A recent gun nut talking point.

[MarianJack]

I moved this over here after the same thread was locked in GD. Some nimrod there suggested that I was too emotional. I say horseshit. This is an issue that needs passion. I have no issue with responsible gun ownership. At one time I owned 3 revolvers. I sold them legally in 1997 when my then fiancé moved in with me. They scared her and, unlike some NRA whack jobs, My future wife meant more to me than the stupid damn guns!

As we all know, there has been a nauseating level of brazen behavior recently from the right wing gun nut ammosexuals who are determined to insure that nobody will ever interfere with their "God Given" right to have as many assault substitute penises as possible. These are people who are fully convinced that the solution to any gun violence is to throw more guns at the situation and whose apparent slogan for NRA Christianity is "WWJS" or, "Who Would Jesus Shoot"?

Lately I've seen this new talking point hanging on a sign in the window of a gun shop in Lewiston, Maine and it was used as an argument against me in a Facebook thread started by a gun nut who called on us to not politicize the military shootings as he went on to politicize the tragedy and rant about his sacred 2nd Amendment rights and how those damn liberals had better not try to take HIS guns!

When I pointed out that the NRA solution to gun violence is always more guns, a couple of people responded with a new (to me at least) response.

"I'll be happy to not use MY gun to protect YOUR family WHEN someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night"!

Statistically, I know that it is much more likely that a gun will wind up being used on it's owner when they lose their nerve, piss in their pants and have the gun taken from them. I also know that a gun owner is much more likely to shoot himself or an innocent person because they have NO IDEA of how to use a gun properly because the extent of their training consisted of watching Lethal Weapon movies while they masturbated.

SO, to any Rambo wannabe junior Yosemite Sams out there who want to deprive my family and I of your protection because I see no need to have a gun in my home, I say this...

...Please DON'T "protect" me and my family. given that in 60 years of my life, my house has never been broken into. I would feel MUCH better if your gun and YOU stayed FAR away from my home, family and me! I feel safer not being around the type of people who believe that they need an assault rifle to buy a cheeseburger or to pick up milk bread & the Enquirer at the supermarket.

if you're offended by this, I frankly don't give 3/10 of a rat's ass. To the thinking people out there, I say...

PEACE!

[Duckhunter935]

1. so do any of the firearms owners here on DU

fall into that category?

[MarianJack]

3. I sincerely doubt...

...that any ammosexuals belong to DU.

[Duckhunter935]

5. That has been my

Experience

[sarisataka]

2. I'm not offended

and I have never masturbated while watching Lethal Weapon movies

[MarianJack]

4. Neither have I!

Yikes!

PEACE!

[HeiressofBickworth]

6. I asked my soon-to-be husband to please remove his gun from the house

before my 7-year old daughter and I moved in. He, too, was more concerned for my peace of mind and the safety of my daughter than he was attached to his gun. He assured me that it was removed before we moved in. I never saw it again. Yes, peace of mind!

I never worried about anyone breaking into the house. Since it was a small house with nowhere to hide, a bad guy would have done his dirty work before we would have had a chance to get out of bed, locate the gun, find the ammunition, load it, and try to keep someone from using it against us.

Which all leads me to believe that this hysterical attachment to one's guns must rest in some emotional need to pretend to be powerful rather than in any logical plan to use it for self-defense.

[MarianJack]

14. I'm glad that your husband was so sensiive to your needs.

As a parent myself, the idea of a 7 year old girl being harmed by a gun is too much of a nightmare to even ponder!

PEACE!

[HeiressofBickworth]

38. The REST of the story:

Yes, he was very considerate on that issue. When someone has done the right thing, I give credit for it. Twelve years later, he left me and got a divorce. Apparently, he had used up his supply of sensitivity.

[MarianJack]

46. I'm sorry that your marriage broke up.

Next month will be 17 years for my wife & I. We've had our up & downs, but I feel like the luckiest man alive to be married to her!

PEACE!

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Where are these statistics you seem so sure of?

I'd like to look at your data. I didn't see anything about 'pissed pants and was disarmed' in the FBI UCR or the DoJ NCVS.

Out of curiosity, why do you care if someone owns many, even hundreds of assault weapons? Who gives a shit if they have more than two? Are they octopuses? Octopi? Whatever. Do they have more than the standard 2 human arms? Is bilateral symmetry not a thing anymore?

[MarianJack]

15. Where did I say ANYTHING about how many guns anyone has?

It may have helped your critique if you'd actually read my post. My issue was with the gun nuts who have their Rambo fantasies.

Are you saying that Wayne LaPierre is right with his "good guy with a gun" nonsense? Do you actually believe that more guns is the answer to gun violence?

Would you feel comfortable taking your family into a store or restaurant where a bunch of open carry ammosexuals were congregating while they compared guns like a bunch of kids boasting about the size of their private parts in the schoolyard?

