Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumOur SOP says...
Our SOP says:
"Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence."
Discuss: Verb
1.Talk about (something) with another person or group of people.
2.Talk or write about (a topic) in detail, taking into account different ideas and opinions.
Synonyms
debate - argue - dispute - talk over - moot - agitate
Posters who come here and post but are clearly NOT interested in having a discussion - civil or otherwise, , are in my view, violating the group SOP.
Am I the only one that feels this way?
Discuss.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)People who come in here and post irrelevant replies to threads in order to de-rail and hijack are the problems. They are all usually hit-and-run posters who contribute nothing to the conversation. I'm not naming names, of course, but we know who they are. They turn relevant threads into "don't feed the trolls" games.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Let's go!
premium
(3,731 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)On the other hand we could talk about the TDF for the next 2x days.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)There are certain immature posters who post in an attempt to derail the conversation and hope to get people to respond in a manner that allows them to alert on the post in attempt to get a jury to hide it.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
rrneck
(17,671 posts)the denunciations of bullies on DU while not a few of them behave like bullies themselves.
A bully doesn't want a fight, he wants an easy victory. Anybody here that might be considered "pro gun" becomes a whipping boy for those who have embraced partisan fundamentalism for their own selfish ends. Those selfish objectives are motivated by any number of things, most of which have to do with ego enhancement or simply unthinking brand loyalty.
Not a few of the anti gun trolls you will see are little more than consumers who treat the issues of the day as fodder for their own selfish ends. They are weak and lazy because they do their trolling in a place where they are assured of an advantage not of their own making. At least Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the rest of their ilk get paid to be self aggrandizing jerks.
For mature intelligent people the term "discussion" implies at least a measure of rationality. For others, the term implies emotional vomit.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)There are a few extremists on both sides of the RKBA issue, who are inflexible and intolerant of the views and experiences of others. I guess that's not uncommon when debating such a controversial subject. I find a similar dynamic in the Religion group.
Too many folk think they have the answers, when they haven't even asked, let alone considered the relevant questions. Something we're all guilty of at times. The important thing is to recognize that, otherwise there will be no productive discussion. For me, the whole point of being here is to learn and hopefully grow from the sharing of ideas with others who claim similar liberal political and social beliefs.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Lots of people discuss lots of things. Some do so from a dispassionate point of view, others much more passionately. Completely dispassionate discussions are generally boring. Passionate discussions pay Skinner's rent; the more passionate the better. The question is not whether people are passionate about the issue, but why they bring those passions here.
There are a few members (I can think of two) who claim to have tragic experiences related to guns. I suspect at least a few more. Others bring with them the passion of brand loyalty. They are consumers who have confused citizenship with smart shopping and have an attitude that public policy should satisfy their confirmation bias whether it will actually work or not. Then there are others who are basically cowards who like annoying other people from the safety of mother's basement and the ideological slant of DU.
The nature of DU is that there will always be more anti gun trolls than pro gun trolls. It's axiomatic that liberals tend to dislike guns and anyone associated with them, and there are good reasons for that. Individual reasons for truculence can run from justified to juvenile. If someone had a bad experience with guns they may justifiably hate them. But in most cases the nature of the internet brings out the juvenile in some people and they are allowed to get away with it because of the nature of this site.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)the arguments and doctrines of the controllers.
3 hides in almost as many days. The controllers have three (3) sites where they can post any amount of tripe and attack they wish with virtual impunity. This is a problem more at the top of DU than with the general membership, and of course reflects the small elitist nature of the controller/banner outlook. As it always has.
I wonder if the DU policy of looking the other way regarding gun issues has contributed to the overall decline of civility, and the rise of a rather standard trollish and are- you- now-or- have- you- ever- been approach to any number of other issues, esp. in Guns-Dogs (GD).
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)The question is not whether people are passionate about the issue, but why they bring those passions here.
Indeed, why? There are more gun forums around than you can shake a fire stick at - why come here? Why come here and tolerate the abuse, vilification and open hostility?
- I am not an NRA member and am opposed to their political advocacy - I do support their advocacy of the 2A, training and ownership
- I am a very liberal democrat on some issues - and understand that we will never agree on everything - I am not a one issue voter
- I, and in general liberals and democrats passionately support the constitution and the bill of rights. I share that sense of passion and community, especially with regards to 2A
- Most of the gun forums are decidedly RW nuthouses - but they are treasure troves of technical, legal, training and maintenance information on just about any topic related to firearms
- When I first joined DU during the dark days (4/2005), I was just starting my exploration with firearms and would have to say I was still at a point where I was opposed to liberalizing firearm ownership.[p]Several years later I have become passionately pro-2A, and feel the need to oppose knee jerk legislation that does nothing to improve our safety but does everything to encroach on the bill of rights. Many DU'ers have sensible approaches to improving our nation with regard to firearm ownership, but otherwise seem to lack real world understanding of the practical nature of firearm ownership. Some want to know more, some are not yet capable of accepting real world firearm ownership. Well I am a real world owner of firearms. I am a liberal. And I want to live in a country safe from gun crime but allows me the opportunity as a consenting adult to protect myself from those who would do me harm.
- To be a voice for firearm ownership and help refine discussion around proposed legislation
rrneck
(17,671 posts)From post 110 in this thread:
I find it fascinating that there seems to be nothing in liberal ideology as it is currently understood that actually deals with the portion of people's lives when it is necessary to use a firearm for the purpose for which it is intended. Somehow, and I don't fully understand it, there is a blind spot where the optic nerve of political action attaches to the eyeball of political perception and it seems to happen to every issue in the culture wars. From guns to abortion it's a lacuna that becomes, among other things, a rich market for freewheeling emotions that don't nurture anything but themselves. At some point, ideology becomes an end rather than a means. And since nobody does anything for just one reason, it's fascinating to try and watch and see when the turn from utilitarian application to self serving fundamentalism happens.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Would you support the banning of the extremists on the other side, as they are on the pro-gun side?
People that say things like this about the second amendment, contrary to a major plank of the party platform, for example:
Such a stance after all, is no less extreme than someone being against ALL gun laws, and anyone that comes here expressing that viewpoint is served pizza in short order.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)There are some who would like to ban all gun ownership and others who would ban gun ownership by civilians. These are extremists, but they should not be banned from the discussion if they follow the SOP of the group and TOS of DU.
Same goes for the extremists on the other side, who advocate little or no accountability for what happens to their guns and would impose what they consider their rights on communities that resist the carrying of guns in public.
Thankfully, most of us here are in between those extremes.
That said, if the conversation remains civil, without the constant snark from either side, then nobody should be banned, unless they are a constant disruptor.
We have a member right now who appears to be advocating for the abolition of background checks. Do you think he should be served pizza or is he just confused?
This is a passionate debate, as it should be, but we can also keep it civil.
Like most people, I think 2A needs to be looked at, either by a redefinition, or a rescinding and replacing with something that reflects the times. As it stands it is both oblique and archaic and subject to the whims of SCOTUS. Also like most people, I support private ownership of firearms.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)Advocating for either no civilian guns or no background checks are "extreme-fringe", IMO.
I think folks should be encouraged to share their opinions and reasoning here. I don't like folks being attacked for that. There will always be the unenviable task of drawing a line between those who simply express an unpopular and controversial opinion and those who inject controversy simply as a disruption.
I generally don't use the ignore function because we all have a voice for a reason.
I don't see the 2A as needing replacement. I also don't see the recent SCOTUS decisions as being correctly characterized by the term "whim". (YMMV)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I do think there are valid arguments for and against eliminating semi-autos across the board, including LE, though I don't advocate for it. There are also valid arguments for and against registration of some or all firearms.
Extreme points of view are not really the problem. The problem is with rigidity, on both sides of the issue. There's nothing worse than someone thinking he's got the right answer to a problem, when he hasn't asked all the relevant questions, considered all the angles and walked in his adversaries shoes. Arrogance solves nothing.
