We need more gun posts.

[necso]

Last time I checked it was our right to own firearms --- unless the freepers succeed in their selective application of the constitution.

So, forewarned and forearmed patriots, continue in your efforts. I, for one, will defend this, our last necessity!

I eagerly await your reply!

[Semi_subversive]

1. Ok. How's this for a gun post?

I own a 12 gauge pump and I can lean it on a post.

[necso]

3. Ok.

I am divided between turkey and buck shot myself --- any thoughts?

The "Home Defender" is my choice, but I keep a longer 3/4 choked barrel and a standard stock at hand.

At the moment, I am "fishing", based on the concerns of another member. So if I have offended you, my apologies.

[HEyHEY]

2. I have a .22 that as far as I know isn't registered.

[necso]

5. I learn

everyday just how ignorant I am.

My very best to all our Canadian brothers --- keep the flame alive!

22LR is a very nice, practical round, and if I have offended or ignored you, my sincere apologies.

[iverglas]

23. any reason

in particular?

[Wonk]

4. Crime, Drugs, Death Penalty, Guns, Etc.

That's the description of this particular DU forum we're in at the moment, not "Guns, guns, guns, guns, etc".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_forums

BTW, your strategy didn't work particularly well for David Koresh, now, did it?

[necso]

6. But yet, it does include guns.

If I have offended you, Wonk, my apologies. I would, however, argue for some differentiation between Koresh, a egomaniac, and those who would consider their lives as being at the service of the greater good. I do, however, consider your opinion as worthwhile and appreciate your post.

Respectfully,

Necso.

[Wonk]

7. If you look around just a bit I'm sure you can find plenty of gun threads

already. In fact, arguably there's already a disproportionate amount of them, imho, and not in the direction that this thread title implies.

This is kind of like starting a thread in the lounge about it needing more music threads, cat threads, and copycat threads, if you get my drift.

[FeebMaster]

8. If you're dissatisfied with the ratio of gun posts

to non-gun posts, perhaps you should start some non-gun threads.

[Wonk]

10. Like these? They drop like rocks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=69267

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=65471

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=63689

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=35082

Not as fun to argue about? :shrug:

[FeebMaster]

11. Yes, something like those.

Sorry I didn't reply to any of them. I'm not sure why. Well the pipe bomb one was just weird, what can you really say about that?

[necso]

12. Yawn.

Give me some (historical) ratios if you wish to be considered seriously!

Otherwise... well, you know what I mean! (It is with deep regret that I speak against an obviously well intentioned member.)

I respect your opinion, but the times are very hard. Please give a little slack to those who would be forewarned --- and forearmed!

[necso]

9. With all due respect, Wonk,

And as another member related to me earlier, he was intimidated relative to posting about guns.

If you so wish, I will pursue this line on any grounds that you wish, constitutional, ethical, historical ... or whatever.

I do not desire to dispute this line with an "honored elder brother", but having a mathematical bent, I will gladly pursue it, if you so wish.

The day may not be far off, Sir, when you will be glad to have among your brethren, those who are willing to fight for your rights. You might do well to accept the fact that they will arm themselves.

But as you will!

[Van23]

36. Amen

again!

[Pert_UK]

13. Yes, of course, that makes sense......

Clearly we need to achieve total gun saturation in the Justice and Public Safety forum. After all, guns are hardly mentioned in here at all.

I tell you what - how about we have more posts that:

1 - ASSUME that owning firearms is a right, rather than discussing WHY it should be viewed as a right, or suggesting WHY widespread lightly-restricted access to guns is a good thing

2 - suggest that anyone who doesn't believe that keeping and bearing arms is a right must be a freeper

I personally cannot wait for more pointless and dogmatic assertions of the same old tired crap. Heaven forbid that we should either discuss another topic or even make a valid and useful contribution to this one.

For the record, I don't believe that anything as specific as "firearms ownership" fits into any sensible definition of a genuine "right", although "self defence" could be viewed as a right. I'm also against a total gun ban in the States for a number of reasons. So....am I the enemy?

[necso]

14. Thank you, I love sarcasm. But then again I am American! nt

[Pert_UK]

15. Well, having been disarmed by my monarch.....

I find that sarcasm is the most deadly weapon available to me.....

