NY Magazine: NRA reminds gun-loving voters to fear everything

[LiberalElite]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/nra-reminds-gun-loving-voters-to-fear-everything.html?mid=google&google_editors_picks=true

"If you've ever wondered where the endless font of gun-nut paranoia comes from, try the National Rifle Association's magazine, America's 1st Freedom. In a special election issue headlined "Chaos at Our Door? A Dangerous World Is Closing In" and illustrated with an Islamic State fighter, NRA chief fearmongerer Wayne LaPierre writes a column warning Americans to "Vote Your Guns in November." Because the end is nigh."

[NYC_SKP]

1. Actually, I think the gun-control side are equally guilty of mongering fear, using fear...

...to push their agenda.

For different reasons and with entirely different ends, both sides are using bad data to push bad ideas.

Lots of noise and very little reason on the topic, when, in fact, we've been getting better and better at reducing violence and regulating ownership.

Far to go, no doubt, but we are making progress.

[Fred Sanders]

8. Fuck the NRA and and their endless childish fear mongering.

That you defend.

[NutmegYankee]

61. Defending the 2nd Amd isn't the same as defending the NRA. nt

[Fred Sanders]

62. Then fuck the NRA and their distortion and twisting of the second amendment?

The have the second amendment on their façade outside their national headquarters....minus the "In a well regulated militia".

That kind of distorted "defence"?

[GGJohn]

69. Where in the 2A does it say "IN a well regulated militia"?

[Fred Sanders]

73. I said "fuck the NRA", nothing more, do you agree?

[GGJohn]

77. No, you said "in a well regulated militia".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5741477

You did say that right?

I could care less about the NRA, or the GOA, or any gun control organization.

[Fred Sanders]

79. Fuck the NRA, in a well regulated milita, better?

[Hoyt]

102. I'll go further, screw the NRA and those who sympathize with their promotion of gunz.

Those who say they are against the NRA, but support guns, are little better.

[GGJohn]

114. When are you going to learn to spell?

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Fuck the NRA

I love saying that.

[shenmue]

4. Me too

What beautiful words!

[shenmue]

3. Shouldn't that be called

America's Second Freedom? Can these people even count amendments?

[LiberalElite]

5. That's what I thought but maybe it's the most important to them nt

[shenmue]

6. That's probably how they see it

[flamin lib]

7. kick nt

[spanone]

9. wayne is a fucking nutcase. he should be institutionalized.

[Jenoch]

10. I believe the 'gun grabbers' are spreading fear and paranoia

more than the mainstream RKBA supporters. The people that attempt to get gun laws passed such as magazine limits and AWB laws do so based on emotion rather than facts.

The NRA spreads fear mongering, but NRA members are a tiny portion of gun owners in the U.S.

[Fred Sanders]

11. Your are right about the NRA and their "tiny portion".

[Jenoch]

14. I am also correct about

those who wish to pass gun restrictions based on emotion rather than facts.

[savalez]

15. Fact: Jared Lee Loughner

was tackled while changing magazines.

[savalez]

19. Fact: You are wrong. Read carefully.

Loughner fired all 31 bullets in the magazine and was reloading when a woman in the crowd, already wounded, attempted to grab the gun from him. He finally changed the magazine and tried to fire, but the gun jammed. Meanwhile, two men from the crowd grabbed him and subdued him, officials said.

The fact that he had to reload gave people the jump on him.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/09/nation/la-na-0110-gabrielle-giffords-20110110

[GGJohn]

21. You're correct, it was the 2nd mag that was found to be faulty.

I'll delete.

[Hoyt]

103. An unarmed elderly lady took him down.. Good guys with guns were of no direct help and indirectly

are responsible for much of this gun crud.

[GGJohn]

106. You're a funny guy.

[Hoyt]

109. Gets you, doesn't it, to think an elderly lady did what all those gunz in your gun safes couldn't?

Gunz are seldom the answer, and most people outgrow the need to fondle them.

[GGJohn]

110. Jesus Christ, when are you going to learn to spell?

Maybe you need to go back to school?

[Jenoch]

18. Yep, he was stopped because his cheap, 33 round, after market magazine jammed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. Yes. Those who are unarmed must sit and wait until opportunities beyond their control arise. nt

[Orrex]

58. Or they can carry guns and delude themselves that they're more in control than they are.

[alarimer]

56. Like the thousands killed or maimed each year?

That uncomfortable, undisputed FACT?

