We need a Pro-RKBA group on DU

[rDigital]

Those who support the RKBA are harassed and intimidated by those who do not here in the RKBA group. This is especially true for newbie posters who are scared out of the pond by the "big fish". It would be a good place to further discussion and share info with each other in a peaceful friendly manner without all of the personal insults and harassment.

There are many 2nd amendment supporters and firearms owners here that would support an additional non-battleground group (safe haven)

35 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired
	We need a Pro-RKBA group on DU.
	10 (29%)
	We do not need a Pro-RKBA group on DU.
	25 (71%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[rrneck]

1. The antis are already

reduced to a smattering of adolescents, Google dumpers and whining scolds. The gungeon is already pro RKBA.

[safeinOhio]

7. Thanks to all the new be

NRA trolls.

I'm sorry, I forgot all the old timer NRA trolls.

[rrneck]

43. What trolls are those?

Or would you rather be a whining scold?

[apocalypsehow]

10. Ahhh, the projection: the #1 "Google dumper" right now in the Gungeon has 26 OP's going

on page 1, including this one. Why don't our "pro gun progressives" ever trade in facts, instead of everything but? It's a curiosity...

[rrneck]

42. Lets see whatever

relevant facts you have.

[apocalypsehow]

48. You don't know how to scroll up and down through the first page of the forum?

Laugh-a-minute down here.

[rrneck]

60. So you got nothing. You must be one of the adolescents. nt

[apocalypsehow]

81. So, you still haven't figured out how your computer's mouse works. That must be tough. n/t.

[rrneck]

82. No content yet?

Perfectly understandable. Um, you are aware that this subthread is visible?

So, I'll ask again, what relevant facts do you bring to the discussion?

I await your next adolescent evasion with baited breath.

[apocalypsehow]

93. Figure out how to manipulate your computer's mouse, then get back with me. n/t.

[rrneck]

96. LOL!

And for those of you who are joining our sub thread already in progress, please see post #10.

[apocalypsehow]

98. Still haven't figured it out yet, huh? Must be tough. Keep trying - practice makes perfect.

[apocalypsehow]

99. And yes: everyone browsing by please by all means check out #10:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67496

[rrneck]

103. Still unable to deliver

what you demanded of others?

[apocalypsehow]

104. Still haven't got the hang of it, eh? That really turning out to be a toughie. Keep trying!

[rrneck]

108. Is this how you kick ass?

I guess descretion is the better part of valor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240136886#post8

So are you going to produce something of substance or continue your losing streak? I don't see a lot to brag about here. Can you produce some relevant content, or do you prefer to continue to jump up and down squealing, "Somebody else did it too!"

[apocalypsehow]

109. Practice makes perfect: give it another go. Sometimes, it just takes patience and perseverance.

[rrneck]

111. Still none of the facts you desired. nt

[apocalypsehow]

110. See, you figured out how to use the "search" function on DU, so the computer mouse can't be

all that much more difficult. Nice to see progress!

[rrneck]

112. Yes, you're very discrete.

What are you afraid of?

Are you able to discuss the issue?

[apocalypsehow]

113. Funny stuff. A regular laff-riot hereabouts....

[rrneck]

114. Yeah. How about some discussion now?

You can run but you can't hide.

[apocalypsehow]

115. What do you want to discuss? Figure that out first, then get back with me. n/t.

[rrneck]

127. See post 42 in response to post 10. nt

[apocalypsehow]

117. Still waiting: What. Do. You. Want. To. Discuss? "Running and hiding," indeed....

[rrneck]

119. For those of you just joining this tedium

already in progress, apocalypsenow was bemoaning the lack of substantive content contributed by certain members and has spent this entire subthread avoiding doing the same.

He is, apparently, immune to embarrassment.

[apocalypsehow]

121. So, you don't want to discuss anything after all, eh? Figures. Get back with me when you do. n/t

[rrneck]

126. I never left.

And you never started. See post 42 in response to your post 10.

[apocalypsehow]

131. See #48. Here's a handy link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67568

Get back with me when you, like, actually want to discuss something.

[rrneck]

133. I'm still here and you're still running.

I posted the first response in this thread, and this sub thread is the result. The issue at hand is the posting habits of anti gunners and their lack of constructive content. You have proven to be a prime example.

[apocalypsehow]

136. No, the issue at hand is that the biggest "Google dumper" on this forum is a "pro gun progressive,"

and this was proven by citing the number of OP's that poster had put up in this forum. You came along and mumbled something about wanting proof, and I invited you to use your mouse to scroll up and down the forum and count them for yourself. Everything after has just been you posting for, I don't know, the sake of doing it, I guess. Not one of your subsequent replies has answered anything, nor asked anything new, nor "discussed" anything of substance.

, indeed.



Edit: typo & clarity.

[rrneck]

137. Your diverson isn't working.

And every reply kicks the OP. You're satisfied to be the adolescent. Fine. You're in the RKBA group. But you can't discuss RKBA. Rather, you avoid the obvious.

Do you have any facts or logical arguments relevant to the ownership and carraige of firearms in the United States?

I can't wait to hear from you.

[apocalypsehow]

138. There is no "diversion"; I refer all interested to these four posts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67496

and here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67553

and here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67568

and here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67991

And I'll be happy to keep kicking the OP as often as you'd like to. , indeed. And yet again.

[rrneck]

141. Still running.

Why don't our"pro gun progressives" ever trade in facts nstead of everything but? It's a curiosity"

I have been asking you for facts for some time now. You are obviously afraid to produce them or you don't have any.

And oh - thanks for the links.

[apocalypsehow]

143. Still haven't got the hang of how that mouse on your computer works yet, huh?

That's turning out to be a tough nut to crack: persistence is the key!

[Clames]

145. Wow, you just got taken to the cleaners.

Sad thing is you did it all by yourself.

[apocalypsehow]

149. Wow, you must have the same trouble scrolling up and down with a mouse that your pal does.

Funny how that seems to work.

[rrneck]

147. There are questions pending.

Overcome your fears and actually make a stand. Or did you get your ideology out of a cereal box?

[apocalypsehow]

151. Nope: asked & answered. Now, either ask some new ones, or go find something else to discuss. n/t.

[rrneck]

153. What relevant facts have you provided

regarding firearms policy. You started this bemoaning their lack but you haven't provided any. What are you afraid of? You're here to discuss the issue aren't you? Or Do you have other motives?

[apocalypsehow]

152. Here, have one more go at it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=68015

[rrneck]

154. Just another chickenshit dodge.

But hey, credit due- you don't even need Google to dump shit on the board.

[apocalypsehow]

155. Try, try, try again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=68015


You'll get there with effort!

[rrneck]

156. No facts yet.

It must be terrible to live in fear.

[apocalypsehow]

161. Yep, plenty of facts, you've simply ignored them. But thanks for giving me the opportunity to kick

this thread again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=68015

[Clames]

162. Nope, you have provided nothing.

Unless you are trying to prove you are full of it.

[apocalypsehow]

163. Yep, I have. And it's been quite thoroughly documented & linked. Give it a try:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=68015

Try reading what I've linked this time.

[rrneck]

164. Asked for what

you're to afraid to attempt. Typical.

[RegieRocker]

187. Another emptiless nothing after 20 other nothing posts.

[rrneck]

189. Yep.

Pretty much the same with every anti more interested in scoring cheap rhetorical points than adult discussion.

You can run but you can't hide.

[apocalypsehow]

190. Yep. He just never could grasp the simple mechanics of maniuplating his mouse, or clicking a link

I guess.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=68015

[elleng]

2. Harassed and intimidated???

[apocalypsehow]

3. I know: ain't it just the saddest thing you ever heard?

[elleng]

4. Sad?

More 'unlikely' than anything.

[apocalypsehow]

6. Yeah, I can just imagine the manly RKBA'er at his desk, shootin' iron strapped to his hip,

welling up with tears as someone dismisses his NRA talking points as the nonsense they are, or talks mean about the almighty PRD....oh, the humanity!

[Skittles]

8. take into account the paranoia factor

seriously

[apocalypsehow]

11. Yep. One of our "pro gun progressives" rigged up a way he could take his deadly toy to the shower

with him, so terrified was he - apparently - that a gang of criminals was going to listen for the sound of the shower knob being turned, and bust down his front door. Or was that he was askeered that the Zombie apocalypse was going to break out while he was bathing? I don't remember, but I do remember how proud he was of having rigged up a waterproof way to keep his pistol close at hand, even while showering....

Now that is some serious paranoia going on - and I think it's widespread.

[-..__...]

45. Was this while he was trying to enjoy eating a chocolate chip cookie?

Or was it the shower AR-15?

[apocalypsehow]

49. That's a pretty cool stow-bag for that AR-15 variant, actually. Like the collapsible stock, too.

[apocalypsehow]

14. Also, one of our "pro-RKBA" Democrats won't even hazard posting on DU without his trusty Glock

strapped to his side...never can tell when you're gonna need to plug a bad guy or go playing Free-lance Cop in between posts, doncha know?

[MercutioATC]

87. Why does it bother you if people want a gun in the shower?

Seriously, I agree it seems a little extreme to me, but I really don't care.

[apocalypsehow]

90. It doesn't bother me in the least: I just think people who do such things are insane, paranoid,

moronic, and potentially dangerous. I think people who do such things should be mocked for the ridiculous paranoiacs they are; further, I think people who do such things should probably be monitored by the authorities.

Now, why are you so worried about what I think about paranoid morons who like to shower with their deadly little Phallic Replacement Devices?

