Should Dems challenge GOP to a shooting match?

[billbuckhead]

Of course only using AWB compliant weapons.

[OpSomBlood]

1. Make sure there are no reporters downrange, that would be unsafe.

[Jack_DeLeon]

2. Scary...

Who is that.

She has a crazed look in her eyes like she is going to gun everyone down.

[iverglas]

3. actually

She looks like a middle-aged woman photographed from the exceptionally unflattering angle that boy photographers favour, and plainly caught in mid-sentence while speaking with some degree of animation.

Someone forgot to tuck his sexism into his pants before going out in public, regardless of how disingenuous or otherwise his "Who is that" might have been.

[RoeBear]

4. And you've never seen...

...someone comment on a person's personality based on a photo here?

[T Town Jake]

6. Well, you see...

...when a member of the gun control crowd does it, that's okay, don't ya know? When anyone else does it to the detriment of one of their talking points or icons, then it's not okay. </sarcasm>

[Scout]

8. forming opinions of someone based on looks

is stupid, no matter who does it.

[T Town Jake]

10. That's sounds great! The next time...

...a member of our gun control crowd posts that picture of the boy at a gun show and posts all kinds of derivise comments around it, I'll look for you to come charging to the rescue and chastise them for indulging in unwarranted stereotypes...but I won't look too hard.

[Scout]

12. suit yourself eom

[MrBenchley]

13. Why wait?

It's always instructive to see what our "pro-gun democrats" jump up to defend...and curiously, it never seems to be anything even remotely liberal...



"unwarranted stereotypes"
Funny, this little closet case is proudly proclaiming for himself what stereotypes he thinks are dandy. And there he is at the NRA's ugly little klavern. Sure seems warranted to me.

[T Town Jake]

15. Ummm, Benchley, you forgot...

...the side-by-side photo comparison of the kid to a Confederate drummer boy - and to mention the Stentorian... <snicker>
Hilarious - just too rich for my ticklish ribcage.

[MrBenchley]

19. Happy to oblige...

After all, only the finest scumbags were at that fine event...

[Jack_DeLeon]

23. lol

definately looks like he could fit in, during the Civil War.

[FeebMaster]

16. Don't forget this classic thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=51444

[MrBenchley]

17. Tee hee hee

[slackmaster]

29. Particularly reply number 82 by Moderator

"Thread has degenerated beyond redemption."

:D

[FeebMaster]

45. I don't know.

I always thought it should have been stickied.

[Jack_DeLeon]

22. Well she does have a loaded assault rifle with her finger on the trigger

that is pretty dangerous, considering how many people are probably in the area.

[iverglas]

26. please, sir!

Well she does have a loaded assault rifle with her finger on the trigger

I'm one of those ignoramuses who can't tell a loaded assault weapon from ...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

an unloaded assault weapon.

Tee hee (if I may quote you) -- you thought I was going to say from a "legal pre-ban blabety-blah", didn't you?!

Can you tell me where to look in that photo so that I too can, in future, distinguish a loaded assault weapon from an unloaded assault weapon merely by glancing at a blurry photograph??

Nope, sorry, "assumptions" won't be cutting it here.

You can "assume" that yer own assault weapon is loaded all you want, but ya just can't (and mayn't) assume that anybody else's is.

[DoNotRefill]

33. Iverglas, it's no assumption....

that the weapon is pointed in an unsafe direction, and that her finger is indeed on the trigger. BTW, ALL guns MUST be considered loaded until a person verifies for him or herself that it's empty. Even so, it's still a HORRIBLY bad idea to point a gun in an unsafe direction, and to have your finger on the trigger unless you're TRYING to shoot the gun.

How often has the phrase "I thought it was unloaded" been heard after an accident?

[iverglas]

38. whither reality?

You have failed to heed my caveat.

Whether or not YOU CHOOSE to "assume" that any firearm in the world is loaded, your "assumption" is not determinative of reality.

The statement that I was responding to was that someone was pointing a loaded firearm at someone else.

That was a FALSE STATEMENT. The firearm in question WAS NOT LOADED. This is what we might call REALITY. And it just isn't affected by any assumption or presumption you or anyone else might like to make.

If I'm a good driver, I will assume that the person in front of me is going to jam on the brakes in five seconds (and I will therefore maintain a safe distance). Oddly enough, the person in front of me seldom does. If you are my passenger and I point at the car in front of me and say "that driver just jammed on the brakes", and you see no brake lights and notice no reduction in speed, and so you say "no s/he didn't", and I say "yes s/he did", are you going to conclude that I am mad, or lying? Do you seriously see another option?

Depends on what else you know about me, I guess, eh?

Now if I'm the passenger and you're the driver, and I point at that car and say "that driver just jammed on the brakes", and you observe neither brake lights nor a reduction in speed, yet I insist that the driver did indeed jam on the brakes ... and you are at fault for failing to brake yourself ... what will you think then? Perhaps that I have an agenda? Perhaps I am just trying to get you to stop tailgating ... but perhaps, and especially if I am saying this while on the phone to a radio call-in show listened to by Ministry of Transportation officials, I am trying to get your driver's licence taken away from you.

[Columbia]

41. 4 Safety Rules

1. Treat EVERY weapon as if it were LOADED.

2. Keep your finger OFF the trigger until you are ready to fire.

3. NEVER point the weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.

4. Keep the weapon on SAFE until you are ready to fire.

[iverglas]

42. that's nice

And I'm still waiting for proof that the firearm in question here was loaded.