2A obviously needs revisiting, in some way, because it is open to the interpretation of the day. IMO, it needs to be clarified in such a way as to not impinge on individual rights, yet come to terms with the reality of today's firearms and how they affect public safety.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)yet it lead to me being H'd at least once when I brought it up to this rather protected poster. Woe to those who push back: There is double bookkeeping.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Abolishing the second amendment would not necessitate banning all guns. Amazingly, there are countries all around the world with guns that have no Second Amendment.
Then there is the fact I explained the difference to you between a wish and a utopian dream vs. advocating for actual policy. That's what compromise is about. You wouldn't understand the concept.
By the way, your junior high school level cafeteria gossip is petty but exactly what I would expect from some quarters.
hack89
(39,171 posts)besides making it easier for gun controllers?
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)That post was a joke. True, I wish it wasn't there or that SCOTUS didn't interpret the way they do, but I don't support it's repeal. For one thing, it will never happen, so there is no point.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)even as you post your delete of the constitutional right that protects such is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Your continued baiting by questioning the compassion I have for children is crude and meant to hurt, and I think you derive pleasure from that.
You have repeatedly posted that I oppose measures to secure guns in residences when children are present, cite my posts in "support," and will not acknowledge my posts DO NOT support you false attack. Are measures to protect children not evidence of "compromise?" Isn't my support for UBG evidence of "compromise?" It is you which cannot "compromise;" in fact you attack and distort the words of those who would compromise, which signifies the threat you feel by the very word.
You are not very clever, you are enabled.
You know the dynamic, here. Goad, attack, stigmatize, distort and do so with little fear of a hidden post. Get push back in the same measure, guaranteed "nice HIDE." IMO, your commitment to your side is -- as you say -- too "petty" to be seen as authentic. But your posts are disruptive to the TOS, and, IMO, their purpose.
Sums it up, doesn't it?
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Why have you argued against them so often?
No one forces you to make personal attacks. That is your choice entirely.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Is this standard operating procedure?
Where have I argued against UBC? This is yet another false accusation.
You persist in personal attacks, and I' m sure another alert is, pardon the expression, hanging fire.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Here's a new bill to which you can lend your support:
Don't let what happened to Toomey-Manchin happen to King-Thompson
show your support for the bill here. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-h1565/show
and here
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr1565
Please write your senators and congressperson and make clear you support background checks through the King-Thompson bill.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Why, you are in league with the Independent Firearms Owners of America!
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)A thread "laudatory of me"? That would be a first.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)probably through IFOA and my Congressman (an old liberal hippy I have worked for nearly 40 yrs) who supports gun-control.
You will find that Manchin-Toomey or its derivatives is widely supported in this group.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)You can customize the letter to say what you want. They are portals to facilitate writing to your representatives.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)You all need only do two things: 1) stop posting answers to my posts. 2) stop gossiping about me. You'll note that Beevul brought me into this thread. You expect me to watch people gossip about me and not confront them, you are mistaken.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)What specifically don't you understand?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)If you don't want me to post in the gungeon, people here just need to do two things: Stop gossiping about me in threads like this one; and just don't respond to my posts. I left a two word post in a thread that appeared under latest threads, got dozens of responses, so I replied to some of them. The best way to get rid of someone is to simply ignore them.
Response to BainsBane (Reply #119)
Post removed
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Get you to stop what they see as repeated untruths and character attacks. For what it's worth, "gunners" don't alert nearly as much as "antis" because they know it doesn't do any good with the jury system we have, the 3-tiered posting privileges enjoyed by antis, and with the disposition of the Ads, hence the occasional outburst threads that resemble a Cairo street demonstration (though no coup is in the offing). And hence the sub rosa remarks about others. Hell, IMO I don't think most gungeoneers had you in mind.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)stalk me via PM. That contradicts the idea that you are aggrieved by having to see my posts.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Are you really so easily set off? I'm sorry to hear that.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Great combo.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)But I'm relieved to see you're still alive and well.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)What a shock. 
beevul
(12,194 posts)You've convinced us that the reason that you'd "delete" the second amendment if it were in your power, is because it prevents nothing in regard to gun bans, and you'd change nothing in regards to guns.
"prosecuting thought crimes"?
That would be like...blocking someone from a group when they haven't even posted there...I know...its just so outlandish of a thing for me to post, since nobody would ever suggest such a thing.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)I'm not a host. So now you're imposing collective guilt?
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)"That says everything you need to know about the "law abiding gun owner.""
"The fact is we have a war on American soil, and gun nuts are the enemy."
"It's obvious to me that the gun proponents invoking of mental illness is nothing but a distraction to keep the focus off guns."
"There are a lot of lousy psychiatrists around."
"You are wrong on every level, and especially morally. No amount of debate will ever change that fact"
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)What's up with the thread you promised to post?
Those are positions. The poster is accusing me of actively doing something I have no ability to do. It's as though I accused you of acquitting George Zimmerman.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)The thread is currently still being researched. I've come across some interesting information, but I'm struggling to tie it all together at the moment. I confess that hands-on research on numeric data isn't my strong suit, and I'd rather double-check repeatedly. Couple that with a ten-day workweek and a mild illness and you get a subprime worker; I prefer not to let my research be lacking in favor of haste.
Bains: You offered disdain for collective guilt, yet those "positions" you hold espouse collective guilt almost exclusively. Your broad brushing of almost anyone you disagree with is known not insignificantly (even outside the RKBA debate), and I prefer to avoid letting hypocritical actions go unanswered.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)I can't deny that.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)I look forward to a time when, once my research is complete, we can work together to foster a bridge between our two lunatic fringes.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)So one person against dozens and I'm the bully? Oh dear. That's quite the victimization complex.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Even though it can result in a guilty conscience.
Do you think DU is pro gun a la, say, AR15.com?
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Here I am an unarmed middle-aged women terrifying dozens of armed men. Who knew I had so much power?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)of trying to parley a denial into proof of a specious accusation do you?
I'll ask you again. Is DU pro gun on a par with AR15. com?
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Well I thought I did. Now I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're asking if most DUers are pro-gun, the answer is no, as I already said. But your post here is in response to an OP talking about changing the SOP of the gungeon. Hence my comment to you about the irony that somehow I'm a bully here despite being greatly outnumbered.
if you're here, and if you believe all the poll numbers you've been throwing around, you can hardly consider yourself outnumbered. Thus your claims to be so are bullshit. DU is understandably anti gun and the field is tilted distinctly in your favor. But don't worry. I won't hold it against you.
In fact, I think I'll retire to the protected pro gun advocacy group and complain about "people like you" or maybe even brag to others how upset and frightened they are.
Oh wait...
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)and it is more than obvious I'm outnumbered. This thread is about the SOP of the gungeon. I call bullshit on you. If you're thinking of changing TOS for DU instead of the SOP of the gungeon, you should really let Skinner in on the conversation.
Even in GD gun threats attract majority pro-gun folk. So many DUers have gun on auto-trash, and gun activists are more passionate than most DUers. That is what enables a small minority of extremists to control the gun agenda at the national level too, that and the backing of the corporate gun lobby, which is obviously the most important factor.
The victimization complex of gunners is really amazing. It was evident when they called off one of those events where they were going to turn up at a local street fair with their guns. They claimed they have been "intimidated" relentlessly, most notoriously by someone who said he would bring a bullhorn to say what he though. The horror of people with guns being confronted with free speech was too much for them.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Juries are drawn from the entire membership of DU. The administrators of the site have little sympathy for pro gun arguments. There is no protected group for the advocacy of "constitutional carry" or any other ostensibly pro gun legislation. But I don't mind. I have no desire to change the TOS. It works just fine for me.
The subject of this sub thread addresses the possible motivations of certain members who, for various reasons of their own, trap themselves in the hypocrisy of a bully complaining about being bullied. Since we have established that you are not in any way shape or form outnumbered, I will leave it to those reading your responses in this and other threads to draw their own conclusions about my perceptions.
