!!!!

[MrBenchley]

10. Who'd have guessed it--another phony RKBA group

Phony groups for a phony cause...

[CO Liberal]

11. BTW....

...I sent www.register.com a message earlier today, telling them what I learned about www.liberalswithguns.com, and the apparently phony information in their site registration.

We'll have to see if www.liberalswithguns.com gets pulled off the 'Net...

[NorthernSpy]

12. I think you guys are wrong about this!

Actually, I think I know who owns that site. If it's the guy I'm thinking of, he runs a human rights foundation, has articles on a number of progressive websites, and has been a full-time activist for a number of years. Not a rightwinger by any stretch of the imagination.

For the matter of that, the fellow I have in mind posts pro-Left opinions on rkba message boards -- I know, because I just googled him.


Mary

[CO Liberal]

13. I Beg To Differ

I Googled the name shown on the "Whois" report as the site owner - even copied it directly from the report so there would be no typos.

Google came back with no matches. On the entire Internet.

[CO Liberal]

15. I Just Tried to Double-Check My Information....

...and received the following message from "Whois":

We're sorry, but at this time, register.com is not in a position to provide you with the WHOIS information you have requested. The IP address from which you have visited register.com has been temporarily blocked due to its association with excessive queries on our system. Register.com has blocked this IP address in order to prevent any adverse impact to our systems which could prevent other WHOIS requests from being properly processed. We apologize about the inconvenience, and encourage you to renew your request in about 24 hours.

The plot thickens....

[-..__...]

22. "The plot thickens...."

:crazy:

I suppose "Registar.com" is a bogus organization also? Or maybe they're part of the of the RKBA conspiracy to infiltrate the Democratic party with "racist humholes" and "Timothy McVeigh" followers?

"The plot thickens"... LOL!!!

[CO Liberal]

23. Not At All

I notified register.com about what I found about this site. I think they may have blocked further inquiries while they investigate.

[-..__...]

28. They do that for security reasons.

A sudden spike in WHOIS requests for that particular domain probably sent up a red flag.

I usually use this website for WHOIS/DNS look-ups

http://www.samspade.org

BTW, looks like Register.com WHOIS has been re-actived for that domain.

[CO Liberal]

33. I Just Tried It Again

Whois is still locked.

[-..__...]

38. Must be blocking your IP.

How many times did you check? I used Register.com's WHOIS twice and had no problem.

[-..__...]

24. Did you come up wih "V J", also?

[NorthernSpy]

29. A+ for you!

:)

Although I believe the V is a nickname, and his given name actually begins with a different letter.


Mary

[MrBenchley]

14. Sounds good to me...

You have to wonder why such a transparently fake address was accepted...the phony zip code jumps right out.

[CO Liberal]

16. And a Seattle Phone Number

:shrug:

[FeebMaster]

17. As I understand it, using fake information when registering

a domain name is a common occurrence. After all, the information is available to any psycho out there.

[-..__...]

19. How "liberal" of you.

:eyes:

Rather than contacting the person to find out more (can I assume you didn't?), you drop a dime on him simply because you question his beliefs
and agenda.

Have you even considered that this is a grassroots effort on the owners part and he has neither the time or funding to operate a full-time organization or website?

No matter, I e-mailed the guy and let him in on the shenanigans.

[CO Liberal]

20. It Looks Like This Guy Is Hiding Something

Something smells fishy....

ON EDIT - It will be interesting to see if you get a response from him. Please share it if and when you get one.

[Van23]

53. Legit

No, my site is legit. Frankly, you're wierding me out the way you've been checking up on me. Are you a John Ashcroft mole starting some new kind of COINTELPRO program?

[T Town Jake]

56. You're apt to find that most of the...

...bon mots from our gun control crowd are of a tone* more reminiscent of Joe McCarthy than Eleanor Roosevelt.

Welcome to DU, BTW.


(*italicized for those whom will inevitably have difficulty making the distinction between the "tone" of an argument and it's "content")

[MrBenchley]

79. Just as you're apt to find our "pro gun democrats"

dredging up this completely bogus crap again and again and again...and then acting utterly dumbfounded and outraged that anybody can see through these shams at a glance.

[CO Liberal]

59. No...

I'm just someone who is very suspicious of web sites that appear to hide the identity of their owners.

Such as yours.

[CO Liberal]

86. Besides....

...if you have nothing to hide, why did you disable your user profile??

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

21. Find out more WHAT? Gibberish about Trotsky?

[-..__...]

25. Yes, I noticed that.

And in case you haven't noticed, there are several DU'ers whom lean far-left and would probably agree with this guys politics.

[MrBenchley]

26. I doubt any of them are ranting like this

or pretending that MoveOn members have an armed compound...

[-..__...]

30. Where do you get that from?

There's nothing on his website where he suggests that MoveOn members have an "armed compound".

But, he does make a point: that there's the threat or possibility of the Government taking action against political adversaries ... especially if Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft are reinstated to power.

How times have changed though. With more and more frequency, I read posts from other DU'ers who never would have considered owning a firearm before but now they are seriously rethinking it.

[MrBenchley]

31. Take a look at his idiotic wailing about the poor "Davidians"

"there's the threat or possibility of the Government taking action against political adversaries"
<sarcasm>And oh, how much fun we can have then with our little popguns! Yippeee!!!</sarcasm>

Of course, the proiblem is that every once in a while an "enthusiast" won't realize that's just blowhard rhetoric and actually shoots a postman...or blow up a government building with a daycare center.

"I read posts from other DU'ers who never would have considered owning a firearm before"
Yeah...it's almost like some gun nuts are trolling in to start trouble, isn't it?

[-..__...]

36. Close your eyes... can't happen here.

"Take a look at his idiotic wailing about the poor "Davidians"

Yeah, I guess it's "idiotic" condemning and being angry about our government burning up a compound with 86 men,women and children.

"Yeah...it's almost like some gun nuts are trolling in to start trouble, isn't it?"

Conspiracies and paranoia abound...

It's impossible and unthinkable that Democrats/Liberals can own firearms... ergo: they must be "gun nuts" trolling for trouble.

Why not post your opinionated observation in this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1974173

I'm certain it'll be as well received there as it is here.

[TX-RAT]

39. our government burning up a compound with 86 men,women and children.

Why didn't he just walk out. He sure didn't think much of the other 85, did he.
What a Man.

[MrBenchley]

41. Koresh had six weeks to surrender peacefully

after killing four cops and wounding 14 others, but instead he spent six weeks ranting about the "fiery end" he was going to have...then he killed himself and as many of his followers as he could.

What's truly funny is that our trigger-happy brethren want to pretend that it's a "liberal" trying to compare that bunch to MoveOn.org....

[DoNotRefill]

57. If they can't be compared to moveon.org, how about just "MOVE"?

If people are too fucking stupid to see that what affects one group's civil rights affects EVERYBODY's civil rights, then there's no hope left.

Why do you people think the ACLU defends Nazis? Because they like the message?

[MrBenchley]

58. Hey, why not drag in any crap, no matter how desperate...

or irrelevant...

And it's not a "civil right" to waddle around with a popgun in your pants....

