Is RKBA (Right to keep and bear arms) a Progressive value?

[shadowrider]

29 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	yes
	27 (93%)
	no
	2 (7%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[mike_c]

1. not without significant restrictions....

In fact, RKBA is a constitutional right. I'd argue that restricting that right to protect the broader interests and safety of everyone else is the progressive value.

[pipoman]

5. Which of the other enumerated rights do you feel the same about?

[mike_c]

10. only the ones that consistently result in mass killings of innocent people...

...and people killed to prevent some gun owner from suffering wounded pride or petty property loss. I think you can figure that out.

[TPaine7]

29. Would you agree that the right to propagate the idea that blacks are not fully human and are

deserving of abuse and hatred has resulted in in "mass killings of innocent people?"

[mike_c]

70. I can't even begin to describe the redness of that herring....

"A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue."

[TPaine7]

80. Laugh on, since that's all you have.

As a black man, I've had reason to think on the German model--forbid Holocaust denial and other racist speech--and the American model.

Here's what a red herring is:

A red herring is a clue which is intentionally or unintentionally misleading or distracting from the actual issue.[1] The term is mostly used to claim that the argument of another person is not relevant to the issue being discussed. In mystery fiction, a clue or lead that turns out not to be relevant to the solution of the mystery would also be a red herring.

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

you claimed to feel a particular way

only {about enumerated rights} that consistently result in mass killings of innocent people...

That was the original issue as expressed in the post I answered.

The point you are attempting to make—that the RKBA "consistently result{s} in mass killings of innocent people" is of course false. The vast majority of exercises of the right do not result in ANY deaths, never mind "mass killings." But I read your post charitably, as if you had said something less blatantly false. Even so, it's still wrong.

The right to spew racist BS rarely results in mass killings, but it sometimes does. The subject of my post was an enumerated right, the exercise of which sometimes leads to mass killings of innocent people. It was directly on point.

You apparently don't understand the concept of red herring. If a policeman said, I don't arrest everyone, but I do arrrest those who break the law in my presence, it would not be a red herring to point out that he didn't arrest his buddy who smoked a joint standing right beside him. That would be inconvenient; it would show that his claim was false, but it wouldn't be a red herring.

"Red herring" does not mean the same thing as "inconvenient"; they are totally different concepts.

But laugh on, I understand that you have no substance.

[rDigital]

94. Wow, owned. nt

[Missycim]

110. Well I think there should be tests

before you can vote. Just in case someone like Bush never gets elected again. Which by the way has resulted in more deaths in 8 years then all the mass shootings for 50 years.

[JDPriestly]

20. Although the text of the First Amendment clearly states that the freedom of speech is to

be unabridged, meaning unrestricted, unlimited and in my vocabulary unregulated, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the freedom of speech is subject to regulation (unless, of course, it is the speech of those "oh so human" corporations, then no regulations are allowed).

Only freedom of the press is almost, but not quite without regulation.

I personally disagree with the Supreme Court about the First Amendment and regulation.

I think that Madison and the Founding Fathers who amended the Constitution to include the Bill of Rights who knew what they were saying and meant it. But?????

The Supreme Court seems to impose regulations when it wishes and grants unabridged rights when it wishes -- according to how the Justices feel about the group and cause at issue. That's my impression.

[glacierbay]

25. Thank you

great post.

[TPaine7]

27. So the founders meant to protect passing secrets to the enemy and conspiracy to murder and

issuing illegal orders to troops under one's command and disruption of Congress in session and breach of contract and ... ?!!

All of that can be accomplished through speech alone.

Could it be that the term "freedom of speech" was always intended to mean a freedom that was well understood at the time to have limitations, including all of the limitations listed above (and many others)?

[wolfman24]

214. Yep

Hello

Could not agree more. The job of the Supreme Court among others is to interpet the laws not to impose their own political views onto it. Sometimes this happens but most of the time not.

Wolfman wr

[Hoyt]

2. Wow - no bias in this poll. In Gungeon, in group where people post under multiple IDs, and worse.

But carry on.

[shadowrider]

3. If that is an accusation Hoyt, prove it or retract

[DWC]

118. Actually I thought Hoyt was confessing. n/t

[CokeMachine]

212. I also took it as a confession.

Three Hail-Marys and he's off the hook.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. It is, of course, an American progressive value. In Canada where you are, things may be different.

[shadowrider]

6. I believe he's in Georgia, surrounded by guns and conceal carry n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. Earlier, I thought, that he admitted being a Canadian.

But now he might be in Georgia?

If so, is he here legally? Does the INS know?

[Hoyt]

13. It is different - national health insurance, people don't need guns to venture out, etc.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

19. So you now admit knowing that at least some Americans "need guns to venture out, etc."

Thanks for the admission.

[Hoyt]

23. Not at all. I'm saying Americans could learn from Canadians.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

44. No. Your words from that post speak for themselves. You may not have intended the admission, but

you made it.

It's too late to take it back now.

[pipoman]

7. Who would that be?

If all of the shares were united, I can only think of one poster who resembles that description, and that person speaks so loudly you couldn't possibly deny it..

[shadowrider]

8. I see what you did there n/t

[Yavapai]

11. Hoyt, I find your comment offensive!

You are implying that anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest.

[shadowrider]

14. That comment is very typical of him.

[Hoyt]

15. Is that what you get out of posting a poll like that here is biased?

[shadowrider]

16. How can a yes or no answer be biased? explain that to me please

[Hoyt]

21. It's kind of like going to a klan meeting and asking if Obama should be re-elected.

[glacierbay]

26. Exactly

it's a yes or no question, just like he said.

