Gun Control group (CSGV)caught using selective editing in a attack ad against John Barrow (D)GA

[virginia mountainman]

I posted the original ad, he released here in this fine forum several months ago....BUT the Coalition to Stop Gun Violance, is in full on "piss pants" mode against Democrat John Barrow..

#!

http://www.csgv.org/media-web/press-releases/244-csgv-releases-video-demanding-rep-john-barrow-reject-nras-blood-money

The unedited John Barrow ad...

I guess stopping a lynching , is not approved by the CSGV. I am certain the CSGV is convinced, that their ad, running in GEORGIA, will bring John Barrow down...Or will it simply serve to remind people that Democrats what to take their guns, after all gun control is very popular in GEORGIA... Or is it???

Careful how we tread, if they bring a pro gun Democrat down in GA, what will he be replaced with????????????????????????????

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDITED TO ADD....

The National Republican Congressional Committee's executive director, Liesl Hickey, released a memo Wednesday naming Barrow as one of seven House Democrats whose defeat will be priorities for the GOP in the next election.

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/georgia/article/212488/52/Rep-John-Barrow-Already-a-Top-GOP-Target-for-2014-

The CSGV is helping Republicans....

[Eleanors38]

1. So I guess the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is ANOTHER GOP gun-control group?

[virginia mountainman]

2. Certainly looks that way...

Their actions speak louder than words.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. The enemy of my enemy is...

...what??? My friend???

How's that working with the Mujahideen in the DRA?

[jimmy the one]

4. gallows humor

“Long before I was born, my grandfather used this little Smith & Wesson here….”
It cuts the Augusta congressman off there.. what did the CSGV choose to omit? This:
”…to help stop a lynching.”

.. they shoulda left it in context; but there was no misleading spin really, or negative connotation by clipping it to say 'my gpa used this little smith & wesson here...'.. It's actually quite complimentary to his gpa (tho haven't seen the video which don't come up on dial up modems well).

In fact, saying 'my gpa used this S&W to help stop a lynching' can have a negative connotation too, as well as a positive one (as it ostensibly did), as in shooting the guy before the trap goes out, or shooting it out ala clint eastwood. to save his buddies on the gallows.

CSGV version; - coalition to stop gun violence, a fine group actually despite progun spin:

January 17, 2013 VIDEO DEMANDING REP. JOHN BARROW REJECT NRA’S BLOOD MONEY
..has released a new video to remind Members of Congress what is at stake..features Rep. John Barrow (D-GA) and uses his own campaign ad to link his support for the NRA to the weak gun laws that facilitate the type of carnage we have seen at Newtown and other massacres.

In his ad, Rep. Barrow cocks a rifle and touts his NRA endorsement. He then closes with the warning, “I approved this message because these are my guns now — and ain’t nobody gonna take‘em away.”
One week ago, Barrow declared that “no new {gun} laws will have a big chance of passing in the House.” Yesterday, he commented on President Obama’s reform package, saying, “We need to find practical solutions to gun violence that are consistent with the Second Amendment, rather than having another political debate in Washington that divides Americans."
According to CSGV, “Representative John Barrow has decided to put his love of the NRA above his concern for his fellow Americans. That is not acceptable.”
Noting that Barrow has received $27,250 in NRA campaign contributions over his eight-year congressional career, Horwitz added, “Rep. Barrow has been bought for the price of a new truck. It would be laughable if his lack of regard for our families’ safety wasn’t so dangerous.”

The new CSGV video follows on the heels of an ad campaign criticizing Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) for saying the White House's effort to reform our gun laws was "extreme."

“We will continue to call out those who refuse to protect our families and communities, If you’re carrying the NRA’s water, we’ll be watching—and informing your constituents of where your priorities lie when it comes to public safety.”

I don't think CSGV misrepresented the facts so bad, but compared with the nra ad which falsely accused obamas kids school of having armed gds & disregarding the 'plight' of unarmed students in the USA, it's obvious which ad is getting the worst of it (hint - the 'Nutty Rightwiners, Armed', one}

[Straw Man]

11. Surely you jest.

In fact, saying 'my gpa used this S&W to help stop a lynching' can have a negative connotation too, as well as a positive one (as it ostensibly did), as in shooting the guy before the trap goes out ...

So shooting the victim constitutes "stopping a lynching"? That's one of your finest howlers, I must say. You've outdone yourself. Really, you have.

