Violence Policy Center admits defeat?

[GreenStormCloud]

It is a somewhat long article, but well worth looking at. The lead picture is good too.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d19-Violence-Policy-Center-admits-defeat
Violence Policy Center admits defeat?

SNIP

“If you compare the pro-gun activity in the blogosphere versus the pro-gun-control activity, the scales have just tipped tremendously in their favor,” says Josh Sugarmann, founder of the Violence Policy Center in Washington

SNIP

While Sugarmann disparages what he considers amateurs with too much free time, the Christian Science Monitor notes: “the pro-gun forces are, for now at least, winning the battle for hearts and minds, even gun control advocates concede.”

SNIP

In a Constitutional Republic, it would seem ideal if policy makers listen to those organizations which represent the People. On this point, the Christian Science Monitor reported:
Gun control groups have roughly 150,000 members in the US while gun rights advocates number closer to 12 million, with perhaps as many as 80 million Americans owning some 200 million firearms.

(Out of the 150,000, VPC’s tax records document its zero members.)

Basically, the new media - bloggers - who have done so much to change the political landscape, are largely pro-RKBA.

[PavePusher]

1. Sweeeee-e-e-e-e-e-et...... n/t

[baldguy]

2. So, a well funded corporate propaganda machine can be effective in subverting facts & democracy.

Who knew?

[logjon]

3. heh

for some reason your post invoked memories of the brady campaign. in my experience, it's been the gun control advocates largely subverting facts and democracy. knee-jerk responses and appeals to emotion come to mind. coupled with feel-good laws that have yet to produce any real reduction in violent crime.

[baldguy]

5. The corporations the NRA & GOP are in bed with are a more immediate threat to our freedom & liberty

Than any govt entity. Anyone watching the health care reform debate would realize that.

[SteveM]

29. While in bed, keep in mind the Brady Center is founded and run by Republicans (nt)

[PavePusher]

63. What Corp.s would the NRA "be in bed with"?

Other than the firearms industry, of course, which is a patheticaly small part of the U.S. economy and, as an industry, carries almost no political weight.

Do you think that if Smith & Wesson or Sturm-Ruger or Remington went bankrupt, that the government would be knocking on their doors with fistsful of bailout dollars? "To big to fail?" Not hardly. If I recall correctly, the entire U.S. firearms economy comes to approx. $3B/year. That's not even a fart in a hurricane, economically speaking.

Your fevered imagination, it needs some aspirin.

[ManiacJoe]

6. That would not be a major problem for the VPC.

The VPC was not usually in the habit of letting facts get in the way of the trash they published.

[virginia mountainman]

7. HA HA, were is MY check at?? NT

[eqfan592]

8. What facts were subverted, baldguy?

Seems to me you've been pretty lacking in facts when it comes to this issue. What's sad to me is that I've seen you make some good posts on the health care issue, but you can't seem to use the same rational thought on this issue.

[beevul]

10. About that democracy...

Recognizing the dangers of mob rule, our Bill of Rights defined some of the areas where the individual would be immune to the will of the collective. What this means is, no matter how many of us disagree with you, we cannot lawfully use force to shut you up, to suppress your political views, or to make you worship in the way we see fit. We cannot break into your house and search your property without probable cause and a legal warrant. Barring behaviors on your part to disqualify yourself through incarceration, we cannot strip you of your right to keep and bear arms.


So your tirade directed at "subverting democracy", really isn't relevant.

And as far as subverting facts...well, it was YOUR side that claimed so called "assault weapons" were the choice of gang bangers and criminals, amongst a plethora of other "facts".



You really haven't a leg to stand on, in this debate.

[baldguy]

14. So, when the people of, say - New York or Chicago - decide

that their freedom, liberty & security requires that the possession of handguns should be restricted - the fact that powerful conservative corporate interests spend millions to undermine the law, overturn the people's decision and repeatedly incite individuals to break those laws - that doesn't subvert democracy?

Of course it does.

[eqfan592]

15. One problem with that.

The people of New York did nothing to protect their freedom, liberty & security with their measures. The violence there in spite of their shortsighted and ignorant laws is more a testament to the willingness of criminals to continue to break the law than any sort of corporate subversion of democracy.

I also note that you do not make mention of the underhanded tactics that were used by the organizations that convinced the people of New York that they needed such restrictions in the first place.

[X_Digger]

17. That whooshing sound is the point flying over your head..

No, if New York or Chicago said that for their freedom, liberty, and security they had to ban people practicing the islamic faith and all it's variants, it wouldn't be constitutional, either.

[logjon]

18. funny you should bring up chicago

seeing as how it was coupled with DC for strictest gun laws. oh. and despite those strict gun laws, they fought back and forth for the murder/crime capitals of the united states. what corporation is paying whom to subvert the democracy? is it possible that the thinking minority are sick of being victimized with no opportunity to defend themselves thanks to the willful helplessness of the majority? ie, the type of thing the constitution is meant to make NOT happen? of course not. it's corporate greed subverting democracy that's making the criminals more bold in places they know they are unlikely to counter credible resistance.

[TheWraith]

19. And if the officials of those cities decided the fourth amendment no longer applied?

It would be a lot easier to bust drug dealers if you didn't need warrants, or proof, or things like that.

What about the first amendment? They could have the G8 in town without allowing all those dirty protesters on the streets.

Still doesn't make it legal.

[beevul]

22. Obviously...

Obviously you can't, or won't read/understand the first paragraph of the post you replied to, so here it is again:

Recognizing the dangers of mob rule, our Bill of Rights defined some of the areas where the individual would be immune to the will of the collective. What this means is, no matter how many of us disagree with you, we cannot lawfully use force to shut you up, to suppress your political views, or to make you worship in the way we see fit. We cannot break into your house and search your property without probable cause and a legal warrant. Barring behaviors on your part to disqualify yourself through incarceration, we cannot strip you of your right to keep and bear arms.

Now, read that as many times as it takes to understand it.