[shadowrider]

34. You didn't answer the question. How is it biased? I asked a question, yes or no answer

there aren't any shades of gray.

How is that biased?

[holdencaufield]

57. You're saying ...

... DU is a Klan Meeting? Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a Klan Member?

[shadowrider]

58. We put up with that crap every day n/t

[holdencaufield]

59. I don't mind ...

... this is what people do when they run out of arguments.

[Hoyt]

108. 95+% of DU wouldn't touch gungeon. Having lived among gun cultists, I can stomach it.

Hence, poll does not represent DU.

It mostly represents those who can't leave home without a gun in their pants, and/or have a home arsenal rivaling "militias." And there are a few Zimmerman supporters too.

[shadowrider]

109. I notice you dodged the question n/t

[Union Scribe]

89. Now you're likening this forum to a klan meeting.

Keep it classy, Hoyt.

[Missycim]

111. How does this guy

keep on not getting banned?

[shadowrider]

115. He's anti-gun, that's why. He'd be banned if he posted his insults in any other

group or forum on this website.

[Missycim]

117. I know the

hypocrisy is stunning.

[Hoyt]

121. Simply pointing out that OP poll is biased. Another example, ask republicans in Tampa

if they support Romney or Obama.

Point is, I wouldn't want anyone dropping in here and thinking your poll reflects beliefs of Democrats in general. It obviously doesn't, but I'm sure some gun cultists will throw it out as proof of something, at some point.

[shadowrider]

122. Hoyt, you have yet to tell me how it's biased. n/t

[Hoyt]

123. Go take a statistics course.

[shadowrider]

128. No. You're saying it's biased. You tell me, or else you'd say my statistics instructor

was a right-wing, NRA loving, teabagging Zimmerman IF I don't reach the same conclusions as you.

Since you can't say why it's biased, I assume you're only interested in arguing.

[gejohnston]

130. at the convention or the on the street?

on the street can go both ways.

[shadowrider]

132. Tell ya what Hoyt. Why don't YOU put up a "non-biased" poll in GD and let's see the results

You're so confident it would more reflect DU, prove it.

[spayneuter]

169. lf you were to ask Democrats in my home state, you would have a very hard time finding any who

would agree with your odd ideas about guns. The figures would be down around 2 or 3 percent, I can guarantee, even in the larger cities. Even a faint suspicion that any sort of gun ban or confiscation is anywhere close to being -discussed- will make the issue primary. You don't have to like this, but you need to understand it.

[Simo 1939_1940]

147. You're exactly right.

I think the only reason Her Majestic Bag of Bile stayed around as long as she did was because she spewed venom here in the Guns Forum. Otherwise, she would have gone much sooner.

[shadowrider]

151. Agreed. n/t

[Clames]

35. You didn't say the same of a poll by one of your cohorts....

...that was absolutely biased. Don't let your hypocrisy smoother you now.

[Hoyt]

124. Sorry missed that poll. Please enter my response as Anti-gun.

[Clames]

198. That would be hypocritical seeing as you still own guns. n/t

[Hoyt]

204. Don't carry them, don't use them, don't fondle them, they were my dad's revolvers.

What kind of guns do you have, Clames? Do you carry? I don't really keep up with your particulars, like you folks do.

[Clames]

209. You still own them.

Anti-gun is a hypocritical position for you. Why haven't you turned them in for destruction? Sounds like you are keeping them "just in case"...


I own about five right now. Plan on about one our two more to round things out.

[4th law of robotics]

138. Get used to it

he'll also claim (usually indirectly) that you're mentally ill and/or racist as well.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. ! that happens all over DU and if you got out more often you would know it.

but, carry on.

[rl6214]

38. "multiple ID's"?

I think most of the sockpuppets that come back here are of the anti-gun zealots but then again I have my opinion as you have yours.

But carry on.

[glacierbay]

17. It's a very progressive value

[rDigital]

18. The first & second amendments are the most progressive in the Constitution.

Protecting the rights of the people from the ground up.

[Hoyt]

22. First Amendment Yes. Second is actually regressive as you guys interpret it.

[MercutioATC]

71. It's an Amendment designed to protect the good of the PEOPLE from oppression.

What could be more progressive than that?

It doesn't require that any citizen own a firearm, but reaffirms the right of ALL of us to preserve our freedoms.

[Hoyt]

125. Yea, tell that to all the people who have been oppressed and abused by gun wielders.

Besides, until the revolution comes -- folks can leave their guns at home rather than toting them to parks, bars, churches, Chuck E Cheeze, and every other place those who can't leave home with a gun want to tote.

[shadowrider]

129. Don't forget the grocery store and WalMart n/t

[Missycim]

112. You do know

that words cant protect you from an oppressive govt? Sometimes you need weapons and before you bring up our military, just ask the iraq insurgents if they had a formal military when they inflected heavy casualties on us.

[4th law of robotics]

139. Because it puts too much power in the hands of individuals

particularly poor ones who can't afford their own private armies and too little in the hands of government and the 1%?

[wolfman24]

215. may be

Hello

I agree with your comments so long as you mean the 2nd Amendment as written.

Wolfman 24

[Paladin]

24. Not As Long As The Far Right Wing Owns It. (nt)

[NewMoonTherian]

95. Then let's take it away from them.

Let's become champions of the individual right to own and use firearms for personal protection. Let's make it our policy to empower people, rather than expecting them to rely on incompetent, malfeasant police forces.