[MercutioATC]

102. The same could be said of people who call guns "deadly little Phallic Replacement Devices"

The difference is that the guy with the AR-15 in the shower isn't trying to restrict my Constitutional rights.

[apocalypsehow]

105. 1. There is no "Constitutional rights" to tote weaponry around in public. 2. If that guy in the

shower flips out and decides to start spraying lead at people with his precious little Phallic Replacement Devices, he is going to violate a whole lot of peoples actual "Constitutional Rights" to do all sorts of things. Therein lies the problem. That you cannot see it surprises me not in the least, but neither is it my problem.

[MercutioATC]

107. Apologies, I didn't realize that the guy was showering in public.

[apocalypsehow]

140. Do you honestly think that a person who goes to the trouble to rig up a waterproof gun bag

so they can have access to a firearm while they are showering is not some kind of paranoid fanatic, and probably an unstable one at that? Don't tell me about what doesn't bother you or any of that other jazz about phony "constitutional rights": we're not talking about whether such a person is "bothering" anybody or not, or whether they have a "constitutional right" to bear their deadly little toy in the shower.

Just so there's not mistake, and you don't go running off on a tangent as is the usual around here, let me spell it out again, in a simpler form: don't you think people who think they need to be armed even while showering are paranoid fanatics, who might even be a bit unstable? Doesn't showering with a gun even strike our "pro gun progressives" as, well, a bit odd?

AGAIN: I am NOT interested in hearing how it doesn't bother you, whether there is a "constitutional right" to shower and bear arms at the same time, yada, yada. Answer the question put to you, not the one you imagine is on the table.

[MercutioATC]

142. Let's stick to the issue.

I think that somebody who believes that guns are "deadly little phallic replacement devices" is just as unstable (if not more so) than somebody who chooses to shower with an AR-15.

However, I don't believe that the government should be investigating them and I don't feel that being "a bit odd"...or even "a lot odd" correlates with one's likelihood to commit mass murder.

[apocalypsehow]

180. You swerved off the issue: I got you back on it. So, you DO believe someone who showers

with their deadly little toy is "unstable." Well, that's nice to know. But there is no moral equivalence between a poster on the internet who uses an apt zinger in his posts and some guy who doesn't even think he can go to the freakin' shower unarmed.

Quite telling, that.

[MercutioATC]

258. I believe that you're more dangerous than him, yes.

There IS a moral equivalence.

His posted pic MAY have been a joke and it MAY have been serious. IF it was serious, it's a little extreme in my personal opinion and MAY indicate some degree of instability.

Your posts aren't presented as a joke. I'll take you at face value that you're serious. Your posts ARE a little extreme in my personal opinion and MAY indicate some degree of instability.

Only one of you is proposing violating my Constitutional rights.

Might you understand why I feel that he's less of a danger than you?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

148. Do you honestly believe that it was really rigged in the shower?

Sounds like you were set up and bought it hook, line, and sinker.

[apocalypsehow]

219. Hey, it was a "pro gun progressive" talking other such specimens, not to some "anti."

Now, I realize that "pro gun progressives" tend to tell a lot of falsehoods: their very presence on DU is a falsehood, of sorts, since they ignored the TOS when they signed up. But if you wanna accuse one of your fellow "pro gun progressives" of lying, be my guest: it happens a lot - daily, HOURLY in fact - when it comes to the way business is done in the Gungeon, so it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

[MercutioATC]

261. You're operating under a false (and selfish) impression.

You seem to believe that "pro-gun" and "progressive"...at least as DU defines the terms...are incompatible.

I'd argue that supporting Constitutional rights is a very progressive stance.

[Eleanors38]

336. You seem fascinated with people showering with guns. Peculiar.

[Clames]

150. True, nothing to be intimidated about.

The Elmer Fudd of troll hunters is something to be laughed at and maybe pitied.

[SecularMotion]

5. You delicate flower, you

[Skittles]

9. NRA not enough for you?

you poor thang

[gejohnston]

12. echo chambers are boring

but it would be nice if we could get a few more antis capable of a coherent argument.

[rDigital]

39. I'm a member on more than a few gun forums and believe me there is A LOT to disagree on

among Pro-RKBA persons. Open carry is a huge one.

[RegieRocker]

185. That is b.s.

The echos from the Antis in this thread contradicts your boring statement but yet sure enough you're here.

[tularetom]

13. Sounds like a circle jerk to me

I support RKBA but I recognize there are a lot of good people here who may disagree with me and I don't think there is anything to be gained by creating a group where everybody agrees with each other. WTF would we talk about - how stupid the people are who don't feel the same as we do?

Sometimes the threads in this group degenerate into nothing but name calling but occasionally some valid points are raised. I think people on both sides of the issue need to man up and stop whining. If you want to discuss issues relating to specific firearms, ballistics, reloading or gunsmithing, go to the Outdoor Life group.

[DWC]

16. Well stated. Agree 100%. Thank You! n/t

[glacierbay]

21. Great post.

[Paladin]

59. Bullseye.

As if Gun Control/RKBA isn't tilted far enough towards a gun-friendly outlook, already. This is a Democratic forum, and if you're upset with an occasional confrontation with the Democratic position on gun policy, tough shit. If all you want is vigorous agreement with your viewpoints, find a new place to lurk......

[gejohnston]

67. ever ask yourself why?

Is it the position of the Democrat in Main Street or the party power structure and pundits? It seems to be the case.

[bluerum]

15. Speaking for myself, even rbka du'ers are not comfortable with that.

[apocalypsehow]

17. Looks like even your fellow RKBA'ers don't feel the need for a "safe haven" from the

mainstream of progressive and liberal thought. Looks like they reckon they can handle themselves in debate with others, and since that's sorta the point of a Discussion Board I reckon I agree with them, for once.

Fun stuff.

[jody]

18. "Those who support the RKBA are harassed and intimidated"! You meant that as a joke --

didn't you?

[petronius]

19. It's not an issue of pro-RKBA vs. pro-gun-control, the issue you're

reacting to is really that there is a set of posters who have little to no interest in participating in any form of firearms discussion, and are here only to snark and bait. I don't know what motivates that behavior - perhaps it's just a horror that the gungeon and/or pro-RKBA liberals even exist - but it's not anything really to do with the pro-control perspective (even if most of these particular DUers identify with that position). The solution therefor is not to try and form a new group excluding that viewpoint,or to craft rules or procedures or standards beyond those DU already has: the disruption would still occur in one form or another, and as others have said, echo-chambers are boring.

The only thing really to do IMO is just to ignore (informally or with the feature) those DUers that contribute nothing, and interact with those that do. And, although DU juries drawn from the general community do tend to be biased against the RKBA participants, it's worth it to alert on the more egregious flamebait and insults...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

65. echo-chambers are boring

Agreed. There are several pro-control or, at least, pro-more-control-than-we-have-now, posters who engage in discussion, employ logic and generally make sense. They're generally pleasant and respectful and are in no small measure one of the main reasons I read and post here.

However, using ignore in either sense does kind of produce a bit of an echo-chamber.

[petronius]

70. Only to a small extent, I think: a pro-RKBA-only forum would certainly be

an echo chamber, and ignoring all the pro-more-control posters would have the same effect, as you say. I was intending to suggest just ignoring those posters that are all noise and no signal, not the interesting posters from any perspective.

That said, I don't use the ignore function; I find my informal ignore ability is quite sufficient, and there's always a chance that an interesting point might even accidentally be made by anyone, or in a reply to one of the noise-only types...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

71. Actually, those are my thoughts, exactly. +1

[Eleanors38]

337. I share your opinions about the lack of need for a 4th group on guns.

I think it is telling that the vitality of the 2nd Amendment in DU is reflected in its history here.
First, there was one open forum. Then the controller/banners retreated to their new Castle Bansalot safe haven where debate is severely limited and controlled. Then the Ads opened up GD to debate on guns (where previously such was line-itemed out), presumably to allow controller/banners the largest forum for their campaign of mainly stigmatization & accusatory attacks on fellow DUers.

We don't need yet a a 4TH gun group/forum.

Maybe a poll should be done to see how many DUers would like to see a Return to GD's previous TOS. I'm betting most would vote to leave the original open-debate Gungeon as-is, and to leave the controlled show Bansalot as-is.

[bongbong]

20. I thank the gun-religionists

For the daily load of EXTREME humor they provide me and other Liberals!

[gejohnston]

23. you are a liberal?

Since share the same view on guns as Bill Crystal, Bill Bennet, Christie, Nixon, George Will,........................................

[apocalypsehow]

34. (Y)you are a liberal?

Since (you) share the same view on guns as George W. Bush, Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre, Bill Akin, Tom Coburn, John Boehner, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Pat Buchanan, Janet Brewer, George Zimmerman, Rick Perry, David Duke, Ron Paul, Cal Thomas, Scott Walker, John Thune...really, we could go on and on and on, but your reply is absurd, and you know it: the vast majority of actual progressives and liberals do not support so-called "RKBA," while the vast majority of Republican and conservative nut-jobs do.

Also, Bill Crystal is a liberal Democrat, so what his inclusion is doing on your bogus list is yet another curiosity.

[gejohnston]

36. let me fix the spelling

William Kristol
Zimmerman is a registered Democrat.

[apocalypsehow]

37. I said "Republican AND conservative nut-jobs." Zimmerman is clearly a conservative nut-job

(and murderer) when it comes to "RKBA" issues. I can post an even more comprehensive list of Republican and conservative nut-jobs who love them their guns, if you wish...I could fill this forum with a list of those names - as you well know.

[gejohnston]

41. I'll wait for the real trial

he only bought a gun based on a suggestion by animal control. I don't based my opinions on what others think, so I really don't give a shit what Sarah Palin thinks. Do other people or orthodoxy form your opinions?

