Starbucks Boycott Over Marriage Equality Spurs Tenfold Backlash

[hyphenate]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/03/26/451744/starbucks-boycott-over-marriage-equality-spurs-tenfold-backlash/

Starbucks Boycott Over Marriage Equality Spurs Tenfold Backlash
By Zack Ford on Mar 26, 2012 at 12:35 pm

The National Organization for Marriage’s decision to boycott Starbucks for the company’s support of the freedom to marry has turned out to be a dismal failure. In the five days since NOM launched its “Dump Starbucks” petition, it has only gotten 19,000 signatures, compared to the nearly 250,000 individuals who have signed SumOfUs’s retaliatory “Thank You, Starbucks” card. In fact, SumOfUs has gotten over 8,000 new signers since 8:30 this morning.

Not only is NOM’s petition failing when it comes to numbers, it’s also failing when it comes to authenticity. As Jeremy Hooper has tracked, Dump Starbucks counts any information that is submitted, but that hasn’t stopped NOM from boasting about its campaign repeatedly all weekend. Worse yet, it seems that the site can’t even provide an accurate count of who is signing — either that or the organization is intentionally manipulating the numbers to make the petition look more successful that it is, which of course it isn’t anyway.

rest at link

[arthritisR_US]

1. Time to go out and get me a latte :) n/t

[BlueIris]

25. That's what I did yesterday!

Yum!

[elleng]

2. NATURALLY! What'd the f*****s expect?

[bluestateguy]

3. Buycott!!!

as much as possible.

[Snarkaholic]

10. Done!

I just returned from one of their Atlantic City stores. I bought a venti hot chocolate, almonds, brownies, candy bars, and ALL of their Madeleines (84 packages). My total came to $191.52.

I don't usually shop at Starbucks because I'm not a fan of coffee, but I will be dropping in a lot more in the future, as well as doing my best to patronize any and all other companies that NOM dislikes.

Very best wishes to you all.

[sarisataka]

4. Why is everybody picking on Starbucks?

Last month an anti-gun group called for a Starbucks boycott because they would not ban customers from legally carrying guns. Starbucks was inundated with two dollar bills,representing the second amendment. Now this?

Any gay gun owner groups out there?

Or maybe a PFLAG/NRA Day at Starbucks?

Think of the publicity that would get

[iverglas]

6. you're thinking of something called Pink Pistols

Well, actually, it pretends to be about LGBT stuff, but it's really just a wing of the Libertarian Party in bed with the NRA.

Gun militants are well organized, very well funded, and loud. And one of their favourite pastimes is sitting around in casual restaurants in groups with guns attached to their bodies where everybody can see them (in states where that is legal, which aren't that rare). They do this "to exercise their rights". Presumably that's why they jump off high bridges, too: because it's their right.

They are right-wing assholes, astroturf for the right wing. The NRA itself is so blatantly right wing one should wear protective eye gear when looking at it. Why anybody would even consider associating with them would be beyond me. The publicity from associating with the NRA would make enemies of everyone on its enemies list -- and that one is 19 pages long, and includes a bunch of LGBT celebrities and such.

Starbucks is a giant corporation that I, personally, wouldn't patronize if I were dying of caffeine withdrawal, for reasons not too different from the reasons why I don't patronize McDonalds or Walmart. Obviously they think that pandering to gun militants is profitable, although that strikes me as unlikely. Obviously, too, supporting the LBGT community makes good business sense, and I'm quite sure they're right. They're doing the right thing there for whatever reason, and there's certainly no harm in handing out some positive reinforcement.

I realize the suggestion was at least partially tongue in cheek. But we're talking not just about the homophobic right-wing NRA, we're talking about people whose most fervent desire is to take and flaunt their control of the public spaces of society, from the internet to the coffee outlet on the corner. And what better visual representation of that occupation is there than a gun strapped to their leg? Inclusionary public space is important to the LBGT community, as it is to any vulnerable minority group. The NRA, and people with guns in coffee outlets, really are not after the same goals.

[sarisataka]

7. Well...

You managed to insult me at least four times there. Don't worry,refereeing soccer for many years has made my skin thick and crusty.

Yes my idea is very tongue in cheek. I just enjoy the irony that Starbucks faces boycotts for not alienating both the right and left.

Imagine if you would though, a coffee shop full of good ol'boys wearing their shootin' irons openly sitting across from same sex partners, finding understanding of each other over a cup of coffee.

It would be a living John Lennon song.

Fox and MSNBC would be speechless.

[Starboard Tack]

19. Please don't insult John Lennon

He would never have imagined a world with coffee shops filled with "good ol'boys wearing their shootin' irons openly sitting across from same sex partners".

[sarisataka]

81. I do not know Mr. Lennon's

views on gun control and remember he was taken far too early by a deranged individual.

But isn't he telling us to imagine what could be rather than what can't be?

[Starboard Tack]

83. Yes, and I'm pretty sure it was a world without guns in the streets.

His life was taken by a deranged individual. You conveniently left out that said individual killed him with a handgun.

[sarisataka]

87. I wanted to let you point that out

So he could not have been stabbed in the back with a knife? The level of crazy that individual was will find a way to his goal.

I believe the line was "Imagine no possessions"
I am willing to start with mutual understanding, then there will be "Nothing to kill or die for"

[Kolesar]

124. Imagine complete sentences

Your post leaves a lot to be desired. If there is a point to it, I will never know because I gave up after two tries.

[sarisataka]

128. Subject, verb, predicate

Looks like a sentence to me.

Maybe grammar has changed recently?

[Starboard Tack]

125. I that how you feel? "Nothing to kill or die for"

It's a wonderful ideal that can only be realized by showing an example to others. Carrying a gun, even on the pretext of self defense, is moving in the opposite direction. You have to stand up for what you believe in, not what you're told to believe in. Hiding behind RKBA to justify one's fears and insecurities will always lead us backwards.

[sarisataka]

129. It is a wonderful ideal

But we do not live in a world of wonderful people.

Long ago I wrote a paper advocating public armories which people would store their guns in, to check them out for target shooting or hunting. Unfortunately college teaches you to think and question, so I did.

There were two sides to self defense. One was crazy, paranoid worried that their rights would be taken away but wanted everyone to have the right to choose. The other side also crazy, spoke reasonably and wanted to choose for me. They knew best, had an answer to everything... except how it would protect people from criminals. They also had some people who did not practice what they preached, but the movement was willing to overlook that.
I had previously read Animal Farm and I saw parallels.

After obtaining an International Relations degree I joined the military for a term. First hand I observed the failure of diplomacy and man's inhumanity to man. I stayed until retirement.

Back in the civilian world I still didn't carry. My guns were for target shooting which I learned to enjoy; my hunting is done with a camera. I saw some of the inhumanity going on even here, on a smaller scale. I was too old now for law enforcement so I looked at what I could do. I checked the two sides again; both still there and farther apart than ever.

I have seen repeatedly good people do what is right, play by the rules and bad people take advantage, laughing at the idea of fair play.

I made my choice. I now am a security consultant and firearms instructor. I will teach anyone safety and proper handling but if you want me to teach you to use a weapon in self defense or for carry I require you to read either On Killing by Lt. Col. Grossman or In the Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob before I will teach. Most people have no clue beyond movies about the psychological toll of taking a life and like virginity, once you do it you can't get it back.

I stand for what I believe. That is why I am here. I do not expect to change anyone's mind but I will challenge their beliefs and assertions. It is interesting to see who can debate a point and who falls back on name calling and out of hand dismissal.
And believe me there is a pro-gun board or two that gets the same treatment.

If you chose differently than I fine. I hold pacifists in the highest regard. I like reading about Ghandi and his ideals. I also read the late Jeff Cooper to get a laugh, Mein Kampf to learn what lies in the depths of an evil mind and paranormal romance to get a little titillation.

Insecurities, I have walked to far to worry about. I am afraid of heights and am really creeped out by centipedes; nothing should have that many legs. I had taken off the rose colored glasses and looked critically at the world. It has cost me some idealism but not my optimism. Maybe one day I will take the pistol off my hip and only teach the safe handling. I would love my other course to become obsolete.


now to be snarky- wouldn't one hide behind one's fears and insecurities to justify RBKA. (Some day I will tell you about my sarcastic streak )

[Starboard Tack]

130. Thanks for sharing. Interesting.

"But we do not live in a world of wonderful people"
Now that is a point you've arrived at, but is your cup half full or half empty? You say you are an optimist and I take you at your word. I think we do live in a world of wonderful people. Doesn't mean there aren't some anomalies in there. Sure, there's violence out there, but adding more guns in the street to the equation is no solution. It only serves to abrade the social fabric, making folk suspicious of each other, isolating themselves. I respect your decision and your profession. You are performing an essential service for many people. I'm not a pacifist, nor am I opposed to gun ownership and home defense. I am opposed to the behavior of routine carrying in public. I understand the arguments in favor of it, but I oppose it out of reason, not emotion. That said, if folk are going to engage in such behavior, then they should be trained and qualified by instructors like yourself. Unfortunately, more and more are not trained or are trained inadequately. The consequences are more Zimmermans.
I think the culture is at fault, rather than the laws. The glorification of gun violence. The idea that having a handgun and shooting someone is macho or cool and necessary for some gang initiation.
I think the message needs to go out that guns are not cool, in fact, they are very uncool. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy shooting guns and have since I was a kid. But, they are not cool when used to resolve conflicts, prove oneself, acquire things, protect things and most of all, to take lives.

As long as guns are touted as the best tools of self defense, the problem will not go away. It's the classic self-fulfilling prophesy. Truth is, as I'm sure you teach, the gun is the absolute last resort tool of self defense. Fact is, the situational awareness level, of anyone carrying a firearm, should be so high they should never need a gun. But they get used to wearing it, or the book told them they should get in the habit. I'm a little wary of habits, though I can see how tempting it might be. But I find it a little Faustian and not the way I want to set an example in my world.

[sarisataka]

131. "But we do not live in a world of wonderful people"

I did not mean for that statement to be an absolute though it may seem I did.
I have met many wonderful people, some of them had been trying to kill me moments before. It was their job; I don't hold grudges.
Of all the awards I have the one I hold most dear is a purple blue and black strip buried in the middle of other bits of colored cloth. It is the Humanitarian Service Medal, received when we deployed into a disaster zone.

I think the culture is at fault, rather than the laws. The glorification of gun violence. The idea that having a handgun and shooting someone is macho or cool and necessary for some gang initiation.

Lt. Col. Grossman goes into this at some length in his book. He argues that our current culture and entertainment is similar to the techniques used in military training to break down our innate resistance to violence. I am not sure I buy into the theory completely but it has given me food for thought and to reevaluate some of my ideas. I strongly believe in the phrase "You never stop learning"

I think the message needs to go out that guns are not cool, in fact, they are very uncool. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy shooting guns and have since I was a kid. But, they are not cool when used to resolve conflicts, prove oneself, acquire things, protect things and most of all, to take lives.

I agree 100%. My own children are very aware of guns and that they are extremely dangerous. They do not touch even toy guns without first asking permission. Never the less I do not take chances. Any gun not secured on my person is under lock and key.
They look forward to the day when they can shoot a real gun, my 5 year old boy believes "When I(he) am 85" Love him and I have until he is 18 to teach him right...

Your last paragraph is a good summary. Most people should not carry a gun as they are not prepared to use it, hence my little reading assignment. Not everyone has the ability (disability?) to take the life of another, even at the cost of their own. There is no shame in that. I wish everyone was of that mind set then we would live in peace with each other.
Our best weapon lies between our ears. Avoid, retreat, not out of duty but because it is the smartest damn thing you can do, deescalate and if you have to engage, think one last time. The time dilation in a violent encounter makes each second seem like ten. Force your brain to its max before that trigger reaches the point of no return.

Have one on me To Peace and Safety

[DougKrick]

11. The Pink Pistols

"Well, actually, it pretends to be about LGBT stuff, but it's really just a wing of the Libertarian Party in bed with the NRA. "

Uh, no.

I'm speaking as Krikket (a.k.a. Doug Krick, Founder of the Pink Pistols). When I set up the group, I was hoping it would grow into something that would point people to the Libertarian Party, as I was a candidate for office at the time. But I kept the group separate from politics. The only issues it supports are Gun Rights and Queer Rights. The only issue it acts on are Gun Rights.

When the Pink Pistols were formed only 29 of the 50 states had concealed carry. Now 49 out of 50 do. I'm not going to claim that the Pink Pistols were responsible for that, but I like to think we've done our part in making it happen.

We work with the NRA. We are not "in bed with the NRA". I've told the legislative branch of the NRA (NRA-ILA) that they are far to willing to compromise on the rights of gun owners. Major gun-control bills were written with the support of the NRA (including the gun control ban of 1968)! The Pink Pistols have said it's time to stop supporting the giving away our rights as pieces of salami, until none are left, and get those rights back!

[iverglas]

14. Oleg Volk has been here before you ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125944&mesg_id=126520

... and is no longer here. (Just click on the beside his name there.)

See also my reply there (among dozens on the subject over the years):

"We're here, we're queer -- and we're voting Libertarian"

In the Guns forum at the previous version of DU, the moderator ruled that posting approval of the Pink Pistols violated the terms of service of this website, which now read:

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. ...

The Pink Pistols enemies list seems to have been taken off line. I posted about it here at DU:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=918614&mesg_id=922490

http://www.pinkpistols.org/antigun.html

The following organizations have lent monetary, grassroots or some other type of direct support to Anti-Gun organizations. In many instances, these organizations lent their name in support of specific campaigns to pass Anti-Gun legislation such as the March 1995 HCI "Campaign to Protect Sane Gun Laws." Many of these organizations were listed as "Campaign Partners," for having pledged to fight any efforts to repeal the Brady Act and the Clinton "assault weapons" ban. All have officially endorsed Anti-Gun positions.

For more details on these companies or groups, see the section on Anti-Gun Corporations/Corporate Heads, below.

This detailed information is being supplied, to make the owners of stocks, and users of products and services, totally aware, of whom these organizations or people are.

It would take many pages to print out; I assume it's just cribbed from the NRA's enemies list.

If you're a Methodist, you're there. If you belong to the ACLU or the American Bar Association, you're there. Most people at DU are probably there, one way or another.

College Democrats is there. The Women's National Democratic Club is there. The YWCA is there. The United Nations is there. The Union of American Hebrew Congregations is there. The Unitarian Universalists are there and the United Church of Christ is there. Physicians for Social Responsibility and PETA and People for the American Way are there.

... Their links page:
http://www.pinkpistols.org/links.html

No Democratic links there. No links to anywhere I'd want to be going. Not even, oh, the Human Rights Committee. Not a single GLBT-focused/friendly kinda link at all.

I suspect you're getting my drift.

But hey, it's always nice to hear from the horse's mouth:

We work with the NRA. We are not "in bed with the NRA". I've told the legislative branch of the NRA (NRA-ILA) that they are far to willing to compromise on the rights of gun owners. Major gun-control bills were written with the support of the NRA (including the gun control ban of 1968)! The Pink Pistols have said it's time to stop supporting the giving away our rights as pieces of salami, until none are left, and get those rights back!

[DougKrick]

24. Thanks for the heads-up!

Thanks for the heads up on that. Although technically I am a Democratic Party member according to the State of Illinois.

I'm an election judge and support neither the D or R parties, but vote based on the candidate (and lean towards L). As there we needed more D judges at my polling station (so we wouldn't have to import more of 'em) I voted Democratic in the primaries this year. I am not pushing a 3rd party or Republican agenda, merely correcting some facts, so hopefully I'll be safe...

Regarding the link of "enemies" of the Pink Pistols (as termed by the DU, not the PP) that was a list of groups that opposed gun rights. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for not supplying a positive link to the Human Rights Committee, why would the Pink Pistols endorse a group that's been run by anti-gun activists?!?

Krikket
(aka Doug Krick)

[William769]

16. FYI.

I'm a gun toting pissed off homosexual and a firm believer in the 2nd amendment as a viable way for the Gay community to protect ourselves since it is clear our Government is incapable of protecting us.

I have also donated money to pink pistols for the good work they do. And yes the pink pistols are NOT in bed with the NRA.

But I am a Democrat and I will always vote for a Democrat.

[obamanut2012]

23. Right there with you

Just add a CCW permit to my post, and I cosign what you wrote.

[iverglas]

33. one for you, now

Any thoughts on this event?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=68076&mesg_id=68129

iverglas
Wed Jun-30-04 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #22

23. here's a fun one

http://www.hellinahandbasket.net/archives/001214.html

It reproduces the message in question and makes idiotic comments about it, these being the only reasons I link to such tripe.

Here's the message:

Dear members of the Pink Pistols,

This is official notice and response to the email below that I received today.

NO FIREARMS, LOADED OR UNLOADED, CONCEALED OR EXPOSED WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE PARADE LINE-UP, THE PRIDE PARADE, NOR THE PRIDE FESTIVAL.

Should anyone bring a firearm this Stonewall Columbus event, the firearm will be confiscated and not returned and the individual will be rejected from the event. I have notified all Pride Committee members and co-chairs and I will also alert all security personnel and the police.

I appreciate your group but we at Stonewall Columbus cannot allow any opportunity for violence to occur, intentional or unintentional. There will also be no solicited like you did last year, if so, you will be aske to leave. It is past the deadline for a booth but we will be happy to sell you a booth space. If you want a space to distribute your literature and to sign up members, email Michael Dutcher at (snip)

This may seem severe to you but it is nothing more than an attempt to keep all people safe and afford them the opportunity to have the most fun they can have on Saturday. I would greatly appreciate all of your members being notified immediately, so that you can make alternative plans.

Sincerely, Kate Anderson, Executive Director, Stonewall Columbus

And here's the idiotic commentary (my emphasis):

In past years, the parade organizers have tolerated a group of people who belonged to NAMBLA. They said that as long as they weren't actually engaged in pedophilia then it wouldn't have been right to exclude them from the festivities.

So now we know that the gay community thinks that people who advocate lawful gun ownership are worse than people who advocate pedophilia. Just beyond belief.

Beyond belief indeed.

That someone would copy and paste the actual relevant bit of info -- that the group/individuals s/he finds distasteful ARE NOT ENGAGING in the behaviour in question -- and then disregard it in favour of making the false claim that the organizers "think" that a group/individuals who ARE ENGAGING in the behaviour in question in their case, i.e. CARRYING WEAPONS, *not* "advocating" ANYTHING, are "worse" than the former group.

Lies, lies, damned lies.

The parade is on public property, so I don't think the CCW laws allow them to 'disallow' attending armed, though it might be included in the parade permit.

Well, fuckin' duh, fuckin' eh?

Parade organizers who are unable to ensure compliance with the conditions of their permit aren't too likely to get a permit next year.

A personal account of the upshot:

Long story short.. the police came, they didn't know what to do either, we talked with them after they'd huddled for a bit and eventually agreed (with the police) that we'd allow ourselves to be escorted off the park property.. instead of being taken to jail for criminal trespassing. It was the only thing they could come up with.. it was such a nice day..we didn't really want to spend it in jail, but I think it was a bluff.. something to do with open carry at an "event" even if it was in a "public" space. It didn't fit the Section 9 thing, since we were openly carrying and the park wasn't posted. The police were great. Sympathetic, agreeable, sorry that we had to suffer through this horrible HB 12 CCW thing.. etc. So, we took our .45 airgun, and my empty .380 (yes, we were such a threat) and left. It's not over. A bunch of us will be filing a suit against Stonewall. For what yet? Don't know, ...

If I were a cop policing a community event and having to remove troublemakers, I think I'd make an effort to be agreeable too. That's called good policing.

Oh, and here we have part of what had disappeared from the pseudo-pinkos' site:

Ohio Pink Pistols Threatened, Ordered to Surrender Firearms at Rally

"Initially three, then later, four members of the Central Ohio Pink Pistols, a group promoting the safe handling of firearms in the GLBT community, were threatened by the Executive Director of Stonewall Columbus, who wielded a 2-foot club, and up to 30 volunteer security personnel at the Stonewall Columbus Pride Event on Saturday, June 26. The Pink Pistols were repeatedly ordered to surrender their legally-owned and carried firearms by a steadily-growing army of guards. Knowing the law was on their side, the Pink Pistols refused to surrender their property or knuckle under to illegal threats of violence, search, and seizure by Stonewall Columbus personnel. Police were summoned at Pink Pistols request. No firearms were surrendered or confiscated, and no arrests were made, as no laws were broken."

Or no firearms were surrendered or confiscated, and no arrests were made, as it was a full moon that night ... whatever.

Nice folks, eh?

Which group would you have been with there?

[DougKrick]

43. The gun toters

I'd have been with the group carrying the firearms.

'Police were summoned at Pink Pistols request. No firearms were surrendered or confiscated, and no arrests were made, as no laws were broken."'

[iverglas]

48. sorry, I was actually speaking to the other poster

I know where you would have been.

Funny dynamics here, you see. Allow me to introduce myself.

I'm a Canadian who has supported LGBT rights all my rather long adult life. The political party I am a member of and have been a candidate for, and supported a gay candidate for leadership of, has consistently supported full rights for LGBT people (the politician in question succeeded in having Parliament amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of federal-jurisdiction private-sector discrimination), including marriage and anything else you can think of. In fact, in Canada, LGBT people are protected by the express guarantee of equal benefit and protection before and under the law, and if there is any discrimination going on here these days, and in the last decade or so -- in relation to marriage, employment, housing, insurance, pensions, benefits, or anything else -- I don't know anybody who's aware of it. And the only people I know who aren't happy about any of that are people I wouldn't cross the street to spit on. Hell, my almost 82-yr-old mother (whose grandson's mother is a married lesbian, although that isn't the reason) gives the other residents of her senior cits' building a gentle but pointed piece of her mind when they start in on same-sex marriage, and they shut up.

And I'm inordinately and of course totally unjustifiably proud of the fact that the 1929 decision of the Privy Council holding that Canada's constitution is a "living tree" (and holding that women were "persons" for the purpose of appointment to the Senate), the precedent always cited as the basis for equality-enhancing interpretations of our constitution including in the same-sex marriage reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, was written by my second cousin four times removed, John Sankey. I unfortunately didn't know that when I was the first lawyer for my city's first gay and lesbian rights organization, many many years ago ...

But I'm an enemy, you see.

That makes you a friend!

[DougKrick]

52. Good for you!

"But I'm an enemy, you see.

That makes you a friend! "

Buah?

[iverglas]

30. fascinating

Not really a "reply", but fascinating.

How did you feel about all this? --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x68076

Those Pink Pistols, they do fine work.

But we all know the enemy of your enemy is your friend ...

From that thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x68076#68119

iverglas Donating Member
Wed Jun-30-04 02:13 PM
Response to Original message

19. oh look

This Republican --

http://www.pinkpistols.com/answers2001/wentling.html

-- got an "A+" rating from the pseudo-pinkos even though he does not support the right of same-sex couples to marry (and his answer to the question about immigration sponsorship of same-sex partners pretty much indicated that he had failed to grasp the question). Looks like the "10 points" got awarded automatically for every other question after he got the guns ones right.

Lordy, what's this one?

http://www.pinkpistols.com/answers2001/michael.html

The only nominal Democrat willing to waste time running against John McCain? Yup -- http://www.lizmichael.org / -- a loon.

Now this Democrat --

http://www.pinkpistols.com/answers2001/jackson.html

-- got only five points for giving the same answer as the Republican buddy for the state-sanctioned relationship questions (supports domestic partnerships for both same- and opposite-sex couples) PLUS supporting same-sex marriages. And here's a score I love:

4) Would you support the banning of some firearms or ammunition? (IE: Saturday night specials, "assault weapons", Hollow points, and "Safety Slugs&quot Why and to what extent?

UNSAFE AND/OR POORLY MANUFACTURED GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED.

0 Points

Zero points for supporting consumer protection legislation.

Oh look --

http://www.pinkpistols.com/answers2001/kerry.html

-- John Kerry got an F. For declining to respond, based on a policy of declining to respond to all of the zillions of questionnaires he receives.

Hmm. D'ya suppose that a whole lot of other Democrats and Republicans follow the same policy? So, what -- if they just didn't bother answering at all (rather than sending a polite acknowledgement declining to answer), they didn't get an F?

Well, here's one other who did:

http://www.pinkpistols.com/answers2001/jajuga.html

Sen. Jajuga asked me to thank you for sending him your political questionnaire. As a matter of policy, Sen. Jajuga does not respond to such surveys. He prefers to consider each individual issue as it arises before making a decision on whether to support or oppose it.

Two general statements about Sen. Jajuga's record and position on issues you identified:

(1) He support reasonable restrictions on gun use and ownership while recognizing the rights of gun owners under the federal constitution; and

(2) He supports equal rights for gay & lesbian people, including anti-discrimination protections and domestic partnership rights.

I hope your organization finds this information helpful.

Well, it isn't exactly 100% politically correct ... but an F??

The remaining Republican --

http://www.pinkpistols.com/answers2001/lee.html

-- got a B for saying

Until the legal definition of marriage is changed, then "marriage" between same-sex couples should not be allowed. I honestly do not know how I would vote for a change in the legal definition.

... and burbling something quite incomprehensible about same-sex partner immigration sponsorships that got him 0 points.

The fact that virtually all of the responses listed are from Libertarians suggests that quite a few others -- Democrats and Republicans -- besides Kerry and Lee didn't respond.

I'll bet Kerry and Jajuga have another distinction on that list, too. I'll bet they're the only ones ever elected to anything.