[Columbia]

43. Every weapon is ALWAYS loaded

The defense of poor handing of weapons just because one perceives it is "unloaded" is how negligent discharges happen.

[iverglas]

44. I don't want to break a rule

Every weapon is ALWAYS loaded

... so I'll just say: okay. Whatever you say. It's going to be alright. We're here to help you. Don't listen to those voices, they aren't your friends. C'mon with us, and you'll be safe. Just put that down, and walk on over here ...

Hey, we'll be glad to assume that thing in your hands is loaded. Happy now?

[RoeBear]

51. You're showing your ignorance...

...your complete ignorance of the safe handling of guns.

[MrBenchley]

52. Actually she's showing her knowledge

of right wing crap...but I guess you knew that.

[RoeBear]

53. Apparently you want to join the ranks of...

..the safe gun handling ignorance society. Welcome!

[MrBenchley]

54. No, I'm already in the ranks of the "ditto monkeys are lying scum"

society.

[iverglas]

55. maybe you can tell us

Was the gun loaded?

Why didn't somebody shoot her?

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

69. Guess that's another thing only the truly trigger-happy can "see"

Funny, here on earth, there's no sign that there IS anybody that the gun is pointing at. But then for sane people, the photo is cropped short of the end of the barrel, and the only folks visible are well behind it.

Nor do those folks seem in any way alarmed or concerned in the photo...but then they don't appear to be the sort of ignorant fuckwits dumb enough to believe crap from the stentorian.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

75. ow!

You know ...I really don't care...
...be a moron....point guns at anyone you like.

Good one.

Wow, that smarted.

Got me right where I lived, that one did.

I'm cut to the quick. My well-known propensity for pointing guns at people has finally come back to bite me. I've been publicly shamed.

You should stop talking to me now, probably, to show the unfathomable depths of your disapprobation.

Shun me. Before you're infected and you start writing in alliterative allusions or something.

[iverglas]

76. oh

drat. Stupid board format. Thought you were talking to me. Now I've gone and outed myself for nothing.

Come, Benchley, we shall go tiptoe through tulips and point guns at things together.

[MrBenchley]

86. My goodness...

And think of how many times we've been assured that its only the big bad gun grabbers who are ever rude or insulting, or disrupt civil discussion.

And all this because this claim that the gun is pointing at someone turns out to be the horseshit we all know it is.

[iverglas]

70. gosh, for a useless moron

I seem to have a better grip on the point than most I'm seeing.


You see, that's the point...
...you useless moron... it doesn't matter if the gun was loaded or not... you don't point guns at people, ever. Unless you plan to shoot them.

Uh huh.

And this would be related to the claim made in the header of post #22, which I have now quoted and referred to so many times your head is plainly spinning --

Well she does have a loaded assault rifle
with her finger on the trigger

... how? Tell it to me one more time, would you?

Apparently several people have been able to detect from that photograph (or know from some secret source of knowledge that they will not share) that the firearm held by Diane Feinstein WAS LOADED. And I just want them to share. I want to know how I, too, can do these tricks.

This just isn't fair, and I'm going to start whining very soon if somebody doesn't out with it.

Oh, hey, btw, and this one's for anybody -- *is* that an "assault rifle"??

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

87. And remember

the other claim is that she is pointing it at someone...although there's nobody at all in the photo being pointed at...

[Jack_DeLeon]

84. Dude whats your problem?

Would you appreciate it if someone pointed a gun at you?

If you know whether it was loaded or not? Or if you didnt know?

I know I wouldnt like a firearm pointed at me, regardless if someone assured me that it was unloaded.

Knowing how to handle guns has nothing to do with politics.

[MrBenchley]

88. I got no problem..

But then I'm not pimping for assautl weapons with idiotic arguments and phony right wing propaganda...like our "pro gun democrats" are...

"Knowing how to handle guns has nothing to do with politics."
And knowing politics has everything to do with political discussions. Just as knowing what sort of lying fuckwits put out crap like the stgentorian (the source of this idiotic bit of propaganda) has everything to do with a discussion of it.

[OpSomBlood]

91. Actually, this particular image is not from Stentorian.

This one is:



And just because the image was hosted on a right-wing website doesn't make it "propaganda" or "phony." Unless your argument is that the image is a hoax (which it certainly is not), there's nothing partisan at all about it.

[MrBenchley]

94. That's fucking hilarious, op...

Tell us, do you REALLY have to pop everything that comes out of the dog's ass into your mouth to determine it's not shitting Baby Ruths?

"Unless your argument is that the image is a hoax (which it certainly is not), there's nothing partisan at all about it."
Unless someone is pretending that the gun is not a prop, is actually loaded, is pointing AT somebody, or that any of this delirious folderol has a fucking thing to do with the validity of the AWB...all of which is feeble-minded horseshit.

[OpSomBlood]

112. Your willing ignorance of gun safety rules is not my problem.

Just don't go crying in your "Guns in the News" thread about poor people who "accidentally" blow their heads off when they fail to adhere to the rules of gun handling.

[Columbia]

80. I tried

Keep on with your condescension and sarcasm, but I hope you remember those 4 rules.

They may just one day save your life.

[MrBenchley]

96. I'm happy to keep on...

"They may just one day save your life"
Yeah, surrrrrrrre.....

