General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMotion to the Members of DU
I am making a motion, and for the record, let me say I am not whining about DU, and I apologize for violating the rule of no gun topics in the General Discussion. However, I am not violating it in spirit. I am making a motion that we ask the management to remove the topic forum for Guns. The arguments are obvious, but I think many of us feel that a NRA cheering room here at DU is massively inappropriate.
Therefor, I ask you to vote to either ask Management to keep, or remove the gun forum from this site. As is obvious, when Guns are in the news, usually followed by constantly increasing numbers of the dead, it falls into General Discussion, or Latest Breaking News anyway.
| 62 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| I vote to ask Management to remove the Gun Forum from DU | |
18 (29%) |
|
| I vote to ask Management to keep the Gun Forum on DU | |
44 (71%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)That's almost all that's been posted in GD since this tragedy happened. I think the no guns in GD rule was thrown out the window.
Lasher
(27,597 posts)It has not been thrown out.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Discussions of gun belong in the Gun Forum, not in GD.
That is the rule.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)but that debate is ultimately pointless. You can message skinner and earlg if you have an issue.
The admin point of view is that with the exception of major gun incidents, those discussions belong in the gungeon. When something like Newtown happens, they permit gun discussion in GD for a week or so.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)So I guess we can count on gun threads ad infinitum as long it's in the context of Sandy Hook?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Just when you think you cannot stand it any longer, Skinner and EarlG will reassert the rule.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)There is a time and place for things, and it's become excessive here, almost malingering. Certainly, lots of hysteria here.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting was really big news thus allowing gun topics out of the gungeon for now.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)One, that I do not particularly ahere to or support; just a head's up to let you know what you are up against.
In this instance, if they want to have their gun porn; have it over at the gungeon, I want nothing to do with it in GD.
I vote to keep it over; just overe there...
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Otherwise GD will turn into Gun Discussion permanently.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Quieting debate is the antithesis of Democratic ideals..
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)axetogrind
(118 posts)I don't go there but why stifle debate? Isn't debate, even contentious debate, good?
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)that the rule doesn't really apply sometimes. So whatever.
axetogrind
(118 posts)Gun debate should be in the proper place.
I just disagree that the Guns Forum should be removed.
OffWithTheirHeads
(10,337 posts)I don't think ANYTHING should be banned from discussion. If you can't discuss things, you can't learn. I have no interest in turning DU into tea party left.
intheflow
(28,476 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)First, I think I was one of the first in Meta to say that I was going to vote to hide any pro-gun post I was called on to adjudicate as part of a jury, and would vote to keep any anti-gun post that did not also contain bigotry.
I do not want gun posts here. That is one part of how I feel about this.
The other part is that where there are dungeons, I understand the wisdom of the admins in having them. The gun dungeon and the woo woo dungeon, the Israel/Palestinian dungeon and any others I cant think of serve an important purpose. People will want to discuss these things, they get heated and overwhelming and generally the same things are said by folks on both sides over and over again such that the discussions become stale and repetitive and uninteresting very quickly.
I'm not sure how I will vote on this poll.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Creative Speculation Forum Here - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135
Woo Woo definition in urban dictionary - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo :
1. woo woo
183 up, 56 down
extraordinary beliefs for which it is felt there is insufficient extraordinary evidence, and people who hold those beliefs.
The date was going fine, then she started to talk about taking her cat to her Pet Psychic for an aura adjustment. Just a bit woo woo for me.
2. woo woo
231 up, 85 down
Unfounded or ludicrouse beliefs
Belief in talking to the dead, belief in telikenesis, in fact any belief not founded on good evidence, the poorer the evidence the more Woo Woo the belief.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Didn't realize it had changed.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)you DO realize this an internet discussion board and not a legislative or deliberative body?
lighten up.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)However, I was both curious as to how the members would feel, how many would agree with me. Second, I wanted to approach Skinner with the consensus of opinion expressed here. As a request, not as a demand. I am in a position to demand nothing from this site. Even if I was, I doubt I would do it, because that just isn't my nature.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Stewie with... a gun?!
