When people justify unconscionable positions

[BainsBane]

like opposition to gun control, immunity for gun manufacturers, the power of the corporate gun lobby, and justification of Israeli opposition and violence in Palestine, all because a political figure you support on other issues adopts those positions, something is very seriously wrong. Putting individuals above issues is a problem. Hero worship, insisting some public figures be immune from criticism while demonizing others, accomplishes nothing. It sublimates critical thinking to cults of personality for and against.

I can see looking at a range of issues and deciding you favor one candidate on balance because you agree with more of his positions. We all have to figure out our priorities in making voting decisions. But to dismiss positions, particularly those involving millions of human lives, as a distraction because someone you like votes against gun control or for Likud-type policies in Israel, that's just wrong. Imagine if Clinton supporters posted a thread announcing the Iraq War was a distraction? People would justifiably be incensed. Yet millions of Americans have lost their lives due to gun violence, and we are told it is a distraction because of how Sanders votes? How is that principled? It's not. It's simply wrong. We elect politicians to represent us, not to tell us how to think. No individual politician should come before intellectual honesty and your own integrity. Plus, it just pisses people off who do care a great deal about those issues.

[Maedhros]

1. One's convictions should drive one's politics, not the other way around. [n/t]

[turbinetree]

82. I believe in

Principles should also be the factor on who and why you vote for someone and there convictions ---with that said that is why I vote democrat

[BainsBane]

4. Do you have something to contribute?

A thought to complete? Because rolled eyes don't really cut it. Shall I presume you disagree?

[Rex]

40. Being pro gun control is unconscionable, voting for a war based on already known lies

is...is...

The shit stirring is sad, but expected. Probably be no end of it, until we get a primary winner.

[AgingAmerican]

96. Throwing turds against the wall

...to see what sticks.

[Mojorabbit]

172. Yep. nt

[ScreamingMeemie]

3. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026632445

[BainsBane]

6. Exactly

Except now we have people reverse engineering positions based on a candidate's votes. Will DU come out for frying kittens because candidate A likes them that way? Suddenly we're not allowed to say frying kittens is bad? No, I don't go for that.

[ScreamingMeemie]

13. Except that this holds true for both of the top candidates.

Both are responsible for disgusting actions/votes that fly in the face of the Democratic party and what it (used to) stands for.

I find posts by supporters of both candidates that are horrified at the votes/actions/frying of kittens by the other candidate to be extremely disingenuous and wholly suspect. The incredulous wide-eyed act by certain supporters of both candidates needs to end. Now. Or yesterday, even. Yes, yesterday would have been definitely better.

[BainsBane]

27. I agree

and I've never been the jump on the bandwagon type. I wait until close to when the primary/caucus occurs and decide then. I don't shape my identity around a politician.

[ScreamingMeemie]

29. Me too!

[BainsBane]

33. We should ask Skinner to make an undecided avatar

to keep people off our backs. I posted this, but it didn't help. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026557489

[ScreamingMeemie]

36. We should.

I didn't see your post when you originated it, but I just gave you a rec.

I would love an "Undecided" group even, but I feel like it would just be a front porch for supporters, you know?

[JustAnotherGen]

56. I vote for an undecided avatar!

[BainsBane]

60. Can you do graphics?

Someone should make one.

[JustAnotherGen]

89. Not very well unfortunately

Let me ask around

[BainsBane]

92. I think it needs to convey

the sense of committed to remaining undecided. Now back the fuck off.

[JustAnotherGen]

132. I'm gonna ask my mom

I like

BTFO!
I'm Voting
D in 2016


See - I'm in NJ - its already decided by the time it comes around to me.

[BainsBane]

149. That's usually the case with me as well

I was thinking about something like, undecided and proud with a fist in the air.

[Number23]

148. How about just a great big question mark?

A blue one so that people won't scream about it like they did the direction of the arrow on Hillary Clinton's avatar?

[JustAnotherGen]

153. I like it!

[Number23]

155. Girl, are we seriously going to give up on Coretta and La Negresse just to keep numbskulls from

worrying us half to death??

[JustAnotherGen]

175. Tuesday June 7, 2016

That's when they need to come for me. The Primary is 13 months away.

[greatauntoftriplets]

61. I'd love that avatar!

[MADem]

62. Like this?

[BainsBane]

72. No, more like

Committted to remaining undecided. Now back the fuck off.

[MADem]

91. That sounds more like a sig line!!!

Here's another--vague and artistic:



More to the point/patriotic theme:



The big emoji:

[BainsBane]

95. That's a good idea about the sig line

[Raine1967]

28. +1

We are BARELY into primary season and DU is losing its collective mind.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. "millions of Americans have lost their lives due to gun violence" Millions?

I'm all for gun control. Even confiscation.

Even if you count all the wars it doesn't reach "millions" killed by gun violence.

I strongly disagree with Bernie's votes on guns. But, it's not a deal breaker for me like Hillary's support for killing 100s of thousands of Iraqis is.

[BainsBane]

9. The oft cited statistic is

More Americans have died from gun violence since 1968 alone than in all the wars in US history combined, and that includes the Civil War. Additionally, violence and militarization at home is connected to war abroad. We aren't the society with the greatest war machine in history by accident. Violence at home reinforces that. It's all part of the same culture.

[cali]

14. links to that claim

Put up or.......

[BainsBane]

52. I can't believe I have to provide evidence

for something I thought was commonly known. There must be a lot of willful ignoring going on.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=663637

[cali]

58. that link is to a post about kids and dirt.

Your claim doesn't make sense on the face of it. I'll do my own research

[ieoeja]

107. Post #104 a bit below here. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

64. You're posting to an old DU link titled...

"keeping kids indoors hermetically sealed away from real dirt makes them sick"?



I know it's a commonly-held belief among gun control types that guns have killed everyone since Jesus, but that one is straining to be relevant.

[BainsBane]

70. MADem cited the figures

You can check them out yourself.

Straining to be relevant? Yes, the deaths of human beings are reelvant.

[NaturalHigh]

74. Until I see actual hard figures, put together by someone credible...

and verified by someone equally credible, I'm going to call BS on the whole "guns have killed a brazillion people" thing.

[ieoeja]

104. FBI statistics

There were almost a million (924,327) murders during the 52 years from 1960 through 2012.

Source: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm


In recent history Firearms have accounted for two thirds or more of the murders each year.

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls


While we have 184 more years to add that other million, the population was a lot smaller for two thirds of that time. And firearms were not as ubiquitous.

I doubt that "millions" have been murdered by firearms in this country's history. But nearly 1 million. Compared to 1.3 million killed in wars.

Bottom line: there have been almost as many Americans murdered by firearms in this country as have been killed in all American wars put together.

[NaturalHigh]

112. The cited number was...

More Americans have died from gun violence since 1968 alone than in all the wars in US history combined, and that includes the Civil War.

I guess that's not exactly true.

[MADem]

140. I think, as a percentage of the population, firearms were far more ubiquitous in the old days.

Everyone had a gun--they often used it to get FOOD before the days of the Supermarket. They used it to defend their homes before 911. They used it to get the fox out of the henhouse, the horse thief out of the barn, and the varmints out of the grain storage.

My link has a breakdown that exceeds a million in both categories. And they're only counting gun violence since 1968--not even counting all the people shot up during the roaring twenties, and out in the wild, wild west.

[bvar22]

179. We still live like that, and use our guns for the same purpose.

"often used it to get FOOD before the days of the Supermarket. They used it to defend their homes before 911. They used it to get the fox out of the henhouse, the horse thief out of the barn, and the varmints out of the grain storage."

Vermont has some rural areas where voters still hunt,
and still protect their pets, live stock, and family with (gasp) guns.