[rDigital]

96. That's why we need to take it back.

In Ohio, I don't think a republican would stand a chance against a Pro-Gun Dem most of the time.

[4th law of robotics]

140. That's like a republican lamenting that the pro-choice agenda is dominated by the left

well yeah. Stop trying to ban it and it will be a more even mix.

[DanTex]

28. RKBA is very important to Rush Limbaugh, Todd Akin, Glenn Beck, Joe Walsh, ...

...Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, Allen West, Michelle Bachmann, and so on.

What's progressive is to put in place rational gun restrictions to cut down on all of the senseless gun violence, and get our homicide rate down in line with the rest of the civilized world. "Gun rights" fundamentalism is for teabaggers.

[TPaine7]

30. That 2 + 2 = 4 is believed by Rush Limbaugh, Todd Akin, Glenn Beck, Joe Walsh, Sarah Palin,

Joe the Plumber, Allen West, Michelle Bachmann, and so on.

[DanTex]

31. Except that 2+2=4 is also believed by progressives and Democrats. The overwhelming majority of

"gun rights" advocates are right-wing nutcases.

[TPaine7]

32. Even if we assume that your conclusion is correct (for the sake of conversation only) your premise

does not support it.

Your argument is invalid, your "logic" nonexistent.

[DanTex]

33. My conclusion is correct, and my premise supports it.

My argument is valid, and my logic is existent.

So there!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

102. Your "argument is valid"? It's as valid as any ad hominem argument.

[rl6214]

39. Except that the only Democrats that believe in gun control are those in the big cities.

Try getting out of the big cities on the coast and into the rural part of the US to find out what the real people want and support.

[DanTex]

40. Is that you Sarah?

Because, before you, the last nutcase I remember pushing that "real America" anti-urbanism was none other than "gun rights" activist Sarah Palin.

[shadowrider]

42. Can you disprove it or are insults all you have? n/t

[DanTex]

45. You want me to disprove that "real people" live in rural areas and not in cities?

Come to think of it, Colin Powell had a pretty good smackdown of Sarah Palin on that:

[shadowrider]

48. Do you quote Republicans often to prove your point, or only when they agree with you? n/t

[DanTex]

51. Yeah, it's funny. The trolls that post here are so far right that even Colin Powell is...

...more liberal than they are.

[shadowrider]

60. So, to summarize, when Republicans agree with you, they're good, right? n/t

[DanTex]

61. LOL. Actually, here's what I posted. Try and pay attention this time.

Yeah, it's funny. The trolls that post here are so far right that even Colin Powell is...

...more liberal than they are.

[shadowrider]

62. Do you quote Republicans when they agree with you? And you pay attention

Don't be arrogant and condescending with me.

[DanTex]

63. When arguing with teabaggers, it is often useful to present a "moderate Republican" opinion.

Don't be obtuse with me.

[shadowrider]

67. Do you quote Republicans when they agree with you? You haven't answered

[DanTex]

69. When arguing with teabaggers, it is often useful to present a "moderate Republican" opinion.

Are you really this dense?

[shadowrider]

72. * Yawn * I grow tired of your refusal to say yes or no, but instead

deflect.

[DanTex]

74. Yes, because some questions don't have yes or no answers. Or is that too subtle for you?

For example: have you stopped beating your wife?

[gejohnston]

75. your example is a loaded question

Shadowrider's question is not.

[DanTex]

76. Shadow's is a dumb question, though.

The point, which should be obvious to anyone, is that when arguing with a right-wing extremist like Sarah Palin, it is useful to bring in the voice of a moderate Republican like Colin Powell, to make the point that it isn't just San Francisco liberals that disagree that the "real people" live in rural areas, but even some Republicans.

As happens very frequently in the gungeon, I find myself once again shocked by the kinds of things I end up having to explain...

[gejohnston]

78. perhaps, but someone from a rural area would have been

a better choice than someone from NYC.

[DanTex]

81. Perhaps, but the point is, rl6214 is exhibiting the same ugly anti-urbanism that...

...Sarah Palin brought to the 2008 election. That doesn't bother you or shadow, of course, because the only kind of bigotry that you care about is fictional "anti-gun bigotry".

[gejohnston]

86. I find it annoying and counter productive, but

I'm less offended by that as I am anti rural bigotry found both the left and the right. The urban right is better at keeping it quiet other than occasional slip from Tucker Carlson. Did I ever use the "real American" shtick? I never said that about Mitt's dad who ran for President as a dual citizen (US and Mexico).

[Missycim]

113. Powell

is more liberal then middle of the road.

[shadowrider]

107. Fair enough. Why do you disagree with a yes or no answer?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

143. Even "Colin Powell is ...more liberal" than those that you disagree with? I doubt it. None of those

with whom you disagree ever participated in a cover-up of the My Lai Massacre nor did any of them receive a military promotion up to the rank of General with a go-along-to-get-along attitude.

[gejohnston]

47. not anti urbansim

as it is resistance to cultural imperialism. When I read this, I thought of you.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/05/obama_and_orwell.html

[DanTex]

49. Sorry, gej, but saying that the "real people" live in rural areas is the epitome of anti-urbanism.

[rl6214]

174. So you can't dispute that the only Democrats that believe in gun control

Live in the big cities. Gotcha...

So all you have are attempted insults and deflection. Gotcha.

[rl6214]

36. Looks like the yes' are far outnumbering the no's

[shadowrider]

37. Yup. May want to bookmark this for the next time someone brings it up n/t

[DanTex]

41. Wait, so the gungeon is infested with right-wing trolls?

Whoddathunkit?