[alwynsw]

93. I don't know why I'm doing this, but

Once again; all firearms should be treated and handled as if they are loaded ALL THE TIME. Of course, the drum magazine that is attached in the business position in the photo is an indicator.

Next time a cop shoots someone in self defense against an idiot with an empty firearm, wait and see what the review board or court has to say about loaded v. unloaded weapons. The rulings have been 100% in favor of assuming the firearm to be loaded. Why? Because the perp is not about to hand over his weapon for the cop to clear and check it before the hsooting starts. The alternative method of determining whether the weapon is loaded before the perp either surrenders it or is shot ny the cops is to wait and see how many cops get shot.

Argument and discussion are fine: being deliberately obtuse is not.

edited to rrepair HTML

[MrBenchley]

97. I don't know why you're doing it either

As Iverglas cheerfully pointed out, there were cops in the room, all waiting to support Senator Feinstein with their testimony....and yet none of them felt they had to pull their guns and shoot her to save their lives. Wonder why that is?

"Argument and discussion are fine: being deliberately obtuse is not."
Really, what else can one say to this but hahahahahahahahaha....

[MrSandman]

100. And then some wonder and gnash teeth that...

So many accidental shootings occur.

[MrBenchley]

102. Yeah? Who is that?

But then there are some here who are willing to do absolutely nothing whatsoever that might cut down on the number of shootings...who are pretending that passing along this idfriotic bit of dittohead slander has something to do with accidental shootings in this country.

[MrBenchley]

39. Amazing, isn't it?

Soembody who doesn't know who this possibly could be knows that the gun is loaded and has an actual firing pin just at a glance...

<sarcasm>I just thank Koresh that here in the real world nobody ever has to face asswipes with REAL loaded assault weapons who have their finger on the trigger </sarcasm>.

[Jack_DeLeon]

46. Why is that amazing, police do it all the time.

If someone points a weapon like that in the area of a Police officer they will assume that the weapon is loaded and fully functional and will use deadly force to defend themselves.

The police dont know who the person is because that is irrelevent.

[iverglas]

48. well then what *I* want to know is ...

... how come Diane Feinstein is still walking around?

There were cops present in that room. Shouldn't one of them have shot her immediately upon seeing her point that LOADED firearm at all those people???

[MrBenchley]

50. You don't suppose

that this photo of "danger" is the horseshit most sane people know it is, do you?

Worth mentioning that all of those cops in that room were there to back the Senator up on her proposed ban of assault weapons.

[Jack_DeLeon]

83. Okay, I guess I phrased part of my post wrong.

If someone points a weapon like that in the area of a Police officer they will assume that the weapon is loaded and fully functional and will use deadly force to defend themselves.

The police dont know who the person is because that is irrelevent.

Should read.

If someone that the police dont know, or care about, points a weapon like that in thier general area, they will assume that the weapon is loaded and fully functiona and will use deadly force to defend themselves.

I take it that the police in this situation know who this senator is.

Usually politicans and famous people tend to get away with doing things that would have far more serious consequences if any of normal people tried.

[MrBenchley]

You suddenly become the police when nobody was looking?

"The police dont know who the person is because that is irrelevent."
Of course, since the whole reason this photo was stuck in here in the first place was to slander a well-known and respected Democrat, what's irrelevant is this poly...

[Jack_DeLeon]

47. I treat all firearms as if they are loaded.

People who dont are the reason "accidents" happen.

[iverglas]

49. once more, nice and slow like

Here's what I asked you:

Can you tell me where to look in that photo so that I too can, in future, distinguish a loaded assault weapon from an unloaded assault weapon merely by glancing at a blurry photograph??

You say:

I treat all firearms as if they are loaded.

Hmm. That doesn't seem to be an answer to the question of how you KNEW that the firearm she was holding was loaded. Obviously, you KNEW that it was loaded, or you would not have SAID that it was loaded. If you'll forgive me for assuming.

Like I said:

You can "assume" that yer own assault weapon is loaded all you want, but ya just can't (and mayn't) assume that anybody else's is.

... and you can't SAY that it was, when it WASN'T, unless you're doing something that, heavens to betsy, I would never want to ASSUME you'd be doing.

[Jack_DeLeon]

85. Okay perhaps you are right.

I will correct myself once again.

Well she does have a loaded assault rifle with her finger on the trigger

Should read:

Well she does have what I assume is a loaded assault rifle with her finger on the trigger.

The reason you are supposed to treat all firearms as if they are loaded is because you cant easily distinguish between a loaded and an unloaded one just by looking at it as it lays there.

You have to take out the magazine, slide the action open, look inside of it, close it if there doesnt appear to be a round chambered, point in a safe direction and pull the trigger just to make sure.

Anyways its always wise to assume that all weapons are loaded when they are just sitting there.

Now maybe if you are actually going to use the weapon and shoot something or someone, then it its probably wise to assume that it isnt loaded.

Its always good to assume the worst, just in case.

[iverglas]

99. assumptions

You make yours, and just let everybody else make his/her own, 'k?

Anyways its always wise to assume that all weapons are loaded when they are just sitting there.

And it is very wise to assume that a bunch of cops would not hand a Senator who is addressing a room full of people - including a bunch of their fellow cops - a loaded assault weapon.

It is wise to assume that several people would have ascertained that the weapon in question was incapable of doing anything at all before handing it to a Senator addressing a room full of people.

