How the NRA and Its Allies Helped Spread a Radical Gun Law Nationwide

[BainsBane]

THE FLORIDA LAW MADE INFAMOUS this spring by the killing of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin was conceived during the epic hurricane season of 2004. That November, 77-year-old James Workman moved his family into an RV outside Pensacola after Hurricane Ivan peeled back the roof of their house. One night a stranger tried to force his way into the trailer, and Workman killed him with two shots from a .38 revolver. The stranger turned out to be a disoriented temporary worker for the Federal Emergency Management Agency who was checking for looters and distressed homeowners. Workman was never arrested, but three months went by before authorities cleared him of wrongdoing.

That was three months too long for Dennis Baxley, a veteran Republican representative in Florida's state Legislature. Four hurricanes had hit the state that year, and there was fear about widespread looting (though little took place). In Baxley's view, Floridians who defended themselves or their property with lethal force shouldn't have had to worry about legal repercussions. Baxley, a National Rifle Association (NRA) member and owner of a prosperous funeral business, teamed up with then-GOP state Sen. Durell Peaden to propose what would become known as Stand Your Ground, the self-defense doctrine essentially permitting anyone feeling threatened in a confrontation to shoot their way out.

Or at least that's the popular version of how the law was born. In fact, its genesis traces back to powerful NRA lobbyists and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a right-wing policy group. And the law's rapid spread—it now exists in various forms in 25 states—reflects the success of a coordinated strategy, cultivated in Florida, to roll back gun control laws everywhere. . . .

As Florida became known to some as the "Gunshine State," it began exporting its laws, with ALEC's help, to other statehouses. This effort was no doubt aided by the fact that the vice president of Hammer's Unified Sportsmen of Florida is John Patronis, cousin to Republican state Rep. Jimmy Patronis—sponsor of the aforementioned bill that kept names of concealed-weapons license holders secret and ALEC's current Florida chairman. The organization would also be instrumental to spreading Stand Your Ground nationwide. "We definitely brought that bill forward to ALEC," said Baxley, a member of the group. "It's a place where you can share ideas. I don't see anything nefarious about sharing good ideas." The NRA has served as "corporate co-chair" of ALEC's Public Safety and Elections task force, which pushed Stand Your Ground and other gun laws. Since 2005, the year Florida's law was passed, gun manufacturers like Beretta, Remington, and Glock have poured as much as $39 million into the NRA's lobbying coffers.

Baxley defends the NRA's involvement: "They have lots of members who want this statute. They're people who live in my district. They're concerned about turning back this lawless chaos and anarchy in our society." Records show that the NRA's Political Victory Fund has long supported Baxley—from a $500 contribution in 2000 (the state's maximum allowable donation) to $35,000 spent on radio ads in support of his state Senate bid in 2007. Peaden received at least $2,500 from the NRA and allied groups over the years. The NRA also maxed out on direct contributions to Jeb Bush's gubernatorial campaigns in 1998 and 2002, and it gave $125,000 to the Florida GOP between 2004 and 2010—more than it gave to any other state party. According to the Center for Media and Democracy, the NRA spent $729,863 to influence Florida politics in the 2010 election cycle alone.

Rest of a much longer article at Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/nra-alec-stand-your-ground

[Lobo27]

1. What the people who support the NRA.

Don't understand or fail to see or perhaps don't care to see is that the NRA doesn't give a damn about them. The NRA care only about filling the pockets of gun makers, and the sleazy politicians who vote for what the NRA want.

NRA has created a state that is in constant fear. Their goal is for people keep buying guns. One isn't enough, here's two, make it three, why not four and so on.

Sick bastards...............

[BainsBane]

3. I think many know that

and are not only comfortable with it, they want the gun industry to make high profits because they think that helps retain access to cheap guns. One gunner gave affordable guns as a reason why he supported the gun companies's special immunity from civil lawsuits.

[Lobo27]

4. You know thinking on that for a few minutes...

Left me somewhat on uneasy.

[BainsBane]

12. Much of what they believe

leaves me uneasy. Most of it, in fact.

[ReRe]

2. Mother Jones Article on SYG/ALEC/NRA

K&R

Everybody needs to read this. Let's keep it kicked and rec'ed. I have marked it to read over and over and over the next few days. Well, ain't that special.... Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush wouldn't you know, have Trayvon's blood on THEIR hands too. ALEC & their Corporations, NRA and their gun nuts and right wing politics.