The bill of rights is ABOVE simple mob-rule democracy. Democracy isn't being subverted, can't be subverted, where something that is IMMUNE to simple democracy is concerned.

The FOUNDERS subverted democracy by design, where the bill of rights is concerned. That goes for both the protection of rights you agree with, and the ones you don't.

Thats the way it is, deal with it. You go ahead and try to get a supermajority and amend it.

Blaming "powerful conservative corporate interests", the nra, bla bla bla, just makes you look ignorant.

[SteveM]

30. Wrong again. The "people" must follow 2A and 14A. We are a constitutional democracy(nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

33. So when the people of say, Alabama or Louisiana decide

that their freedom, liberty & security requires that the voting rights of black people should be restricted - the fact that powerful liberal activist interests spend millions to undermine the law, overturn the people's decision and repeatedly incite individuals to break those laws - that doesn't subvert democracy?

Not in the least.


You sir, are a slow, low flying target. Good Game, Next Map.

[PavePusher]

67. Two days, no rebuttal.

Very telling...

[Euromutt]

25. You *are* referring to the VPC itself, I assume

The VPC: no members, five or six people on the payroll, of whom two (Sugarmann and Rand) produce the entire output, all financial support courtesy of the Joyce Foundation ($4,154,970 between 1996 and 2006). Instrumental in popularizing the term "assault weapon" to mean semi-automatic weapons with unremarkable ballistics but intimidating-looking appearance and fostering the incorrect impression that the term referred to automatic weapons. Now attempting to paint CCW permit holders as being a public menace.

Definitely a well funded propaganda machine, with a history of some effectiveness at subverting facts and democracy, and considering the Joyce Foundations's money came from logging and lumber processing, it's not a huge stretch to call it "corporate."

[GreenStormCloud]

26. Yes, the Joyce Foundation, funding VPC and similar organizations,

aided by the old media did subvert facts and democracy and the constitution. But now, the new media, of bloggers who are NOT controlled by anybody are getting the truth out, and VPC is losing.

[benEzra]

28. Heh. The VPC is the corporate funded propaganda machine, and it is complaining about

being overwhelmed by unpaid, volunteer grassroots activism on the pro-RKBA side.

Ironic post, that...

[slackmaster]

4. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would solve that problem for the gun-ban enthusiasts

They have an opposing viewpoint, ergo they deserve equal time.

:nuke:

[iverglas]

9. If somebody wants to read this tripe

don't you think they'd seek it out for themselves?

It's a blog. One guy with page at The Examiner, a collection of blogs kind of masquerading as something else.

Uh ... so?

What is the quoted passage supposed to prove?

“If you compare the pro-gun activity in the blogosphere versus the pro-gun-control activity, the scales have just tipped tremendously in their favor,” says Josh Sugarmann, founder of the Violence Policy Center in Washington

That the right wing outnumbers decent human beings in space occupied on the internet? Had this fact escaped someone?

Gun control groups have roughly 150,000 members in the US while gun rights advocates number closer to 12 million, with perhaps as many as 80 million Americans owning some 200 million firearms.

Uh huh ...

There are just over 2 million members of Episcopalian congregations in the US. There are about 15 million atheists (arbitrarily taking half of 10%, to exclude children). But they don't belong to the Church of Atheism. So Episcopalians count more. Right?

In a Constitutional Republic, it would seem ideal if policy makers listen to those organizations which represent the People.

I'm pretty sure that there are waaay more people formally affiliated with formally anti-choice organizations than there are affiliated with pro-choice organizations. Outlaw abortion. It's only right. If people cared enough about keeping abortion legal to count, they'd go join something. They don't exist, and the government should not listen to them.

Dawg, the gun militant line is just stupid sometimes.



typo

[beevul]

12. "It's a blog."

Oddly enough, thats probably what sugarman thinks too.


"While Sugarmann disparages what he considers amateurs with too much free time..."


:rofl:

[SteveM]

31. When he made that rumble beneath the sheets, did he think it was someone else? nt

[logjon]

13. ugh

iverglas's definition of right wing: adj anyone who doesn't agree with her distorted POV.

ex:that guy carries a gun in case he needs to defend his life. he also buys into the notion that women are, by and large, physically weaker than men as a result of the biological processes that shape their bodies. what a right wing nutjob.

[GreenStormCloud]

27. Back in the early 1990s, the gun control advocates had control of the media.

There were few pro-RKBA editorials or stories to be found. Then the internet opened up and the old media could no longer control the message as effectively. The pro-RKBA message is now beating up the gun-control message. The VPC is losing ground. In case you don't believe me, look at the trend in the loosening of gun restrictions across the U.S>

[iverglas]

35. ah, yes

Back in the early 1990s, the gun control advocates had control of the media.
There were few pro-RKBA editorials or stories to be found.

Back in the good old days, rational discourse and human decency were predominant. I know.


In case you don't believe me, look at the trend in the loosening of gun restrictions across the U.S>

You actually believe this proves something, I'll bet. Something other than "might makes right". Sad.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. I believe it proves that "more guns does not necessarily mean more crime"

Of course that would mean looking at statistics instead of listening to the alarmist, oveheated rhetoric of moralizers.

Odd that gun controllers and teabaggers have much the same approach to public policy matters...

[iverglas]

37. how odd

I believe it proves that "more guns does not necessarily mean more crime"

I don't recall that even being a topic of discussion, so I fail to see why proof of something not under discussion might have been offered.

Whatever.


Odd that gun controllers and teabaggers have much the same approach to public policy matters...

I'm afraid I'm going to have to guess here. Firearms control advocates and public health insurance opponents are both concerned about ... the public welfare? The ability of individuals to keep breathing? The creation of a society that values all its members and seeks civility in public policy and public spaces? I know: they both show up at public gatherings armed to the teeth in order to intimidate other members of their society with whose policy positions they disagree?

Whatever!

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Of course it proves something.

You actually believe this proves something, I'll bet. Something other than "might makes right". Sad.

