For those pretending "gun rights" is a bipartisan issue....

[MrBenchley]

The NRA convention, just concluded in Milwaukee, just named Tommy Franks as its man of the year. Franks launched into a long defense of the Chimpy's clusterfuck in Iraq, and was cheered lustily by the loonies in attendance.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=134&contentid=3529

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1165682.php/Retired_Gen._Franks_defends_Rumsfeld_Bush

Where are the "gun owning liberals" complaining about that? Nowhere to be seen....because they're aren't enough of them to be a pimple on a gnat's hind end.

[babylonsister]

1. Wasn't DeLay their man last year? Hmmmm. nt

[MrBenchley]

3. And Dick Cheney the year before that....

Yet you commonly see posts on DU trying to pretend this sour little bunch of racists and right wing crazies is just like the Rainbow Coalition....

[KyuzoGator]

109. Strange, I never see DUers making excuses for the NRA...

Care to cite examples?

[seabeyond]

2. who has claimed they are bipartisan? lol lol ....hm n/t

[MrBenchley]

4. Plenty of posts have....

of course they're from the trigger happy, who'll say anything, no matter how silly, to defend their crappy little hobby.

[H2O Man]

5. I would point out

that the NRA is not the voice of all gun owners, or of all who recognize that the US Constitution addresses the issues involved in the discussion of "gun rights."

[havocmom]

8. Yep.

And there's lots of us.

Most of the people I know who bare arms all stopped supporting the NRA a LONG time ago. They still all feel pretty passionate about supporting the Constitution.

[pecwae]

12. I own a gun

and the NRA does not speak for me.

[me b zola]

96. You summed up my position

"I own a gun and the NRA does not speak for me." :toast:



I should add, Mr Benchly does not speak for me either.

[Tesha]

15. You couldn't tell that from Gun Nut propaganda.

> I would point out that the NRA is not the voice of all gun owners...

You couldn't tell that from Gun Nut propaganda.

Tesha

[H2O Man]

17. I'm not concerned

about "Gun Nut propaganda."

[MrBenchley]

70. Nor from the posts of the trigger-happy here

who are quick to spout NRA propaganda

[lastliberalintexas]

54. Yes indeedy- the fact that the NRA is a

republican campaign org in drag does not diminish the fact that there are plenty of people who vote Dem and are against most gun control. Intellectually dishonest to try to argue that the NRA speaks for all gun owners or that the gun issue means nothing to many/some Dem voters.


And shouldn't this be in the gungeon? :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

68. I would point out the gun rights creed is completely phony

and nothing but right wing racism and craziness giggling under a new sheet.....

[H2O Man]

80. And you would look silly

doing so. Racism? Silly, silly, silly you.

[MrBenchley]

90. Nope...gun rights is nothing but racism and right wing craziness

hiding under a new sheet....

[KyuzoGator]

112. Proof by repetition.

Not yet has Mr. Benchley once EVER qualified or explained how gun ownership rights equal racism.

[Union Thug]

6. Gun owner here. But I HATE the NRA....

But then I also support background checks and waiting periods.

I agree completely. Anyone whose ever thumbed through an American Rifleman magazine in the last twenty years will see constant attacks on Dems (oh sure, every once in a blue moon there is a token Dem thrown in as a recommended vote), but - just look at what that cluster of bubbas did to Kerry during the lead up to the election in you need any indication of where these bastards stand.

[TahitiNut]

49. Equating the NRA to the Second Amendment is like ...

... equating the KKK to the First Amendment. Fucking brain-damaged nonsense! :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

69. You will notice that when Kindasleezy Rice said

that governments have the right to control guns (in connection with Iraq), there wasn't a peep from the NRA, the GOA or any of the other cesspools....

[ThomWV]

7. That Does Not Diminish My Right To Own A Gun

[MrBenchley]

71. Bang bang! Shoot-em up cowboy!

Amazing what some people will excuse for the sake of a crappy hobby.

[bunkerbuster1]

9. What is the best-organized American liberal gun-rights organization?

Practical question.

I'm aware of some bloggers who self-identify as liberal and pro-gun ownership, but are their any effective counters to the too-crackpot-for-Poppy-Bush NRA?

[MrBenchley]

72. It's about as real as the Black KKK Sympathizers' League

only not as militant (snicker)....

[KyuzoGator]

114. There are about ten gun-owning DUers IN THIS THREAD ALONE.

We can't force you to see things you simply refuse to notice.

