If you ever wondered what Skinner thought about pro-gun posts

[hack89]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598508

[Dawgs]

1. Nothing against him, but why start a thread on what someone else thinks? n/t

[hack89]

2. We have a small but vocal contingent that come here to tell us we don't belong on DU

because we don't toe the Bansalot line on gun control. Perhaps now they will face reality and stop trying to shut down points of view they disagree with.

[DonP]

3. Problem is, the poster referenced actually thinks he speaks for all Democrats

When you read his posts it's clear that he thinks everyone either thinks exactly like he does, or they're wrong and not "Real Democrats".

Not the first wannabe Zampolit we've seen here, on gun issues or other things.

[branford]

17. In large part because of the "purity" of those "real Democrats,"

many of whom didn't even bother to vote in 2014, we lost control of the Senate, Republicans have their largest majority in the House in generations, Republicans control the majority of statehouses and governorships, and the chances of successfully continuing a progressive national agenda is in jeopardy.

http://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_control_of_state_government

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

[leveymg]

27. And the 2016 Presidential looks to be shaping up like 2014 because the presumed candidate has -57%

ratings and at least one-in-five Democratic voters dislike her and many won't show up to vote again. Meanwhile, the Indy vote is >60% negative toward Hillary. And that has nothing to do with guns.

[beevul]

16. I'd like to think you're correct...

I'd like to think you're correct, but I suspect we're going to see a redoubling of efforts.

[Eleanors38]

25. The sine qua non of gun control/prohibition is elite positioning...

Not being a "movement" with extensive grass-roots membership, wide-scale donor base, and a high level of activism and militancy, the gun control "outlook" must depend on positioning itself in institutional frameworks: Some academic circles (not so much after Bellesiles fiasco); big-city bureaus of the NE cities, Chicago, SF; the Party; and on, most important, mainstream media. From these positions, the gun control outlook can continue some kind of presence in policy, ideology and legislative activity, and on Considerable cost-free advancement of its beliefs through MSM. Unfortunately, this kind of elite positioning can result in more authoritarian approaches, to which the thread alludes. So, pro-2A DUers must be on-guard for simple banishment by bureaucratic fiat, something virtually all other groups and interests in DU don't have to worry about.

NOTE: the conversation linked to was between a group host, and an owner of DU. Further, some anti-gun folks have expressed a desire to ban ALL presence and disscussion of ANYTHING they interpret as "pro-gun." As has been dealt with many times in gun threads, there is a culture war being waged by controllers. My opinions.

[ileus]

4. I think Skinner realizes lots of folks here have a pretty narrow view of the 2A.

There are millions of active democrat progressives that support the Second, but only a few have time to dick with political forums. While we may be far and few between here on DU, that doesn't mean the super majority should be allowed to kill us off at will.

Many things here I'm fine with us having a lack of tolerance for, but basic rights we should always support.

[Duckhunter935]

5. Sad day when a democrat

Wants to limit free speech of others

[SecularMotion]

6. I agree

Last edited Tue Sep 1, 2015, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)

There are way too many gun-related posts being locked in GD.

[DonP]

7. Then work to change the GD SoP and stop complaining

[Duckhunter935]

9. So true

[oneshooter]

11. It is easier to complain, than to do anything real. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

8. But there is a designated place on the forum for them

There is an SOP and Skinner's guidance for GD posts. Too bad some disrespect the admins and violate those, however they are free to post in the correct groups and not censored. Nobody in this group goes whining in ATA to have a group or posters removed they do not agree with. That seems to only a couple of hosts that want to censor discussion. You are free to post here and it is not a safe haven like you require and censor opposition in the group you host.

[sarisataka]

10. When was the last

gun related post locked in GD?

Of course the fallacy in your statement is that even if a post is locked in GD there are two forums dedicated to gun topics. So free speech is still allowed.

Unless you are driving at the notion the gun discussion should be freely allowed in all forums and groups? I don't think that is what you are saying.

[oneshooter]

12. All forums ,exept the one he hosts.n/t

[DonP]

13. Looks like they killed off another Gun Con"Troll" sock puppet

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598582

It seems repeated whining and demanding that somebody's website be changed to suit your personal prejudices isn't always a good way to go

[sarisataka]

14. Whatever happened to

the self-pimping blogger from a few months ago? I recall he stormed in all fire and brimstone and assured us he was here to stay.

Did he get

or simply

[DonP]

15. Just guessing, but probably TS'd by MIRT

This was his 3rd or 4th sock puppet appearance.

He didn't even try and change his persona.

[ileus]

23. Was it that guy from Italy again???

[DonP]

24. Could have been. The songs were the same. N/T

[Eleanors38]

26. VOLARE!

[Kang Colby]

18. I'd say...

about 30% of DU supports gun rights. That's from jury results here and a few national polls I've read.

[DonP]

19. Think of it this way ...

... the party will be much more "pure" when they finally drive 30% of their voters away.

Won't win any local, state or national offices for a while, but it will at least be "pure".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. "pure" ???

Like the Shakers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

[DonP]

21. Yup, if they have their way, that's the model to follow - but without the nice furniture

Just like 8 tracks, "Bag Phones" and cassettes.

It would be nice if they focused on trying to change the party platform, instead of whining here about their discontent.