I felt it needed to be said. Whilst I respect your right to post whatever the hell you like in J/PS (in accordance with the rules) I didn't feel that making a post with the sole aim of going, "YAY GUNS!" had much merit........

P.

[necso]

16. Point taken,

and if I have offended you, I apologize.

I agree that the original post was crass, at the very least. But I told another member that I would, well, "start a counterattack" against those who hammered any pro-gun post.

I did not mean to include you in the "net".

But times are very difficult here, and we "colonials" are a fractious breed.

Best.

[Baclava]

19. Speaking of negative reactions...

Ever take a "black rifle" to a shooting range?

"Whatcha doin? Huntin' for Bin Laden?"
(Yes, if he presents a target!)

"You practicin' to kill terruhists?"
(Yes!)

"You one of them militia types?"
(Yes! Want a bumper sticker?)

"You don't hunt with that, do you?"
(Yes!, varmits of all kinds)

"Whatcha gonna shoot with that?"
(Whatever presents a valid target-zombies mostly)

"You gettin' ready for WWIII?"
(Yes!)

This is usually in late October. The hicks are dusting off their .270 bolt actions, firing a few shots (usually no more than half a dozen rounds) from the half box of ammo left over from last hunting season, and pack it back in the car, ready to go for deer season. I guess I just need more practice. I usually blow up a 1000rds of .223 every weekend.

[necso]

20. Damn.

Now, this is a guy I want to party with!

But I do love a nice .270!

[Pert_UK]

21. I'm not offended at all........my point, I suppose, was.........

that although the discussion of the RKBA and other firearms issues is clearly allowed and encouraged in J/PS, that doesn't mean that the admins intended J/PS to become a forum for gun lovers and gun haters.

There's no merit in posting "I love guns" in here, just as there's no merit in posting "I hate guns". There's only real merit when the actual issues are discussed and justification provided.

For example, saying, "I love guns because it's great fun to go shooting and hunting" isn't a justification for gun ownership being a right - there are lots of fun things that are illegal.

I think everyone on here realises that many people take pleasure in shooting, but that doesn't entail some objective right to K & BA.

Equally, saying "I hate guns" doesn't advance the discussion, but saying "I hate guns because IMHO they increase social violence and are a symptom of an increasingly fearful society" at least gives grounds for discussion - you can't convince someone that they don't enjoy shooting if they do, but you can debate the relative merits of widespread ownership versus control (or a total ban) with them.

Peace.

P.

[OpSomBlood]

24. Actually, there aren't lots of fun things that are illegal.

Can you name a few fun things that can be done safely that are illegal?

[iverglas]

28. eh? . . . (and hey Wonk)

"Actually, there aren't lots of fun things that are illegal.
Can you name a few fun things that can be done safely that are illegal?"

Who said anything about being done safely??

You see, without an intellectual around, demagogues might get away with all sorts of crap.

Fun is in the eye of the beholder, wouldn't you agree? Who would you, or I, be to say that going over Niagara Falls in a barrel isn't fun?

Did you ever see the video of the guy walking a tightrope between the twin towers of the WTC? (That was a horrible thing to watch. What he was doing was unsafe if only because people watching it could well have dropped dead of anxiety-induced heart attacks. The film wasn't a hoax, was it? I just rewatched Dark Side of the Moon, so I'm being retroactively suspicious.) He seemed to be having lots of fun.

And heck, he made it across in one piece, so I suppose it was safe, even though if he'd fallen he might have landed on a few people and smushed them. Of course, if I sneeze while I'm driving I might run into you and smush you too, but driving's still fun and legal while tightroping the WTC was illegal.

I'll bet driving drunk is lots of fun, and lots of people do it without smushing anybody at all.

And then there are all those people who get maimed or killed by people having legal fun with guns ...



_____

If you (in general) ever get a chance to see Dark Side of the Moon, don't miss it.
http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/darksideofthemoon/about.html
You don't happen to have it on line somewhere, do you Wonk?

How could the flag flutter when there's no wind on the moon?

During an interview with Stanley Kubrick's widow an extraordinary story came to light. She claims Kubrick and other Hollywood producers were recruited to help the U.S. win the high stakes race to the moon.