[apocalypsehow]

46. So, we got us a George Zimmerman supporter here. That's interesting - though not surprising.

" I really don't give a shit what Sarah Palin thinks."

You're the one who brought up a tiny group of supposed conservatives who supposedly support gun control (though a look at each of their records shows they mostly don't), so don't go whining around when that silly tactic is thrown back in your face.

Here's the bottom line: for every single marginal "conservative" or supposed Republican you can name who supports some weak version of gun control, I can name a thousand - ten thousand - of same specimens who embrace the bogus and bloody "RKBA" cause. And, of course, the vast majority of Democrats in general and progressives in particular support more civilized gun laws, and less gun deaths in America.

But this is the typical Gungeoneer game: when bested on the facts or shown how truly unpopular the deadly little fetish of "RKBA rights" is on the progressive side, you simply change the subject, and pretend you've somehow "proved" or "won" something.

Back to your original tactic: want to keep playing this game you initiated of how many Republicans support "RKBA rights" vs. how many progressives support civilized gun control laws? I'll be happy to oblige.

[gejohnston]

66. supporter of due process

not George Zimmerman. Judging from your posts, you lack the intellect to tell the difference.
Most Democrats actually don't, just the talking heads.

[apocalypsehow]

80. Nope: you are a supporter of George Zimmerman. And it's duly noted. n/t.

[gejohnston]

88. Yep: you are for lynch mobs and vigilante "justice" and it's duly noted. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

91. I'm sure Zimmerman is comforted by the fact that "pro gun progressives" are in his corner...

[gejohnston]

97. I don't give a shit about him either way, but if defending the rule of law

is being "in his corner" then I'm guessing you are OK with vigilantism and summery executions of people you don't like.

[apocalypsehow]

100. Yes you do, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. Have you given to Zimmerman's defense

fund? I'd be curious about that....

[gejohnston]

101. no, I believe in justice regardless of where it goes

and I don't give a shit him. I only care that the system works properly and the correct and the most just result comes out of it.
No, I don't give to any defense funds. Were you part of the lynch mob that followed Rosanne Barr's tweets?
http://digitaljournal.com/article/322124

We are having this conversation because I object to trial by media and lynch mobs in all cases. If you can't tell the difference, I can't help you.

[apocalypsehow]

106. We are having this conversation because you support George Zimmerman. Period. n/t.

[PavePusher]

168. Kos There's an informal rule over at Daily Kos that neds to adopted here at D.U....

"Don't be a dick."

You passed that line in a full sprint several posts back.

[rDigital]

22. Well it was worth a try. I guess the main take away is that something needs to be done about

The rampant trolling in this group.

[gejohnston]

24. I guess we could stop feeding them

I kind of miss Hoyt though

[rDigital]

26. Agreed, he was an enjoyable presence. nt

[glacierbay]

32. I rarely agreed with him

but he did provide comic relief. He was definitely a hoot and a holler.

[petronius]

31. What the heck happened there? Perhaps I missed some precipitating event, but

I really hope that's a temporary block...

[gejohnston]

33. I only know what I read

can't remember where I read it

[Union Scribe]

61. Agreed!

Insults dominate this forum in a way that would not be tolerated anywhere else on DU and trolls take full advantage of that.

[Spryguy]

25. Where did...

Hoyt go? I haven't seen him post in a while.

[glacierbay]

27. He got bounced from this group

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1172

[orpupilofnature57]

28. Problem is you Gun people have an agenda

and it screws up conversation on GD .

[petronius]

30. Kind of off-topic for this thread, but it's not actually "gun people" posting

the majority of those non-SoP gun threads in GD and elsewhere...

[orpupilofnature57]

55. See, Agenda.

The topic was calling for another Gun thread, for " Gun people " definition, people that advocate Guns. Period

[petronius]

64. So where does GD come into it, and how does this agenda you perceive affect GD? (nt)

[orpupilofnature57]

72. I've never gone to that group, I've only

seen it or ever posted through seeing it in GD. Some would argue when we have a mass murder, Gun violence crimes at a national level it is GD material, I wouldn't argue.

[apocalypsehow]

35. Yep, and it's not a progressive agenda, either. Quite the opposite. n/t.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

51. Private gun ownership is progressive

The repression some urge is right in line with George Will, George Wallace, Nixon, Bloomberg etc

[orpupilofnature57]

56. Not repression or advocating merely pointing out

peoples desires to discuss guns, some to advocate and some of US ( ME ) that don't. It's Neither progressive nor regressive to discuss, which is the main AGENDA here, or the only thing Progressive.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

63. Perhaps you have missed the posts and threads where some are calling for

elimination of this group and PPR status for many posters here.

The are those who are so touchy on the guns they call for bans that which offends them, use slurs rather than dialog, and are clearly among those who make DU suck.

[orpupilofnature57]

68. I would never advocate eliminating any Group

I've used slurs in some real Flame Games, and have been censured for being inappropriate and over the top, and I was guilty. But let's be honest Look back through and the spewers of Hostile , Animosity with Caustic superlatives Aren't one sided.

[glacierbay]

69. Sometimes flame wars bring out the worse and it has happened here too many times.

[orpupilofnature57]

135. Guilty.

[apocalypsehow]

89. Toting weaponry around in public spoiling for a shootout has nothing to do with the progressive

Last edited Sun Sep 2, 2012, 04:08 PM - Edit history (1)

agenda, but this absurd stretch to pretend that conservatives are the major supporters of gun control again rears it's silly head.

1. George Will is not some big supporter of gun control. Neither was George Wallace. Bloomberg is a liberal independent, not a Republican. Nixon has been dead since 1994, and out of office since 1974. It is to laugh that you're even bringing him up.

2. Private gun ownership is not the issue: so-called "RKBA" and the easy access to firearms on the civilian market is the issue, and you well know it.

3. If you really want to play this absurd game of how many Republican politicians and conservative notables support some weak version of gun control - a tiny handful - versus how many Democratic politicians and liberal commentators and progressive notables support gun control, bring it on. I could make a list that fills this forum of the latter, and I could make a further list that could fill this forum of Republican politicians and conservative notables who support so-called "RKBA."

Why do you "pro gun progressives" continue to pretend that there is some huge group of conservatives that support sensible gun control when you know for a fact that there is not? To ask the question is to answer it, and that answer is disruption, pure and simple. You know it to be untrue, know that the time it takes to debunk it diverts the debate into other channels, and delight in the disruption such an absurd claim causes. That's the bottom line: disruption.


Edit: typo.

[PavePusher]

169. I see you're trying to pick up the slack left by Hoyt.

He was better at it. Less wordy.

[jody]

44. "Gun people have an agenda" but it's not a problem. We are committed to preserving all natural,

inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights which government is obligated to protect under our Constitution whether enumerated or unenumerated but protected by the Ninth Amendment.

Those who oppose our "agenda" can enter this group and present their case for replacing our Constitution which requires government to protect the inalienable/unalienable rights of a minority against the tyranny of a simple majority.

They should be forewarned they will find here a group of patriots ready to debate and defend ALL inalienable/unalienable rights.

[Kolesar]

52. Right to guns on school buses, bars, etc. ... eom

[jody]

74. What part of #44 don't you understand? nt

[orpupilofnature57]

58. Usurping the word ' PATRIOT ' is a problem.

[jody]

73. Your comment re patriot implies either you haven't read or don't understand PA & VT constitutions of

1776 and 1777. They say:

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776

That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

And

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OF VERMONT 8 Jul. 1777

THAT all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Therefore, no male person, born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person, as a servant, slave or apprentice, after he arrives to the age of twenty-one Years, nor female, in like manner, after she arrives to the age of eighteen years, unless they are bound by their own consent, after they arrive to such age, or bound by law, for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like.

And

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

As natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights it is impossible for PA citizens to have given away the right of self-defense and the right keep and bear arms for self-defense when they ratified our Constitution (1787) or when they ratified the BOR (1790) or VT (1791) to have given the same rights away when they accepted the amended constitution.

The men and women who fought against King George in the war for independence believed that each person was a sovereign unto them self and did not have to beg a king or other artificial authority for a privilege. When they approved a compact for a central government they retained some of their rights and powers that government were obligated to protect.

Writers used the word "patriot" to identify those who defend our Constitution and the principles of individual freedom that preceded our Constitution. Jefferson and Madison understood that and that's why they started the Democratic Party and were authors of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions that defended state rights protected by the Tenth Amendment.

The Oxford English Dictionary third definition of "Patriot" is "A person actively opposing enemy forces occupying his or her country; a member of a resistance movement, a freedom fighter. Originally used of those who opposed and fought the British in the American War of Independence."

Those of us who defend the inalienable/unalienable rights our Constitution requires government to protect are "patriots" in the exact way the word was used since 1773.

Are those who wish to ignore those rights "unpatriotic"? Perhaps that's your problem.

[orpupilofnature57]

134. Ignore no , Obsess no , But thanks for the great read !!

Really thanks

[ileus]

29. I voted yes, however.com with truth and a true progressive stance most arguments against are moot.

[Common Sense Party]

38. We're not harassed by the TaliBanners.

We're ENTERTAINED by them.

Silly fundamentalists.

[rDigital]

40. I wasn't speaking for myself of course : )

I see a lot of low post count posters that dip a toe into the RKBA group and are pounced on by the antis and then they never post again. That's what I'm concerned with. Voices being silenced through intimidation.

Also, since it seems like not enough people have an appetite for a single issue RKBA forum, I say something needs to be done about the malicious posters.