Veeerrry interesting...
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)But choosing a charictor from it was tricky. I picked what I considered the least appropriate for me, call it tongue in cheek if you will. I've considered replacing it since the Sandy Hook massacre, but haven't. I don't like to change with the winds, but after taking time to consider the matter fully. I don't really identify with any charictor, with the possible exception of Meg. I'm not attractive, and I'm not popular. But I was loved and supported by my family, so that would be flawed to about the extreme.
So Stewie it was. Stewie with his dreams of global domination, and the only one he can speak to is other babies, and the dog Brian. He can build a time machine, but can't figure out how diapers work. I love the duality involved there. Silly certainly, but not indicitive of my feeling towards the actual harming of people.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)but there must be some pix of Stewie sans gun.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I'm just wondering, because I can't figure out why it's an issue otherwise.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)That's why it's the Gungeon, because without it, the gun nuts would be all over GD, and those of us whould risk getting banned if we responded to them intemperately.
GermanSmoker
(91 posts)Voted no.
JVS
(61,935 posts)a constant source of GD flamewars that push other content out. Guns are in GD now, but that will subside in a few weeks.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)It's the attic for our lunatic uncle.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Very undemocratic...
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Looks like the Chicken Little faction is losing, though...
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Earth_First
(14,910 posts)a clearinghouse thread for the Ignore List feature...
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Clicked "show names" and wasn't surprised. I'm gonna have to bookmark this thread.
axetogrind
(118 posts)because we have a difference of opinion? Respectfully, I disagree.
Debate, no matter how heated it may get, is good.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)axetogrind
(118 posts)I'm not allowed to have an opinion different from yours? Have I been rude or hostile to anyone here?
I'm trying to have a meaningful debate and you come back with the hostility, perhaps we all need to tone it down and work towards workable solutions instead of the hate filled comments from both sides of this issue.
intheflow
(28,476 posts)I don't own guns, have never shot a gun. But I don't believe shutting down the gungeon will solve gun debates on DU or help move the country toward more regulated gun ownership. Censorship is rarely the answer - unless it's an obvious troll. Owning a gun or supporting gun rights does not an automatic troll make. Just as protesting war or wanting single payer healthcare doesn't automatically make someone a socialist or communist. None of these discussions are black and white, life comes in many shades of gray.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)talking point bulletins or gloating about people shooting and killing intruders. Posting anything about increasing gun controls is like throwing a sirloin into a pool of piranhas!
intheflow
(28,476 posts)Why would I want to spend my time in there? I don't like bars, either. Doesn't mean I think they should all be banned, or that all people who go into bars are alcoholics. Like reproductive rights advocates say, if you don't like abortions, don't get one. Likewise, if you don't like guns, don't go into the gungeon.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)have supported the Brady Bill for years? What about people like myself who have lost love ones at the point of a legal gun in the hands of someone who "lost his temper"? How does your facetious bar comparison stand up to that? There is no debate in the gungeon, there is just 2nd Amendment authority.
You are basically telling us we have no place to go and discuss how to go about organizing and advocating for gun control if we don't want to be bullied and berated by a group that is clearly overrun by many non-Democrats and NRA advocates.
intheflow
(28,476 posts)I am not saying you have no place to go to discuss organizing and advocating for gun control.
Nothing stopping you from rallying your friends to go into the sink hole with you.
You can petition Skinner to open a gun control group on DU that is dedicated only to gun control organizing, and exclude DUers who own guns from your group, like the LGBTQ group has rules against homophobic posters.
Also, nothing stopping you from visiting other web sites specifically dedicated to gun control.
Or continuing your work within the real world gun control community.