Yes, it proves that we are winning and VPC is losing. That was my entire point.

Back in the good old days, rational discourse and human decency were predominant. I know.

Nah. Back then the anti-gun side had a stranglehold on what message would be presented. You have lost that hold. The new media is able to bypass the old media. Now we can get our message out, and people are listening and becoming convinced. Public rational discourse is always enhanced when both sides can get their message before the public.

[iverglas]

41. I ain't lost shit, buddy

Read yourself some Toronto Star or Montreal Gazette or Globe and Mail.

We may have an ugly right-wing federal government up here that's busy catering to the tiny group of gun militants (and other factions of right-wing assholes and ugly corporate interests, like the oil industry) that it has to keep sweet in order to hang on to the power it enjoys by an electoral fluke (a government with a minority of seats and barely more than 1/3 of the popular vote, but the largest absolute number of seats in the House out of the four parties) But for it to do anything worse in this regard than suspending the registration requirement for long arms, that just ain't gonna happen.

Once we get rid of them, it won't be too long before private possession of handguns is elimated. Rome wasn't built in a day, and all progress in a society isn't made at once on parallel tracks. We've had no abortion laws for 30 years, we've had legal same-sex marriage for nearly a decade, and I'm content to wait a bit to have no legal handgun possession. I promise not to gloat though. Progress also isn't a one-way street; there are detours and setbacks, and people who gloat sometimes end up looking very eggy. Besides, it won't be "us" who have won vs. "them". It will be all of us. Civil, tolerant, open, secure societies are good for everybody.

[beevul]

51. Wow, just wow.

"Besides, it won't be "us" who have won vs. "them". It will be all of us."

Right, because you know whats good for "them" better than they do.

"Civil, tolerant, open, secure societies are good for everybody."

Just so long as theres no tolerance for legal private possession of handguns. Spoken like a true politician, all of it.



That right there is one self centered, egotistic, arrogant, smug, and flat out ugly position.


You really surprised me this time. I really mean that.

[eqfan592]

52. I was going to say something similar....

...but I've already had my bouts with her today. I agree 100%.

[PavePusher]

58. That is about the clearest...

most declarative statement she's ever made.

Not much sidestepping room there.

[iverglas]

56. no tolerance for lots of stuff

No tolerance for people who do lots of antisocial things that impose risks and inconvenience and unpleasantness on others and the public at large.

"No tolerance for legal private possession of handguns". Spoken like a true demagogue.

How's your tolerance for legal private possession of anthrax doing these days?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. It would certainly seem your tolerance for straw men is getting better by the minute.

As you keep posting them.

[iverglas]

61. please

please please fucking please

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=strawman+argument&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&fp=597db6d9b656733d

please fucking please fucking please

Learn what the fuck a "strawman argument" is.

I got back to genealogy today. If and when I return here, please let everyone be able to use the term "strawman argument" in a sentence correctly.

An ANALOGY is NOT a "STRAWMAN". For the love of fuck.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. Damn you are easy.

[beevul]

65. Oh, thats been made obvious

"No tolerance for people who do lots of antisocial things that impose risks and inconvenience and unpleasantness on others and the public at large."


Bullshit. If and when your "rome" is built where the subject of firearms is concerned, it will be with your approval. And it will be with absolutely no regard to the risks and inconvenience and unpleasantness that those who disagree might find associated with it.

But thats not anti-social, so that makes it ok... :eyes:

"No tolerance for legal private possession of handguns"(beevul). Spoken like a true demagogue." - iverglas


Demagogue. Is that like...a sound you make when shown to be a hypocrite? :sarcasm:


"How's your tolerance for legal private possession of anthrax doing these days?"

Bwahahahaha.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. By "you" I mean "your side", and your side has lost control of media.

The old media was in bed with you and presenting only your side of the argument. With the internet, other ideas are having an easier time gaining the attention of the public. The result has been a general loosening of gun-control laws in the U.S. Banning the private ownership of hanguns just isn't going to happen in the U.S.

Canada will eventually come around to our side of the argument, but it will take much longer.

[iverglas]

57. very silly take on it

The actual fact is that public discourse is no longer carried out exclusively through the media. So if you were so inclined, you might say that the media have lost control of public discourse, if you think they once had it, which to some extent they did.

Controlling public discourse isn't actually a laudable goal. Bad things tend to happen when that does.

Old Soviet joke (for which you have to know that Pravda is Russian for truth, and Izvestia is Russian for news): There's no truth in the News, and there's no news in the Truth.

So should I congratulate the racist misogyinst right wing for controlling public discourse, if that's what you're claiming it's doing?

I don't think I will. Might doesn't really make right, and there are some very ugly winners in the world.


Canada will eventually come around to our side of the argument, but it will take much longer.

Yeah, sure, you keep dreaming of that exceptionalism and how you have found the one true way and the universe will fall into step any day now. While the rest of us go strolling along the path of progress and enjoying our expanding human rights and security, and occasionally glance back to the 18th century to see how you're doing. I mean, unless and until you drop some bombs on us or try to cripple our economies or something. It might not be right, but sometimes it's the only way to win, eh?

[GreenStormCloud]

59. Yes, the anti-gun old media lost control of the public discourse.

Both views are now before the public and the public attitude is shifting to a pro-gun stance. The proof of that is the general loosing of gun restrictions in most states. Freedom loving people who value their rights are being heard.

Yes, Canada will eventually come around to a more pro-gun position. Self-defense is a natural right. To deny someone access to the tools of effective individual self-defense is to deny that same person the right of self-defense. My guns give me, a senior citizen, the ability to successfully figt off a younger, stronger, agressor. Without guns, we would be back to a world in which the biggest muscles won all confrontations, and the weaker just had to suffer. Going back to such a world is not a progressive ideal.

If you view us as 18th century, then with respect to the right of self-defense, we view you as stone age because in those days the biggest muscles ruled.

[beevul]

50. Hahahaha

"Back in the good old days, rational discourse and human decency were predominant. I know."