[Romulus]

64. don't waste your breath with this crowd

http://dc.indymedia.org/feature/display_printable/92440/index.php

"Report on Investigation of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Policy and Practice in Handling Demonstrations in the District of Columbia

Executive Summary

The investigation by the Committee on the Judiciary into the policies and practices of the Metropolitan Police Department in handling demonstrations has found:


Metropolitan Police Department use of undercover officers to infiltrate political organizations in the absence of criminal activity and in the absence of policy guidance meant to protect the constitutional rights of those individuals being monitored. (See page 75)


A pattern and practice of misrepresentation and evasion on the part of leaders of the Metropolitan Police Department with regard to actions by the Department. (See page 88)


Repeated instances of what appear to be preemptive actions taken against demonstrators including preemptive arrests. (See page 32 and 50)


Failure of the Metropolitan Police Department to effectively police its own members for misconduct associated with demonstrations. (See page 34)


Failure of the Metropolitan Police Department to acknowledge and to protect the rights of individuals to privacy, and to free speech and assembly."


http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=488

"Before the activists arrived in Miami last year, police warned that violent anarchists were set to rampage through the downtown area, intent on damaging property and stopping negotiations for the hemispheric trade zone pact that some activists call "NAFTA on steroids."

Instead of anarchists, however, protest participants said another group got out of hand. "It was a police riot," said Free Speech TV journalist Andy Dieringer."

*snip*

"The IRP "strenuously condemned and deplored" police for "unrestrained and disproportionate use of force" and said, "civil rights were trampled." And they extended "heartfelt apologies" to those activists the panel said had come "to to peaceably voice their concerns, but who were met with closed fists instead of open arms."

*snip*

"The fruit of this distinctly military-flavored cocktail, Sobel said, is to keep tabs on rabble-rousers. "The point of it is to do a lot of intelligence gathering... They’re operating from the theory that the protesters provide a cloak for terrorists." This intelligence gathering, said Sobel, is the third ingredient of the Miami Model."

*snip/end/hell of a lot more out there*

(Edited to add- )

For example, here is the story with pictures of law enforcement's "final solution" for one Italian WTO protestor. One wonders how many LEO's in the US cream their jeans over implementing such policies here:

http://www.noleaders.net/anok/reports/geeate/

[MrBenchley]

65. Wow...aimless cop-bashing from the RKBA crowd...

There's something new (snicker)

Wonder how gunshots in the middle of those demonstrations would have helped in any way....

[CO Liberal]

67. A Standard Pro-Gunner Ploy

When all else fails, bash a cop.

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

73. Can't imagine how

some nutcase pegging off a few shots from his popgun in the middle of a demonstration is going to make it less violent....

But I sure could see some right wing loon who wanted to discredit a peaceful demonstration pretending to take part and then yanking out a piece....

[Romulus]

74. why would you imagine something like that?

Can't imagine how
some nutcase pegging off a few shots from his popgun in the middle of a demonstration is going to make it less violent....

Where did that come from?
:shrug:

[DoNotRefill]

92. Heh.....see what happens when "liberals" defend fascists?

They start sounding like fascists themselves.

Since when did defending police brutality become a progressive value?

[iverglas]

126. have you stopped beating your ____?

Since when did defending police brutality become a progressive value?

I dunno. Who did it, and who said it was?

[MrBenchley]

132. Funny, isn't it...

Every time I've seen "liberals" defending fascists here, it's our "pro gun democrats" trying to defend the ones peddling Nazi crap at gun shows...

[CO Liberal]

127. You Seem To Be Assuming That Every Cop is Brutal

The ones that I've know have not been.

[Romulus]

75. more like pulling the sheets from the

anti-gun-owner crowd and exposing their true "final solution" for firearms owners . . .

[MrBenchley]

82. Nope, just aimless cop-bashing

and the dreary paranoia...

"their true "final solution" for firearms owners"
Funny, it's those gun shows that are clogged with Nazi memorabilia...and every dimwit wearting a swastika around today is screaming "gun rights" at the top of his wormy lungs...as is every humhole actually wearing a sheet.

[TX-RAT]

69. Come on DNR

How does serving a federal warrant for weapons violations, compare to a violation of MoveOn's civil rights?

[CO Liberal]

70. I'm Waiting For This Answer

Bet it's gonna be good!!

:-)

[DoNotRefill]

91. Well, let's see...thgat Federal warrant....

was fraudulently obtained. Government agents LIED to obtain the warrant, to give their acts a thin cloak of undeserved legality.

Fraudulent statements included, but were not limited to, accusations that the Davidians were running a meth lab, when there was no indication based upon any articulable fact that they were. It came out later that they said that just so they could get TANG resources.

I'd remind you of the result of the trials of surviving Davidians for the murder of four Federal officers. In case you don't remember, they were found to have acted LEGALLY, in self-defense, because the government's actions were SO outrageous that it excused the Davidian's killing of US government agents.

Now, as to Moveon.org, I haven't heard of their civil rights being actually violated...YET. It's not a stretch to imagine a scenario where this might happen, however. For example, if federal agents simply lied as they lied to get the warrants "served" at Waco, you'd end up with a bunch of dead Moveon.org people. If I were looking to get a warrant for an armed raid to hit Moveon.org, I'd not use the methlab lie, I'd falsify suspected ties to terrorism.

When the government can violate the civil rights of the extremists, they can violate the civil rights of ANYBODY, simply by painting them as an extremist.

[MrBenchley]

94. The warrant was NOT fraudulently obtained

http://www.detnews.com/2000/nation/0007/24/nation-94538.htm

and in 1994 the surviving Davidians were convicted of manslaughter and other charges. And they DID kill four cops and wound 14 others.

"For example, if federal agents simply lied as they lied to get the warrants "served" at Waco, you'd end up with a bunch of dead Moveon.org people."
And if frogs had waterproof asses, the swamp wouldn't stink. Perhaps you ought to rely on something other than a right wing screwloose like Dave Kopel for information.

"When the government can violate the civil rights of the extremists, they can violate the civil rights of ANYBODY"
But when "enthusiasts" try to pretend that what Koresh was up to was "civil rights" they're drifting way-y-y-y-y-y-y off the deep end. And remember, Koresh could have surrendered peacefully and had his day in court at any time. Instead he chose murder and suicide.

[DoNotRefill]

105. they were acquitted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder charges...

"1994 the surviving Davidians were convicted of manslaughter and other charges. And they DID kill four cops and wound 14 others."

[MrBenchley]

110. And convicted of manslaughter, just as I said

[TX-RAT]

102. I believe i said weapons violations

First time i heard anything about a meth lab.

[DoNotRefill]

106. then you haven't been paying attention....

As I'm sure you know, Posse Comitatus generally prohibits use of US military forces for domestic law enforcement roles. BEFAT wanted to use military assets, so they used the drug enforcement exception. This required them to claim that the Davidians were involved in drugs. So, they claimed that the Davidians were running a meth lab to get TANG assets.

[TX-RAT]

108. Once again, I never heard of the meth lab accusation

Sorry.
I was aware of the warrant for weapons violations. Was there military personnel present when the warrant was served initially?

[DoNotRefill]

114. Yes....

they had gunship air support from TANG.

[iverglas]

131. howzat??

Now, as to Moveon.org, I haven't heard of their civil rights being actually violated...YET. It's not a stretch to imagine a scenario where this might happen, however. For example, if federal agents simply lied as they lied to get the warrants "served" at Waco, you'd end up with a bunch of dead Moveon.org people.