Strangely enough, since the SOP of this group deals rather directly with the use of force in our culture and legislation designed to manage that use, I find it fascinating to watch which members leverage the rhetorical disparity of force of this venue to their advantage and display it in the truculent and confrontational security of a forum that, when asked to judge them, is very likely to give them the benefit of jury nullification.
ETA I'm not going to go and look, but I'll bet that any fair reading of the threads in which you claim to be outnumbered you will find that you are responding in every sub thread to everyone you claim is picking on you. I wonder, if one were to look, how many of those subthreads you started yourself and how many you leapt into with guns blazing. Hmmmmm.
Those who are quickest to flee the the field feel most acutely the target on their backs.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)One person cannot bully by herself. Bullying requires numbers. How do you suppose I have bullied people? I have stated my views, which you do not like. I am not the one pretending I've been bullied. I know you disagree with me, as is your right. I don't see that as a nefarious plot against my person. Why should you? If you really resent hearing typical Democratic Party positions, there are lots of websites where people would agree completely with your views on guns. Pretending to be a victim because you advance conservative views on guns is not only ridiculous, it's offensive considering the real victims are those killed by the guns people here insist are so innocuous.
In short, get over it. Either read my posts or don't. Either respond, or don't, but quit bellyaching.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I don't recall seeing your name in the OP. And yet here you are. "I'm accused of committing thought crime and people are here gossiping about me when I'm not in the thread." I don't believe I referred to you specifically, and yet here you are. "So one person against dozens and I'm the bully? Oh dear. That's quite the victimization complex." I believe you have responded to everyone in this thread, uninvited. You have single single-handedly made this entire thread about you. Bravo.
You just picked a fight with a half dozen people and you complain about others ganging up on you. Hey, don't take my word for it, read the thread in which you have been posting. Your behavior in this thread and generally speaking is comically manipulative. You lash out as close as you can to a hidable personal attack while simultaneously taking every word that is said to you, and many that are not, in the most personally offensive way possible. And you do it by wrapping yourself in opinions that insulate you from criticism. It's not a new tactic and it doesn't contribute anything of substance to the conversation one whit. Making oneself the center of attention never does. It's just, well, disruptive.
But don't let me stop you. If that's why you're here, by all means proceed. Like I said, it's interesting to watch.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)because they most certainly are discussing me. That was my post with the delete icon. I am the mythical radical he seeks to ban. I entered because they were discussing me. In fact, Beevul's OP was prompted by a conversation he had with me. If you ask, I am pretty sure he will confirm that fact. Eleanors goes on to call me deceptive. This was all before I entered the thread.
You mentioned bullying. I pointed out I am outnumbered in the gungeon. That is a fact, even though you deny it. My point was a response to your accusation.
Picking a fight: Yes, I'm accused of doing that when I ask people about their evidence and point out inconsistencies in their arguments. That just happened when I challenged someone on their argument about Chicago, and it happened when I examined homicide rates and showed their interpretation of the GAO report on gun trafficking to Mexico was entirely wrong. People are used to a certain script and don't like it challenged. Again, if what you want is for your pro-gun views to be validated rather than challenged on ideas, I would think there are better places to accomplish that.
Now, there is little of substance in this particular thread. What would be the point of substance you would have me raise in response to gossip about me and charges that I am a liar? If people here are going to gossip about other members, they deserve to be challenged on it.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Is this the post you're talking about?
And Eleanor38 appears to be referring to StarboardTack.
It looks like post #27 is your first in this thread. At any rate, I didn't know who they were talking about and I don't care. Either way, it's certainly about you now, isn't it?
Are you really outnumbered in the gungeon? How could that have happened? Maybe it was this. Has it occured to you that if you are outnumbered it's not because of an abundance of enemies but a lack of allies?
As far as content goes, I know I have tried to have a rational conversation with you only to have you head for the hills. I expect that's the case for every "gungeoneer" here. But I'm not going to judge. You can do whatever you want. Feel free to speak your mind. We're all listening.
Are you really pretending there as many advocates of gun control in the gungeon as pro-gun rights people?
"Head for the hills" is a function of the many dozens of replies I get from gunners. I can't possibly read them all. That is the result of the numbers of intensely passionate pro-gun activists. It's surprising you would deny that. I would think you would be proud. Then there are all the new members you suddenly signed up for the concealed carry poll, or members with less than 10 posts who suddenly were resurrected. That was pretty funny. In that case, the important point for gungeoneers was that they were "winning." Now it's that you're outnumbered and I bully you.
The lack of allies thing is exactly what guns right people count on. Right after Sandyhoook lots of people were interested. They've since gotten tired. Those who believe NRA propaganda are highly motivated and normal folks less so. On this site that means people trash the gungeon and autotrash all threads related to guns. That is something I wish were not the case. It doesn't make me feel better to make that observation. People have moved on to the outrage du jour while Americans keep dying. That troubles me, and it is precisely what enables the gun lobby to triumph over the wishes of the American public.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Your link is to the post in the second image above.
So look at what you've got here. You seem to assume that you are the only one to suggest the repeal of the Second Amendment. I assure you that's not the case. You assume you are the subject of the ensuing sub thread. That assumption is based on no real evidence. You assume I was referring to you as a bully. There are plenty of those about. And by leaping to all those conclusions, whether they are right or not, you defined yourself as the person about whom we are referring. You ran into this thread full steam looking for a fight, and now you complain about being outnumbered. You just embraced the very labels you deny. Do you really follow these threads that closely? Do you really think anyone knows, or cares, whether we were talking about you or not?
Don't bite off more than you can chew. If you make a habit of responding to half a dozen people at a time don't go crying about it. Of course, if your objective is to attract as much attention as possible, why, you're doing it right.
Are you really pretending there as many advocates of gun control in the gungeon as pro-gun rights people?
No. Exactly the opposite. All your allies seem to have - wait for it - headed for the hills.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Don't gossip about me. It's that simple. Playing coy and denying it doesn't change reality.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Opinions that are certainly not exclusive to you were being discussed. You embraced them as your own.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)and another person says you showed that poster's deception, that constitutes gossip.
Are you one of those people who never admits they are wrong?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)that you don't hold a unique position in the firearms issue. I don't see where anybody mentioned your name or linked to your post. I don't even see anything anonymously quoted. The OP and the ensuing conversation referred to an attitude, a methodology, and a policy position. It was, if anything, an effort to lift your position into an abstraction so that it might be discussed without having to refer to any one person personally. You gave those references a personal face by embracing them. The conversation went like this:
Beevul: "Some people are poopyheads."
BainsBane: "I am not a poopyhead."
I find it fascinating that there seems to be nothing in liberal ideology as it is currently understood that actually deals with the portion of people's lives when it is necessary to use a firearm for the purpose for which it is intended. Somehow, and I don't fully understand it, there is a blind spot where the optic nerve of political action attaches to the eyeball of political perception and it seems to happen to every issue in the culture wars. From guns to abortion it's a lacuna that becomes, among other things, a rich market for freewheeling emotions that don't nurture anything but themselves. At some point, ideology becomes an end rather than a means. And since nobody does anything for just one reason, it's fascinating to try and watch and see when the turn from utilitarian application to self serving fundamentalism happens.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)It is not meaningless ideology but a desire to save human lives. You act as though your rights are under siege. That is far from the case. The gun interests have overridden the rights of the rest of us. What we seek is to enact some modest reforms that could help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those adjudicated dangerous. We seek to limit the most deadly weapons that have no role in hunting or self defense. We seek to untie the hands of law enforcement to pursue perpetrators of gun crimes and those who sell guns illegally. At every turned we are blocked by your constant refrain about your "rights," which contains in it an assumption that the rest of us do not matter at all, even in our desire to stay alive.
You think this is an intellectual exercise. It is not. It is about saving lives.
The gossiping is obvious. There is no point in going over it again. There is a ongoing determination to deny reality among some around here.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)or did you pluck it off a shelf because you thought it would look good on you?