Somehow, I don't think "rational discourse and human decency" include untrue messages like "assault weapons are the choice of criminals", which was the message when gun control advocates had control of the media.

Now theres some "might makes right" YOU would believe in, I'm quite sure.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. Wait, are you saying your allies are remarkably unmotivated, or...

...there just isn't all that many of them?

"Guns are a threat to life and limb, but we can't be arsed to get together to do anything about it."

[iverglas]

42. unmotivated to go join something?

I've been an atheist for, oh, 40 years now. Never yet joined an atheist club. But would you like to see what would happen if somebody tried to impose anti-atheist policies of some sort? Think they'd get my vote? I don't belong to any pro-choice organizations. The likelihood of the right-wing misogyinsts actually accomplishing anything to interfere in women's rights where I'm at is about nil minus two. What would I go join something for? My household keeps cats (well, we did til all three of them died this summer), but I've never considered joining a cat fancier circle.

Early days, friend. And the usual problem in your part of the world: a population that has no clue how things work in other parts. No idea what life is like with universal health insurance and paid parental leave and regulated financial industries. And without firearms violence costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars a year. How would you keep 'em down on the farm once they did have an idea?

Gotta keep control of the media and cyberspace, and those venal politicians. Gun militants are the ones who have to join things and give money and write blogs and get those op-eds published, and hang around any slightly progressive website they find, posting deceptive statistics and outright lies about what goes on outside those borders, and playing "winner". If too many people started seeing through the curtain, well, it doesn't bear thinking about, does it? They might actually start demanding public policies in their own interests.



typo

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. Gratutitous chauvinism aside, no one is keeping 'control' of public discourse in re guns

And the usual problem in your part of the world: a population that has no clue how things work in other parts.

What does this remark has to do with commentary regarding some blogger's ripoff of a Christian Science Monitor article about activism about USAian gun politics?

Gotta keep control of the media and cyberspace

I'll be blunt- the only reason that "control of the media" could even be under discussion here is that the various pro-gun control organizations and/or MSM outlets have done such a piss-poor job of presenting their case.

IOW, your allies are fuckups.

The cynic in me says that Josh Sugarmann (sp?) and other Joyce Foundation grantees couldn't do a better job
of sabotaging the movement they ostensibly lead if they were paid to. Maybe they are- stranger things have happened
in politics.

... posting deceptive statistics...

Deceptive? I would think the only ones that matter are the murder and violent crime rates, which have been widely reported
as declining, and the number of guns in circulation in the USA, which all agree has risen.
There's three ways to look at these:

1) They are accurate

2) They are accurate, but the reportage of same does not reflect what it is purported to reflect. Would the crime and murder rates have declined even more if gun control laws had stayed the same? Maybe. Are the declines in murder and
violent crime rates not linked to the rising number of guns? Also a 'maybe', but one that doesn't speak well to the
rhetoric we've been hearing for years about the danger of looser gun laws.

3) They are *not* accurate. Cooked, invented, as phony as a Chicago voter registration list.
This needs evidence, if you've got it.

[iverglas]

45. can you not follow a conversation even when you initiate it?

and it's only two posts long?


And the usual problem in your part of the world: a population that has no clue how things work in other parts.
What does this remark has to do with commentary regarding some blogger's ripoff of a Christian Science Monitor article about activism about USAian gun politics?

What it was, was a reply to your post. You know, the one that it appears as a reply to. The one in which you said (and I chose to disregard the false dichotomy; if one didn't ignore the fallacies and dishonest framings of things in posts here, one would never reply to anything):

Wait, are you saying your allies are remarkably unmotivated, or...
...there just isn't all that many of them?

I told you what I was saying. It didn't happen to be either of the only two things you seemed capable of imagining I was saying. So I spelled it out for you; among other things:

And the usual problem in your part of the world: a population that has no clue how things work in other parts.

I do hope that helps. I'm sure you'll imagine something else you find amusing though.


... posting deceptive statistics...
Deceptive? I would think the only ones that matter are the murder and violent crime rates, which have been widely reported
as declining, and the number of guns in circulation in the USA, which all agree has risen.

Huh. I guess it didn't occur to you that there was a connection between the thoughts in my post. I know, that must be an unexpected event.

Oh, I'm sorry -- looking back, I see that isn't the entire problem here. The larger problem is your totally unacceptable decision to pretend that you can take a phrase out of a sentence and pretend it didn't mean what it did mean. The connection in question was perfectly unmistakable and perfectly incapable of being misrepresented even. Here you are; what I actually said:

posting deceptive statistics and outright lies about what goes on outside those borders.

So I do think that your subsequent burble:

I would think the only ones that matter are the murder and violent crime rates, which have been widely reported
as declining, and the number of guns in circulation in the USA, which all agree has risen.

is a really lame and really quite ugly attempt to avoid the issue you were pretending to discuss.

If the lines of text quoted from your posts come out jaggedy here, it's not my fault as I'm not the one inserting pointless line breaks in your posts.

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. OK, then: CT aside, why are VPC, et al, so ineffective at geting their message out?

Really. Why are they so bad at getting their point across? The variety of websites operated by pro-gun control orgs
look like a weird mirror image of RW sites. GunGuys in particular looks like a alternate-universe version of World Net Daily.

We've got one poster here at DU that claims guns are the equivalent of the Rings of Sauron. "Guns cloud the mind",
for cryin' out loud. Another attempt to portray persons carrying concealed weapons as somehow dangerous backfired
badly when people started to do the math.

Where are the eloquent, persuasive advocates of gun control?

(That's eloquent and persuasive, not "verbose and offputting", BTW)

[iverglas]

47. riddle me this

Why are so many people in the US opposed to a public health insurance option, without even starting to wonder why they're opposed to a single public payer universal coverage system?

I'm pretty sure that the answers to one will be the same as the answers to the other. And consider too that health care really is a more immediate concern to a large majority of people than firearms crime and violence.