Somehow, I just wouldn't expect the MoveOn.org people to be quite so stupid as to hole up in a compound with a whole lot of guns, and set fire to it, when the feds came looking to serve the warrants. Strikes me they'd hold out their hands, hire themselves some lawyers and apply for bail and do a few other normal-type things like that.

So I really don't know how one can make the statement that "you'd end of with a bunch of dead MoveOn.org people" if such warrants were issued, fraudulent though the applications might be, and even were the expectation of such warrants being issued not as paranoid as it appears.

Just imagine. If the Wado whacko(s) hadn't done what he/they did, THE WHOLE LOT OF THEM might have been acquitted of the charges based on the allegedly trumped-up allegations.


There is NO bloody guarantee that ANY government is NEVER going to attempt to violate somebody's rights (quite apart from the fact that honest, sincere disagreement over what constitutes justifiable violation of rights is possible and unavoidable).

That would be WHY we have constitutions and courts to uphold them, eh? And if your system is so rotten that the courts turn a blind eye to governments' rights violations, you have a problem that holing yourself up with guns just isn't going to solve. As a dead Wado whacko or two might tell you. If they weren't dead.

And I'm still confused, anyhow ... they were convicted of manslaughter? That isn't consistent with a finding of self-defence, I'm afraid.

[DoNotRefill]

158. Iverglas....

Executive law enforcement agencies have a long, disgraceful history of engaging in extrajudicial punishment in this country. During the 1960's, the FBI had what were called "BAM" squads...."BAM" standing for "By Any Means". They ROUTINELY engaged in violating the civil rights of people, if the people were deemed "undesirable". There were programs like COINTELPRO, et cetera. Since, for the most part, the people whose rights were violated tended to be either KKK folks or fringe leftists, nobody really gave a crap.

"Three letter agencies" have now basically come to the realization that they can put on their ninja suits and stage raids, and there are generally two likely scenarios that will occur. Either everything will go perfectly, there will be no resistance, and no officers will screw up, or it will not. If anything goes wrong, the predilection is to open fire, and pump the area full of incendiary devices, on the safe bet that fire will destroy any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the 3 letter folks, or exculpatory evidence of the innocence of their victims. There is, of course, a trickle down effect to state and municipal officers.

I recall a case not too long ago down in Texas where there was a complaint was filed because a man set fire to his own sofa. The SWAT team was called out, a firefight ensued, hundreds of rounds were fired, one officer was killed, and the suspect was wounded. He was lucky enough to survive. They charged him with capital murder for shooting the officer who died. Later, it came out that the man passed a nitrate test performed immediately after he was taken into custody. Yup.....hundreds of rounds fired, a dead cop, and the suspect hadn't fired a single shot. The police couldn't even show that he had a gun.

If the government wants you dead, you're dead. If they want you convicted, barring incompetence on their part, you're convicted. And if they want you raped and killed in prison, that can be arranged too. This isn't the way it's supposed to be, but there it is.

[NorthernSpy]

165. you said that really, really well

:toast:


Mary

[iverglas]

168. yeah, eh? but isn't it just too bad ...

... that none of what he said addressed what I had said about what he said?

Looked like spin to me, I gotta say.

[-..__...]

134. Just wondering if anyone else caught or understood your reference.

http://www.library.temple.edu/urbana/psic-01.htm

"The violent confrontation of May 13, 1985 between the MOVE organization and Philadelphia's city government, which left 11 MOVE members dead and 61 homes destroyed, was one of the most controversial episodes in the city's modern history. In its aftermath, the Philadelphia Special Investigation Commission, appointed by Mayor W. Wilson Goode, investigated in detail the events leading up to and including the attack on MOVE, held televised public hearings, and finally in March 1986 issued a report which was highly critical of government actions".

[FeebMaster]

135. I did.

The authoritarians don't care though. They're perfectly happy with pretty much any police abuse of power. Half the time it takes an act of God just to get them to admit that the police ever abuse their power.

[-..__...]

43. Who was going to blink first?

I suppose he anticipated or had prior knowledge that the compound would be incinerated with all his followers inside?

The place was surrounded. It wasn't like he was stalling for time to make his escape and the Feds had to move in quickly to prevent it.

Regardless whether he and his followers chose to walk out or not, the situation didn't justify the governments actions.

[CO Liberal]

44. Being as Koresh Ordered the Fires To Be Set...

...perhaps he DID have prior knowledge.

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

45. "Koresh was "willing to kill, to see his followers die, and to die

himself..."

http://www.usdoj.gov/05publications/waco/wacosix.html

The government didn't kill those people...your gun dealin' messiah did.

[TX-RAT]

66. He's responsible for the death of damn near 100 people

And you defend him." Amazing "

[CO Liberal]

68. It's Truly Amazing, TX....

...some pro-gunners on this board go to great lengths to defend anyone who apparently is a fellow pro-gunner, regardless of what that asshole did.

David Koresh is a prime example. Timothy McVeigh is another.

[Romulus]

71. OK, CO

since you're a reasonable person here, do YOU believe that everything the government tells you is true? Especially when it concerns something that is embarassing to its policies?

Like these 'terra alerts? Or that Iraq has WMD? Or that Big Dog "didn't have sexual relations with that woman?" Or that Reagan "had no idea" the Iran/Contra thing was happening under his nose? Or that global warming "isn't backed by hard science?" That ketchup is a vegetable? :shrug:

[CO Liberal]

72. You Could Trust Government Under Bill Clinton

You can't trust it under George W. Bush.

ON EDIT - Once again, you're mixing apples and oranges. The "terra alerts", the lies about Iraq's WMDs, the Iran/Contra scandal, misinformation about global warming and ketchup's vegetable status were all issued by the government under Rrepublican control. Bill Clinton's statement about not having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky was made by a private individual - it was NOT a government edict.

[iverglas]

77. oh look, great minds

I shoulda read yours first. But heck, my game is still lots o' fun. ;)

[CO Liberal]

78. Logic and Reason Are Powerful Weapons, Iverglas

They can drive some pro-gunners right over the edge.....

:-)

[Romulus]

81. same difference

Big Dog was the President, but you're forgetting that he wasn't "the government."

There is an entire bureaucracy that remains no matter who is in charge. This is referred to by some as the "Fourth Branch" of government. The same rank & file and senior FBI & ATF agents hired during the Reagan and Bush I administrations were running the show at Waco during Big Dog's time in office, and are still there today. The Waco after-action report was released during Big Dog's Presidency, but guess who wrote it.

[CO Liberal]

83. You Just Don't Trust Authority Figures, Do You???

????

[Romulus]

84. I thought that was a liberal trait?!?!?!

:evilgrin:

[CO Liberal]

85. There's a Difference Between Questioning Authority....

...and assuming that everything they say is a lie.

[DoNotRefill]

116. Everybody should question authority all the time....

instead of just questioning it when the Republicans are in control.

the Freepers give Bush a free pass, while they excoriated Clinton based upon party affiliation. Some progressives tend to give Clinton a free pass, while excoriating Bush based upon party affiliation.

That's a zero-sum game.

If you're not questioning EVERYTHING, you're doing yourself a disservice.

[MrBenchley]

213. Unless it's Gary Kleck, obviously...

at which point I guess we're supposed to bend over and spread 'em, no matter how preposterous the claim...

"...the New England Journal of Medicine and other anti-gun groups..."