Static.

I will have a couple more questions ...

[William769]

32. Ask all the questions you want. That does not mean though to expect an answer.

I only answer questions to people who are serious. and people who tend to post hypeotheticals, in an attempt to deceive then self delete because because they can't partake in the deceit any longer, I don't consider serious.

Have a great day iverglas.

[iverglas]

36. and we all know what I think

"puke"

Seriously.

Some people's posts should come with barf bags for those who find real deceit distasteful.

You sure have got yourself some nice friends, here, I must say.

And it sure is fascinating to learn that you have given money to Pink Pistols, the group that rated John Kerry "F" and actively discourages people from voting for Democrats.

Any idea how they rated Obama?

[DougKrick]

50. Wha?!?

"And it sure is fascinating to learn that you have given money to Pink Pistols, the group that rated John Kerry "F" and actively discourages people from voting for Democrats."

I don't remember giving John Kerry an F, and I would have been involved in that process. But to be honest, it wouldn't have surprised me if we did due to his gun rights positions at the time.

But we've *never* actively discouraged *anyone* from voting Democratic. Or Republican. Or Libertarian. Or Green. Not once. The Pink Pistols were designed to be independent of Political Party. When I formed the group, I did happen to think it would form a natural alignment with the Libertarians, but that never happened.

"Any idea how they rated Obama?"

Yeah, we didn't rate any candidates that year. We haven't done any ratings for more than a few years now...

Krikket

[DougKrick]

49. Ask Away

We rated politicians on only 2 issues. 60% based on gun rights and 40% based on Queer rights. (And we defined queer rights as being equal to heterosexual rights. For instance, if a candidate said the govt shouldn't be in the marriage business, then they'd get 10 points for that question, even though opposed to same-sex marriage because they were opposed to all civil (not religious) marriages.)

Also, please provide links that work. The ones you gave don't. It's been too many years since we did those surveys for me to remember the arguments off-hand. But I'll talk about what I can since you ask...

"Zero points for supporting consumer protection legislation."

Correct. I don't remember this questionnaire, but the PP has held that the Govt shouldn't be in the business of protecting us from ourselves. Just as it shouldn't have passed (the now expired) "assault weapons ban" (without defining an "assault weapon", just a list of features to make shooting *safer*.

As for the final Republican you mention, he got 0 points for that answer. But IIRC, on the other 9 questions he got 10 out of 10 points for most of the questions, giving him a grand total of 85 out of 100 points. Which is a B. (90%=A, 80%=B, 70%=C, 60%=D, below = F.)

I don't remember the other democratic candidate questionnaires you mention offhand, unfortunately. Nor do I have access to the questionnaires, as they've been lost in time. If you can find the originals I'll be happy to comment on them, but this post took things out of context.

[iverglas]

70. sorry, but again

I was speaking to someone else. That doesn't mean that you're not welcome to reply, by any means! It just means to be careful that you don't take remarks addressed to someone else as being meant for you. Look at the thread list at the top, or the "response to" link in the upper right of the post you're reading at any time, to follow the sequence.

I apologize for the broken links -- they are all part of material I have quoted that was posted on this board years ago. They worked at the time; I can only offer my word on that.

Since what you're referring to was excerpted from the Pink Pistols own candidate-rating documents -- the questionnaire, responses and commentary -- I'm afraid that you'd be the one to have to find them, not me. Lost in time I guess they are, though.

Pink Pistols doesn't really seem to have a functioning website at present? No, wait, I had to allow a bunch of javascript and wait for it to finish blipping.
http://www.pinkpistols.org/

Links

Gun Related Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Geeks With Guns
Tyrrany Response Team
Gun Owners Action League
Second Amendment Sisters
Keep and Bear Arms.com
Armed Females of America
Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun
Second Amendmendment Foundation
World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock
Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners
Outright Libertarians
NRA Homepage

Additional Links and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Racist Origins of Gun Control
Arming Women Against Rape and Endagerment
Protecting the 2nd Amendment is a GLBT Rights issue
Protecting the 2nd Amendment is a GLBT Rights issue (flier, PDF File)
Article that inspired the name “Pink Pistols”
Ethics of Firepower
Hate-Crime Myth
Free State Project
Integrity In Service

Just the standard right-wing (and racist and misogynist) horseshit, from what I see.

Am I missing the links to LGBT organizations / causes?


Ah, I see the mention of hate crimes in "about us".

The Pink Pistols came into existence because of problem of “hate crimes”. While “hate crimes” may target certain groups, they undermine the “human rights” of all, because if we tolerate violence against any one group, we tolerate violence against all.

Allow me to boast a little more -- I forgot to mention this, an amendment (the bolded part below) also sponsored by Svend Robinson who was my choice for leader of my poliitical party (unfortunately, we had a delegate system then, and my riding association was hijacked by supporters of the establishment candidate who won all the delegate seats on a 50%+1 majority vote, including the final space when I made the plea to select me as the last delegate as one little tiny bit of evidence of good faith toward the long-time members there):

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html

Criminal Code of Canada
Other sentencing principles

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor, ...

Does the Pink Pistols actually engage in any political activity to counter hate crimes, e.g. by lobbying for inclusion of sexual orientation in such legislation where it exists?

Many straight people also oppose “hate crimes” because they too see “hate crimes” for what they are, “human rights violations”. As such, the Pink Pistols has and will continue to have “Gay-Straight Alliances” because our lives depend on it. Many gun rights leaders have committed to help us grow and will open doors for us to help grow our chapters because they too recognize that self defense is a fundamental human right for all. Our “Pink Pistol” chapters offer us the opportunity to help each other.

Any gay-gay alliances you could mention then? Between Pink Pistols and any other LGBT organization you might name?

[DougKrick]

74. News and Organization regarding the Pink Pistols.

Thanks for the clarification on the links and replies. Still getting used to this system.

Some of those links are right-wing, I agree. Not all of them. (Unless you consider run rights to equal right wing... Personally, I consider myself much closer to the Democratic Party than the Republican Right Wing loonies.)

The website is currently being redone from it's last incarnation which fell more than a little out-of-date. The reason there aren't more Queer groups on the site is because most of the Queer Community Leaders (as opposed to the members of the Queer Community) are opposed to "gun rights". As a result, the majority (if not all) of the Queer groups out there have been/are opposed to the Pink Pistols. The only *negative* news article that I can remember came from "Bay Windows", a Queer oriented paper published in Boston. In general those groups want to have nothing to do with us, but the firearm community has not only welcomed us with open arms, but actively sought us out on occasion.

[ellisonz]

17. How would you answer this argument against Libertarians?

[rrneck]

20. Good toon. nt

[ellisonz]

22. Yeah I mean, by promoting the Libertarian Party...

...he's supporting the Republican Party which seeks to deprive us of our rights. I frankly find that to be a luxury of opinion that most of us cannot afford. This anti-Democratic Party nonsense is complete bullshit. I want to take my party back, I don't want to leave it to the wolves.

[rrneck]

28. I'm fairly sanguine about the politics of it.

Libertarians are just Democrats that haven't been fucked hard enough yet.

[iverglas]

73. bwahahaha

Libertarians are just Democrats that haven't been fucked hard enough yet.

Libertarians are just Republicans who are being honest about how totally they'd like to fuck everybody else.


edit: http://www.lp.org/platform

[rrneck]

85. Those are the people who develop libertarian ideology.

The people I was talking about are just poorly informed consumers.

[DougKrick]

31. Wha?!?

I most definitely am *NOT* supporting the Republican party. Personally, I think both the Democratic and Republican parties are in favor of removing our rights, just different ones. I also think that the Democratic Party is less evil than the Republicans at the moment, despite things like the "fast and furious" scandal and how it's been used to require long arm registration in some of the southern states.

I've had Romney as my Governor and it was bearable, but do you really think anyone associated with the Pink Pistols would deal with a a party that would support someone like Santorum? Use your brain! I am not here to be anti-democratic party. I am here only to provide corrections to facts. Nothing more, nothing less.

Krikket
(aka Doug Krick)
Illinois Democratic Judge of Election

[Ian David]

35. I think you and I may have met.

Did you organize a trip to a pistol range like the weekend after 9/11?

[DougKrick]

56. It's possible

It's possible the Pink Pistols had a shoot the weekend after 9/11. But if so, it wasn't due to 9/11, just a coincidence. On the day in question I had the day off, was sitting at the computer and watched the internet come to a crawl. My girlfriend at the time called me sayig she was on the way home from work, Boston was being evacuated. "Why what happened?!?" She then got angry at me and hung up. I went to the TV an caught up on what happened. I'm also one of the rare people who thought, "It finally happened here, damnit." But wasn't surprised or shocked, rather thinking we were overdue. Terrorist attacks had been happening throughout Europe for years at that point...