BTW, "piss their pants,..." was sarcasm. Many people use it. Perhaps learning how to recognize it might help?

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Do you read what you write?

"nobody will ever interfere with their "God Given" right to have as many assault substitute penises as possible"

You are clearly framing that in the negative. Why? Who cares. One? Care. Two? Care a little. More than two, who cares? Why does that make them more dangerous/problematic than a person with 1-2? They still can only use one at a time, realistically. I mean, one could be a jackass and hold two AR's at once, single-handing each one, and hit pretty much nothing as a result, sure. Three? Four? Fifty? Now you're just giving them incentive to barricade themselves in-place with their horde, and SWAT knows how to deal with that.

"BTW, "piss their pants,..." was sarcasm. Many people use it. Perhaps learning how to recognize it might help?"

Oh no you don't. You were talking about being disarmed and having their weapon used against them. Stats now, or admit you're just furthering a bullshit meme to try and belittle people, essentially an invalid rhetorical noise. Remember, you said:

"Statistically, I know that it is much more likely that a gun will wind up being used on it's owner when they lose their nerve, piss in their pants and have the gun taken from them."

You seemed pretty clear there. Please proceed to defend your claim of what you 'know'.

It may have helped your critique if you'd actually read my post.

So, now that we've dealt with that, what made you think I didn't read your post?

My issue was with the gun nuts who have their Rambo fantasies

.
Defined how? As an atheist, I have no need or appreciation for 'god given rights', but I do have multiple firearms classified by certain arbitrary rules issued by Congress as 'assault weapons'. Do I have a 'Rambo fantasy?' (I don't even like the movies.)

Are you saying that Wayne LaPierre is right with his "good guy with a gun" nonsense? Do you actually believe that more guns is the answer to gun violence?

In the abstract, a police officer responding to a shooting or any other physical violence, is a 'good guy with a gun', yes or no?

I don't know how you quantify 'more guns', the market is pretty saturated, and most guns sold these days go to people who already own one or more guns, so 'more guns' doesn't really increase the 'good guy with a gun' quotient. But then again, I never said the NRA knew what the fuck it was talking about. I suppose one could interpret that as an encouragement for gun owners to carry, rather than more people to buy guns they don't carry. But that's investing a level of intelligence in the NRA that may not be warranted.

Would you feel comfortable taking your family into a store or restaurant where a bunch of open carry ammosexuals were congregating while they compared guns like a bunch of kids boasting about the size of their private parts in the schoolyard?

I don't mind people open carrying. Perfectly legal. 'Comparing' them implies handling the weapons, and that would put me off, since that increases the odds of an accident happening. (Military recruiters, and people off-duty on base aren't unarmed for no particular reason, they are unarmed because the risk of accidental discharge (negligent discharge) is MUCH higher than their chance of being subjected to enemy attack.

Handling the firearms also potentially moves the needle from open carry, to the legal interpretation of 'brandishing', as the definition requires a judgment call, and someone sweeping a barrel across a room full of people could cross that threshold.

[beevul]

8. "When I pointed out that the NRA solution to gun violence is always more guns..."

When I pointed out that the NRA solution to gun violence is always more guns...

I don't suppose you've given any thought to this fact:

We as a society, have decided that whenever there is active gun violence, that the default and standard response, is to send people with guns to deal with it.

Its pretty hard to lay that at the feet of the nra.

[MarianJack]

16. So the NRAhas nothing to do with the more guns nonsense?

Please!

[beevul]

17. Way not to address anything I said.

Gee, I wonder why.

So the NRAhas nothing to do with the more guns nonsense?

Feel free to list the surely numerous examples of people that wouldn't have bought gun, but were coerced into it by the nra.

[MarianJack]

23. Coerced, no,...

...but does the NRA fan the flames of the "more & more guns" mania? YES!

[beevul]

25. Look in the mirror.

If you think the nra has more to do with people buying guns, than the public suggestion of 'strict gun control', I got some oceanfront property in the AZ to sell you.

[MarianJack]

26. At what point did I say anything about strict gun control?

Had you actually read my post, you might have seen that at one time I owned 3 guns.

Your NRA defenses are getting annoying, so go away!

[beevul]

27. At what point did I claim you did?

At what point did I say anything about strict gun control?

At what point did I claim you did?

Your NRA defenses are getting annoying, so go away!

Defending objective fact and reality is "nra defense"?

No wonder the modern day gun control movement is a caricature of the one legged fella in an ass kicking contest.

[MarianJack]

28. I know how to take care of this exchange

[beevul]

29. Feel free to alert if you think I'm breaking TOS. N/T

[DonP]

34. Nah! The Gun Controllers last refuge - "Ignore" anyone that makes you look silly

[ileus]

9. You don't need a class III weapon to go to the store...those are for family fun time at the range.

For trips to "town" something as little as a LCP will do.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. Since your house has never been broken in to all those other people must be doing something wrong.