You are not going to change anyone's mind on either side in the gungeon. But shutting down people who disagree with you is never the answer. You're acting helpless, like you don't have any options or the right to exercise your right to free speech. That is, quite honestly, bullshit.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)that is filled with jolly posts about people being shot is the forum that every gun discussion ends up (except on special national tragedy weeks). There are simply no standards when it comes to guns on DU. Free speech is a poor excuse for what goes on in that forum.
intheflow
(28,476 posts)I'm so sorry for your loss. I, myself, have lost a loved one to someone in a "fit of passion." My husband was killed with a knife, but I know if a gun had been available, the asshole who killed him would have used it. he'd used them before in armed robberies but came from a well-connected family that repeatedly kept him out of jail with various legal wranglings. So please understand that I understand your passion and applaud any and all work you do for gun control. 
I am just as passionate about free speech, that's really my dog in this thread's hunt.
davsand
(13,421 posts)Everybody is in pain right now. Censorship is never right, but it is particularly unpalatable when the issues are important to us as a society.
I pray I don't see a time when DU refuses to discuss issues simply because they make somebody uncomfortable.
Laura
marlakay
(11,470 posts)just like in a marriage. If you try to pretend you don't have a problem it won't go away.
Still Sensible
(2,870 posts)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I think a good solution would to be to have two separate groups.
earthside
(6,960 posts)Let's see ...
If you advocate for examining the role of video games and their relationship to gun violence you are pounced on as advocating for censorship.
But removing the gun forum completely is .... what?
We are not dissent-stifling, closed-minded, illiberal, intolerant people here ... are we?
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)Diseases need to be quarantined or they spread making all else dysfunctional.
Keep the dungeon.
intheflow
(28,476 posts)
actslikeacarrot
(464 posts)...disagree with getting rid of the rkba forum. Obviously democrats disagree on the topic of guns so there should be a place to debate and discuss.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)
NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)Change the group name and SoP to ban expression of pro-gun opinions, or are you making a broader statement about removing the 2nd amendment to the US constitution?
EDIT: In the event of the latter, it would be more accurate to say "Remove the 2nd amendment." The right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right that can't be revoked. The 2nd amendment simply codifies it in federal law.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)A basic human right that can't be revoked? It has been revoked in many nations, and those nations all enjoy a much higher standard of living, and more peaceful existence than we do. They are far less likely to endure violence, and far more likely to live out their days peacefully. Yet you claim it is a basic human right. How so? Is there some divine writing from a Deity that says we are free to arm ourselves? If so, does that divine directive limit the right in any way? Are you free to have a machine gun? Or are you limited by this basic human right that can't be revoked in any way? Does this basic human right accept any limits?
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Find a right wing forum to oppose gun control.
NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)I was just trying to better understand your earlier post.
Because I can't help myself, though, many Democrats oppose gun control. Gun policy isn't a defining characteristic of the party anymore.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)http://www.issues2000.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm
lpbk2713
(42,757 posts)For the record I have only visited the gun forum a handful of times since I have been a DUer. IMO banning a DU forum for what is discussed there would be antithetic to everything DU stands for. Let it be.
jody
(26,624 posts)why the Second Amendment, abortion, religion, LGBT et al are in our Democratic Party Platform.
To even suggest banning discussion of one of those issues implies one is not very serious about electing our candidates and controlling Congress, the Executive Branch, and appointing justices to the Supreme Court.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)What is the purpose of gaining that power? We are now fighting to raise taxes on the rich, because that is something we campaigned for, and won an election on. We are also fighting to maintain funding for Social Security, Medicare and a number of other programs to help the needy, because we stand for that. But are you saying we don't dare restrict firearms because we would lose the power we have won in a landslide election?
I stand for restricting firearms. Because I want to make events like the Sandy Hook Massacre a thing of the past, not an inevitable part of our future. Are you telling me that simple statement would cause us to lose to Rethugs?
jody
(26,624 posts)will upon the minority.
The Bill of Rights obligates government to protect preexisting rights of even a minority of one against the tyranny of the majority.
SCOTUS has navigated the treacherous straits between individual rights and rights of society by allowing infringement of individual rights but never abolishing a right.