[DoNotRefill]

115. That's not true....

The government, under Clinton, was still the government. Government, by it's very nature, tends to attract a certain element (like Larry Potts) that has no business being in government in the first place. That's why government is a necessary evil.

Bill Clinton was just one man. He had the ultimate responsibility while he was in office, but he was not able to control and supervise the actions of every GS-2 out there, it's a simple impossibility.

You can't trust the government, REGARDLESS of which power temporarily holds control of it.

[CO Liberal]

117. I Feel Sorry For You

Without trust, how can you feel secure?

[DoNotRefill]

118. by the same token...

by blindly trusting, how can you BE secure?

[CO Liberal]

119. All I Know Is, I Am

:-)

[DoNotRefill]

121. You're what, secure?

Hate to tell you this, but you're only secure as long as there's nobody wanting to do you harm.

If somebody wanted to "get you", they almost certainly could. I think I recall that you have a dog, and good locks on your doors, that you use to keep you secure, right? And yet $10 in gasoline in the hands of a person wanting to do you harm would most likely leave you and your family a cinder.

The Executive Branch of government has the SS, with almost unrestricted abilities to smack people down who threaten the president. Yet Kennedy was shot and killed, there were a bunch of attempts on Ford that came close, Reagan stopped a round, et cetera.

No offense, CO, but your "security" is a tissue. A wet tissue, at that.

[CO Liberal]

123. Given The Choice Between My Tissue and Your Gun....

...I'll stick with my tissue, thank you.

[DoNotRefill]

154. Hmmmm.....Tissue versus tissue and gun.....

I guess it depends on if you think guns are somehow inherently opposed to security. I side with the police on this one....

[mosin]

130. Perceptions

The reality of security is not dependent on one's perception of security.

[mosin]

129. Trust

You can't trust the government, REGARDLESS of which power temporarily holds control of it.

I tend to agree. Or at least, as the old proverb goes: Trust, but verify.

[iverglas]

76. can I play?

Which one is the odd one out?


A. terra alerts
B. Iraq has WMD
C. Big Dog "didn't have sexual relations with that woman"
D. Reagan "had no idea" the Iran/Contra thing was happening under his nose
E. global warming "isn't backed by hard science"
F. ketchup is a vegetable

C'mon, you can do it. I did it without hardly exercising a brain muscle.

Column 1: those things about which it matters whether government can be trusted to tell the truth

Column 2: those things about which it doesn't matter whether government can be trusted to tell the truth

In my own personal column #1, I would place:

- the non-existence of a serious threat of a violent attack on the public
- the non-existence of dangerous weapons in the hands of an unpredictable/evil powerful person
- the knowledge of a head of state about the actions by his/her subordinates that are illegal and dangerous
- the existence of a serious threat of environmental disaster
- the absence of nutritional value of the food distributed to people in need

In my own personal column #2, I would place:

- the sexual activities of an individual


Now, here's the funny coincidence.

The things about which a government or head of state of the US has, shall we say, been less than frank also line up like this:

Column 1: things about which a Republican govt/head of state of the US has been less than frank

Column 2: things about which a Democratic govt/head of state of the US has been less than frank

Isn't that just bloody amazing???

[skippythwndrdog]

90. I'm not out to get your goat, BUT

I've been reading this board for over a year. I joined it a few months back. Help me out here. I have yet to see anyone defend Koresh or McVeigh. I could have missed it. Can you provide me with links to these posts?

[skippythwndrdog]

120. Still waiting for that substantiation

[CO Liberal]

122. No One Has Time To Search Through The Archives For You

But there have been many people here who have gone to great lengths to defend the likes of David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh, and Randy Weaver.

Unfortunately, many of those people wound up getting tombstoned.

[skippythwndrdog]

124. You made the claim, therefore it is incumbent upon you to substantiate

that claim.

"No One Has Time To Search Through The Archives For You" is nothing more than a dodge to avoid backing up your claim.

If you're going to make the claim, please back it up or retract it.

[CO Liberal]

125. I'm Not Retracting Anything...

And I'm not gonna search the archives for you, Skippy.

[MrBenchley]

133. You know if skippy thinks the umpty-ump posts in this thread

pissing and moaning about a supposed "injustice" done Koresh and his ugly little bands of loonies ISN'T defending the cult leader, I'd hate to see what he thinks a defense WOULD be....

[-..__...]

137. How did you come to the conclusion that I'm defending him?

"He's responsible for the death of damn near 100 people".

And the final outcome as a result of an over zealous Federal agency had nothing to do with it?

[CO Liberal]

139. Not When Koresh Orders the Fires Lit

[MrBenchley]

40. It's especially idiotic, considering that Koresh set the fires

and killed his own cult after raving about a fiery end for six weeks.

"Conspiracies and paranoia abound..."
Yeah, how about that? A trigger-happy shithead equates MoveOn with a cult of murdering lunatics and tries to pretend it means everybody "gotta geta gun."

And I guess you didn't notice I already posted in that thread you pointed to, and said out loud what a dishonest bunch of right wing fuckwits the NRA is.

[-..__...]

46. Read it again.

"...and said out loud what a dishonest bunch of right wing fuckwits the NRA is".

True to form, I wouldn't have expected anything less, but that wasn't what I was referring to.

It's your suggestion that...

"Yeah...it's almost like some gun nuts are trolling in to start trouble, isn't it?"

Seems like more than a few posters there have differing views on gun ownership. A number of them had been anti-gun or been indifferent about the issue in the past. Now they're expressing a different viewpoint altogether.

Are they gun nuts trolling for trouble? Or are they open minded Democrats/Liberals who have had a change of heart?

Why not ask them?

[MrBenchley]

47. Too TOO funny....

"A number of them had been anti-gun or been indifferent about the issue in the past. Now they're expressing a different viewpoint altogether."
Dear Penthouse...I never thought it would happen to me....

And of course, any right wing fuckwit trolling an internet forum under false colors will admit it if only you ask nicely....

[CO Liberal]

48. Is That Like The People Who Phone In To Rush and Hannity....

...and say "I used to be a liberal Democrat, until I started listening to your show...."

:puke:

[-..__...]

50. Is that to say that it never happens?

What about people who say they were a staunch Bush supporter until they saw F-911?

The media has a powerful persuasion among people... it doesn't matter if it's the truth or lies.

Quite frankly, I don't understand the stubborn refusal (or lack of acceptance), by some here that one can be an RKBA advocate, own firearms and still be a Democrat/Liberal. It's the same close-minded manner of thinking that refuses to believe (or understand why), that there are black and gay Republicans.

[CO Liberal]

60. And I Can't Understand the Stubborn Refusal....

...or lack of acceptance that not everyone in the world will agree with you.

[-..__...]

49. "Dear Penthouse...I never thought it would happen to me...."

Yes, we know; you've used that line before (originality isn't your forte).

"And of course, any right wing fuckwit trolling an internet forum under false colors will admit it if only you ask nicely....

Then what have you got to lose by posting your earlier comment made here in J/PS?

"Yeah...it's almost like some gun nuts are trolling in to start trouble, isn't it"?

Why is there any assumption that the people in that thread (or any of us pro-gun people here in J/PS), must be "right wing" fuckwits"
simply because we support the 2nd amendment and choose to arm ourselves? I guess you're just in denial of other possibilities.

I'm just curious to see if the alleged "right wing fuckwits" would be just as puzzled or flabbergasted by your comment(s) as I am.