But if, Heaven forbid, someone ever does break-in when you call 911 will you be asking for the unarmed police to come to your house and should they come with all haste or at their convenience?

[MarianJack]

18. Police are SUPPOSED to be armed.

I live in a sleepy little rural town in Maine which is NOT a hotbed of urban violence. I'm speaking of MY experience, not others!

[clffrdjk]

41. Why exactly do you trust the police?

What have they done recently to prove to you that they should be the only ones trusted with guns?

[MarianJack]

47. This is getting boring!

Again, had you read my post, you'd have seen that I said NOTHING about only cops being armed. I DID say that I have no problem with RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.

AS the father of an African American teen son, my trust in police these days is pretty damned minimal. My trust in open carry gun nuts is less. I don't want them in my house or around my family. I don't want their "protection". I will not stay in a store or restaurant that allow them to congregate with their assault rifles.

My uncle taught me about guns & shooting LONG before I ever owned one. One of his first lessons was to never be too eafer to fire it. This from a man who was top sergeant of his outfit in WWII & landed on Normandy.

But I guess he misguided me, right?

[clffrdjk]

50. Do you argue with yourself often?

What the hell does your grandfather have to do with this and why would you think I would call your very limited presentation of him wrong?

You posted in capital bold letters that police were supposed to have guns, implying that the rest of us are not.

Hey do you know where the next "assault rifle" congregation at a restaurant is going to be, I think burgers and machine guns would be a pretty fun time.

As for reading your original post, I stopped wasting my time when I saw you started with a stream of insults.

[MarianJack]

51. I said uncle, not grandfather.

Again, this is getting boring, and I know how to handle this exchange!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. Okay, so you claim to speak for your experience but you insult everyone who doesn't

share your experience or values.

Police are SUPPOSED to be armed.

And why are they supposed to be armed? Because they come in contact with dangerous criminals. But you seem to forget this little fact --

The reason why they are being summoned is because citizens has already come in contact with the very same dangerous criminals. Yet, the Controllers demand the citizens be rendered defenseless by exertion of the armed police. So now the citizen has two sets of armed goons working against them.

Meanwhile, in Maine --

Brittany Irish, on Wednesday, July 14th, was kidnapped, assaulted and raped by a man in northern Maine. She escaped and informed police as to what happened. She presses criminal charges alleging the same against the man who did those things.

Maine State Police don’t apprehend him. Instead, they call him up on the phone and inform him that criminal charges have been filed.

What does he do? He goes to the woman’s mother’s home and burns her barn down. Maine State Police arrive and tell the mother they can’t help her and they won’t post a trooper on the residence to protect her even though ALL SIGNS were there that an attack was imminent.

Brittany Irish and her boyfriend, Kyle Hewett, arrive at her mother’s house to see if she’s alright. They stay the night. The next morning, July 17th, at approximately 5:15 am, the alleged rapist and kidnapper blows open the door of the house with a stolen firearm. Kyle, Brittany’s boyfriend and father to their children, is shot down in cold blood trying to get his family to safety.

Brittany Irish is shot in the arm and kidnapped a second time.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/07/daniel-zimmerman/this-is-why-we-carry-maine-police-stand-by-during-murders-arson/

This horror unfolded over the course of two days and not once did the police put in an appearance or seek to apprehend the suspect.

911 is a joke, as the song goes.

And before anyone lights off with the usual "That's a gunner site!" nonsense, every statement is sourced to local media.

When seconds count the police will get around to you some day.

[MarianJack]

69. Wow!

I guess I better run out and get me an assault rifle. I can NEVER be safe otherwise!

I'm so glad to be the beneficiary of your knowledge that EVERY gun owner is responsible, safe and trained!

Again, I know how to deal with this exchange also!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. "I guess I better run out and get me an assault rifle."

You? No. Some people are better off unarmed; particularly those who tend to hold others in derisive contempt. You keep acting as if your life is the archetype for all others. You make a pretense of acknowledging others but, again, you keep referring to yourself the focus of your arguments. You don't get to decide for those who choose to exercise their rights -- and yes, self defense is a right.

I'm so glad to be the beneficiary of your knowledge that EVERY gun owner is responsible, safe and trained!

I made no such claim. What does your psychology training say about people who fabricate arguments out of whole cloth in order to make themselves appear to win a point of debate that was never broached?

I would never assert all gun owners are safe all the time. The fact that some people abuse a right does not nullify the rights of others. Abuse does not abolish the use, as the Latins used to say.