[apocalypsehow]

47. "something needs to be done about the malicious posters" - You mean posters who disagree with you.

That's takes gall, actually: if the TPTB were to "do something" in this forum about posters who do not belong on a progressive discussion board, this forum would quickly empty out, with PPR's handed out left & right. You are tolerated here, with the "pro gun progressive" nonsense; but that doesn't mean anything more than that: tolerated. Not accepted; not embraced; not liked. As the DU jury system has shown, over & over & over again, when put to the test.

Edit: typo.

[Common Sense Party]

79. Uhhh...WRONG. We have no problem with posters who disagree with the 2nd Amendment.

Posters who provide NOTHING, no debate, no logical arguments, no facts, merely emotion, hyperbole and insults...that's a different matter altogether.

Rather telling that you think people who actually SUPPORT the Bill of Rights--all of it--should not even be "tolerated" on this board. THAT takes gall.

[apocalypsehow]

83. Nope: right. DU TOS states: "Democratic Underground is an online community for

politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here" (emphases added).

Not one thing in the DU TOS mentions people who think they "actually SUPPORT the Bill of Rights" in the manner you and your pals do, i.e., by willfully misreading and misconstruing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution in a right-wing manner, have any business here: indeed, quite the opposite. The "RKBA" cause is a right-wing cause, not a progressive one. It is the cause of the NRA, of Antonin Scalia, of nearly every Republican elected official in the country, and nearly every conservative commentator who opines with any kind of platform whatsoever.

So, yes: "tolerated" is the precisely correct word. And, yes, it takes gall to pretend it is anything otherwise: for all sorts of reasons that I'm sure are complicated, scarcely-disguised right-wingers are pretty much allowed a sub-forum here to spew right-wing talking points. That's fine by me, but let's not pretend there actually is any such thing as a "pr-RKBA progressive." There is not.

[Common Sense Party]

84. The Fail is strong with this one.

So, the Second Amendment is a right-wing amendment, in your view?

Which amendments are progressive ones, then?

What other parts of the Constitution must we jettison to meet your purity test?

[apocalypsehow]

92. Since you had difficulty the first go round: DU TOS states "Democratic Underground is an online

community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here" (emphases added).

Not one thing in the DU TOS mentions people who think they "actually SUPPORT the Bill of Rights" in the manner you and your pals do, i.e., by willfully misreading and misconstruing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution in a right-wing manner, have any business here: indeed, quite the opposite. The "RKBA" cause is a right-wing cause, not a progressive one. It is the cause of the NRA, of Antonin Scalia, of nearly every Republican elected official in the country, and nearly every conservative commentator who opines with any kind of platform whatsoever.

So, yes: "tolerated" is the precisely correct word. And, yes, it takes gall to pretend it is anything otherwise: for all sorts of reasons that I'm sure are complicated, scarcely-disguised right-wingers are pretty much allowed a sub-forum here to spew right-wing talking points. That's fine by me, but let's not pretend there actually is any such thing as a "pr-RKBA progressive." There is not.

Handy link to the original (which can also be seen by scrolling up slightly with your mouse):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67738

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!" - All the best to you in that regard!

[Common Sense Party]

120. The only one wilfullllly misreading and misconstruing the Constitution is you, Sparky.

Obviously you don't know too many progressives, because if you did you'd know how many are quite comfortable with the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. Go read it sometime. You might learn something.

[apocalypsehow]

122. Since difficulties remain, we'll try again: DU TOS states "Democratic Underground is an online

community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here" (emphases added).

Not one thing in the DU TOS mentions people who think they "actually SUPPORT the Bill of Rights" in the manner you and your pals do, i.e., by willfully misreading and misconstruing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution in a right-wing manner, have any business here: indeed, quite the opposite. The "RKBA" cause is a right-wing cause, not a progressive one. It is the cause of the NRA, of Antonin Scalia, of nearly every Republican elected official in the country, and nearly every conservative commentator who opines with any kind of platform whatsoever.

So, yes: "tolerated" is the precisely correct word. And, yes, it takes gall to pretend it is anything otherwise: for all sorts of reasons that I'm sure are complicated, scarcely-disguised right-wingers are pretty much allowed a sub-forum here to spew right-wing talking points. That's fine by me, but let's not pretend there actually is any such thing as a "pr-RKBA progressive." There is not.

Handy link to the original (which can also be seen by scrolling up slightly with your mouse):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67738

[Common Sense Party]

123. Repeating your dreck ad nauseum doesn't advance your argument,

you were wrong the first time you wrote it. You're still wrong, no matter how often you copy and paste.

[apocalypsehow]

128. We'll try it again: DU TOS states "Democratic Underground is an online community

for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here" (emphases added).

Not one thing in the DU TOS mentions people who think they "actually SUPPORT the Bill of Rights" in the manner you and your pals do, i.e., by willfully misreading and misconstruing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution in a right-wing manner, have any business here: indeed, quite the opposite. The "RKBA" cause is a right-wing cause, not a progressive one. It is the cause of the NRA, of Antonin Scalia, of nearly every Republican elected official in the country, and nearly every conservative commentator who opines with any kind of platform whatsoever.

So, yes: "tolerated" is the precisely correct word. And, yes, it takes gall to pretend it is anything otherwise: for all sorts of reasons that I'm sure are complicated, scarcely-disguised right-wingers are pretty much allowed a sub-forum here to spew right-wing talking points. That's fine by me, but let's not pretend there actually is any such thing as a "pr-RKBA progressive." There is not.

Handy link to the original (which can also be seen by scrolling up slightly with your mouse):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67738

[Common Sense Party]

130. Yawn.

[apocalypsehow]

132. Uh-huh - about what I figured. n/t.

[rDigital]

159. You're bullying people right here in the post were I am asking for a new forum because of bullies.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

166. It is the tactics of those unable to otherwise defend their point of view

[apocalypsehow]

173. There is a post needing your attention, Digit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67503

Go answer it.

[apocalypsehow]

176. Posting facts the "pro gun progressives" refuse to answer or refute isn't "bullying," Digit:

it's called winning an all-too-easy argument.

Now, how about we deal with this question here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67503

[ProgressiveProfessor]

50. This is hilarious

A while back there was a thread in meta about the need for an anti gun group since this group was so mean to the antis...and there was so much discussion about how evil this place was and how the pro gun rights people were so mean. Next time it comes up I will post a link to this thread.

[Kolesar]

53. You sound bored

and obsessive.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. More bemused actually

The hilarity of the situation is amusing

[Kolesar]

54. Aren't there about a hundred other message boards where you will be ok?

The ones with ads by R. Lee Ermey, Ted Nugent, Pat Boone, NRA, EAA, and ED treatments?

[Trunk Monkey]

75. I've seen R. Lee Ermey and NRA ads here NT

[rDigital]

85. Yep.

[apocalypsehow]

95. That's what I don't get, never have: why bring the NRA and GOP agenda to DU?

What is it about this urge to pretend to be a "progressive" on a Democratic discussion board in order to spew right-wing talk about guns?

I don't think it's simple disruption and the desire to troll, though that's a part of it: I think it's something deeper, though just what would probably take a battalion of psychiatrists to diagnose.

[DanTex]

116. Trolling, plain and simple

They like pushing a right wing agenda on a Democratic forum. On some gun forums people even brag about their DU trolling exploits.

[apocalypsehow]

124. Exactly right - that's all it is. A few years back, a mutual friend of ours PM'd me a link to a gun

nut site that had a forum not viewable to the public unless you were registered and invited to the group. Somehow this poster had gotten invited. This forum was made up of "pro gun progressives" posting here on DU, and was basically a bunch of guys sitting around laughing about how stupid liberals were, how they'd "fooled" the DU'ers here, how laughable it was that they basically had their own little playground to romp around in on a progressive discussion board, etc., etc.

You could tell from certain posting styles and talk about specific OP's who the posters here were on the openly right-wing "RKBA" site, but since they used different monikers there really was no ironclad proof. Later, the forum was shut down, and was made inaccessible for normal posters, but I'm not sure what caused that to happen. I guarantee you some version of that is going on right now somewhere out on the internet.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

118. Your false assumptions are what are confusing you...

Firearms for personal defense, hunting and sport transcend the standard political labels and parties. Those you accuse of pretending may well be at least as progressive as you are when measured across the board. You see limited vignettes here.

I'm out here on the left coast teaching firearms on the weekend to mostly LBTQs and women. Few if any repukes in my classes. That horrifies some, but I do it because today in our environment it is the most effective means of self defense. I wish it was not necessary, but clearly it is.

The Pink Pistols (http://www.pinkpistols.org) got it right with their motto "Armed gays don't get bashed". There was a post earlier today about how TG sisters were being killed in Philly and how violence against LBTQs is up (http://www.democraticunderground.com/113719213). The threat and violence are real. I invest my time to help those who are the most targeted by it. Its quite a bit more effective than whining about rude toters, arguing about DGU stats, or writing screeds with passion but no accuracy.

A story from one of my classes...
Before they come to the class students are told to wear closed in stout shoes or boots, sneakers at minimum, and sandals are unacceptable. This is a basic safety precaution and my range is in open desert. During an after lunch session I noticed one of the students on the line wearing stiletto heels which they had not been wearing earlier. When I asked about their choice in footwear their response was "I don't get harassed when I am in sneakers." It was both hilarious and thought provoking.

Some of us defending personal firearms, and yes even concealed carry, are as progressive as most posters here. We bring different views and experiences to site than others have. They do not come from the GOP or the NRA and claims that we are just spewing talking points is both insulting and not true. When we deny that, we are called liars or worse. Rules for this group are different than other groups and such nonsense is tolerated. Still we persevere...