[jimmy the one]

12. rip van winkle wakes up, twists things

rip van winkle, aka straw man: So shooting the victim constitutes "stopping a lynching"? That's one of your finest howlers, I must say. You've outdone yourself. Really, you have

Two years later you post this zinger? Browsing past xfiles this is the best you could come up with? and for a lame ad hominem?

I didn't say it is what he meant, I said his phrasing CAN have that connotation, if some wise ass gunnut said it sarcastically. Certainly some hangings were 'prevented' in the past by some guy shooting the victim before he could be hung, change of mind & quicker you know.

what I'd written, 2 years ago: In fact, saying 'my gpa used this S&W to help stop a lynching' can have a negative connotation too, as well as a positive one (as it ostensibly did), as in shooting the guy before the trap goes out ...

Furthermore, readers can readily see that I said it was ostensibly said in a positive manner as in actually preventing a guy's death, by using his gun to save a life.
Sheesh, why don't you go back to sleep, rip van winkle.

[beevul]

13. Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "fine group" Jimmy.

"coalition to stop gun violence, a fine group actually despite progun spin"


Which part makes them fine:

Was it their lying to their own members and the American people?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172158733#post4

Is it their support for banning handguns and so called "assault weapons"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172158733#post4


Is it that they attacked a Democrat for supporting the same gun rights as the Democratic Party Platform does?


Or is it "all of the above" which make them a "fine group", in your view?

[jimmy the one]

14. you're not one to speak

beevul: Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "fine group" Jimmy. (ie: "coalition to stop gun violence {CSGV}, a fine group actually despite progun spin&quot

Pretty much self explanatory. Perhaps you can explain why you asked such a stupid question.

beevul: Which part makes them fine: Was it their lying to their own members and the American people?

Beevul's link then, ostensibly, refers to this quote from CSGV: Crowley will ask his colleagues on City Council to endorse Yates' bill... The semiautomatic weapons continue firing ammunition automatically once the user squeezes the trigger once and keeps it pressed down.

One group's representative's misconception of how a semi-auto operates is some gross violation & lying to the American people? well then the nra & gun lobby are guilty a hundred times over due to their own members misconceptions & lies (see also wayne lapierre-head, ted nugent, mataksa, aramalangadanga. So is almost everyone on DU now & then guilty of a misconception.
You yourself beevul, are a FINE example of someone who misconstrues & misinterprets what others write.

beevul: Is it their support for banning handguns and so called "assault weapons"?

That was their mantra when they formed in the late 2oth century, more en vogue then, even Nixon supported banning handguns & revolvers.

beevul: Is it that they attacked a Democrat for supporting the same gun rights as the Democratic Party Platform does?

The democrat platform is adhering to the supreme ct heller decision so as not to create waves amongst blue dog dems, like a lot of you supposed dems on here. The heller decision was 5-4 with the 4 liberal mostly democrat justices ruling for the militia interpretation. The dem platform opts for cautious unity.

In closing let me get this straight, beevul; are you calling LIARS all these benevolent churches, synagogues, health groups? which supporting member to Coalition to stop gun violence, is the worst offender of 2ndA rights, in your hypocritical eyes, beevul???????

CSGV consists of 48 organizations. Among them are religious organizations, child welfare advocacy groups, public health professionals, social justice, and political action organizations.
Member groups include:#American Academy of Pediatrics #American Association of Suicidology #American Ethical Union #American Jewish Committee#American Jewish Congress #American Psychiatric Association #American Public Health Association #Americans for Democratic Action #Association of Japanese Families of Gun Violence Victims in the U. S. A. #Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America #The Bible Holiness Movement, International #Center for Science in the Public Interest #Central Conference of American Rabbis #Children's Defense Fund #Child Welfare League of America, Inc. #Church of the Brethren #Communitarian Network #The Council of The Great City Schools #DC for Democracy #The DISARM Education Fund #Fellowship of Reconciliation #Friends Committee on National Legislation #Jesuit Conference - Office of Social Ministries #Jewish Community Center Association #Jewish Women International #Loretto Community #Mennonite Central Committee #National Association of School Psychologists #National Association of Social Workers #National Council of Jewish Women #National Council of Negro Women #National Urban League #North American Federation of Temple Youth #Pan American Trauma Association #Peace Action of Washington #Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) #Union for Reform Judaism #Unitarian Universalist Association #UNITE HERE #United Church of Christ #United Federation of Teachers #United Methodist Church Board of Church & Society #United States Conference of Mayors #United States Student Association #United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism #Woman's National Democratic Club #Women's League for Conservative Judaism #YWCA of U. S. A.

[beevul]

15. Ahh the iverglas "wall of text" gambit.

Fortunately, I've seen this before.

"Pretty much self explanatory. Perhaps you can explain why you asked such a stupid question."

Because YOU said they were a "fine group", that's why.

"One group's representative's misconception of how a semi-auto operates is some gross violation & lying to the American people?"

Apparently you don't understand what they did, or are turning a blind eye to it, so let me "spoonfeed" you some fact. The original cinci post article had two paragraphs, one following the other, like this:

Crowley will ask his colleagues on City Council to endorse Yates' bill, as well as lobby to extend the federal ban.

Urban areas already are wracked by gun violence, and ending the ban would worsen the situation, the lawmakers say.

https://web.archive.org/web/20040615040214/http://www.cincypost.com/2004/05/07/weap050704.html

The article as it appears on the CSGV website looks like this:

Crowley will ask his colleagues on City Council to endorse Yates' bill, as well as lobby to extend the federal ban.

The semiautomatic weapons continue firing ammunition automatically once the user squeezes the trigger once and keeps it pressed down.

Urban areas already are wracked by gun violence, and ending the ban would worsen the situation, the lawmakers said.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041102065156/http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/cincipost5_7_04.cfm

CSGVs posting of a cinci post piece on their own website, and adding their own bits which are false and without attribution, is lying to the American people, including CSGVs own members. Are you one? Do you support such dishonesty?

Nice try on changing the subject, but I'm not having any.

This is sub thread is about your characterization of a group that lies to its own members, lies to the American people, has as its goal banning offensive looking rifles and handguns and has a attacked a Democratic Party congressman...

As "a fine group".

[jimmy the one]

17. your hocus pocus gets a shoulder shrug

beevul: CSGVs posting of a cinci post piece on their own website, and adding their own bits which are false and without attribution, is lying to the American people, including CSGVs own members. Are you one? Do you support such dishonesty?

I didn't see any provable dishonesty which would transcend human error. The misconception is wrong but hardly should be called dishonesty.
What I see is some poor misguided GN trying to pin some trumped up trivial hocus pocus onto a reputable group of gun control advocates, mostly church groups & health groups.

Here is, I think, what beevul is trying to trump up, that guncontrol group CSGV is adding the misconception about semi-auto fire as being 'dishonestly' inserted into it's own website's text, when it could be an editing error of addition. Whatever it is, it is hardly any draconian error to merit the trumped up nonsense which beevul is trying to spin.

what cincy post wrote: Crowley will ask his colleagues on City Council to endorse Yates' bill, as well as lobby to extend the federal ban.
Urban areas already are wracked by gun violence, and ending the ban would worsen the situation, the lawmakers say.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040615040214/http://www.cincypost.com/2004/05/07/weap050704.html

The article as it appears on the CSGV website looks like this, same as cincy above but the middle sentence marked 'here' added evidently by CSGV, whether accidental or intentionally to mislead is beevul's rub:

Crowley will ask his colleagues on City Council to endorse Yates' bill, as well as lobby to extend the federal ban.
{here} The semiautomatic weapons continue firing ammunition automatically once the user squeezes the trigger once and keeps it pressed down.
Urban areas already are wracked by gun violence, and ending the ban would worsen the situation, the lawmakers said.
http://web.archive.org/web/20041102065156/http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/cincipost5_7_04.cfm

If this is the best criticism you have it's weak as pee; obviously a misconception, could be an editing error, but hardly worth the label of libel.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. How does someone accidentally add an entire sentence (and a factually incorrect one, at that)?

Let's try an experiment --

Here is, I think, what beevul is trying to trump up, that guncontrol group CSGV is adding the misconception about semi-auto fire as being 'dishonestly' inserted into it's own website's text, when it could be an editing error of addition. I should know because I know how much propaganda is required to force my views on other people. Whatever it is, it is hardly any draconian error to merit the trumped up nonsense which beevul is trying to spin.

Human error?

[beevul]

19. Hahaha. "hocus pocus".

"I didn't see any provable dishonesty which would transcend human error."

Yeah, I'm sure someone over at CSGV tripped and fell, and while falling grabbed for the desk and inadvertently hit the "insert false statement" key on their keyboard.

Yeah, that must be it.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with what another gun control Zealot said:

"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

Adding a statement, jimmy, to a piece that others wrote, without attributing that statement to its author, gives the impression that the author of the original piece made that statement. Yet we know that the author of the original piece did NOT make that statement. We KNOW it came from CSGV. On top of that, the statement is false, and echos what other gun control zealots have said.

But you expect people to believe it was simple "human error".

The fact of the matter is that CSGV added false information to an article someone else wrote.

Theres simply no way around it. And no reasonable argument that it was an "accident" can be made.

"What I see is some poor misguided GN trying to pin some trumped up trivial hocus pocus onto a reputable group of gun control advocates, mostly church groups & health groups."

Trumped up? Trivial? Telling ones own membership, and the American people, that the guns in question are essentially machine guns, rather than telling them that they are semi-autos, is dishonest in itself, but to insert it into a cinci post article on their own website, giving the false impression that the cinci post said it?

If that's A-ok in your book, it speaks to the sort of person you are.

On edit:
When posting the ENTIRE cinci post article on their own website, they didn't need to edit it at all. Adding a sentence to an already finished article requires a separate act of "paste" or typing it in.

And, that might be the first time in history, that "reputable" has been use to describe CSGV. In fact, one might use a term you are clearly familiar with to describe their actions, and your defense of them:


Duplicitous.

[jimmy the one]

21. DU members make false statements too

beevul: Adding a statement to a piece that others wrote, without attributing that statement to its author, gives the impression that the author of the original piece made that statement. Yet we know that the author of the original piece did NOT make that statement. We KNOW it came from CSGV. On top of that, the statement is false, and echos what other gun control zealots have said.

Your tailing re the semi-auto misconception is an aside, the alleged slander is the issue, & whether as written violates freedom of press. Well, if what you say is even true, did author kevin Osborne file a complaint against CSGV? from a quick look, seems Osborne is an impartial reporter with no transparent axe to grind re guns or guncontrol. Do you know if he took umbrage?
What you say about attributing to others is true, but progun world does the same thing, far more seriously & far more often. I suppose you will support evidence & bash gun lobby if provided with evidence?

How about some pro gun blue dog dems on DU here, adding errors to what I'd written. Below, I never said 'easily', I just said 'generally' as in able to be done, bit of a difference. And I posted several links how ar15 & ak47 could be converted to full auto:
irongate: You're 100% incorrect, no semi auto rifle made after 1986 is easily converted or generally capable of being converted, ATF has made sure of that,
nycskp: You are the one who, failingly, suggested that semi-auto rifles were easily converted
jto: Copy & paste any post of mine where I wrote that semi auto rifles could be EASILY converted..

ezra: Are you seriously trying to make the argument that owners of the most popular centerfire target rifle in America care more about shooting at "U.S. soldiers" than they do at 200-yard paper targets?
jto:.. didn't say that..what I wrote: ..about the only time an AR owner would need to be able to hit a playing card at 200 yds would be if he was shooting at 'tyrannical US soldiers'" You left the adjective 'tyrannical' off 'US soldiers'..

And here we have geJohnston posting under a misconception & trying to cover it up:
Johnston: I used the wrong one htxx://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc which simply means coordination does not imply causation.
johnston: Seriously? No, I said correlation. BTW, nice and childish.
jto: What's this? johnston denying that he'd errantly said 'coordination does not imply causation'????
johnston, may 2014: Actually, I used the wrong one .. Honest typo. I had to go back and look. So it is tacky to point out your pettiness and hypocrisy? Looks like it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=150634

beevul: But you expect people to believe it was simple "human error". The fact of the matter is that CSGV added false information to an article someone else wrote. Theres simply no way around it. And no reasonable argument that it was an "accident" can be made.

So I take it you'll join me in condemning these violations of honesty & integrity by these pro gun posters? If not, why not? explain why not. And comment on gejohnston's 'coordination' misconception, & his Martha stewart misconception below. Thanks.

Johnston: Under the Gun Control Act, it is a five year mandatory minimum of being a felon in possession. Any felon including John Dean and Martha Stewart.
wiki: Under the GCA {1968), selling of firearms to certain categories of individuals is prohibited: — (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968 .. ALSO, 1986FOPA supercedes GC1968: Anyone who has been convicted in any court of a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices, whose full civil rights have not been restored by the State... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
wiki: .... In addition to five months at a minimum-security federal prison, Ms. Stewart must spend five more months under house arrest at her 153-acre estate
jto: ..Martha stewart case, but if she only spent 5 months in prison, how does the guncontrol act of 1968 apply? so that she can't get her 'gun rights' back?
Johnston: Since my only point was violent vs nonviolent felons giving such details isn't relevant.
jto: Martha Stewart is a violent felon? Johnston blowing smoke.

