Brady campaign member wishes violence against James D'Cruz, 18 year old from Lubbock

[lawodevolution]

Look at the comment after the Brady Campaign post.
I guess the type of people who join the brady campaign against gun violence don't mind violence against "those people" who enjoy owning guns.

[ET Awful]

1. Looks to me like the comment is referring to "lyrics" that D'Cruz wrote

Well, he says lyrics, but I'm going to guess he means Facebook postings by D'Cruz, not to his desire to own guns.

Let's see . .

"There is no redemption, There is no forgiveness. I will stare into your eyes as I pull the trigger and laugh as you hit the ground with your last, pathetic breath." - James D'Cruz

"The caliber of the bullet, shine of the gun, or the gun itself doesn't matter. What matters is who gets shot with it"
December 19, 2009 at 7:51pm - James D'Cruz

in this field of hundreds begging for their lives, we shall spare none
August 9 at 11:38am - James D'Cruz


If D'Cruz wasn't such an immature little jackass, I'd be far more likely to take his side (and for most 18 year-olds, I'd say they're perfectly capable of responsibly owning and carrying a handgun), but this little jerk has a lot of growing up to do.

I think it's obvious though that the comment you are complaining about is referring to D'Cruz's comments like those above, not to his desire to own and/or carry a handgun.

[lawodevolution]

9. Sure he writes some violent lyrics or poetry, should he suffer the fate of those lines he writes?NO.

It would be like saying a hip hop artist should suffer the fate he sings about in a violent song. In order to wish that on someone you have to hate them. The pro gun control guy on the brady campaign expressed a desire for this young man to die a horrible death. That is hate. It is legal and acceptable speech to express hate, I just took note of it because although you can say it, I can criticize it. People who are part of my culture and heritage, the gun culture, are being grouped and labeled by the fact that they own and enjoy guns and they are being hated just for this label (gun owner). That's why this is a civil rights issue.

[ET Awful]

13. He's not being "labeled" because he owns and enjoys guns, he's being labeled

because of what he states (in jest or otherwise) he desires to do with them.

There's a difference.

But you knew that didn't you? You're disagreement isn't with what that poster said, it's with the fact that someone disparaged a person who you think is fighting a legal battle for a cause you support.

If he'd made the same statement about someone you disagree with, you never would have commented on his post. If he'd made that comment about Rush Limbaugh, you never would have commented on it (though I'm sure those at FR would have).

The only reason you found his post worthy of comment is because it was against someone you support.

[SteveM]

10. D'Cruz is husslin' himself, I agree...

That's the problem with prohibitionist "policy:" it depends on fear and hatred, and it doesn't end when one side loses. The cause is good, the messenger stinks.

[Callisto32]

74. There is a lot of violent art.

Do you think everybody who ever worked on an action movie should be kept from guns as well? How about the producers and programmers of violent video games? Rap music? Just because your art has themes of violence, does not mean that you are going to engage in the activity yourself. Besides, what someone MIGHT do is not an issue, is it? Last I checked it was "innocent until proven guilty."

[gordianot]

2. If D'Cruz wants to "pack heat" he needs to enlist, I am sure they will even provide training.

I still remember plenty of 18 year old's who never got the choice when they were drafted.

[Hoopla Phil]

3. Yep, and they should have to serve in order to vote too.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. Yeah, let's just make everyone show their DD214 before they express an opinion!

n/t

[Kennah]

16. Not to mention ...

... they must own property before they can vote. A minimum of $100K equity to vote locally, $250K for county office, $500K for statewide office, and an even million dollars of equity before voting for any federal office.

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. Any other Constititutional rights you feel should be reserved for veterans?

And BTW, D'cruz can buy all the rifles and shotguns his wallet can allow. He can also own all the handguns he wants if he buys them privately or is given them

[RSillsbee]

6. were you one of them?

Or did you run to Canada?

[gordianot]

11. Nope I faced it.

[RSillsbee]

12. Did you change your user name?

are you now two handles?