Because then someone could tell them to go scratch their nether regions if they didn't like it ... without getting a post hidden or being banned

[Kang Colby]

22. I agree.

Without a 1/3rd of us to pull the levers, we are all in trouble.

[upaloopa]

28. In my book being a Dem and

saying you support gun rights doesn't make your opinion more acceptable or valid.
We really need to admit that we have a gun violence culture that does not exist in other countries. We also have an amendment to our Constitution that other countries do not have. I see a correlation between our gun violence and that amendment.
It is as if we are to accept gun violence as a given rather then do anything to try and control guns in this country because of the 2nd Amendment. I think most Americans would reject that idea just as most Americans do not own guns.
The problem as I see it is in the Supreme Court's interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
I do not agree that the 2nd Amendment conveys the right to keep and bear arms in the abstract.
I also do not support the complete banning of guns though I do feel that we would drastically reduce our gun violence if guns were banned as has been the case in Australia.
My vision is that everyone in this country, gun owners and non gun owners would agree that we can't keep ignoring the gun violence problem we have. And that we all would agree that some restrictions on gun rights would be preferable to increasing incidents of mass killings.
Now I am not professional enough to know what those restrictions should be. Also it is wrong to support ineffective restrictions as a knee jerk reaction to gun violence.
That's how I see it.

[hack89]

29. There are few gun owners on DU that don't support gun control to some degree or another

UBCs, for example, are widely accepted. The only two issues that are widely rejected are AWBs and registration. But that leaves a lot that can be done to reduce gun violence. What hurts the conversation on DU is the black and white nature of the conversation - there is no effort to differentiate between responsible and criminal gun owners. We are all vilified as RW, racist, "gun humpers" or "ammosexuals".

Btw - the 2A allows for the strict regulation of guns. AWBs, registration, licensing, magazine size limits, are all perfectly constitutional. The real problem is there is simply no widespread voter support for draconian gun control.

Additionally, regardless of your views on the 2A, the Democratic party platform specifically says that the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. So holding that position is perfectly acceptable on DU.

[upaloopa]

30. I not going to try and restrict views on DU.

Enough of that is being done by supporters of primary candidates.
Using derogatory names and descriptions of other DUers on DU should be alerted on and the posts hid.

[hack89]

31. But as my OP shows, there are some that are trying to restrict views.

and we will push back hard when it happens. Radical controllers don't get to define what an acceptable view of guns for Democrats is.

[upaloopa]

33. Using names like "radical controllers" is the pot

calling the kettle black.

[hack89]

35. On par with "gun humpers" and "ammosexuals"?

you can't distinguish between vile sexually loaded personal insults and being labeled "radical"? Really? Who are the delicate flowers here?

[beevul]

32. Ok.

We really need to admit that we have a gun violence culture that does not exist in other countries.

Can we also admit that this culture you refer to is comprised by less than a tenth of a percent of those who own guns?

It is as if we are to accept gun violence as a given rather then do anything to try and control guns in this country because of the 2nd Amendment.

That's based on the premise that gun control is the only answer. Do you really think it is the only answer?

The problem as I see it is in the Supreme Court's interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
I do not agree that the 2nd Amendment conveys the right to keep and bear arms in the abstract.

And yet, amendment 2 restricts only government, not individuals. It can not convey or grant any rights. It can only protect them.

My vision is that everyone in this country, gun owners and non gun owners would agree that we can't keep ignoring the gun violence problem we have.

I think everyone already agrees with this. The 99.9x percent of gun owners that aren't committing any gun violence, however, do not appreciate it being laid at their feet as if they are the problem.

Because they aren't.

[upaloopa]

34. I am not laying it at their feet. What I do lay at

their feet is the blocking of any attempt to do something about the problem.

[beevul]

36. Maybe you aren't. But there sure are alot who do.

Maybe you aren't. But there sure are alot who do.

What I do lay at their feet is the blocking of any attempt to do something about the problem.

That may be because many if not most of the solutions offered up operate on the presumption that they ARE the problem, rather than focusing on the less than .1 percent that misuse firearms.

[branford]

37. The "ignoring gun violence" claim is particularly offensive.

Over the last few decades, millions of more firearms have been added to circulation and carry and other similar restrictions eliminated or lessened, all while crime, including gun crime, has been substantially reduced.

Moreover, few notable gun rights advocates support elimination of restrictions on ownership of firearms by felons, the violently mentally ill, domestic abusers, etc. In fact, most gun rights advocates support improvements in the system to ensure these types of people never procure weapons, as well other laws like increasing the sentences for those who facilitate straw purchases or engage in crime involving firearms. Legislation that could improve current systems are rejected, not because of firearm rights supporters, but because they don't meet the wish lists of gun control proponents. I and other gun rights supporters have no intention of taking the blame for the lack of effective law enforcement or failure to improve current firearm regulations because gun control advocates repeatedly choose to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

However, refusing to ignore due process, equal protection, privacy, security in our homes and persons, the right of self-defense, etc., to say nothing of the Second Amendment itself, does not constitute"ignoring gun violence." I will not surrender fundamental constitutional rights, well beyond the Second Amendment, for new gun laws that do not address the problems and effectively seek to punish tens of millions of law-abiding and peaceful gun owners due to the criminal actions a very tiny percentage of Americans.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/PDF-News/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf