Gun bill "dead" in Vermont

[Lurks Often]

Link: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/25/gun-restriction-bill-called-dead/23999219/

Hmm, there seems to be Democrats, including the governor of VT, against further gun laws.

I'm confused, I keep being told be some here that all Democrats are support gun control. I guess the Democrats in Vermont against gun control aren't "real" Democrats.

[brendan120678]

1. I love that Vermont has some of the country's most "liberal" gun regulations...

Liberal as in, fewest restrictions.
Not the most restrictions.

That word gets so confusing!!

[DonP]

2. Easy answer - they're not "real" Democrats

I had it explained to me a couple of weeks ago, when I pointed out that the Illinois legislature has had Dem super majorities in both houses for over a decade, a Dem speaker of the House in place for 32 years and they passed our "Shall Issue" concealed carry bill.

This year the same Dems are sponsoring several new bills to loosen the 16 hour training requirement, allow carry on public transportation as well as in a few other places.

The grabber's answer was, "they weren't "Real Dems" and they all needed to be primaried in the next election and replaced", even though they all win with comfortable margins in every election.

So the answer is ... Vermont isn't really progressive and those DINOs all need to go ASAP.

[ileus]

3. 2A progressives doing the work of the people.

Now that's the Democratic party I joined in 1988.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. I blame all the toothless rednecks running around Vermont.

[GGJohn]

5. I'll bet there's at least 2 sad people over in the other group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628262

Guess it didn't turn out like they hoped it would.

[pablo_marmol]

6. LOL!

One of them said......."It all makes sense to me."

[Lurks Often]

7. And they rarely post about their losses in the courts and legislatures

[DonP]

8. Very different standards for "winning" and "losing"

There some days when I swear they have Charlie Sheen as one of their posters, when they applaud any proposed gun regulation as if it already passed and one of them shouts the equivalent of "WINNING" as if it mattered.

I think they actually believe the "tide has turned" in spite of the evidence in their face.

They are still desperately clinging by their fingernails to the meme that there really aren't more new gun owners actually there are actually far fewer people that own guns, each with a lot more guns. In spite of the hard evidence from places like Illinois, with over 250,000 new FOID cards last year alone. I pointed that out and was told "Well, Illinois is an anomaly with its new concealed carry law". But only 100,000 have concealed carry so far, hmmm?

"Winning" for the grabbers equals things like ...
- A pro 2nd post gets hidden
- Another new poster in their safe haven gets banned
- A person shoots themselves and it's in the news
- Some congressional back bencher sends out a fund raising letter claiming they are going after the NRA/Big Gun manufacturers etc. please send me $3 so I can keep up the good fight.
- Somebody claims to have donated to a gun control group.
- The BATFE tries to claim a new restriction and they think it bans all AR ammo.

"Losing"
Well, they seem to have lost the concept and all their calendars, since it's been over 20 years since a new gun restriction has passed. So the concept of losing or changing their failed tactics never occurs to them.

Kind of like the Three Stooges doing the same thing over and over; "Here Curly, I'll hold this nail and when I nod my head you hit it. OK Moe".

[Electric Monk]

10. re: "The BATFE tries to claim a new restriction and they think it bans all AR ammo." Um no, that was

you guys, not us. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=160924

Try and keep your hateful rhetoric at least somewhat based in reality, ok? Thanks

[Duckhunter935]

11. If you actually read his post

He was responding to this part

"Will this ammunition pierce body armor commonly used by police today?"

from this post in your group

There is much discussion on whether the M855 ammunition meets the definition of "armor piercing" due to it's construction. Such discussion is beside the point, the only salient question is,"Will this ammunition pierce body armor commonly used by police today?" If that answer is yes, then it is, by performance, armor piercing regardless of arcane arguments over a definition. As a holder of a Curio and Relic FFL I see no value in having this ammunition available to the general public for either pistol or rifle use.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628210

and rightly stated that almost all centerfire rifle cartridges will in fact go through the vest. If that is what the poster wanted as the reason for the ban, then yes, most ammo would in fact be banned. The ammunition in question does not meet the ATF definition of armor piercing as it has mostly a lead core. Since the original post with that proposal came from your group, you are just plain wrong again.