[MADem]

180. That doesn't translate to the majority of the population, nowadays.

Most people do their hunting and fishing at Stop and Shop or Safeway!!!!

Yes, there are people who use guns that way, but they don't constitute the majority of gun owners, anymore.

[bvar22]

183. City ownership of handguns may have surpassed rural gun ownership,

but as a resident of a very rural area, I can assure you that nobody has given up their guns.
They are essential tools in areas where it takes 45 minutes or longer for "help" to arrive,
and nobody will come to remove a rabid skunk from your property.


I

[MADem]

186. I am not suggesting that anyone's given up anything, and in some situations guns are very useful.

Rural people do tend to have guns. In some neighborhoods, people in cities have guns. However, back in the day, every household had a gun or two. Now, fewer households have them, and a few households have arsenals. There are as many people who hate guns, at least, as who love them. Back in the old days, that discussion just didn't happen.

[bvar22]

188. "back in the day, every household had a gun or two"

True.
The majority of Combat Vets coming back from WW2 kept guns in their homes, but most kept that very quiet. They never talked about guns (at least where I could hear).

My Dad (WW2 Pacific Marine, 1st Battalion)
kept several guns, and had 3 male children. We literally grew up in that house,
but none of us knew about the guns until after he died & we were cleaning up.
We were shocked. He had had them for 60 years, and we never knew.
All 3 were loaded, spotlessly clean, and in perfect working order.

[MADem]

135. "Natural High" (reallly?) says Mark Shields and POLITIFACT are not credible....?

Ohhh kay.....

Links are provided for a reason, you know.

[NaturalHigh]

137. I don't even know who they are.

The link I was referring to was about kids who stay inside away from the dirt.

Try harder next time.

[MADem]

141. Really? You've never heard of Mark Shields...?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6636378

[ieoeja]

106. You're "in the ballpark" of being correct. See post #104. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Most cited by who?

My father was killed by gun violence (not an accident) in from of my eyes. I am an extremist when it comes to gun control and violence. And, I certainly stand with you as far as the need to defund the MIC and control guns.

Bernie's bit of political expediency disgusts me. But not nearly as much as Hillary's that led to the deaths of 100s of thousands.

Bernie's vote may have led to some deaths. Hillary's certainly did.

I'll probably vote for Bernie if he's nominated. I won't vote for Hillary if she's nominated.

[BainsBane]

48. I certainly can respect your choice for a Democratic nominee

but not to allow a Republican to take the White House. You will effectively be voting GOP. I'm not going to try to convince you. I don't do that. I will say I see it as an elitist position that shows callous disregard for millions of Americans who would suffer as a result. That makes you no different from a Republican to me. I don't believe your ego to be more important than those lives and the civil rights of millions of Americans, but clearly you do.

The statistic is a common one. You could google it in two seconds.

[RobertEarl]

67. That is a stretch

Last edited Fri May 8, 2015, 11:08 PM - Edit history (2)

If someone is in California or other solid blue state that the Democrat will carry, then not voting for the Democrat is not a vote for the republican. This all or nothing, baines way or the hiway, is getting tiresome. You should stop minding other people's business. The vote is private for a damn good reason.

[beevul]

78. Truer words were never spoken.

You should stop minding other people's business.

[GGJohn]

158. Yeah, she has a problem understanding why others don't share her view on matters. eom.

[bvar22]

111. Maybe if you lived in rural Vermont,

....and needed to hunt to provide meat for your family over the Winter,
you may feel different.

The solution to the Gun Control Problem will NOT be a One size fits all solution.


This is a major LOSER position for Bernie, Hillary, or anyone else in the Democratic Party at this time.

[cali]

80. And yep, that's some heavy statistical massaging

To reach that greater than figure, you have to include suicides which account for well over half of gun deaths. Not only that, but the deaths of people who aren't Americans, in u.s. wars, count too. Not to mention that the costs of war are directly linked to suffering and death here at home.

This is a stupid discussion in any case, but if forced to choose between no war in Iraq and more background checks and mental health screening for gun purchases, I'd choose the former in a New York minute.

[NaturalHigh]

113. See post 104.

Your post is not true.

[MADem]

39. Yes, millions.

Here are the figures JUST since 1968--not including the last three and a half years:

The figures below refer to total deaths caused by firearms:


1968 to 1980 377,000
1981 to 1998 620,525
1999 to 2010 364,483
2011 32,163
Total 1,384,171


...Since Shields’ comparison was otherwise accurate, with about 1.4 million firearm deaths to 1.2 million in war, we rated his claim True.

Add in all the people killed in person-to-person dust-ups BEFORE 1968, and that number grows even more.


It's fine to support whoever you like, so long as you have the facts to hand and make your decisions based on those facts.

I don't remember Clinton ever being in charge of the Department of Defense. A vote to authorize is not the same as a decision to commit troops. One hopes the POTUS is judicious when given authorization for use of force, but the responsibility for actually ordering troops into battle doesn't rest with a Senator from New York or Vermont--it rests with the Commander in Chief. Authorization is a tool that Bush did not use wisely.

[BainsBane]

49. Thanks for that.

[MADem]

57. Happy to help. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Ridiculous.

Bush &Co didn't kill any Iraqis they only "authorized" killing Iraqis. They didn't torture anybody, they only "authorized" torture.

Sander's vote disgusts me. Hillary's vote, far more.

[MADem]

55. No, not ridiculous. It's pretty straightforward how our government works.

It's also pretty clear how a servicemember gets deployed--and it's not the Senator from New York, or Vermont, signing the deployment orders. Those come from the EXECUTIVE Branch of government.

Come on, this is eighth grade civics stuff. You can and should do better.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

121. Did she not know that she was authorizing killing?

Naivete is unbecoming to you.

I believe that she, like Bernie, decided on taking a politically expedient stance on the issues. Neither of them are stupid. Neither of them are ignorant of consequences. Both votes should be scrutinized by the people and voters. I find Hillary's vote backing Bush far more reprehensible and won't accept Bernie's vote as "just politics". Both will influence my decision when I vote. I may not vote for either of them.

[MADem]

133. What do you think soldiers actually do? Mix drinks?

You're the naive one. Hell, I could ask you what you think GUNS actually do, but there's no need to get into gross mockery. Their main use is NOT "target practice."

She came from the state most impacted by 911. She was representing the desires of HER CONSTITUENCY with her vote, the same way that Senator Sanders represented the desires of HIS CONSTITUENCY regarding their enjoyment of firearms with his. I guess we will have to conclude that Sanders, too, was "authorizing killing" (that's your dire term) -- and without any hope of an END date to all that killing either-- with his vote, as well. Guns and more guns, forever and forever, Amen! Handguns for everyone! But hey--it's regular people shooting 'em off...so it's all good!

Are you so "naive" that you don't understand that the way a person gets to be a Senator is to pledge to do things that the people of their state WANT them to do? To vote the way they'd like? Sanders isn't going to get re-elected to his lovely Senate seat by saying, "Hey, all you people with guns--fuck you! I'm going to ignore YOUR wishes and vote the way I choose!" By the same token, Clinton, when faced with a vote where the Commander in Chief is promising to go after the guy who killed all of those New Yorkers and took down two plus massive buildings in the heart of their largest city, she voted to represent the wishes of her constituents. That's the bottom line, there, and to use either vote as a definitive "gotcha" moment is, to be blunt, horse shit.

I'm quite sure the good people of NYC hoped that Bush would do a better job of using the authorization the legislature granted him. I suppose they hoped that he'd go after the guy who killed all those people IN NEW YORK (not Vermont, but hey, whatever...). The fact that he did a lousy job wasn't her fault--she wasn't the Commander in Chief, nor was she the SECDEF. She didn't have Bush's ear.