[Dave Reynolds]

120. pssst...do not get in the way of Benchley's fundamentalism.

One-track minds do not accept derailing.

[MrBenchley]

125. LOL!

Inspiring to see the way you spoke out against the NRA (snicker)

[madmom]

10. several gun owners in my family, and they all quit the NRA because

of their political stance.

[MrBenchley]

88. You might recall that Heston called for the NRA to lynch Al Gore in 2000

and that nobody did more to spread the Swift Boat lies about Kerry than the NRA....they even set up a "media outlet" so they could evade campaign finance laws.

[Solon]

11. You know, for someone so "practical" you seem to not have a clue...

about the flyover purple states, no offense, but while the NRA are a bunch of assholic right wing assholes, most gun owners aren't members. Not to mention that most gun owners actually support REASONABLE gun control, not irrational gun grabbing. OK, that's just my two cents, if you don't want to win in these states, good luck in national elections.

[sandnsea]

13. Who supports irrational gun grabbing??

And why do you use NRA anti-Democrat "gun grabber" talking points when you support reasonable gun control, just like 90% of Democrats??

[Solon]

18. Actually, I was referring to Mr. Benchly personally...

he's somewhat inconsistant on the whole "electability" argument, as in he is rabidly anti-gun, but at the same time supports the DLC for "practical" purposes. I also find his lack of support for the first amendment rather disturbing as well, but that's for another thread.

[MrBenchley]

74. LOL!

Since about 70% of the country supports gun control, why the fuck would anybody sane want to be pro-gun rights? Especially given the scummy nature of the pro-gun public spokespeople.

But then I guess speaking up against the "Hate Democrats" bunch and their idiotic screaming is a "lack of support for the First Amendment" by soime peculiar lights....

[MrBenchley]

73. Geeze, I can't think of a better way to win than by condemning the NRA

and pushing for common sense gun control.

[MadHound]

14. Gun Rights and the NRA are apples and oranges

One doesn't have to belong to the NRA in order to defend the Second Amendment. One can also own and use guns and still firmly believe in suitable gun control measures:shrug:

I own guns, I hate the NRA, and I believe that CCW shouldn't be allowed, among other gun control measures.

Painting with a broad brush is foolish.

[michreject]

19. I own guns

52 to be exact. I also have a CCW. I have it because I can.

I also do not vote Republican.

[MadHound]

23. I'm happy for you,

Still doesn't mean that I'm in favor of CCW. I find it rather disingenous at best. If you are in favor of CCW because of the deterrant factor, then by God, be honest and open with it. Strap that bad boy on your hip and I doubt that many folks will mess with you. Carrying concealed is just a chickenshit way of doing things in my opinion.

But boy howdy, CCW sure does fill the coffers of the NRA. Interesting story, back in the late nineties here in Missouri, a group headed by the NRA tried to ram CCW through the state legislature, but our govenor at the time vetoed it. The NRA took the unprecedented move of putting the CCW question on the ballot via initiative petition. However the people spoke and CCW didn't pass. The NRA then bided their time until the state legislature was packed with a Republican majority, and headed by a Republican govenor to ram through CCW, against the will of the people. Pretty underhanded don't you think. Kind of like CCW itself.

It's nice that you don't vote Republican, and frankly I don't care how many guns you own(besides, you can only fire two at a time, max). But I join with the majority of people in both my state and across the country who want reasonable gun control measures, including a ban on CCW. Like I said, if you want to intimidate people, strap that puppy on your hip, and you'll find that people will stay far away. And last I checked, that's legal in the vast majority of the states.

[slackmaster]

24. Appeal to "reasonableness" can be a logical fallacy

Particularly when you don't give details of what you consider reasonable. You started to here:

...a ban on CCW....

If you can provide some hard information that CCW does more harm than good, please share it with us to help the people on the fence make up their minds.

MY opinion is that if it doesn't jeapordize public safety, the availability of the option to carry (i.e. personal choice) is in line with what this country is supposed to be about and therefore a good thing.

[MadHound]

32. Well, first of all, it is the tyranny of minority rule

Consider that the vast majority of Americans, including those who own guns, are in favor of sane, sensible gun control laws, including the ban on CCW, we are allowing ourselves to be ruled by the few.