[apocalypsehow]

125. I'm not "confused" in the slightest, "Professor." Tell us: what was your dissertation concerning?

Do you "teach" at an accredited institution? What is your tenure status? Public or private institution? Have you been published in any peer-reviewed journals? If so, which ones, and what was the title(s) of some of your work?

Tell us some of these things, "Professor".....( ).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

139. My background has been published here in the past

I am retired from $BIGJOB and $PRIORJOB. Teaching is my retirement job. I don't need the money. The homestead is paid for, it backs up to BLM land and is actually making money from solar.

I am a widower. My wife died of breast cancer. In the course of our marriage we worked and lived in multiple nations, with me being the camp follower. We settled in MD for our daughters to graduate from a US high school. After they graduated we moved to Socal.

I am black though like the president, I am actually mixed race, as was my wife.

After resisting it, I recently accepted a full professorship at the public university where I have been teaching for some time. Did not really want or need tenure, but it was the right thing to do for any number of reasons.

I teach geek stuff. EE and CS, including computer modeling and computer forensics. My passion is working with students trying to figure out if this is the career for them. Not that many full profs teach 200 level classes, but I really enjoy it.

Title of my dissertations/papers/thesis would disclose my identity. They can be found on Google. Several people have told me that I can be found anyway. If your desire is to "out" me, knock yourself out.








.

[apocalypsehow]

144. So, you are refusing to provide evidence to substantiate your credentials.

About what I figured, "professor."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

146. As has been said many times before, "On the internet, no one knows you are a dog"

Given the vituperativeness here, I will not out myself...however, if it really matters to you, it could be figured out according to some.

My credentials are as I present them, whether you like them or not. I really does not matter. Its not as if it would have mattered to you in any case.

Any more ad hominems you want to throw?

[apocalypsehow]

157. You claim to be some kind of "professor," yet refuse to provide any substantiation to

confirm this dubious claim. Therefore, your claims and posts deserve to be evaluated in that light.

*Bookmarking* for future reference.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

160. Another rube who does not understand the basics

It would not matter if I was the Chancellor of the UC system, and out of office politician(Grayson), or a self proclaimed Canadian felon (Hoyt), what matters is the content of my posts. Who I am does not matter. Its one of the underlying concepts of the Internet.

I have no onus to document my bonafides to you or anyone here on DU. That you are pushing for it shows just how much of a desperate rube you are. You cannot effectively defeat my words so you go after me instead. Nice try.

There is a long standing screed that applies to people like you and your juvenile tactics, though not all of them are topical in your case, but it is still apropos:

http://www.fenixdev.net/

[apocalypsehow]

167. Yes, the onus is precisely on you to provide proof of your "bonafides" - you are the one

making the dubious claim, and folding it into your schtick here on Democratic Underground of being a "pro gun progressive." You also frequently indulge in the logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority" using those unestablished "bonafides" (Sic), i.e., inserting your claim that you know more than this or that poster because you once used to be something you refuse to provide proof of: a "Professor."

Now, I don't buy your claim, and I doubt many here on DU do. But if you are going to make that claim - and you have, frequently - and if you are going to use that argument that you were once a "Professor" as a talking point in your arguments - and you have, frequently - and if you are further going to fold that (likely bogus) identity into your online presence, you are gonna be called on it.

The fact that you refuse to provide proof merely lends strongly to the case that it couldn't be proved, because the claim is false.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

170. Where have I cited my $DAYJOB to give weight to my posts in this group?

I would be a pro gun progressive, even if I wasn't currently teaching. If my handle was 12345 would it calm your inflammation?

Keep up with the ad hominems...you continue to negate your credibility and delightfully so.

Your desperate attempt to out me is truly amusing.

[apocalypsehow]

171. To "out" you? Are you ashamed of having once been a "professor"? Would you suffer

professional repercussions if you somehow admitted to being a "pro gun professor"? Oh, wait, you said you were "retired," so that's a no-go.

The bottom line is that you have made repeated claims to having been a "professor," and frequently use that dubious claim in your arguments as a classic logical fallacy. Now, if you don't want to provide any substantiation for those claims, fine: but you should stop making claims you're unwilling to back up with proof.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

175. Frequently use it here in RKBA discussions?

In technical discussions certainly, Gun control and RKBA not that I recall this evening.

Given your attitude and that of some others, once you had my name and school there would be a never ending stream of poutrage letters. I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.

[apocalypsehow]

178. Either provide the substantiaton to back up your claim, or cease making the claim.

It really is that simple.

"Given your attitude and that of some others, once you had my name and school there would be a never ending stream of poutrage letters."

First off, that's a dodge because you are supposedly "retired," so no matter how many "letters" sent to that institution it would have exactly ZERO effect on you, regardless. Or have you forgotten your claim that you are "retired"? Second, one would think a "pro gun professor" would welcome such attention, especially if he had tenure. Academic street cred, and all of that. One begins to suspect you've never stepped foot into a faculty lounge on an American campus.....

[ProgressiveProfessor]

182. Do you every read for content?

Being a prof is my retirement job. I have adequate pensions from $PRIORJOB and $BIGJOB. It means I don't need to work for living, but do so because I love it.

One of the things a pro does is not do things that interfere with their performance. I keep the university and firearms separate since they have no relevance to each other. I don't do politics either. CS and EE are hard enough at the university level without distractions.

I fully believe that you and some others here would so the hate mail thing...if you do, you will have to at least do some work for the data. Its the least I can do.

What do any of your ad hominems have to do with the SOP in this group?

[apocalypsehow]

183. Are you going to provide substantiation for your dubious claim, or cease making the claim?

Pick one.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

192. I am still waiting for you to substantiate that I cite $DAYJOB to give my posts authority in

this group.

[apocalypsehow]

195. Are you going to provide substantiation for you dubious claim, or cease making the claim?

Pick one.

[apocalypsehow]

184. "Being a prof is my retirement job" - Uh-huh. Do you post on DU from campus? n/t.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

193. I post via a proxy

[apocalypsehow]

196. Why? n/t.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

200. Because I choose to

Also use a TOR node much of the time.

What kind of prof would I be if I did not play with some of the leading edge tools.

[apocalypsehow]

202. Uh-huh. Riiiiiiggghhhttt.....in any event, I only ask because even a brief perusal of the Gungeon

shows you posting on days and at times every university or college I've ever known was in session.

But I bet you got an explanation for that, too, huh?

"I teach at night...I only teach weekends...I only teach on...yada, yada, yada."

Except you don't, do you, "professor"?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

215. I don't see an issue here

Depending on lecture and lab, I post during "working hours" from campus occasionally. I do it using private bandwidth.

[apocalypsehow]

216. Of course you don't: you're not a professor, conduct no lectures nor participate in any labs,

and do not pack heat on a campus you do not work at. What you do is post on DU, in the Gungeon, during times and hours of the day that make it all but impossible to actually be a "prof" and post as prolifically as you do . And you well know it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

220. You are still double posting responses

Check your BP while you are at it, while it is amusing to play with you like this, if you had a stroke I might feel bad.

[apocalypsehow]

223. Uh-huh. Busted on bogus claims, and still trying to salvage a scrap of credibility. n/t.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

224. Far from it, but please continue to dance

[apocalypsehow]

227. You made the bogus claim, and have for YEARS: now, the consequences of posting

before checking the actual law and policies has come back to haunt you. Fun stuff.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

233. The claim is not bogus and you continue to dance for us

Keep looking, the answer is out there somewhere...

[apocalypsehow]

237. The claim IS bogus, as shown. But feel free to post any substantiating evidence you wish...

oh, wait: you refuse to do that.

As I said below: the fact remains, by your own errant post, posted before you had taken the time to check the actual law or review the actual policies, shows that you are not a "professor." Either that, you are willfully breaking the law, which puts paid to the "law abiding gun owner" nonsense. Either, or. The former is the actual truth of the matter, but you can embrace whatever bogus narrative you wish. This "professor" claim is busted, for all time, on DU: there's no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

247. You still can't figure out...

i think even Hoyt figured it out eventually

[apocalypsehow]

217. Plus, you've just busted yourself by claiming you pack heat as an employee on a campus

when the facts say that that is impossible. Unless you're breaking the law. And that would put paid to your claim to be an "law abiding gun owner," in any event. Funny stuff.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

218. You have not looked at all the exceptions

[apocalypsehow]

225. Coy will not salvage your credibility: you've been busted. You are not a "professor."

And by your own error in failing to check the law and the policies before posting. Funny stuff.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

226. You missed the exception, but please keep trying

[apocalypsehow]

229. Nope. But I will keep laughing. n/t.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

231. As you like...but there are several exceptions that you have still not found

Keep at it...you might get lucky

[apocalypsehow]

235. It will be as I like, as what has been demonstrated here this evening is (1) irrefutable and

(2) by your own hand: you are not a "professor" of anything, actually, but you play one on DU.

As I stated below: the fact remains, by your own errant post, posted before you had taken the time to check the actual law or review the actual policies, shows that you are not a "professor." Either that, you are willfully breaking the law, which puts paid to the "law abiding gun owner" nonsense. Either, or. The former is the actual truth of the matter, but you can embrace whatever bogus narrative you wish. This "professor" claim is busted, for all time, on DU: there's no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

243. Just because you cannot figure out how the pieces fit does not mean they do not fit

It means that you cannot figure it out.