Prove your policy objectives will work. Pick one, your choice. As I recall this is the second opportunity I have given you in this thread to produce substantive dialogue.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)knowing full well the NRA has prohibited federal funding for research on guns, which means an effective ban on all research. There is no proof because the gun lobby wants it that way. Clearly they do so because they want to suppress knowing about guns. They enforce silence and ignorance because they want to justify positions that increase their profits. I submit the burden of proof is on you to show that the President's proposals would limit your 2A rights in any way.
Isn't it convenient that the gun industry suppresses research, information, and free speech, while you sit back and demand proof? You depend on the authoritarian control of the gun lobby, its suppression of research and free speech, and then cynically demand proof. Do you ever think about the complete contradiction in that?
There is overwhelming evidence that guns kill and are in fact the most common method of both homicide and suicide. The greater he percentage of gun ownership in a population, the higher the gun death rate. (See Mother Jones, 10 Myths about Gun Control). So tell me, why do gun rights supersede all others? How can you justify opposing modest, common sense reforms that could save lives because you find them a minor inconvenience (like having to reload or go through a background check). Is there no point at which you consider the rights of others? If there is even a possibility that expanded background checks and limits on magazine sizes can save lives, how can you justify opposing those measures because it might take you a few seconds to reload a gun or go through a background check? Is someone else's life really worth less than 15 seconds of your time?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)That is simply a disinformation. The law bans lobbying and advocacy by the CDC. It started with some "research" published with CDC grants to ER docs, like Author Kellermann and his "43 times more likely" study. Criminologists who peer reviewed called it a invalid POS.
The DoJ, through its research arm the NIJ, continued to fund legitimate research by social scientists. Their results were usually not what the gun control groups liked to see.
My rights supersede your misinformation.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)about the results of gun violence. Authoritarian corporate control supersedes liberty. Gotcha. Thanks for confirming the only rights you care about are your own.
If your cause weren't corrupt, you wouldn't need to suppress information.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I said the ban only applied to lobbying by the CDC, not legitimate research. During the ban, DoJ continued to fund research. The difference is the DoJ's criminologists were doing real science and coming up with results did not benefit the anti gun ideology.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)All federal funding on gun research is banned. NIH and NSF fund research into public health. science, and social sciences. Research is done at leading research universities around the nation. Without federal funding, it doesn't happen.
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)for gun research. Gun control groups didn't like the result.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)that might be used to promote gun control. The result of the ban has been a 95% drop in research.
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)I work in research support at a university. Ours is the 7th largest recipient of grants in the US, and that money comes first from NIH and second from NSF. I have never heard of anyone even applying to NIJ. They currently have two calls open. Two. http://www.nij.gov/funding/current.htm That makes the National Endowment for the Arts look like a major funder, when it's total budget is a rounding error for NIH. The point was that the gun lobby has banned federal funding for research, which you falsely denied.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)ALL federal funding contains a provision that the money cannot be used to lobby or promote political positions of any kind. That's true for NSF, NIH, and even NEH. So there is no need for special laws to prohibit lobbying, since that is already prohibited. The reason for and effect of the ban has been to suppress knowledge on gun violence.
For an example, look at this provision by the National Endowment for the Humanities, that appears in Requests for Proposals for every federal grant.
Funding may not be used for: "projects that seek to promote a particular political, religious, or ideological point of view"
http://www.neh.gov/files/grants/fellowships-may-1-2013.pdf
If you look at any call on any federal funder's website, you will find a similar restriction.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)positions of any kind
As it should be.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Which is why your argument that the gun lobby imposed those special provisions to prevent lobby for gun control doesn't hold water. That has always been prohibited. The point was and is to suppress information on gun violence. The ban has resulted in a huge decrease in research on guns, just as the Bush administration's embryonic stem cell ban brought about a near halt to US research in that area. Yet the stem cell ban was not nearly as comprehensive. Suppressing knowledge helps no US citizen. It only protects the corporate gun lobby.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I support stem cell research and that research would show how to make it work as a viable medical procedure, which is what Bush banned. Bush was wrong, and it is a safe bet we both agree with that. A better analogy would be if funding were for advocating the ethics, either way, of the procedure.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)First you claimed there was no ban on federal funding for gun research. Now you claim you support that ban. You are supporting a corporate lobby's efforts to suppress information because you share their goals of suppressing knowledge. That is a shameful, anti-democratic and illiberal position.
There is federal funding on ethics, by the way: NEH funds philosophy and NIH funds medical ethics. If I did a funding search I'm sure I could find more sources.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Since using federal research money to lobby on ANY ISSUE is already illegal. In fact, it is illegal to conduct research geared toward a political agenda, ANY political agenda.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)That is the ban the gun control groups are bitching about. I'm guessing you didn't read the last CDC one? The problem with the CDC granted research, like the Kellermann study, was as Criminologist David Wright described it was as scientific as NRA propaganda.
The NIJ research that has been done during the "ban" is good. The last CDC one, that came out recently, is also good. So, I don't see the disagreement.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)You stand with the gun lobby is suppressing information and free speech. What are you so they will find out?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Institutions, like corporations, are not people.
Like I said, DoJ and the government has been funding such research, but gun control groups ignore most of it, often calling it "NRA propaganda". That should tell you something. In fact, I have used much of that govenment funded research that you called "NRA talking points". The CDC's latest opus pointed out, among other things, guns are commonly used in legitimate self defense. IIRC, a lot of Gary Kleck's research was funded by the DoJ. So, your point is not valid.
Information is not being suppressed. Tax money should fund legitimate science, not propaganda. How do you feel about the DEA and NIH "studies" that claimed that smoking pot was the first step to heroin?
Speaking specifically of Kellermann, debunked but still cited in your Mother Jones article, the CDC paid for it. Could I go to the CDC and download the complete study to read? Nope. It was published in a for profit medical journal and I had to buy the study from some for profit clearing house. Sorry, if We the People, pay for it, I should be able to go to the CDC site and get the whole thing including his research notes along with any critique.
I'm not afraid of anything. I don't like my tax money funding propaganda or bullshit studies, which you said is illegal, that are as scientific as NRA propaganda. That is what the law banned. So, you have not made a valid point yet.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)that says that funding has been banned. You, congress, and the NRA are not qualified to determine what legitimate science and public health is. That falls to experts in the field. That is why federal funders assemble expert review panels to rank applications in order to determine which merit funding.
Tax money does not fund propaganda. That you find the information inconvenient does not make it propaganda. Information is being suppressed. You have seen and evidence that shows exactly that and have chosen to ignore it. You saw that the NIJ has only two calls posted. DOJ as a whole lists only ten awards for 2013, none of which deal with gun violence. http://grants.ojp.usdoj.gov:85/selector/result
They haven't even bothered to update their website so that the most recent information is dated for 2011. Other federal funders are currently taking applications for the 2014 funding cycle. DOJ is not a funder of research of any scale, and it clearly is not currently funding any research on guns, as that search of recent awards shows. You saw that research into guns has declined by 95% since the ban. You have systematically ignored evidence and have instead chosen to deceive yourself for political purposes. That tells me your commitment to rights does not extend beyond guns.
A for profit medical journal? Are you fucking serious? No academic journal makes a profit. Subscriptions allow them to stay afloat. However, NIH and NSF now require that publications be available in open access formats. NIH has done so for a couple of years and NSF is just now implementing the requirement.
You are talking about an area I happen to have expertise, and you clearly do not have your facts straight. If you care at all about the truth, you need to stop relying entirely on pro-gun sites for information because you have many facts wrong. I recall a recent discussion on arms trafficking to Mexico were your facts were totally wrong. It's one thing to support gun rights and another to eschew the truth in order to justify those rights.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 6, 2013, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)
Completely correct on trafficking to Mexico. What did you refute?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Huh? The ban is not on the research. It is a ban on using the research findings to promote a position on the issue of firearms.
the NRA has suppressed the research that will debunk all of their talking points.