Secondly, law enforcement officials in CCW states are now forced to treat even routine traffic stops as "armed and dangerous", thus an even harsher crackdown on a stop and a further erosion of our civil liberties

Finally, while it is anecdotal, there is evidence out there that due to CCW there has been an bit of an increase in shootings that would otherwise not occur. A few years back a fight broke out in a bar in PA. Three men got into it, the fight spilled outside, and guns were pulled all around. Two men died, one gravely injured. All three had CCW.

[slackmaster]

34. Who says a vast majority of Americans favor a ban on CCW?

The choices they have made for their state legislatures over the last 20 years would seem to contradict that statement, or at least indicate that it isn't a high priority for them.

[MadHound]

44. Ooo, bright lights and winking blinking GIFs

Still it doesn't make up for the fact that yes, the vast majority of Americans oppose CCW<http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=48820>

The reason why these laws make it through the various legislatures over the will of the people is because they're backed by the very powerful and well funded pro-gun groups like the NRA. As in Missouri, even when the people have spoken, lots of well placed cash can overcome the public will. Why do you think that Missouri is the only state where the issue was placed before the voters? That's right, because the people turned down CCW flat, and the pro-gun lobby knows that is the case nationwide.

[slackmaster]

53. Thanks for the link - I'd like to see how Gallup's questions were phrased

It makes a big difference. Asking people if they favor unrestricted carry (as in VT and AK) is very different from asking whether there should be a set of strict objective criteria defined for determining who can get a permit, and that the state must issue a permit to anyone who meets those criteria. Gallup has always tilted its polls against the right to keep and bear arms.

...Why do you think that Missouri is the only state where the issue was placed before the voters? That's right, because the people turned down CCW flat, and the pro-gun lobby knows that is the case nationwide.

If people cared very much about it, they would have voted anti-CCW people into their legislatures decades ago.

[Romulus]

63. good point

One 2004 survey that specifically mentioned training and background checks for a CCW permit got results overwhelmingly in favor.

http://client.xntec.com/clientpages/oleary/report0104.html

“Currently, 36 states have laws that allow residents to qualify for a permit to carry a firearm to protect themselves if they pass a background check, if they participate in firearms training and pay a fee to cover administrative costs. Do you feel this is a good law or a bad law?”

Americans now feel this is a good law by a 79% to 18% margin. This result represents a significant improvement from 2001 when we asked a nearly identical question in which 66% agreed with the right-to-carry position. Support for right-to-carry is very strong across all precincts with better than 70% of those polled in virtually every demographic in favor of the law.

[slackmaster]

35. LEOs have always regarded everyone they stop as potentially armed

This is nothing new.

Finally, while it is anecdotal, there is evidence out there that due to CCW there has been an bit of an increase in shootings that would otherwise not occur. A few years back a fight broke out in a bar in PA. Three men got into it, the fight spilled outside, and guns were pulled all around. Two men died, one gravely injured. All three had CCW.

I'll take your word that the incident happened as you describe.

It's unfortunate that they chose to carry loaded weapons in a BAR. While that is allowed in PA, in most states it's either illegal to carry your weapon while you are drinking (DUH!), or even to have your weapon in any place where alcohol is served.

Perhaps a little beefing up of PA's law would have prevented this tragedy.

That said, I note your reply's lack of verifiable statistics showing that CCW has a negative impact on public safety. For those two who died needlessly, how many people in PA have used their licensed weapons to avoid a confrontation, to keep from being robbed or raped or killed? (I don't know, and was hoping maybe you could shed some light.)

[MadHound]

46. Light for you, but beware, it is from an anti CCW source *gasp*

Still, the figure is valid

"Proponents of the legislation especially love to claim that conceal and carry is necessary for self-defense. Yet the odds that one would use a gun on an assailant or thief are quite minimal — of the over 30,000 gun deaths in 2002, only 163 were deemed “justifiable homicide,” and it’s well known that a gun is 43 times more likely to be used in killing its owner or a relative than an intruder. The legislation, which is opposed by a majority of Wisconsin citizens and state gun owners, is supposedly intended to protect the disabled and the elderly. Yet these are the very people who would have the most difficult time obtaining the necessary gun permit, and the citizens who would be most incapable of effectively operating a firearm at all."<http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/10/19/concealedcarry_law_.php>

[Romulus]

55. *gasp* not the "43 times" myth!