[Euromutt]

7. In fairness, we don't know Mr. Hopwood is a member of the Brady Campaign

In fact, I'd consider it exceedingly unlikely that he is, given that we know the Brady Campaign's membership is miniscule. Still, he does appear to be someone who thinks of himself as being opposed to "gun violence" but doesn't seem to mind it happening to people who notionally deserve it.

[lawodevolution]

8. hey may not be a paying member but being part of the facebook group and not being banned I'd say he

is a member in their eyes.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

15. Hummmm,

something here sounds a bit familiar: "And an organization in the NRA that is so spiritually and morally sick. . ." Very interesting. Oh, and welcome to DU.

[Freedom4AllofUs]

17. A Brady Member?

Here's what The Young Turks had to say about James D'Cruz and the NRA case on Tuesday:

“When the NRA backs clowns like this—dangerous individuals like this—you lose all credibility.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Kn7RCC_XQ

It's recommended viewing for the Democrats here at the Democratic Underground.

And here are some quotes by 18-year-old James D'Cruz, the plaintiff in the NRA's lawsuits:

"There is no redemption, there is no forgiveness. I will stare into your eyes as I pull the trigger and laugh as you hit the ground with your last, pathetic breath."

“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, that’s why I take their heads.”

“I’m bored. I’ll light someone on fire.”

“Proud to be an infidel.”

“I just want to leave the world colder.”

It's clear that the NRA's lawsuits are about expanding their customer base and gun industry profits, not about this young man's well-being (or anyone else's well-being).

As for Liam Hopwood, simply clicking "Like" on a Facebook Fan Page does not make you a member of an organization.

Furthermore, on his profile page, this is what Hopwood lists as his "Favorite Quote":

"Those who would give up personal liberties for the sake of being safe deserves neither." Ben Franklin

Google that quote and you'll find links to scores of websites run by anti-government extremists and gun rights activists.

Whatever Hopwood supports, it isn't the Brady Campaign.

[X_Digger]

18. We don't get to pick the perfect plantiff.

Rosa Parks wasn't the first african american person to refuse to give up his or her seat to a white person.

Jackie Robinson (yes, that Jackie Robinson) tangled with the Army in 1944 over the same thing, and the NAACP won a legal victory for Irene Morgan a decade before Mrs. Parks. Claudette Colvin refused to give up her seat nine months before Rosa Parks, but nobody remembers her name.

Chances are, nobody will remember D'Cruz, but his case will be among those that pave the way for a leveling of gun laws.

[PavePusher]

23. You were aware that he didn't make any of that up, right?

He was quoting movies, music and books.

Just like most younger people of the media age.

[Katya Mullethov]

26. As you so cleverly skirt the fact

that Ben Franklin is the patron saint of school shooters .

Gotcha there propeller head !

[PavePusher]

27. I knew there was something wrong with that guy...

Silence Dogood, my ass!

[Freedom4AllofUs]

32. What are the sources?

Would you be so kind as to provide the book and movie sources for the quotes from D'Cruz I listed in this thread?

I can't find any of them.

[Callisto32]

75. Freedom4AllofUs is the name and...

you are talking about "anti government extremists?" Tell me a greater threat to freedom than government?

[Freedom4AllofUs]

19. Rosa Parks?

Comparing Rosa Parks or Jackie Robinson to James D'Cruz is a gross insult to the former two parties. Ditto for comparing the struggle of African Americans for basic civil rights with the desire of a teenager to carry a loaded handgun in public to "go shopping."

As for the NRA, given their resources, and the fact that they have a stable full of trial lawyers who file lawsuits constantly, there's no reason they shouldn't have picked a suitable plaintiff for this case. That they didn't, or didn't think they had to (and could ignore this young man's mental health issues), is another indication that this case is about increasing gun industry profits, not vindicating any constitutional principles.

James Madison certainly did not author the Second Amendment so that teenagers could roam America's streets with semiautomatic handguns. Our Founders understood and valued the concepts or rule and law and public virtue - the NRA's lawsuits don't square with either of those concepts.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. Three words for you: Ernesto Arturo Miranda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Arturo_Miranda

Since you seem intent on applying the genetic fallacy to D'Cruz's lawsuit, you might tell us why the same standard wouldn't invalidate the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.