[beevul]

25. DU members are not an anti-gun lobbying group.

Your tailing re the semi-auto misconception is an aside, the alleged slander is the issue, & whether as written violates freedom of press.

Hey, that might be YOUR issue. If it is, go ahead and go after CSGV for it. It isn't the issue I raised however.

The issue I raised, is CSGV telling lies to the American people. Since you chimed in, do you support that?

How about some pro gun blue dog dems on DU here, adding errors to what I'd written.

Right. Because posters on a message board, are the exact same thing as a group that lobbies to ban guns.

Go bother someone else with your attempted subject changes, red herrings, false equivalencies, and sophomoric sophistry.

[Straw Man]

16. Well, Jimmy ...

I'm not the one who revived this thread. I didn't even read the dates of your posting when I responded to it. As far as I knew, it was a new thread.

I didn't say it is what he meant, I said his phrasing CAN have that connotation, if some wise ass gunnut said it sarcastically. Certainly some hangings were 'prevented' in the past by some guy shooting the victim before he could be hung, change of mind & quicker you know.

"Some wise ass gunnut" didn't say it. You did. The statement is ludicrous on its face.

Furthermore, readers can readily see that I said it was ostensibly said in a positive manner as in actually preventing a guy's death, by using his gun to save a life.

Yes -- you said "ostensibly" to the positive interpretation and then proceeded to give your negative one. Would it be fair to ask your intention in giving that particular interpretation? And don't give me that prattle about what connotation it "CAN have." You gave it a spin: now explain yourself.

[beevul]

20. I don't think you'll get a reply to anything you wrote there from your interlocutor.

Not that that means you wont get a reply at all from it.

[jimmy the one]

22. which straw man are you?

straw man: I'm not the one who revived this thread. I didn't even read the dates of your posting when I responded to it. As far as I knew, it was a new thread.

Technically I never contended you did, but I indeed thought you did. (what I wrote): Two years later you post this zinger? Browsing past xfiles this is the best you could come up with? and for a lame ad hominem? Sheesh, why don't you go back to sleep, rip van winkle.

straw man: So shooting the victim constitutes "stopping a lynching"?

I see you're living up to your 'straw man' name: A straw man is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/straw-man

... reread what I'd written, I only tried to cover all bases, but agreed that it was said honorably: In fact, saying 'my gpa used this S&W to help stop a lynching' can have a negative connotation too, as well as a positive one (as it ostensibly did), as in shooting the guy before the trap goes out, or shooting it out ala clint eastwood. to save his buddies on the gallows.

strawman: That's one of your finest howlers, I must say. You've outdone yourself. Really, you have

I surmise I make adversaries howl? add 'seethe in anger' & 'clam up in deaf dumb & blind mode'.
.. a howling good time to inquire of your screen name; mine is a british naval term 'jimmy the one'. But yours, I wonder why you chose 'straw man' on this RKBA - guncontrol board, when it conjures up negative connotations left & right.

Note illicit gun sense here: Merriam/Web: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

oxford:straw man: A person regarded as having no substance or integrity:

wiki: A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man&quot and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man&quot instead of the original proposition http://www.onelook.com/?w=straw+man&ls=a

straw man, noun: an effigy in the shape of a man to frighten birds away from seeds

.. just to cover all bases again due the last definition, are you ray bolger the scarecrow, oz-bound searching for a brain? ray bolger really didn't need one, you know.
Or, perhaps some other arcane meaning you have, for referring to yourself, as straw man?
Hey you're right, I AM howling, with laughter!

[Straw Man]

23. "Howl" as in laughter. You make me laugh.

That's what "howler" means. When somebody says he used a firearm to stop a lynching, the contention that he did so by shooting the victim can only be a macabre joke. It's ludicrous.

You "agreed that is was said honorably"? No, you did not. Your use of the word "ostensibly" casts doubt on the speaker's claim. Now you're back-pedaling to say that you were just trying to "cover all the bases," yet you were clearly trying to undermine the assertion. No amount of after-the-fact smoke-bombing can cover up that fact.