It is wise to assume that the firearm in question was under very watchful eyes the entire time that it was being used as a stage prop.

It is particularly wise to assume that an intelligent thoughtful public figure would not take the chance that anything she did would harm anyone inadvertently, and that she would have satisfied herself that every measure had been taken to prevent such a thing happening.

It is wise to assume that a person who does not have the skills to do a particular thing him/herself (do we have any reason to believe that Diane Feinstein, any more than moi, would have a clue how to check that an assault weapon is incapable of firing a bullet?) would retain the most skilled and knowledgeable people available to do the thing for him/her, and ascertain that they have in fact done it.

It is wise to assume that there are people in the world who are capable of doing the job they are retained and instructed to do and that they are in fact experts at doing.

It is not wise to assume that everyone in the world is stupid and/or evil and/or incompetent and/or negligent, particularly when all the evidence in front of one's nose is to the complete contrary.

It is not wise to assume any state of facts that is completely and utterly and 100% contrary to what one KNOWS about the facts in question.

It is not wise to look at a photograph and invent a backstory to go with it, based on assumptions or extrapolations or any other flights of fancy, to explain what is happening in the photograph -- unless, of course, one is engaged in a creative writing exercise.

It is not wise to make vicious and patently untrue accusations against anyone at all, based on the backstory that one has made up out of whole cloth for a snapshot of an instant in time in a place where one was not present and at an event about which one has not even received first-hand reports.

It is not wise to make assumptions, and make vicious and patently untrue accusations, based on the backstory that one has made up out of whole cloth, when one HAS received first-hand reports (the letter from Mayor of the city in question, was it?) completely contradicting the ludicrous backstory and making it plain that the assumptions are 100% baseless and that the accusations are 100% false.

It is very, very unwise to make such vicious and patently untrue allegations against a leading representative of the party that is the only hope for preventing an extension of the takeover of the US government by the forces of evil.

I could go on and on, giving you advice about wisdom that is actually relevant to our situation here. Let me know if you'd like me to share any more.

[MrBenchley]

101. For that matter

I wonder what in this photo tells our trigger-happy fun bunch that the Senator did NOT check that the gun was unloaded and the firing pin removed a moment BEFORE the photo was taken....

But then you'll notice we yet to see any of them posting a photo of a REPUBLICAN or a RIGHT WING FUCKTARD...but we got plenty of posts from our "pro gun democrats" pissing and moaning about how unfair it is to say anything even slightly negative about such folks...especially when it is perfectly warranted.

[iverglas]

106. well exactly

I wonder what in this photo tells our trigger-happy fun bunch that the Senator did NOT check that the gun was unloaded and the firing pin removed a moment BEFORE the photo was taken....

That's what I was kinda meaning to get at, in my own obscure way, with the "inventing the backstory" reference.

Heck, give me a picture of one of our honourable friends here eating a sandwich, and I'll be happy to "assume" that s/he stole it from a homeless person's shopping cart after pushing the homeless person into traffic where s/he got run down by our friend's accomplice, the drunk driver to whom our friend had just given his/her car keys, after which our friend leapt into the car and sped to the local abortion clinic and fired a few shots through the window ...

[MrBenchley]

107. And of course...

one wonders why such an elaborate backstory about THIS photo is being fantasized about a prominent liberal Democrat on a liberal Democratic website by our "pro gun democrats."

And Holy Koresh forbid that anyone point out that this fantasy backstory is identical with the backstory whistled up by this photo on websites openly opposed to all things liberal or Democratic...

But then perhaps the funniest part is that the same people who are screaming about what a menace this weapon is in the hands of a respected Democratic Senator at a Congressioinal hearing are simultaneously claiming that it presents no menace whatsoever if it's put in a store and sold to any halfwit, criminal, or loony that wanders in with a few bucks in his pocket.

[MrSandman]

103. Unless I have seen the empty chamber...

I accept no firearm as unloaded.

If I hand someone a firearm and they accept my word it is unloaded, I do not hand them another, ever, period.

After I see an empty chamber, I handle any firearm to not allow the muzzle to cover anything that might be caused irreparable damage.

Somethings are inviolate.

[MrBenchley]

104. And it is astonishing

that just by looking at this photo, you know that Senator Feinstein did not see the empty chamber the second before it was taken....

The Amazing Kreskin has nothing on our "pro gun democrats."

"Somethings are inviolate."
Yeah, but many things are just plain old horseshit.

[FatSlob]

56. Basic rule of gun safety.

All guns are always loaded. Period.

She is violating numerous gun safety rules, these include:

Keep your damn finger off the damn trigger unless ready to fire.
Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy or kill.
All guns are always loaded. Period. (Not literally, but for safety considerations, always treat as if loaded).

[MrBenchley]

58. Funny...

The only people hooting and hollering about this here are those who are simultaneously pretending these guns pose no menace whatsoever to the public.

And of course, nobody in the room at the time thought any such thing...but then that's the hallmark of dittohead propaganda (which is what this piece of shit from the stentorian is)...take something out of context and pretend it has a significance other than what itactually does.

[iverglas]

60. not to mention

but then that's the hallmark of dittohead propaganda (which is what this piece of shit from the stentorian is)...take something out of context and pretend it has a significance other than what itactually does.