Unlike you, though, I am not going to do the "a pox on both your houses" routine. We need a POTUS, and we don't need one from the GOP. I plan on voting for the Democratic nominee, because, YES, the Supreme Court Is THAT Important.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

145. I spent 4 years in the marines.

Which started me on the path to becoming a pacifist. And, I damned well knew that the guns weren't fashion accessories. They wanted me to kill people I didn't know, had nothing against, so LBJ could burnish his anti-Communist creds. I didn't vote for him or Humphrey either. Including civilians. Ever here of free-fire zones?

My half-brother shot and killed my father with a "legal" firearm on purpose in front of me.

I take violence and guns and rationales for killing people personally.

I've never voted for a Republican in my life (I'm 71). I don't vote based on fear of Republicans or Not as Bad.

[MADem]

154. The Marines, you say?

In that case, you should know full well how the chain of command works. It's not a Senator who sends kids off to die, so you of all people should be putting the blame squarely where it belongs, on George W. Bush, rather than pretending that an authorization to use force--which can often be deployed as a simple threat or a sabre-rattling tactic--is the same as the actual deployment of troops.

You have less of an excuse for being simplistic in your logic than you had before you acknowledged your service.

Taking things "personally" doesn't make your arguments any more effective. And you are probably familiar with this rubric--you can lead, follow, or get out of the way. Your choice. I am not a gun nut, myself--don't own one, don't want one, don't need one. And I'm not a fan of war, either. But I do know the difference between an authorization and a deployment.

I know this--the worst Dem is better than the best Republican. And who is on the Supreme Court MATTERS--not so much for me, but for future generations. As you should also know from your time in uniform, the shit rolls downhill. The kids who aren't yet born will be the ones dealing with the decisions that the Supreme Court makes in the next ten years--those of us who give a crap about the circumstances of future generations want to be sure that halfway sane jurists are making the decisions that will impact them and generations to follow.

[Major Hogwash]

176. Well said.

I damned well knew that the guns weren't fashion accessories.

[seabeyond]

123. that people would even be arguing the number, which is worse, says a lot. nt

[NYC_SKP]

7. I know you feel very strongly about Sanders' vote to prevent lawsuits against gun makers...

...for the misuse of their products.

Yes vote on: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 and Bill HR 1036

In reality, were lawsuits allowed to go forward blaming manufacturers of legal products to be blamed for their illegal and negligent use, citizens would find themselves losing the suits and owing legal fees to the winners.

Further, we might see carmakers and all kinds of other legal businesses sued thanks to greedy lawyers who want to make a name for themselves by preying on victims of violence and accidents.

On gun control matters, Sanders also:

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1

Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets.

And he was Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.

[hifiguy]

23. Facts bounce off of some people like

bullets off of Superman, NYC_SKP.

[stone space]

31. You'll have cancer patients shelling out big bucks to Big Tobacco.

In reality, were lawsuits allowed to go forward blaming manufacturers of legal products to be blamed for their illegal and negligent use, citizens would find themselves losing the suits and owing legal fees to the winners.

[NYC_SKP]

43. The difference is that there was no safe use for tobacco and companies lied about it.

Apples and Orangutans.

[AtomicKitten]

8. Defending Hillary's IWR vote is justifying an unconscionable position.

Nothing was as craven and egregious as that politically-motivated vote.

[boston bean]

16. I don't justify it.

And I guess in your eyes my support for her is unconscionable. Well from your point of view my vote for Edwards, Kerry, and Biden were unconscionable as well, right?

Did you vote for any of those persons? And if so do you consider your unconscionable?

[hifiguy]

21. None of them are currently running for president.

[boston bean]

34. But did you vote for any of them?

People are being lambasted for supporting Hillary because of the IWR... When over 10 years ago and closer to the actual vote, people most certainly did vote for one or more of those persons. I wonder if they consider themselves in the same light as they perceive others.

[Maedhros]

100. The situation now is different from 2004.

It's reasonable that people have changed their criteria for awarding votes to candidates.

[boston bean]

103. Right.

[LittleBlue]

134. I supported none of those candidates in the primary

My vote in the general was between one who voted for the war and one who orchestrated the war. I chose the lesser evil.

You have no excuse whatsoever for supporting Hillary. She is the only candidate who voted for the butchering of innocent brown people in Iraq to support Chimpy's ego. Own it.

[BainsBane]

20. It could well be

particularly if someone posts a thread announcing the Iraq war is a distraction compared to a "peaceful society," which is an oxymoron, just as much as announcing opposition to gun control is a distraction compared to a "peaceful society." There is no peace when war rages at home or abroad. Full stop. Additionally, refusing to brook criticism of a public figure runs counter to democracy. People here will often say that when it comes to the president, yet they will hear nothing but idol worship for Sanders. If that's how they are, so be it. I, however, cannot respect it.

I have noticed in general a tendency to make issues about individuals and forsake discussions of larger issues. People don't want to discuss campaign finance. They want to point only to Clinton's donors. Well what about the next election cycle, or all the House, Senate and local races? What about the fact industry lobbyists write legislation? All of that continues regardless of who is president, and making the issue about an individual only ignores the problem. Discussions of NSA spying become all about Glen Greenwald and the boxes in Snowden's garage, which matters not one iota. What matters is the actions of the NSA and how we strike a balance between national security and privacy, but people don't discuss that. They go on endlessly about individuals. Every issue needs to be made as small as possible. It's unfortunate, and it doesn't contribute to understanding let alone change.

[Ron Green]

152. If it's me and my OP you're calling out here,

I need to say that I am pro-gun control, and I ran for office three years ago in a very conservative district defending that position. But compared to the absolute need for a president who tells the truth, for someone at the top to call out the bankers, to support single-payer health care, to advocate for worker-directed co-ops - compared to those issues, gun control is a WEDGE with which the corrupt media play for suckers hard-working people on all sides. And it costs them very little; the talking points never change and the NRA pays for it all.

I am done with guns in my own life, and I'd like to see them all gone. But to be accused of changing a basic policy position under the sway of a candidate's personality is untrue and unfair.

[BainsBane]

156. You announced it was a minor issue

a distraction, 1.6 million dead since 1968, but how could that compare to the anger you and some others have at Wall Street?

I responded to you in that thread and you didn't give me the courtesy of a reply. Yes, I understand very well that some people here are quite convinced they matter more than the rest of us, who should forsake our basic rights and concerns in deference to what you care about. Fuck that. I've had it with the privileged telling me how much more important they are than everyone else, that your desire to have one of your own in office matters more than our basic civil rights, and now even our lives and basic safety.

None of you gives a shit about what can actually be accomplished because any school child knows enough basic civics to know the presidency is limited in his powers and that legislation requires approval from congress. That you can even pretend that shit about single payer is laughable, after the GOP has tired how many times to defund Obamacare? While you are busy working to defeat the one person who has sought to implement Single Payer in this country? Give me a break. You want an entertainer in chief that makes you feel good about yourselves. Make sure the folks affected by gun violence know that their lives can't possibly compare to the white middle class and upper-middle classes' anger at Wall Street over the erosion of their investment portfolios. How dare we think about our basic safety and our lives when you have far more important things to care about? That you could even pretend to care about peace while telling us to shut the fuck up about the war being waged here in the US that kills tens of thousands every year. And here you are, talking about what you deserve, after just announcing that the rest of us deserve nothing, that the violence that causes havoc in our lives is a mere distraction.

As much as you and your friends might think the rest of us exist to serve you, you don't own me or my vote. You can get away with dismissing over a million lives as a minor issue, but the consequence of that is you have succeeded in going a long way toward turning me off supporting Sanders. You share more in common with bankers than you realize. Both groups represent a privileged few who dismiss the rights and concerns of the majority in favor of their own interests. The difference is your crowd has the audacity to claim to know what is best for the rest of us little people, which is particularly annoying.

After your posts, I'm not terribly concerned about what you think you deserve. You are clearly tending to that yourself. I care more about the people whose lives and basic safety, people in my community being killed by guns, whom you announced to be a "minor issue."

So keep it up, all of you. There might yet be a few people in America you haven't succeeded in turning off Sanders.

[Ron Green]

161. I think you're too emotional to have a reasonable discussion

about this. Please just ignore me.

[MineralMan]

11. Minimizing issues is not appropriate.

We may not agree on everything with any candidate. That's always been true for me. But, I also never ignore issues that are important to me when making decisions.

[NaturalHigh]

12. Opposition to gun control is an "unconscionable position"?

LOL...The Democratic party platform specifically endorses the right to keep and bear arms.

[BainsBane]

24. Look, for the people who oppose gun control

It's their usual position. They don't have to contort themselves. But there are people who are not pro-gun who are contorting themselves to tell us it doesn't really matter. Well, it matters a hell of a lot to me. If they want to alienate voters, they should keep it up.

[NaturalHigh]

54. On the other side of the coin...

I'm a pro-2nd Amendment Democrat who absolutely believes in the right to keep and bear arms. Yet I'm voting for Hillary Clinton despite her gun control views.

I'm under no illusion that I can ever find any single candidate with whom I agree on every issue.

[BainsBane]

68. I bet you won't be going around advocating for gun control

just because Clinton takes that position, will you? And absolutely. We're never going to find someone who we agree with on everything. Screemingmeanie said it well here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026632445

[NaturalHigh]

73. "I bet you won't be going around advocating for gun control"

Well, I have to admit you got me there. If anything I would like to delete a few of the laws that we have now.

[AgingAmerican]

110. I also believe in the right to keep and bear arms

I grew up hunting and target shooting. I still own guns. I believe they should be registered, with background checks. I don't believe that assault rifles should be legal for public ownership etc. I agree with almost none of the NRAs positions on guns, except that we have a basic right to keep them.

My right wing brother and I go round and round about this. Gun ownership doesn't automatically = stupid.

[BainsBane]

122. I didn't say it did

Nor was the OP even a comment on the position per se but people insisting certain issues are a distraction and don't really matter, or calling opposition to Israeli occupation in Palestine DINO, simply because Sanders takes those views.

[AgingAmerican]

129. Hillary is to the right of Bernie on the issue of Israeli occupation

nt

[ieoeja]

114. I don't recognize any such posters.

But then I usually stay out of the gun talk, so I wouldn't know who is normally pro-gun control. I find both sides play lose with the facts. And both sides just flat out refuse to acknowledge the difference between city and rural realites on the subject.

It has been my experience that when the hypocrisy card is played on DU, the player can never come up with more than a handful of hypocrites. And I'm being kind. I don't actually recall ever seeing more than two examples of DUers being hypocrites when the card has been played.

Look at any anti-Afghanistan thread. I was here in 2001. There was overwhelming support for the Afghan War on DU. From 2003 onward there was the constrant refrain that Iraq was a distraction from the war we should be fighting in Afghanistan. But the pacifists gleefully ignored those statements and focused on the anti-Iraq War statements instead. "DUers like us! They really like us!"

No, we mostly just ignore you. We just coincidentally were in agreement regarding the Iraq War. Most of us did not oppose it because it was wrong. We opposed it because it was a stupid fucking war that we correctly predicted would do horrendous damage to world security.

Frankly, Liberals are a LOT better at war than Conservatives. When the core of their ideology is "right never changes" it is hardly surprising that they suck ass at national security. Because things do change. We have to adapt.

[stone space]

15. This Bernie supporter agrees wholeheartedly.

I can remember when President Obama's support for Civil Unions and stated opposition to Gay Marriage (despite his 1996 statement) was used as a club to try to legitimize opposition to marriage equality by many people who should have known better.

It's fine to ask me to hold my nose in the voting booth. I either will or I won't.

What is not so fine is to tell a nation chock full of gun victims that attempting to get some semblance of control over guns in our society are a distraction.

That makes it appear as if we the people are disposable.

[theboss]

17. When it comes to elections, I'm neither an idealogue nor a member of any cult of personality

When it comes to people who agree with me, I always return to one thought:

I agree with myself on everything, and I would never vote for me.



I agree with Sanders on more issues. My fear is he would have an impossible time governing, especially if Republicans keep the Senate.

I agree with Hillary on a lot of issues. My fear is that she is not her husband, and I'm not sure how good an executive she would be.

I probably disagree with O'Malley more than anyone. He would probably be the most effective executive. I'm not even sure he is running.

I'm not sure there are any "unconscionable positions" for me when it comes to a Democrat - outside of maybe openly advocating for a neo-Con position on the Middle East or calling for a anti-abortion amendment or something really out there.

I think we get way to caught up in scouring someone's record finding the one vote to hang that person with.

[Lurks Often]

18. And who gets to define "unconscionable positions" You? Me? Someone else?

You are entitled to think what you like, but don't be so arrogant as to tell others what to think.

Last time I looked, no one nominated you the Purity Czar in charge of deciding what is "acceptable" and what isn't.

[HappyMe]

26. That's it exactly.

I think this may be the try to shame people into supporting Clinton portion of the program.

[stone space]

42. Who gets to define "unconscionable positions"? Not Zimmerman supporters like you.

Yes, Zimmermann broke no current laws, acted reasonably and Florida laws relating to any of his actions need no changes.

9 (36%)

oneshooter, virginia mountainman, Big_Mike, Calista241, ozone82, 57_TomCat, backwoodsbob, blueridge3210, Lurks Often

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172166391

You support murder.

[Lurks Often]

51. When will you stop making up your own laws? You don't understand criminal law in the slightest

I happen to think Zimmerman was an idiot, but none of his actions prior to the discharge of the firearm were illegal and they did not reach the legal threshold of reckless. The laws governing self defense are clearly established by state law and in just about every state in the country, Zimmerman's actions that night were legal under state law.

I don't support murder. I do support the law, a fair trial and the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" legal concepts you seem exceedingly unfamiliar with.

[Lurks Often]

76. Why do you lie about what I actually posted?

I stated that "The laws governing self defense are clearly established by state law and in just about every state in the country, Zimmerman's actions that night were legal under state law."


Find the Florida statute governing "gunstalking" and while you are researching that made up word you may want to read the Florida law governing self defense as well, since your posts are obvious evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[stone space]

81. "Zimmerman broke no current laws, acted reasonably and Florida laws relating to...

...any of his actions need no changes."


To recap:

(1) Zimmerman broke no laws.

(2) Zimmerman acted reasonably.

(3) Florida laws relating to any of his actions need no changes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172166391

Oops...looks like you really do support murder.

[Lurks Often]

94. What part of broke no law don't you understand?

Or that Florida self defense law isn't much different the self defense laws in other states?

Or that reasonable has a legal definition? http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/reasonable-term.html

Your posts continue to show a complete lack of knowledge of the laws of this country, how the jury system works and that the testimony of just about every impartial witness, police officer, expert witness SUPPORTED Zimmerman.

[stone space]

98. What part of gunstalking and murder is acting reasonably?

No wonder you are so quick to justify the unconscionable.

[Lurks Often]

105. Always making things up

Is there some reason you are unable to cogently discuss the relevant laws involved?

[blueridge3210]

118. Well, he won't be replying for a while. (nt)

[Lurks Often]

119. I wonder if he'll wander over to Discussionist

or come back shortly here under a new name.

Even the Castle Bansalot crowd seemed to give him a wide berth

[beevul]

120. Did someone fail to behave?

[GGJohn]

159. Hmmm, into the corner for you for a couple of months.

[bvar22]

181. Oh, I see what your problem is:

Something may be strictly legal and unconscionable at the same time,
but the presence of a conscience is necessary to make this internal determination.