[apocalypsehow]

249. No, it means you refuse to answer the straight-forward questions. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

256. You claim to be in California: is so, you're not packing on campus. Unless you're campus police.

But you claim to be a "prof." Laughable stuff.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx

[apocalypsehow]

203. BTW, I don't think the DU admins look kindly upon posters who use proxies.

Which leads me to believe you do no such thing. More fun stuff.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

205. I don't see that in the TOS

And proxies take many forms. Open proxies make you an internet pariah, private proxies are transparent. I assume you know the difference.

[apocalypsehow]

207. I assume you're either going to provide proof to substantiate your claim - now busted (see below) -

to being a "prof," or cease making the claim.

And keep bragging about using proxies: it's a sure way to call attention to yourself. Unwanted attention, I'd wager....

[ProgressiveProfessor]

210. TOR nodes get unwanted attention, mostly from Feds

Using a proxy has other benefits.

The only thing busted here is your reasoning.

[apocalypsehow]

212. Uh-huh. Riiiiiiggghhhttt.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=68272

[apocalypsehow]

214. Like I said: kinda stepped in this one, didn't yah? Might wanna rethink this "professor" claim. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

208. Questions await, "professor": answer them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=68265

[rDigital]

158. I'm sorry that you have to deal with these personal attacks, this was one of the

reasons that I wanted to see a different Pro-RKBA group. It's much easier to discuss the issues at hand when you are discussing the issues and not defending yourself from vitriolic shenanigans.

I do see the error of wanting such a group now, but I still wish the harassment was addressed. I guess ad hominems, insults and sliming are par for the course for the time being.

Any request demanding that you give away your personal identity on an anonymous chat forum is suspect and beyond the pale. It's interesting though that people still try this kind of chest beating macho manhood measuring contest on a PUBLIC forum. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

The intimidation and harassment need to come to an end.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

165. You cannot be a black man in the US without developing a thick skin when it comes to idiots.

Last edited Mon Sep 3, 2012, 12:16 AM - Edit history (1)

The retreat to ad hominems is nothing new. I don't cite my $DAYJOB to give me any authority here on DU in the gun control group but some fix upon it rather than take on the content of my posts. It shows how weak their arguments are. What would they say if my handle was 12345? I have certainly posted enough technical content in other groups to establish my technical bonafides.

Their latest is the talking points canard. If its something they don't like they use that card dismissively and then whine when it is refuted. Sometime I counter such arguments with similar tactics...it often winds them up even further, showing the shallowness of their arguments.

What I find most amusing is the poutrage generated when I talk about teaching fellow liberals and progressives how to defend themselves with firearms. It seems to be the worst kind of subversion. Bring up the Pink Pistols and who knows what may break loose.

They sure seemed scared of of a single armed black man...can't imagine why.

[rDigital]

172. Keep up the good work. Education is a powerful construct and fosters life long rewarding

relationships with students....but you already knew that, Professor. I've met quite a few interesting people through my firearms training classes. Once, I even went pistol shooting with former Ohio governor Ted Strickland. Awesome experience.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

179. I keep the firearms and the university at arms length

I carry concealed on campus between my motorcycle to my office and back. I do it to secure the weapon. Its more secure in my office in a safe than in a car or on the motorcycle. Admin knows and its not a problem.

The geek community likes to think it is a meritocracy...race, gender, title, or age are not supposed to matter. However, technical fields of study do not exempt them from the human race. Being a minority prof makes you both a role model and at times a target. That said I love teaching.

The firearms classes on the weekends are also divorced from the University, though a couple of young adjuncts have taken classes from me.

[apocalypsehow]

181. You "carry concealed" on campus? Riiiiiiggghtttt.....

No, you don't.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

186. Actually I do

Not the only one either, though the numbers are probably in the single digits.

[apocalypsehow]

188. Actually, you don't. Even the Utah and Colorado exceptions apply only to students, not to employees.

Might wanna try another line of work to claim you're in, cause you just busted yourself on this "professor" claim.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

191. There are other exceptions...figure it out

[apocalypsehow]

194. No, there are not. Of the five states that currently allow STUDENTS to pack heat

on campus thanks to either legislation or court rulings, not ONE allows employees other than campus police on duty to do so.

You might wanna rethink this "professor" claim...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

198. Keep looking, you will find it

[apocalypsehow]

201. In other words, you've been busted on your bogus claim, and are now trying salvage some credibility.

I think I've FOUND precisely what we're looking for: further *Bookmarking* for future reference.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

204. No you haven't since you have not found the right answer

You think you have found the answer since it is what you want it to be. Fairly typical mistake when you are in a hurry. You are so worked up at this point you are double posting responses...chill, get some oxygen and think about it.

[apocalypsehow]

206. Yes, I've found the right one: there is not a single campus that allows employees, as opposed to

STUDENTS, to "carry concealed" on campus, unless they are Campus Police. Now you're just trying to dodge and weave. I would too, if my major claim to fame here in the Gungeon had just been busted.

[gejohnston]

209. which one is it? If you know, please share.

[apocalypsehow]

197. Kinda stepped in this one, didn't yah? Like I said: might wanna rethink this "professor" claim.

[apocalypsehow]

222. And now the self-deletions from even your *allies* start, as some of them begin to realize just how

wide, tall, & deep you've truly stepped in it this time. Good stuff, and funny to boot.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

228. Did you look up what he posted?

[apocalypsehow]

230. Are you going to cease making the "professor" claim, now that it's been definitively shown you are

not one?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

232. I will take that as a no

Too bad, it was a clue that had eluded you.

[apocalypsehow]

234. Take it however you wish: the fact remains, by your own errant post, posted before

you had taken the time to check the actual law or review the actual policies, shows that you are not a "professor." Either that, you are willfully breaking the law, which puts paid to the "law abiding gun owner" nonsense. Either, or. The former is the actual truth of the matter, but you can embrace whatever bogus narrative you wish. This "professor" claim is busted, for all time, on DU: there's no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.

[rDigital]

236. Why are you bullying in my anti-bullying thread? It's disgusting. Discuss the issues, we are all

anonymous on the internet. Attack the content, not the person. What you are doing isn't right and everyone can see it.

You are being a bully.

[apocalypsehow]

239. Posting facts the "pro gun progressives" refuse to answer or refute isn't "bullying," Digit:

it's called winning an all-too-easy argument.

Now, how about we deal with this question here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67503

[rDigital]

242. I DON'T ANSWER TO BULLIES. THEY ANSWER TO ME!

You can CCW in College as a Professor in Colorado. You are so wrong it hurts.

[apocalypsehow]

246. Posting facts the "pro gun progressives" refuse to answer or refute isn't "bullying," Digit:

it's called winning an all-too-easy argument.

Now, how about we deal with this question here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67503

[rDigital]

250. My answer: YES, YOU ARE A BULLY!

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300 You can even carry in Washington State if the college allows it. Colleges make their own rules: South Puget Sound Community College in Olympia allows concealed carry.

I can keep going with this. You lose. Quit bullying in my thread.

[apocalypsehow]

263. Calm yourself, Digit: I win, actually. The "professor" claims to teach in California, and there is

no campus carry in the Golden State. Deal with it: he's busted.

[gejohnston]

251. winning what argument? You made fool out of yourself

but I thought I would give you a troll snack. McDonald won't be overturned by anyone partly because it could begin a right wing attack on other incorporation rulings. The larger reason is that no one will have standing to make a case in our lifetimes. I don't see Brady or anyone else pushing anything through the court system to SCOTUS. Brady lawyers depended on "states rights" cases to argue against McDonald, which is a 14A ruling, not a 2A ruling. I would think it would be harder to do since one of those were pretty much overturned. I'm voting for Obama either way.
http://themoderatevoice.com/78129/mcdonald-v-chicago-second-amendment-applied-to-statesmunicipalities/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

BTW, Jerry Brown as California AG supported McDonald

In 2009, while attorney general, Brown filed a friend-of-the-court brief siding with the National Rifle Assn.'s attempt to overturn a gun ban in Chicago. Brown wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court that he feared "California citizens could be deprived of the constitutional right to possess handguns in their homes."

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/07/local/la-me-brown-guns-20110407

[apocalypsehow]

259. Nope: I won it. It took hours, but our "professor" now says he's in CA. He's not packing heat there,

unless he's campus police. All the rest of that jazz you posted is simply irrelevant.

[rDigital]

282. YOU CAN CARRY IN CALI COLLEGE WITH A CCW

Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf

[rDigital]

241. YOU ARE WRONG

Can employees bring a concealed weapon to a meeting (e.g. staff meetings, disciplinary meetings, performance coaching and evaluation meetings, trainings, campus resource consultations, interviews)?

Yes, if the employee has a valid concealed carry permit and the weapon is carried in accordance with the law, i.e., concealed. For assistance in any situation of concern, such as a performance review, please contact the Office of Human Resources at the link below.

http://hr.colorado.edu/Pages/ColoradoConcealedCarryAct.aspx

Can an employee bring a concealed weapon to the office?

Yes, if the employee has a valid concealed carry permit and the weapon is carried in accordance with the law, i.e., concealed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

244. I take it that you still do not have a clue...

You have never shown that I used $DAYJOB here in the Gun Control group to add authority to my posts despite repetitive claims. Still waiting for that answer.

You have tried to show that my class schedule should have prevented me from posting at times...and failed.

You have made false claims about the law here in CA (and elsewhere) and ignored what should be obvious. Others have figured it out, but you apparently cannot, blinded by your passion.

You have been dancing hard for the last few hours. Trying hard but getting nowhere. You have posted multiple replies and generally worked yourself up to quite a state.

I would give you the answer, but its just too much fun to watch you...maybe some other member will take pity upon you and deliver your from your ongoing embarrassment.