You found the site. You could pick any NRA talking point you wanted and tear it to pieces. And you won't even try. You just churn out more boilerplate. Do you realize you're speaking in slogans? For all your posturing you haven't given the issue any thought. I gave you the opportunity, right here, twice, and you blame the NRA for your inability to debunk their positions. There are plenty of resources out there if you want to actually think about the issue. The FBI has tons of information. The CDC WISKARS site has tons as well. But you don't really need statistics to prove how wrong the NRA is. All you have to do is think for yourself.
C'mon, give it a go. Pick out an NRA talking point and give it a go. Let's figure it out.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)You may find authoritarian corporate control over research and speech funny. Those of us who care about liberty do not. Once again we have confirmation that the constitution and rights that don't relate to guns are meaningless to you people. Hardly a surprise.
Do you mean to tell me that there is not a single talking point at the NRA website that you can discuss? And the reason you can't discuss it is that the NRA has squelched all research regarding gun violence? And you're telling me that after I told you about the FBI and WISKARS?
Yep, you've really got those gunnuts upset and on the run now.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)and the idea of constitutional rights and liberties. It is you who seems determined to avoid discussing anything of substance. On the off chance you are interested, you can read the discussion between gejohnston and me in this same subthread.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)It's not germane.
There is a mountain of information out there for you to work with. The FBI has crime data that can be downloaded to an Excel spreadsheet. Youtube has actual footage of actual firearms, firearm confrontations, and firearms training that you can watch to learn about guns. Every state in the union as well as the federal government have posted their firearms laws online. All pending firearms legislation is posted online as well. You simply have no reason to complain that you can't discuss NRA talking points when all the information you need is at your fingertips. You're just making excuses. The only question is why.
It appears, based on the arguments you are making, that you are waiting for somebody else to produce the perfect factoid to prove what you already believe. You are shopping for the perfect ideological accessory to bring out in triumph whenever you are challenged. Here's the bad news: it ain't gonna happen. You certainly won't get it from The Center for Disease Control. Know why? Guns are not a disease. And people that own them are not "infected carriers". Approaching the issue that way smacks of eugenics. That kind of thinking happens when ideology becomes more important than people.
You posted the link to the site.
You think NRA talking points are bogus.
Get to work and do your own research and stop waiting for it to hit the store shelves.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)and limits on magazine sizes limit your 2nd Amendment rights. One piece of evidence comes from Sandyhook. While the shooter was reloading, a teacher was able to get some children to safety. For sake of argument let's say there were six children, and that only six children each year are saved by limits on magazine sizes. Is the inconvenience of your having to reload a bit more often really more important than those six lives?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 6, 2013, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)
Search on youtube for "fast mag change ar15".
The last I heard every magazine Lanza discarded had unspent rounds in it. That's called a tactical reload. Lanza did it wrong. A properly reloaded rifle leaves no time for anybody to do anything. If you want to argue that reloading leaves others time to respond then the NRA will be able to argue that it will leave time an armed citizen to pull a gun and shoot back. It makes no sense to create a law that depends on the bad guy making a mistake or a good guy to properly respond. Especially if that mistake will have little or no impact on his objective. Ammunition capacity is one small variable in a whole constellation of factors that go into a mass shooting. Push that legislation through and the bad guys will redesign their training and tactics to work around it before the ink is dry. Meanwhile you've blown a boatload of political capital on a law that will do nothing to keep anyone safer. What are you going to say after the next mass shooting, "We did good. See? Six more people out of twenty didn't get shot." That's assuming you get the opportunity to make that claim. It sure as hell won't help get anyone elected. A five round magazine can kill five people. That's a mass shooting. Quibbling over numbers is ghoulish sensationalism.
The last background check legislation I heard about is a reboot of Manchin/Toomey. It's interesting but I don't think it will work.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023029647#post124
Manchin/Toomey attempted to regulate internet and intra state sales (as I recall). I thought that was very interesting. It hadn't occurred to me to go about it that way. Why intra state and internet sales? Some more cynical than myself would think it was an incremental approach to firearms confiscation. I think that's unlikely. I think it was an attempt to regulate firearms transfers based on intimacy. The assumption was that is was unlikely that two people who met online or live across state lines share a sufficiently close relationship to allow the seller to determine if the buyer would be a legal and responsible gun owner. In theory it makes sense. In practice I don' think it would work. Given the population density across the eastern seaboard it is quite possible to be intimately familiar with somebody across a state line. There are not a few cities and towns in the United States that actually straddle state lines. And if you're selling a gun through an internet connection you'll never see the buyer, or the straw purchaser who is buying the gun for him.
The law would have zero impact while annoying a lot of voters. That's all risk and no payoff for any legislator that supports it. Now I know that it almost passed the senate. The United States Senate is the most exclusive club in the world. There is no doubt they got together and decided who would vote how based on who could and who could not afford to do so. It was all political theater from the get go. They took one look at the legislative task at hand and turned it into WWF wrestling match to distribute red meat to their respective bases.
So the legislation was based not on firearms (the AWB and mag capacity tried that) but on relationships between people. I don't know what social circles you run in, but where I am relationships come in all sorts and kinds of flavors. People create, change, redefine and manipulate relationships all the time. There is simply no way to write workable legislation designed to regulate personal relationships between people. The only relationship between people that involves a gun we can hope to regulate is that between a licenced FFL and a qualified buyer because it's a business relationship. Beyond that all bets are off. There is no way in hell we can demand a wife do a background check on her husband if she wants to give him a gun. That's just stupid. The legislation that the president and Manchin/Toomey proposed made exceptions for family. But define "family". We already have a problem with that right now in this country. There are already outrages aplenty with laws regulating marriage and you want the Democratic party to tell two people in a relationship what they can and cannot do? Under penalty of law? It's morally repugnant and politically suicidal. It's an invasion of people's privacy, and that won't work.
So now do you want to have a try at explaining how the law would actually work? For real people in the real world?
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)than the few seconds it takes you to reload a gun are more important than the lives that might be saved by limits on magazines sizes. Keep laughing. You show exactly what you are.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)But then again I didn't expect you to show any intellectual integrity.
Feel free to head for the hills when you run out on non sequiturs and insults.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)That is your choice entirely. Some of your compatriots here take these issues more seriously.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)you might enjoy this subthread presented all in one spot. They make fascinating little narratives, don't you think?
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
69. I have yet to see a list of "NRA Talking Points". nt
--------------------
Star Member BainsBane (12,331 posts)
86. Here you are
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues.aspx
They'll sound familiar
-----------------------
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
91. Oh, that's nice.
Since you are obviously such a whiz at research, now debunk them. And show your work.
--------------------------
Star Member BainsBane (12,331 posts)
93. In other words
You asked for something you didn't want to see at all.
--------------------------
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
95. Well, I sure didn't ask you.
Now we are having two conversations in the same thread. Wow, now you've got double my undivided attention. But since we are so aware of each other and all, and since you are such a whiz at research, why don't you go and find a post by me that employs one of those talking points and we'll discuss it.
---------------------------
Star Member BainsBane (12,331 posts)
98. Pardon me
Last edited Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:59 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
I thought you were interested in the information. When two posters asked for something, I thought it was my opportunity to contribute "substantively." But now I find out you don't want to see that substance at all. Knock me over with a feather.
-------------------------
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
100. You are pardoned.
A link to the NRA website certainly isn't a substantive contribution. I am interested in discussion. Produce something to discuss other than your feelings and maybe we'll all learn something.
---------------------------
103. The question was NRA talking points
Where else would one find those but from the NRA?
I find it fascinating that in one post you criticize me for "heading for the hills" and in another in responding to you when you pretended to ask another poster for information.
I did produce something. I produced precisely what you asked for, and you are angry about it. I also produced data on gun deaths in another thread, which another poster summarily dismissed and claimed it came from a source it did not. There is an ongoing tendency here to dismiss anything people find inconvenient.