[beergood]

96. agree

Last edited Sat Aug 1, 2015, 06:18 AM - Edit history (2)

"The fact that some people abuse a right does not nullify the rights of others. Abuse does not abolish the use, as the Latins used to say."

trans-phobic people always use the argument that if they allowed trans people to use the facilities they felt most comfortable with (IE: a trans women to use the women's restroom}, it would allow perverts to use those same facilities.

which is bullshit.

i hope that made sense. feel free to correct if i used any improper terms.

[pablo_marmol]

98. Not just a strawman - a PATHETIC one. Congrats!! NT

[gejohnston]

11. god given doesn't have shit to do with Jesus

because the concept of natural or god given rights were created by Deists.
Offended? No. Amused by your irrational rant.

[MarianJack]

19. Irrational to say bI don't want "protection"...

...from a gun nut who quite possibly has no idea of how to actually use his gun? OK, irrational I will be happy to be!

Are you telling me that you've never heard RWNJ gun nuts refer to their rights as "God given"? You don't recognize "WWJS" as sarcasm?

Please!

[gejohnston]

40. the name calling and the baseless assumptions

is irrational.

...from a gun nut who quite possibly has no idea of how to actually use his gun? OK, irrational I will be happy to be!

But you have no idea. You simply assumed based on your own prejudices. It is entirely possible, pretty likely really, that he is as well trained or better than the average cop.

Are you telling me that you've never heard RWNJ gun nuts refer to their rights as "God given"? You don't recognize "WWJS" as sarcasm?

I've heard that from gun rights advocates across the spectrum. Chances are they actually paid attention during civics and history classes instead of skipping school and getting stoned.

[MarianJack]

49. Gee,...

...I guess that the "A"s that I got in EVERY History class I ever took from grade school to grad school didn't count since I'm not bowing at the alter in the church of the divine firearm?

Thanks for letting me know!

[gejohnston]

52. maybe the didn't teach the Enlightenment

where you went to school. The concept of natural rights from the creator goes beyond guns. It is the very basis of liberalism How did you do in civics?

You said you live in Maine?
http://www.wlbz2.com/story/news/local/2015/07/22/brittany-irish-state-police-didnt-do-enough-to-prevent-northern-maine-shooting/30513301/

[MarianJack]

53. "A"s also

This is getting really boring.

[gejohnston]

54. yes, and I am brain surgeon and

rocket scientist too. They based the TV show Doogie Howser on my childhood.

[MarianJack]

57. So basically what you're saying is...

...that I don't know my own grades from school and that "more guns" is a foundation of Liberal thought.

You've moved beyond boring in your NRA/gun apologist arguments. So, not for the first time in this thread, I know how to handle this nonsensical exchange. Bye!

[gejohnston]

60. not what I'm saying at all.

I'm sure you know your grades. Given the quality of your writing and argument, I would say they graded on a very generous curve.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. So you got high marks for repeating what was told to you.

So?

[ileus]

12. If your friend isn't inside your home when someone breaks in it's probably too late any way.

[MarianJack]

20. True!

PEACE!

[AtheistCrusader]

33. So, if you're 900 yards away from me, and someone is trying to do you great bodily harm*

you prefer I just call the cops and wait then? Just curious. Because I could totally help you, right then and there. Well, at 900 yards, 2,510 ft/s, ok, help would be 1.001 seconds away. Just observe and report? It's your life, after all, not mine.

*Sounds like you're in a different state, but I imagine you have some local equivalent of great bodily harm like http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16&full=true#9A.16.050

[MarianJack]

48. I don't care what you'd do if I'm in great danger.

Someone who breaks into my home would have to dig the baseball bat out of his ass before he got too much older.

[MarianJack]

21. Had you READ the beginning of my post,...

...you might have seen that at one time I owned 3 guns. The reason I got rid of them was because they made the woman to whom I've been married to for almost 17 years uncomfortable and she meant more to me than the guns!

This does NOT indicate an irrational fear of guns!

Regarding wife vs. gun, have you ever tried to make love to a gun?

[beevul]

22. You ever try to defend yourself using a wife? N/T

[MarianJack]

24. She's tougher than I am!

I'll settle for the baseball bat that I have.

[spin]

31. I would suggest you get a Maglight. ...

February 2012
The 5 Best Improvised Weapons in the World

***snip***

2. A Maglight Torch

My Maglight torch is an excellent, solid impact weapon with bonus light that can be used tactically as well. I have had one for years and it will always feature in my home defence strategy.

