So much for activism

[BainsBane]

Most of DUers who have been complaining about gun nuts the past two days can't be bothered to pick up a phone or send an email to their representatives. Meanwhile, the gunners who have profusely insisted that they want background checks suddenly descend to disrupt a thread calling for them. Guess what? It turns out they don't really want background checks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3692025

[gopiscrap]

1. I sure as hell called them again

they're sick of me!

[BainsBane]

2. You rock, Gopiscrap

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. I've called, written letters, and I'm not surprised that a gun is more important

to its owner than the life of a human being.

[BainsBane]

4. I suggest you bookmark that thread

and the one in the gungeon so he next time one of them claims to support background checks, you can point out he's lying through his teeth.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. A very good idea.

[BainsBane]

6. Well, at least I know there is no point discussing anything with 85% of the gungeon

There sole purpose is to disrupt. That thread in GD certainly shows why this group is necessary. The majority of responses were pro-gun extremists who entered in order to impede and disrupt any efforts at reform.

[CTyankee]

7. One argument FOR discussing this further is that there are new progressives finding DU

every day. Gun folk want to impress them with their "openess to reform" and so they claim it on the UBC threads. Your efforts to unmask them help inform the new people as to the REAL purposes of the "DU wing" of the "gun rights movement." I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't a propaganda tactic of the NRA itself: infiltrate liberal/progressive websites and pretend to be "sensible gun owners" favoring "sensible gun laws."

Not being mainstrean is a problem for the other side here in terms of our national gun debate. They will not always be able to strangle progress on social issues in this country by relying solely on their gerrymandered congressional districts. Extremism by a vocal minority can work only so long. And only if we give up.

[BainsBane]

8. I suspect that

largely because so many of them say the EXACT same thing. Good news. Skinner PPR'd a bad one I wrote him about last night.

[CTyankee]

9. Well, drawing them out makes them talk too much and that's what happens. Skinner

probably can take only so much before he says "enough."

[billh58]

10. You have

summed it up nicely. The very vocal minority is comprised of NRA shills and gun fetishists who fill the Internet with NRA propaganda at every opportunity. These are the real extremists who enable the gun pipeline directly to the criminal element in this country.

They hide behind the Second Amendment, and use it as a marketing tool to sell more guns, which in turn feeds the under-the-table sales of guns to criminals and the mentally incompetent.

[BainsBane]

13. One went berserk

When I made what I thought was an uncontroversial remark about gun dealers. Wow. S/he went off the rails. I obviously insulted his/her religion.

[Squinch]

11. I suspect it is the forum you posted in. I am sort of a nuisance to my legislators on this

topic.

I was not surprised when you posted in that forum that you got less than an enthusiastic response, but a forum regular and gun proponent posted a similar question a few months ago, and he also got absolute cricket sounds.

It will always amazes me that all those insisting that gun owners are responsible consistently and adamantly refuse to do the responsible thing. Just ridiculous.

[BainsBane]

12. Yet I also posted in GD

and got anything but crickets in both forum. It was more like a swarm of locusts.

[Squinch]

14. Oh! I didn't see the GD thread. Was it the same "we're all responsible gun owners

but don't you dare put any restrictions whatsoever on guns" posters who responded to you there?

[BainsBane]

15. Yes

The responses truly are astounding.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023692025

[Squinch]

16. Ugh. "Spin, spin, spin, derail, derail, derail, I'm a responsible gun owner who has

no responsibility to assist in the effort to prevent the next 20 people who get mowed down by a lunatic with a gun."

They nauseate me.

[BainsBane]

17. Then there was

the anti-HOFer who had to pop in to insist what a horrific person I am. Jeez. You have to wonder about some people.

[Squinch]

18. And they really did feel free to cut loose with the personal nastiness toward you, didn't they?

They seemed to need to go all "hyena pack" on you. Such frightened bunch, poor dears.

[BainsBane]

19. and I hadn't had an exchange with

that one in many, many months, not since Meta closed. Imagine holding on to that level of anger all that time?

[Squinch]

20. I actually didn't see the particular post referencing HOF. I am guessing I put him on ignore.

[BainsBane]

21. It didn't reference HOF

It was just someone (supposedly female) known to dislike HOF who let into me. The female misogynist is something I can never quite get my head around.

[Squinch]

22. I was raised by one. I'm sure you realize it comes from a feeling of extreme helplessness.

[BainsBane]

23. I suppose that makes sense

Thankfully I wasn't raised by one. My mother has her faults (don't we all), but that's not among them.

[Squinch]

24. It is a very sad thing. It's a way to win at a game that was over long ago, and it really

does require a damaging quantity of denial.

[Kaleva]

25. My Congress critter is a Repub and very much pro-gun

I've e-mailed and called his Washington D.C. office and while he has responded, he did make it clear he wasn't going to support any kind of increase in gun regulations. He talked about not infringing on the rights of law abiding gun owners.