BTW, where's that MoveOn compound located at? I might be interested in checking it out?

[MrBenchley]

63. Originality would be wasted on this stale crap....

"Why is there any assumption that the people in that thread (or any of us pro-gun people here in J/PS), must be "right wing" fuckwits""
You mean besides the threads on gun nut forums and right wing hatefests where the trigger happy loonies boast about trolling in the gungeon?

And besides the number of right wing fuckwits who troll in here regularly and get caught?

And besides the way our "pro gun democrats" seem to exist only to slander actual Democrats and post right wing horseshit?

And besides the threads our trigger-happy chums start openly pimping for obscenities like the Second Amendment Caucus?

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

80. following the breadcrumbs

Seems like more than a few posters there have
differing views on gun ownership. A number of them
had been anti-gun or been indifferent about the issue
in the past. Now they're expressing a different
viewpoint altogether.
Are they gun nuts trolling for trouble? Or are they
open minded Democrats/Liberals who have had a
change of heart?
Why not ask them?

Hmm. Perhaps because they (the underlined ones above) weren't being talked about?

Let's look at the line that's causing you so much trouble, in context.

I read posts from other DU'ers who never would have considered
owning a firearm before
Yeah...it's almost like some gun nuts are trolling
in to start trouble, isn't it?

I didn't think that anybody was talking about the posters "there" in that particular exchange.


(Edit: what's a breacrumb? ...)

[-..__...]

138. I posted....

"other DU'ers". I didn't categorize the comment or confine it to one single board.

I didn't form my opinion that "A number of them had been anti-gun or been indifferent about the issue in the past. Now they're expressing a different viewpoint altogether", based solely on what I've read in J/PS or on that one particular thread. It's a trend that has been discussed in the GD forum or Lounge on several occasions.

"Yeah...it's almost like some gun nuts are trolling in to start trouble, isn't it?"

I didn't think that anybody was talking about the posters "there" in that particular exchange.

You can think what you like; that's certainly your privilege, but you weren't the one who posted the quoted comment.

What makes you think MrBenchleys comments didn't apply to the people in that thread?

Yeah...it's almost like some gun nuts are trolling in to start trouble, isn't it? is an accusatory statement relating to and denying the possibility of Democrat/Liberal gun owners. If it can be made here in J/PS, it can be made in other boards as well.

I think those people deserve the respect and opportunity to respond to that accusation.

[iverglas]

169. give it up

How, uh, clever of you to keep quoting MrBenchley's comment:

"Yeah...it's almost like some gun nuts are trolling in
to start trouble, isn't it?"

WITHOUT QUOTING THE COMMENT IT WAS IN RESPONSE TO, as *I* did.

Again, it went like this:

I read posts from other DU'ers who never would have
considered owning a firearm before

Yeah...it's almost like some gun nuts are trolling
in to start trouble, isn't it?

Do you think that when I said I didn't think that anybody was talking about the posters "there" in that particular exchange I was perhaps engaging in a little understatement?

I knew perfectly well that nobody was talking about the posters "there" (at the other internet board under discussion), as, I can really only think, did you.

The statement to which Benchley was responding was about POSTERS AT DU. The statement Benchley made in response was about POSTERS AT DU. I mean, it may be foolish of me, but I tend to think that when someone quotes a statement and then says something, in immediate sequence, s/he is responding to it, not going off on some wild tangent.

So in answer to your question:

What makes you think MrBenchleys comments didn't apply to the people in that thread?

... well, I guess I'd just have to say: about the same thing that makes me think it didn't apply to the man in the moon. Call it "reading comprehension", call it "common sense" ... call it "integrity" ...

Yeah...it's almost like some gun nuts are trolling in to start trouble, isn't it? is an accusatory statement relating to and denying the possibility of Democrat/Liberal gun owners.

Interesting assertion, but false from what I can see.

It was an insinuation that specific people -- i.e. (some or all of) the alleged "other DU'ers who never would have considered owning a firearm before" -- were trolls. It's absolutely beyond me how you could interpret it as "denying the possibility of Democrat/Liberal gun owners", not least because such a denial would be absurd, quite apart from the fact that it never took place. Absolutely and completely beyond me. So since there is simply no conceivable way in which you could interpret it that way, I'm left wondering why you would (claim to) interpret it that way.

[iverglas]

37. or ...

Yeah...it's almost like some gun nuts are trolling in to start trouble, isn't it?

... like some people who really oughta know better are being sucked right into the vortex, and doing just exactly what the really big guns are wanting them to do.

Nothing like a little breakdown in social cohesion to facilitate some fascistic frolicking.

And nothing like a few more firearms to put a few more big holes in that social fabric.

[MrBenchley]

42. And of course it has nothing to do

with right wingers trying to find posts that can characterize this site as a "left wing hate site" as the Wall Street Journal and Rush Limbaugh have both done.

[TX-RAT]

32. You made that comparison, not the website.

[Van23]

198. Thanks

for giving me a heads up!

[MrBenchley]

18. Interesting...

Here's Socialist Alternative's website...which lists a different phone number.

http://www.socialistalternative.org/wwsf.html

No link to the phony "liberals with guns" page, but a link to Michael Moore's webpage.

[Van23]

52. WHOOHOOO!

I'm the creator of the now notorious web page liberalswithguns.com. I didn't know it had sparked such a debate here! I was told through a third party.

Yes, it is legit. Liberals need to get over their phobia about guns and the propaganda surrounding them. The constitution gives us all the right to have them regardless of political persuasion as long as the law is always obeyed.

Just in case anyone is interested--I voted for Nader 4 years ago...but I won't be doing that again this year.

[Columbia]

54. Welcome to DU, Van23!

Good work on your website!

Of course, I'm sure there are some people here who will still deny you exist as some believe that liberals and guns cannot coexist.

I should warn you though, that sticking around will probably result in a lot of hair being torn from your head! :)

[Van23]

55. Thanks!

Thanks, Columbia! I'm looking forward to the give and take.

[CO Liberal]

61. If You're Legit (as you claim)...

...then WHY did you register your site using a bogus address in Portland, and a phone number for a socialist group in Seattle?

:shrug:

[FeebMaster]

93. Maybe he was concerned about crazy people

looking up his information and wishing him harm. I hear it's a fairly common practice to register domain names with fake information. The information is available to anyone who wants it after all. Would you register a domain name to your home address?

[MrBenchley]

95. Funny...

lots of people WITHOUT guns aren't afraid of that......

"I hear it's a fairly common practice to register domain names with fake information."
Hell, what in the RKBA world ISN'T 100% phony? Bogus groups, founding father quotes invented out of whole cloth, phony claims about what the Second Amendment means, wild-eyed fantasy, and pseudoscience seem to make up its sum total.

[FeebMaster]

96. Funny

Lots of people without guns are afraid of that.


"Hell, what in the RKBA world ISN'T 100% phony? Bogus groups, founding father quotes invented out of whole cloth, phony claims about what the Second Amendment means, wild-eyed fantasy, and pseudoscience seem to make up its sum total."

It has nothing to do with RKBA or the RKBA world. Why don't you go register a domain name with your real name and address? Or how about just post all of your pertinent information right here for everyone to see? Oh, you don't want a bunch of crazy people to read it and do God knows what.

