Gee--The thread ends when the gun nuts are defeated.

[zanne]

Nothing to say now, huh?

[joeybee12]

1. I've been in this forum far too much, and against my will...it's dominated

by gun nuts and i hate that the mods keep moving these types of threads to this forum.

[zanne]

6. I hate this forum, too.

All you read in the gun forum is gun nuts comparing the size of their guns. I think it's unfair to relegate people who advocate gun control to the gun forum. It should be allowed in General Discussion. This isn't a side issue. It's a very important issue. My little city is getting more gun violent by the minute, and gun nuts want the laws to be even more lenient. It's a very selfish and childish wish to want to make guns more accessible, not less. Most people who frequent the Gun Forum do not have the welfare of the American people at heart.

DU was made for controversial issues. Trying to "hush up" controversy among its members is not in the best interest of DU.

[derby378]

7. You and I do agree on one point you've raised...

I think too much of this debate is being shunted from GD to Guns by default. It's important that people educate themselves on these issues so that they won't have this deer-in-headlights look if a particular gun bill passes or fails.

[joeybee12]

8. There's a news article about that guy who shot up Virginia Tech a couple

years ago about how his mental health records (that had gone missing) were found...I'd like to post that because this guy got TONS of guns legally...shows you how lax restrictions really are and how they can be gotten around, and deserves attention, but it would get dumped here.

[derby378]

12. The blame falls on the guy who stole those records from Cook Counseling Center

The VTech shooting might not have happened if doctors and law enforcement had those records available. This sounds like a clear HIPAA violation, and I want to see criminal charges at least considered for the person responsible for these missing records.

[zanne]

14. Anything but blaming lax gun laws, huh? Typical. nt

[eqfan592]

19. An interesting statement....

...from someone who can only seem to blame the guns when it comes to crime. No, of course, we can't look at the person who broke the law and stole the records which prevented the perfectly adequate gun laws in place from functioning properly. It's the gun and the laws fault itself. So what "gun law" would you pass that would prevent records from being stolen?

[derby378]

27. Prove me wrong

I work at a hospital where we take the security and confidentiality of patient records very seriously. We wouldn't allow any patient records to just float out the door as in Seung-hui Cho's case. Anyone who tried that malarkey would find themselves in the unemployment line real quick.

[cognoscere]

32. Perhaps you could enlighten us

oh wise one, by writing down how you would word a gun law so that nobody could violate it?

[eqfan592]

16. "Size of their guns?"

I don't really see any actual gun talk taking place on this forum. So you're pretty much full of it right there.

What I DO see is a lot of good, hard statistical evidence being presented that completely destroys the arguments you and others put forward. You can't stand this, so you belittle us instead. You can never put forward a piece of evidence that can withstand any sort of peer review or any level of rational thought. Your arguments are often based entirely on emotional pleas, which automatically causes a rational person to become skeptical of your position.

You can call us "gun grabbers" and belittle us all you wish. It doesn't change the fact that we have the body evidence and data on our side. Until you prove us wrong with solid evidence that can stand up to the tests, then you can expect every "anti-gun nut" style post you place on any of these boards to get smacked down with that body of evidence.

But we do agree on one thing when it comes to this issue. It is wrong to have it shunted to the side in this way, and these discussions should be allowed to take place in the GD forum.

[zanne]

21. Your arguments are based on faulty statistics.

Ideologically driven, right-wing babble and sound bites. You argue your way and I'll argue my way. I'm sorry if it gets under your skin.

[eqfan592]

23. You state they are "faulty" statistics.

Prove it. I'm yet to see anybody on your side prove that ALL or even MOST of the statistics commonly used to promote 2a rights are faulty. I have, however, seen statistics from the VPC and the Brady Campaign get chewed up and spat out on a regular bases. Or in the case of the VPC, they will put out statistics that prove OUR points, yet claim they prove theirs (the recent CCW figures being a fine example of this).

No, you do not get under my skin in the least. You haven't become overtly offensive enough yet, as others of your ilk have. If the time comes when you do, then you'll be introduced to my ignore list.

[beevul]

31. You didn't get the memo...

Any and all statistics not cooked up...err provided by the vpc/bradys are faulty.

And in reality, thats just fine.


Because in reality, its thier credibility that shrinks every single time they rely on deciet and deception.


Such is the reason why the million mom march has been reduced to 3 moms and a pizza, and the bradys and vpc reduced similarly. They and the few closeminded nitwits that follow them are nothing at all to worry about. The day they start using truth and fact to support thier agenda, I might worry, but then again, they wouldn't say anything at all, if that were the case.