The "43 times" myth comes from ONE study on firearms-related homicides dating from 20 years ago. A later study that fixed the flaws of the earlier study, by the same researcher, yielded different results.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/15/1084?ijkey=c67db2fe0018ba8a3e99f0720d66849b5fa089c5&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

This study does not conclude the "43 times" assertion. It also found that firearms have a lesser association with homicide than other sociological factors. At most, the study could be cited for the assertion that firearms ownership and homicide correlates with an epidemiologically insignificant odds-adjusted ratio of 2.7 over non-firearms owning households. I say "could" and "assertion" because the study never determined if the homicides were committed using the household firearm.

This same study's data, available here from U. Mich. for free (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/index.html), shows that firearms-owning households with NO history of domestic violence, drug or alcohol abuse, or members with criminal records, (all factors that preclude firearms ownership under Federal law) have no statistically significant increase in homicides over identical households without firearms.

The only significant difference is in firearm-related suicides. While tragic, suicides cannot be solely blamed on $300+ guns when $10 hoses can be bought from Home Depot and hooked up to car exhausts.

I understand your frustration with American violence, but your energy needs to be channeled to things that solve the problem, like fixing America's broken health care system and eliminating the gross income inequality we have.

[slackmaster]

I call it the Body Count Fallacy

Ignoring the fact that a gun need not be fired in order to serve its purpose as a defensive weapon.

[slackmaster]

59. Not based on any actual research

Here is the core fallacy IMO:

...Concealed-carry extends more rights to crooks and felons, guaranteeing that some weapons will fall into the wrong hands, making law-enforcement a virtual nightmare....

That ignores the obvious facts that in every shall-issue state anyone with a record of violent crime (i.e. the people who are most likely to do crimes in the future) cannot qualify for a permit; and that someone who is predisposed to go looking for a crime to commit isn't going to eschew carrying a concealed firearm just because it would be illegal to do so.

...The legislation, which is opposed by a majority of Wisconsin citizens and state gun owners, is supposedly intended to protect the disabled and the elderly....

True enough that's how the bill was marketed to the public, and I think it's unfortunate that proponents of liberalized concealed carry make such unsupported claims. The fact that existing shall-issue laws have NOT resulted in any measurable negative impact on public safety is enough reason for this Democrat to support them.

Maybe one day California will see the light.

[Romulus]

25. "opinions"

Are like certain orifices, and some stink more than others.

Carrying concealed is just a chickenshit way of doing things in my opinion.

I'm glad that you are able to form your own opinions. :eyes: Perhaps law enforcement agencies (like the FBI, local plainclothes detectives, etc.) should take your advice and "intimidate" the crooks. Think of the crime reduction we could have!

[MadHound]

30. Funny you should mention law enforcement

Virtually every single law enforcement agency in every single state that has passed CCW came out strongly against CCW. It would make their job harder, and now, thanks to CCW, they have to treat each and every stop exactly as though the person was carrying. So you, I and everybody else gets the "dangerous criminal" treatment during a routine stop, all thanks to a minority's overarching need to "walk with steel" Thanks, I really appreciate that:eyes:

Sorry, but I'm sick and damn tired of having to bow to the wishes of the minority opinion in this country. As I said earlier, the vast majority of people in this country want sane, sensible gun control laws, including a ban on CCW. But backed by deep pockets and pocessed of a loud voice, gun enthusiasts are slowly but surely turning this country into a bizarre Wild West fantasy.

And yes, I think CCW is chickenshit, I think any sort of concealed weapon is chickenshit was of operating. I'll even go you one further, I frankly think that the use of guns is a chickenshit method of resolving disputes. Anybody can shoot someone else from a hundred feet away, and IMO that is one reason we have so many shootings. However it takes real courage to solve a dispute face to face, up close and personal without a gun.

And just as a reminder, yes indeed, I do own guns.

[slackmaster]

33. Regarding "It would make their job harder..."

CCW has been a reality in dozens of states for many years now. Millions of people have permits. If it was going to make law enforcement more difficult, surely that would have become evident by now.

Can you provide any hard information to support that statement?

Sorry, but I'm sick and damn tired of having to bow to the wishes of the minority opinion in this country.

Minority viewpoints often serve important functions in our political processes. If we always deferred to majority opinion, the right of women to vote would still be infringed.

[MadHound]

37. I would suggest that you talk to the police and sheriffs that you know

I've a few in the family, and they absolutely despise the new law. Like I've said earlier, it makes even routine traffic stops become occaissions for treating innocent people like they're carrying. This takes time, energy and manpower, and frankly the cops don't like being looked upon like the Gestapo, which is what happens when they are forced to treat traffic stops like possible armed confrontations.