[Ian David]

59. I know, it was already planned. And then when we got there, the shooting range was packed...

... and there were news crews all over the place.

Some reporter asked me, "Are you here learning to protect yourself from terrorists?"

"Of course. Because a pistol will take down a 747 headed straight at me."

If you were in Massachusetts at the time, then not only have we met, but you let me fire your .357 Magnum.

A good time was had by all.

[DougKrick]

64. Not me

I was in Massachusetts at the time, but didn't have a .357 Magnum. Nor were there reporters at any of our shoots who didn't talk with us beforehand. And we did our shoots in New Hampshire.

[Ian David]

66. I was at the one in Attleboro (or North Attleboro). n/t

[DougKrick]

77. It's possible

It's still possible. I've been living in Hyde Park.

[Ian David]

78. It might have been a .44 magnum, not a .357. I remember it had bullets the size of my thumb.

Anyway, I hope you find a way to fit-in around here.

[DougKrick]

99. Oh yeah!

Thanks for the welcome!

It would have been my Tokarev that shot 7.62x25 ammo... I remember that shoot now...

[ellisonz]

37. What rights would the Democratic Party take away from you?

I am using my brain, I remember Florida 2000, I know what side I'm on, and I'm not sure you're on it at all. Hey, when you show up and identify yourself as being here "to provide corrections to facts," you open that can of worms. I mean your organization once listed the NAACP as an "anti-gun" organization. That's some pretty vile politicking IMHO. You really should reconsider your political world-view before trying to patronize a room full of Democrats that their party is "less evil than the Republicans at the moment." You're doing a good job of undermining your own argument that you're not hear to be political, and as such, I would reasonably advise you to not make statements like that which are clearly anti-Democratic Party.

You're actually doing a really good job of showing how political you personally are in your construction of this issue as being part of a dichotomy between supporting and opposing the Second Amendment; gun control is about responsible gun ownership, period. It's not about depriving you of your "Gun Rights," and the Democratic Party has no intention of doing that either. As you admit above, you "work with the NRA," and you know what the NRA does, they run shit like this:

[one-eyed fat man]

45. Who was trying to disqualify military absentee ballots?

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/15/us/examining-the-vote-lieberman-put-democrats-in-retreat-on-military-vote.html

From that obviously right wing rag, The New York Times:

For many Democrats immersed in Florida's disputed presidential election, there was no worse moment than the one on Sunday, Nov. 19, when Senator Joseph I. Lieberman appeared on national television and said that election officials should give the ''benefit of the doubt'' to military voters.

We don't need no stinking' voter ID unless it comes in a red mail bag from an APO or FPO...

[DougKrick]

63. That was a good ad.

As I said before, I vote for the candidate based on the issues, not the party. And at that point in Obama's political career, he was extremely anti-gun, based on the legislation he backed and his votes in the Illinois Senate. His tenure as President is very different from his tenure as State Senator.

Personally, I've been very surprised by Obama's actions on the issue during his term in office. Gun legislation has generally *improved* under his watch. (The exceptions being the long gun registration in the southern states and failing to prosecute people for the "fast and furious" debacle.)

And the NAACP at the time (and probably still does, I'd need to check the facts) hold an anti-firearm position. And that's all that the list was. People who held anti 2nd amendment rights. Nothing more or less.

As for the NRA, they've helped write the laws that restricted gun use. Do a little historical research.

[iverglas]

42. found something!!

http://www.michiganpinkpistols.com/

For those of you who have not seen it, President Elect Obama HAD a page on his site, www.change.gov/agenda/urbanpolcy. That page is now (as of 11/10/08) gone. However, I found a snap shot of it on Google, and had it converted to pdf format. You can view it here. This will show you just how Obama REALLY intends to treat gun owners. When you view the pdf document, scroll down to page four. That's where the "fun" begins, under "Crime and Law Enforcement."

Democrats!


Also at that site of interest, for ease of reference:

http://www.pinkpistols.us/mipinkpistols.html

Indeed, Krick said he believes that "when the queer community can defend themselves, they're no longer going to be perceived as an easy target."

But that's a dangerously misled assumption, said Jeffrey Montgomery. He is the executive director the Triangle Foundation, a Detroit-based civil-rights group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered issues.

"Like many minority communities who are routinely targeted and highly at risk of being victims of violence, ours would be a community I would hope that would lead the discussion and debate in favor of gun control," Montgomery said. "I firmly believe the presence of guns in confrontations does not diffuse those in any way, and does not make anyone safer."

[DougKrick]

67. Yeah, he's a Republican

Yeah, the owner of that website (and volunteer to run the Michigan Pink Pistols) is a Republican who detests Obama. It was also last updated in 2006.

Please refer to all of my comments about how Obama has changed on the issue of Gun Control since he took office as President.

[DougKrick]

26. How would I answer this?

You've asked how I'd answer this, so I'll reply.

Anarchy and Libertarianism have nothing to do with each other. Propaganda would have you believe otherwise, but it's not true. I'm not going to tout the Libertarian movement (which is separate from the Tea Party Loonies) because that would be opposed to the spirit of this group. I'm only here to correct facts, not pass on opposing ideas.

Krikket
(aka Doug Krick)
Illinois Democratic Judge of Election

[ellisonz]

29. Actually the have a lot to do with eachother...

Last edited Wed Mar 28, 2012, 06:21 PM - Edit history (1)

...they both advocate a society that fundamentally says to the individual that they are on their own and should not expect intervention from the government. They both believe in a break down of our political order to produce a society that is essentially survival of the fittest. In this context, when you preach about a notion of "Gun Rights," it comes off as a hollow argument. Very clearly the Founding Fathers did not intend for the Second Amendment to be a license to do whatever you want with a firearm, and the Supreme Court in Heller clearly agrees in noting that "like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." When you say you are here to support "Gun Rights" and are not in bed with the NRA it sounds hollow because your website states the following about the Pink Pistols:

Why is your group an “Activists Association”?

We want to be able to endorse candidates that will support the Second Amendment as well as the rights of consenting adults to love each other how they wish however they wish. We also chose to go this route, rather than filing as a PAC because it means we are free of the legal paperwork PAC’s are required to file.

Are you part of the NRA?

No, we are our own organization although many of our members are NRA members and we will work with the NRA or any other group where we have common interests.

http://go4impact.com/pinkpistols3/faqs/

What constitutes "support of the Second Amendment" in your opinion? Why does your website not have specific policy positions? Many here believe that the NRA supports an extremist agenda that puts dangerous weapons in the hands of hate groups and other dangerous individuals by rejecting gun control measures that have traditionally enjoyed wide support in the Democratic Party. The NRA is essence supporting a society in which only those with guns have rights and that is a radically anarchistic/libertarian position. Will you denounce the NRA's extremist agenda in support of an unregulated bazaar of dangerous weapons? Denounce the politics of NRA-ILA, it's the right thing to do. Also, apologizing for your previous "enemies list" might be a smart good faith measure.

[DougKrick]

39. More corrections...

Thanks for your message, as it allows me to address a lot of misconceptions.

"...they both advocate a society that fundamentally says to the individual that they are on their own and should not expect intervention from the government. They both believe in a break down of our political order to produce a society that is essentially survival of the fittest."

Incorrect regarding the Libertarian Party. They advocate that a government should not protect and individual from *themselves*. Currently, police are *NOT* required to protect people from each other, they are only there to clean up the mess afterwords. This has been upheld at the SCOTUS.

"In this context, when you preach about a notion of "Gun Rights," it comes off as a hollow argument."

How so? "God made all men. Misters Smith and Wesson made all men equal." I'm not going to go into an in-depth argument here, but refer you to the book "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. (Yeah, he's gone on to become a reporter at FOX news, and I hate that station and it's lies as much as you do. But his reporting on this issue is valid. He started out writing the book to prove that guns should be banned, but when he did the research...)

As for not being in bed with the NRA sounding hollow... What can I say? We're too lazy to form a PAC or other political group, and don't accept donations (with one exemption, the first time we filed a Amicus Curie Brief with the SCOTUS).

We've worked with them, sure. They funded our 2nd and 3rd Amicus Curie Briefs. We still criticize them for being too liberal on the issue of Gun Rights.

"What constitutes "support of the Second Amendment" in your opinion? Why does your website not have specific policy positions?"

The Pink Pistols *ARE* a Second Amendment extremist organization. Unless a court has removed your right, after a fair trial, to carry a firearm, we hold that the 2nd Amendment allows you to carry one for any reason.