I also systematically went through homicide figures for Mexico and the GAO gun trafficking report, and another member continued to insist it didn't say what it clearly said in black and white. You all create your own version of reality and become angry when it's shown to be false.
The tired emotions/feelings trope is a tried and true gendered insult. It also shows a profound lack of understanding of human cognition.
---------------------------------------
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
109. I said it was nice.
What more do you want? Having produced them are you unprepared to discuss them?
------------------------------------
Star Member BainsBane (12,331 posts)
116. What did you want to discuss?
You seemed quite put out that I produced them.
------------------------------------
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
118. If I were "put out" I wouldn't offer to discuss them.
Anything you like. Your choice.
----------------------------------
------------------------------------
Star Member BainsBane (12,331 posts)
130. You ask for proof
Last edited Fri Jul 5, 2013, 01:35 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
knowing full well the NRA has prohibited federal funding for research on guns, which means an effective ban on all research. There is no proof because the gun lobby wants it that way. Clearly they do so because they want to suppress knowing about guns. They enforce silence and ignorance because they want to justify positions that increase their profits. I submit the burden of proof is on you to show that the President's proposals would limit your 2A rights in any way.
Isn't it convenient that the gun industry suppresses research, information, and free speech, while you sit back and demand proof? You depend on the authoritarian control of the gun lobby, its suppression of research and free speech, and then cynically demand proof. Do you ever think about the complete contradiction in that?
There is overwhelming evidence that guns kill and are in fact the most common method of both homicide and suicide. The greater he percentage of gun ownership in a population, the higher the gun death rate. (See Mother Jones, 10 Myths about Gun Control). So tell me, why do gun rights supersede all others? How can you justify opposing modest, common sense reforms that could save lives because you find them a minor inconvenience (like having to reload or go through a background check). Is there no point at which you consider the rights of others? If there is even a possibility that expanded background checks and limits on magazine sizes can save lives, how can you justify opposing those measures because it might take you a few seconds to reload a gun or go through a background check? Is someone else's life really worth less than 15 seconds of your time?
-----------------------------------------
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
135. So
the NRA has suppressed the research that will debunk all of their talking points.
You found the site. You could pick any NRA talking point you wanted and tear it to pieces. And you won't even try. You just churn out more boilerplate. Do you realize you're speaking in slogans? For all your posturing you haven't given the issue any thought. I gave you the opportunity, right here, twice, and you blame the NRA for your inability to debunk their positions. There are plenty of resources out there if you want to actually think about the issue. The FBI has tons of information. The CDC WISKARS site has tons as well. But you don't really need statistics to prove how wrong the NRA is. All you have to do is think for yourself.
C'mon, give it a go. Pick out an NRA talking point and give it a go. Let's figure it out.
-------------------------------
Star Member BainsBane (12,331 posts)
138. You have evaded the issue
You may find authoritarian corporate control over research and speech funny. Those of us who care about liberty do not. Once again we have confirmation that the constitution and rights that don't relate to guns are meaningless to you people. Hardly a surprise.
------------------------------
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
147. LOL!
Last edited Fri Jul 5, 2013, 06:21 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Do you mean to tell me that there is not a single talking point at the NRA website that you can discuss? And the reason you can't discuss it is that the NRA has squelched all research regarding gun violence? And you're telling me that after I told you about the FBI and WISKARS?
Yep, you've really got those gunnuts upset and on the run now.
------------------------------
156. Yes, I've been discussing the ban on research
and the idea of constitutional rights and liberties. It is you who seems determined to avoid discussing anything of substance. On the off chance you are interested, you can read the discussion between gejohnston and me in this same subthread.
-----------------------------
Star Member BainsBane (12,331 posts)
139. So shall I take your answer to be yes
Last edited Fri Jul 5, 2013, 03:38 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
than the few seconds it takes you to reload a gun are more important than the lives that might be saved by limits on magazines sizes. Keep laughing. You show exactly what you are.
--------------------------------
Star Member rrneck (14,186 posts)
150. I don't recognize any NRA talking points there.
But then again I didn't expect you to show any intellectual integrity.
Feel free to head for the hills when you run out on non sequiturs and insults.
------------------------------
Star Member BainsBane (12,331 posts)
157. You continue to evade discussing anything of substance
That is your choice entirely. Some of your compatriots here take these issues more seriously.
------------------------------
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)You mean the subject matter that prompted you to become angry when I provided those talking points? So much so that you lashed out and told me you hadn't asked me and I who did I think I was for injecting in the subthread? That is now what you insist we should discuss?
The idea that the research ban is justified is an NRA talking point. The idea that gunners are protecting constitutional rights is a talking point. Everything that comes out of your mouths are NRA talking points. You all present the same misinformaiton in the the same ways, illustrating that you get your propaganda from sources informed by the NRA.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)And add some quotes from the NRA website. Reproduce the talking point here so that we may examine it.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)These weapons are already strictly regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and more recently in 1986.
"We seek to untie the hands of law enforcement to pursue perpetrators of gun crimes and those who sell guns illegally."
I would like to hear your specific thoughts on this. It seems like something I would agree with, depending on the specifics. I really would like to agree with you on more than UBC. I hope you are in favor of increased penalties for straw purchasers, I am, are you?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Are you sure the OP is about you? I read it to mean those that start threads here and then do not participate in the discussion. One particular DUer comes to mind and it is not you. I've never seen you start a thread and then not respond to anyone.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)plan was backfiring. They wanted to open carry at an event that they really should not have considered going to in that manner. I think it was a stupid idea and am glad they thought better of it and chose not to follow through. There have been a few open carry demonstrations in recent years. The last one I remember was in Hudson, WI before Wisconsin had a CCW law. They had no law against open carry, so I was generealy support of that one because it was their own event. Otherwise, I think open carrry is asking for trouble. It's nobody else's business who has a CCW and is carrying.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"But your post here is in response to an OP talking about changing the SOP of the gungeon."
No it isn't. Since I'm the OP you were talking about...let me make this abundantly clear - I was talking about enforcing this groups SOP - not changing it.
This is yet another time, you've said I did something that I did not in fact do.
ipnabla - that's my own new made up word for such a thing.
Seems a minor point to me. That doesn't explain your gossiping about me. Where in the SOP does it specify this is space for gossiping about other DUers?
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Seems a minor point to me."
Surely you must know, that in life, and in discussion, details are everything. And, using one of your posts as an example of an extreme viewpoint, is not "gossiping" about you. I was making a point, and if it had been someone other than you who posted that, I'd have used it just the same.
Another ipnabla to add to the count, since I wasn't "gossiping" about you.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Talking about someone in a negative way outside of their presence is gossip. That is exactly what you and Eleanors, if not others, were doing in this thread. It was also a violation of the rules as articulated on DU2.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I said this to another poster:
People that say things like this about the second amendment, contrary to a major plank of the party platform, for example:
Note that I said people - plural. note that I didn't link to your post, or even mention your name.
I used a sentiment which you expressed, as an example of a sentiment which is tantamount to an extreme viewpoint, in a question to another poster.
The assertion, by you, that this constitutes "gossiping", is ludicrous.
Another impabla for the list, since what I did can in no way be construed as gossiping by any reasonable person.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)as an example of someone of a radical extremist. Eleanors chimed in about how you had penetrated my "deception." Not naming me doesn't change the fact that the two of you were gossiping about me.
You refuse to reflect on your own behavior. You did the same thing in pretending your posts here were different form mine in ATA by saying you were "asking a question," when that is precisely what I did in ATA.
Twice you have refused to admit something when caught red handed.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"You reproduced my postas an example of someone of a radical extremist."
Yup, I most certainly did, because as posts with extremists sentiment go, its right near the top.
But I did not attribute it to you.
Hence the difference between using it as an example, and saying "hey look what yer pal bains said".
"You refuse to reflect on your own behavior."
That's rich.
"I'm done arguing with gun proponents"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022008390
Caught red handed doing nothing of the sort.