[Lee-Lee]

5. Sorry, but do you know what the opposite of a SYG law is?

A duty to retreat law.

Duty to retreat laws place the victims of violent attacks in the position of being responsible if they hurt their attacker while resisting in they had any way to run away.

It places the welfare of the attacker over that of the victim.

And it makes victims have to hesitate and wonder if they are going to go to jail if they defend themselves, and that hesitation can mean the difference between life or death, rape or attempted rape.

If a gay man is confronted by a crowd with pipes and knives who start to hit him, and he has a gun, but the chance exists for him to run and maybe outrun them, should he prosecuted if he uses the most effective means to defend himself instead of running?

If a woman is running from a rapist down an alley and sees a pipe, grabs it, and bashes his head in, should she have to fear prosecution or a lawsuit from the rapists family because she didn't try hard enough to run away?

This case didn't even use SYG as a defense, it didn't apply, don't use it as an excuse to change laws back to protect aggressors and penalize victims, or make it harder for victims to defend themselves. Not just conservatives will be using SYG to defend themselves- in fact minorities have the most to gain in self defense cases under SYG, as our actions in self defense are the most likely to face scrutiny no matter how justified we are.

[BainsBane]

7. Go to Mother Jones

to the link above, and see the box insert for a link to an article that examines the effectiveness of SYG laws.

[Lee-Lee]

9. Saw it

Didn't change my mind.

I realize MJ is gonna be slanted and present stuff in the most hyperbolic manner possible, but they still didn't make a compelling argument why we should put the safety of the attacker over that of the victim.

[BainsBane]

10. Whereas you prefer to stick to fair and balanced sources

like Fox?

[BainsBane]

11. Quote from the article

SYG laws "are racially discriminatory—homicides involving white shooters and black victims are 11 times more likely to be deemed "justifiable" than those where the scenario is reversed. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/stand-your-ground-task-force-rick-scott-trayvon

You see no problem with that?

[In_The_Wind]

25. I have a problem with that! Florida is totally fucked up.

[BainsBane]

27. I thought you lived there?

Or used to?

BTW, someone told me they thought you might have been offended by the joke I made about you in the Lounge circumcision thread. I really didn't mean to offend you or speak poorly of you in anyway. I was trying to be humorous. I'm sorry if it came off badly.

[In_The_Wind]

29. I've been busy, forgot the whole thing. Provide a link when you have the time, please.

[In_The_Wind]

32. I was a snowbird in Lighthouse Point.

[Lee-Lee]

51. I do

But let's not pretend the law is the problem and not a whole bigger underlying problem.

Lets be realistic. White crime and black crime statistics are different. Statistics show it, and I saw it when I was a deputy.

Now hold off and read what I am about to say before screaming racist, please.

When you look at most of the crimes that would result in a use of force under SYG or Castle Doctrine, most done by whites were real violent crimes of malice- rape, murder because of a business deal or a love affair, domestic violence, hate attacks, or any of the above with drunkeness adding to it.

Those crimes are almost all driven by a problem with character, most perpetrators are just bad people.

The black population has an equal percentage of those people and crimes, from my experience. Bad people are bad people regardless of skin color.

But what you have a lot more of in minority communiyies are crimes driven by economic situation- armed robbery, muggings, breaking and entering of an occupied dwelling, etc. Those all also could lead to a SYG response.

Crimes that are caused by generates of discrimination, income inequality, racism and the entire way this nation has treated minorities.

The problem is when you are that person with an attacker coming after you race, class, or history don't matter. Only protecting yourself does.

So I would have to see the methodology behind those statistics, but is suspect the disparity is not because the law is racist, but simply reflects the result of the history or racism in this country and the desperate measures it has pushed many to in order to survive. Fix that by fixing all those problems, not getting rid of a law that just makes the problems manifest themselves in a new way and think we have actually made things better.

[BainsBane]

53. Well the Civil Rights Office feels differently

Since they have opened an investigation into the case. As the article says, the laws were promoted by the the NRA, ALEC, and (I know from other readings) the Koch brothers. These are among the most powerful and most reactionary forces in the nation. To pretend this is about protecting women subject to rape or battery is absurd because that is not how the law is applied. Do you know of this case? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023250910

This African-American woman got 20 years for firing a gun over the head of her abusive husband. Zimmerman got off scott free for killing an African-American teenager.