And given that you haven't quoted word one from anything written by James Madison, I rather doubt your assertions
of what his intentions might or might not have been.

[PavePusher]

21. Please specify "this young man's mental health issues"...

with some suppoting documentation, and why it should disqualify him from a Civil RIght.

Hint: Quoting controversial quotes on one's Facebook page ain't the standard of proof

[DonP]

22. Oh look! The Metaphor Police.

Another self appointed expert to tell all of us all what is and isn't allowed to be used in discussion.

The NRA has those resources because they have over 4.5 million dues paying members and a hell of a grass roots organizing structure. Otis McDonald was a first choice for the Chicago case, an African American, lifelong Chicago Democrat.

But in the future we'll try to have the NRA legal team run all their possible candidates past you first, to make sure they meet your stringent standards.

[X_Digger]

24. Whoosh, that was the point flying by..

Claudette Colvin would be the appropriate analogous figure. Even though she was arrested in Montgomery 9 months before Mrs. Parks, the fact that she was a 15 year old girl with a penchant for obscenity (and she subsequently got pregnant by a much older man)- made history forget her.

Colvin was a plaintiff in Browder v. Gayle, the actual case that did away with bus segregation in Montgomery.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. Looks like someone couldn't hang around and debate.

But then, factose intolerance does seem to have that effect...

[Katya Mullethov]

28. Cue the music .

In the Gungeon . The torture never stops !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OALzOkdyT_0

[Freedom4AllofUs]

29. NRA and D'Cruz Oppose Democrats Openly

The D’Cruz case is certainly not a Democratic effort.

Here’s a list of pages that James D’Cruz Likes on Facebook:

FreedomWorks, Positively Republican!, Republican Governors Association, Anything About Guns, George W. Bush, Conservative, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Republican Party, Arkansas Carry, Rush Limbaugh, Republican National Committee, Coca-Cola, RightChange, National Rifle Association, Michele Bachmann, Lubbock County Republican Party, Baltgirls, Being Conservative

Then here are some quotes from D’Cruz’s Facebook Wall:

“Goodbye Nanncy babyeater Pelosi. You will not be missed.” – November 2

“When I am down, I just think about all the little chinese kids in sweat shops making me American Flags. Then I smile.” – October 19

“Ha ha screw you Obamacare” – March 25

“I don’t see why obama’s union address is a big deal, the idiot is on the air 24/7.” – January 27

D’Cruz could have gotten this stuff directly from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. In the November 2010 issue of America’s First Freedom magazine, LaPierre wrote:

“I have never seen anything like the nightmare of ‘change’ the Obama administration and its allies in Congress have brought, or the distortion and dishonesty and outright lies that mark their governing strategy.”

http://www.nrapublications.org/sg/index_nov10.asp

The NRA, of course, has given 85% of its PAC money to Republicans since 1990:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2010&ind=q13

As for Justices Scalia (who agreed with the NRA in the majority opinion in the D.C. v. Heller case) and Thomas (who wrote one of the majority opinions in McDonald v. Chicago), well, they might be Democrats when they’re not attending Koch Brothers meetings and helping to raise money for efforts to “combat” Obama Administration policies that “threaten to destroy America as we know it.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/20/scalia-thomas-koch/

But I strongly doubt it.

[X_Digger]

30. Did anyone clain D'Cruz was a democrat?

Nice association fallacy 'argument', though.

[Freedom4AllofUs]

31. Useful Information

Oh, I just thought it would be useful information.

We are on the Democratic Underground website, after all. The mission statement here is:

"Providing political satire and commentary for Democrats, a weekly Top Ten Conservative Idiots list and a wide range of discussion groups."

Always good to know who the Democrats are, and aren't.

[X_Digger]

33. If D'Cruz ever posts here, then you can confront him.

Or were you trying to challenge someone else's motivations?