Any "negative connotations" you may have with my screen name are absolutely irrelevant. You only bring it up to try to divert attention from the matter at hand. You fail. Again.

[jimmy the one]

24. it fits you to a tee

straw man: When somebody says he used a firearm to stop a lynching, the contention that he did so by shooting the victim can only be a macabre joke. It's ludicrous.

Again you create a straw man argument, since that's not what I wrote (see above posts). That was only one of the several scenarios. You could argue veiled, but noting the others it wouldn't stand up in court.

straw man: You "agreed that is was said honorably"? No, you did not. Your use of the word "ostensibly" casts doubt on the speaker's claim.

No it doesn't cast doubt on speakers claim, when applied as I intended. I, as author, have final say, within reason, as to how I intended any word usage to be interpreted, & I conditioned all scenarios on the more plausible one, honorable prevention; and the following dictionary entries provide that interpretation:

merriams: Definition of OSTENSIBLY 1 in an ostensible manner 2 to all outward appearances

merriams: Ostensible: 1 intended for display : open to view
2 being such in appearance : plausible rather than demonstrably true or real <the ostensible purpose for the trip> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ostensible

websters 1913: Ostensibly, adv. In an ostensible manner; avowedly; professedly; apparently.

amer heritage: Represented or appearing as such; ostensive: His ostensible purpose was charity, but his real goal was popularity http://www.onelook.com/?w=ostensible&ls=a

Even if used in the sense below which you imply, it only provides a 'possibility' of it being false. And hearsay should be given the benny of the doubt here, as I clearly wrote.

.. appearing to be true, or stated by someone to be true, but possibly false

straw man: Any "negative connotations" you may have with my screen name are absolutely irrelevant. You only bring it up to try to divert attention from the matter at hand. You fail. Again.

Translation: I do not have any ostensible justification for using 'straw man' as a user name.
Straw Man. It's you, baby.

[Straw Man]

27. I know what "ostensibly" means.

No it doesn't cast doubt on speakers claim, when applied as I intended. I, as author, have final say, within reason, as to how I intended any word usage to be interpreted, & I conditioned all scenarios on the more plausible one, honorable prevention;

Yes, it does. It introduces an element of uncertainty, which you did deliberately and purposefully.

News flash: you don't get to unilaterally determine the denotations and connotations of words depending on the exigencies of your rhetorical situation. Language doesn't work that way.

You did not "condition all scenarios on the more plausible one." You introduced other alternatives. If it wasn't to cast doubt on the "honorable" interpretation, why in the name of all that's logical would you introduce those alternatives?

Here's a little paradigm to help you understand. When I say "X ostensibly means A, but it could also mean B or C," I'm not affirming that "X means A." I'm introducing an element of doubt. Otherwise, why would I say it?

It's elementary, my dear Jimmie. And screen names mean nothing, either positively or negatively. It's just another form of name-calling, one of your favorite rhetorical strategies.

[jimmy the one]

28. elementary, it's you baby

straw man argument: News flash: you don't get to unilaterally determine the denotations and connotations of words depending on the exigencies of your rhetorical situation. Language doesn't work that way.

Within reason yes I do get to determine the meanings of words that I use when there are synonymous interpretations. What YOU should be saying is that YOU don't get to arbitrarily insert alternate derogatory meanings into what I write. Your language might work that way, but in the civilized world it don't.
You haven't proved jack that I meant it to be interpreted in a pejorative fashion.
So go soak you head, mr straw man.

It's elementary, my dear Jimmie. And screen names mean nothing, either positively or negatively. It's just another form of name-calling, one of your favorite rhetorical strategies

You need think higher than elementary. Any connotations by my questions you brought upon yourself, especially since you provide no intelligent explanation to why you call yourself 'straw man' on a gun board.
And actually, it's you who is above using an expedient, to wiggle out of your referring to yourself as 'straw man'.
out for the day....

[Straw Man]

29. Within reason?

Please address the paradigm I provided and explain why you believe that adding "ostensibly" to a statement of fact doesn't introduce an element of doubt. I provided a reasonable explanation of why it does. The ball's in your court.

What YOU should be saying is that YOU don't get to arbitrarily insert alternate derogatory meanings into what I write. Your language might work that way, but in the civilized world it don't.

Oh, but it do, it do!