There is no question the policing and legal system is racist to its core. To create a law which essentially legalizes hunting down black men, however, is not only profoundly racist and disturbing, it's a civil rights and human rights violation. It's like pretending race is tangential to the death penalty. Oh well, society is racist. So what if we kill African Americans at a disproportionate rate. That's how it goes. SYG frees racists to hunt down black men, and that is precisely what they have done.

[Lee-Lee]

56. I know that case an many others

To give you a bit of background on me, I am a mixed race female, ex cop, and I teach self defense and concealed carry to women. Because I belive in the absolute right to defend yourself, and belive that giving people the ability to defend themselves is empowerment. So I very closely follow these cases.

The case you linked is sad, but ultimately it is not a SYG case because she left the scene, got a gun, and willingly returned. You can't argue that is a SYG case after the person has retreated to safety and they return. So comparing it to others is invalid. I feel for her as a woman, what she went through was horrible I am sure, but she acted outside what the law allows for- yet one other reason why I feel all women need a basic self defense course so they know what the law permits.

One reason I am so adamant about this is my own experience. I was walking to my car one evening when a man approached from the opposite direction. He asked "is this your car?", I replied yes, he pulled a knife and said "we are going for a ride".

This is when I was a cop, and I was carrying. But NC law is such that outside the jurisdiction were a cop works we are just civilians, no arrest powers or authority, with the one exception of being able to carry a gun in more places than a civilian with a CCW can.

He ran as soon as I displayed the gun, thankfully, and lacking any arrest authority I did not pursue I just called it in.

You know what? NC was a duty to retreat state then- and in this case still would be if it happened today. Technically I could have been arrested for pointing my weapon at him, and had I shot him prosecuted for that and been sued by him or his family. I won't deny that having the badge then got me preferential treatment where they never considered it, but because running away hoping I was faster than him was an option I could have landed in jail for defending myself.

Now that I don't have a badge, I shudder to think what troubles may have come my way had I not had one when that happened- just for defending myself.

These laws are about protecting anyone who is the victim of a violent crime by allowing them the most options for defending themselves, an not blaming the victim if they choose not to run in that split second.

Our life experiences form our outlook, I hope you understand a bit better where mine comes from now.

[BainsBane]

59. The duty to retreat only applies when the person is the initial aggressor

Which is not the case your situation. You have inaccurately described the difference between self defense and SYG. It's simply not true that you have a duty to retreat in all circumstances. The law requires you use appropriate force but not retreat.

[Lee-Lee]

64. No

In many states, NC included, the duty to retreat applies in cases where you are not the aggressor but the person who is attacked.

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another only if: (a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault and (b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force was necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, and (c) The person using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, and (d) Force used was not excessive - greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor. (2) Duty To Retreat Before Using Deadly Force Unless and exception such as those listed below applies, a citizen must retreat before using deadly force if retreat is possible. Exception A. There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force if the assault threatens imminent death or great bodily harm - a murderous or felonious assault or sexual assault. Exception B. There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force if the victim is on his or her own premises, or on his or her business premises, or is at home. (4) Deadly Force in Defence of Others A Citizen may intervene and use deadly force in defence of another person when, under the facts and circumstances, it reasonably appeared necessary to save the other person from imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault but only to the extent the other person was entitled to use deadly force in self-defence. (5) Deadly Force MAY NOT Be Used: (a) To Stop a Simple Assault.The exact point in time a simple assault becomes deadly is often unclear. Repeated blows to vital body areas, choking, continued beating on a helpless or weakened victim, are some indicators. (b) Because of the Use of Violent Language § 14-277.1. Communicating threats. (c) Because You Are a Victim of Past Violence and Fear Future Violence (d) Because a Trespasser Refuses to Leave (e) To Arrest a Criminal or to Prevent a Criminal's Escape b. Use of force to protect property The law does not permit the use of deadly force solely to protect property, or to prevent theft, or to regain stolen property. An owner CANNOT shoot at a thief - before, during, or after a theft. The same rule prohibits deadly force to prevent injury or vandalism to property. A different rule applies if life is imminently threatened at the same time property is taken. Deadly force used to prevent an armed robbery is force used to protect life, not to protect property.

That is direct from the NC state approved CCW training guide. The duty to retreat for the victim is in the law unless you meet specific circumstances, the first of which are subject to prosecutorial interpretation.

I was outside my home, and he was at a great enough distance, and only stated his intent was to take me for a ride, that it could be argued that I had opportunity to retreat and bodily harm was not imminent. I have seen prosecutors before claim that an aggressor with a knife at 20 feet it not an imminent threat, despite the fact that such distance can be closed in mere seconds. Further, he could have claimed, had I had to shoot and he survived, that his only intent was to steal the car or otherwise lied about what happened.