[SteveM]

46. You employ "hate" a little too much to be credible. You need to be told that (nt)

[-..__...]

42. Say what!!!

Have you changed your mind since the following posts or is it simply your belief that only "advocates of gun control" should be allowed to post in GD?...


"I think it's unfair to relegate people who advocate gun control to the gun forum. It should be allowed in General Discussion. This isn't a side issue. It's a very important issue".

zanne
Wed Mar-28-07 01:16 PM
Response to Original message

164. THIS THREAD SHOULD NOT BE IN GENERAL DISCUSSION.

We have a gun forum for this subject. If we're not going to take the rules seriously, then I can start a religion thread, a north-south thread, or a Palestine-Israel thread in GD, right?

zanne
Wed Mar-28-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #167
172. No such thing as "no politics" with guns.

And I suspect you know that. It does NOT belong in General Discussion. It's one of those subjects that just divides us. It doesn't change anybody's mind, because we all already have an opinion on guns. It's a ready-made FLAME FEST, and you knew exactly what you were doing when you started it.

zanne
Wed Mar-28-07 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #175
177. I'll respond to you in The Gun Forum and nowhere else. nt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x518023#523820

[eqfan592]

45. Hmmm, what's that I smell???

Oh yes, it's the feted stench of hypocrisy! Thanks for pointing this out for us.

:toast:

[beevul]

53. Ouch...

Thats gonna leave a mark...


I wish I could say I was surprised, but this is textbook for an anti-gunner.

Stifle dissent any way they can. Make sure that those that oppose them can not voice that opposition, or that the opposition is viewed most unfavorably when they can...The contrivance of a bully pulpit...


But hey, look where its gotten them...the bradys and the vpc have been doing just as we see here, amongst other equally effective things, and just look at the enormous amount of warchest cash, rank and file members, and credibility they have...


Oh, wait...

[-..__...]

54. Yeah...,

I seldom (if ever), post here anymore, and ironically it's for the reasons zanne stated... I agree with him/her on that.

The "Gungeon" is more or less preaching to the choir for both sides of the issue.

Threads posted in GD (not just guns), get bumped to sub-forums all the time. I have no idea what instructions or criteria the mods have to do that, but it's their call.

What I am curious about is the person in question explanation is.

[Lasher]

55. OK I guess this is where that 'nothing to say' part comes in.

[rrneck]

2. Nothing to say about what?

link?

[zanne]

4. Thune's legislation went down in flames....

So the gun nuts don't get to gloat this time. The thread ends.

[derby378]

5. We're supposed to gloat if we win? Wow...

It's pretty simple. We needed 60 votes. We got 58. Thune's amendment tried to do too much too soon. There was a lot of concern that CHL requirements from state to state would be watered down to the point that public safety was threatened. This legislation will probably be reconsidered within a couple of years, only this time there will be a little more due diligence given to the topic.

And if it fails again, it fails again. We'll just have to play it by ear like we always do.

[zanne]

9. You always gloat. , because you've been getting your way for a long time.

The tide is turning. The people are realizing that the NRA is not the governing body for this country, and they're sick of it. You're poor losers.

By the way, gotta go now, but don't worry---I'll be back.

[derby378]

11. Drop by anytime...

...but I'd like to think I have a low "gloating quotient."

And honestly, we've only been "getting our way" since 2004. There is still much to do.

That said, until we meet again...

:hi:

[TPaine7]

25. "The tide is turning."

:rofl:

Nothing like a little humor to lighten the mood after this little, temporary setback.

The text of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments has not changed, neither has the composition of the Court (in any relevant way). Fall on your knees and pray to the gods of injustice and hypocrisy that the Court doesn't hear the Fourteenth Amendment cases (and the "bear" arm cases to follow).

[AtheistCrusader]

35. One proposed amendment fails you you think 'the tide is turning'?

Incredible.

[gorfle]

44. The tide is turning...

The tide is turning. The people are realizing that the NRA is not the governing body for this country, and they're sick of it.

Yes, the tide is turning. The vote was 58-36 FOR universal CCW. The vote missed passing by two votes. The tide may indeed be turning, but not in the direction you think.

You're poor losers.

Wait a minute. You start a whole thread based on the silence of pro-gun folks over the vote and we are poor losers?

[SteveM]

47. Well, the thread hasn't ended, but you're gone (nt)

[eqfan592]

10. Ummm, you're attacking us because you claim we "gloat" when we "win"....

....yet what exactly do you call what you're doing right now?