The OP was in fact prompted by my annoyance with another poster - believe it or not, it wasn't about you. You posting extremist sentiment, just happened to make a good exclamation point to the fact that while all extremist viewpoints are equal, some are more equal than others and shown the door post haste - while others are allowed to stand unquestioned - even though they're clearly fringe viewpoints and not even remotely mainstream.
I have a friends garage to clean, ten large tubs and three coolers of stuff to set out and price (getting ready to have a yard sale), and two barbecues to trailer to the site - my friend whos having the sale is also having a shindig and fireworks tomorrow.
Normally, I'd love to sit here and hash this out, but between getting up in 4 hours, and just having gotten home from 17 hours mostly on the road today, I'm beat.
Have a happy July 4.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)whether me or another poster. So don't do it. Behave like an adult and discuss issues instead of other members.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)and there was no link to the thread with the image of the delete button. I follow a lot of these threads, but I never saw that post. I did not know it was a reference to you. If someone refers to another DUers post, but not by name, I don't see a problem with that. If a doctor talks to his family about a patient but does not reveal the identity of the patient and there is not a way for them to figure it out, is that gossip?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Your posts annoy me occasonally. You seem to blame all gun owners for every gun crime, gun suicide, and gun accident in America. So no, I don't think of you as a bully. More like a mile irritant.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)flying something like the RF-4C, before wimpy drones
http://www.aloneunarmedandunafraid.com/
I worked in a film processing center for a RF squadron when it was at Kadena.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15th_Reconnaissance_Squadron
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)I don't have the distinction of having served my nation, as you bravely did.
I'm not nearly so impressive.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Hoyt would be one specific example, as well as others.
There is a second group to discuss gun control, all they do is come on this forum with the same old tired stuff. I'm do want this forum to ban civil discussion, I see nothing wrong with some limits. If somebody did the exact opposite of Hoyt and posed nothing but pro gun post on the gun control and activism forum, they would be banned from there.
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)He is the only one though. 
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Pro Banners there is no such beast to be found. I am getting really tired of the insults, innuendo, and outright lies posted here by the members from Castle Bansalot. I am for putting a rag in their mouths till they learn some manners.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts) Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2013, 04:00 AM - Edit history (1)
You mean people who disagree with you, while you lecture me about not supporting "free speech." 
And you accused me of lying when I recounted your implying I wasn't welcome here. 
beevul
(12,194 posts)You're free to disagree all you like, but doing it in a civilized way, rather than attributing to people, things they did not say, positions which they do not hold, or meanings they did not mean.
Yes, I said you were stating something which was not true, and you were.
Its not you that I find unwelcome here. Its your behavior when you act uncivil and refuse to discuss and/or debate in a reasonable civilized way.
Of course, you knew that, since you've been told that by me no less and 5 times already.
Yet you continue to assert that its something else.
Boggles the mind, it does.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)A number of members have made personal attacks against me that have been hidden.
I have not had a post hidden in here.
I am accused of misrepresenting arguments when I interrogate someone's evidence: That happened when I took apart the gunner interpretation of the GAO report on gun trafficking to Mexico, when I just challenged someone on their argument about Chicago, and when I tired, seemingly without success, to understand someone's point about the relationship of suicides to stats on gun deaths. If someone throws a fit and accuses me of lying rather than clarifying their position, that is not my fault and it certainly doesn't facilitate comprehension of your argument. It appears to me to be a method of deflection. People are used to a certain script, and I have noticed a tendency to deflect efforts to penetrate those arguments by exclaiming outrage. People want to claim they are for extended background checks while opposing actual bills that would mandate those checks and systematically arguing that such checks won't prevent crime. It appears to me that people have convinced themselves that a certain script is true and react very hostilely when that script is challenged. If there is some particular incivility you don't like, that is what the alert system is for.
You also have repeatedly misrepresented my views in claiming I want to ban all guns, when I have NEVER said such a thing.
I have also observed that the gun activists here treat every single gun control advocate with complete disdain and scorn. People here appear to respect no one who disagrees with them. That of course is your choice, but I find strange your choice of venue for cultivating outrage at gun control activists.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"A number of members have made personal attacks against me that have been hidden."
Uh huh.
And would you like for those of us who post here, to link all the ones which were hidden that weren't personal attacks on you, to compare to selected posts of yours which are allowed to stand?
I'm thinking not, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, and well have a big show and tell.
"I am accused of misrepresenting arguments when I interrogate someone's evidence: That happened when I took apart the gunner interpretation of the GAO report on gun trafficking to Mexico, when I just challenged someone on their argument about Chicago, and when I tired, seemingly without success, to understand someone's point about the relationship of suicides to stats on gun deaths. If someone throws a fit and accuses me of lying rather than clarifying their position, that is not my fault and it certainly doesn't facilitate comprehension of your argument. It appears to me to be a method of deflection. People are used to a certain script, and I have noticed a tendency to deflect efforts to penetrate those arguments by exclaiming outrage. People want to claim they are for extended background checks while opposing actual bills that would mandate those checks and systematically arguing that such checks won't prevent crime. It appears to me that people have convinced themselves that a certain script is true and react very hostilely when that script is challenged. If there is some particular incivility you don't like, that is what the alert system is for."
That's all really fine and good, and I'm not going to address every little thing you say, except to say that leaning on the "that's what the jury system is for" argument is useless. Everyone knows the jury system is broken.
Please, assert otherwise.
"You also have repeatedly misrepresented my views in claiming I want to ban all guns, when I have NEVER said such a thing."
Show where I repeatedly claimed you want to ban all guns. Note, that you did say that I claimed numerous times, that you want to ban all guns.
Another ipnabla until you substantiate this ridiculous assertion.
"I have also observed that the gun activists here treat every single gun control advocate with complete disdain and scorn."
Wait.
"People here appear to respect no one who disagrees with them."
For.
"That of course is your choice, but I find strange your choice of venue for cultivating outrage at gun control activists."
It.
This is a tale of the earned.
That scorn you speak of...every time one of you opines "they have blood on their hands", "they care nothing for lives", "they care nothing for children"...or any other number of nasty insinuations...you lot earn that scorn.
On the other hand, many of you, have not earned our respect. Some have. But many have not.
You either earn it or you don't.
And lastly, you couldn't be more wrong, about cultivating outrage. We pro-gun people generally want to be left alone about the gun issue. its not us who cultivates outrage at gun control activists, its the gun control activists. See "they have blood on their hands", and "they care more about guns than children", and "they're compensating", and on and on and on.
It appears to me that since those posts have not been hidden, they were not the personal attacks you interpreted them as. I have in the past had a number of posts to gunners hidden, so the notion that pro-gun control posts won't be hidden is false. I have observed that of late jurors more easily hide gunner posts than others, but that, I think, reflects their exasperation with certain members or positions.
You reproduced that delete amendment and insisted I was lying when I explained my position on the matter. That was in one of the threads on the Colorado magazine size limits. You also produced it here as an example of an extreme view, when in fact my views are far closer to the President's and the majority of the Democratic Party. You did so despite he fact I explained my views to you.
So you admit you treat all gun control activists with scorn and go on to try to justify why. You want to pretend the effects of gun violence are not important. Deaths of children are why we argue for gun control. Human life is all that matters. You would like us to pretend that is not at issue because you find the position inconvenient. Too bad. Guns kill children, women, and men. That is what they are designed for and gun proliferation is the reason why the US has the highest homicide rate in the First World. Pretending one's views have no relation to that is tantamount to supporting a war, like in Iraq, and pretending one has nothing to do with the resulting casualties, or supporting cuts in health care and food stamps and pretending one has nothing to do with the resulting poverty and hardship. One leads to the other. Guns kill those people. It is the very heart of the issue. Politics involves a series of moral choices. I choose human rights and human life over profits and guns. My sense of social justice makes that imperative.