[savalez]

20. "gun grabbers"?

That's right out of the NRA handbook for morons.

[Jenoch]

22. I have never been a member of the NRA.

I have been accused of being a killer of children and others. I have been called a 'gungeoneer' and worse. Using the term 'gungrabbers' with the 'quotes' is quite mild.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. Apparently you don't like the term. Perhaps this would be an excellent opportunity to

demonstrate that the term is inaccurate be affirming that you do not wish to see guns taken out of the hands of the peaceable citizenry.

[Eleanors38]

38. Given the Penis™ talk, grabbing takes on new meaning!

The controller banners are sure fluffing up the fear.

[Orrex]

46. Doesn't work that way.

Last edited Fri Oct 31, 2014, 09:07 AM - Edit history (1)

The term "gun grabber" was coined by so-called 2nd amendment advocates: it is therefore up to them to justify the term; it's not up to the recipients of the term to refute it.

If you disagree, then perhaps this would be a good time to demonstrate that the term "gun fetishist" is inaccurate.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. I own a gun. That does not make me a gun fetishist.

I own a car. That does not make me a car fetishist.

Many, however, would like to take guns away from peaceable people.

grab
ɡrab/
verb
verb: grab; 3rd person present: grabs; past tense: grabbed; past participle: grabbed; gerund or present participle: grabbing

1.
grasp or seize suddenly and roughly.

[Orrex]

53. Let's unpack that a bit.

Many, however, would like to take guns away from peaceable people.

This framing reveals that the term "gun grabber" refers exclusively to those who wish to take guns away from "peaceable people." That's reasonable enough, though I have never met such a person in real life nor (credibly) online. As memes go, it's not a great rallying point.

Unless, of course, the intent is to equate such mythical people with anyone who instead proposes sensible gun legislation. I'm sure you'd agree that such equivocation would be grossly dishonest. Unfortunately, that's also how the term tends to be used.

On another note:

fe·tish noun \ˈfe-tish also ˈfē-\ : a strong and unusual need or desire for something

: a need or desire for an object, body part, or activity for sexual excitement

: an object that is believed to have magical powers

It's pretty clear that the first definition is right on the money, the second definition is certainly applicable, and a strong case can be made for the third definition.

I'd say that "gun fetishist" is every bit as valid and accurate as "gun grabber."


I'm glad that we explored this!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. "the intent is to equate such mythical people with anyone who...proposes sensible gun legislation"

Just because you declare them mythical doesn't make them mythical. They exist quite prevalently here on DU and elsewhere. If you don't know that then you probably aren't paying enough attention to justify your airs of authority. It would be an easy enough thing to name names save that it might be interpreted as a "call-out" which is prohibited under the TOS.

[badtoworse]

55. Why not do a poll and see who's willing to out themselves?

I've seen numerous posters say they would take (grab?) guns away from everyone except the military and LEO's.

[Orrex]

57. Citation, please.

Since they're prevalent, I'm sure you can point me to examples of people actually calling for seizure of guns from "peaceable people."

To be clear, that doesn't include statements of blanket hyperbole ("We should ban all guns&quot or knee-jerk declarations that some specific asshole's guns should be taken away (i.e., in response to some threat or an act of particular stupidity.)

I'm looking for a serious statement advocating the "grabbing" of guns from "peaceable people."

Posting relevant links to other DU topics is not "calling out." I've done it many times, as have others. And if you can't provide such links, then you have no basis to object if someone were to observe (for instance) that many on DU have advocated the use of guns as autoerotic pleasuring devices.

If you don't know that then you probably aren't paying enough attention to justify your airs of authority.

That's an ad hominem, as you're aware, and it doesn't refute anything that I've posted. Further, what you dismiss as "airs of authority" is in fact a pretty straightforward assessment readily accessible to anyone--it hardly requires an authority to state the obvious.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

59. How about you? Do you support the RKBA?

I know you'll protest an absence of affirming the RKBA is not the same as engaging in grabber rhetoric but would you trust someone who said, "I'm not about taking away civil rights for minorities, I just won't affirm the legitimacy of the 13th and 14th Amendments or the CRA or any court precedence stemming from those laws."

[Orrex]

72. I support the 2nd Amendment as written

I do not endorse the notion that the right to keep & bear arms is in any way inherent or beyond contention.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. "as written"

Cute.

[Orrex]

80. And accurate.

How do you endorse it? As not written?