Where are the eloquent, persuasive advocates of gun control?
(That's eloquent and persuasive, not "verbose and offputting", BTW)

Sincerely and out of genuine concern, not even secondarily facetiously or sarcastically: where are the eloquent and persuasive advocates of anything today?

You've had them in the past, but even Ted Kennedy is gone now; you supposedly had a new one, and he's dudded out. We've had them here (just to mention one name you might know: you don't get more eloquent than Pierre Trudeau, although he wasn't short on offputting); now we have cunning manipulators. The UK has had way more than its share of them (even some that one despised); now it has inept idiots and grey nonentities.

That's about the best I can do, 'fraid.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity"

Looks like ol' WB nailed it. While many expected JFK redux, it seems we've got Jimmy Carter 2.0

The Republicans know what few are willing to admit:

Democratic politicians can be buffaloed, and the Pubbies are willing and able to do so.

Hell, Joe Lieberman has the Senate Democrats dancing to his tune. You could argue that he is the most powerful
person in the US Government at the moment, and I might not disagree with you...

[iverglas]

55. yeah

Watching the Joe news, I had a fleeting impulse to send him an email and tell him what a piece of shit he is. I figure he already knows.

D'you know, I considered that I might have voted for Ford had I been voting. Really not a fan of religious types yammering about their religion in politics, and Ford just seemed like a bit of a straight shooter. I wouldn't have, of course. And Carter did have the decency to publicly quit the icky denomination he then belonged to, and of course he has been an influence for good since his political demise. Not that I think Habitation for Humanity is a particularly good thing, but internationally he's one of the former heads of state/government doing well behind the scenes.

I clicked on a thread here back a year ago knowing what it was going to say - the header was about a message from Carter's son. Endorsing Biden, I knew it was going to be, and it was; proxy for Jimmy. He's my Joe. I happened to be with that southern US CCW holder when Obama announced his VP pick, so that was fun.

Catch the Copenhagen news this morning? Poor Stephen Harper, international pariah (making Canada the pariah, of course). There's one whose political religion is particularly offensive. He became a fundie of some pentacostalish variety when he entered politics, from being a right-wing lobbyist/think tanker in his youth. And people actually believe he has some sort of sincere "faith". He didn't even know enough not to take a communion wafer from an RC officiant last year (the video didn't quite make it clear whether he stuffed it in his pocket or not). Every prot knows you don't take RC communion, ffs, so you don't take the wafer and then try to figure out what to do with it.



Actually, I'm going to have to peruse some of these - only caught a brief bit on CBC this morning.

http://news.google.ca/news/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=ca&hl=en&q=harper+copenhagen+mock

http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/copenhagensummit/article/738768--hoax-slices-through-canadian-spin-on-warming

I was looking for news pics, but can't find any; maybe too early. Look for "colossal fossil", that's us.

[Piwi2009]

11. I'm thinking of getting my sister a gun for Christmas.

80 million and one Americans.

[eqfan592]

16. Do you know what kind you're thinking of?

If not, you should start a thread. Would make for a good topic :D

[TheWraith]

20. Agreed. A nice "what should I buy" thread is fun. nt

[logjon]

21. speaking of

my local gun shop has both a ruger p95 and a .357 blackhawk @ $350 each. both seem to be in immaculate condition. i really don't know which one to spring for.

[eqfan592]

23. I was hoping to get a p95 at some point myself.

I've heard a lot of good things about them, but can't find them in my area anymore. Can't speak on the blackhawk, however. But I don't want to go too far beyond this with this discussion as we'll hijack the thread ;)

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Caliman73]

53. Ruger P series is great

I owned a P-94 for a number of years, but 40S&W just got to be too expensive to shoot and I am too lazy and poor to get into hand loading. The P-94 was great. A solid tank of a gun. It isn't a work of art, but it is dependable and basically indestructible. The weight of the gun keeps the recoil very manageable. I would get a P-95 in a minute. Bud's gunshop has them for $300 delivered. compare the price including the DROS fees with what you would pay at your local shop.

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/75/products_id/18161

[SteveM]

32. Heard nothing bad about either. I have a...

Ruger Police Service Six in .357. Rock solid, and kicks like one too. I put on a set of Hogue grips to replace the original wooden ones and can now shoot full-house .357s with much more ease; .38s all day. These old first-generation double actions by Ruger are still out there at fairly low prices. Most do not have adjustable sights, being for service use.

[oneshooter]

48. The P95 for self defence, the Blackhawk for hunting or fun. N/T

[Wickerman]

99. thanks

that was very kind. I really have nothing better to do.

[Xela]

43. Not without her trying it first...

I would suggest she handle and fire the model(s) before purchasing.

In other words, please include her in the selection process.

(All firearm safety rules apply.)

Xela

[Xela]

34. Awesome

Thanks for sharing the good news.

Xela

[iverglas]

38. "news"?

:shrug:

[DonP]

62. Can anybody point to a single gun control discussion board ... anywhere?

Over the years I've looked and every time the VPC opened one on their MySpace page or Helmke's "Blog" the comments are always turned off, either after a week or two or when they open.

Can anyone point to a single functioning gun control blog or open discussion board out there?

I'm guessing Sugarmann is grossly understating the case and trying to suggest that they are somewhat outnumbered, rather than admit the truth, that even with all that Joyce Foundation money over the years they have no, zero, nada, position in the blogosphere.

150,000 gun control group members? Where? What kind of membership dues do they commit to their cause?

Or are they counting the non-existent Million Mom March chapters that don't exist except on some Meetup.com posts and in Helmke, Sugarmann and Hennigan's fevered imagination?

[Euromutt]

64. The Brady Campaign doesn't have members, it has "supporters"

And they claim quite a few; for all I know, it accounts for the 150,000 mentioned in the CS Monitor. Problem is, the Brady Campaign claims anyone who writes, phones or e-mails as a "supporter," irrespective of the person's actual purpose for contacting the Campaign.