[CO Liberal]

98. And Don't Forget John Lott/Mary Rosh

Who can't seem to rememeber who he is......

[MrBenchley]

111. Or all the phony "pro gun democrats" tombstoned here

after a few nutcase posts...

[CO Liberal]

97. Probably Not

I'd use my PO box. Which is a legitimate address, and allows people a point of contact while affording me a level of privacy.

And my home phone is a business line that does not have an address attached to it, since it is used for a home-based business and local regs prohibit the publicizing of our home address. So I could use that.

But I wouldn't use a phone number for an oranization in one state, and a fake address in another. Like some people we know.....

[FeebMaster]

99. Maybe he doesn't have

a PO box or a business line with no address attached to it for his home phone number. Most people don't.

[CO Liberal]

100. And Maybe....

...he's just running a bogus site with a bogus address and a bogus phone number.

I notice the guy who owns that site posted three times in this thread and hasn't been back yet. Guess he out looking for more "facts" for his wonderful web site....

[FeebMaster]

101. How do you know that's the guy who owns the site?

Maybe he's just another RKBAer pretending to be someone he isn't. Or maybe he's one of yours pretending to be an RKBAer. Who can you trust? :eyes:

[CO Liberal]

103. Why Don't You Ask Him....

...next time he has the guts to show up?

[FeebMaster]

104. Well I don't care for starters.

Just like I don't care if someone registers a domain name with fake information. Just like I don't care when people get unlisted telephone numbers. Just like I don't care when people use free email addresses that anyone can sign up for using any name they like.

[CO Liberal]

107. And You Don't Seem To Care.....

...when yet another pro-gunner is caught in a lie. And that whole web site seems to be one big lie after another.

[FeebMaster]

109. Well, pro-gunner is a relative term.

I haven't even read the website. Basically, I run on the assumption that compared to me, everyone is a gun grabber and if it turns out otherwise I'm pleasantly surprised. It saves on disappointment.

[CO Liberal]

112. Using That "Logic"...

...compared to me, everyone would be a gun nut. I have more faith in people than that.

But not enough faith to let anyone who wants to carry a gun anywhere that please.

[FeebMaster]

113. Well I don't have more faith in people than that.

But I still have enough faith to let anyone who wants to carry a gun anywhere they please. I don't even think they should have to ask the government's permission first.

[Van23]

136. See Feebmaster

His previous comment is right on the money. It's nobody else's business who I am, and I knew this issue would provoke lots of white hot anger from both sides of this issue--specifically from rabid pro-gunners who see this as "their" pet issue and who think it's impossible for a progressive to be pro-gun, and from people on the left who may view me as some kind of "traitor."

[CO Liberal]

140. I Don't View You as an "Imposter"

I view you as someone running a bogus web site while hiding your identity.....

[Van23]

160. Bogus?

A bogus web site? How so?

[CO Liberal]

176. You Make It Look Like You're Running Some Kind of Legitimate Organization.

...of like-minded individuals. Yet you hide your true identity behind a fake address and someone else's phone number.

Sure sounds bogus to me....

[library_max]

149. Not around here.

You'll get plenty of support from the pro-gunners around here. It's their favorite delusion that RKBA is a liberal issue.

So-o-o-o-o. How come you still don't have an author's profile?

[FeebMaster]

151. Besides without your real name they can't search for you

on google and whine about things if they find them or whine about other things if they don't. It's easier than actually discussing an issue, I guess.

[CO Liberal]

152. To Me, It Smacks of Cowardice

He puts stuff out there on his web site, and remains totally anonymous. He's no different than the kooks who phone in to talk radio, knowing they can say whatever they damn well please because no one knows who they are.

[FeebMaster]

153. Right.

So what's your full name and address CO? You can say whatever you damn well please because no one knows who you are too.

[T Town Jake]

155. Oh, but that's "different," you see, because....

...what do you wanna bet that's the first sentence we'll read, if anything, in reply to your post?

[library_max]

156. I see CO Liberal's author profile right there, shining proudly.

I see yours, too. But I don't see this Van23's anywhere.

[FeebMaster]

157. So?

Lots of people on DU have their profiles hidden. It's not like they contain any detailed information anyway. No names or addresses. Maybe a town or hobbies if you fill those sections out. Of course, that's all assuming you don't fill it with a bunch of lies.

[-..__...]

164. Where's mine?

Some people call it "paranoia", some call it "privacy". Others (and I mean "others"), like myself just don't care one way or another.

I also have no avatar, eloquent sig line nor in your face 350x475 .jpg of my cat or * posed in mockable 'moments in time' circumstances.

What does that tell you about me?

I must be hiding something, correct?

[MrBenchley]

173. However, it turned out

Van 23 was usuing a fake zip code and somebody else's phone number for his website...certainly a sign of somebody with honest content (snicker)...

[CO Liberal]

178. I've Posted Enough Stuff on DU Over the Years....

...that people could piece it together and know my full name and the town I live in.

Which is more than we can say about Van23.....

[FeebMaster]

201. Assuming everything that you've posted is true

that is still different by far than posting all of your personal information where anyone who wants it can get it. Still not interested in posting your home address and phone number for all of us?

[CO Liberal]

202. No

But the folks know much more about me than they know about Van23.....

[Van23]

161. No more

I'm not going to respond to this anymore. I told you why I choose to remain anonymous. Take my explanation or leave it.

Now if you'd like to avoid all the BS and tell me where my site is "wrong", I'd appreciate it. The fact that you don't accept that a progressive can be pro second amendment places you in the same league as those militia gun nuts who believe the same thing only for different reasons.

[iverglas]

171. "wrong"?

Now if you'd like to avoid all the BS and tell me where my site is "wrong", I'd appreciate it.

Are you using that word in some special sense, that it needs to be in quotation marks?

What could be "wrong" about your site, in the usual sense? Is there something inaccurate about it? I don't see much there at all, I have to say. Some pix, some links, some quotations, and a little bit of opinion. What's to be "wrong"?

Are *you* wrong to advocate what you advocate? Well, per moi, of course you are. But that's just my opinion. Now, some opinions are demonstrably better than others, at least to people who agree on a few basic things. But I can't see any point in spending any time demonstrating how yours is worse than mine, really. You look pretty much like a tempest in a teapot, to me, so the various quite blatant problems with your site, all of which have been super-exhaustively dealt with already, don't seem to need any attention. Just my opinion, of course.

Oh, there's this bit though:

The fact that you don't accept that a progressive can be pro second amendment places you in the same league as those militia gun nuts who believe the same thing only for different reasons.

Yes, people who advocate fairness for victims of discrimination, and security and power for victims of exploitation and oppression, are like fascists. I mean, both groups are fond of puppies, right?

For constructing the worst analogy so far this week, I'll award you this week's


http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/

Watch out, though. There's lots of competition for this one, and you may get bumped.

[MrBenchley]

181. So it turns out

"liberals with guns" turns out to be just one bozo, who wants to regurgitate lame right wing talking points about David Koresh (all that's been missing from our trigger happy brethren's posts has been the standard diatribe about Janet Reno) and a bunch of unconnected gibberish about Trotsky and the like....

Sounds more like a right wing loony's wet dream...somebody to have a gunfight with....

[CO Liberal]

175. You Call It "Remaining Anonymous"

I call it being dishonest.

Just MHO.

[Wickerman]

87. Morning Van23

Welcome aboard!