Benefits:

Solid weight
Good to use as an impact weapon
Very Strong
Used for offense and defence/blocking
Common household item in event of blackouts etc.
At night, can turn light on in attackers face for further effect, even set up a strike
Excellent for home invasion situations
Offers some range beyond unarmed
Good for striking weapons or weapon bearing arms/hands
Lots of systems that formally teach stick of similar length so can gain proficiency
Can be used to provide light when it is dark out
http://www.lowtechcombat.com/2012/01/5-best-improvised-weapons-in-world.html

If you ever have a home intruder you can blind him for a few seconds when you point the flashlight at his face and then whack him with the flashlight. The Maglight has some distinct advantages over a baseball bat for home defense. I also have one in my car. I never had to use it for self defense but it has come in handy a number of times.

You can buy a 4 D cell Maglight from Amazon for just over $20.
http://www.amazon.com/Instruments-Maglite-4-Cell-Flashlight-Black/dp/B00002N6SI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1438107046&sr=8-2&keywords=maglight

[AtheistCrusader]

32. More useful than a can of beans or a bicycle tyre..

[oneshooter]

35. Lets start here "A recent gun nut talking point." and travel the road you just opened.

" right wing gun nut ammosexuals "

"assault substitute penises"

"gun nut"

"Statistically, I know that it is much more likely that a gun will wind up being used on it's owner when they lose their nerve, piss in their pants and have the gun taken from them. I also know that a gun owner is much more likely to shoot himself or an innocent person because they have NO IDEA of how to use a gun properly because the extent of their training consisted of watching Lethal Weapon movies while they masturbated. "

"Rambo wannabe junior Yosemite Sams "

"people who believe that they need an assault rifle to buy a cheeseburger or to pick up milk bread & the Enquirer at the supermarket."

So you do not deny the insults, and yes, you are a hoplophobe.

[MarianJack]

42. Funny,...

...since it was YOU who called ME a name.

You stated that I, who have owned and shot guns in my life, have an "irrational" fear of guns.

I referred to these open carry people who feel a need to take their assault rifles to McDonalds, noy to YOU or any member of DU!

I didn't know that DU was a forum where we must respect the type of people who brought guns to Presidential town halls.

I guess I should be singing "All Hail the wonderful NRA, who does nothing but positive and good things in American society".

[Eleanors38]

72. That's alright, Marian, we know how AlertGame2.2 plays: One way. Nt

[MarianJack]

74. I haven't alerted on anyone in this thread

However, I have put 5 people on ignore. In 12 years on this site I've ignored 6 people. Since yesterday, that's grown to 11...Yikes!

PEACE!

[blueridge3210]

81. Strange.

You post your locked thread here (GD does not allow gun threads and this is posted in the rules); you run into people who actually know something about guns and make a point to block people who make arguments you cannot counter. Fascinating.

[MarianJack]

86. Oh, this is getting SO boring!

Had you actually read my post, you'd have seen that I've owned 3 guns in my life. I had extensive training in guns & shooting from my WWII combat veteran uncle long before I ever owned a gun. This might denote a knowledge of guns to anyone who doesn't count gun knowledge as the act of genuflecting at the alter of the church of the holy firearm.

You may also have seen that I don't have any problem with RESPONSIBLE gun ownership and that my problem is with those who feel the need to carry their assault rifles with them.

Apparently I'm supposed to accept the "guidance" of the multiple gun/NRA apologists who've attempted to hijack this thread...yawn.

BTW, I DID counter the arguments. The people who've gone to ignore have displayed a level of petulance and childishness that is unacceptable to me, frequently taking the form of personal insults. Personal insults, in my book are the equivalent of a concession of the argument. I insulted the generic gun nuts. Some of the now ignored individuals insulted me. I have no intention of accepting that.

If assumptions about me are all you have to bring to the table, than go away!

[blueridge3210]

87. So Boring!

That you keep coming back over and over to tell people how bored you are and that you are putting them on ignore?

This after you posted a gun thread in GD which is a violation of the TOS and so the thread was locked.

I'm not going anywhere, Sparky. You can keep putting anyone who disagrees with you on Ignore and, thereby, conceding any argument. Your choice.

[MarianJack]

89. Not conceeding,...

...just getting rid of childish and insulting people.

Oh, in 12 years of membership to this site, this was maybe the third locked thread ever. I guess that I'm not as perfect as allof the gun lovers.

It gets boring dealing with people who go to the level of second grade schoolyard chants to advance their positions.

Adios,

Sparky

[blueridge3210]

90. Well,

Bye!

[Duckhunter935]

91. wonder what my insult is?

pointing out the fact that some are hypocrites (never said the poster was) and that the poster refuses to recognize that fact?

[blueridge3210]

92. For the "Factose Intolerent"

the truth is often regarded as an "insult" not to be tolerated; thus the "ignore" response.

[beevul]

101. 'Do you see what I see? Truth is an offense...'

This speaks VOLUMES about the other side in this debate.

[Oneka]

93. You have mentioned several times in this thread that...

"I don't have any problem with RESPONSIBLE gun ownership and that my problem is with those who feel the need to carry their assault rifles with them."