In order to finance the space program through public funds, the U.S. government needed huge popular support, and that meant they couldn't afford any expensive public relations failures. Fearing that no live pictures could be transmitted from the first moon landing, President Nixon enlisted the creative efforts of Kubrick, who produced 2001: a Space Odyssey (1968), to ensure promotional opportunities wouldn't be missed. In return, Kubrick got a special NASA lens to help him shoot Barry Lyndon (1975). A subtle blend of facts, fiction and hypothesis around the first landing on the moon, Dark Side Of The Moon illustrates how the truth can be twisted by the manipulation of images.

[Pert_UK]

30. Well, aside from that "fun but illegal" comment not having any....

real impact on the strength of my argument (i.e. my argument still stands if you undermine it, but I see that you're ignoring my reasonably point and going straight for an irrelevant aside that you think you can attack)........

There are, as Iverglas says, lots of gun....sorry, fun things that are illegal.....although it does depend on what you think of as fun:

- driving at 100mph on a public road
- taking ecstacy tablets
- having sex with a horse
- throwing watermelons off tall buildings
- cycling around town naked
- juggling hamsters
- stealing roadsigns
- selling gullible tourists Tower Bridge (London)

Some of these are safe, some aren't.

[iverglas]

31. heh heh

One summer Friday afternoon in my early days of law practice, my law partner and I and the folks we shared office space with, hippy lefty NGO types, were sitting around the back stoop of our office house, drinkin a little rum and eatin a little watermelon.

My partner was a rather straight-laced ex-football player. (He'd been drafted by the Hamilton Tiger Cats while in university but declined ... and then ended up in a neck brace after a few months in law practice ... after injuring his neck ... typing.) He started throwing his watermelon rinds at the neighbour's car and shouting "touchdown" or some damned thing. (Don't ask me; I understand the other football, not that one.) The neighbour came out, a confrontation ensued, I got to practise my mediation skills ... "Don" apologized ... the police were not called ...

Ah, summer Friday afternoons.

[JohnnyRingo]

17. I've never slept in a house without a gun

It's just the way I was brought up....Lotsa ammo and a rifle too long to shoot my own foot with.

Never was a hunter, though...Can't bring myself to take a life
True conciencous objector
Weird...huh ?

[necso]

18. Not at all...

There is all the difference between being prepared to kill and eager to do so.

I never hunt and would never kill without it being necessary. (Although I do not condemn regulated hunting.)

I would not hesitate, however, to kill or be killed in the defense of what I hold dear... on a good day anyway.

[Van23]

34. I don't think

it's weird. I don't hunt either. I use guns for personal defense and target practice.

[Van23]

35. I don't think

it's weird. I don't hunt either. I use guns for personal defense and target practice.

[iverglas]

22. we need more poop posts

Last time I checked, we all had the right to poop.

(Don't anybody be trying to tell me I don't have a right to poop, really. Pooping just isn't a privilege, is it now? Imagine someone saying that I needed a licence to poop; it would be absurd, and an outrage to all right-thinking liberals, and something only a fascist would say. I was born with an inherent, unalienable right to poop, and we all know it.)

If I don't exercise that right often, and in plain view of the public, somebody is going to be trying to take it away from me, I just know it.

I propose that we all take along our buckets and meet up at Starbucks for lunch -- virtually meet up, of course, in some cases -- and have a nice big poop.

Oh yes, I'm sure some citizens will be alarmed. (Maybe some landed immigrants and tourists too; does nobody care about them?) They might not be too pleased at all that poop in the restaurant. They might think that something unpleasant could come of it. They might wonder why we think we need to poop in the restaurant where they're eating.

The hell with them. We don't have to have a reason. Our poop isn't hurting anybody at all. If they don't want to poop in Starbucks, they don't have to. And we don't gotta justify our choices to nobody.

Stand up for your right to poop! Er, well, sit down if you're more comfortable that way.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

26. yes indeed

So glad we have true intellectuals to bring us all above the fray.

Without us, who would be around to counter the demagogues and expose the fundamental dishonesty of their theses?

Nobody's saying that the demagogues aren't smart ... well, delay that order; nobody's saying that they don't aim their demagoguery at people who aren't as smart as them, anyhow.

[MrBenchley]

27. Why would some people want to turn off the millions of Americans

who poop?

[iverglas]

29. do we have the makings of consensus?

All those who poop, raise your hands.