[Freedom4AllofUs]

34. Well...

...Let's just say that I'm sure the actual Democrats here can make up their own minds as to whether the NRA and James D'Cruz support the Democratic party and progressive interests in general.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. Why don't you tell us what the progressive position was in another case?

And who it was that held it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

I'd be interested in hearing your answers....

[X_Digger]

38. Again, did anyone claim that D'Cruz supports democrats?

The NRA supports those who support the second amendment, regardless of party.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00053553&cycle=2010
In 2010:

Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates (list recipients)
(30% to Democrats, 69% to Republicans)

In 2008:

Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates (list recipients)
(22% to Democrats, 78% to Republicans)

In 2006:

Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates (list recipients)
(16% to Democrats, 84% to Republicans)

Looks like things are moving in the right direction, again. That assumes that congress doesn't pull another boneheaded move like the '94 'assault weapon ban'.

[Callisto32]

76. WHOA, A DOUBLE-WHAMMY!

Red team-Blue team (hint, they are the same team) AND "well, you're not a REAL <insert label here>.

It's always good when the self-appointed final arbiters of social matters make themselves known....


edit: Originally used brackets where < and > are. Forgot that the HTML here uses different tags and the text inside was determined by the software to be code....

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. Since you bring up Scalia and Thomas, I have a question or two for you:

Since you seem determined to go with the genetic fallacy-

Do you concur with the majority of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London?- And what do you feel was the progressive
position in that case? BTW, Scalia and Thomas were in the minority.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=335098#335614

[Euromutt]

37. And how much does the Brady Campaign lean toward Democrats?

Helmke, the organizations president, is a Republican. Sarah Brady, the chair, was a registered Republicans until she broke with the GOP over gun control (and only over gun control). And, of course, the organization gave Obama an "F."

So maybe this is a crazy idea, but perhaps one's position on this issue doesn't determine one's party affiliation.

[Freedom4AllofUs]

39. NRA Attacks on Democrats

The Brady Campaign gave Obama an 'F' grade because he "ran away" from the gun violence prevention issue and signed two NRA-drafted amendments into law, one of which now allows concealed handguns in National Parks. The Hill, in its coverage of the report, pointed out that the Brady Campaign is just one of many progressive groups to have criticized the administration for yielding too much ground to right-wing interests (after having high hopes following Obama’s election):

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f

We, of course, see that playing out to an even great extent now with the debate over the tax compromise.

And yes, Paul Helmke is the former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana. But I can’t find any evidence of Helmke having demonized and attacked Democrats and Democratic principles the way Wayne LaPierre and the NRA have, repeatedly.

For starters, the three featured speakers at the 2010 NRA Convention were Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. At the end of Beck’s speech, LaPierre told Beck that his speech, which compared the Obama administration to the Nazi regime in Germany, was “great.” NRA President Ron Schmeits gave Beck an award and told him, "Glenn, we're big fans of you and your show. "Here’s a quote from Beck’s speech: “We’re dealing with, quite honestly, I never understood the free-love, smoking dope, having sex in the mud Woodstock hippies then, I don’t understand them now, but that’s who’s running our country now … They are Marxist revolutionaries, they are not Democrats.”

http://www.youtube.com/user/NRANews#p/u/44/6ehPEKyi2Jw

Then there was LaPierre’s recent comment about the Obama administration:

"I have never seen anything like the nightmare of 'change' the Obama administration and its allies in Congress have brought, or the distortion and dishonesty and outright lies that mark their governing strategy."
- America’s 1st Freedom magazine, November 2010

Here’s another dandy from LaPierre, from his column in the October 2010 issue of America’s 1st Freedom:

“Given the Obama administration’s shameful history of neglect and deceit when it comes to effectively sealing our borders against the growing invasion of violent criminal aliens, President Obama and his majority Congress might as well order the national colors hauled down from every official border crossing along the 2,00-mile U.S.-Mexico border … This is about violent criminals invading our country.”

And then of course there are Wayne's appearances at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which have led to quotes like this:

“Our Founding Fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqAWQ-TMF3I

The money follows the rhetoric. The NRA has given 85% of its PAC contributions to Republicans since 1990.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2010&ind=q13

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. Since "the money follows the rhetoric", how much have the Bradys contributed to Democrats?