... insisting that one knows better than everybody else in the world, including any experts who may actually have been involved in the matter they're yowling about (like all those cops standing nonchalantly around) ... and then accuse everybody else of being the ones who are claiming to know better than everybody else in the world (e.g. "you are claiming to know better than everybody else in the world how s/he can best defend him/herself, where/whether/when s/he needs a gun, what gun s/he needs for his/her purposes", blah blah blah).

Some people must live in houses without mirrors.

What amazes me is that the crowd yelling that an UNLOADED firearm was <sic> loaded includes one or two who I had actually thought to have a bit better grip on reality.

I think that I shall go home and make hamburger stroganoff (yum ... we Cdn consumers finally got a bit of the benefit of the exploitively low prices paid to beef producers by meat packers over the last year, and the co-vivant loves hamburger stroganoff), and remember what they told me when I was a Girl Guide -- "you must always assume that the mushroom is poisonous" -- at which point I shall find myself trekking down to the Loeb with my bag of mushrooms to demand a refund because I have been sold poisonous mushrooms ... and still wondering why, when I am perfectly capable of protecting the c.v. by returning the poisonous mushrooms before they get into his stroganoff, nobody managed to take out Diane Feinstein before she obliterated that room full of people ...

[MrBenchley]

64. But don't forget

actually noticing that you HAVE got poisonous mushrooms from a source that specializes in nothing but poisonous mushrooms is unfair....in the way that noticing that yet another bit of mindless dittohead horseshit is from a source that specializes in nothing BUT dittohead horseshit sends our trigger happy friends yowling in rage...

[alwynsw]

95. What has been pointed out is this:

Firearms of any stripe are a potential menace in the hands of those ignorant of or those unwilling to follow safe firearms handling practices. The photo in question, regardless of who is holding the weapon, is a nearly perfect poster for unsafe firearms handling practices on several levels:

1) The firearm is not pointed in a safe direction. The second photo of the same subject that was posted in this thread was obviously taken from downrange. (Do you honestly believe that the entire room to the left of Ms. Feinstein was clear of people?)

2)Location of people aside, the room is apparrently either made of stone (looks to be marble and/or granite) or the walls are lined with stone. Ever hear of richtochets?

3)Her finger is on the trigger. (A reminder: you place your finger on the trigger ONLY imediately before you intend to fire.)

4) There is an attached magazine and the bolt is closed; two prime indicators that a weapon is loaded and ready for business.

As I recall, ATF (or some other gov't agency) supplied the firearm for the photo op. It's reasonably certain that an agent of said agency cleared and unloaded the weapon. The weapon was probably unloaded. All that being said, I'll repeat what was taught to me about safe firearms handling by my granddad, my dad, my drill sergeant, my G.I. firearms instructors, G.I. armorers, my friend the police captain, my CCW instructor, and Jeff Cooper among others - the same thing I teach others about safe handling: it makes no difference if you have observed (insert number here from 1 to infinity) others clear the firearm and that your eyes have never left the weapon since - the firearm should be considered loaded until you clear it yourself. Since I sincerely doubt that all of those in attendance at the photo op cleared the weapon, those who did not clear it should have assumed it to be loaded.

Ms. Feinstein knows better - or should. She still holds a CCW permit issued by the State of California. Holding the permit means that she should have taken the requisite safety classes. You tell me: Was her license pencil whipped and therefore the ignorant clueless twit showing utter disregard for safe firearms handling practices as depicted in the photo or does she just have a complete disregard for said practices as well as human life?

[MrBenchley]

98. Gee, is THAT what has been pointed out?

" (Do you honestly believe that the entire room to the left of Ms. Feinstein was clear of people?)"
It's pretty fucking funny to hear people who have been peddling this rancid bit of dishonest dittomonkey rubbish suddenly start babbling about what anybody "honestly believes." Especially considering how it got shoehorned into this thread in the first place.

"All that being said, I'll repeat what was taught to me about safe firearms handling by my granddad, my dad, my drill sergeant, my G.I. firearms instructors, G.I. armorers, my friend the police captain, my CCW instructor, and Jeff Cooper among others"
That would be noted racist idiot Jeff Cooper. Stick with him, always; he's a helluvaa fine source.

Allow me to respond with what was taught to me by Jimmy Breslin: "You can't be as mean and willing to lie and not be lousy.  This fellow Bill Bennett wrote books about virtues.  Sin not.  Remain with the family and pray.  He goes sneaking off and blew millions in Vegas and Atlantic City and stayed in suites the hotels gave him.  Did he stay there alone?
Lying, for hour after hour, leaves you feeling nothing.  For days, Rush Limbaugh said he could prove that Hillary Clinton and a Clinton assistant, Vince Foster, were huddled in a safe love house until Foster either killed himself or Hillary took Foster for a ride in the park.  When he was caught, Limbaugh just shrugged.  Probably, he didn't know what he was saying, anyway.  Babbling on Hillbilly Heroin about Hillary. "

[MrBenchley]

7. And of course...

she's a respected Democrat of the sort gun-crazed ditto-monkeys hate and fear...

[RoeBear]

9. And you could care less...

...what a person's party affiliation is, if they like guns you assume they are crazy.

[MrBenchley]

11. Gee, roe...I take the evidence as I find it....

and they sure provide me with plenty of it...

[Jack_DeLeon]

21. Well who is she?

no one answered my question?

[iverglas]

25. got a mouse?

Try that ol' right click function.

Then maybe ask the poster who actually posted the pic, but has declined to answer your question, to provide you with the url for the source where he got it originally.