In that case, there might be some sort of national association for you.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. I can't help but think "as written" is a back-handed way of saying,

"How I choose to personally interpret to my advantage in spite of court precedence."

I know a lot of grabbers-who-are-too-dishonest-to-admit-they're-grabbers love to de-legitimize the Heller and MacDonald decisions. Nevermind, the USSC rendered those decisions within its lawfully constituted authority their decision will be declared invalid so that those entertaining gun-grabbing can impose laws to harass and take. Yet, they would never grant the same right of subjective power to their laws; they will demand absolutist obedience and woe betide any who question them.

Do you accept the lawfully rendered Heller and MacDonald decisions?

[Orrex]

82. You hang your argument on two GOP rulings?

Sounds like a backhanded way of saying "I don't want to admit that I'm a gun fetishist, but I agree with everything they believe in." The paranoia--and the actual, articulated fear that someone's really going to steal your guns--likewise flows from the gun fetishist mentality.

Those decisions, like quite a few to come out of the Roberts court, march lockstep with GOP dogma, so I'm not inclined to agree with them even if I accept that they're the rule of law.

If you're basing your whole argument on thse two bullshit rulings, then you're in worse shape than I realized.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. I guess you imagine you get to unilaterally decide what is law.

If you permit yourself the privilege of disregarding a GOP court (the one that upheld the ACA mandate) I reserve the right to disregard a gun control court (not that such things would ever actually exist, according to you).

[Orrex]

85. As is typical for you, you misstate my position.

You do this repeatedly, apparently when you realize that your own arguments carry no weight.

I stated that I accept that the ruling is the law of the land, even if I disagree with it. Do you agree with every single ruling by the SCOTUS (beyond these two bullshit rulings)?

(not that such things would ever actually exist, according to you).

You are falsely attributing that sentiment to me.
Someone who embraces the tenets of full-blown gun fetishism has resorted once again to straw-man arguments and flat-out lying? Say it ain't so!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

86. I'm trying to square your double-talk.

You deny that people want to forbid the private ownership of guns. Yet, you only grudgingly accept the USSC rulings that affirm this right.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. Think "Citizen's Councils", and you'll understand the mindset

There's no doubt whatsoever about the desire to limit rights- it's the style
that's soft-pedaled...

[Orrex]

89. It's not double-talk. That's an ad hominem.

If you remove the fallacies from your argument, what is left?

You deny that people want to forbid the private ownership of guns. Yet, you only grudgingly accept the USSC rulings that affirm this right.

Again, you misstate my position, so I don't need to defend your misstatement.

I have stated explicitly that I endorse the 2nd Amendment as written, and I have stated explicitly that I do not summarily object to laws that reasonably restrict gun ownership.

Look, we're pretty much done here. You haven't actually addressed my argument in your past half-dozen or so posts, and I have no interest in helping you catapult the NRA's propaganda.


If you can formulate an actual argument or can address my argument without posting falsehoods or misstating my arguments, let me know. Until then, I won't hold my breath.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

95. The 2A -- as written -- says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It explicitly notes that keeping and bearing arms is an antecedent right. Membership in a militia is not a requirement as the militia was never supplied arms but instead the citizenry procured their own arms. Hence they had to have open access in times when militia service was not immediately necessary.

That is how the amendment is written.

You haven't actually addressed my argument...

Your argument was to claim gun grabbers are a myth. You are either oblivious or disingenuous. You then strung-in a few self-serving caveats that would allow you to wave away any subsequent proof that might be offered.

Yours is a steady flow of semantic games with terms like "reasonable." Ah yes. You assume your position is reasonable and can conveniently dismiss anyone who disagrees as unreasonable by default. Your act is not fooling anyone -- except, maybe, you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

87. "Someone who embraces the tenets of full-blown gun fetishism..."

Well now, I had no idea that you are a trained telepsychologist! That brings up
a few questions:

1. Where did you get your degree?

2. What state(s) are you licensed in, and

3. Do you consult with the other DU telepsychologist when making diagnoses of people you
do not know and have never met?

[Orrex]

90. As stated above, it requires no authority to point out the obvious.

Now that you've entered the thread, it would be easy to make a number of additional observations as well.

[friendly_iconoclast]

91. I see you're going with the 'ipse dixit'. Always a favorite choice...

...when one has no real evidence and an inflated sense of ones' own abilities.