One note - we do not refer to those desiring levels of gun control as being phobic. Folks can have reasons that make them desire gun control without being psychologically impaired, much as RKBAers can be passionate about weaponry without being any one of other number of names that might be thrown out.

Thanks, looking forward to your participation and appreciate the website - its something the Left sorely needs.

Lunabush
DU Moderator

[Van23]

163. Thanks (and what to read to be informed.)

Thanks, Lunabush!

I didn't mean to imply that people who support gun control are psychologically impaired. I was using the term phobic in a much more pedestrian sense. :)

I certainly believe that good people with good intentions can support gun control. In fact, I would probably share 90% agreement on other issues with the same people.

There have been volumes and volumes written on this subject. For any DU reader who is interested, I will recommend two:

1. "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" by Sandford Levinson;
2. "Armed" by Gary Kleck.

Levinson is a law professor who is a self-described "card carrying member of the ACLU who has never owned a gun." In his article, he shows that the framers of the constitution intended to allow all individuals, not just state militias, to be armed. Kleck is a criminologist who is also a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, and a self-described liberal. I his book, Kleck shows that guns in fact save more lives than they take. He also reveals the misleading and outright false statistics cited by the New England Journal of Medicine and other anti-gun groups in their attempt to take guns away from law abiding citizens. Anyway, I would recommend these two items to anyone who is willing to approach this subject with an open mind.

[NorthernSpy]

166. hello and welcome, Van23!

:hi:

It's nice to have you here!

I've read a little about Kleck and his ideas, but I haven't actually read his book yet. Another thing for my to-do list...


Mary

[Van23]

167. Thanks, NorthernSpy

for the welcome! Kleck's book is excellent. If you read it let me know what you think!

[iverglas]

170. shall we bow and scrape now?

"Kleck is a criminologist who is also a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, and a self-described liberal."

Gosh, why have I never heard of this paragon before??

"He also reveals the misleading and outright false statistics cited by the New England Journal of Medicine and other anti-gun groups in their attempt to take guns away from law abiding citizens."

I'm gonna have to come up with an award for the most disingenuous reiteration of nonsense of the week.

Oh look ... this one might do.


http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/

... although it doesn't quite catch the look of pure naive innocence that must surely grace the visage of anyone dropping by here to spread the gospel of Kleck ...


Anyway, I would recommend these two items to anyone who is willing to approach this subject with an open mind.

... and a slack jaw, and some nice pharmaceuticals to ensure that all faculties of critical judgment are suspended ...

[library_max]

192. "The New England Journal of Medicine and other anti-gun groups"?

The New England Journal of Medicine is one of the most prestigious medical journals in the United States and, in fact, the world. It has been in continuous publication since 1812. It is a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal and does not exist solely for the purpose of taking your precious guns away. Gary Kleck should be so lucky as to publish in any source with one-eightth the credibility of The New England Journal of Medicine.

[CO Liberal]

194. Sounds Like the NRA Blacklist

As listed here:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

Sounds like good company to be among. That's why I added my name to the list at www.stopthenra.com.

[Van23]

196. Read Kleck's book

and make up your own mind. It is possible for scientists to have political agendas, too.

[CO Liberal]

199. And It's Possible for People to be WRONG!!!!!

I wouldn't waste my time reading anything by Kleck, Lott, etc.

[MrBenchley]

209. That DOES say it all, doesn't it?

[LibLabUK]

62. Hmm...

*blows the dust off the website to reveal the missing portion of the title "How to shoot..."*


;P

[CO Liberal]

128. Shades of the "To Serve Mankind" Book From "The Twilight Zone"

It turned out to be a cookbook, and the aliens were cannibals....

[library_max]

141. The Branch Davidians were NOTsimply exercising their First Amendment

right and legally working for radical change. They were engaged in weapons offenses and child abuse at the very least. There were legitimate warrants for Koresh's arrest, on charges of real crimes. And that's before they started shooting at the cops.

Greens, MoveOn, and the Socialist Party do not shoot at cops. They do not do things that give them reason to want to shoot at cops. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the Branch Davidians.

[FeebMaster]

143. So what was ATF doing investigating child abuse anyway? (nt)

[library_max]

146. Weapons offenses. Says it right there in my post.

Feeb, you've got to learn to read entire sentences!

[FeebMaster]

147. Maybe you should have read all of mine.

It was only one line.

[MrBenchley]

148. Remember, feeb hasn't read this website either...

[FeebMaster]

150. We weren't discussing this website.

Thanks for your concern though.

[Van23]

162. Wrong

I never said the Davidians were working legally for radical change. I said that the federal government's response to what they were doing was WAY out of line and in excess to the situation. It also put the lives of innocent children in danger...obviously.

[TX-RAT]

172. I agree the ATFs response was excessive.

I also posted in the past that i thought a couple of local deputy's could have taken care of that, without a problem. Sadly we'll never know.
But one thing i do know for sure, all Koresh had to do was walk out and face the charges instead of hiding behind women and children like a coward, and nobody would have been killed. He is totally responsible for the blood shed there.

[CO Liberal]

177. Well Said, TX-RAT

Too many people on the pro-gun side look upon David Koresh as some kind of martyr. Yet in fact, he was a law-breaking child molester who was personally responsible for all those deaths.

[MrBenchley]

174. Funny...

I didn't think it was excessive for a bunch of armed white supremacist lunatics in a home made fortress who had shot cops...and I say that it was Koresh himself who endangered those children.

[Dayton]

180. Koresh abused women and children

and that cannot be disputed. However, killing the victims seems to be extreme. ATF watched Koresh jog in the mornings and followed him into town when he picked up supplies, he was under surveillance for weeks, yet moving in with armored vehicles and initiating conflict was wrong.

[MrBenchley]

182. Gee, considering it was Koresh himself who did the killing....

[Dayton]

184. The question is

the preemptive use of deadly force when no evidence of a single life being at risk. I dont believe, even you, think that our Govt should go in shooting first with more than 100 women and childrens lives are at risk.

Rembember, this is the same agency that shot a mother out from under an infant, when no one was at risk.

[CO Liberal]

186. The REAL Question Is....

...why are you apparently defending the actions of people like David Koresh and Randy Weaver and condemning the ATF on a progressive Democratic web site?

:shrug:

[Dayton]

187. My bad

A debate on facts not allowed. Sorry

[CO Liberal]

191. Debates Are Allowed.....

But when you start off by defending the actions of assholes like Koresh and Weaver, your position is suspect from the get-go.

[MrBenchley]

190. Amazing isn't it...

No gun nut is ever too scummy for our "pro gun democrats" not to saddle up and try to rescue...

[Van23]

197. Gerry Spence

Why don't you ask Spence, the guy who defended and got an acquittal for Weaver. Spence is a man of great integrity. He wouldn't have defended Weaver if he thought him to be in the wrong.

[CO Liberal]

200. Lawyers Do That All The Time

Even the guilty have the right to legal council. It's in the Constitution - it's not in the Second Amendment, so you may have missed it.....

[Dayton]

215. It seems to me

that this specific forum has, in fact, criticized the ATF,CIA,FBI, Armed Forces, Justice department and many other government agencies, so I apologize The for doing the same and not understanding the rules, I assumed the critic of a govt agency was de rigour. That being said.

I (as in me, the author of the post) never defended that loathsome creature,Koresh, it seems a link to my quote doing so would be easy to do. False accusations are much easier.