Is it your opinion that the two are mutually exclusive?

It has been my experience that both conditions often apply to the same person at once.
If you see someone open carrying how can you tell that they are not responsible?

[Fred Sanders]

36. Marian, I salute you. Your defence of logic and facts against the tide of distortion and lies is

exactly what the gun nuts fear.....the same irrefutable reasoning that took down the Dixie Swastika against all odds. All of a sudden taken to the ground, in a flash of national enlightenment. Taking down the NRA can happen that fast, just needing that one last microgram of irrefutable argument and evidence that is put on the scales of justice and breaks the back of all the lies in an instant.

Did you know the NRA HQ display of the second amendment leaves out the "A well regulated militia being necessary....."?

The gun nuts even lie to their own faces, just look at the lies written in stone at the sacred Ground Zero of gun nuts.......and still they call it truth.

Irrational, unreasonable, untruthful - all the while guarding over this ridiculous 320 million strong weapons horde of mass destruction .......long past time to melt them down.

Thanks again, Marian, it makes a difference.

[AllFieldsRequired]

39. Hey, well said. And to Marian, good on you to say things that need to be said.

[MarianJack]

44. Thanks, AllFieldsRequired!

PEACE!

[Lizzie Poppet]

61. Like penis references, straw men, and ridicule?

Yeah, that was some top-shelf "logic" right there...

[Duckhunter935]

63. well some just have to be childish

in there arguments. The hypocrisy is astounding as those same people are the ones that will howl the loudest if a derogatory comment was made towards a female using the same sexual resferences.

[MarianJack]

43. Thanks, Fred Sanders!

It amazes me how many NRA/gun apologists have invaded this thread!

PEACE!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. Fred, you don't even have the intestinal fortitude to view opposing opinions. How

do you pretend to be some valiant crusader for gun control who is willing to see the contest through to the end?

[MicaelS]

37. What the FUCK is it with the Penis slurs?

Constant slurs about penis size, sexual ability, sexual performance, wanting to have sex with guns, confusing guns with sex, etc, etc, etc.

The penis / sex slurs against men are are really popular here, not just in this area, and god, the hypocrisy. If someone here said something similar about some woman's sex life, or breast size, or genitalia, the reaction would be thermonuclear.

[MarianJack]

45. Psychologists & Psychiatrists have been...

...using phallic symbolism about guns for decades!

[Duckhunter935]

55. and that makes it right

and accepted here on DU? If the same things were said about female parts, I can see some very loud cries for banning that member. Oh the hypocrisy.

[MarianJack]

58. Apparently from some of the other responses to this thread,...

Last edited Wed Jul 29, 2015, 06:12 AM - Edit history (1)

...gun/NRA apologist arguments are A-OK.

[Duckhunter935]

62. so you think it is OK to make fun of

males? I bet you would be one of the loudest if that was done to a female, right?

[MarianJack]

75. Had you read my post,...

...you might have noticed that I was making fun of gun nuts, not men.

[Duckhunter935]

76. But using male sexual insults

Ok, I understand. Have great day.

[MarianJack]

77. I guess I'm just a shameful person

Go away!

[Duckhunter935]

79. I never said that

But I think you are better than allowing male insults to be posted without challenge. You can agree with the opinion piece but disagree with the tone and insults used. I hope you see this but I feet you will not.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. Considering some of us RKBA supporters are women -- yes, it is very shameful conduct.

I doubt you would have the backbone outside the internet to yell penis references at women who choose to exercise their RKBA rights and if someone did they would quickly become a pariah.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

67. "Psychologists & Psychiatrists have been using phallic symbolism about guns for decades!"

Needs more exclamation point. Everyone knows the exclamation point proves just how right you really are. For someone who allegedly has a graduate degree your writing style is very sophomoric. Or maybe it's just grad school graduates. We have an on-again, off-again visitor who claims to be a professor of "calculuz" at a university. He too employs a very pedestrian, vulgar -- juvenile -- writing style with no ability to provide any citations for any of his wild claims.

[MarianJack]

70. Master of Science, Villanova University, 1983

If you hadn't noticed, my post was an OPINION piece, which has been hijacked by gun apologists to an obscene degree!

OOOPS, an exclamation point. I guess my whole point goes out the window.

[Duckhunter935]

78. Sorry it is pointed out in your thread

How many sexually referenced insults can be put out on DU and that is fine as long as they are using the male as the joke or insult. You are fine with that as you double down on it. The hypocrisy is stunning on DU at times. Sorry you put people on ignore you do not agree with but it is your choice and that is unlike how I handle them. I have nobody on ignore as I prefer to debate and see the many insults directed at me.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. Wow. You've been out of grad school longer than I've been alive.

And yet it falls to me to present the mature, reasoned side of the debate.