[Lurks Often]

189. Yawn, your personal attack aside, as I have already posted:

I happen to think Zimmerman was an idiot, but none of his actions prior to the discharge of the firearm were illegal and they did not reach the legal threshold of reckless. The laws governing self defense are clearly established by state law and in just about every state in the country, Zimmerman's actions that night were legal under state law.

The definition of "unconscionable" is subjective and if you are unhappy with that, you might want to consider what Republicans think is "unconscionable" before allowing the government to decide what is and is not unconscionable.

[beevul]

69. I suppose we should leave it to you folks that want to sue the gun manufacturers out of business...

I suppose we should leave it to you folks that want to sue the gun manufacturers out of business, for making and selling a legal constitutional product, when others misuse that product in a crime.

And please, don't bother with the "nobody wants to do that". Its been documented that THAT is exactly what you guys want to do. It is after all, the reason the law was crafted in the first place.

Oh look, heres one of you guys admitting to it:

Repealing immunity should be a top priority

Then multiple states and cities can sue the gun industry into oblivion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022327471#post54

Funny how none of you guys want to talk about this:


I am pleased to sign into law S. 1458, the "General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994." It is before me today as a result of bipartisan support in the Congress, and the hard work of many who have labored long to achieve passage of such legislation. The result is legislation that accommodates the need to revitalize our general aviation industry, while preserving the legal rights of passengers and pilots. This limited measure is intended to give manufacturers of general aviation aircraft and related component parts some protection from lawsuits alleging defective design or manufacture after an aircraft has established a lengthy record of operational safety.

In 1978, U.S. general aviation manufacturers produced 18,000 of these aircraft for domestic use and for export around the world. Our manufacturers were the world leaders in the production of general aviation aircraft. By 1993, production had dwindled to only 555 aircraft. As a result, in the last decade over 100,000 wellpaying jobs were lost in general aviation manufacturing. An innovative and productive American industry has been pushed to the edge of extinction. This Act will allow manufacturers to supply new basic aircraft for flight training, business use, and recreational flying.

The Act establishes an 18-year statute of repose for general aviation aircraft and component parts beyond which the manufacturer will not be liable in lawsuits alleging defective manufacture or design. It is limited to aircraft having a seating capacity of fewer than 20 passengers, which are not engaged in scheduled passengercarrying operations.

In its report to me and to the Congress last August, the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry recommended the enactment of a statute of repose for general aviation aircraft. The report indicated that the enactment of such legislation would "help regenerate a once-healthy industry and help create thousands of jobs." I agree with this assessment; this is a job-creating and jobrestoring measure that will bring good jobs and economic growth back to this industry. It will also help U.S. companies restore our Nation to the status of the premier supplier of general aviation aircraft to the world, favorably affecting our balance of trade. Therefore, as I sign into law the "General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994," I am pleased to acknowledge the bipartisan work done by the Congress and by all the supporters of the general aviation industry.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

The White House, August 17, 1994


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=64825


But that's different, because guns, or something, right?

[hifiguy]

19. Show me one American politician that does not kiss Israel's ass

and you can raise that point.

Noise, noise noise.

HRC voted for war in Iraq and is a captive hawk of the MiC.

Facts are facts.

[cali]

25. the vote for the IWR

Funny how you justify that.

Ah, the smell of hypocrisy wafting in the du air

[Maedhros]

101. The IWR, illegal NSA surveillance, drone murder, execution without due process...

The list goes on and on. People who put Party before principles will contort themselves in all sorts of ways to justify heinous behavior that would never be condoned if the opposition was in power.

I will have none of it.

[cali]

108. thanks

[stone space]

30. "One person's dead kids are another person's minor distraction."

I didn't get very far before getting my OP locked.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026634874

[BainsBane]

35. Yeah, you have to go more subtle than that

Or it gets locked as disruptive meta. I don't know if that person is a regular gun proponent or not. I got the impression he wasn't.

[freshwest]

174. I read he voted against the lawsuits, but the Brady Bill? VT must have put their foot down on him.

I suppose there are a lot of VT people who were against the Brady Bill. The liberal VT is confined to the cities, no doubt.

I put this in the same category as HRC's Iraq vote. You can bet your bottom dollar a lot of NYers wanted some ass kicking over 9/11 and didn't care who or where. The passion was running extremely high, but then they lost loved ones and saw a major catastrophe in their face.

I live on the other side of the USA and while I was freaked out about it for literally years, being there was more traumatic than it was for people in other locales. I wasn't for the war, anymore than I was for Bush the Elder's wars, but I didn't feel I had the right to tell NYers to shut up and wait for justice to distributed.

Sadly, Bush was right there to seize the opportunity and declare war. Really, endless war.

But I've been thinking we've been in a world war for over a century and those of us who thought we had peace, have been living in a fantasy.

JMHO.

[beevul]

184. The brady bill vote was in 1993. N/T

[freshwest]

187. I knew that, but thanks for telling those who didn't know. It passed anyway.

It was opposed by the NRA when proposed in 1987, and they won a concession to skip the waiting period, making it less effective than it should have been.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act#Since_1994

Whether Sanders wanted a bill that was stronger, is not provided by the OP, as there is no link. It is an opinion piece, and can stand at it is as that. I believe it is more about hypocrisy than the gun issue actually.

Since I have reflected on that possibility, I retract here but not there, my words as to VT causing him to not vote for it. I did not rec the thread as I usually do, because I had an inkling that this was not taken into account. At this juncture, this is a non-issue, as many of those OPs are that attack HRC.

We need to all look over the long view and give these people a break. A 50-50 one at the least.

It's not like most of us ever lived in the world that they live in, and both HRC and Sanders both have the best intent and good hearts.
Neither of them needs the job as POTUS. It is a calling, for the most part, and they are idealists.
They are true believers in our American representative system of governance for democracy.

They have not stooped to the petty, immature level of online posters. It would behoove us to not play gotcha games, or run these discussions as contests. Rather, we should emulate the best behavior of our preferred candidates. If we cannot find the depth within ourselves to do so, we will not convert others to our candidates. That is all.

[Orsino]

32. "Opposition to gun control" doesn't quite describe Sanders' voting record.

Sec. Clinton's positions sound more like mine, though.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

37. So I will ask you what I ask others about November 2016, there are two candidates

one is ANY con and the other is pro gun Bernie.

Please tell me you race to the polls to vote for Bernie?

I like you, please dont break my heart


and remember, I am the one who says why not enforce the 2nd the way it is written, remove ALL guns to well regulated militias and then the cops have no excuse to have them

[BainsBane]

86. Of course

I remain undecided in the primary but will absolutely without hesitation support the Democratic nominee.

Wasn't it you who posted the thread about Clinton being the most qualified candidate ever to run, or was that someone else?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

124. Probably me (yes, me)...And I am going to work for her the INSTANT Bernie is out of it, if he is.

I think she is far more qualified than Bernie.

In fact I think Bernie would struggle with the politics of being president, because of how fucked up the system is.

[99Forever]

38. Voting for an illegal war that may have killed a million or more...

...and cost this nation trillion$, defines unconscionable to me.

[BainsBane]

44. I agree

I also think voting for the corporate gun lobby is unconscionable. I particularly think contorting one's views to conform to a candidate is an unfortunate abrogation of critical thinking.

If I end up voting for Clinton, I won't be justifying the Iraq War. If I end up voting for Sanders, I won't be justifying Israeli occupation of Palestine. My positions are what they are, and I make political choices from the available options. I don't shape my identify around a politician.