[shadowrider]

46. So your accusation is, everyone who voted yes is a right wing troll?

Arrogant and condescending.

[DanTex]

50. So you think that a gungeon poll is representative of the opinions of DUers in general?

Just plain dumb.

[shadowrider]

52. It's representative of those who choose to partake.

[DanTex]

53. Exactly: the gungeon trolls! (mostly)

[shadowrider]

54. It's on the main page, it's NOT a gungeon only poll

as proven by voters I've never seen in here.

[DanTex]

55. LOL. But the "yes" voters are by and large the usual NRA trolls.

And then there are a few low-post-counters who I can only assume are newbie trolls.

[Reasonable_Argument]

64. So anyone who supports gun rights is a troll? Nt

[shadowrider]

65. I believe that's what he's saying n/t

[Simo 1939_1940]

83. Y'know Dan, I was mightily impressed a while back when you were able

to converse for an entire thread without your usual dishonest smears.

Looks like you're back to the game you like best.

[DanTex]

84. Hi Simo! So you just stopped in to smear me and that's it? OK, then!

[Missycim]

114. I guess that

him being right doesn't matter?

[Simo 1939_1940]

149. Yup - logic is fundamental, isn't it.

If a statement is true, it cannot be considered slanderous or libelous.

Or a smear.

[Simo 1939_1940]

146. Calling someone on their constant smearing represents a smear?

In what upside-down universe? You're a laugh riot!

Edited to add:

[DURHAM D]

92. This post was sent to jury.

The vote to Leave It was 2-4.

[Union Scribe]

93. That's because you can say anything you want about gun owners

on DU, including and perhaps especially if they're other DUers. Every day people here are called trolls, crazy, zealots, killers, etc etc. Juries are full of the same people saying those things, so of course they aren't going to be hidden.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

103. As an exception, #77 was hidden.

[friendly_iconoclast]

99. "NRA trolls"? Really? Reminds me of something Tom Head would come up with.

Glad to know that the right wing doesn't have a monopoly on batshit conspiracy theories...

[holdencaufield]

116. Apparently ...

... a vast right-wing conspiracy to annoy Dan is in the works here.

Something this big must be under the direct control of Karl Rove his self.

[rDigital]

154. History and elections are decided by those who show up. nt

[pipoman]

77. The results in this poll

are not at all unlike the several polls which have been allowed to stay up in GD asking similar pro/con second amendment questions. The GD polls have always fallen on the side of liberal interpretation of the 2nd. The minority are in fact those who wish to enact conservative interpretation of the rights granted in the 2nd...the vocal minority, that is..

[pipoman]

82. How about you prove your claim..

most of "yes" respondents are NRA trolls

Here's the list. Which ones are you referring to?

DWC, Indydem, AnotherMcIntosh, glacierbay, Simo 1939_1940, Hangingon, brutus smith, friendly_iconoclast, bluerum, holdencaufield, spin, ileus, Marinedem, beevul, sarisataka, rl6214, discntnt_irny_srcsm, gejohnston, tularetom, LoveIsNow, virginia mountainman, Yavapai, kelly1mm, rrneck, ProgressiveProfessor, TPaine7, cherokeeprogressive, Clames, hack89, Reasonable_Argument, darkangel218, shadowrider, EX500rider, jbpinkerton, X_Digger, Trunk Monkey, NewMoonTherian, fleur-de-lisa

[DanTex]

85. Yup, the usual suspects...

[pipoman]

91. Bold..

you still haven't explained the several polls posted in GD both here and on DU2 which have resulted in very similar landslides against your assertions. With the volume of good Democrats in GD, certainly you aren't stating that trolls outnumber real Dems like 20 to 1?...in GD? No, the truth has been demonstrated..the majority of Democrats/Liberals/Progressives don't support more restrictions on the 2nd, beyond the 10,000 or so regulations already in place...people always want to think that most people believe as they do regardless the truth..

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. So which ones are the "NRA trolls"? Put up or shut up.

We've had to listen to your bigotry and half-baked conspiracy theories for a while now.

Name these alleged "NRA trolls", provide some *actual evidence* beyond 'they don't agree with me', or take your McCarthyite bullshit somewhere else

[friendly_iconoclast]

213. Aaand....nada. Typical for bullying behavior.

Stand up to them and they back down.

[rrneck]

120. The truth is

you are not an authority on the subject, you have no power to compel adherence to your ideology, and a great many people have no reason to care what you think.

You've got some work to do if you want any minds changed. But you'll have to stop preaching to the choir.

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. *Somebody* certainly didn't read "Obama and Orwell" (linked in post #47)

Or if they did, they didn't get it. Greenfield (quoting Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier):

...Orwell also rails against the condescension many on the left display toward those they profess to care most about. Describing a gathering of leftists in London, he says, "every person there, male and female, bore the worst stigmata of sniffish middle-class superiority. If a real working man, a miner dirty from the pit, for instance, had suddenly walked into their midst, they would have been embarrassed, angry and disgusted; some, I should think, would have fled holding their noses."

Real working-class folks, he says, might be drawn toward a socialist future centered around family life, the pub, football, and local politics. But those who speak in its name, he says, have a snobbish condescension toward such quotidian pleasures—even condemning coffee and tea. "Reformers" urged the poor to eat healthier food—less sugar, more brown bread. And their audience balked. "Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like organs and wholemeal bread, or [raw carrots]?" Orwell asks. "Yes it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human being would rather starve than live on brown bread and more carrots … a millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits. An unemployed man doesn't."