[apocalypsehow]

248. Except, the answer is bogus. You no more had any idea what the policy was until Digit posted

it here than the man on the moon - otherwise, you would have posted it.

Instead, you kept talking about "exceptions," which was a coy way of trying to say you were some kind of law enforcement honcho, retired FBI, etc.

But now that that's out of the way: you are an African-American professor at the University of Colorado? And a "pro gun" one at that? Did I get that right?

[rDigital]

257. You can carry in Texas with written permission from the dean

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/mar/17/eddie-rodriguez/state-rep-eddie-rodriguez-says-colleges-and-univer/

[apocalypsehow]

264. Focus, Digit: California is the state we're talking about, not Texas. n/t.

[gejohnston]

262. Why wouldn't there be an African American professor at UC?

The only African American in the Wyoming prison system is the warden
http://corrections.wy.gov/institutions/wsp/index.html

BTW, in Wyoming you can carry on campus as long as you have written permission from the head of security.

[apocalypsehow]

266. I don't know: why wouldn't there be? You're the one asking the question.

Bizarre stuff - I sometimes think our "pro gun progressives" get confused as to what thread they're posting in. Open your windows when you clean your guns, guys: those cleaning agents can be powerful stuff in unventilated rooms.

[gejohnston]

269. you seemed to imply that it was UC would be a racist

shit hole.

[apocalypsehow]

281. I "implied" no such thing. I was reiterating the claims our "professor" has made about himself,

nothing more, nothing less. He has now stated he is a "professor" in California, so the Colorado part is moot.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

283. You have gotten nothing right all evening

And I said where I taught much earlier

[apocalypsehow]

298. Oh yes I have, and I'm STILL getting it right.

Link to where you said you taught, please: let's see it.

[apocalypsehow]

311. Where do you "teach," "professor"? We can clear all this up right now. n/t.

[rDigital]

284. YOU CAN CARRY IN CALI COLLEGE WITH A CCW

Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf

[apocalypsehow]

252. The law in "CA" - so, you're not a professor after all, by your own admission.

Funny stuff.

[apocalypsehow]

265. No, I have a perfect answer, actually: your claims to "professorship," by your OWN ADMISSION,

is simply false. There is no campus carry in California, unless you are campus police, or a retired Federal law enforcement agent, and you are neither. So, question answered. It only took four hours for you to finally come clean.

[gejohnston]

271. you didn't read the whole thing, there are always exceptions.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/15/1/s626.9

(i)Notwithstanding Section 12026, any person who brings or possesses a firearm upon the grounds of a campus of, or buildings owned or operated for student housing, teaching, research, or administration by, a public or private university or college, that are contiguous or are clearly marked university property, unless it is with the written permission of the university or college president, his or her designee, or equivalent university or college authority, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years. Notwithstanding subdivision (k), a university or college shall post a prominent notice at primary entrances on noncontiguous property stating that firearms are prohibited on that property pursuant to this subdivision.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

288. You missed it again

[apocalypsehow]

302. So, you claim you have written permission to carry a gun on a California campus?

That is what you are claiming?

[rDigital]

305. The Black Knight Strikes again. Quit bullying in my thread. You lose.

[gejohnston]

312. I think he ran out of troll food

or went to bed. Did he say he taught at UCLA?

[apocalypsehow]

267. Addendum to #248: by your own admission, you are not a professor. You claim to be a "prof" in CA,

after hours of dodging and obfuscation. You are not packing heat on a California campus unless you are campus police, or a retired Federal law enforcement officer. And you are neither. Busted.

[rDigital]

238. BTW, you are so wrong it hurts.

http://hr.colorado.edu/Pages/ColoradoConcealedCarryAct.aspx

Can an employee bring a concealed weapon to the office?

Yes, if the employee has a valid concealed carry permit and the weapon is carried in accordance with the law, i.e., concealed.

[gejohnston]

240. why do I have the feeling that

he is looking up Hawaii's laws or just talking shit?

[apocalypsehow]

254. California's laws do not allow concealed carry on campus period:

"Currently, there are 21 states that ban carrying a concealed weapon on a college campus: Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming."

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx

So much for the "professor" claim.

[rDigital]

285. YOU CAN CARRY IN CALI COLLEGE WITH A CCW

Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf

[apocalypsehow]

245. Edit: looks like that's irrelevant. Our "professor" now claims to be in California,

and that state explicitly outlaws guns on campus:

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx

[rDigital]

253. You can also carry in the state Washington if the college doesn't prohibit carry. nt

[rDigital]

255. You can openly carry a firearm at any public college in Ohio. Concealed is banned by statute.

You don't even need a license to open carry in OHIO....in a College!

[apocalypsehow]

260. Focus, Digit: the "professor" now states he's teaching in California. Not Ohio. n/t.

[rDigital]

268. With a California CCW permit you can carry at a college

(l)This section does not apply to a duly appointed peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California, any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of this state or of the United States who is engaged in the performance of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4, or an armored vehicle guard, engaged in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 7521 of the Business and Professions Code.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/15/1/s626.9

The Universities are free to make their own regulations and exception, but the state does not ban anyone with a CCW from carrying at a College.

[apocalypsehow]

270. No, you cannot: that provision does not apply to EMPLOYEES, for starters, and for seconders

each university in California is empowered to make THEIR OWN determination on who can pack on campus in that status. Laughable attempt to distort the law.

[rDigital]

272. Also, start on page 6. : )

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf

Keep moving them goalposts, but you have to provide proof. Quit bullying. FOR SHAME!

[apocalypsehow]

276. What's "for shame" is you keep posting falsehoods about concealed carry on CA campuses:

there is no such thing.

"Currently, there are 21 states that ban carrying a concealed weapon on a college campus: Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming."

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx

[rDigital]

294. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/15/1/s626.9

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/15/1/s626.9

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/15/1/s626.9

You are not breaking a law:

626.9 (l) This section does not apply to a duly appointed peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5
(commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the
federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California, any person summoned by any of
these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in
assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of this state or of the United States who is engaged in
the performance of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter
4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6, or an armored vehicle guard, engaged
in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision

Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.

[gejohnston]

274. it says a person

any person, it does not distinguish employees from anyone else.

[apocalypsehow]

273. No, you cannot carry on California campuses:

"Currently, there are 21 states that ban carrying a concealed weapon on a college campus: Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming."

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx

[rDigital]

275. You are so full of it. I have evidence proof. You have nothing!

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf

note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.

They can make their own rules and exceptions. There is no law, bully.

[apocalypsehow]

279. You just confirmed what I said, and then claimed I had "nothing." Funny stuff.

Again:

"Currently, there are 21 states that ban carrying a concealed weapon on a college campus: Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming."

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx

And then you come along and say: "The School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire them for carrying firearms"

Make up your mind...

[rDigital]

280. The school is free to make their own rules. No state law banning it. YOU LOSE.

Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf

[rDigital]

286. YOU CAN CARRY IN CALI COLLEGE WITH A CCW

Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf

[apocalypsehow]

290. No, you cannot. As shown. Simply repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it so. n/t.

[rDigital]

291. JUST PROVED IT

Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf

[rDigital]

292. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/15/1/s626.9

[gejohnston]

278. you are joking

we are quoting from the California Penal Code. The one about Wyoming is also wrong, you can carry if you get written permission from campus security. Now getting that permission is a different issue.

[rDigital]

277. Now now bad bully, go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

:

[apocalypsehow]

287. Wrong, as shown: but thanks for playing. n/t.

[rDigital]

289. YOU CAN CARRY IN CALI COLLEGE WITH A CCW

Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf

[apocalypsehow]

295. No, you cannot. Let's start with UCLA:

"What weapons are not permitted on campus?
Most weapons are not permitted on campus. For example:

Any knife including a belt buckle knife, dirk dagger, cane sword, pen knife, lipstick knife, switchblade, butterfly knife or any knife that has a blade longer than 2 1/2 inches, opens automatically or has more than one sharp edge

Any gun without written permission...The punishment for having a weapon varies depending on the type of weapon. Punishments can be fines, imprisonment and student judicial sanctions."

http://map.ais.ucla.edu/portal/site/UCLA/menuitem.789d0eb6c76e7ef0d66b02ddf848344a/?vgnextoid=5eda12f78892a110VgnVCM400000e4d76180RCRD

[rDigital]

296. YOU LOSE BULLY

626.9 (l) This section does not apply to a duly appointed peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5
(commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the
federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California, any person summoned by any of
these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in
assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of this state or of the United States who is engaged in
the performance of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter
4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6, or an armored vehicle guard, engaged
in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision

Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.

[rDigital]

299. The Professor HAS WRITTEN PERMISSION. His "exception". You lose, quit bullying in my thread. nt

[apocalypsehow]

306. He has never stated he had "WRITTEN PERMISSION," and he doesn't in any event since he's not a "prof"

So, so much for that.

[rDigital]

307. Quit bullying in my thread. You lost. Take it. Just take it and enjoy it.

[gejohnston]

300. he said he has written permission

none of the prohibited weapons are firearms.
so, you contradicted yourself and stepped in it.

[rDigital]

301. Stepped in it big time.

It's plain as day. They have regulations at the school, which they also have exceptions to, but those regulations BEAR no criminal legal teeth against someone with a California CCW.

He'd be legal even without permission, just subject to being fired/expelled. With permission he is 100% in Coolsville.

[apocalypsehow]

304. Nope, quite the opposite. He has never stated he has written permission, and he doesn't, and

meets none of the other criteria for concealed carrying on a California campus.

[gejohnston]

310. you know this how?

[gejohnston]

308. he thinks he is on a roll

thinking he is exposing some dark evil agenda. Either that, he is just being a troll for something to do. Either way, I'm out of troll food.