I got into a similar tussle with the other DU telepsychologist when he claimed to
just "know" the politics and purpose of a person in a video- despite that person
not speaking, carrying a sign, or wearing distinctive clothing...

[Orrex]

92. I've made no such claims beyond fairly obvious observations of what's been posted

For all I know, the poster is IRL a rabid anti-gun crusader.

But my observations based on the postings in these threads are entirely straightforward. Therefore, you also misstate my position.

Incidentally, you must surely realize that you're likewise attempting an ad hominem, seeking to discredit me through mocking without actually addressing my arguments?


And in case you should be contemplating a way to accuse me of ad hominem argument, I should point out that I mock in addition to refuting my opponents' arguments, rather than instead of refuting them.

Further, since you bring nothing to the discussion except a few half-assed meta-analyses, I'm not interested in helping your attempts at self-gratification. Let me know if you're going to post anything cogent or interesting.

Note that I mocked you after dismantling the fallacies of your argument, rather than instead of dismantling them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

93. You have offered no argument beyond "I declare this to be so. It's obvious"

I note that you've also tried this with Nuclear Unicorn, and were rightly called out on it in
her reply #54.

You are pefectly free to ape the style of the late and very much unlamented iverglas-
but she was far better at sophistry. Better to be emphatic (even if incorrect),
than to come across as mealy-mouthed when discussing things like USSC decisions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5743241

I have stated explicitly that I endorse the 2nd Amendment as written, and I have stated explicitly that I do not summarily object to laws that reasonably restrict gun ownership.

How very jesuitical- house movers could get a three-bedroom bungalow through the
holes in that statement.

[Orrex]

94. I'm sure that your postings pass for clever among gun fetishists

Not that I would accuse you of being a gun fetishist, of course, however obvious it might seem to even the most casual reader.

You have offered no argument beyond "I declare this to be so. It's obvious"

That's a lie, so I have no obligation to defend it.

You are pefectly free to ape the style of the late and very much unlamented iverglas-
but she was far better at sophistry. Better to be emphatic (even if incorrect),
than to come across as mealy-mouthed when discussing things like USSC decisions.

Swing and a miss. Your ham-fisted attempts at mockery are no more convincing than your strawmen and falsehoods. You are free to endorse the hard-right rulings of the hard-right Roberts court, but I am not content to do so.

I find you redundant and boring on this topic, so I retract my previous statement and declare that I am now done with you. I declare this to be so. It's obvious.


You're free to continue metaphorically caressing your long, hard, oiled barrel to your heart's content, and no one here will further taint your enjoyment by likening it to the behavior of gun fetishists.

[friendly_iconoclast]

101. That's the spirit! All that bafflegab ill-suited you.

Frankly, you're far more eloquent than the, shall we say ...style-challenged posters
who offer up bumper-sticker platititudes like "BAN GUNS" or "I hate gun people".

Granted, no more politically effective- but certainly more interesting to read than the
inarticulate gruntings from the Left versions of Freepers...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. "it requires no authority to point out the obvious."

And some people want rapists to be free to operate without threat of violence.

Not that I need any authority to point out the obvious.

Hey! This is a fun game to play!

[Orrex]

98. Citation, please.

And some people want rapists to be free to operate without threat of violence.

I pointed out what is obvious in your own postings in this thread; if someone disagrees, they are free to offer a competing observation.

You, in stark contrast, are making a wild claim with no reference while declaring it obvious, and you're engaging in a weird and disturbing form of projection. Curious.

[friendly_iconoclast]

99. Why? Is declaring something "obvious" somehow exclusive to you?

In any event, the request for a citation is rather rich coming from a poster
that purports to diagnose mental conditions at a distance...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

104. You keep referring to me as a gun fetishist. You were called on it and asked to show your

telepsychic credentials. You replied you did not need to prove it because it was obvious.

So I'm playing by your rules.

I might as well. You thrive on vagaries and assertions in your arguments. X is reasonable Y is a myth, Z is a fetish and nary a citation, let alone definition in the bunch. You'll declare, then you'll dance, then you'll insult, then you'll move the goalposts, then you'll run away claiming mistreatment by those mean ol' fetishists.

[Orrex]

105. No, no, and wrong

I gave an explicit definition of "fetish." I further indicated that, although I'm not calling you a gun fetishist (apparently one now requires an advanced degree before expressing an opinion on DU), I have stated that your posts are consistent with what I would identify as the ramblings of one who might be accurately described as a gun fetishist.