[GreenStormCloud]

68. In reading the comments section of gun stories in newspapers...

the comments seem to run hugely in favor of guns.

I just now googled trying to find a gun-control board and didn't find one that is currently operational. That doesn't mean there there isn't one somewhere, only that I didn't find one.

[iverglas]

69. yup, it's one thing the racist misogynist gun-militant right wing is good at

Astroturf.

And intimidation, and control, and like that.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. Astroturfing? Naw, just organizing supporters.

Everybody who wants to be successful has to do that.

But I fail to see how we are intimidating pro-gun control people from posting on the internet.

Your insult, racist misogynist gun-militant right wing is just that, an insult, nothing more.

We are winning the debate in the public forum, and translating that into political action. People need to have access to the most effective tools of self-defense, and those tools are guns. Guns equip the weak and vunerable to resist violent predatory people.

[iverglas]

71. and the racist misogynist gun-militant right wing cares so much

about the "weak and vunerable" that they are falling over themselves to adopt universal health insurance. Just for starters.

Who was it showing up with guns at health care rallies?

Oh yeah. Firearms control advocates.

Transparency is good!

[GreenStormCloud]

72. I love women, and one in particular. That's why I want them to be armed.

It is a dangerous world and they need the ability to defend themselves, instead of trusting to luck.

The actions of a few stray individuals at rallies are not representative of the whole. Other comments about health care reform are off-topic and will be ignored. This is the guns forum. I believe there is a separate forum for health care issues.

[iverglas]

73. well harrumph

Like I give a shit about all these pronouncements about "ignoring".

You're the one who made the claim about how caaaaring gun militants are.

I'm the one who showed that claim to be bullshit, and that caaaaring to be the height of bullshit of the kind deposited around the world by hypocrites.

[GreenStormCloud]

74. Did you notice that 21 of 32 democratic state AGs filed pro-gun Amicus briefs in McDonald case?

That about 2/3 of the Democratic Party's state AGs. How does that fit with your gun-rights as RW theme?

[iverglas]

77. I believe you mean "Democratic"

1. I'm not at all sure that your "pro-gun" characterization is accurate (quite apart from it being just the silliest meme there is)

2. Have I ever given reason to believe that I agree with / admire the Democratic Party or Democratic politicians always everywhere and about everything? I certainly hope not.

What you people (or at least CNN) call "moderate Democrats", we out here in reality call right-wing assholes.

[GreenStormCloud]

80. Yeah, I made a typo.

Well, you are posting on a discussion board named, "Democratic Underground". A large part of the mission of this board is to get members of the American Democratic Party elected to offices.

21 of 32 state AGs places me well within the mainstream of our party with regard to guns. You seem to have your own reality. This month's Scientific American (Arrived yesterday) has an article about the posssibility of life in alternate realities. Can you give us a first hand report?

[paulsby]

93. snort... lol

almost inhaled my horchata on that one!

nice

[GreenStormCloud]

75. You haven't shown anything.

You haven't established a close correspondance between those Democrats with a pro-gun stance and those Democrats with an anti-HCR stance. Are they one and the same? How much overlap between the two sets? All you have done is make an assertation.

And we do have a separate forum for HCR issues. It is entirely reasonable to keep the conversation in a "Guns" forum to policy issues concerning guns.

[iverglas]

78. what the fuck?

You haven't established a close correspondance between those Democrats with a pro-gun stance and those Democrats with an anti-HCR stance.

Who the hell was talking about Democrats?

There is a very close correlation between gun militants and the anti-universal (or even a tiny bit better) health care in the US.

Nothing to do with Democrats, except that yes indeed, there are some anti-better health care Democrats and just plain foul nasty Democrats (like those anti-choice assholes).

Would I be surprised to see that those positions correlate strongly with support for the gun militant agenda, inside the Democratic Party as well as outside? There being Democrats who are gun militants, just as there are Democrats who are anti-choice; Democrats, not progressives or "liberals" or even nice people.

Not too likely.


And we do have a separate forum for HCR issues. It is entirely reasonable to keep the conversation in a "Guns" forum to policy issues concerning guns.

Sweetheart, you did what we all "opening the door".

You claimed that gun militants are, like, all caring and nice, and that's why they yammer on and on about the "weak and vulnerable", I believe it was how it went, needing guns.

I get to prove what a load of horseshit that is. And the proof of what a load of horseshit this caaaaring felt by gun militants for the "weak and vulnerable" is that gun militants have been in the very forefront of the efforts to prevent any improvement in health care delivery, the show of force accompanying the lying and lying and lying.

The way it works, you see, is that the witness just doesn't get to say "I'm a wonderful person who would never hurt a fly" without having evidence called to show that they beat their dog.

[GreenStormCloud]

81. You still haven't established a correlation.

In fact, since 60 senators are now going to vote for HCR, I am totally confident that I will find senators who are both pro-gun and who are voting for HCR. In fact, once the final vote is made, I shall compare the names to find which senators voted for HCR and also signed the Amicus brief urging the SCOTUS to incoporate the 2nd in the McDonald case. It should be an interesting exercise.

[beevul]

83. What followed beyond the quoted...

in that previous string, was pure diversion and distraction from this and where it leads:


"We are winning the debate in the public forum, and translating that into political action. People need to have access to the most effective tools of self-defense, and those tools are guns. Guns equip the weak and vunerable to resist violent predatory people."


I note that you make no claim here, as to how the pro-gun crowd cares or not, about anything in particular.

I think maybe someone claims you did.


Just sayin.

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. If the "RMG-MRW" is so good at control, how is it *you* are still posting?

Is there some sort of Parallax View-style campaign against gun controllers we need to be aware of?

Occam's Razor leads me to believe that it's more like:

Gun control is just not that popular.

I suppose it's more comforting to think there is a conspiracy against you than admit your views are not as widespread as
you claim them to be.


More "The Protocols Of The Elders Of The NRA", it would seem

[iverglas]

79. lordy

If Hitler was so determined to kill all the Jews, how come there are still Jews today?