If they're the good progressives you claim they are, they must have given more to Dems than the NRA, amirite?

[PavePusher]

41. "The money follows the rhetoric. The NRA has given 85% of its PAC contributions..."

So what? Have you been out horse-whipping your local Dems into supporting the Second Amendment as well as the rest of the Constitution?

[Freedom4AllofUs]

45. That Would Be Difficult

It would be difficult getting Democrats to embrace the NRA's insurrectionist and extreme view of the Second Amendment. But if you figure out a way to pitch an organization that thinks Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are "great" to Democrats, let me know.

[X_Digger]

46. Really? *snort*

Talk to the large majority of americans who believe in an individual right.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/americans-agreement-supreme-court-gun-rights.aspx

[Freedom4AllofUs]

48. Well, Sure

Most Americans see the Bill of Rights as a document of individual rights, so that's not surprising. Also, given that state militias have been defunct now for over a century, I suspect many Americans have little idea of the vital role they used to play in our nation's internal and external security.

The real question, however, is how you define that right, and what type of regulation you allow. That is the debate that the Supreme Court had in the 5-4 D.C. v. Heller decision.

[PavePusher]

50. Not to be a jerk, but my belief is...

that rights should only be limited by their interference with other people.

If I'm not dropping flyers on someones private property, I can say or print or read anything I want.

If I'm not endangering others, I can own any weapon I want. ("shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me.)

If you don't have a warrant, you may not search my person or my property. Period, end, dot.

Etc., etc.

Crazy, I know, but I'm one of those silly people who think that the words put down on paper actually have specific, concise meanings that are readily apparent. If you don't like the meanings, change the text through to appended mechanism, but you aren't allowed too say that "shall not be infringed" doesn't actually mean what it says.

[Freedom4AllofUs]

57. I Believe in Meaning, Too

The words in our Constitution and Bill of Rights were very carefully chosen by Madison.

Words like, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

[X_Digger]

62. Anndd,, here we go.

And here I thought you'd dispensed with that collectivist crap.

"I'm completelely out of soda, I'm going to the store."

{Reason}, {Statement}

The ability to form a militia is why the right to keep and bear arms was protected. That in no way limits it to that purpose, or sets the scope of the right.

[PavePusher]

66. "...the Right of the People..."

Not "...the Right of the Militia..."

Grammer and construction is pretty essential to clear understanding.

[X_Digger]

54. Then what 'insurrectionist and extreme' view is it that you think the NRA espouses?

I'm glad we can dispatch the 'collective' rights garbage up front.

As an individual, fundamental right on par with those protected by the first, fourth, and fifth, courts will set a standard of scrutiny for infringement of that right. 'Strict' is my guess, based on the arguments made in Heller and McDonald.

Would you accept having to register as an author before writing a political tract? How about paying a fee to attend a religious service? Those infringements of a fundamental right would not withstand strict scrutiny, I'm sure similar requirements to keep and bear firearms will eventually be ruled just as unconstitutional.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[X_Digger]

61. What is this mysterious view?

You have yet to spell it out. You've yet to show that the NRA supports whatever this view is, and you've yet to demonstrate that this mysterious view is 'extreme'.

As far as rights causing harm, how many murderers and rapists go free because of the restriction on self-incrimination? How many go free because of protections enshrined in the fourth amendment? (Exclusionary rule, etc.)

There is no precedent for restricting a right just because exercising that right might prove dangerous.

[PavePusher]

49. Nice goal-post-moving.

You can set them down at any time.

[Callisto32]

78. Let me show you why you are wrong.

Insurrectionist and Extreme.

I suspect that you mean the position that RKBA is an individual, rather than corporate right.

First, a corporation cannot have rights, only powers (edit) and privileges. Rights are reserved to natural persons.

Second:

The Constitution. There are some basic rules of statutory interpretation, and the Constitution is a statute:

You start with the plain language of the statute. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I don't think you need to have the plain meaning explained to you.