As far as bowing to the wishes of the minority goes, you haven't seen the damage that such actions have done over the past five years? With RW fundie large and in charge, but still in a minority, we have been stripped of our civil rights and gotten ourselves into an illegal, immoral war, all at the behest of the minority opinion.

[slackmaster]

40. I know a few San Diego PD officers personally

They're all in favor of liberalized CCW, and generally are very pro-RKBA. They don't mind letting the good guys arm themselves.

...they are forced to treat traffic stops like possible armed confrontations....

One officer who I know very well has been working traffic for many years has told me that every stop has to be regarded as a possible armed confrontation because of gang-bangers, druggies, and crazies. It's been that way for decades even in San Diego, where a CCW permit is difficult to obtain. (California is one of the last of the May-Issue states.)

[crankybubba]

43. i've been a cop for 11 years

and ccw dosen't bother myself of any of my colleagues at all. The person that would go through the trouble to get a permit is generally the person that would not be a threat to an officer's safety. in my jurisdiction all ccw holders are REQUIRED to present their permit with their dl on a traffic stop. I am not aware of ANY cases where a ccw has killed an officer on a traffic stop.

[sierrajim]

52. Did you want to re-phrase that?

The person that would go through the trouble to get a permit is generally the person that would be a threat to an officer's safety.

[crankybubba]

57. sorry mistype..LOL n/t

[-..__...]

64. The haves and the have nots.

As is most often the case, the law enforcement agencies that speak out against CCW (and in general support gun control), are comprised of police chiefs and other high ranking police officials.

The LEO rank and file police organizations by and large have little or no problem with CCW for law abiding civilians. They're not the ones the police are fearful of.

If what you say (or believe), is true that "every single law enforcement agency in every single state that has passed CCW came out strongly against CCW", what was their position when Congress passed a national reciprocity CCW law for police officers? Did they enthusiastically support it or condone it?

FWIW, the reciprocation law was passed overwhelmingly by both the Senate and House.


Note: The national reciprocation for police officers allows both active duty and retired LEOS
(with limitations... http://njlawman.com/Feature%20Pieces/HR%20218.htm) to carry a concealed firearm in all 50 states regardless of the states CCW laws or training requirements.
Basically, it's recognized the same wa as a drivers license.

[michreject]

31. Actually I shoot a lot of three gun matches

I shoot competitively in several different types of matches, from bullseye to IPSC/USPSA to CMP matches.

The deterrent factor is no factor in my decision to carry a gun. I carry a gun because it's legal to do so. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

48. The CCW battle is lost for now

All but Illinois and Wisconsin allow CCW, and they are working on Wisconsin.

Illinois will be proably the lone holdout.

[MadHound]

50. Yes, sadly once again the will of the majority

Has succumbed to the tyranny of the minority.

[MrBenchley]

75. And I guess that's why the trigger-happy can't say boo about Tommy Franks

"Painting with a broad brush is foolish. "
And pointing out the hypocrisy of the trigger happy is instructive.

[Dufaeth]

16. I don't own a gun, but some of us non gun owners sure are dicks

EOM

[Toots]

20. Bragging or Complaining?

America is saturated with guns. Good guys and Bad guys have them. I really can't believe it is an issue. They keep saying Democrats ruled for over forty years and yet they still have their guns. :shrug: Under Republican rule guns were actually confiscated (New Orleans). LIES are become apparent to more and more as they awaken..

[Dufaeth]

21. Neither,

I don't own a gun, but I fully support our 2nd amendment rights. I was just pointing out to the OP how some people are dicks.

[MrBenchley]

76. Tell me about it (snicker)

Irony is SUCH a wonderful thing.

[slackmaster]

22. Not an NRA member, so why should I give a flying fuck what they say?

I think and speak for myself.

:nuke:

[Dufaeth]

26. Cuz if you don't you are a "loony" and if you do you are a "gnat pimple"

according to the OP.

[slackmaster]

28. My vote counts as much as his does

:toast:

[stepnw1f]

41. not "looney" as much as "stupid" (nt)

[slackmaster]

42. The OP thinks the Roman Catholic Church supports gay rights

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20608&mesg_id=20675&page=

And he thinks I'm stupid?