I state that it is obvious because it certainly seems so. Therefore, you either feel that I am wrong or that I am unusually perceptive. If the former, then I invite you to demonstrate my error (recalling that my assertion is that your remarks are consistent with those of a person I describe as a gun fetishist) or else explain why you think I can see what others cannot (recalling that personality assessments require documentation of an advanced degree, of course).

What degree, by the way, empowers you to diagnose someone as a "gun grabber?" Recall that you used the term before I used the term "gun fetishist," yet your pal called me out for my lack of an advanced degree in the oh-so-cleverly-named field of "telepsychiatry?" Why are you permitted to issue diagnoses, but not those who disagree with your explicitly declared fondness for lockstep GOP court rulings?

I didn't "run away," because it was about 1:00AM and I'd had enough of the standard guns-uber-alles drivel for the night. And it wasn't because you or your pal were mean but rather because you were (and remain) boring.

Don't mistake an unanswered post for an admission of defeat.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

107. "...what I would identify..."

Well, that's the problem then, isn't it? You hide behind ambiguity and subjectivity. You use terms like "reasonable" to make yourself the default winner.

A fetish is either a sexualization of an object or it is an object that is believed to possess mystical abilities. If you're insinuating the former that would make you a vile and disgusting human being who apparently spends an undue amount of time contemplating what women would do to sexualize a gun. Talk about projection!

But that's not you, is it?

Perhaps you mean I impose some mystical quality to guns but I would be curious to know what evidence you have that I argue from a perspective of the supernatural.

You engaged in this sub-thread because you took exception to my use of "gun grabbers." Yet, I use the term because better than 35% of the respondents to a poll stated they want all guns removed from US citizens. This poll was created by a DU'er who constantly bleats-out that all guns should be banned.

(Side note -- I personally take delight in the fact that the grabbers can't even muster 40% support on DU and by implication would fail even worse among independents and others.)

If you want to discuss what would or would not constitute "reasonable" gun control I'm your huckleberry but I don't fall for rhetorical nonsense. I prefer defined terms, clearly stated principles and falsifiable assertions -- because I'm reluctant to rely on the mystical.

[Orrex]

111. I gave an explicit definition in reply #55

And that's the definition I've been consistently citing when I use the term "gun fetishist." If you're not going to read what I write, then why should I reply at all?

I see also that you made no comment about the bullshit demnd for "telepsychology" credentials, nor have you refuted my use of the term "gun fetishist." What are we to infer from this?

Further, it seems that--in addition to embracing a pair of lockstrp GOP rulings--you base your opinion on a preposterously unscientific and non-verifiable push-poll on DU. Do you understand how ridiculous that is?

Don't presume to lecture anyone in logic or credibiliy if you salivate over GOP rulings but can't be bothered to read people's responses to your own posts.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

112. Post #55 was made by DU'er BadToWorse. Perhaps you meant Post #53

I see also that you made no comment about the bullshit demnd for "telepsychology" credentials...

Why should I? You act as if you can diagnose psychological profiles over the internet. To wit --

nor have you refuted my use of the term "gun fetishist."

In post #53 you refer to the following --

a strong and unusual need or desire for something

Self-defense is a basic human right. At what point would the defense of a basic human right become "strong and unusual"?

you base your opinion on a preposterously unscientific and non-verifiable push-poll on DU.

It was a poll by grabbers for grabber. And how is it unverifiable? The respondents names are there for you to see and those voting in favor of grabbing have established histories of making posts to that end.

If you find the grabbers to be an embarrassment that is your problem, not mine. They're there and all your weaseling, re-defining and caveating won't change that fact.

If you want to take a moment to define what you consider to be "reasonable" gun control let's have that conversation. I would presume by "reasonable" you would want policies that are effective in curtailing illegitimate gun use while preserving the basic human right of self-defense.

[friendly_iconoclast]

115. Gun control advocacy seems to attract self-proclaimed 'remote sensors'

There was a documentary made about a few years ago:




I daresay the rest of our interlocutors' claims are of similiar accuracy...

[Orrex]

117. How is it "remote?"

I'm reading what's on the screen in front of me.

Of course, your posts aren't remotely interesting or remotely amusing, and your arguments aren't even remotely convincing, so maybe that's what you were babbling about?

[friendly_iconoclast]

120. 'Remote' as in you haven't been able to detect that *I don't own a gun*...