Statutes are interpreted as a whole, and words in statutes are given consistent definitions. Everywhere else in the constitution, the phrase "the people" refers to individual rights. There is no reason to believe, absent clear language to the contrary, that a different definition is used in the Second Amendment than anywhere else. Also, the people cannot mean a corporate right of the state due to the following language: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This language indicates that the people are distinct entities from either the federal or state governments, thus "the people" in the Second Amendment must mean the individual people because of the rule that words in statutes are given consistent meanings throughout.

Therefore, you are wrong when you say that the view that the Second Amendment preserves an individual right to keep and bear arms is "insurrectionist and extreme" in the way you seem to mean. It may be insurrectionist, given that the people that wrote it were....GASP....insurrectionists. It may be extreme, but only compared with the authoritarian bent in much of the world. But to use those words to suggest that the NRA's view of the document is somehow incorrect is absurd on its face, given the language of the Constitution.

[Euromutt]

42. Whoa, whoa, whoa; what makes the Brady Campaign a "progressive group"?

The only way the Brady Campaign counts as a "progressive" group is of you take it for granted that advocating increased gun control is not only a progressive value, but the defining progressive value, and that would is industrial-grade question-begging (http://fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html). The only demonstrable difference between the agendas of the Brady Campaign and the NRA is on the issue of private gun ownership, and each organization's support for candidates of various affiliations is dependent entirely on which side of that issue the candidate comes down. Ergo, the fact that the NRA-PVF overwhelmingly supports Republican candidates can be traced to the fact that Republican politicians tend to be more favorably inclined toward private gun ownership than Democratic politicians. But you'll find, for example, that in 2008 the NRA-PVF was considerably more favorably inclined towards Bill Richardson than it was toward Rudy Giuliani, for the sole and simple reason that Richardson has a better record of supporting private gun ownership than Giuliani. If we look at the kind of politician the Brady Campaign favors, we find it includes Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4), whose political views lean more Republican than Democrat on every issue other than gun control. Geographical region is a much better predictor of politicians' stance on private firearms ownership than party affiliation.

The point I'm trying to make here is that one's position with regard to the question under discussion--whether 18 year-olds, being legal adults, should be permitted the same freedoms as 21 year-olds, including the ability to purchase handguns from federally licensed firearm dealers and acquire permits to carry concealed--is not dependent on one's identification with the right or left of the American political spectrum. The fact that you're on the same side of this particular issue as the NRA and young Mr. D'Cruz does not make one a Republican any more than coming down on the same side of the issue as Paul Helmke (Republican), Sarah Brady (de facto Republican) and Carolyn McCarthy (also de facto Republican) does.

And then of course there are Wayne's appearances at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which have led to quotes like this:

“Our Founding Fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules.”

Well, taken out of context, that quote can be made to sound pretty sinister, I agree. Almost as sinister as Mao Tse-Tung's concluding speech at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the Party:

Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.

Frankly, both statements are realistic assessments of the situation: any group that has a monopoly of force in a society is in a position to impose its agenda on any other group. Note that LaPierre does not say he finds this state of affairs to be the desirable one; he simply states that it is ("much like Mount Everest is, and Alma Cogan isn't").

But the implication of Mao's quote illustrates what LaPierre was getting at, namely that when "the Party commands the gun," the Party sets the rules. The point of LaPierre's statement was that the framers of the Constitution understood that, since "the guys with the guns make the rules," if the ruling party is the sole possessor of firepower, the ruling party (or more likely, its leadership) gets to make the rules. When the people are in a position to possess sufficient firepower to challenge the government, the people get to make the rules (or at least, get to argue among themselves, rather than having edicts handed down by a government that possesses a monopoly on violence).

Be honest: during the Bush years, if some federal agency had come for you, wouldn't you rather have had at least the option of fighting back rather than submitting unconditionally to their whim?

[Freedom4AllofUs]

43. Political Violence

Nothing done by the Bush administration called for the use of political violence.

I reject the use of political violence completely, as did Second Amendment author James Madison, who viewed Shays' Rebellion as a "warning" to our nation. For that reason, Madison made it clear in our Constitution that the purpose of state Militias was to suppress insurrections, not foment them.