[bluesbassman]

59. Why do you keep pushing that meme?

Sanders did not "vote for the gun lobby". What he did in fact do, as has been pointed out in many posts regarding this issue, is vote against a lousy piece of legislature that was a poorly crafted attempt at back door gun control. In other words, he did his job.

When you first addressed this issue you clamed it was a deal breaker, now you are saying "if I end up voting for Sanders". For someone who hasn't made up their mind, pushing a deal breaking meme about Sanders' "support" for the gun lobby sure seems made up to me.

[BainsBane]

157. It isn't just one bill

He also voted against the Brady bill. He is not an advocate of gun control. Nor do I accept the gun propaganda about that bill. The way the gun people spin it is as innocuous. That's what they always do. When you look at how the law has been used, it' does far, far more than they claim.

Look, I'm in flux, so I may not be entirely consistent. I was taken aback to read of his voting record. It may well be a deal breaker. Chances are good it is. but I'm remaining undecided. The fact is, the primary is usually resolved before I get a chance to caucus or vote anyway. 2008 was an exception.

[99Forever]

144. I see.

Could you kindly direct me to those OPs where you take Sec. Clinton to task for her unconscionable IWR vote, previous to today, like you have several times Sen. Sanders over his gun votes? I look forward to reading them.

Thanks in advance.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. Vote for Hillary: An "F" rating by the NRA isn't enough.

But war and the 99% aren't all that important.

[CharlotteVale]

47. I think all guns should be banned.

That's how I feel about guns. How many politicians are going to run on that one? Hillary?

But I'm still voting for Bernie. As a retired person on a fixed income, I think Hillary's ties to Wall St. would put me and my family and friends at way more risk than Bernie's position on guns would.

[cali]

53. what is an unconscionable position to one person

can be perfectly OK to another. This is pretty basic stuff.

[tammywammy]

116. Agreed.

For me, personally, gun control is not a major issue. I actually have no problem with Bernie's votes. (And *gasp* I agree with the gun manufacturer vote) I also don't think the Iraq vote is a deal killer against Hillary either. But just because these aren't big issues to me, doesn't mean the Iraq vote can't be a deal killer to you.

Everyone for every election must decide which candidate overall represents them the best.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

63. You don't get to declare what is or is not unconscionable.

[bvar22]

115. Isn't that exactly what Cali just said?

What are you complaining about?

[Sissyk]

125. That wasn't to cali.

That was to the OP.

[Prism]

65. Immunity for manufacturers isn't really a right-wing position. Also, good god the hypocrisy.

At least, not outside the leftier side of the internet.

It was basically an attempt at a backdoor gun ban. Put the manufacturers out of business, no more guns! But the problem there is, it sets a precedent. What's to keep people from suing knife manufacturers, or chainsaw makers, or candlestick artisans?

Bad precedent. Bad law. It deserved to go down.

And I say that as someone who has never owned a gun, will never own a gun, and do not personally want to be anywhere around the things. Trying to paint Sanders as a gun nut on this one is just silliness.

As for the rest of the OP.

Yeah. As a gay man, let me tell you how much fun watching Clinton, Obama, and all the rest try to explain why my equality had to wait, or wasn't important, or was best left to the states, or was just my personal pony, etc et infinite al. And plenty of people on DU got right on board with that. Actually, I'd venture to say most of DU defended Democratic politicians when they were messing with LGBT people.

(Of course, now that marriage equality is largely won, everyone was 100% supportive and on board the entire time! What? That period from 2008-2012 where we were shouting at your community to STFU? Never happened! *eye roll*).

Most people, I reckon, are partisans. There is no logic nor reason nor rationality behind the ever shifting justifications. They just want to protect and promote "their guy". Which is fine and totally expected.

But I find this "Woe, for people will bend their principles to protect their partisan interests," disingenuous if not downright hilarious given the galloping defenses we've gotten in regards to Clinton's more Republican friendly moves.

C'mon now. It takes brass ones to post something like this unironically.

[treestar]

66. It's funny how we were told all of this when we supported Obama

And I happen to agree with Obama most of the time - I think like him, I guess. But it was funny that it was considered blind hero worship and labelled in such a way. And they'd keep coming up with something, a new OP, with an outrage and were we still supporting him now? And the outrage usually came to nothing. There were even threads about "what would it take to make you stop supporting Obama" which were obvious. They were looking for what they could use to peel off more supporters. (The posters who did this always alleged they voted for him and were disappointed in this and that).

So now we see an actual non-Democrat treated that way. And likely it's a lot of the same people.

[BainsBane]

83. It's always selective

We see it in lots of cases. Assange is one that really gets me. But yeah, when you see people saying things they have criticized countless times before, you can't believe they can write it with a straight face.

[beevul]

75. You're just pissed about the immunity portion because it blocks you and your anti-gun friends...

You're just pissed about the immunity portion because it blocks you and your anti-gun friends from suing gun makers out of business.


One of you guys has come clean about that goal:

Repealing immunity should be a top priority

Then multiple states and cities can sue the gun industry into oblivion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022327471#post54


I'm sure you'll be along shortly to tell me I'm wrong, and how terrible of a human being I am for not caring about people who died, how I'm spewing nra talking points, how I support corporations over people, how I have the blood of x on my hands, how I support death merchants...

All the while, not offering any replacement solution for nuisance lawsuits against manufacturers of a legal product that a third party misuses. Because suing manufacturers out of business is something you support.

[NaturalHigh]

190. "One of you guys has come clean about that goal"...

Very telling, isn't it?

How many people drink themselves to death every year? How many die of liver failure due to chronic use of acetaminophen? Hell, how many die in car wrecks? If I were to suggest nuisance lawsuits to drive the manufacturers of those products out of business my post would be hidden, and I would likely be PPRed as some sort of crankish troll.

[Doctor_J]

77. You mean unconscionable like fracking? Offshore drilling? Arctic drilling? NAFTA/TPP?

H1B expansion? Charter schools and RTTB? pay to play healthcare rationing? IWR? Objecting to gay marriage?

I agree wholeheartedly.

[BainsBane]

79. Have people been doing that?

to conform with a candidate's views? Who opposes gay marriage? Who are you even talking about?
Is this just a list of things you see people post that you disagree with? That isn't' what the thread is about.

[Doctor_J]

109. Well the favored candidate of many supports a whole list of things that I find unconscionable

You obviously are OK with all of those.

You post flame bait, and then pretend to be affronted when anyone fires back. What do you expect?

[frylock]

84. Oh goody. Day two of Sanders is a gun nut..

lol @ people shitting their collective pants at the prospect of Sanders debating the issues.

[HappyMe]

97. Yeah. First it was 'he can haz no billion',

then 'goofy hair', 'not a registered Democrat', now 'gun nut'.

He's not wishy-washy and means what he says. That's a win right there in any debate.

[frylock]

138. You missed a step..

First it was "Where's your candidate? You better hurry up and get a candidate in there." Other than that, spot on. Shitting their collective pants.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

85. I see nothing unconscionable about supporting immunity for gun manufacturers

Unless that standard is going to be applied to every legal product, it shouldn't be applied to firearms.

[BainsBane]

88. Then gun manufacturers don't need a designated law

granting their product liability that other manufacturers don't benefit from.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

99. I would agree

except for the fact that way too many people see lawsuits against gun manufacturers as a backdoor way to ban guns in the U.S.

As you have brought up an excellent point, is that why you feel supporting the law in question is unconscionable? That is, do you find it unconscionable because gun manufacturers shouldn't have a law specifically for them? Or do you find it unconscionable because such a law would prevent them from being put out of business?

[frylock]

142. Really? Is there precedent for someone suing FoMoCo because they were injured by a drunk driver?

Can you sue Anchor Hocking if someone breaks a glass over your head?