I mean, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want you thinking that his antics had never been discussed here before, and no one had ever responded to the, uh, argument that is encapsulated in that photo ... and certainly wouldn't want you thinking that no one has ever questioned the bona fides of anyone who would present it as if it were in some way determinative of, or even relevant to, some issue at hand, when it plainly is not. Very certainly he wouldn't want you thinking that no one would ever suggest, or has ever suggested, that anyone who did engage in such demagoguery were ... well, engaging in demagoguery. Nooo.

Of course I'm absolutely sure that you have no idea who is depicted in the pic, and have never read any of those previous discussions, and I fully expect that you will be most disappointed in young OpSomBlood once all is revealed to you.

So g'head, ask him who the pic is of, and then let that most intellectual curiosity of yours be all unfettered ... and ask him what his point is. Perhaps, if he's in a good (as vs. evil) mood, he'll even give you a thumbnail sketch of the counter-argument, as moi most certainly would, anyhow, if moi were not wanting to look as if I were trying to persuade someone with tired old crap that no informed, thoughtful person, progressive or not, would give a second thought to.

[FatSlob]

57. She is a gun-grabbing, authoritarian, ignorant Senator named...

Diane Feinstein. She has no business being in office, and is even worse than my Senator Mike De(s)Wine

[MrBenchley]

59. In other words..

she's a Democrat, so of course our "pro-gun democrats" HATE her.

[iverglas]

61. let's see

Being a furriner, I'm not up, so I had to look up.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/biography.html

Noteworthy accomplishments by Senator Feinstein include:

• Assault Weapons Ban - Won one of the toughest battles of her career
  with passage of this measure in 1994 to prohibit the manufacture and
  sale of 19 types of military-style assault weapons.
  


• California Desert Protection Act - Protected more than 7 million acres
  of pristine California desert -- the largest such designation in the
  history of the continental United States.
  


• Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act - Has raised more
  than $30 million for breast cancer research through the first postal
  stamp dedicated to raising funds.

• Lake Tahoe Restoration Act - Preserves and restores this treasured
  natural resource by authorizing $300 million in federal funds over 10
  years to match investments by the States of California and Nevada and
  local authorities.

• Headwaters Forest Agreement - Obtained funding and brokered agreement
  to save the "Headwaters Forest," a 7,500 acre national treasure and
  the largest privately held stand of uncut old-growth redwoods.
  


• San Francisco Bay Wetlands Restoration - Negotiated public-private
  purchase of 16,500 acres of salt ponds along the San Francisco Bay -
  the largest such wetlands restoration project in California history.

Now to be honest, there are a few things she does that I'd want to know how she does, like

Co-chair, U.S.-Israel Security Caucus
Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control
Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship Subcommittee
Crime, Corrections and Victims Rights Subcommittee

But somehow, given that she was once Mayor of San Francisco, for example, I just wouldn't automatically assume her to be the Bride of Gingrich.

[MrBenchley]

67. By the way...

"given that she was once Mayor of San Francisco, for example, I just wouldn't automatically assume her to be the Bride of Gingrich."
Are you kidding? If she was the bride of Gingrich, these trigger-happy yobbos would be falling all over themselves to praise her gun-handling skills. Did you see the thread they started to praise the right wing fuckwits in the Second Amendment Caucus?

[Jack_DeLeon]

82. okay thanks.

California senator huh.

http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/

I've heard the name on the news I guess. Didnt know the face though.

[DoNotRefill]

31. Actually she looks like a dangerous idiot.

The muzzle of the weapon she's holding is pointed in a blatantly unsafe direction, and her finger is on the trigger. She's violating two of the three rules of firearms safety in that picture. She should have her CCW permit REVOKED for brandishing a weapon in an unsafe manner.

[OpSomBlood]

81. She issued a special CCW permit to herself while mayor of SF.

At a time when concealed carry was illegal for everyone else.

The rules apply to everyone but her.

[Paladin]

92. I'd Have A Permit Too......

....if I got as many threats from gun militants as Sen. Feinstein undoubtedly does.

And I wouldn't be a bit surprised, having seen what turns up here in the Gun Dungeon, if some of those threats are from "Democrats."

[OpSomBlood]

113. So CCW is okay if you can prove that you're "threatened"?

Is that your position on the issue?

And who gets to decide? The mayor?

[billbuckhead]

5. Why don't you Dem gun guys do stuff like shooting matches where you

indentify yourselves as Dems vs Republicans? How about a DU vs FreakRepublic shooting match?

[MrBenchley]

14. Hell, we can't even get them to say anything pro-Democrat

on any of the gun nut forums.

They sure are quick to rush over here and post right wing gibberish though.

[T Town Jake]

18. I go to gun enthusiast/sportsman's forums...

...to discuss firearms, not politics. CCW issues, weapon performance matters, ammunition preferences, as well as swapping hunting stories, is what I want to discuss on firearms forums. Why would I go to a firearm enthusiast/sportman's website to discuss politics?

[MrBenchley]

20. Too too funny...

[iverglas]

27. well hey

I go to gun enthusiast/sportsman's forums...
...to discuss firearms, not politics.

Y'ever try telling them that?

Jeez, if I went to an internet forum to discuss crocheting and a bunch of people kept on interrupting the discussion to say nasty things about the NDP or make fun of Libby Davies' appearance or call Jack Layton an authoritarian appeaser, I think I might just politely ask that they stick to the topic. And if they didn't, and I really wanted to discuss crocheting, and if I actually cared about whether people in general believed lies about my party and its leaders, because if they did we just might get stuck with a Stephen Harper Conservative government come Monday ... I might just have to whup their asses.