You say "I stand for restricting firearms" but you should also acknowledge that there are probably more laws restricting the Second Amendment than any other enumerated right.
Instead of invective and plea for separation, I vote for open discussion and serious efforts to find a solution that will prevent another Sandy Hook Tragedy.
IMO those who disagree with my position are part of the problem and not a solution.
The entire reason for having political power is to improve the nation, and the conditions of existence for the people. We don't get power just to have it to lord around, but to make real improvements in the lives of the people. Now, how can we improve the lives of the people. We've done that to an extent with the ACA, and we will see the lives of the people improve, not as much as if we had a true single payer, but its a start. Now, for the ACA to help the people, they have to live long enough to take advantage of it. That means we have to guarantee their security, and safety. We have dozens of Federal agencies that restrict the rights of the minority, when those rights impact the well being of the majority.
You don't get to cut down any old tree you want on YOUR property, property owners rights be damned if there is an endangered species in those woods that must be protected. You don't get to dump any old toxic waste you want on YOUR property as is your right because that impacts our lives. That is the Endangered Species Act, and the EPA. You don't get unlimited freedom of speech, and you will still have all those other rights you seem to ignore without your precious gun.
So don't tell me that we have no moral standing, and claiming that those of us who think you gun nuts should be regulated, and stripped of your firearms are part of the problem. That is flatly asinine. We didn't shoot anyone at Sandy Hook, or Aurora, or anywhere else. We haven't robbed, raped, shot, stabbed, or otherwise harmed another. We don't stand by and scream that there is nothing anyone can do, and stick our tongues out at those demanding change. We expect to hand our children, and grand children a better nation than we have now and a better world.
That means we have to get the guns off the streets, and out of private hands. That is the solution, one used all around the world by every civilized nation. Nobody else lets their citizens run around with guns. Nobody else has our rates of gun violence either. Nobody else buries tens of thousands of their citizens because of the right to bear arms. In any other nation where tens of thousands die from guns you would find a civil war going on. Only in America is it business as usual. Have you considered that for even a moment? The only other nations with that many people getting shot and killed are in the midst of civil war. Yet we don't dare discuss stripping you of your precious right to keep and bear arms, because you never know when the Militia will call and beg you to take command.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)it's sounding better and better all the time!
Walk away
(9,494 posts)it should be called what it is. Then there could be a "Pro-Gun Control forum". After all, the Pet Forum is maintained as a pro-pet forum. Anyone going there to advocate banning pets would be kicked right out.
LP2K12
(885 posts)to keep it.
peace13
(11,076 posts)I rarely visit most of the forums here. If you aren't interested don't go there! What's next? Don't get me wrong, I am not a gun person. I'm not gay, of ethnic origin or interested in religion. Some of that may bother me. Should we ban those as well?
The solution to our violent society is not so much about the hardware but that we as a people go about the planet killing indiscriminately! We tell ourselves that other cultures don't value family like we do. That some are bred to kill. This justifies our drones and bombs. When violence hits us at home we are so surprised that death could find us. We need help all right. It starts with our global policy and ends on Main Street!
Springslips
(533 posts)(Note: I think it's a bit ironic that the OP's avatar is a baby holding a sci-fi gun. If the OP is really concern with gun culture I suggest he/she change her avatar. It is too easy to point elsewhere in times like these than to look at yourself first.)
My view of the Democratic Party is one of a big tent where disagreement happen and should be discussed in rational way. ( which is an epic fail by both sides in the current mud-ball match on-going over guns.) Although, there are certain attitudes one can not have to be a Dem ( racists ones, blatant sexism and hatred of women, homophobia, anti-union, ect) the gun issue has never been one of them. To band a group because one says it has NRA talking points is problematic, as that in itself is an ad homonym and strawman attack:being a point made by the NRA doesn't make the point automatically wrong; a point is wrong or right because of its level of soundness or validity--which can be pointed out in a point-counter point argument without need of using logical fallacies.