Those who embrace our democratic system of government work out their difference peacefully, through the well-defined institutions and processes defined by our Founders.

[PavePusher]

51. You dodged the question.

No-one claims that the Bush administration was anywhere close to being worth political violence, a la the Second.

But what if they had been considerably worse? What if they had started rounding up "political undesireables" en masse, started up WWII US-Japanese style internment camps on a similar scale? What if they imposed Martial Law and/or suspended larger portions of the Constitution than just the Fourth and Fifth Amendments? What if they cancelled elections, or overtly censored the press?

[Freedom4AllofUs]

58. Reality

On the issue of gun violence, I prefer to deal with the reality of 30,000+ gun deaths every year (almost all of which are preventable), not the paranoid fantasy of a government takeover a la "The Turner Diaries."

[PavePusher]

65. Well, over half are suicides, as I'm sure you well know.

Fix our mental health system and you'll make a good impact on those.

Fix the criminal justice system to get some of the rest.

See, easy fixes, solve 1/2 to 2/3 of the problem, while not infringing the Civil Rights of those who don't break the laws.

You seem to want to "fix" the "problem" by restricting the people who aren't the problem. Hello, Faulty Logic, Inc.? We have a problem here...

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. Being as you are new here, a certain amount of historical ignorance is excusable

That wasn't a slur on you, as I use ignorance in its classic meaning of 'unawareness'- However, I think these DU threads

illustrate well that 'progressive' does not automatically mean 'unarmed', and to origin of gun control was far from being a

progressive idea:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=134977#135000

The conservative roots of U.S. gun control...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=245730

These illustrate *why* gun ownership by the masses is a progressive idea


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=190045#191416

Karl_Bonner_1982 (701 posts) Tue Nov-25-08 02:54 AM
Response to Original message
86. Who owns the bulk of the guns matters a lot

If the majority of gun owners are right wing cultural bigots and they are aware of it, they can exploit the circumstance to oppress women and gays. If, however, more people other than sexist, homophobic men own the guns, the balance of social and cultural power would be different.

For liberals to shy away from guns gives more of a firepower monopoly to conservatives. But when conservatives realize that women and gays actually know how to defend themselves, they might think twice before pulling anything stupid.

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. Oh yeah, you might also want to take a look at this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=144160

Before the culture wars, a Democratic senator and guns

[Freedom4AllofUs]

59. Yeah...

...I know you guys come here and post stuff.

But the notion that you, or the NRA, supports Democratic or progressive ideas is laughable.

Let me recount the featured speakers from the NRA's 2010 convention again:

Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich

Should I share some more of the quotes from their speeches?

[X_Digger]

63. We have a hattrick with an association fallacy!! Bravo! n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. "...the notion that you, or the NRA, supports Democratic or progressive ideas is laughable."

Oh, really?

I said before that a certain amount of ignorance on your part is excusable, as you are (purportedly) new here.

What isn't excusable is your 1) willful ignorance, and 2) deliberately misrepresenting another DUers viewpoint.


Clearly, you either have not read the DU threads I linked to- or you have, and choose to obscure what I (and others) have

said regarding gun ownership by people like Eugene Debs, Robert F. Williams, Fannie Lou Hamer, Harriet Tubman, and Eleanor

Roosevelt.


In addition to that, you've also taken it upon yourself to decide that promotion of the liberal vision of the right

to keep and bear arms is somehow "unprogressive". In other words, you are the latest in a line of self-proclaimed

zampolits here at DU who has decided on behalf of all other DUers that anyone who disagrees with you

is unprogressive.


So, I'll tell you what I'm going to do:

I am going to make a donation to DU in your name. So you'll have a donor star and be able to fully search DU.

I invite and expect you to search all my posts at DU, and post links and excerpts here that support your position

that I am somehow "unprogressive".


In other words, I'm putting my money where your mouth is.


Put up or shut up.