And it's not "us" that win or lose. We ALL win when are 2a rights are protected and defended, even if some of us don't what to be rational and realize it.

[zanne]

15. You think that most people share your opinion.

I really think that's the problem with gun nuts. You either live in an area of the country that is pro-gun, or you live in your own little world. If you took time to consider what other people in other parts of the country are thinking, or even in the real world, you'd know better. You are not part of the majority, son.

[eqfan592]

26. Firstly, don't call me "son."

Secondly, take a look at all the recent polling data out there. To state that I am clearly in the "minority" on gun issues universally is incorrect.

Maybe you should practice what you preach and take a look around you at those living in other parts of the country?

According to Gallup, only 49% of Americans favor stricter gun laws, with 41% them to stay the same and 8% favoring them to be less strict (2% are of no opinion). In this case, the nation is effectively evenly split, with the trend being fewer Americans in favor of stricter gun laws.

Only 29% of Americans favor a ban on handguns, with 69% being opposed to it.

These are just two quick stats from Gallup. Others here have many others that I'm sure they'd be willing to post. I'll try to dig up some more, but I'm at work now and my time to spend on this is limited.

[SteveM]

48. The poster uses "son" to demonstrate her cock-strut dominance...

over what, I do not know. Kind of strange from a person who speaks of "size" so much.

[iverglas]

49. ooooh, somebody giving orders about what someone else may say

I think somebody hereabouts should be dropping in soon to object to that!

:rofl:

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Is Washington State big enough to be part of the 'real world' to you?

Solid Blue State, yet we have very sensible gun laws. We've had open carry since the word 'go', and concealed carry for far longer than Texas.

When you're ready to come out and play, the real world will be waiting here for you.

[paulsby]

56. we also have legal carry on college campuses

i have yet to see the carnage ensue at the UW. this is another (illogical) scare tactic i see brought up - that allowing guns on campuses (this issue was common after the virginia shooting) would be such a terrible thing. these people fail to realize that several states have legal carry on college campuses, including WA state. i should also note the main reason why WA state has sensible gun laws is that many many many legislators have tried to pass much more restrictive laws, but the WA constitution is written so clearly, that they get shot down. mayor nickels in seattle proposed to make it illegal (via executive order) to carry guns in city parks. that is blatantly against state constitution and he knew it. and of course it never came to pass. classic political theatre.

[krispos42]

13. "went down in flames"?

It was filibustered... 58 votes for it, 40 against.

Once again a vocal, idealogically-driven minority stop rational legislation.

Yay.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

20. "down in flames" = 58% of senators support it.

It will get passed in another form.

If 58% are in favor of national conceal carry what % would you guess are in favor of the reverse (making CCW illegal, assault weapons bans, handgun bans, reduced magazine capacity, banning rifle ammo, banning 0.50 cal rifles, mandatory federal licensing, mandatory registration).

I would guess 40%ish. Not enough to do anything.

[eqfan592]

24. 40% seems a little high to me, but you're probably not too far off the mark. Or I'm just wrong. (nt)

[gorfle]

43. Of course it does.

So the gun nuts don't get to gloat this time. The thread ends.

Of course it does. What do you expect us to do? Cry and whine? Sorry to disappoint you.

[frebrd]

3. What the hell are you talking about?

[aikoaiko]

18. the real questions is: how many threads are you going to start that will be locked for flame bait.

:shrug:


this one will make three.

[slackmaster]

22. What thread?

:shrug:

[jeepnstein]

28. I've got plenty to say.

It was interesting to me that it even made it to a vote in the Senate. Even more interesting was that it almost passed. I can't really say that the measure's failure is any kind of triumph for the Brady organization.

The thing was really quite unexpected and if you told me six months ago that it would even be up for a vote in the Senate I would have not believed it.

Of course you need to toss out your flame bait as best you can. Enjoy it while you can. When you support an issue with nothing but emotion and drama, you need all of it you can muster.

[proteus_lives]

29. What defeat?

We needed two more votes. The way I see it, both sides stepped back after the Control fear-mongers walked away with a technical victory. There will be another bill and it will pass. Because the people you label as "gun nuts" are actually people who believe in democracy and their rights.

Your fear will never destroy the 2nd Amendment and we will keep fight for bills that will keep this freedom secured.

[benEzra]

30. Given the general ambivalence of gun owners toward this particular bill...

...ambivalence which I share...the fact that it still came within 2 votes of passing even without the wholehearted support of the gun owning community is pretty reassuring, IMO. That says you're not going to be able to ram through another protruding handgrip ban, or throw magazine capacities back to the 1860's, or pass restrictions on state CHL rules.