[MrBenchley]

32. Think how horrifed our founding fathers would be

if they couldn't poop!

And of course the right to poop includes pooping in the park.

[Van23]

33. AMEN

nesco! The right to bear arms is very important! You are right--the freepers will be VERY selective in who gets to own them.

Gun control is the darling of all totalitarian governments. So many right wingers like to accuse pro-gun progressives of being disingenuous on this issue by throwing out canards like "Cuba has gun control. So did the Soviet Union." Very true, but Augusto Pinochet, the wet dream of so many free marketeers, also instituted gun control upon (and shortly before) coming to power. So did Ferdinand Marcos.

Personally, I think all working people should be armed. I can't understand why so many leftists disagree with this--particularly under this administration! Of course, I feel guns should be used for defensive purposes only. The focus of the left should be on building a mass workers' party. If this possibility ever starts to be realized, watch how brutally the capitalists will react when their backs are against the wall!

Well, off the soapbox. Personally, I carry a .38 Special and use a .45 for home defense.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[taxidriver]

38. what the fuck, dude. do you flame green-leaners or pro-life dems this way

or is it just this one instance of not towing the exact party line that you dissaprove of?

[MrBenchley]

39. Wonder why it is we don't see

Democrats in the Health/Education/Social Policy folder bragging about and posting pictures of their new aspirins, as Iverglas once asked?

[taxidriver]

41. because some people admire the craftsmenship and designs of guns.

more than a fucking pill.

[iverglas]

44. boy oh boy

"because some people admire the craftsmenship and designs of guns.
more than a fucking pill.

Isn't that just a tad disrespectful of "pill nuts"??

Some people undoubtedly admire the artistry of pill design more than of a fucking gun. They *still* don't strew inane posts about and pictures of the things around a forum devoted to health issues.

So you see, your little outburst just didn't answer the question. Quelle big surprise.

[MrBenchley]

45. It's clear some people don't appreciate the effort

that goes into designing the look of a pill...not to mention the precision chemistry required to formulate one...

[taxidriver]

42. you also didnt answer my question.

is it your job to make sure that the precise party position is enforced on all subjects?

[MrBenchley]

46. Jeepers...wait right there for the answer...

[taxidriver]

47. i'll answer the question, then. pills are small, round objects that you

swallow, and then they are gone.

guns are often the source of many fun memories and target practice, and people can personalize them and what not. and lots of the nicer guns have hand-made touches that make them look a little cooler to the eye than a tylenol.

can we agree to disagree?

[iverglas]

49. oh no, another candidate for that prize

pills are small, round objects that you
swallow, and then they are gone.

guns are often the source of many fun memories
and target practice, and people can personalize
them and what not. and lots of the nicer guns
have hand-made touches that make them look a
little cooler to the eye than a tylenol.

And ... this explains WHY INANE BABBLE ABOUT THEM belongs in an internet discussion forum entitled "Justice and Public Safety" ... HOW??

And your opinion about them (you will agree that your opinion about guns is no better than anybody else's opinion about pills) makes inane babble about guns more fit as a subject for posts in the Justice/Public Safety forum than inane babble about pills would be in the Health Issues forum ... HOW??

Here ya go. Your share of the default prize for complete unintelligibility.

[Van23]

40. I've often wondered

the same thing myself about some people!

[iverglas]

43. can I answer??

what the fuck, dude. do you flame green-leaners or pro-life dems this way

"Green-leaners" strike me as people engaged in serious, honest, sincere consideration and good faith discussion of issues. In some circumstances I'd certainly get impatient with them though, that's true.

"Pro-life", when used to designate those who seek to criminalize or further restrict access to abortion services, is just a code phrase for vicious and/or stupid (oh, okay, possibly deluded and stupid) people, and you betcha, I flame them at every opportunity.

None of this stuff has much to do with "party line" to me. Right and wrong, that sort of thing, that's what it has to do with. Of course, I'd never consider joining or supporting a party that welcomed the anti-choice or people who demanded that they be permitted to walk around in public places with firearms strapped to their persons, or who rejected the policy of registering all firearms and licensing all firearms owners. But then, lucky me, I have the luxury of meaningful choice and don't always have to hold my nose when I vote.

[FatSlob]

48. Get used to it.

The rest of us are.