[aikoaiko]

87. This is an opportunity for some to better understand the difference between a liberal & progressive

There is a lot of overlap between the two, but sometimes they diverge.

[BainsBane]

90. They are labels, nothing more

You define the label you prefer in accordance with your own views. It's no more complicated than that.

Are you going to declare now that Israeli occupation of Palestine is progressive?

[aikoaiko]

102. labels, nothing more? then why get bent out of shape over the label of "minor issue"

As I understand it, Bernie supports Israel existing and defending itself, but not necessarily its treatment of general Palestinians.

[BainsBane]

166. Yeah, I get upset when people announce my life

safety and that of my community is a distraction. I'm funny that way.

The emphasis on individual rights above the collective good is a hallmark of classical liberalism, and hence capitalism. That is the basis for the pro-gun defense. The argument is your liberty trumps the collective rights of society to be free from violence. In that sense, it is quintessentially liberal in the tradition of Adam Smith, one of the foremost early liberals.

Now what you have in your head when you use the terms, I can only guess, other than their purpose is to justify moar guns. That much is certain.

[GGJohn]

171. Well, then I guess that I'm a classical liberal,

individual rights do trump the collective good and my liberty does trump collective rights.

[aikoaiko]

173. No one said your safety is a distraction.

Is that what you really think? Wow.

Is it also true that you think you would be " free from violence" had the PLCAA not passed? Wow.

[bvar22]

127. Is "Fascist" just a label...nothing more?

Is "White Supremacist" just a label....nothing more?

Is "Tea Party Republican" just a label....nothing more?

Is "FDR Democrat" just a label....nothing more?

Is "the MIC" just a label...nothing more?


I found your postulate concerning labels to be very shallow thinking.
There IS usually something deeper that provokes the label,
unless you are just someone who likes to stir shit.

Some labels, I take very seriously.

[BainsBane]

165. Fascist has a precise meaning

which people do not adhere to when using the term. I see people who claim to be liberals/progressives and leftists advance far right wing positions. The problem is that there isn't a real left in this country since it's been purged. What we have are liberals who know so little about the broader world they imagine themselves to be on the left of the political spectrum. Without an ideological fulcrum, oriented, I would argue, by Marxism, we are left with people who define ideology in relation to their own egos. Now I understand that many cannot conceive for a second that anything can exist outside their own experience or that anyone else has concerns or values that matter in anyway. That is after all what entitlement is all about, and that entitlement is on full display in political discussions on this site.

I can define Progressive in terms of the Progressive movement, but what you all think is the difference between liberal and progressive can mean many things, particularly when few people here have any conception of the classical meaning of liberalism or its history. The literal meaning of progressive is to move forward, yet many who claim the mantle openly long for the past. They call themselves progressive, despite being entirely regressive in thinking. Now, the other poster loves his guns, so for him progressive is proximity to the GOP on that issue. People justify all kinds of exclusion and bigotry by claiming it is leftist. In fact, a few posters who are furthest to the right in terms of hostility toward the non-white male segments of the population also claim to be leftier than thou. DUers have managed to create a homogeneous little online community by systematically excluding and targeting with alerts people of color and feminists. You may feel happy with a political community that in no way reflects the demographics of the Democratic party or America more broadly. While it offers certain perspectives, they reflect the experiences of the narrow demographic that posts here, and an even narrower demographic that is judged to be pure by adhering to the same set of beliefs and hostile contempt for anyone who suggests other issues or other lives might matter.

Now, you call me shallow all you want for failing to keep myself bound by the orthodoxy of the keyboard intelligentsia. I don't really care. I am not a positivist, and I abhor the entire ethos associated with it. A lot has been learned from developments in philosophy and political theory over the past century, yet you continue to insist meanings are absolute, defined entirely by you and your little crowd, who thinks, looks, and lives identically. That was precisely the positivists outlook on society.

[bvar22]

182. That is in direct contradiction with your post #90...

...where you say.

90. They are labels, nothing more

You define the label you prefer in accordance with your own views. It's no more complicated than that.

[Bonobo]

164. Labels are words and all words are an attempt to describe reality.

Not too many options out there last time I looked.

[BainsBane]

167. Yes, though their meanings are not self evident, as some assume.

[Bonobo]

168. Yup, that's going to be a problem until we have a breakthrough on the mind-reading front. nt

[Major Hogwash]

177. I knew you were going to say that.

I have ESP.

[morningfog]

93. The meta-discussion forum is closed.

[Hekate]

117. KnR I've been unpleasantly surprised

[Gman]

128. What if this politician's views and the persons views

Just line up coincidentally? What if the person actually dislikes the politician be cause he, for example, beats his dog. But the person supports the politician overall in spite of this bad behavior.

[JDPriestly]

130. First, the laws proposed on gun registration, etc.

will not stop the gun violence.

The fundamental problem with guns is the violence, not the guns themselves.

Other countries have liberal gun laws and less violence than ours.

I agree with Bernie Sanders on the gun issue. It is complex. I do not want to deprive my family members who live on farms and like to hunt of their ability to use guns. In fact, I happen to like venison myself so why would object to the guns that kill the deer that provide the venison? And in many areas of our country, deer are numerous and in large numbers can destroy crops and gardens.

But, guns in cities are a problem. There are no deer or other large animals to hunt. Cities should be able to require the registration of guns within their limits. That measure will not alter the fact that guns themselves are not the problem but that rather our violent and overly dramatic culture is the problem.

I also agree with Bernie Sanders on the Israel/Palestine issue. I would like to see a two-state solution. I lived in Europe and learned while there just how virulent the hatred of Jews is in some cultures. I think it would take a miracle to eradicate it.

Try sitting on a train opposite a prominent member of the council in your city expound on racial purity and the problem of the Jews. If you can fight the urge to jump out the window, you may understand as I do that having some little spot in the world where Jewish people can live in safety is a good idea.

Palestinians need to give up the idea of the right of return, and Israel needs to give up its claim to some of the land it has taken in recent years. That is what a two-state solution would look like. People who encourage one side or the other to balk at negotiating a peace settlement are not doing anyone any favors. They are just furthering the disputes and the anger and the result will be more deaths, more bombs, more anger and less peace -- all in all, a worse world for everyone in the area.

I am with Bernie Sanders on both the issues of Israel/Palestine and gun laws.

[Blue_In_AK]

136. I agree with you on the gun issue.

Bernie Sanders is being criticized like every other Democrat from a rural state. Mark Begich ran into this same problem here. I would never tell people in rural Alaska that they have to give up their guns that they use to put food on their tables, or the hikers and outdoorsmen that may encounter grizzly bears, or even the urban-dweller who likes to fill his freezer with moose meat in the fall.

[JDPriestly]

139. Guns are a big problem in cities, a necessity in some

rural areas.

The military guns should be used only in authorized areas in which they can be used safely. But that is hard to enforce because I should think that a creative person could make a (perhaps unreliable) lethal and terribly lethal weapon in a shop in his garage.

We need to work on the anger thing in this country. The gun problem will take care of itself.

[Blue_In_AK]

143. I wish I could recommend your last paragraph a thousand times.

[kentuck]

131. There are Hobson's choices...

Do you give up your car because you can't afford it or do you give up buying groceries? Sometimes we have to make decisions we don't necessarily like.

[DanTex]

146. Great post. K&R.

[MaggieD]

147. Great post....

And adding, there are no perfect candidates.

[PowerToThePeople]

150. Drone strikes, keeping Guantanamo open, not prosecuting war criminals and banker thieves. n/t

[arcane1]

151. Sanders is not in "opposition to gun control" n/t

[Marr]

160. You mean like helping to sell the invasion of Iraq?

I've got to say, I'm finding it truly hilarious that our conservative wing here is throwing tantrums because the left doesn't live up to their 'purity troll' myth. Just a tip-- it's not hypocrisy when a person fails to practice what you claim they do.