Not everybody is going to roll over and shut up when thugs show up at political rallies with guns.

But a whole lot of decent, rational people aren't going to waste their time in this cesspool, infested with gun militants whose only aim is to intimidate anyone who might voice dissent, through sheer numbers, bafflegab, and the ugliness of their very discourse. (Yay! another 15-yr-old member of an ethnic minority removed from the gene pool!)

Me, I find it amusing here. And I am way not easy to intimidate.

[GreenStormCloud]

82. We also post lots of facts.

For that matter, I have seen you run away from threads when the facts have gotten too hot for you. Perhaps you may remember the thread about the woman who was shot nine times. You were questioning about bullets that may have missed her, and it was pointed out to you that all shots were accounted for. They were all in the assailant woman. You then disappeared from that thread.

We do not restrict our discussion of dead bad guys to 15-yr old minorities. That is another of your many strawmen. We post about any race of violent goblin who gets removed from the gene pool.

[RealityInSeattle]

84. It unlikely they exists

for exactly the same reason as here - this forum is just a place for pro-gun cheerleading to over post and hope that through sheer volume they can make violence seem normal and that more guns are the answer.

Think about it - people who like guns like to intimidate, thats why they like guns, their world is about fear and domination, there has to be an alpha and there has to be a submitter, that is why they like their guns so much. They are not going to discuss anything.

I am surprised DU hasn't just shut this forum down as well, it is just pollution from pro-gun cheerleaders of years old articles about people shooting people.

[eqfan592]

85. .......LOL!!!

You don't like what we have to say, so you want us silenced, eh? That's oh so very progressive of you. :) And yes, people who own guns just LOVE intimidating people. It's the ONLY possible explanation!!


Man, I tell ya, you're a funny guy/gal. For somebody with the word "reality" in their forum name, you're about as disconnected from reality as possible when it comes to this issue. Not to mention closed minded and prejudiced it would seem.

If you are incapable of engaging people with facts and statistical evidence to support your view (which is what this forum is truly filled with, in spite your assertion to the contrary) but would rather have those who do produce such evidence silenced, what exactly does that say about your character? Here's a hint: It's nothing good. ;)

[benEzra]

86. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing...

but it is a predictable result of thinking in stereotypes.

The U.S. gun violence rate has been in decline since the early '90s, gun accidents are at historic lows, and shootings of police are near historic lows. But the MSM "ZOMG the sky is falling" rhetoric on the issue continues to perpetuate itself.

FWIW, I'm not an alpha type; I'm very much a "live and let live" sort, and shooting is more Zen than power-trip. But I take it that you are not yourself a gun owner?

[GreenStormCloud]

87. Progressives must pass YOUR litmus test? I don't think so.

One of the hallmarks of a true progressive is that they are willing to calmly discuss issues and support them with evidence.

You made two weak attempts at that. Both of those posts had their points rebutted, and you quit discussion. Now you cry for censorship of views that you disagree with.

If I wanted to argue as a pro-gun control person I could do a far more effective job than you have done, and do it with logic. However, my points would still get shredded by the more effective counter-logic of the pro-RKBA people.

I am a gunnie because I am also a student of evolution. I love the beauty and logic of evolution. All of our human morals have their roots in our evolutionary past. One of the basic natural rights is self-defense. As much as you try to deny it, violent crime is a reality, even in Seattle, as well as in Dallas. I am armed so that I can effectively resist human predators if I have too.

You are hostile to us because we remind you that the world is still a dangerous place. We upset you ability to deny the existance of violent crime. You are engagining in magical style thinking, in that you feel that if you deny the reality of something, then that something will not come your way. Although I enjoy a good stage show, I quit believing in magic back in grade school.

Since you seem to think that there isn't any violent crime near you:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j2hTyJvJ2HDtTcc18Ljy-sVu_-ZgD9COM4GO0
Seattle police say mother and infant shot to death

SEATTLE — Seattle police say a woman and her infant daughter have been discovered shot to death in their home.

That woman was not able to defend herself or her baby when evil came to visit. She chose not to be prepared.

[RealityInSeattle]

88. He chose to kill her

I am not "hostile" to you (I see your entire view of the world is framed in terms of violence and conflict..you sure nothing happened to you?..it is very telling that someone who merely has a differing opinion from yours is considered a "hostile").

I am voicing my extreme concern because you are a very active proponent of physical (gun) violence in a public forum, not because the flawed-statistics view of guns threatens or challenges me intellectually in anyway. Deciding if I want fries with that will be much more of an intellectual challenge than anything you can ever pose, believe me.

You do not set the definition of terms for anything in this discussion, mr. gunnie. You are certainly welcome to your point of view, but you certainly are not the arbiter or the yardstick of my world view, nor are you "the definer" of terms like progressive or any other idea. As much as you have saturated this forum, it does not belong to you, and it is not the "Pro-gun discussion forum" it is to allow for all points of view. But that does not seem to make you comfortable, there is only one view that appears to be allowed here - "guns are good", and anything else is judged, labeled, over-posted and shouted down. How unlike people that think guns solve problems....its the oldest story on earth.

You are just a pro-violence cheerleader that over the course of mass-posting pro-violence gun cheers (it appears to be thousands) has copied/pasted a few literary snippets so you sound like a pseudo-intellectual. While you are definitely a threat to my sense of physical safety, intellectually you are just a jack-in-the-box cheerleader.

That woman is dead because a man she knew used his gun to kill her. Which is one of the most common forms of homicide in the United States. A man killing his partner with a gun in the house.

And your solution? "If she only had a gun"...more guns.

The fire department does not come and spray fire on my house when they are called about a fire.

One does not throw water on a drowning friend.

You don't even see how insane that idea is, which is exactly why those ideas and views of the world so dangerous. If this view of the world is not confronted, it eventually is considered normal, and then we all lose.