...and haven't for years.

So I cannot possibly

"caress (my) long, hard, oiled barrel to your heart's content, and no one here will further taint your enjoyment by likening it to the behavior of gun fetishists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5743449

In other words: Your ability to diagnose psychiatric disorders is on a par with
your remote sensing abilities...

[Orrex]

121. I have never claimed that you own a gun, nor I have claimed to diagnose psychoses

Two more straw men.

"caress your long, hard, oiled barrel to your heart's content, and no one here will further taint your enjoyment by likening it to the behavior of gun fetishists.

Caress whatever long, hard, oiled barrel presents itself to you. The point remains the same.

If you can't distinguish mocking metaphor from mocking literal truth, then perhaps you should sit at the kids' table.

[friendly_iconoclast]

123. Did you type that headline with a straight face? If so, I'd hate to sit across a poker table...

..from you.

Btw, nice try with *your own* strawmen-but no prize:

I have never claimed that you own a gun,...

It's sort of implicit when you repeatedly proclaimed that they were a fetish
object for me.

nor I have claimed to diagnose psychoses

Nor have you been accused of such a thing- it was fetishes you were "diagnosing",
remember?

You're still too defensive by half, and need to develop the mindset of a World War I
French Army general: Attack, attack, attack

[friendly_iconoclast]

113. "bullshit demand for "telepsychology" credentials" Can you also kill goats with your mind?

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/604796-guy-savelli-s-role-in-the-war-on-terror-began-when

“Guy Savelli's role in the War on Terror began when half-a-dozen strangers, within days of one another, contacted him via e-mail and telephone in the winter of 2003. They asked him if he had the power to psychically kill goats. Guy was bewildered. He did not go around publicizing this. Who were these men? How did they know about the goats? He feigned a casual tone of voice and said, 'Sure I can.'

Then he phoned Special Forces.”

― Jon Ronson, The Men Who Stare at Goats

Pleased to meet you, Sensei Savelli!

[Orrex]

116. See, there's another of your ad hominem attacks in place of argument

If you can't offer an argument, you might at least try to be amusing. Instead, we get more of the same tired bullshit--while your posts remain wholly consistent with what one would expect of a gun fetishist.

You really have nothing to offer.

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. I'm volleying back what I've been served. If you don't care for it, you are free to...

...ignore me.

This is a discussion board, and others' posts are not subject to your diktat.

[Orrex]

119. Another straw man

This is a discussion board, and others' posts are not subject to your diktat.

No shit. Find me one post on all of DU in which I've claimed otherwise.

However, your suggestion that I Ignore you is as close as you've come to a reasonable argument in this entire discussion.

[friendly_iconoclast]

122. Being ignored by someone who claims that a person that does not own a gun...

...has a gun fetish isn't exactly heartbreaking.

By all means, though-don't stop posting. Your posts are very ...interesting, right up
there with some of the ones on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6712126#6712234

I leave it to the disinterested reader to figure out which posts I'm talking about...

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. It also requires no authority to point out that certain posters get a might testy...

...when their qualifications to opine on the mental states of others are questioned.

[beevul]

125. Gee, I wonder where the term "gun grabber" came from...

Oh, wait, that's too recent...

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.&quot

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993


Does that justify the term enough for you ?

I guess this means you're going to justify "gun fetishist" now, right?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

127. Bookmarking. Mind if I employ your bag of hammers the next time the complaint arises? nt

[beevul]

128. Feel free.

These latest anti-rights folks seem to be banking on folks having a short memory.

I'm not having any of that, nor should anyone else.

[Tom Ripley]

12. FTNRA

Asshole lobbyists

[otohara]

13. It's Working In CO

our teeny tiny changes drove the lovers of guns over the edge and if it weren't for pot, Hickenlooper would be out.

[branford]

23. Hickenlooper might still shortly be on he way out,

and his firearm missteps might be a large part of his election loss.

[otohara]

24. What Missteps?

Have you had two mass shooting in your state>?
I have - both 20 minutes from my house.
Dang, I forgot about the almost 3rd one a few miles south of me.

Guns sure are fun and deadly.

[GGJohn]

25. Misstep being that no debate was allowed on those bills,

the perception was that they were rushed through without the citizens being able to voice their views.

That's one of the reasons that 2 lawmakers were recalled.