A little reading comprehension does go a long way. once again, fail

By the way, you still have not answered that simple question I asked you.

[DonP]

13. Now you're just being funny

You want to see "hateful rhetoric"?

Check out your own "compassionate" and "morally superior" forum members with applause and "serves them right" for accidental gun deaths. With no admonition of course from the forum's so called "host" to watch what they say about those deaths.

No wonder you are, as a group, utterly ineffectual with your laughable "activism".

Now go find more cartoons that other people thought of and drew to show everyone how dreadfully "witty" you all are.

Pathetic again.

[Electric Monk]

14. I'm not responsible for every post in that Group. My job is to keep out the gunthusiasts.

I volunteered to host because there were no active hosts and it needed one. I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject, or even all that active an activist.

And, here are some cartoons for you, as requested

[GGJohn]

16. Utter bullshit.

That's a cop out, as the host, you most certainly are responsible for the policing of that group and you can do something about the hate fest, for instance, you could quietly PM offending members and ask them to tone it down, you could block the most egregious for their constant vile insults, etc.

So don't pretend that there's nothing you can do about it.

[Electric Monk]

21. I truly don't give a shit if gunthusiasts feel disrespected when reading the GCRA group.

It is not for you.

[GGJohn]

22. Then why the fuck are you here insulting us? eom.

[Electric Monk]

25. This group we're currently in is for both sides, despite your wishes otherwise.

[GGJohn]

26. You have a real bad habit of not giving straight answers.

I'll ask again, why the fuck are you here insulting us?

[Duckhunter935]

31. he will not answer that

It is bullshit and it is his job to moderate the comments of that group. Since he allows them to stand, he must agree with those insults. More than once he has posted direct insults to me in thsi group and that is just not civil.

[Electric Monk]

24. (edit: replied to wrong post. nt)

[DonP]

17. Now that's real courage of your convictions!

Weren't you just pointing out, in another thread, about how Skinner outlined that Hosts have total responsibility for running their groups? They can hide posts, ban or suspend members etc.? And we should all stop whining about "your group"?

You're only there because nobody else wanted to be bothered?

Really? With "90% of America agreeing with you", you couldn't find one hard core DU gun control supporter to step in?

"It needed one (host)?

Why? If nobody wanted to be bothered to host it and you were averaging 2 or 3 posts a week it means no one was interested in the forum/group. Why not just let the group go the way of the also embarrassing "John Edwards for President" forum?

You're not an expert or activist either?

Well, I guess that's actually pretty obvious based on lack of results alone.

As for the cartoons that pass for your idea of reasoned intelligent discussion, try Dagwood & Blondie instead, it's far more intellectual than what you have now.

But thanks for making this your favorite group. We look forward to future chances to correct your errors.

[Electric Monk]

20. Hosts can not hide posts, they can only block members or lock threads. Juries hide posts.

If you think a post is over the top and offends your delicate sensibilities, send it to a jury.

[GGJohn]

23. Or, you could PM them and ask them to tone it down,

you're continued excuses for not policing that group is nothing more than a cop out.

[Duckhunter935]

35. The host here asked me to tone it down

I removed the posts

Very easy for a host to do.

[GGJohn]

36. Yep, but we all know he has no interest in reining in the more virulent ones in his group. eom.

[Duckhunter935]

37. yep nt

[DonP]

29. Another patehtic, cop out excuse for bad behavior in your "safe haven"

Must be tough to keep all 5 active posters in line there.

How long before there's another thread celebrating someone's accidental death that you either pretend to ignore or jump in with both feet to join the dancing?

[sarisataka]

32. It does even have to accidental anymore

it's ok (in GCRA) to ridicule murder victims who live in the wrong state:

I'm sure they arranged to be buried with their guns, and have the profile of their favorite piece carved onto their headstones. The one who died of natural causes must have a very, very embarrassed ghost...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628341#post1
-not that I have seen a report stating any victims had a gun...