[apocalypsehow]

315. I don't think there's anything "dark" or "evil" about it: I just think these "professor" and

"packing heat" around a California campus (of all places!) claims are simply bogus. I think if they were legitimate, we wouldn't have this big long paired set of sub-threads, full of coy game-playing and semantics and proven falsehoods by the "professor," but, rather either a straightforward "I work on this campus and have written permission from the powers that be to carry a concealed weapon," followed by, if doubt was expressed, "believe what you want."

That's how a legitimate tale of "professors" and "concealed carry on campus" and the like would go. That is hasn't is yet more circumstantial evidence that these dubious claims are bogus, as they undoubtedly are.

[gejohnston]

322. have you ever lived in California?

so you are basing your whole argument on an over generalization? A stereotype of a state as large and diverse as California? Maybe the Dean is from Montana or northern California.
When I lived there, there were some good liberal and moderate folks, ran into some people who think Rick Perry is a liberal too.
Mike Savage was a local at KSFO.

I went to a church in Vacaville where the minister was really right wing. Went to a church in Wichita, where I was sent after California, the minister was a well loved guy who was believed in liberation theology.

[apocalypsehow]

309. Nope: he stepped in it. He claimed he toted a firearm around campus, and this has been shown to be

virtually impossible, unless he's campus police or retired Federal law enforcement. He's neither.

[rDigital]

314. I know it can be hard to admit when you are wrong, but you are so embarassingly wrong

and ignorant on this subject.

He's legal without permission: per YOUR own link he can avoid school sanctions with permission, but he encounters no legal wrath for carrying in college on a California CCW. You're licked either way.

It's plain as day. They have regulations at the school, which they also have exceptions to, but those regulations BEAR no criminal legal teeth against someone with a California CCW.

He'd be legal even without permission, just subject to being fired/expelled. With permission he is 100% in Coolsville.

[gejohnston]

316. how about reading the relevant California Penal Code

closer. He said he had permission, now he is letting you make a fool out of yourself and went to bed. If you want to continue to tilt at windmills, that's your bag. That is the problem with creating a reality that no one else shares.

[rDigital]

293. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/15/1/s626.9

[apocalypsehow]

297. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=68398

[gejohnston]

303. your point?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117267479#post299
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117267479#post300
besides repeating refuted nonsense?

[apocalypsehow]

313. It hasn't been "refuted" as there is no one packing heat on CA campuses unless they're cops, retired

Federal law enforcement, or have "written permission."

Our "professor" is neither of the first two, so the argument hinges on the validity of the third claim - a claim you and your friend have made, but the "professor" HAS NOT.

So much for that noise.

[gejohnston]

317. he doesn't have to show you a fucking thing

So you have nothing else better to do than personally attack other people?

[apocalypsehow]

319. If he wants to make claims on a public discussion board and retain any credibility he does.

He makes repeated claims about being a "professor," and folds those claims into Appeals to Authority in posts and replies to other posters. Yet he refuses to substantiate those claims, and will not even now clear this whole thing up by simply saying "I teach here and I pack heat on campus with written permission from the powers that be." This he refuses to do.

So, so much for that.

[rDigital]

320. NO one is going to tell you where they work. This conversation is academic at best,

all that matters is that it IS LEGAL to carry as a civilian a loaded concealed firearm onto a college campus in California with a Cali CCW permit.

There are certain rules that can get you in academic/employment trouble, but there is NO LEGAL PERIL. You've been wrong the whole time. You are personally attacking posters who do not share your views.

What you are doing is disgusting. Argue the issues. Leave these people alone. You're bullying from behind a keyboard, shame on you.

[apocalypsehow]

324. No, it's not "academic": make claims on a discussion board, either back them up or quit making them.

It really is that simple.

[rDigital]

326. You lost, he's legal no matter what with a CA CCW.

He could face academic or employment sanctions if he didn't have his "exception", but it matters not as far as legality.

You been beaten bloody in this argument. It's time to go home, drink a glass of warm milk and promise that you'll never be a bully on DU you ever again. Then you'll have my forgiveness and possibly that of others, but you gotta promise! You can't claim others are wrong when the stench of ignorance permeates your every argument in this thread.

I'm voting for Obama, and that's that, Sweetie.

[rDigital]

318. He stated he had an exception.

He's still legal with a California CCW. LEGAL. He cannot be arrested. They can ask him to leave or fire him if they found out, but he is legal. If he has an exception, as he claims, in writing then he's totally fine.

You're still being a bully and you're inflating my post count. I'm sure the Prof will chime in sometime, but you've been so consistently wrong throughout this whole thread. You keep moving the goal posts. You were wrong about Colorado, and you were wrong about California and you are wrong on this as well if the Prof speaks the truth.

Give it a rest.

[apocalypsehow]

321. "if the Prof speaks the truth." - Hinges on that, doesn't it? He could clear it up in a second,

and retractions would be in order. That he doesn't is a curiosity. Actually, it's not.

Good evening.

[rDigital]

323. He's probably sleeping. You should get some sleep too

we're all going to need some more ignorant bullying soon.

If he has a CCW Permit, he still doesn't need anything else to be legal. Violating the school's rules is not against the law. No jail time, no fines, no nothing. If he has an exception, which he claims he does, and there's only ONE that could apply to him he's 100% in the clear.

[gejohnston]

325. if he shows it, it would clear it up in a second

Where have I heard that before.................................Orly, is that you?

[Marengo]

329. Have you provided titles of some of your work?

I have no dog in this particular fight, but reciprocity on your part might make him more amenable. If you haven't already done so, I certainly may have missed that due to long absences.

[NYC_SKP]

330. Nothing written by that member should be taken seriously.

And they've decided to take a leave since being scolded by Skinner.

[holdencaufield]

57. Personally ...

... I prefer the group the way it is. In my youth, I made an informed decision to support and defend the RKBA for myself and others. Every time I read the contrary opinions expressed here and the "arguments" they bring forward -- I congratulate myself on my original decision.

Nothing is more reassuring to your beliefs then hearing someone scream against them with hyperbole, backed by no facts or logic.

I've made a vow to go out and purchase 10 rounds of ammunition for every smiley face and kicking man emoticon posted in this group by an anti-gun advocate. And I will buy them mail-order (to cut down my carbon footprint).

[sarisataka]

94. Agreed

there are pro-gun echo chambers where I discuss technical details and such. There is no point in policy discussion because there is no opposing viewpoint.
I like to have the chance to discuss opposing views with those willing to do so.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. harassed and intimidated? in the gungeon? series?

wow. pathetic.

[gejohnston]

77. seriously? not series?

I just appointed myself as the word usage police for the day.

[Warren Stupidity]

78. ah padawan, you have to know the reference before you police the word.

[darkangel218]

86. Count me in.

I'm in full support of our 2nd amendment.

Cheers!!!

[theinquisitivechad]

129. Yes.

Not comparing pro-gun rights to creative speculation, but DU makes an attempt to provide a forum for almost every population of the democratic community, regardless of whether or not they are believed to be misguided (barring communities for illegal or inappropriate discussions, of course).

I am very much FOR gun control, but I think these folks need a safe place, too. It also gives a spot to re-direct campaigning gun rights activists.

Let's do it.

[MercutioATC]

174. Thanks for the concern, but most of us are O.K. here.

Speaking for myself, I enjoy the constructive discussions with those who view the issue differently and the few loons here (on both sides) don't make me feel "unsafe".

[Riftaxe]

177. And forego the tales of ninja actions and magical tinned veggies?

I have to vote a sound no on this one, where else are you going to see the prohibitionists in all their astounding ignorance and stupidity?

To be so both profoundly stupid and ignorant as the prohibitionists, then brag about it....well where else you ever likely to see such a convergence? Other then their brethren at the race sites that is.

[rDigital]

199. Well, it looks like I've lost this one in the poll, but in reality... I have won.

This RKBA group is already Pro-2A and dominantly so. Thank you all for your input.

[NYC_SKP]

331. And, in the end, it's best I think.

Pro RKBA folks here are kinder, less abusive to others, and not afraid of others coming into this forum.

To this day only one member is blocked in contrast to the other group where hosts and others bully new posters and then block them.

It's pathetic, but I'm glad I stand with the more reasonable among us.

[SecularMotion]

332. The member you are responding to has been banned

along with most of the members in this thread. That you should give you an idea about how the DU community feels about pro-RKBA opinions on a website for liberals and progressives.

[gejohnston]

333. there are a lot of gun owning liberals

and pro RKBA liberals.
BTW, the SOP says center left Democrats.

[rrneck]

334. Does that include the ones who have banned themselves

after being declared full of shit by Skinner?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

335. plus a blue million.

[Deep13]

213. You may have a point, but it would be...

...a bit of an echo chamber. What you are in effect suggesting is that anti-gun and pro-gun people should not talk to each other. There is middle ground to be had.

[Glaug-Eldare]

327. I'm reminded of a story my dad told me

from when he was a ship's engineer back in the 60's. He went ashore with some of his shipmates in a nothingtown called Port Chicago, CA. It never recovered since the explosion in the 40s, and basically didn't exist except as a residential area for the Navy depot there. Anyway, they call a taxi to the dock, and when they climb in they see that the driver is a remarkably unattractive, very overweight woman with poor hygiene. She asked, "where to, boys?" and before anybody else could speak, one of the guys said, "the cheapest whorehouse in town!" The driver turned around, flashed a gap-toothed grin, and said,

"You're in it, honey."

[theinquisitivechad]

328. This had me laughing and clapping to myself.

Which is not uncommon. Thanks for the laugh