Randy Weaver is easier. The Deadly consequences are much more warped.
For some reason ATF decided that an assault team was required to take out a middle aged man with a wife, infant, and, 14 year old boy.

The 14 year old boy was confronted on his own property by a person in full camo gear and an automatic weapon. Fearing for his own life and the life of his family he made the rash assumption that a person in stealth mode and carrying at least one automatic weapon was a threat to his, and his family's safety.

Remember that thru the post event investigation, the summons for Randy Weaver to appear at court was wrong from the court that issued the order and Weaver never had the opportunity to respond to the original summons. No one just walked up to the front door and asked to talk to Randy Weaver.

For some reason it was necessary to kill a women holding an infant by the skills of a sharp shooter. Again I wounder where the risk was to ATF agents.

Again, if opening Government agency's to criticism is counter to the posted rules, I will obey as long as all posters will do the same

[TX-RAT]

216. Few questions please

Was the ATF serving a warrant?
Did the boy fire at the ATF agent in camo?

(the summons for Randy Weaver to appear at court was wrong from the court that issued the order and Weaver never had the opportunity to respond )
Do you have a link to verify that? ( and please clarify )

[Dayton]

218. Well here is the Government report

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT REGARDING INTERNAL INVESTIGATION OF SHOOTINGS AT RUBY RIDGE, IDAHO DURING ARREST OF RANDY WEAVER


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Released through LEXIS COUNSEL CONNECT.LEXIS COUNSEL CONNECT is a communications and information service for attorneys. LCC is managed by American Lawyer Media, L.P.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Aug. 22, 1992, on a remote ridge in northern Idaho, aweeklong standoff between white supremacist Randy Weaver andfederal agents ended in a shootout in which an FBI sniper shot andkilled Weaver's wife, Vicky. The Ruby Ridge confrontation began aweek earlier when federal marshals tried to arrest Weaver forfailing to appear in court on weapons charges. At that time, a gunbattle erupted between marshals and Weaver's 14-year-old son,resulting in the deaths of Weaver's son and a marshal.


It states plainly that Randy Weavers son came upon a Federal agent on their own property that resulted if the death of a 14 year old boy protecting his families property from armed intruders that showed zero signs of being government agents, this was a man in full camo gear with an automatic weapon.

Sooo we have a dead 14 year old and a mother shot in the head by a sniper will holding an infant, and a federal agent that was shot on private property as a suspected threat of life to family

[CO Liberal]

219. If You're Gonna Continue Defending Weaver.....

...why don't you go over to Ted Nugnet's web site?

:shrug:

[TX-RAT]

222. Heres where i have a problem

(It states plainly that Randy Weavers son came upon a Federal agent on their own property that resulted if the death of a 14 year old boy protecting his families property from armed intruders that showed zero signs of being government agents, this was a man in full camo gear with an automatic weapon.)
Is it common practice in Idaho, to shoot everybody caring a weapon and wearing camouflage, just because they're on your property?
Is it common to ignore a summons for federal weapons violations in Idaho?

(Sooo we have a dead 14 year old and a mother shot in the head by a sniper will holding an infant, and a federal agent that was shot on private property as a suspected threat of life to family)
All because Randy Weaver chose not to appear. What a man.

[MrBenchley]

189. Gee, Koresh and his loonies SHOT first....

and Randy Weaver deserved what he got (and again, he shot first).

[library_max]

193. If you're talking about Ruby Ridge, the cops had already been shot at

from that cabin. Once you've shot at the cops, pretty much anything that happens is your own fault. If the Weavers had immediately surrendered after that, hands up and empty, they might have been okay. But you can't expect cops to just wait around until the next time you decide to take a potshot at them. They're not there for target practice.

[CO Liberal]

179. Update to Post #23 - I Just Got A Reply From Register.com

As mentioned in Post #23 above, I sent Register.com an e-mail the other day alerting them to the bogus registration information for the www.liberalswithguns.com site. They sent me the following reply:

Dear XXXXXXXXXXXX,

Thank you for contacting Register.com.

This is regarding the fake contact information displayed in the WHOIS database for the domain name “tmiglobal.com”.

We thank you for bringing this to our notice.

We have forwarded this issue to the appropriate department. They will do the needful in this regard.

If you have any further questions, please respond using the link included at the beginning of this email or contact us at the numbers below.

Thank you for choosing Register.com, the First Step on the Web(TM).

Customer Support

[MrBenchley]

183. Interesting...

I love this wording: "They will do the needful ..."

[CO Liberal]

185. I Know

It's like "All your information are belonging to us."

:-)

[MrBenchley]

188. Did you see yesterday

That idiot Tom DeLay's official spokesperson announced that the charges against the corrupt piece of shit are just "caricature assassination"...and then some right wing goof (Faux Noise, maybe?) referred to the "Scarcity of Marriage Amendment".

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

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

[CO Liberal]

203. I Was Only Searching fo the Truth....

...about the person behind your site. Looks like you have something to hide....

[FeebMaster]

205. Gee Wayne,

if that's your real name. Some people might think you've got something to hide with your dogged refusal to post your full name, address, and telephone number for all to see. Sadly, there's no one we can call to complain about it.

[CO Liberal]

217. My Wife Has Requested That I Not Disclose That Information

There are a lot of kooks out here in Colorado that could use that information to cause me harm. I guess you never heard of Alan Berg - he was a liberal talk show host in Denver who was gunned down in his driveway 20 years ago by a white supremicist who disagreed with his opinions.

But I'm not running a web site posing as a legitimate organization, like Van23 is......

[FeebMaster]

220. Right.

So it's completely different. You don't want people to have your personal information because there's some crazies out there but Van23 is out of luck and has to post all his personal information despite there being some crazies out there.

[CO Liberal]

221. I'm Not Running a Web Site

He is. He's holding himself up as a so-called expert on the gun issue, yet he doesn't have the balls to identify himself.

[FeebMaster]

223. Does running this web site somehow

protect him from all the crazies out there who might wish him harm?

[FeebMaster]

204. You'd be surprised how much support John Ashcroft gets

down here. The gun control crowd want to give him all kinds of power. It wasn't long ago that they were arguing he should be able to ban any ammunition he wants to if he personally decides it's armor piercing.

[MrBenchley]

206. For example, some parrot his Second Amendment lies

constantly...

[FeebMaster]

207. That's funny. Though I'm sure unintentionally.

Since everything Ashcroft has said about the second amendment is a lie. Tell me, since Ashcroft has become AG, how many people have been arrested for violating the various federal gun laws?

[MrBenchley]

210. No, feeb, it's a BIG laugh that the RKBA creed is transparently dishonest

starting from the top with life member AshKKKroft and working down to "enthusiasts" trying to pretend these right wing talking points about Koresh and Randy Weaver are "liberal."

"Let the eagle soar-r-r-r-r-r!"

[FeebMaster]

211. How many people have been arrested on federal

firearms offenses since Ashcroft became AG?

[MrBenchley]

212. "Let the eagle soarrrrrrrrr!"

[FeebMaster]

214. Wherever that came from.

So how many people have been arrested on federal firearms offenses since Ashcroft became AG?

[MrBenchley]

208. You mean that site was SUPPOSED to be believable?

[Wickerman]

224. The 200 post threshold reached, this thread is locked

thanks for playing.