The need to band a group based on logical fallacies gives me the impression that the OP side hasn't the ability to argue their views effectively, are losing the battle and have decided that the best way to impose their views is by gagging the opposition--a strategy that goes counter to the democratic belief and conversation and the spirit of free speech. The gun control faction needs to temper their emotional outbursts and activate their reasoning part of their mind if they choose to advance their cause.( to be fair, the gun group people are also acting emotionally with bad arguments but this post was started by a control advocate.)
I do not own guns, have no attraction to them, and I don't have a side. Though we need to have some better control of guns, I support the second amendment. So I haven't decided what change I would support? The discussion here on DU about it hasn't helped me decide; both sides sound like ranting maniacs, and both need their act together.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)that affects them?
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)It's silly and really just makes me
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Have a really good day.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Never will you find a more wretched hive of RMNJs and idiocy.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)I feel nearly as icky as one of my infrequent visits to Free Republic or Redstate.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Not because gun ownership is a problem, but gun fetishism is.
And we need to make NRA derived talking points, which are actually divorced from reality, need to be made as socially unacceptable as drunk driving.
I think that seismic shift in the culture is underway and regulations are forthcoming.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)And I hope you are right about change coming. There was a caller on Stephanie Miller this morning. A gun owner and military member. He said seven day waiting periods, psychological evaluations and doing away with gun shows would be okay with him. He supports the right to own a gun and the second amendment but did think more should be done to make gun owners more responsible. Personally gave me hope that sanity will prevail.
I'd like to see a ban on automatic weapons though.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Automatics have been illegal since 1934, but limiting the clip sized of semi automatics, smart gun technology, closing the loopholes and getting rid of toned down infantry weapons, sure.
It goes without saying, background checks...and I would like to make them more stringent.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)If we can keep it open to ALL SIDES in the conversation, I think we should.
Rider3
(919 posts)This is the reality of today's world. I'd rather have the conversation here, with adults typing back and forth, than on various TV channels, where children (and people who are not very stable) can easily see them and be affected.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I do think its unfair that anti-gun, anti-Nra posters like myself have on our transparency record that I am in that group often, but it don't say I am ANTI GUN ANTI NRA
therefore a reader might think I am one of the Pro GUN people which I am not
that said-
I am very uncomfortable with outright dropping the group, would like a more happy compromise.
Can there be subsections of that group-perhaps a second group of ANTI GUN with their own group leader
so that anti-gun can feel they are on home turf, not just visiting???
that is the one problem. I feel like I am a visitor and not on equal footing when I go there to argue.
But I am not one to censor, so I am not going to vote to remove it. But I do not that there are not as many posters there as they might want you to believe, just that they are quick to respond to any negative gun post and all
Btw-Most of the posters there have treated me decently, which is something I can't say for another group on this board who account for 99% of those ignoring me(so they won't be reading this I guess). (Me, I ignore no one.)
Little Star
(17,055 posts)discussion our president wants us to have.
There is no problem solving discussion with people who will live and die for the right to own assault rifles and extended clips. They will do anything to avoid what they see as a slippery slope just so they can keep a rifle or handgun.
renie408
(9,854 posts)Cause now THAT I could get behind.
Is there any chance, any chance at all, that some of you people could just grow up the tiniest bit? OH MY GOD!! There are people here who disagree with you!! There are people here who do not have the same specific definition of liberal or progressive that you have!! How WILL you or the DU survive such a horror!!
Well, we have for quite awhile now. Do I agree with just about ANYTHING the leading lights of the gungeon say?? Not really. Do I think we should remove their forum? No.
Do I think the 'management' of the DU gives a rat's ass about these ridiculous polls? Not on your life. And nor should they.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)well, mostly them, and a few brave souls that argue with them.
the regulars, mostly stay in there and venturing out into GD is mostly limited to anti-black and/or gun control topics.
sdfernando
(4,935 posts)but I don't see how removing the gun forum is helpful. Open communication and discuss is vital to finding a way to preventing tragedies like Newtown.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)llmart
(15,540 posts)Only got back into it right before the election.