I mean, if I did actually care about that happening, I'd feel pretty stupid and irresponsible and complicit just sitting by while a bunch of people in my crocheting forum scared all the nice older women there into believing that Jack and Libby and my party and me were trying to take their crochet hooks away from them ... probably as the first step in rounding them all up and stuffing them into collectivized senior cits' homes where they'd be forced to knit when they know that the most effective tool for the job is a crochet hook.

And if I didn't say anything, why, I'd just have no one to blame but myself when Stephen Harper and his gang of fundie right-wingers took over the House of Commons and legislated away my reproductive rights and my gay and lesbian friends' equality rights, and destroyed my health care system, and sold our collective humanitarian soul for a mess of Bush's poisoned potage.

Nope, if that happened, I ... and a whole lot of other people ... would have no one to blame but moi ... and anybody else who'd never said a peep while the fundie right-wingers turned our crocheting forum into a soapbox for lies and propaganda. So I think that I'd figure I oughta speak up, in my own interests if no one else's.

[MrBenchley]

32. Funny how our "pro gun democrats"

have such a wealth of excuses as to why they are unable to say anything "pro-Democrat," isn't it?

[DoNotRefill]

34. Heh....you said "potage"....

eom

[iverglas]

40. yeah, but

I spelled it wrong. I was going to check, but then I didn't bother.

"Le potage", but "pottage". "Subsistance", but "subsistence", is another of one of my problems. I suffer from bouts of francization.

On the other hand, I did say "poisoned pot<t>age", an instance of my famous (elsewhere) just-right, never-overdone, precisely à propos (there I go again) use of alliteration, so I propose props (ew) for that.


I also suffer from word-leave-out-itis ...

[T Town Jake]

62. Actually, none of the threads I've...

...ever participated in on some of those forums has ever been hijacked to discuss politics. But go ahead and write us another opaque, novel-length "reply" listing all the reasons why that just can't be so.

[iverglas]

63. well y'know

none of the threads I've ever participated in on some of those forums has ever been hijacked to discuss politics.

Some people might just have assumed that the point originally being made wasn't aimed at them, in that case.

Others, of course, might think that if a person happened to be in a forum where the lies and propaganda in question were being spread about the party s/he supports, for the purpose of defeating that party and re-electing a party and president who there are strong grounds for suspecting is the anti-christ, the person might just feel an urge to say something anyhow.

[T Town Jake]

68. Once again...

...Messrs. Apple & Orange get mixed up with each other, and do a merry dance to the applause of an adoring crowd...<snicker>

There are many forums right here at DU where debates rage back and forth over such things as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the abortion debate, Nader vs. mainstream Democrats, etc., etc. that I don't go charging into to set everyone straight because the topics being discussed, though important, are not ones I'm particularly interested in getting entangled in lengthy flame wars over. By your standard outlined above that must mean that I (a) don't care about events in the Mideast, (b) am indifferent to a woman's right to choose, and (c) am not aware of the inherent danger of Nader's third party run on the Democratic Party's chance to take back the White House.
But all of this is, as they say, academic. Your real point has nothing do with some kind of righteous indignation about what goes on at a few "gun nut" websites - otherwise you'd be over in their forums lecturing them on their moral shortcomings. No, your real irritation, I suspect, stems from the fact that there are so many pro-gun Democrats here, making our voices known. That's the size and sum of it behind nearly every post you make.

On edit: "their" = "there"

[MrBenchley]

71. There ARE?

Why is it then that all of these "pro gun democrats" here seem only to post horseshit from far right wing websites, I wonder?

[T Town Jake]

73. Of the three...

..."gun nut" forums I regularly participate in, I don't see much "horseshit" that could be classified as "rightwing." But then, I don't go crawling through every website spider hole looking for some raving lunatic slandering Democrats, either. As we used to say during the seventies: "that's not my bag." But I here you, on the other hand, are quite adept at smoking out such loonies on obscure threads all over the World Wide Web...<snicker>

[MrBenchley]

89. Gee, jake, that's SO fucking sweet...

Of course the comment had nothing to do with what goes on at other forums, but on why our "pro gun democrats" so regularly dredge up turds from every right wing cesspool they can find and try to pass them off as treasures here. Which they do.

"I don't see much "horseshit" that could be classified as "rightwing.""
And here you are now pretending this crap from the stentorian is valid....can anybody guess why Jake is unable to find any, class?

But I here you, on the other hand, are quite adept at smoking out such loonies on obscure threads all over the World Wide Web
If that's what you "here," you "herd" wrong....all I do is go to a handful of the leading gun forums and see what threads the malignant fuckwits have posted right on the top of their boards...

Then I notice quite accurately what splendiferous gyrations our "pro gun democrats" make to excuse themselves from murmuring even the slightest word of disapproval (as well as the complete absense of response from any "pro gun" liberals or democrats elsewhere--which shows how full of crap those claims really are).

[iverglas]

78. ask me, ask me!

Why is it then that all of these "pro gun democrats" here seem only to post horseshit from far right wing websites, I wonder?

Maybe all the other "pro gun Democrats" in the world are just too busy ... um, reloading, or something ... or maybe actually campaigning for the Democratic Party in real life ... to ever write anything that is both "pro-gun"<*> and Democrat so that the rest of them can quote it.