Go ahead -- tell us how attaching "ostensibly" to the original statement was an affirmation of that statement's truth. The civilized world awaits your wisdom. Tell us why providing alternate interpretations of a statement should be read as positive support of that statement.

You haven't proved jack that I meant it to be interpreted in a pejorative fashion.
So go soak you head, mr straw man.

Ladies and gentlemen, the voice of reason and rationality.

And actually, it's you who is above using an expedient, to wiggle out of your referring to yourself as 'straw man'.
out for the day...

Perhaps you meant "not above"? Or did you mean "above" in the literal sense? In any case, my screen name is not and never was the issue here. No points for this clumsy attempt at wriggling away from the matter at hand.

[jimmy the one]

30. final answer

straw man: Please address the paradigm I provided and explain why you believe that adding "ostensibly" to a statement of fact doesn't introduce an element of doubt..

Using your one picked definition of 'ostensibly' which was not my intent, introduces an element of doubt as does the word 'probably' - it probably is so but possibly not - so whenever someone uses 'probably' he is being duplicitous? Your argument is what is duplicitous.
You have twisted this thread into an ad hominem attack, when it was originally to confront how CSGV took nra-gun-man out of context. In his ad, Rep. Barrow cocks a rifle and touts his NRA endorsement. He then closes with the warning, “I approved this message because these are my guns now — and ain’t nobody gonna take‘em away.” Barrow received $27,250 in NRA contributions over his 8-year.. “Rep. Barrow has been bought for the price of a new truck.

It's been so long (2 yrs) that I don't even know where I got this quote (link doesn't provide it anymore & I have no sound). But this is evidently how CSGV clipped it, & I again say they shouldn't've, but it was not a malicious clip: “.. my grandfather used this little Smith & Wesson here….” It cuts the congressman off .. what did the CSGV choose to omit? This: ”…to help stop a lynching.”

what I then wrote: .. they shoulda left it in context; but there was no misleading spin really, or negative connotation by clipping it to say 'my gpa used this little smith & wesson here...'.. It's actually quite complimentary to his gpa In fact, saying 'my gpa used this S&W to help stop a lynching' can have a negative connotation too, as well as a positive one (as it ostensibly did), as in shooting the guy before the trap goes out, or shooting it out ala clint eastwood. to save his buddies on the gallows.

What I was driving at, was that in full context, stopping a lynching using his gun could be misinterpreted, whereas by clipping it to >>my gpa used this little gun<< there was NO negative connotation.
What is wrong with saying this?: 'my gpa used this little smith & wesson here... Was his gpa nra? I doubt as gunnutty as his grandson.
The full quote 'my gpa used this S&W to help stop a lynching' could be interpreted in a negative fashion, as shooting the guy to stop the lynching, tho I disclaimed it as actually what transpired. My point was that in full context the quote could be misinterpreted pejoratively, while when clipped, could not.

I'm sick of arguing with you, my points have been made; if you persist with your ad hominem don't expect any further response.

[Straw Man]

32. Final and wrong.

What I was driving at, was that in full context, stopping a lynching using his gun could be misinterpreted, whereas by clipping it to >>my gpa used this little gun<< there was NO negative connotation.

The full quote 'my gpa used this S&W to help stop a lynching' could be interpreted in a negative fashion, as shooting the guy to stop the lynching, tho I disclaimed it as actually what transpired. My point was that in full context the quote could be misinterpreted pejoratively, while when clipped, could not.

Ludicrous gibberish. Obviously his grandfather "used" the gun. What he used it for is the significant part. Taking that out opens the statement up to a broad spectrum of interpretation. Leaving it in makes the meaning clear.

Only a fool would interpret "He used this gun to stop a lynching" to mean the person used the gun to shoot the victim.

Hint: When I attack your utterances and rhetoric as ridiculous and illogical, it does not constitute ad hominem. I have indulged in no personal character attacks outside the scope of your statements.

[beevul]

26. "after-the-fact smoke-bombing"

Perfect fit, that description.

[rrneck]

5. The battle lines in the culture wars make a plate of spaghetti look like railroad tracks. nt

[virginia mountainman]

6. yep nt

[beevul]

7. Kick.

For those who think CSGV is a fine group.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. Thanks

[virginia mountainman]

9. Amazing how short some memories are..NT

[jimmy the one]

31. kumbaya

beevul: Because posters on a message board, are the exact same thing as a group that lobbies to ban guns.