And so, Orwell ruefully concluded, the snobbish socialists succeeded in depleting their own ranks. "The ordinary decent person, who is in sympathy with the essential aims of Socialism, is given the impression that there is no room for his kind in any Socialist party that means business."...

Incidentally, any DUer that hasn't read Wigan Pier, Down And Out in Paris And London, and Homage to Catalonia needs to do so ASAP!

[shadowrider]

66. C'mon man, I had trouble with Puff n Toot n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

98. Sorry, I wasn't talking about you... n/t

[rl6214]

179. Wait, so your anti-gun zealotry is a losing effort?

Whoddathunkit?

[ileus]

43. Nothing could be more progressive.

[bluerum]

68. Yes. And as a fellow liberal gun owner once said to me: "We can't let the republicans

have all the guns."

I have yet to understand how it is that gun owners remain predominantly RW assholes.

[shadowrider]

73. Ahem.

I don't believe they're predominantly RW. Look at the responses on this thread to Democrats who own guns who are accused of being RW.

Many don't want the hassle involved when admitting it.

[geckosfeet]

90. I beg to differ.

I live in MA. Have membership in two gun clubs. I also visit a lot of gun forums. My experience is that a lot of RWers frequent both.

We have gun ownership in common. But I certainly do not share their politics.

[ileus]

87. This thread needs a girl from Canada...

[gejohnston]

88. You mean this one?

&feature=relmfu

[AnotherMcIntosh]

104. Would Hoyt qualify? Is Hoyt male or female?

[ellisonz]

97. I hate that acronym. I also hate how you guys type "2A."

This practice shows a basic juvenile disrespect for the gravity of the subject matter you wish to discuss.

Pass.

[rDigital]

101. Hoplophobia is a serious medical condition, but there are modern treatements availible

Civility, Open-Mindedness and Proper Candor go a long way in the fight against the scourge of hoplophobia. Some of our best and brightest Progressives fall prey to it at one time or another, but if they stick it out and embrace reality they'll pull through just fine.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

105. From the creator of the term "hoplophobia", for readers unfamiliar with the term:

From Jeff Cooper:

Those of us who shoot cannot help being perplexed when we encounter people who are apparently haunted by a fixed and morbid aversion to our guns. When first we meet such persons we generally respond with explanations, as is only reasonable. But with time we discover that often we are not dealing with rational minds. This is not to say that everyone who is opposed to shooting is mentally aberrant, but it is to say that those who latch on to an unreasonable notion and thereafter refuse to listen to any further discussion of it have problems that are more amenable to psychiatry than to argument.

I coined the term hoplophobia over twenty years ago, not out of pretension but in the sincere belief that we should recognize a very peculiar sociological attitude for what it is -- a more or less hysterical neurosis rather than a legitimate political position. It follows convention in the use of Greek roots in describing specific mental afflictions. "Hoplon" is the Greek word for "instrument," but refers synonymously to "weapon" since the earliest and principal instruments were weapons. Phobos is Greek for "terror" and medically denotes unreasoning panic rather than normal fear. Thus hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them. The word has not become common, though twenty years is perhaps too short a time in which to test it, but I am nevertheless convinced that it has merit. We read of "gun grabbers" and "anti-gun nuts" but these slang terms do not face up to the reasons why such people behave the way they do. They do not adequately suggest that reason, logic, and truth can have no effect upon one who is irrational on the point under discussion. You cannot say calmly "Come, let us reason together" to a hoplophobe because that is what he is -- a hoplophobe. He is not just one who holds an opposing view, he is an obsessive neurotic. You can speak, write, and illustrate the merits of the case until you drop dead, and no matter how good you are his mind will not be changed. A victim of hydrophobia will die, horribly, rather than accept the water his body desperately needs. A victim of hoplophobia will die, probably, before he will accept the fallacy of his emotional fixation for what it is.
...
Differences of opinion -- on economic policy, or forced integration, or the morality of abortion, or the neutron bomb -- these we may hope to resolve by discussion. But we cannot so resolve a phobia.
http://www.usrepeals.org/ca/mtbpers/hoplophobia.html

[rDigital]

145. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. You're among friends, it's ok. nt

[Clames]

197. Good jury. n/t

[oneshooter]

207. Yep.

At Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:52 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Troll. n/t
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=65608

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Calling a DU member a "troll". This is a clear yiolation of the TOS.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:58 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you.

Still can't understand the two leave it votes.

[Clames]

208. I can.

Because Gungeon.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

106. You "hate that acronym"? Hate is a strong emotion. Isn't is sufficient to simply dislike it?

[ellisonz]

133. Are people not allowed strong emotions? Are they never appropriate?

Must we all be cold, calculating members of the gunnerhood?

[rrneck]

119. If we replied in latin

we wouldn't take you any more seriously.

[4th law of robotics]

126. If progressives care about maximizing the freedom of the individual

particularly those who would otherwise be weak and helpless then yes.

[Loudly]

127. How can it possibly be regarded as progressive?

It empowers individuals to conveniently terminate all the genuine rights of others with extreme prejudice.

And its sole, ancient constitutional justification is to go to war with the government. An excuse which was settled by the American Civil War, and is now mooted by the covenant against armed rebellion.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

131. Natural rights which exist in conflict with the restrictions that authoritarians would place upon

them are inherently liberal rights. See, e.g., the liberal philosopher who the authors of the Second Amendment relied upon, John Locke. As a reminder, please see Wikipedia.