[stone space]

94. Maybe professors don't want guns in their claculus classrooms.

We have an on-again, off-again visitor who claims to be a professor of "calculuz" at a university.

Have you ever considered that?

It's not an unreasonable position for a professor to take.

Education is difficult in a hostile environment.

And guns in classrooms create a very hostile environment.

Maybe your problem is with education itself?

[Lurks Often]

97. It should be up to the state legislature and university administrators to decide, not you

Professors shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose who is allowed in their classrooms.

Or do we really want to set some legal precedent that allows professors to discriminate against certain types of people?

[stone space]

103. What's wrong with professors not wanting guns in their classes? (nt)

[Straw Man]

104. They can "want" whatever they like.

What's wrong with professors not wanting guns in their classes?

What they can't do is ban a legal activity in their classrooms based on their own personal prejudices.

[stone space]

108. Guns are banned in my calculus classrooms.

What they can't do is ban a legal activity in their classrooms based on their own personal prejudices.

You can "want" whatever you like.

But you can't bring guns into my calculus classroom.

If your guns feel discriminated against, tough shit.

I don't care if your guns get their little feelings hurt.

[Lurks Often]

110. How about you explain how you are going to prevent guns from being in your classroom?

You've been asked this simple question numerous times, but never answered it.

Because if the legislature and the university administrators decide to allow guns on campus and in classrooms, you will have no say in what goes on.

[stone space]

111. Look, bring your guns to any classroom here, and you're going to jail.

Is that understood?

How about you explain how you are going to prevent guns from being in your classroom?

What part of "no" do you not understand?

[DonP]

114. Several threads now "Mr. Calculuz" - how would you know if it's concealed?

And if it is legal in your state, as it eventually likely will be, what are you going to do about it, file a false police report?

Pat down every student as they enter?

Install metal detectors?

You are as funny.

You actually seemed surprised when nobody agreed with you in GD on the Drone shooting. In fact, most of the responses ridiculed your point of view.

Maybe you are on the wrong website?

Well, it's time for you to run away again, the same old difficult questions are starting to come up.

[stone space]

116. No "if"s about it. Try it and you're going to jail. It really is that simple.

What is it about some folks that make it so hard for them to understand the meaning of the word "no"?

You can't bring guns into my classrooms.

If you try, you are going to jail.

End of discussion.

[DonP]

117. Boy, I just realized, change one or two words and you sound way too much like George Wallace

Maybe you'll "stand in the school house door" to stop those people with guns you don't want around you?

I doubt it though. In fact there's a lot about you most of us doubt.

If the law changes, wherever you think are you are, you are really up shit creek.

[Lurks Often]

115. The question is about what YOU will do if the law changes

If the law changes and guns are allowed on campus and in classrooms will YOU obey the law?

[sarisataka]

121. What will the charge be?

Assuming there any law prohibiting guns on campus is rescinded?

[stone space]

129. When you ASSume, be prepared to go to jail.

Being an ASS won't get you off the hook if you try to threaten a classroom shooting by bringing a gun to class.

Keep your filthy guns out of my classroom, or be prepared for the consequences.

Are we clear, now?

I'm not playing games here.

You WILL go to jail, stupid ASSumptions or not.

[blueridge3210]

130. *Yawn*

Stay classy.

[stone space]

131. We aren't required to "stay classy" when a gunman enters our classroom.

If I spot a gun in my classroom, class will be canceled immediately, and law enforcement will be notified about the gunman.

The building is likely to be on lockdown, with all classes taking place in that building canceled.

Guns and education don't mix.

[blueridge3210]

132. *Yawn*

We're not in your classroom, Sparky. We're on a discussion board and you're hurling insults again. Business as usual.

[DonP]

140. Boy, he's a tough one in his imaginary classroom

Calling the cops for guns he can't see and demanding they be charged with "something or other" to prove he means business.

I bet the imaginary department head will love the conversations with the local constabulary over his repeated false alarm calls over permit holding adults.

What a lovely fantasy world he lives in, where he is all powerful.

After months he still can't answer a straightforward simple question without throwing up his Calculuz Credentials, in more ways than one.

I still think he sounds increasingly strident, like George Wallace insisting he doesn't want those (Gun owning) people in his classroom.

[sarisataka]

147. I am glad

Our Professor is so staunchly anti-gun. He clearly does not have to demeanor necessary to responsibly handle firearms.

[sarisataka]

139. Let me put it mathematically

Given that carry on campus is legal
and
Given that a person has their gun properly secured in a holster

Prove therefore they WILL go to jail

You must show your work for full credit.

[stone space]

141. Keep imagining that you have been given privileges you don't have.

That's a good way to end up in jail.

Look, let's just be clear about something, shall we?

I will not allow guns in my classroom.