[branford]

26. His magazine limit and assault weapon legislation was very unpopular,

as Hickenlooper readily admits and impliedly regrets. The legislation led to the recall of two Democratic legislators, the resignation of another to avoid a humiliating recall, and is an albatross around Hickenlooper's neck in a tight election.

You might personally agree with the gun control legislation in CO, but much of their electorate has very different ideas, and it has cost our party dearly in the state.

[GGJohn]

27. It also led to companies like Magpul moving their businesses out of state with the resulting

loss of tax revenue and jobs, and many of the state's county Sheriff's refusing to enforce those laws.

[otohara]

64. Oh Boo Hoo - 10,000 New Jobs Marijuana

Who needs a company that makes murdering what ever moves easier when you can buy local organic marijuana instead.

Magpul had 200 employees, who could move to Texas but apparently they like CO more.

[GGJohn]

66. There were also support businesses that supplied the materials to Magpul,

but I see you have no compassion for those that lost their jobs due to a couple of do nothing laws.

That's real progressive of you.

[otohara]

67. Whole Industries Are Gone

Record stores, video stores, book stores ... pretty soon malls will be gone because it's safer and more convenient to shop on the internet.

[GGJohn]

68. All those are still in exisistence, just not in the sheer numbers of days gone by.

But you seem to be ok that people lost their jobs because it has to do with firearms accessories.

[otohara]

70. No One Forced Them To Move

They took it upon themselves and all the employees could go, but don't want to.

Guns

[GGJohn]

71. After CO legislatures passed a do nothing bill.

So tell us how the mag limit law has saved lives? I do agree with the UBC, but the mag limit was a colossal blunder, and the way they passed the laws, no citizen input allowed, was sheer arrogance that has cost 2 Dem's their jobs and forced another one to resign so's not to lose the legislature.

Brilliant move on Gov. Hickenlooper's part, now, he may very well lose his job to a repub.

[otohara]

76. Crime Is Down in CO by 11%

The citizens who were mascaraed in Aurora, Columbine all the others didn't have any say before, during or after their bloody violent deaths.

[GGJohn]

78. Which has ZERO to do with the mag limit law,

and the citizens of CO had no say when this law was passed.

[otohara]

28. Blah, Blah, Blah

26 Coloradoan's dead in two days means nothing to gun owners

I can't stand Hickenlooper for admitting his regrets and arming Denver Police with military grade equipment.
Politicians have no problem with pointing guns at their own constituents.

They all make me sick and so do gun owners.

[branford]

29. Your "blah, blah, blah" attitude may result in the Republicans taking control

of most or all of the levers of government in CO. Not only is that bad concerning a vast array of issues for all CO citizens, but it may even result in the repeal of your beloved gun control legislation.

Irrespective of whether it makes you sick, gun owners and other 2A supporters are reliable and active voters in CO, and unpopular legislation often has repercussions in a democratic republic.

[beevul]

32. And the response was to pass junk laws...

And the response was to pass junk laws which do nothing to prevent the tragedies you and others like you use to justify such junk legislation.

"They all make me sick and so do gun owners."

Laws being passed, by politicians with personal biases like yours, supported by a loud minority of people who view guns and gun owners as you do, is exactly the problem.

"Politicians have no problem with pointing guns at their own constituents."

And here you are, standing tall in the camp that seeks to take guns and rights where guns are concerned, from those very same constituents.

I'd ask whos side you were on, constituents or politicians, if the answer wasn't so obvious.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. You're claiming victory for a magazine capacity law the sheriffs have said cannot and will not

be enforced. It has already cost 2 Dems their state senate seats and a 3rd had to resign to keep the senate from flipping to the GOP.

Another such victory and you shall be undone.

[Eleanors38]

39. Promise me: Don't hire on as campaign manager.

[Eleanors38]

41. What's that noise?

[Archae]

17. The NRA is now the GMW.

Gun Manufacturers' Whores.

[jmowreader]

30. On January 20, 2017, the nation's gun dealers will go into a state of mourning

Obama has been better for gun stores than any president in our nation's history. Just the whisper of his name, carried on gossamer wings to the ear of a paranoid teabagger, causes expensive firearms and cases of ammo to fly off store shelves. "Oh My God! Obama is going to Take Away All Our Gunz Any Second Now! So I simply must buy another hundred guns this year!"

I think that when Obama finally goes home to Hawaii without remembering to grab everyone's guns before he leaves, half the gun stores in America are going to collapse.