John Locke,

widely known as the Father of Classical Liberalism, was an English philosopher and physician regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers. ... His work had a great impact upon the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

The right to self-defense is a natural right. It is a liberal right which exists independent of whatever views are held by right-wing voters and right-wing gas bags. Likewise, the right to self-defense exists independent of whatever views are held by those who wish to further restrict gun ownership. The right to self-defense is a liberal right which exists regardless of contrary views held by fellow Americans or contrary views of foreigners from Canada, Australia, etc., who post their views on this board. It exists regardless of every anti-gun posts made regularly by one particular Canadian. Somehow, he believes that it is his duty to lecture us without fully disclosing to all who read these posts that he is a Canadian.

Because the foundation for progressive values is based upon liberal values and classical liberalism, the right to self-defense is also a progressive right.

The right of law abiding citizens to defend themselves in their homes with conventional firearms is a natural right. It is a liberal right. It is a progressive right.

This progressive right cannot be negated by raising straw men. There is no factual basis for anyone to claim, or claim to believe, that "its sole, ancient constitutional justification is to go to war with the government." That is total bull shit. That's a straw man.

[Loudly]

136. The proliferation of guns and ammo impairs any such right of self defense.

All it does is escalate the need to remained armed at all times and shoot first.

All it does is increase the likelihood that they will be used aggressively rather than defensively.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

144. Wrong.

[shadowrider]

150. Shooting first is the last thing CCW holders do. It's only a last resort

but you knew that, right?

[Loudly]

155. You're trying to describe a world of CCW holders.

Access to guns and ammo by CCW holders is in reality generalized access to one and all.

Need to make them scarce for everyone.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

135. Just a few points

- "sole, ancient constitutional justification is to go to war with the government" Straw man; self-defense is a natural right; it is a corollary to the right to life.


- "covenant against armed rebellion" What is that? Ever heard of the Battle of Athens?


- "settled by the American Civil War" How's that?


- "terminate...with extreme prejudice" Your Captain Willard is showing.

[Loudly]

137. Surrender by Lee to Grant at Appomattox.

Been there done that. Never again.

And the proliferation of guns and ammo negates any such self-defense argument. It empowers aggression within society, and erodes justice.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

148. Never again

I like the words but, your invalid personal opinions, not so much. Have a nice day, thou.

[4th law of robotics]

142. If you're rich

you can afford to live in a gated community and have your own private security forces. You can be sure the cops will show up when you call.

You don't need guns for self defense.

If you're poor . . . well good luck.

The 2nd amendment disproportionately provides the poor and otherwise sidelined portions of society with the ability to look after their own security. Rich people don't need it.

[Loudly]

153. So why are all these poor people in Chicago getting shot?

You're in denial about the reality of guns and ammo in the hands of the public.

And you're clearly confused about how it "helps" poor people.

[gejohnston]

156. since when were

gangs at war "the public"? The problem isn't janitors and restaurant workers shooting each other over trivial shit.

[Loudly]

157. Of course they're the public. As long as they're living and not incarcerated.

On what basis do you make a distinction between who shall and shall not have access?

Once guns and ammo are introduced into commerce, they flow everywhere like floodwater.

[gejohnston]

160. since many if not most of them are felons

or are underage, current federal law is a good start. None would qualify for an Illinois FOID. The problem is the black market, not your local gun store.

[Loudly]

161. They all come from the same place.

The factory.

Turn off the spigot. Shut it down at the source.

[gejohnston]

166. different factories

Australian bike gangs make Owen and STEN SMGs for for drug gangs. Anyone can make one in their basement. STENs are easy to make and were often made in bike shops in occupied Europe for resistance fighters. The Owen is an Australian design.

Then there are illegal makers that the government gave up and licensed.
http://kitup.military.com/2011/10/the-home-brewed-danao-guns-of-the-philippines.html
http://www.asiaone.com/static/multimedia/gallery/120330_danaoguns/
http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/07/29/philippines-gunsmiths-emerge-from-underg?videoId=236710914

Not saying that is the case in US and Europe, but that genie left the bottle about 700 years ago.

[Loudly]

171. The workshop of elves.

Yes, if it could be suppressed down to that level of production, how much better off we would all be.

[gejohnston]

177. Right, that is how UK lowered their murder rate.

Oh wait, they didn't.

[rDigital]

158. You can't own a handgun in Chicago legally.

Also, I'd say most of Chicago's murders are gang/drug related.

[Loudly]

159. I believe the McDonald decision changed that.

In any event, it doesn't matter when they can be bought legally in the suburbs, Indiana, and downstate.

Need to shut down access to new units from sea to shining sea.

[gejohnston]

162. no they can't

not without an Illinois FOID. Going to Indiana violates the Gun Control Act of 1968.

[Loudly]

164. Did you just say that statutory gun control is effective?

Guns and ammo = floodwater. And the levees have collapsed.

[rDigital]

167. You're saying the answer to people breaking laws is

making more laws in hopes that they follow them? Why don't we just pass a law against murder then? [IMG][/IMG]

[Loudly]

172. No, the answer is scarcity.

The answer is to deny the public access to the harmful product.

[rDigital]

173. There is no correlation between crime and firearms ownership

If all guns disappeared tomorrow, there'd still be the same number of dead people every week in Chicago.

[Loudly]

180. What would they be dying from?

[rDigital]

181. Human violence

[Loudly]

184. No way. Guns are for lazy people.

Other forms of physical violence take real effort.

[rDigital]

187. Quite the contrary, Gun control is the preferred choice of the lazy authoritarian.

The real issues driving US violence are inequalty/poverty, mental health, the War on Drugs and racial/ethnic oppression.

Take away one tool and another takes it's place. A red herring, that's what you have there.