You are a gunnie because you are scared of people. You feel out of control, helpless and scared and so you reach for a gun to make yourself feel powerful and to give yourself the illusion of control. You will very, very, likely die because of that gun. That outcome is hundreds of times more likely than any "24" type comic book hero moment.

I am not here to debate you, only you can make the choice to change yourself, and by defintion, logic, etc is not something that will ever reach you.

I will however continue to confront your "violence is the solution" message, in a forum which seems to just be for unemployed gun owners in the south cheerleading gun violence and regurgitating newspaper articles where someone is killed for a minor property crime at every opportunity.

Lets not continue this charade - You are not here to discuss or debate anything, you are just here to take over a forum by saturation posting pro-gun propaganda and force your view of the world onto people by your sheer amount of free time.

[eqfan592]

89. For what it's worth....

...I'm an employed gun owner from the north. ;)

The message isn't "violence is the solution." The message is that there is NOTHING wrong with defending yourself using the most effective means available. Sorry, but EPIC fail of a post for you. And a long one, too. Seriously, if you put this much effort into actually studying the subject at hand and dumping the bumper-sticker slogans, you'd be much better off.

Jesus, and you actually dared to call somebody ELSE a "jack-in-the-box" cheerleader! Your post is little more than one appeal to emotion after another. You remind me of somebody trying to preach to me about how "them gays are destroying the family unit!"

EDIT: I tell you what, you want to prove us all wrong? Then attack the facts we use. Don't come at us with more weak willed appeals to emotion. Go here. http://www.guncite.com/ There's literally LOADS of information on this site. Read through it objectively, find the holes that you believe exist, and come back at us with them. But remember to remain objective. One must be willing to question what they "know" from time to time.

Many of us once thought as you do, myself included. We never took the time to look at the evidence, and we just took organizations like the Brady Campaign at their word. That was a mistake.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. Those damned statistics again. Messing up a perfectly good appeal to emotion

Well, of course you disdain statistics- they don't support your worldview.

Like global warming deniers or young-earth creationists, you prefer faith to facts.

I am voicing my extreme concern because you are a very active proponent of physical (gun) violence in a public forum...

And yet you yourself obtain police protection from several organizations with armed members, do you not? Have you explained
to the Seattle Police Department, the King County Sheriff's Department, and the Washington State Police that all their guns
are making you less safe? If not, why not?

You are a gunnie because you are scared of people. You feel out of control, helpless and scared and so you reach for a gun to make yourself feel powerful and to give yourself the illusion of control. You will very, very, likely die because of that gun. That outcome is hundreds of times more likely than any "24" type comic book hero moment.

You know this...how, exactly?

I will however continue to confront your "violence is the solution" message, in a forum which seems to just be for unemployed gun owners in the south cheerleading gun violence and regurgitating newspaper articles where someone is killed for a minor property crime at every opportunity.

As an employed, non-gun owning union member from Massachusetts, I find the above somewhat amusing...

Lets not continue this charade - You are not here to discuss or debate anything, you are just here to take over a forum by saturation posting pro-gun propaganda and force your view of the world onto people by your sheer amount of free time.

Wow. Don't think much of your fellow DUers powers of discernment, do you?

I fail to see how he can "force <his> view of the world onto people". Hypnosis? Perhaps he has a 'magic keyboard' that
forces people to agree with him. Do enlighten us on how he could accomplish this

[GreenStormCloud]

91. You have posted nothing but an insult filled rant.

FWIW - I have been checked by the FBI and am a certified good-guy. I have no history of any kind of agressive violence at all. I have taken classes in conflict deescalation.

I have never claimed the forum belongs to me. I have denied that it belongs to you. I also deny that you are able to set the litmus test for what is and isn't a progressive.

I have noted that you desire to censor views that you don't agree with. I do deny that censorship is a progressive value.

Nor do you attempt to back up your assertations with any facts. Your claim that I am more likely to die because of the gun. I challenge you to prove it.

Regarding my employment status. I am a retired state-licensed private investigator. I am a senior citizen. Like many retirees, I have a job to supplement my retirement, but it is a low-stress type job.

[GreenStormCloud]

92. It is YOU who wishes to control others, not me.

You have desired for this forum to be banned, to silence those who disagree with you. You desire censorship. You desire control of what opinions are expressed.

You desire that people be disarmed, for unarmed people are easier to control.

In my 60+ years, I have NEVER unlawfully used my gun to control another. I did once point my .45 at a burglar. He dropped the stuff he was stealing and ran away and I did not shoot as he was no longer a threat to me. I was very glad that I didn't have to shoot. I reported everything to the police. That happened a long time ago, back when I was an active private investigator. Other than that one incident, I have never used my gun to threaten another person at all.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. Project much! LOL.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. Lots of women are scared by guns, don't worry it's okay.

[Pavulon]

96. Pick a new cause, this one is done. The 90's hey day of bamboozle

is over. People figured out that pointless gun control only impacts legal owners like me. Guys who go out and do murder arent concerned with silly gun laws.

[kdragon1010]

97. violence came before guns

Just now with the advent of firearms people who are weaker than their attacker can effectively defend themselves and their loved ones. If all guns disapeared tommorow would crime go away? If the answer was yes then sure I'd be glad the guns were gone. If the answer is no then why should people that are the victim of violent crime be denied means to protect themselves effectively?

I have to point out that violence is normal...not only among the human race but among all other species on this planet. Having been around since the dawn of time (or since the moment of creation if that's what you believe). I would say that a concept that has been around that long should be considered normal behavior.

I sir like guns. I don't use them or any other means to intimidate anyone. Fear is a usefull tool in the real world, it lets you know of the danger that exsists around you. You would be wise to fear violent criminals and terrorists, as they can be quite dangerous. Me and others who like to have guns to defend ourselves didn't make the world this way we simply live in it.

From what I can tell the recent posts of articles about people using guns to defend themselves and others from harm are very recent actually.

[GreenStormCloud]

98. Welcome to DU and to the gungeon.

Gungeon is our nickname for this forum.