[leanforward]

31. The Declaration of Independence has something . . No one has a right to infringe on my

"right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness" because that person lives in a fearful mental state. And must carry a weapon in normal civil circumstances.
Too many innocents are dying because of a need to have a weapon.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. No one is infringing on your right. You're choosing to be afraid of people who have no interest in

doing you harm.

[Oktober]

37. By that logic, since I have a deep seated but irrational fear of clowns...

Last edited Fri Oct 31, 2014, 08:40 AM - Edit history (1)

... They are unconstitutionally infringing on my 'right to happiness' and hence should be illegal.

John Wayne Gary anyone?

[Eleanors38]

40. Or hanging round folks who have eaten enchiladas.

[Oktober]

48. Absolutely an infringement on my happiness...

Unless I ate them.. then it's fine...

Oh wait.. I just did a second reading and it turns out that nowhere in any form of law am I entitled to be happy by right and certainly not at the expense of others..

Oh well..

Next time...

[leanforward]

83. Yes they are, in a civil society.

I've seen a yo yo pickup someone else's weapon and pulled the trigger. Missed the owners foot by an inch. Why he had a loaded weapon safety off laying on his bunk, I'll never know. I'm not afraid, but by virtue of the fact he's carrying, means he is one fearful individual. Innocent folks are always down range in accidental discharges. His mistake/accident can result in wounding or death. You may have yourself under control. But there are others out there who are weak in their personal thresholds for the use of their side arm.

[Cha]

42. Especially Obama.. he's coming to take your guns.. you gullible suckers.

[Eleanors38]

43. Gullibility is pushing gun-control culture war...

...over and over and expecting different results.

[beevul]

129. Precisely.

[aikoaiko]

44. Worry not...Hillary will be even better for gun manufacturers and sellers

And especially the NRA.




eta: whoops I meant this to be in response to post #30.

[Cha]

45. You think? I've read the gun manufacturers' profits went through the roof when Obama became

President(pushing the meme he would take their guns away, of course) and I know personally from people working at Remington Arms in New York.

It's so special that the NRA has their supporters on DU whining about "gun control".. it's fucking Sensible Gun Laws.. but, you know that.

And, don't bother talking to me NRAers because I have nothing to say to you that wouldn't get me a HIDE.

[aikoaiko]

47. Yes, Hillary has an even longer record with voting for increased gun restrictions

Yes, gun sales went through the roof when Obama took office and Democrats held congress, but it was Obama in office in combination with the so-called Assault Weapons Ban bills that caused successive surges in gun sales.

Of course the Sandy Hook massacre with the massive push from the White House was certainly not an imaginary attempt to limit access to gun ownership. The president put Joe Biden in charge of that and I still can't believe he failed to get a single law passed.

[Eleanors38]

51. Gun-control seems lodged into 3rd-Way politics...

and part of the center-right "leaders" of the Party.

[Lurks Often]

52. Coumo and NY's gun laws made Remington decide to expand production elsewhere

costing Ilion and the State of New York jobs and tax revenue.

I'm sure your friends at Remington will continue to vote democratic if Remington moves the rest of the company out of state leaving them un-employed, then again maybe they will blame the DEMOCRATS that passed the laws in NY that in the end cost them their jobs.

[badtoworse]

49. Islamic radicals don't scare me from an RKBA standpoint

It's gun grabbing politicians pushing ever more restrictive gun control that scare me (and influence my vote). BTW, there are plenty of pols on the gun control side that do their own pandering and fear mongering. The technique might be different, but the goal is the same.

[In_The_Wind]

60. Unlocking

Last edited Fri Oct 31, 2014, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

as per request from additional host about this OP.

[ileus]

63. What do gun owners have to fear.

[etherealtruth]

65. K and R

[lpbk2713]

75. That's what the GOP is all about.

If it wasn't for fearmongering and hysteria and hate and outright lies they would have no reason for being.

[etherealtruth]

108. Exactly, the NRA is yet another right wing group

The tactics of the NRA do not differ (and actually mirror) the tactics of all other right wing groups.

Inside The NRA's Koch-Funded Dark-Money Campaign
How the National Rifle Association sold its grassroots firepower to the Kochs, Karl Rove, and conservative donors.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/nra-koch-brothers-karl-rove

[friendly_iconoclast]

124. NRA = National Republican Armory

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172116375

[Voice for Peace]

126. holy crap

---> --->