So you condone your brothers lies & misconceptions, & say they're not on a par with a gun control group. Well then, will you join your fellow democrats in condemning the nra for bashing president Obama? which makes your posted CSGV transgressions look like children slapping in a sand box:

Factcheck, 2008: NRA Targets Obama It falsely claims in mailers and TV ads that Obama plans to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense. {NRA} advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition. The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90% of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.
Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment" is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."
....The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama's stated position as "rhetoric" and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret "plan." NRA spokesman: "We believe our facts." Perhaps so, but believing something doesn't make it so. And we find the NRA has cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama's record to come up with a bogus "plan."
... Update, Sep 29: The Obama campaign asked broadcasters to take down ads from the NRA, citing this article and a separate Wash Post article that called the ads misleading. The NRA attacked us on its Web site, claiming that we are neither impartial nor independent.

False: Obama is proposing no such ban
False: Obama is not proposing to ban hunting ammunition. And he did not vote to "ban virtually all deer hunting amm..".. was a measure to ban "armor-piercing" amm/ not hunting amm..
False: Obama says he does not support any such handgun ban and never has.. supports "reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns" (not manufacture)- a ban not "politically practicable."
Misleading: Obama in favor of licensing handguns, but {not}hunting weapons.. said a national gun registration law isn't politically possible

The following is hypocritical since the nra via FOPA1986 supports restoring 'gun right's' to ex felons, tho not violent ex felons, but nra duplicitously adds including gun felons to hypocritically make themselves look righteous:
NRA Claim: "Restore Voting Rights for Five Million Criminals Including Those Who Have been Convicted of Using a Gun to Commit a Violent Crime"
Mostly true - WHY 'mostly true'??? : .. Obama was a cosponsor of the Count Every Vote Act of 2007.. - "to restore fairness in the Federal election process by ensuring that ex-offenders who have fully served their sentences are not denied the right to vote." http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

[beevul]

33. Blah blah blah.

"So you condone your brothers lies & misconceptions, & say they're not on a par with a gun control group."

I don't know whether or not there are any lies or misconceptions on the part of my "brothers" or "sisters" (funny how you forgot the gals).

All I know is that you claim there is. And frankly, you have no legitimacy or credibility on this issue. In other words, you are bankrupt of any of the currency which might cause anybody to take anything you say with even the slightest degree of seriousness.

And beyond that, sure, the nra is bad. See, I gave you an example to learn from.


Now lets see you say "csgv is bad".


Oh, and take a primer on how the reply system works.

[jimmy the one]

34. memory lane 2013

beevul: I don't know whether or not there are any lies or misconceptions on the part of my "brothers" or "sisters".

Well then, how about yourself? Let's take a trip down DU's memory lane of misconception.

Post 75, july 11, 2013: beevul: The "well regulated" which I refer to, is the "well regulated" in amendment 2. It does in fact mean well equipped.

(jto wrote): Here's websters 1828 dictionary, pls point out exactly where 'regulated' is defined as meaning 'equipped'.
1 REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.
2 REG'ULATE, v.t.1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/regulate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172127742#post131

websters 1828: Equip: 1. Properly, to dress; to habit. Hence, to furnish with arms, or a complete suit of arms, for military service. Thus we say, to equip men or troops for war; to equip a body of infantry or cavalry. But the word seems to include not only arms, but clothing, baggage, utensils, tents, and all the apparatus of an army, particularly when applied to a body of troops. Hence, to furnish with arms and warlike apparatus; as, to equip a regiment.
2. To furnish with men, artillery and munitions of war, as a ship. Hence, in common language, to fit for sea; to furnish with whatever is necessary for a voyage.

And then, for some reason beevul, you stopped replying on that thread after I asked you that question. Not one reply more did you give after I asked you to point out where in 1828 'equipped' was an accepted definition of 'regulated'. As if you disappeared from the face of the earth (Not that that's a bad thing).

beevul: And beyond that, sure, the nra is bad... Now lets see you say "csgv is bad".

'Bad' has several connotations, including paradoxical slang as en vogue or cool, so I can't buy your premise, pls reword it into something which is more readily understood, since you would have final say on how you intended 'bad' to be interpreted, you could choose b mischievous, disobedient <a bad dog>, which isn't really, that bad (merr/webster).

[beevul]

35. What ever you say iverglas.

Read and understand the preamble to the bill of rights, and get back to me on what difference the definition of "regulated" makes..

[pablo_marmol]

10. The stupid truly burns. NT