:crazy:

[stepnw1f]

51. Not you man (nt)

[MrBenchley]

78. Yeah, let's post THAT thread again

So everybody can see you trying to pretend that the US Catholic Conference (which urges tolerance toward gays) is bigoted....as you struggle to defend a phony "gay gun owners group" and it's imbecilic enemies list, that includes plenty of pro-gay Democrats but not a single gay hating right winger......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20608&mesg_id=20608

The close you look at "gun rights", the phonier it gets....

[MrBenchley]

89. But since he didn't....

He's probably both (snicker)

[MrBenchley]

77. Hey, it don't bother me that the "gun owning liberals" claim is crap....

But it's fun to see it proved again.

[Romulus]

27. More Democrat bashing

Too bad you forgot to mention that almost half of the Senate and House Democrats voted to approve the Iraq War Resolution:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

But that's OK. Don't let things like that get in the way of a Quixotic quest . . .

[lastliberalintexas]

62. Oh, but on minor issues llike war and choice we should

be willing to compromise to win votes, doncha know? Compromise on anything but gun issues. :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

79. Wow, what a lame attempt at Democrat bashing yours was, too.....

[mcscajun]

29. I'm a gun owner (exactly one weapon, no more) and I ignore the NRA

totally.

They do not speak for me, I do not support them, but I do support responsible gun ownership and gun control.

I also support www.StoptheNRA.com.

[stepnw1f]

39. Seriously... I Applaud You (nt)

[MrBenchley]

81. Good for you....

I'm glad to know you.

[derby378]

36. When Bill Clinton himself blames gun control for our losses in 1994...

Well, let's just say that MrBenchley needs a good, strong cup-a-joe.

[MrBenchley]

82. Wow...what a dishonest claim. Clinton never did any such thing.

But go ahead and try to back that up...and then I'll prove what you edited out of the quote.

[stepnw1f]

38. Fuck the NRA and their Brownshirts

because that's all they are. I only wish people with guns would realize what a farce the NRA really is.

[MrBenchley]

83. Amen to that!

[mtnsnake]

45. K&R

they're aren't enough of them to be a pimple on a gnat's hind end.

:rofl:

Where are the "gun owning liberals" complaining about that?

Scuba diving?

[ContraBass Black]

56. K&R? Why?

For humor, or agreement?

[mtnsnake]

67. Both

Got a problem with that?

[Freedom_Aflaim]

47. The NRA is powerful because its members make it powerful

Don't get me wrong, Im very anti-gun and think we should round them all up and melt them.

However, you have to look at reality.

The reality is that the only reason the NRA wields so much power is because it has millions of dues paying Americans in its membership. The Gun industry also sends millions to the NRA and they get those millions from gun buying Americans (who buy far more guns than the legitimate demand)

These people vote with the wallets via contribution to the NRA, who in turns strong arms our leaders. These people also vote in mass for progun politicians.

Its a big problem, but to fix it, you need to either convince people to give up their guns and gun loving ways, or dismantle large parts of Democracy.

I prefer to live with the gun problem, keep Democracy and in the meantime, work to dismantle the gun culture and its enablers a little bit at a time.

[Beelzebud]

58. Not all gun owners support the NRA.

And as to the "gun owning liberals". From your shit attitude it's easy to see why not many would choose to hang around here...

[slackmaster]

61. There are more Democrats who own guns and are not NRA members

Than there are NRA members.

[Romulus]

65. it's OK

Some of us try to do damage control.

We are the "punchbowl police," so to speak . .

[MrBenchley]

84. Hell, most gun owners support gun control

So are you telling us that all the gun owning liberals are weenies?

They sure don't seem to say anything anywhere else, either. Gun owner forums are freeper cesspools, filled with racism, bigotry and hate, with nary a dissenting word.

[Beelzebud]

91. So why do you spend so much time at "freeper cesspools"?

Plenty of gun owning liberals post right here at DU. You're reading the post of one right now.

I don't hang around "freeper cesspools", so I wouldn't know what kind of shit is discussed in those places.

You'd be able to see the gun owning liberals right here on DU if your head weren't so firmly planted in a "freeper cesspool"...

[MrBenchley]

93. Because its a laugh and a half

to see what dishonest crap the loonies come up with....

"I don't hang around "freeper cesspools"
Hilariously, they're supposed to be forums for gun owners....they just turn into freeper cesspools for obvious reasons.