[DonP]

33. Some very, very sick cookies down yonder

I'm kinda glad they don't own guns with that attitude.

[NaturalHigh]

18. "My job is to keep out the gunthusiasts."

By gunthusiasts, does that mean everyone who doesn't agree with you?

Cool cartoons, though, bro. They really raise the level of discourse on the subject.

[blueridge3210]

15. Accurately describing the GCRA position regarding centerfire ammunition

is "hateful rhetoric"? Really? Could you keep your definitions somewhat based in reality?

Sorry that giving an accurate description of the position taken by the group that you host has hurt your "feewings", but this is a discussion board and it is a valid topic of discussion.

[NaturalHigh]

19. "Hateful rhetoric"?

Dude, you're killing me! Discussion is hardly "hateful rhetoric."

For an example of hateful rhetoric, I suggest you look at the group that you host.

[Duckhunter935]

12. How about never?

[NaturalHigh]

9. Those darned Vermont DINOs.

You mean they don't want to take away rights? Why that's just almost fascism.

[upaloopa]

27. I don't know why you see this as Dem or not Dem

The gun control issue is not political in my opinion as is health care or privatizing social security.
I think it is wrong to say that since the gun lobby has Dems as members, it has legitimacy.
I don't mean my post as for or against guns it's just not a Dem or Repub issue to me.

[Lurks Often]

28. I was being sarcastic

There are some on the gun control side that think ALL Democrats, if they are good Democrats according to gun control extremists, are supposed to be in favor of gun control.

Gun control isn't a Democrat vs Republican thing, it is more the urban areas and their immediate suburbs vs other suburban areas and rural areas.

[upaloopa]

30. Ok I agree with you

[DonP]

34. When I pointed out that a "Downstate Dem" sponsored our conceal carry bill ...

.. in Illinois and is now sponsoring some amendments to the law, one of the control folks that support control immediately insisted that he should be primaried and replaced with a "real Dem". Which is a "not a chance in hell" in that Red County.

See, it's OK to bad mouth a Dem legislator or candidate in the Gungeon, if they are pro 2nd amendment, even if it means losing seats to the GOP

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. It's even OK to support groups that work against Democrats

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172140392

Gun controllers attempt to suppress a Democratic fundraiser...

...for closely-run races in states where an antigun candidate wouldn't stand a chance.

The next time someone extolls any of the mentioned groups, or claims that support
for gun control and support for the Democratic Party are one and the same, show them this:

http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/gun-control-groups-urge-cancellation-of-hollywood-fundraiser-for-mark-begich-and-mark-pryor-1201141065/

Almost a year ago, in the aftermath of the shootings in Newtown, Conn., a number of entertainment industry activists decried a vote that prevented the Senate from moving forward background check legislation. Some vowed to withhold support from Democrats who voted “No,” including Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), both of whom are in the midst of tough reelection races...


...In a letter sent to Cindy Horn on Wednesday afternoon, the groups urged her to cancel the fundraiser, or, in the alternative, that they instead raise funds for Senate candidates in tough races who voted for the background checks, including Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.).

The groups, including Women Against Gun Violence, the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Violence Prevention Coalition and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, wrote to Horn that “when Senators from far-flung places come to California to fuel their campaigns, we hope that you will remind them that you’re not their personal ATM. You have a right to ask why they deserve their support...

...The groups asked in their letter, ”Is ‘Democrat’ merely a box on a ballot, to be checked at any cost?”

I'd say yes. I'd even go further, and say that anyone and any organization who'd work towards a goal that would help Republicans defeat Democrats isn't progressive and shouldn't be supported at DU

The text of the letter can be found here:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101512826

"Gun Activists Demand Cancellation of Hollywood Fundraiser"

[pablo_marmol]

39. It's truly amazing how so many "liberals" are absolutely in love with Vermont

while being completely unaware at how liberal its gun laws are. Same with Oregon.

A good way to induce cognitive dissonance among these folks is to fill them in about "how terrible" their gun laws are! LOL!