Here's what I said about it, FWIW:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=240859&mesg_id=240866

I'm ambivalent about this one.

Had it passed, it might have been short-term gain, long-term loss, as a few of the more anti-gun states might have used it as an excuse to discontinue their CHL policies (e.g., Massachusetts and California come to mind), and (much more importantly) if reciprocity were Federalized, it would have inevitably led to a push to Federalize licensure standards too. We might well have won those battles in the end, but I think there are better ways.

State-to-state reciprocity works very well, and I think that in the current environment, the best approach would be to work on adding more states to the reciprocity pool at the state-legislature level. Just my opinion.

But gloat if you want. :shrug:

[eqfan592]

33. You are indeed far from alone on that.

I frequent several "guns only" type websites, and even on those sites there was at times an even 50/50 split on support for the issue (one site had exactly 21 for, 21 against, and 10+ fence sitters).

So you are correct that the fact that a bill such as this, with only a half hearted level of support from the gun community, came so close to passing, is indeed a very telling sign.

[RamboLiberal]

34. Gloat while you can

Let's see - 20 Dems voted Yes. If 2 Republicans hadn't voted Nay this would've passed.

Bet the next time this bill comes up it will pass.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

37. Here's the really funny part...

You claim that we gloat when we "win" as justification for your gloating when we are "crushed".

In and of itself, that's a DUzy.

Secondly, crushed is hardly the word I'd use. Two votes, that is your margin of "victory". With a filibuster nonetheless. Honestly, that's alot closer than I thought it was going to be. CRUSHED?? lol, ya squeaked by. Aaaannd.... polls and statistics show not only that the majority of the public is progun, but that the trendline has momentum in that direction. Boy, I wonder how long it will take that momentum to nibble away at those TWO votes (especially with elections coming up in '10). :evilgrin:
Methinks with a little honest education, redrafted bill, and no filibuster - this thing could easily make it in the near future.

Enjoy our crushing defeat... we'll remember to savor yours next round. :toast:

[RamboLiberal]

38. Arlen Specter sure pissed off some moderate Dems today

in my state of PA by voting no. Specter got a lot of support from moderate Dems here - the blue collar types who are union members but also gun owners & strong proponents of RKBA. If he lucks out and survives the Democratic primary he could well lose to Toomey on this issue.

And since Sestak came out with the mayors in encouraging Specter to vote no it could hurt Sestak in the general IMHO.

I may be a gun owner but still no way in hell I'd vote for Toomey, but a lot of the PA gun owners I know won't feel the same as I do.
They are really applauding today Casey's Yes vote.

[zanne]

39. Yup...just keep on advocating for more violence in our society.

Oh...and those little pink guns with the cute little cats on them that kids like to pick up and kill themsleves or other people with. Gun lovers don't discriminate on who is put in danger because of guns. Kids will do quite nicely.

[benEzra]

41. The number of children killed with Hello Kitty guns in the USA is ZERO...

but don't let little details like the truth get in the way of a good hatefest...

...and FWIW, no one here is advocating for more violence in our society, any more than those of us who oppose warrantless surveillance or waterboarding are advocating for more terrorism in our society.

[pipoman]

40. Most anti-2nd advocates

actually make sense. Most make their arguments in a lucent reasonable way that isn't cryptic or just plain stupid. Most don't make up the things they say, they often get their talking points from sources easily refuted, but they don't just dream shit up then spew it out as fact only to be revealed as near lunatic in their reasoning. A few, however, do all of these things. They are the ones who set the standard for how all the others are judged, in the same way that the fringe in the pro-RKBA side are often referred to by opposition when discussing this issue. Too bad these lunatics don't realize they do more harm than good for their cause.

[iverglas]

50. I love this jargon

"anti-2nd advocates" (not that this even makes sense)

It does so put one in mind of, oh, "anti-life", "pro-abortion", stuff like that ...

And it just does conjure up images ...

[pipoman]

51. Interesting

that you find Anti 2nd advocate conjures up images yet not:

"gun nuts" from the OP, #1, 4, 6, 15
"pro-gun" #15,
"Gun lovers" 42,
"right-wing" #21

That doesn't even touch the irony that you advocate for one right, abortion, yet rail against another. The better comparison would be that between anti 2nd amendment advocates and the anti choice brigade...birds of a feather...projection?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. What thread are you referring to?