But go on-- tell me more about how one cannot disagree with a politician on a given issue and still support them.

[Bonobo]

162. LOL, kind of a big omission in your first sentence, Don't you think? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

163. Why do you think I do not fall in love with politicians?

[Ken Burch]

169. Gun control is not more important than fighting corporate power.

And at this point, HRC isn't particularly good on gun control or the I/P issue, nor are any other possible Dem candidates this year.

What exactly are you calling for here?

[BainsBane]

170. I'm responding to some discussion I've seen here today

However, the reason gun control has been blocked is because of corporate power. They are not separate issues. The gun manufacturers are the single most powerful lobby in Washington, and they have done more to subvert democracy than any other. People have given them a pass too long. Additionally, violence at home is connected to war abroad. We are not the most militaristic society in history by accident. That culture of violence is cultivated and home, and people have become far too comfortable ignoring what is in fact a war raging at home with 1.4 million casualties since 1968. How can people claim to fight corporate power while ignoring the corporate merchants of death who have corrupted our system to promote their profits over human life? That is not opposition to corporate power. That is enabling it.

[beevul]

185. So dishonest.

...what is in fact a war raging at home with 1.4 million casualties since 1968."

Roughly 1 million of the 1.4 million are self inflicted gunshot fatalities. Which war in the history of the planet, had 2/3 of its deaths happen because people chose suicide?

Yes, they're still dead. Yes their deaths matter. No, there is no "war raging at home".


Your stance on this isn't something that you've developed recently. You were anti-gun before you ever came here to DU, in spite of an outward pretense that you weren't, which people can find examples of, should they decide to fact check me, and dig through old posts of yours. I encourage anyone that doesn't believe it to check for themselves.

How do I know you were anti-gun before you came to DU? Because you said as much here:

"I have always been anti-gun."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026630875#post21


Its therefore no surprise, that you support suing gun manufacturers for liability when someone illegally misuses a gun in a crime, and that you find legislation preventing such lawsuits reprehensible.

[BainsBane]

193. You mean it's not a war that matters to you

compared to your property rights. You've made that quite clear time and time again. Our values are completely antithetical. I am not pro-capitalist. I do not value property and the individual above the common good. That does not make me dishonest. It means we disagree, something you clearly find unacceptable.

I never claimed to have developed an anti-gun position recently. You clearly aren't even following the point of the OP, which is about contorting positions to conform to a candidate. You don't even know what this thread is about. You see the mention of guns and start salivating, paying no attention to context. You and the rest of the gun contingent has worked hard to ban gun discussions from GD. Now you want to turn this into an endless discussion about your deadly property. You don't pay attention to my point or the subject of the OP. Then you call me dishonest for claiming something I never did. Of course I have always been anti-gun. I didn't just suddenly decide human life matters. Violence in its various manifestations are my primary concerns, and have been for a very long time: gun violence, domestic violence, human rights abuses, war. That is a fundamental value. Why would I even want to claim I had recently developed the view? Besides, that would conflict with the entire point of the OP, which you can't seem to follow.

Don't bother responding to my posts. I will never agree your stuff is worth more than human life, and it just upsets you knowing that someone in the country actually cares about those lives you insist don't count as gun casualties.
A lot of Iraq war vets have taken their own lives too. It doesn't mean those deaths aren't a result of the war.

No, go back to helping your friends in the NRA erode the First Amendment so you don't have to be confronted with the horror of people like me articulating concern about something other than your property. It truly is awful. Fortunately for you, the same constitution that privileges your right to arm yourself to the teeth and to even kill above my right to life is the same one that protects Wall Street profits. Yes, you have to occasionally come across a dissenter, but you have nothing to worry about. Being on the side of corporate profit means your gun rights are well protected. One thing is certain in America; capital always trumps human life and the common good.

[beevul]

194. I don't even know where to begin with this steaming pile of nonsense.

You mean it's not a war that matters to you

Its not a "war" at all. If you think otherwise, tell us all this:

What side are those who commit suicide - the bulk of gun deaths - what side are they fighting for?

I do not value property and the individual above the common good. That does not make me dishonest.

Did someone say it did? Other things, however, do. I'll touch on that shortly. Oh, and for what its worth, many of us, feel that individual rights are FOR the common good. You know, kinda like the text book definition of being LIBERAL. If you need a dictionary definition for that word, I'll be happy to provide it.

I never claimed to have developed an a anti-gun position recently.

When you first joined, you posted as if you were...um...undecided. I never believed it, I doubt many did. You were too quick off the cuff with well known anti-gun dogma. And to have it confirmed, out of your own mouth no less, that it was all a sham. Well, that was unexpected, but most welcome.

"You see the mention of guns and start salivating, paying no attention to context."

Says the poster who said Bernie is a "dealbreaker" over his votes on gun control, one of which was 23 years ago. Says the poster that OP'd/or participated HEAVILY in pretty much every Bernie/gun thread in the last 4 days. Says the poster that wants to see gun manufacturers sued out of business for the unrelated criminal actions of a 4th party. Says one of the founding members of DU's anti-gun group which blocks people because of who they are, rather than what they say. Says the poster that thinks she needs to "educate" Bernie.

Arrogant projection much?

Of course I have always been anti-gun. I didn't just suddenly decide human life matters. Violence in its various manifestations are my primary concerns, and have been for a very long time: gun violence, domestic violence, human rights abuses, war.

Tied neatly there at the hip, as if they're all one in the same. You could be all those other things, without being anti-gun. But you wont.

...and it just upsets you knowing that someone in the country actually cares about those lives you insist don't count as gun casualties.

See, there you go again, ascribing to others, a viewpoint which they have not expressed. Another "ipnabla" for for you. (the disinterested reader may search DU for the word "ipnabla" and come up with some very interesting misrepresentations by my interlocutor) Misrepresenting the positions of others is something you're well known for doing, hereabouts.

Beyond that, you have some nerve. You and the other anti-gunners can't be bothered to differentiate between suicide and homicide where guns are concerned, which does a HUGE disservice to those that died and will die by suicide, and you have the balls to point the finger at others and insinuate that they don't care?

If you actually DID care, you'd be jumping at the chance to do ANYTHING about these problems. And yet, you can't even be bothered to acknowledge that suicides and homicides are different problems.

That shows how much you care. And more importantly, it shows that you have no interest in attacking these problems in any way shape size or form unless the means is anti-gun.

You are transparent.

Being on the side of corporate profit means your gun rights are well protected.

That sentence, coming out of the mouth of a Bloomberg sycophant, about says it all.

No, go back to helping your friends in the NRA chip erode the First Amendment so you don't have to be confronted with the horror of people like me articulating concern about something other than your property.

Out of the same mouth within seconds of uttering the above, is uttered:

Don't bother responding to my posts.

Theres a word for that:


Hypocrite.

[Scootaloo]

178. As I said before...

A candidate can be wrong about things and still be the overall best option.

[Puzzledtraveller]

191. Hillary Clinton won't go there anyway.

There are 2A supporters who support Hillary Clinton. I only say this in the case people follow this to the conclusion as it may be in regard to Clinton vs. Sanders. I respect that it may be a no go for some people as far as Sanders, and may believe Clinton to take a stronger position against guns but I think she will play that issue as safe as she can. Just my opinion.

[ucrdem]

192. "All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon"

So saith Thoreau thus perfectly describing our internet compadres who claim to vote according to the catchiest Facebook slogans pasted into GD that week. Do these Obamaphobes and Snowdenistas ever vote in actual elections? I can't answer that but I also can't imagine that anyone who's ever taken the trouble to register, read a ballot and cast a vote could be as fickle and feckless in making their decisions.