Gray area at best- a grand jury could have taken it either way. Most prosecutors in NC are pro self-defense and won't go after a case like mine, but in some jurisdictions, including where I was that day, they often go after cases just like mine.

But in NC there clearly is, by law, a duty to retreat if you are the victim except in certain circumstances. For you to claim there is only a duty to retreat if you are the initial aggressor is demonstrably wrong.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. *

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Mother Jones is slanted and hyperbolic. This person is obviously not a Democrat.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jul 14, 2013, 07:22 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: You disagree with the poster, the poster did NOT violate TOS. This is NOT what Alert is for and you just wasted 6 people's time. Btw, you DO NOT HAVE TO BE A DEMOCRAT TO POST ON THIS SITE. The alerter needs to READ TOS.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: New poster is stating his opinion in a respectful manner. You disagree? Discuss it and quit alert stalking. BB your next post is needling this guy in a passive aggressive manner that is not very nice to watch. Please stop it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Since when aren't all opinions welcome at DU?

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alerter can't come up with a better argument than that?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[BainsBane]

14. Actually you do have to be a Democrat to post here

It is in the TOS. I've read them. Jurors should as well.

[hobbit709]

15. Show me where it says you have to BE a Democrat

From the TOS
"Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side."

[BainsBane]

16. Oh, so your view is someone who considers Democratic publications slanted

votes for Democrats? Really?

Then there is this from TOS: Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
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. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

[hobbit709]

17. That STILL doesn't state you have to BE a Democrat.

[BainsBane]

18. politically liberal

No right wingers allowed. Get it? Anyway, I alerted on the jury results to the administrators and wrote MIRT about the poster. They can take care of it.

[hobbit709]

19. I'm politically liberal and I consider myself a socialist way more than I consider myself a Democrat

so you didn't get the results you wanted, so now you're trying another route to get your way.. How much like a Republican tactic that is. If you don't get your way, then change the rules.

[BainsBane]

20. I am working within the establish system set up by the site administrators

If you don't like that system, take it up with Skinner.

[hobbit709]

21. I'm not the one having a cow.

[BainsBane]

22. You certainly appear to be highly agitated.

[hobbit709]

23. Me, agitated? You don't know me very well.

[BainsBane]

24. suit yourself

[In_The_Wind]

26. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
At Sun Jul 14, 2013, 11:52 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I'm politically liberal and I consider myself a socialist way more than I consider myself a Democrat
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3252401

REASON FOR ALERT:

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Accusing poster of engaging in "Republican tactics" by following alert procedures set up by site administrators.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jul 14, 2013, 12:00 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

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

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[hobbit709]

28. I figured someone would be upset.

Which proves my point.

[BainsBane]

33. You hoped

But you aren't agitated. I guess that means you don't need to be upset to insult people.

[hobbit709]

34. Give it a rest.

Have some coffee. Enjoy the morning.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

37. it would appear that someone is alert stalking this thread trying to shut down the discussion

rather than having an honest conversation and debate the topic.

[BainsBane]

38. An honest conversation

Like calling someone a cow? So much for feminism. Guns really do trump all.

It's not stalking when it's my thread. An obvious point that is somehow lost on you.

So let's have that honest conversation. Is your position that you have absolutely no concern about a law that is used to justify murder of African Americans at a ratio of 11 to 1 and is under investigation by the Civil Rights office? As long as the murder uses a gun, everything is cool? Is that what your view is? So much so that you feel the need to protect a pro-gun, pro-SYG proponent who joined the site five days ago? Someone who fabricated the argument that the law protects women and gay men, when we know full well women who simply discharge the weapon are put in jail for 20 years but men get off without any jail time, particularly when they kill African Americans? Is that a debate you're willing to engage in?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. having a cow and being a cow are two different things. and while it is not biologically possible for

a man (or a woman for that matter) to have a cow. I have accused men of doing the same thing.

No one called you, personally, a Cow although your posting style in this thread appears that you seem somewhat agitated and upset.

Perhaps you aren't in real life I am just saying that it appears that way giving the posts you are making in this thread.

I also am not accusing you of being the alert stalker in this thread but, it would not surprise me to find out that it was, indeed, you that made the alerts.

Have a nice day, BB. Try, please, to enjoy today.