"You'd be able to see the gun owning liberals right here on DU"
Would those be the ones posting right wing propaganda? The ones who spoke out against Tommy Franks addressing the NRA? (oh that's right...I'm the only liberal here who did that.)

[Beelzebud]

94. You're engaging one right now. Where have I posted right-wing

propganda? Oh that's right. Never.

I tire of your strawman bullshit. People like you do nothing but alienate people from progressive causes.

Go back to the freeper cesspools. You seem to enjoy them.

[MrBenchley]

97. Sure is inspiring the way you spoke out against the NRA

(snicker)

"People like you do nothing but alienate people from progressive causes."
Spare us the faux concern.

[Beelzebud]

98. Not all gun owners support the NRA. What part of that don't you get?

Fuck the NRA. Never been a member, never will be.

Spare me your tired strawman bullshit. Not all gun owners are NRA members.

Keep alienating people though! That probably what the GOP pays you for.

[MrBenchley]

102. But evidently the ones who post NRA propaganda here

and want to pretend gun rights is a bipartisan issue are full of crap.....

"Keep alienating people though!"
Why not? Who the fuck wants dishonest gun loonies on their side?

[Beelzebud]

105. This concludes our broadcast day. *click*

Time to add you with the other 2 idiots in my ignore list. I'm not wasting anymore of my time on you.

dishonest gun loonies?

NRA propaganda?

You don't even make any fucking sense.

IGNORED.

[MrBenchley]

113. And the downside for me is nil....

[Beelzebud]

116. Don't bother responding Ignored. I can't see your drivel anymore.

Go find someone else to fight strawmans with.

[MrBenchley]

123. Hey, it's not like you had anything to say worth hearing

So I'll just go ahead and post this again:

What if you were thinking of taking up stamp collecting and you found that....

--the manufacturers and sellers of stamps, stamp albums, stamp reference books and paraphernalia were some of the scummiest companies on earth;
--the stamp collectors' associations attacked Democrats and liberal ideas on a daily basis, and honored the most corrupt Republicans, like Dick Cheney and Tom Delay, at their conventions
--every stamp collectors' on-line forum dripped with dittohead rubbish, racism and bigotry
--the stamp collectors lobby in Congress consisted of the most backward and corrupt thugs in the Republican party
--there was a public health hazard associated with stamp collecting, but the stamp collectinng industry had hired a racist crackpot to "prove" there was a health benefit.

Would you REALLY want to take up stamp collecting?

It's no coincidence that the worst administration in American history is also the most gun crazy.

[Beelzebud]

126. LOL Ignored has gone from fighting strawman to shadowboxing. :D

LOL

[leesa]

60. I've always maintained that it will be the fascist Republicans who are

MOST likely to take your guns away. The NRA is an excellent way to keep track of who has them.

[anarch]

66. I like guns...I like shooting at stuff, and hearing the loud noises

The NRA, however, can kiss my ass. Why should anyone give a shit what they say, or who they have as members?

Anyway, it's a totally partisan issue...I think it's bullshit, though, in that a Republican administration is just as likely as a Democratic one to actually take your guns away, if not more so.

The Repubs just use the fact that progressives/liberals/Democrats in general are more concerned with responsible social policies like gun control (which is not "taking your guns away" for fuckssake...taking your guns away is what any government will do in the case of civil unrest, it has nothing to do with partisan politics)...but anyway, the Repubs use the issue to retain the votes of knee-jerk reactionary gun people, who if they thought things out a bit more clearly and didn't automatically reject the Democratic platform on account of this one issue, might switch sides.

When it comes down to it, it's a fucking non-issue...there is no "right to bear arms", just like there is no longer any more protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

[MrBenchley]

85. Well said....

Ever see this?

"Guns entered national politics in the 1970s. What is called the gun rights movement sprang into motion against a waning civil rights movement and a growing push for women's rights. One organizer of gun rights from the early '70s put it bluntly when I interviewed him. Conservatives were taking a beating. Something was needed to "reverse the flow in the pipes" of the civil rights movement. The social movements based on the rights of women and minorities had bolstered the Democratic Party. Conservatives who had fought against the gains of civil rights and the Equal Rights Amendment needed to counter. Enter the gun.
And when the gun spoke, it championed the cause of conservative and libertarian America. A proxy politics, the gun rights movement is a potent reaction to the social and political agendas of what is perceived as "liberal America." It takes aim at a range of social solutions for crime, international conflict and personal security. In America, the gun has become a litmus test for political beliefs.
The beginnings of this movement were quiet. In the early '70s, the Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative political organization, started the Student's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. From it sprang the Second Amendment Foundation and then Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In those groups a righteous cause and a political vision was born. Guns began their career as key props in a changing political theater.
Within two years, the Gun Owners of America organization appeared with its leadership roots in the John Birch Society. Thirty years later, the group remains true to its mission, a watchdog group making sure the gun rights movement stays on course, fulfilling its reactionary conservative mandate. "