"Many here believe that the NRA supports an extremist agenda that puts dangerous weapons in the hands of hate groups and other dangerous individuals by rejecting gun control measures that have traditionally enjoyed wide support in the Democratic Party."

Believe what you will. I'm not here to change your mind, only to correct some statements that were made.

"Will you denounce the NRA's extremist agenda in support of an unregulated bazaar of dangerous weapons?"

What agenda of unregulated bazaar of dangerous weapons? The "Gun Show Loophole" is a myth. Do your research.

"Denounce the politics of NRA-ILA, it's the right thing to do. Also, apologizing for your previous "enemies list" might be a smart good faith measure."

As I've previously stated, I disagree with the NRA-ILA, they've given in far too often. As for the "enemies list", it was nothing more than a list of groups that had taken a public stance against the 2nd Amendment. Nor were we the group to create the list, we merely allowed a copy to be passed on.

Unless the Democratic Party is opposed to the 2nd Amendment, you've got no leg to stand on.

Krikket
(aka Doug Krick)
Illinois Democratic Judge of Election

[ellisonz]

46. " The Pink Pistols *ARE* a Second Amendment extremist organization."

And there we have it...

1. I think it was Barry Goldwater who declared, "Extremism in the Defense of Liberty Is No Vice," he was talking out of his rear and the American people vehemently disagreed with him, because he was in fact advocating vice that undermined liberty.

2. As to your assertion that I should read John Lott, I'll simply refer you to this list of academic studies refuting his conclusions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime#Studies_Against

3. So the Libertarian Party is going to protect me from myself by allowing private sales with no-background check required at all to buy an assault rifle? - That's the basic problem with your argument there- it is set-up with the basic idea that the individual choice is supreme above public safety.

4. The Democratic Party and most gun control activists are not against the Second Amendment, they are against the extremist interpretation thereof that creates days like January 8th, 2011.

The Democratic Party is in favor of improved gun control:

Clearly, there's more we can do to prevent gun violence. But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people.

I know some aren't interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.

But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.

- President Barack Obama

It's time to give up that extremism, friend, it's not working for the American People. I know exactly what leg I'm standing on and it's not an extremist one.

[DougKrick]

71. We need to talk definitions

1> I think our definitions of extremism may vary...

2> I refer you to John Lott's 2nd book on the subject "The Bias Against Guns".

3> Backup. The overall argument is that the problem with gun shows is that anyone can get an "assault rifle" (still undefined) without a background check. Not true. Only a vanishingly small number of transactions that happen at gun shows are between private individuals, the rest are with dealers, and still need that background check. But I can see we're not going to agree on this issue, so why don't we agree to disagree?

4> We all want to stop events like that. We disagree on the means to do so. See previously mentioned references and agree to disagree?

[Ian David]

75. So, how did we get from a discussion of Starbucks and NOM to one on guns?

Get a room, you guys...

Gun Control & RKBA (Group)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172

[ellisonz]

88. You just declared yourself an extremist...

...I didn't put that word in your mouth and its definition is quite clear.

I'll refer you to any number of studies that support the notion that gun control reduces gun violence if you like, but at this point you're just repeating a discredited right-wing author.

3. What don't you understand about our weak laws concerning private sales of guns?

Anyone who wants to put in a little effort can just about obtain any gun in America if they have the money...

4. But only some of us are doing anything to prevent crazies from obtaining guns in the first place. You support the extremist agenda that obstructs common sense gun control.

We can agree to disagree, but that doesn't mean I have to be silent about such outrageous extremism that leaves dead innocent people in its wake

[DougKrick]

97. Extremist viewpoints

There is an clear definition of extreme: 'Reaching a high or the highest degree; very great: "extreme cold".' In this case I'm using it in the context of being something that would eliminate a political candidate for me, as well as the context already given: "Unless a court has removed your right, after a fair trial, to carry a firearm, we hold that the 2nd Amendment allows you to carry one for any reason." (Additional context: PP advocates the *legal* carry of firearms. That means if laws are in place, even though they may be unconstitutional, they should be followed.)

The problem, IMnsHO, is that there is no such thing as "common sense gun control". As an example, you show a video of someone committing a FELONY under current law. I call your red herring what it is, a red herring.

Since concealed carry has become legal, violent crime rates have dropped. Even in Chicago, where it is still banned, as it is now legal to keep a firearm in the home.

We can agree to disagree, but that doesn't I have to be silent about such outrageous statements that lead to more victim disarmament zones that leave yet more people dead. Look into the school shootings *before* Columbine...

[ellisonz]

107. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

If you believe the laws to be unconstitutional, you should take that to the Courts, but the reality is that you will lose unless the Court goes even more to the far-right. Even Anthony Scalia and the others on the SCOTUS could not stomach that extremist argument:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heller_vs._DC#Decision

You can believe such laws to be unconstitutional but the highest law of the land says they are not.

They are committing a felony but if the investigator doesn't say I couldn't pass the background check and the seller doesn't ask, the sale is still entirely legal. Thems facts.

Chicago is not an island. Ask any mainstream sociologist why crime rates are down and you'll get a much more complex answer. If you really think a few million toters are causing that you need to spend less time accepting the gun nut propaganda without question. Let's get real, your notion that somehow places where you can't tote are "victim disarmament zones" is accurate as the claim that the current gun control regime is a "criminal enablement system." It's the illegally possessed guns, generally though negligence or incompetence, that the system allows to take effect, that cause such events.

You have a choice, if you don't want to submit to the laws of a particular jurisdiction, don't live there - you can always go to Texas.

[DougKrick]

117. Constitutionallity and Firearms

The constitutionality of the current gun laws is currently being debated in court, and I fully expect it to end up in front of the SCOTUS. To many laws have changed, but you're also correct, the SCOTUS doesn't automatically say that all gun laws are unconstitutional.

If the buyer has reason to believe the other person wouldn't pass, and in the video he *did* have reason to believe that based on the buyers statements, it's a felony. "Thems facts." Watch your own video.

Did you look into the school shootings before Columbine? Those are clear-examples of how victim disarmament zones are getting people killed. I've spoken with people who've had their parents killed in front of them because of such nonsense. Such places only prevent people from carrying legally. They don't stop the criminals.

Or should I expect another reference to the list of scholars on Wikipedia that disagree with John Lott, while ignoring the list of scholars that agree with him (or the one who both disagrees and agrees depending on the point?) and therefore claiming him (and those that agree with him) to be discredited?

But I'm not here to debate guns. I only came here to correct a few statements made. I am now walking away.

[ellisonz]

120. Thank you for acknowledging...

...that such regulations are Constitutional.

1. You think I don't understand that? You just entirely talked past my comment about private sales being almost unregulated in response to your previous talking point about gun shows.

2. Putting guns in our schools is not logical and such restrictions are in place for good reason. Now if you want to talk about taxing gun sales to support school police programs, I'm all ears.

3. You're not going to get very far citing a right-winger with a questionable study here - the reality is much more complex than Mr. Lott cares to consider.

4. When you show up to defend your organization you should expect some criticism.

[iverglas]

92. as I've asked you to do

As I've previously stated, I disagree with the NRA-ILA, they've given in far too often. As for the "enemies list", it was nothing more than a list of groups that had taken a public stance against the 2nd Amendment. Nor were we the group to create the list, we merely allowed a copy to be passed on.

(No, you adopted it and posted it on your website.)

I ased you for evidence that ANY of the 19 pages of groups and individuals had "taken a public stance against the 2nd Amendment". I specifically said that I wasn't interested in your interpretation of what the second amendment says, I wanted proof that anyone on the enemies list had publicly opposed it.

You chose not to address what I said.

Did you want to try again? Well define "second amendment" as "second amendment". Opposing an amendment means wanting it removed from the constitution. Over to you.

Of course, you could always just adjust your rhetoric to make it reflect reality.

[X_Digger]

94. Err.. wait, lol..

[div class='excerpt'] I wasn't interested in your interpretation of what the second amendment says

But..

[div class='excerpt']Well define "second amendment" as "second amendment". Opposing an amendment means wanting it removed from the constitution.

You chide someone from doing what you did yourself two sentences later?!?

*snort*

[iverglas]

111. what do you think "opposing" an amendment means?

Do tell.

What did the people who opposed that prohibition amendment want?

I think they wanted it removed from the constitution.

What the hell else would somebody who opposes one of your constitutional amendments want??

[X_Digger]

114. You're not fooling anyone.

It's damned disingenuous to pretend to not understand the position that the poster makes, or to intentionally misinterpret it, then ask them to defend your intentional misinterpretation.

Patently transparent.

[DougKrick]

102. The List

No, I did address it by pointing out that the list itself had the answers you were looking for.