[Loudly]

192. Drive by stabbings? No, I think means speaks for itself.

[theinquisitivechad]

182. So convenient to cite a conterfactual universe where your point can never be proven. :)

And I'd take issue with your statement. Guns are exceptionally efficient at killing people. Stabbing and beating much less so. On average, those methods probably take a lot more time, are a lot more difficult, and leave much more substantial evidence. This could potentially serve as a disincentive.

I'd like to see more neutrally-funded, peer-reviewed studies on gun violence. That would help you and I both come to a better decision. But the NRA keeps blocking such research. Hmm - I wonder why they would do that?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/10/160412/commentary-nra-prevents-funding.html

[rDigital]

185. Most gunshot victims survive. Guns aren't magical death tubes.

They're the equivalent of getting hit with a small cylindrical spear. The NYPD shot 9 innocent civilians 2 days ago and NONE of them died.

A knife on the other hand, even with just a 1" blade is easier to conceal, deadly quiet, low profile, razor sharp and never needs reloading. That 1" blade can sever the arteries and veins in the front of your neck with ease. That's quite fatal, cheap and effective.

As long as people are violent, they will find the tools. The advantage of firearms is that they favor the user who is at a physical disadvantage.

[Loudly]

186. Bystanders, whether intended targets or not, are the victims of the product.

Most notably children, who are among those at the greatest physical disadvantage.

[gejohnston]

188. neutrally funded peer reviewed

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
http://books.google.com/books/about/Armed_and_Considered_Dangerous.html?id=kqm8QxE45X0C
http://books.google.com/books?id=QXeGX67ezSYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=point+blank+gary+kleck&source=bl&ots=nVsTviitKt&sig=jkuX16984HN4G4zTOHtlpAZaAqw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GJk6UNe0NoTi8gT50IGIBw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=point%20blank%20gary%20kleck&f=false
http://crim.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php

The NRA is not not blocking any such research. The NRA is blocking advocacy. The management of the CDC at the time made it clear their goal was to make studies to make guns look bad.

The NIJ continues to do research as do others. Op ed pieces aside.

[theinquisitivechad]

199. Hmmm. . .

"The management of the CDC at the time made it clear their goal was to make studies to make guns look bad."

Were you under the employ of the CDC at this time? Can you provide a citation? Maybe you mean to state that their goal was unbiased scientific review, and the by-product was that it would make guns look bad?

And I wouldn't be citing Kleck. Besides being a favored citation in NRA "research" circle-jerks, he's junk - the NRA has tried over and over again to fund studies that replicate his results with no luck and his initial assumptions are wild.

http://oneutah.org/gun-control/national-rifle-association-continues-to-feed-its-readers-demonstrable-lies-and-distortions/

And I do appreciate your Australian example, however, the authors of that study have a vested interest. Jeanine Baker is a former state president of the SSAA and Samara McPhedran was the chair for the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting. I think the same studies, conducted in the United States, by academics that are not in industry, that have no conflict of interest, would be interesting to see. Unfortunately, these seem to be very difficult to find. Hence my original post.

[gejohnston]

200. a respected award winning criminologist vs a blog?

this is a better read on the subject
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/trigger/trigger5.htm
The NRA doesn't fund studies and the rantings from some poorly written propaganda blog, especially one that shows blatant anti rural bigotry with that stupid photo, doesn't quite cut it. I suggest you actually read his work.

Especially when that work earned him the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology and a critique from one of the most prominent criminologists, Marvin Wolfgang, as being nearly foolproof. Oh yeah, he is head of the Criminology department at a US university, not funded by the NRA or anyone else.

Marvin Wolfgang, a noted criminologist who was on record favoring a ban on all firearms, even those carried by law enforcement officers, was quoted as saying that the Kleck survey was nearly foolproof, saying: “What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.” Compare that to one of Kleck's detractors, David Hemenway, got a free dinner and a plaque from the Brady Campaign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Foundation#Organizations_funded_by_the_Joyce_Foundation
In fact, Hemenway's department is funded by the same foundation that funds gun control groups like Brady and VPC.
The fact remains they were peer reviewed and published in UK Criminology journals. The referthat is my understanding, can't find the exact quote at the momentees certainly do not have any such vested interest. Many of Kleck's detractors have greater have a vested interests. Many of these studies, especially Hemenway, are funded by the same foundation that funds Brady and VPC. Kleck is hardly an NRA shill, he got the results that he got even though he philosophically opposed to what the NRA advocates. The NRA likes Kleck only because they can use his research for their propaganda, that does not mean Kleck had any intention of that happening. The ironic thing is that Joyce funded studies like one by Phil Cook did replicate and got the same results, but spent ten pages explaining why he shouldn't have gotten those results.

When it comes to politics, there is no neutrality. Are you saying the editors and referees of the criminology members were shills for the UK-NRA? The important thing is the science. Either the peer review process filters out shill pieces or it doesn't. If some ER doctor published "guns are bad" in a peer reviewed medical journal as valid and neutral, then a criminologist who publishes in peer reviewed criminology journals have to be taken as seriously. Not that peer review is perfect or a study is the last word on anything, but worth taking a closer look.
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=62+Tenn.+L.+Rev.+513&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=d3a4791293805b95e435d52caa8fdf69
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8201280

that is my understanding, can't find the exact quote at the moment

[theinquisitivechad]