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html

[LincolnMcGrath]

86. Just today's Two Minutes Hate thread by DU's #1 Democrat Hater

Always trying to divide the party with purity tests. Tsk Tsk

[MrBenchley]

111. Here's McGrath sticking up for the NRA....

[Asgaya Dihi]

87. I don't get why

Why is it that we know the Pope doesn't speak for all Christians, our President certainly doesn't speak for many of us, but the NRA somehow speaks for everyone who cares about the right to own a weapon?

Guns and the NRA don't mean the same thing anymore than the Pope and faith do. I don't own one at the moment, after my kids move out maybe I will. I surely believe people have the right to.

[CornField]

92. I happen to be a "gun owning liberal"

To be honest, you need to check your attitude at the door.

[Beelzebud]

95. Well according to him, people like us don't post here.

Only at "freeper cesspools".

[-..__...]

103. I hope he at least posts a new picture with Tommy Franks.

The usual one is way past it's bedtime...

[MrBenchley]

115. Why, look, it's "gun rights" in a nutshell....

Deadheart Dick fondling his musket while Zip and Pip look on....

[MrBenchley]

106. Actually when "gun owning liberals" post here, it's almost always

to post some sort of crack-brained right wing craziness....

[MrBenchley]

104. Good job speaking up against the NRA...

Or are you one of those going to pretend the NRA has nothing to do with the dishonest gun rights creed? (snicker)

[bullwinkle428]

99. Those cheering NRA members are freaking ignoramuses -

they haven't the slightest idea that it was *'s stormtroopers that were busy taking away people's guns in New Orleans post-Katrina. Just keep your heads in the sand, morans...

[MrBenchley]

107. The only complaint the gun loonies have about Chimpy

is that he's not a lot more fascist....

[ComerPerro]

100. They aren't in the NRA. Its been right wing for a long time now

[MrBenchley]

108. Exactly so....

[KyuzoGator]

101. Yawn. The NRA is a small subset of gun owners at large.

Nice try.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[yorgatron]

117. i'm surprised this hasn't been moved to the "dungeon"

maybe i'll go over there and start a thread called "why i am a well armed liberal and proud of it".

[KyuzoGator]

121. Careful, MrB will pretend you don't really exist.

Apparently, "gun-owning liberal" is an imaginary construct developed by an ultra-secret racist illuminati.

[Beelzebud]

124. Not just any ultra-secret racist illuminati.

The Ultra-Secret Racist NRA Illuminati!

[KyuzoGator]

127. Of which every gun owner is a life member.

Naturally.

[Beelzebud]

128. Oh well of course. That goes without saying!

[MrBenchley]

129. LOL!

"why i am a well armed liberal and proud of it"
Evidently not proud enough to speak out against the NRA honoring Tommy Franks. Nor do we see many "gun owning liberals" speaking up on gun owners' online forums, which are freeper cesspools.

The only time anyone ever sees "well armed liberals" is when they come over to DU and post right wing gibberish.

[KyuzoGator]

119. Keep on hyperventilating.

It's entertaining, at least.

[Dave Reynolds]

118. Did they let you out of the gungeon again?

Me: Liberal gun owner.

I personally do not make it my life sticking to one issue like you seem to.

I could not give a shit what the NRA stands for, because I will not be a member.

[KyuzoGator]

122. You can't be a liberal gun owner. MrB says we don't exist.

Liberal gun owners rest on the same plane as Santa and the Tooth Fairy in Mr.B's universe.

[Dave Reynolds]

130. Goddam it, where is my flying sled then?

But then, I think MrB talks out his ass.

[Beelzebud]

131. There you go with the NRA Propaganda again!

:D

[pinto]

132. Locking.

This thread seems to have lost focus on the Tommy Franks situation/story and settled in to personal sniping among DU members.

Thanks for your consideration.