The Pink Pistols did not adopt the list. We did post it. Nothing more or less.

<EDIT>BTW: In re-reading the posts, It's worth noting that the list (if it's still out there) would be different now. For instance, the ACLU has shifted it's anti-firearm position, and has even gone to court for gun-owners.

[iverglas]

110. no, sorry again

Last edited Sun Apr 8, 2012, 02:52 PM - Edit history (2)

The list does not include any information beyond an intro.

Cripes, NRA-ILA keeps changing its links. Found it.

http://nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2010/national-organizations-with-anti-gun-po.aspx?s=monetary&st=&ps=

The long, long list starts out thus:

National Organizations With Anti-Gun Policies

Posted on August 1, 2010

The following organizations have lent monetary, grassroots or some other type of direct support to anti-gun organizations. In many instances, these organizations lent their name in support of specific campaigns to pass anti-gun legislation such as the March 1995 HCI "Campaign to Protect Sane Gun Laws." Many of these organizations were listed as "Campaign Partners," for having pledged to fight any efforts to repeal the Brady Act and the Clinton "assault weapons" ban. All have officially endorsed anti-gun positions.

AARP
AFL-CIO
Ambulatory Pediatric Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Civil Liberties Union
American Academy of Ambulatory Care Nursing
American Medical Women`s Association
American Medical Student Association
American Medical Association
American Association for the Surgery of Trauma
American Trauma Society
American Federation of Teachers
American Association of School Administrators
American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities
American Medical Association
American Bar Association
American Counseling Association

And then we have:

Anti-Gun Individuals & Celebrities

The following celebrities and national figures have lent their name and notoriety to anti-gun causes, speaking out for anti-gun legislation and providing a voice for anti-gun organizations.
Celebrities:

Krista Allen - Actress
Suzy Amis - Actress
Louis Anderson - Comedian
Richard Dean Anderson - Actor
Maya Angelou - Poet
David Arquette - Actor
Ed Asner - Actor ...

The following journalists actively editorialize in favor of gun control laws: ...

Anti-Gun Corporations/Corporate Heads

The following listing includes the most prominent national corporations that have lent their corporate support to gun control initiatives or taken position supporting gun control.

A & M Records ...

Those people have a LOT of enemies.

Pink Pistols ADOPTED that list as its own -- I saw the Pink Pistols website many, many times -- and YOU state here that the organizations/people on it "that had taken a public stance against the 2nd Amendment".

Not even the NRA-ILA says that.

Would you please clarify your statement?


EDIT -- I have just seen the reply to this post. I don't want to dredge this thread up again, but I do want this on the record.

The list I linked to and quoted from above may be the current list, but it is NOT different in any significant respect from what it was when the Pink Pistols organization adopted it and posted it on its website, as may be seen in contempoary threads here at DU where the list was quoted. The major national organizations shown above were on the list, the NAACP was on the list, the mainstream Protestant churches were on the list, etc. Mr. Krick's statement below is simply false.


edit again to add (although I believe I posted this elsewhere in this thread):

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x918614#922490

iverglas
Sat May-19-07 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
14. check out the pink pistols' enemies list

http://www.pinkpistols.org/antigun.html

The following organizations have lent monetary, grassroots or some other type of direct support to Anti-Gun organizations. In many instances, these organizations lent their name in support of specific campaigns to pass Anti-Gun legislation such as the March 1995 HCI "Campaign to Protect Sane Gun Laws." Many of these organizations were listed as "Campaign Partners," for having pledged to fight any efforts to repeal the Brady Act and the Clinton "assault weapons" ban. All have officially endorsed Anti-Gun positions.

For more details on these companies or groups, see the section on Anti-Gun Corporations/Corporate Heads, below.

This detailed information is being supplied, to make the owners of stocks, and users of products and services, totally aware, of whom these organizations or people are.

It would take many pages to print out; I assume it's just cribbed from the NRA's enemies list.

If you're a Methodist, you're there. If you belong to the ACLU or the American Bar Association, you're there. Most people at DU are probably there, one way or another.

College Democrats is there. The Women's National Democratic Club is there. The YWCA is there. The United Nations is there. The Union of American Hebrew Congregations is there. The Unitarian Universalists are there and the United Church of Christ is there. Physicians for Social Responsibility and PETA and People for the American Way are there.

Oh good grief, I wasn't even looking at all the Hollywood liberals on their own separate list.

Aaliyah - Singer
Aerosmith - Pop Music group
Allen, Krista - Actress
Allen, Steve - Entertainer*
Amis, Suzy - Actress
Anderson, Louis - Comedian
Anderson, Richard Dean - Actor
Arquette, David - Actor
Asner, Ed - Actor

-- and obviously, that's just the "A"s.

And cartoonists -- Garry Trudeau's there.

All the big MSM are there. Except Fox.

And a whole lot of big corporations -- Disney, Hallmark Cards. So I wondered: any overlap between the PPs' enemies list and a list of anti-gay corporations? I found this one on a quick google:
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/comdiscr.htm

Lemme see ... Denny's and Domino's Pizza, two easy picks. ... Nope, they're not on the Pink Pistols' enemies list. Maybe the PPs have a separate list for anti-gay people and things ... but I'm not seeing it.

That link does have Fox on the list.

Oh, and Jerry Falwell isn't on the PPs' list.

Their links page:
http://www.pinkpistols.org/links.html

No Democratic links there. No links to anywhere I'd want to be going. Not even, oh, the Human Rights Committee. Not a single GLBT-focused/friendly kinda link at all.

[DougKrick]

133. Pesent facts!

That us the current list, not the list that was present at the time of posting.

You want to damn me, fine. But do so with facts, not whispermongering.

[iverglas]

53. you say it like it's a bad thing

We've worked with them <the NRA-ILA>, sure. They funded our 2nd and 3rd Amicus Curie Briefs. We still criticize them for being too liberal on the issue of Gun Rights.

"Too liberal"?

Strange choice of words ...

I've spent 10+ years here being told that the gun militant agenda is the real "liberal" way.

As for the "enemies list", it was nothing more than a list of groups that had taken a public stance against the 2nd Amendment. Nor were we the group to create the list, we merely allowed a copy to be passed on.

I think that is really quite false.

Had the two Democratic Party organizations on the hit list "taken a public stance against the 2nd Amendment"? Had any of the churches? Any of the African-American interest organizations? Any of the celebrities? Anybody at all, really?

Never mind your interpretation of the thing. I'd like to see the statements made against the second amendment.


http://www.lp.org/platform

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

Just to clarify: the US Libertarian Party does not advocate same-sex marriage rights.

Any problem?

There's lots more there for the curious.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.


2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.


2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

This is what the Pink Pistols was founded to drum up support for.

[DougKrick]

80. Actually yes.

"Had the two Democratic Party organizations on the hit list "taken a public stance against the 2nd Amendment"? Had any of the churches? Any of the African-American interest organizations? Any of the celebrities? Anybody at all, really? "

Actually, yes they had.

"Never mind your interpretation of the thing. I'd like to see the statements made against the second amendment. "

I believe they were included in the list.

"Just to clarify: the US Libertarian Party does not advocate same-sex marriage rights.

Any problem? "

Nope. From the PP point of view, the LP is for equal rights for all. See my earlier argument about marriage rights, and how if someone would disband all civil marriages for everyone, then it's still equal treatment.

But I'm not here to advocate for the Libertarian Party. Please note I only replied because you asked how it bears on the Pink Pistols.

[DougKrick]

105. Huh?!?

"This is what the Pink Pistols was founded to drum up support for. "

Buah?

I was there. It was founded for some friends to hang out and go shooting together on a regular basis. The politics came later. Don't let anyone tell you any differently, because it's the Great Ghod Ghu's honest truth. From day 1 I've said "If this stops being fun, it's time to throw in the towel."

[iverglas]

123. not really all that confusing

Your post 11:

When I set up the group, I was hoping it would grow into something that would point people to the Libertarian Party, as I was a candidate for office at the time.

The only political activity Pink Pistols has ever undertaken that I'm aware of is its past massive contribution to the Libertarian Party effort.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=68319

North Bridge ... not bogus, I believe, just defunct.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=68319#68331

[DougKrick]

134. More bad info

David Rostcheck wasn't a founding member of the Pink Pistols. He came aboard Day #2. The founding members are myself, a gentleman named Paul, and a woman named Karen. And yes, to the best of my knowledge Northbridge is defunct.

[Comrade Grumpy]

51. That's a shallow misreading of anarchist theory.

It's about mutural assistance, radical democracy, and the consent of the governed. But I don't have time to get into right now.