I could not live with myself if I adopted the positions or coldness toward victims of gun violence that it takes to earn your respect. Social justice is far more important to me. You find that objectionable. That is entirely your problem, and, I would assert, a very serious one.
beevul
(12,194 posts)See, now you're attributing a notion, to someone who never conveyed it. Ipnabla.
The notion, is NOT that pro-control post wont or do not get hidden. I never said that, implied that, or asserted that. I DID however, put forth the notion that- and really, lets not kid ourselves or be cute here, lets just be plain - the rules either do not apply equally to everyone or are not applied equally to everyone.
Please, assert otherwise.
While you think about it, heres exhibit A:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172127393
Uh...ok. Lets just lay them out and see how close your description meshes with reality:
Your view - "delete the second amendment". You conveyed that message yourself. You did it deliberately. It wasn't a muscle twitch, and you didn't trip and fall into the "delete the second amendment" key. And short of saying "I didn't mean it", you're hastily walking back the clear meaning - that is to say, the clear message you know you intended to send, and the meaning you know full well that anyone would receive when you conveyed it. And yeah, its an extreme view. You know it, I know it, anyone that reads it knows it. it is what it is.
Lets see, the Democratic Party view:
Welll, rather than going into something long and detailed, its simple enough to just say "delete the second amendment" is the point that its farthest from.
That alone makes "my views are far closer to the President's and the majority of the Democratic Party" a falsehood. Unless you think the majority of the party and the president are against the part that says:
"We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms."
See that underlined part? You know, the part you said you'd delete? That's a core constitutional right that our party platform says we will preserve. That you would delete it puts you farther away from that platform on that topic than anyone who wouldn't, regardless of their stand on the other things that follow it whether it be background checks, magazine capacity, assault weapons, or concealed carry.
So while you might believe your views closer represent those of the party, and the President, reality says otherwise.
So you admit you beat your dog. See how that works? Another ipnabla for saying I did something I didn't.
I treat with scorn, those that earn it. It seems I explained that in a prior post. Perhaps go back and read what I said. I never said I wanted to pretend that the effects of gun violence aren't important. That's another ipnabla. I do not happen to believe in the same set of solutions you do - for instance I'm not big on the "delete key" when it comes to constitutionally protected rights. Politics is MORE than just a set of moral choices - its a set of moral choices made while respecting existing restrictions upon the exercise of power which protect rights. We don't suppress all demonstrations and rallys because someone might get trampled, or because someone might incite a riot. And that applies equally whether we agree with the message of the rally or disagree with it. That's how constitutionally protected rights are treated - even the one you'd delete.
And another ipnabla. Wow. You assert that its "positions" or "coldness" that earns my respect or doesn't. That's a hoot.
Blaming Ford or Budweiser, or how many cylinders the engine has, or how many beers a twelve pack holds, and/or agitating for marginalization/stigmatization of any of the above when someone driving drunk kills a kid, does not construe social justice.
Likewise, blaming the gun for what people do with one outside the law, accidentally, or negligently, and or agitating for marginalization/stigmatization of guns in general because of it, does not construe social justice.
No. Those are the tools and M.O. of the puritan. The fundamentalist. The extremist.
Likewise, are attempts to marginalize or stigmatize those who value their own party plank on the subject of the second amendment more than you do by your own assertion.
Theres no spinning, twisting, hopping, skipping, dismissing, or misconstruing a way away from it either.
It is what it is, and you own it - paid in full by your delete key.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)that I made so many heavily armed men cry with my little keyboard image. I do hope you can soldier on and somehow make it through life in spite of the horrendous trauma I've inflicted on you by advancing Democratic views in keeping with Democratic Party policy on a site called Democratic Underground.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Sarcastic, condescending posts don't contribute to the discussion.
But then again, some are not capable of carrying one.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)and people are here gossiping about me when I'm not in the thread.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)You were on the other hand, accused of holding an extreme viewpoint, in response to calling others extremists. And that image I posted, was the response you made to a question asking how posters would rewrite the second amendment.
I stand by what I said.
75ish percent of Americans view the second amendment as protecting an individual right.
Anyone who would "delete" it, does in fact hold an extreme viewpoint, far outside the mainstream.
Anyone holding such an extreme viewpoint, therefore, has very little room in general to be labeling others as extremists, and especially when those that he or she is labeling as extremists, have far less extreme views on the subject than that poster his/her self.
It is the airtight thing that it is and, theres no getting away from that.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)when you go about gossiping about us? Answer: we can't. My definition (probably not the dictionary version) of gossip is telling stories about someone that they either can't respond to or don't know the story is being told. Now tell me, where does that happen??
Have a great long weekend!!
Decided to look it up before submitting the post -- I wasn't far off.
gos·sip
/ˈgäsip/Noun
Casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true.
Verb
Engage in gossip.
Synonyms
noun. tittle-tattle - tattle - scandal - slander - rumour
verb. tattle - tittle-tattle - talk - chatter - babble
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)I don't think so, if so very rarely. You all have got a regular coffee klatch going here.
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)Noun[edit]coffee klatch (plural coffee klatches)
1.A social gathering for conversation while drinking coffee
Sounds about correct for most internet social sites.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Anyone who comes into the gungeon simply to spew NRA talking points and disrupt civil discussions is violating the SOP.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)Since you are obviously such a whiz at research, now debunk them. And show your work.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)You asked for something you didn't want to see at all.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Now we are having two conversations in the same thread. Wow, now you've got double my undivided attention. But since we are so aware of each other and all, and since you are such a whiz at research, why don't you go and find a post by me that employs one of those talking points and we'll discuss it.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)I thought you were interested in the information. When two posters asked for something, I thought it was my opportunity to contribute "substantively." But now I find out you don't want to see that substance at all. Knock me over with a feather.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)A link to the NRA website certainly isn't a substantive contribution. I am interested in discussion. Produce something to discuss other than your feelings and maybe we'll all learn something.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Where else would one find those but from the NRA?
I find it fascinating that in one post you criticize me for "heading for the hills" and in another in responding to you when you pretended to ask another poster for information.
I did produce something. I produced precisely what you asked for, and you are angry about it. I also produced data on gun deaths in another thread, which another poster summarily dismissed and claimed it came from a source it did not. There is an ongoing tendency here to dismiss anything people find inconvenient.
I also systematically went through homicide figures for Mexico and the GAO gun trafficking report, and another member continued to insist it didn't say what it clearly said in black and white. You all create your own version of reality and become angry when it's shown to be false.
The tired emotions/feelings trope is a tried and true gendered insult. It also shows a profound lack of understanding of human cognition.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)What more do you want? Having produced them are you unprepared to discuss them?
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)You seemed quite put out that I produced them.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Anything you like. Your choice.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Then please post them so that all will know what not to say.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)cooking 10 briskets for the shooting match tommorrow.
Have a happy forth.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)SoutherDem
(2,307 posts)When I first found the group was when I had a posting removed because I dared to use the "G" word in a discussion somewhere else, but I thought good I am not alone, I am not the only Democrat who supports the RKBA.
It seems to me the gun control supporters have a safe haven to carry on discussions on the Gun Control Group and based on the number of blocked members and the few (if any) hot threads, if you even hint of disagreeing out you go, yet here you are attacked verbally for being a pro gun supporter. You can't disagree with someone in the slightest with out having some of the regulars sling insults right and left.
I am not asking for a sterile environment, I have thicker skin than that, but to have to walk on pins and needles to prevent from having a post removed or to be attacked by those who disagree with you is getting a bit tiring.
It seems alerting would be useless for a pro gun supporter because it will go to a jury who may be just as anti-gun as the one being alerted on. No jury of you peers.
Also, don't even think of using the "G" word anywhere else or the posting will be removed.
Is it time to change the SOP? Maybe, is it time to start blocking members whose only objective is to raise tempers rather than discuss the issues. Or, is it time for a 3rd group one which is just as strict to being RKBA as the Gun Control group is for gun control.
I know civil conversations can occur in this group because I have had them with a few posters, of course while dismissing the continuous postings of insults by the famous few.