201. I fear we're going to go around and around on this one.

I'm not meaning to paint Kleck as a shill for the NRA - rather, that the NRA continues to use research that others (such as David Hemenway) have found faulty. "All attempts at external validation of the 2.5 million figure show that it is an enormous overestimate. . .The estimate of 2.5 million self-defense gun uses per year leads to many other absurd conclusions. For example, the number of respondents who claim to have used a gun against rape and robbery attempts suggests that victims of these attempted crimes are more likely to use a gun against the offender than the attackers are to use a gun against the victim--even though the criminal chooses the time and place for the attack, most citizens do not own guns, and very few carry guns." - from "Study of Survey Overestimates of Rare Events"

I'm not sure why you cite the Wolfgang quote. I think it is more stating his surprise at an anomalous set of results than an apostasy. He also said this about the study: ”The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism methodologically.”
(J of Criminal Law and Criminology 86:2 p617-8)

Kleck's work has more holes than Swiss Cheese, yet it has been peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed work is more likely to be sound work. Peer review is necessary but not sufficient for sound methodology.

But I appreciate your contribution to the discussion and will check out your sources at some point.

[gejohnston]

205. Hemenway's work is faulty

and quite frankly, he is a shill for the Brady Campaign, which also is a recipient of the same foundation's echo chamber cash. Hemenway spent much of the time speculating on what caused false positives without providing any evidence and accused Gertz employees of dishonesty. Hemenway is hardly a good critic. At least you didn't make the UFO quote. Here is Kleck's response
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm
I suggest you actually read them and come to your conclusions.
Your Wolfgang quote is nothing different than what Kleck said himself. Wolfgang's criticism would also apply to Hemenway, Phil Cook, or anyone else. Here mine in context
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Wolfgang1.html

Yours in context
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/WolfgangRemarks.htm

He simply said there is a wide margin of error, which is apparent when Kleck estimates 800K-2.5 mil. Phil Cook, a Kleck critic, got 1.4 million with a smaller sample. The NIJ came up with something like 80K.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=102

Ultimately none of these actually matter. Outdated studies with wide margins of error since the 1970s Hart study. Dropping crime coupled with more liberal carry laws make all of these moot. Policy is often not based on science, but too often ideological orthodoxy.

One critic does not make it "full of holes" even Lott has his critics and supporters in academic circles.

[theinquisitivechad]

206. Great.

Thanks for your time and I wish you luck with your campaign.

[Loudly]

190. Something to agree on. Guns ARE more efficient. More convenient too.

Stabbing and beating take work. And the attacker gets more blood on them.

With really no argument on that point, it seems you really shouldn't favor the means of efficient and convenient murder to be so prevalent in society.

[gejohnston]

168. are our drug laws effective?

they are effective in disarming the wrong people.

[Loudly]

170. Drugs are voluntarily consumed.

Bullets usually aren't.

Big difference.

[rDigital]

176. Guns are about a million times easier to smuggle than drugs.

Dogs can't find them like cocaine and heroin. Guns are metal and oil, just like cars and airplanes used to transport them.

Also, you've presented two premises....so, what is your conclusion?

[gejohnston]

178. that is relevant how?

[Loudly]

183. That a contraband value system which promotes guns and persecutes drugs is clearly misallocated.

And that any perceived lack of efficacy in suppressing the victimless one is no excuse for not attempting to suppress the victim prone one with an even greater magnitude of policy vigor.

[gejohnston]

189. owning a gun for legitimate reasons is victim-less

as is smoking legal or violence free pot. But the death toll getting it to market is hardly victim less, just look at Jamaica, Chicago, USVI, and Mexico.

[Loudly]

191. Hardly victimless. Access is floodwater. It goes *everywhere.*

[gejohnston]

194. I have never harmed anything with my guns

that makes it victimless. If I do something wrong, then there are victims. Snorting coke, not so much. A lot of people died getting it to market.

[Loudly]

195. The mere fact that you can get your hands on a gun and ammo makes it a threat to society.

It's nice that you personally don't have any victims.

But access to the means of convenient murder to which you claim a "right" becomes the same generalized access of one and all.

Regardless of their perceived peacefulness or trustworthiness or suitability.

Including the numerous Law Abiding Right Up Until They Moment They Aren't figures in the news.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

202. In reality....

...a threat is an act of coercion wherein an act is proposed to elicit a negative response. Also a communicated intent to inflict harm or loss on another person.

What is perceived is subject to inference. What is done is what counts.

[Loudly]

210. Danger then. Hazard. High likelihood of death or injury from the indulgence.

[rDigital]

163. After the McDonald decision

Chicago just put up more unconstitutional roadblocks to legal gun ownership. No matter, people are the problem, not firearms.

Good luck with your gun ban, sweetie.

[Loudly]

165. Yes they are. And giving them access is a national tragedy.

[hack89]

196. Yet you have never been safer as gun violence continues to decline to historic lows.

It is going to be hard in the future as you have fewer and fewer deaths to go into moral panic over.

[4th law of robotics]

175. The drug war pushed by some.

[spayneuter]

141. Actually, adherence to it is the Progressive Value! Absolutely! n/t

...

[rDigital]

152. Note to all: Jury Duty

Those on the losing side of the poll seem to also fit the bill for a pre-fab jury blacklist. You can thank me later.

[ZombieHorde]

193. Since Progressive values are strictly imaginary, they differ from region to region,

and from time to time.

[Kolesar]

203. A pipeline of arms to drug rackets is not...eom

[rDigital]

211. I love this poll, I might just bump it everyday to remind everyone that there are

Last edited Mon Aug 27, 2012, 04:17 AM - Edit history (1)

quite a few RKBA supporters in our Democratic Party right here on DU.

[rDigital]

216. The most progressive value.