[iverglas]

58. there are different varieties, but you're right

I think of myself as an anarchist when I imagine utopia, and a wish-washy social democrat when I mark my ballot.

It's kinda insulting to most real anarchists to liken them to libertarians of the right-wing, capital L variety. Anarchists are social libertarians, and economic "communitarians", really.

www.politicalcompass.org

Iverglas, -8.25, -7.85, last time I checked.

[ellisonz]

61. In the ideal, yes...

...but in application the problem always becomes the tendency towards dissolution and the desire to preserve the organization. Also, the Libertarians will tell you just the same, witness Ron Paul who has made exactly those notions his campaign themes. And we should probably leave it at that.

[TBF]

76. In application it becomes preserving the organization

because we are attacked by outsiders. Witness the Paris Commune, or for a more up to date example look at how Occupy is being treated. They sit in a park and all of a sudden are a threat to the status quo.

You're on shaky ground here philosophically. Libertarians and Anarchists are on opposite ends of the spectrum (statist v. non-statist).

[ellisonz]

91. I would argue that...

...Occupy is not your traditional black bloc anarchist type group. They have much more in common than many would like to admit - we have plenty of libertarians and anarchists here and more often than not they seem to agree on the issues: http://www.gonzotimes.com/2010/12/for-2011-five-practical-demands-on-which-anarchists-libertarians-and-marxists-should-agree/ - different dog breed, same bark.

[TBF]

93. My point on Occupy is

that if folks start meeting without hierarchy it throws the status quo into a tailspin, but I agree with you that there is a mish-mash of people there. When you get down to nuts and bolts though the libertarians are going to look out for their property rights while the anarchists are going to be more communal (generally speaking, there are a couple different branches of anarchy - Rothbard for example would be more what you're talking about).

[ellisonz]

96. Fair assessment.

I think we can agree that too much of this gun nuttery has gone too far

[TBF]

100. Of course

that we can definitely agree on

[X_Digger]

95. But.. but.. but.. he doesn't have a cartoon for that!!! n/t

[TBF]

104. ...

[ellisonz]

109. I've got a political cartoons for everything...

...I thought you knew that already?

[Starboard Tack]

27. Brilliant!

[geardaddy]

62. Good toon.

I know that toonist. Crazy!

[iverglas]

38. I forgot to ask

Did you just, like, google "pink pistols" and happen upon my post?

[DougKrick]

40. Nope

I got a notice from a Google News link that was emailed to me that pointed me in this direction. So I checked it out and thought I'd offer the correct version of things, to prevent misinformation.

[snooper2]

69. Don't go telling people information like that LOL

People think that there are paid trolls and spies watching, reading, following everything they do. I prefer it stay that way

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. in case you are interested you are being discussed over here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117225760

[-..__...]

47. Looks like they're getting the torches and pitchforks ready...

Well... at least 3 of them will be after they're through patting each other on the back.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

55. I am not understanding how it is on topic for RKBA.

is there a discussion about 2A or guns used in crimes in that thread?

Am I missing something?

[-..__...]

60. No...

just more nonsense and poo-pahing from the usual suspects.

I'd almost interpret it as an invitation to disrupt, or at the very least "cover my back guys/I could sure use your help with this one... I'm going in".

[Tuesday Afternoon]

65. pretty tacky, if you ask me.

[-..__...]

68. Pitiful... just pitiful...

[iverglas]

82. who reads the Guns forum?

Who showed up here after seeing that post?



I guess I should have just PMed all the firearms control advocates instead ...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

84. you know its The Gungeon!

nobody reads RKBA that is for real

[-..__...]

86. Never occured to you that some of us...

saw this thread first and was led to your "call to arms" thread from here..did it?

I guess you were too busy tooting your own horn and patting yourself on the back... oh well.

BTW... after you're done

you might want to wipe that egg off your face...

You might not have a lot of time!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=282727

[iverglas]

89. snork

Sometimes people speak too soon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124060444#post103

Did you like that DEFEAT OBAMA ad too?

Our new friend did.

[-..__...]

101. Opinion does not equal fact.

Which is what that thread is all about... sour grapes by some when things don't go their way (why wasn't this person/thread/post banned/hidden&quot , so they try to reason that "guns and smoking" threads get a free pass.

Sorry... I'm not buying that.

Here's on fact though... these are your words...

You might not have a lot of time!

Apparently... you were expecting a different outcome.

Either that, or your



is worn or broken.

[iverglas]

103. uh, what?

I didn't link to a thread, I linked to a particular post, to which you could see the replies ... and the final outcome. First it was, then it wasn't ...

Rome wasn't built in a day, my friend.

[-..__...]

108. Computer or Firefox is acting up.

I clicked on your link and it jumps to the top of the page/OP's thread and hangs there.

I had to scroll through the whole thread post by post.

Give me the short story on your particular post.

[iverglas]

116. wants to be read; it's short

Posts 103 to 115 in that subthread.

The chickens were counted prematurely, and came home to roost. Rather heavily.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124060444#post103

(might just have to wait for it to load)

[iverglas]

113. deleted, posted in wrong place

[DougKrick]

132. Based on his politics at the time...

Based on Obama's politics in the Illinois Senate, I have every reason to distrust him -- at the time. You're ignoring that his position has shifted as President.

[iverglas]

72. some new names in this thread after that was posted

Looks like you're not on the money here. Post something in the Guns forum to rally the firearms control troops?

[Ruby the Liberal]

98. Jury is back...

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

"Axis partner" - did he just compare those posters to the Axis alliance of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy? That is a hurtful, rude, insensitive, and over-the-top slander. This poster entered this thread to be disruptive and not to have a topical discussion. This is a blatant personal attack.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 28, 2012, 06:33 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: More petty bickering. But, it's like a week of cloudy days. Dismal, but we'll all survive.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Reading WAY too much into that comment.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Personal attack.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Making it about the person (and bringing in another one), not the subject. Hide it

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[iverglas]

106. I see you've found us!

Hell, yesterday a jury thought it was just fine and dandy to refer to a poster and firearms control advocates in general as "social cleansers".

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

There isn't much that beats a DU jury for a giggle.

Well ... http://www.jabberwacky.com does, I guess.


Everybody knows that the "Axis of Evil" was invented by a Canadian, right??

Just adding to all our random knowledge database.

[ellisonz]

115. Either way...

it's a very uncivil reference. Hey Skinner, how about you bring back DU2 - *tear drop*

[Ruby the Liberal]

127. LOL! You know I avoid these threads like the plague.

Random draw of the proverbial short straw.

[ellisonz]

112. Jury nullified...

The reference is clear and as Jew I do not appreciate anyone being referred to as the "Axis" - I've never called anyone a Nazi, fascist, or authoritarian on this board and I don't put up with it when it's directed toward myself or others. That comment was a clear violation of the Community Standards, on DU2 we would not even be having this conversation.

[-..__...]

118. I deleted it for you.

Feel better now?

[ellisonz]

119. Thank you. n/t

[-..__...]

121. Sorry about that.

Next time I'll use the term "The 3 Stooges"... (they're Jewish too).

[ellisonz]

122. ...

[-..__...]

126. And with that...

I'm outta this thread.

[msongs]

5. good news, I own stock that went down to $14 in the crash n now is more than I paid for it :-) nt

[xchrom]

8. Good. Nt

[rucky]

9. I usually get my coffee on the inside

but I'm thinking I should treat myself to a latte today.

[mainer]

12. Now all businesses will want a boycott by those folks

It's so good for sales!

[hack89]

13. Between gun rights and gay rights

Starbucks is going to give both sides of the political spectrum whiplash.

[Quantess]

15. Backwards-thinking homophobes don't generally drink coffee at cafe's

They drink folgers decaf, weak as tea. That's my guess.

[Initech]

18. When will the NOM shut the fuck up?? What a truly evil group.

[William769]

21. All people against LGBT equality & rights

Are a dismal failure.

[closeupready]

34. I don't really like their coffee, but bought one anyway

yesterday, just out of feeling a little gratitude to them.

Starbucks is not a perfect organization by any means, but on this, they did the right thing.

[Canuckistanian]

44. I suspect that most NOM members drink beer anyways

At least in the morning.

[yardwork]

54. NOM has been race-baiting, too. New documents just released by court order:

Documents released by court order in Maine reveal a well-funded detailed strategy to divide key Democratic voting groups from one another.

From the link:

“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…”

Another passage:

"The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future, both because of demographic growth and inherent uncertainty: Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity - a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation."

http://www.hrc.org/nomexposed/entry/must-read#.T3HDAGEge8D

[geardaddy]

57. NOM?

[GoneOffShore]

90. Looks like someone is Nomming NOM's lunch.