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. And just to show I'm as good as my word:

Thank you for your donation!
From: Skinner
Date: Dec-15-10 09:02 PM
Dear friendly_iconoclast,

Thank you so much for your donation to Democratic Underground. This is
a completely independent website, and we depend on the donations of
members like you to help cover our expenses.

You assigned the donor star to Freedom4AllofUs. Thanks to your
generosity, that DUer will enjoy donor privileges for one year.

If you have any questions about this donation, please feel free to
respond to this private message.

You can now track your donor status by clicking on this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Again, thank you for your support.

David Allen
DU Administrator

Don't you have some research to do?

[Glassunion]

71. *Slow clap*

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=whytAReStUQ

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. Looks like the Littlest Zampolit has gone missing.

Imagine my (lack of) surprise...

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. It's been two weeks, and no "put up". Color me unsurprised.

Yet another seagull poster, it would seem.

[Glassunion]

81. Another Slow-Clap...

[Euromutt]

72. So, no answer on what makes the Brady Campaign "progressive," then

Let's take it as read that I concede that the leadership, and much of the membership, of the NRA leans quite heavily right-wing. That doesn't make the Brady Campaign a "progressive group" and it doesn't make gun control (i.e. increased restrictions on private firearm ownership) a progressive cause. It's perfectly possible to agree with someone on one issue without necessarily agreeing with on every other--or indeed, any other--issue.

And I wasn't talking about "political violence," I was talking about the possibility of being dragged off on suspicion of terrorist activity and being held incommunicado without a right to habeas corpus because the goons holding you claim you're a foreign national (and how are you to prove them wrong if they won't allow you access to a lawyer or a judge?).

Those who embrace our democratic system of government work out their difference peacefully, through the well-defined institutions and processes defined by our Founders.

Quite so. But I rather think LaPierre's point was not to advocate use of force as a means of imposing one's political agenda, but rather, that when one faction possesses a disproportionate percentage of the firepower (or as Mao puts it, when "the Party commands the gun"), it might be tempted to set aside those institutions and processes, undeterred by the possibility of armed resistance. You may "reject the use of political violence completely," but what do you do when your opponents do not?

[Callisto32]

77. The tax "compromise?"

You mean the one where not getting an increase is being called a "cut" and letting people KEEP THEIR OWN FREAKIN MONEY is being referred to as a "payment" to people by Speaker Pelosi?

Yeah, I trust these people. They either can't put a proper English sentence together or they make up definitions as they go and hope the rest of us are stupid enough to not notice. If you think our "leaders" on either side of the aisle have anybody but their own best interests at heart, you may want to rethink your position.

[PavePusher]

79. We are at war with EastAsia.

We have always been at war with EastAsia...

[Freedom4AllofUs]

44. Justice Scalia and Michelle Bachmann

Interesting article yesterday in the Politico:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46386.html

Justice Scalia, who embraced the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment in the 2008 D.C. v. Heller decision by the Supreme Court (which he authored on behalf of the five conservative justices in the majority), has been meeting privately with far right Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) and will be addressing her Tea Party Caucus during a "Conservative Constitutional Seminar." The other speakers lined up by Bachmann's caucus this session are Sean Hannity, Andrew Napolitano and evangelical minister David Barton.

Bachmann, of course, was the Member of Congress who in March 2009 told residents of her state to be “armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people—we the people—are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.”

[X_Digger]

47. Another genetic fallacy!! You're two for two.. care to go for the hattrick? n/t

[PavePusher]

53. One can be "armed and dangerous" with information.

One can "fight back" and have a revolution within the structure of politics without ever resorting to physical weapons. And taken in the entirety of the context, that was what I preceive that she meant.

YMMV.

[Freedom4AllofUs]

60. Or...

Maybe she just agreed with the NRA's view that you have an individual right to shoot and kill government officials when you believe our government has become "tyrannical."

[PavePusher]

64. Please cite your evidence for this.

Or were you merely being hyperbolically inflamatory?

[Katya Mullethov]

67. I always thought that was a sacred duty AND a right

At least it was not too long ago .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x319763

[PavePusher]

70. All depends on the species of bovine and depth of penetration I suppose... n/t