[BainsBane]

43. So you don't want an honest conversation after all? I reedited my last post

Just to have such an "honest conversation" with you.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

45. NO ONE CALLED -YOU- A COW, BB. Please re-read that post for context. Thank you.

[BainsBane]

47. I know what he said

and I know I've had many posts hidden for less.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

48. Thems the breaks, BB. You take your chances with a jury and you know it. Please carry on with the

discussion that you started with this OP. This sub-thread is decidedly Meta and I am withdrawing from it.

Have a nice day.

[BainsBane]

49. so much for honest conversation

on the substance of the OP, which you are steadfastly avoiding. You are the one who chose to stir up shit by posting jury results. YOU made it Meta.

[hobbit709]

40. I'd say it's getting beyond just simple alert stalking.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

42. It borders on being disruptive thereby making DU suck which, I think IS in the ToS ...

please correct me if I am wrong.

[BainsBane]

50. Disruptive, like posting jury results

stirring up trouble, making the thread Meta, and then complaining it's too Meta.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

52. I could have sent the poster the results via PM but, for the sake of TRANSPARENCY I posted them in

public for ALL to witness. I think new posters deserve some feedback on how DU3 operates. This is groundbreaking stuff for a message board. I realize that Skinner has stated that he does not like this but, it is not against ToS, CS or the SoP.

I happen to disagree with Skinner about this, especially in this particular thread.

I do not post all jury findings but, in this case, I thought it was appropriate.

Given that, I think all (this includes You) posters in this thread need to be aware of what is transpiring.

Please do not start a thread and then try to stifle the very discussion that it has generated.

If you do not care for the way the discussion is going there are other ways to handle it that are not so -disingenuous-

Again, Have a Nice Day, BB.

[BainsBane]

54. Thus is was your choice to make it Meta

You would prefer to gossip about me with your gunner friends in my own thread while I stay silent. You resent the fact I express my views of the situation.

I thought that poster was suspect so I alerted. She joined five days ago and defends SYG and then refused to consider a first-rate liberal magazine. There is a loophole for long-time gunners but MIRT gets rid of new ones. That's how it goes. If they didn't, there would be no distinguishing DU from any number of right-wing sites. The other member was purposefully rude and insulting to me, and you know it.

I don't see you advocating on behalf of misogynists in HOF. Will I see you petitioning Boston Bean to clear out the ban list there? You don't seem so concerned about opening up discussion to views you disagree with there. I think what you really are doing is enforcing your own views on guns, which despite your criticism of me you refuse to engage in an honest discussion about.

I once posted the jury results in a thread and I felt dirty about it afterward. It's a tactic to stir up shit. You can hardly be surprised when shit results.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

55. wow. just wow.

I never realized what a nasty person you are til now. I think you and I are through here now and forever more.

Good bye, BainsBane.

[BainsBane]

58. Nasty

Really? Confronting you on inconsistencies in your actions is not nasty. I consider gossiping nastier than being direct. Can you point to anything inaccurate in what I said?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

60. u do not know what u r saying. good bye.

[BainsBane]

61. Why don't you explain it to me then?

Rather than leaving? What did you find so offensive and inaccurate?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

62. I am not the only one that posted results in here. Look at how your treated me vs how you treated

the other person. Really, BB ... why should I stay where I am obviously not wanted where the cattiness is so thick I can hear you meowing across the country. You don't like me and I don't need to beg you. Let us just agree to disagree and be done with this.

I really have to go now anyway, in real life.

Good Bye BB.

[BainsBane]

63. It is simply not true I don't like you

You weren't the only one to post results but you were the one who chastised me and called me disruptive. There is nothing disruptive about sending alerts because no one knows unless a thread is hidden. It was the posting the jury results that made it known.

It is simply not true that I don't like you. If I didn't like you I wouldn't bother to try to work this out with you. What I don't like is your behavior in regard to the gunners. It bothers me that you make snide comments about me rather than directly telling me why you think I'm wrong on an issue. I actually don't know what your views on guns are other than you obviously feel an allegiance with the men from the gungeon. I've never seen you engage in a substantive discussion about gun policy. I'm not saying you haven't done so, but I haven't seen it. I have, however, seen you make a number of negative comments about me to other people. I would ask you to consider that before concluding that I was nasty to you out of the blue. I didn't insult you or call you names. I confronted you on what I saw as inconsistencies in your position regarding dissenting views.

I know that I have a failing in being overly direct, even tactless. It would seem to me, however, that you err in not being sufficiently direct.