<*> This is an expression that makes no sense to me, since I have no idea how one can be "pro" an object. It's just an object after all, right? But I use the expression out of deference to those who have chosen it for themselves, to identify the strange ideology they espouse ...

[MrBenchley]

90. Makes no sense to me either...

but then I notice that the same folks who use the terms "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" are the ones who routinely accuse other people of "fearing" or otherwise personifying an inanimate object (mostly to avoid discussion of the actual issues under discussion), so I picked up their terminology. Besides, it fits their cases so well, doesn't it?

[iverglas]

74. mmmmmmm.....................

No, your real irritation, I suspect, stems from the fact that there are so many pro-gun Democrats here, making our voices known.

..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..................no.

Of course, I shouldn't even be answering such a silly thing, given that the only proper way to answer a loaded question (or, by corollary, to respond to a statement premised on a false fact) is to reject it. (Now, I don't actually go around assuming that every question I see is loaded and refusing to answer it lest it shoot me, as a loaded question always will when answered.)

Irritated? Moi? Why sir, what an idea.

A loaded question should never be pointed at other people.

I would advise quite a number of people here to assume always that their questions are loaded before aiming them, in fact, given how their questions so often are. Loaded.

So my answer to all that is, naturally:

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmMu.

[OpSomBlood]

24. MrB sports his famous selective memory once again.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=245282&page=1

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=249736

http://www.glocksunlocked.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=9147

[MrBenchley]

30. Too too funny...

But, hey, let's have another toxic dose of "reading pleasure"--hope everyone's up to date on their shots.

"jmoffatt: " VP Cheney tell Dems to F@#$ off!!!!...I'ts about time someone tells these guys to FUCK OFF!"
pale_pony: "It's about f---ing time someone told them"

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=252280

"insightAZ: "How to Be a Good Liberal in 22 Easy Steps
Virtually anyone can be a good liberal -- in 22 easy steps, as you'll read in the list below.
1. Put your mind on "pause.""
Mozart'sGlock: "Here is a more simplier approach:
1. Store your brain in the fridge."
Bobb G: "I'm a "Good" Conservative and I don't believe everything Bush tells me without questioning it. I have a mind of my own. It tells me that Liberal/Democrats are bad for this country. "

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=25afc0080dc167b0213bb998de326f7d&threadid=243618

hfd: "walked in b&n this am...
1st thing i see is bills POS-FUCKTARD book right in the front where i can't miss it...
then there's a table of about 50 or so "Hate bush" type books by every degenerate liberal freak asswipe turdsucker in the world blocking the main entrance of the store ...
needless to say, i left without buying anything (and may never return...)
wtf is wrong with these people ?
its bookstore ! (or it pretends to be any way...
not a single book could be found saying anything nice about "W".."

http://www.glocksunlocked.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9724

And it's certainly impressive to see the way opinions over there range from idoitic to fascist and back. Tell us, gang, if there really ARE pro-gun Democrats, how come you almost never see them over there?

Some answers are so simple (sorry, more simplier) as to seem silly.

[Retired AF Dem]

108. As much time as you spend at those sites

do you ever say anything pro-democrat? Or are you just a lurker?

[MrBenchley]

109. It only takes few minutes

since those sites are heavily laden with far right wing horseshit.

and no, I don't bother...but then I'm not the one pretending that there are Liberal Democrats who give a crap about this gun rights horseshit. That would be our "pro gun democrats," who somehow have nothing but excuses why they can't go over there and post anything even remotely proDemocrat...and dodge the question of why almost nobody else does.

[Retired AF Dem]

110. Then maybe you should take a leadership role in doing so

don't expect others to do that you wont. Lead by example.

[MrBenchley]

111. Too TOO funny....

What is this now, excuse number 5,753: "I can't say anything pro-Democrat because MrBenchley didn't"....

And let me add that I don't have or want a gun, and don't have much but contempt for the sort of "enthusiast" who spouts bogus gun rights arguments.

Of course, SOME people see nothing wrong with barreling onto a forum under false colors and claiming to be what they are not.

[slackmaster]

28. Sounds like a hoot

Where do I sign up?

[DoNotRefill]

35. Slack, PLEASE tell me you DID NOT do that to your cat......

eom

[slackmaster]

36. Meow

n/t

[RoeBear]

66. I don't get it...

n/t

[slackmaster]

105. Roar

[DoNotRefill]

79. Dude, that's just WRONG......

heheheheheheheheheheheeeeee!!!!! :)

[PopeyeII]

37. What, they come unarmed to debates as is.

Maybe we should have a field trip to the zoo to watch the monkeys throw poop, that's something they have experience doing.

[Wickerman]

114. Oh for Jeebus's Fucking Sakes - Locking!

The fucking gun was unloaded, you can certain of that. She was butt ignorant for putting her finger on the trigger. That said the only gun safety she intended to accomplish there was to seek support on the AWB - I would hope our RKBAers aren't seeking gun safety tips from Diane Feinstein.

Anyway, everyone has said their piece about Diane and the evil assault weapon she mishandled. Let it die. We've been seeing a story on it every week for months. Its really not that freaking interesting, nor does it help the RKBA gang in any appreciable way or does it help the Democratic party. I consider this issue closed and I think you need to have a real good reason to bring it up in the future. EVERYONE has chimed in on the issue.