I would prefer you not stay angry at me. I would prefer to work this out so we can remain amicable. I value you as a fellow feminist, even though it appears we disagree on gun policy. I am sorry I offended you. I wish you would also consider how I feel.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

66. OK - BB, I will think about all this but, first I would like for you to send me via PM

links that pertain to this comment:

I have, however, seen you make a number of negative comments about me to other people.

Since you say a number that implies few to many, agree?

so then ... would you say that three is a fair amount for few ... and five would be a fair amount for many.

since you say a number I will let you decide between 3 and 5 of my posts whereby I make what you consider to be a negative comment about you to another DUer.

Does this make sense and sound fair to you?

[BainsBane]

68. I'll tell you some of the threads

I'm not going to look them up. One thread was about my garden soil. There was this thread. I recall some a few month ago when I posted in the lounge about a brush with the gungeon. That was before Sandyhook, so I was trying to avoid gun conversations then but happened to respond to one under new posts about whether the constitution required the government to provide you all with free guns.

The point, however, is not to rehash old posts but to explain to you how I feel. I felt attacked by you and Hobbit in that thread. I perceived your posting the jury verdict in this thread as your siding with a member who signed up a couple of days ago. I took it as an act against me. I responded in anger but even so I didn't perceive the post to be nasty like you did. You likely don't perceive your own posts as I did either.

I understand we disagree on guns but agree on gender issues. I don't know how much we disagree on guns because I don't know which reforms you support if any. I can still maintain those disagreements and respect you, but I wish we could discuss issues rather than jury alerts and other meta type stuff. I don't like the posting of jury results like that because I think it sows trouble, but I wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't interjected in my dispute with hobbit. I am nonetheless sorry I offended you.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

69. OK. apology accepted. clean slate. friends. ttyl.

[BainsBane]

44. Considering you haven't left this thread

no stalking has been necessary.

[Lee-Lee]

30. Wow, I didn't realize

The level of groupthink and conformity some people demand here.

Yeah, MJ has a left wing slant. Who isn't smart enough to know that? I mean my god, do you know who Morher Jones was?

Doesn't mean I don't read it or anyone else shouldn't, but anyone who does should be aware of that, and if you are going to cite them in a debate be intellectually honest enough to know your source had a bias, from whatever perspective.

We are intellectually dishonest if we lambast Fox without admitting we have sources we enjoy that have a slant as well.

As for hyperbolic, the little cartoon in the opening shows that.

If this place demands I throw blinders on and pretend some sources are slanted in a way that we may like, maybe I am too honest to post here.

[hobbit709]

31. Don't let it get you. Welcome to DU

Ideological fanaticism is why I walked out of SDS 45 years ago. My views haven't changed since.

[former9thward]

67. If you left in 1968 ...

You should have waited one more year. It really got entertaining then.

[BainsBane]

35. All sources have bias of some kind

but dismissing a source out of hand as leftist is not common among leftists. Typically one reads the article and critiques it rather than just saying "that's slanted." That's the kind of thing people of one political side say when they don't want to consider evidence.

I also find it interesting that you feel compelled to insult the site as a whole when the jury voted to let your post stay.

[Lee-Lee]

57. I thought

When I said "some people" it was clear I wasn't condemning the whole site.

Also, it wasn't my post that got juried was it? I am still trying to figure all this out here.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

39. Welcome to DU. Your post stood by jury. Carry on with the debate.

[LanternWaste]

65. And we are idiots if we are unaware that Fox successfully sued in court to avoid the responsibility

"We are intellectually dishonest if we lambast (sic) Fox without admitting we have sources we enjoy ..."

And we are idiots if we are unaware that Fox successfully sued in court to avoid the responsibility of truth in journalism, and hold them as merely an opposite to Mother Jones.

Those aren't blinders (bless your little heart), those are standards.


"maybe I am too honest to post here...." Or maybe you've merely constructed a wonderfully self-validating cross from which to hang from and martyr yourself. I'm guessing it's the second.

[Hoyt]

36. Damn sure time for a Trayvon Martin Amendment/Exception to these laws.

[Travis_0004]

6. Stand your ground was never used as a defense

The arguement used was self defense, a principal which as pretty much always existed.

[BainsBane]

8. They don't say it was

That isn't the point of this article. It's the NRA and Alec's collaboration in spreading SYG laws throughout the US.

[jmg257]

46. And what the zimmer verdict confirmed...

Last edited Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)

nevermind.

[Scurrilous]

70. K & R