That would pose a danger to my students and myself.

It would be unethical and unprofessional for me to do otherwise.

It just won't happen.

Are we clear now?

[sarisataka]

142. The university sets the policy

If they allow you to prohibit items in your class such as cell phones, newspapers, guns then you may have a no guns policy.

If they do not delegate that authority then you may not keep guns out anymore than you can keep cell phones out.

In either case no one will go to jail because no law is being broken.

Are we clear now?

[stone space]

143. No guns in my calculus classroom.

Try it and you'll end up in jail.

What part of "NO!" don't you understand?

It's ZERO TOLLERANCE here.

Are we clear, now?

[sarisataka]

144. I would think a mathematician

would know proof by assertion is a fallacy. I hope you don't let your students get away with that.

You are an at will employee so you can quit in protest. It will not matter however, how much you stamp your feet and hold your breath you cannot have someone jailed if they have broken no law.

Why is that so unclear?

[stone space]

145. Keep your fucking guns out of my classroom.

I'm not asking you.

I'm telling you.

[sarisataka]

146. There's a little

spittle at the corner of your mouth.

You might want to wipe it off.

[branford]

149. I'm not a calculus professor, but I am a practicing litigation attorney.

If your institution permits guns on campus, whether due to state law or individual campus policy, and professors have not been delegated the express discretion to prohibit them in their individual classrooms, so long as students obey the institution's rules concerning such firearms (e.g., concealed carry, etc.), you may not prohibit them from your classroom or otherwise sanction such students.

Any attempt to do so would subject you to serious discipline up to and including termination, and the institution to significant civil liability for various causes of action, potentially ranging from breach of contract to common law and statutory civil rights claims. Tenure would not protect you, since breaching an institution's explicit policies, no less state law, would be justified discipline for cause. Hating or fearing guns would not be a viable, legally-recognized defense. Refusing to teach your assigned classes due to a campus firearms policy or because a student carried a firearm in accordance with institution rules in your classroom would similarly subject to you disciple without any tenure protection.

If you believe a student is a danger to himself or others, you are free to complain to the university, but you will need to make good-faith individualized showing, and the lawful ownership of a legal and approved firearm (whether inside of your classroom or not) alone would most certainly not provide such a basis. Any clearly unsubstantiated, retaliatory or politically motivated complaint could, however, subject you to discipline and personal civil liability, including defamation and privacy claims.

If firearms become permitted where you teach, I earnestly suggest you seek experienced legal counsel before you do or say anything foolish, intimidating or unlawful to any students or the administration, and least if you wish to remain a professor and not spend even more on legal fees defending lawsuits and satisfying judgments in favor of gun owners. Do not presume your beliefs concerning firearms will necessarily trump institution policy or state law.


Edit: I wanted to add that any personal attempts to ascertain whether students are carrying weapons, such as involuntarily touching or frisking them or searching their belongings, or attempts to physically prevent them from entering the classroom, will not only almost certainly subject you to discipline and civil liability, but could also expose you to criminal charges. Students would also not be required to answer any personal questions concerning firearms ownership or possession, and could not be subjected to retaliation from you for noncompliance.

[stone space]

157. I don't take legal advice from internet lawers who don't know the laws in my state.

And I will continue to disallow guns in my calculus classroom.

Your advice is irrelevant and totally useless to me.

I hope that your clients in real life find your advice more relevant than I do.

[branford]

159. Did you read my whole post?

There is no "firearm conscience exception" to state laws that permit guns on campus, unless such laws explicitly allows professors discretion in their individual classrooms. To date, this has not been the trend.

In any event, if any guns on campus laws are passed in your state or your institution permits firearms as a matter of policy, I explicitly recommended you seek your own local competent counsel on the matter. I'm not providing you with specific legal advice (I don't even know you), only making general observations that are obvious even to most obstinate laymen. Your failure to seek (and follow) legal advice might have serious and lasting repercussions.

Think carefully before you let you gun control opinions destroy your career or risk financial ruin.

[stone space]

161. I read it, and discarded it.

Think carefully before you let you gun control opinions destroy your career or risk financial ruin.

You will not intimidate me into silence.

I don't understand why you are doing this.

Do you seriously expect to be able to silence my opinions over the internet based on some internet lawyering.

Don't tell me how to voice my opinions.

[branford]

162. Intimidate? Silence? What the heck are you talking about?

I suggested you seek the counsel of your own chosen attorney before acting against a state law or campus policy because you may disagree with them in order to avoid discipline, lawsuits or criminal charges.

I hope you don't learn the lessons of arrogance and hubris from a judge, jury or human resources officer with a letter of termination.

[sarisataka]

163. Our professor should visit

the English department- or maybe psychology

per·se·cu·tion com·plex
noun
an irrational and obsessive feeling or fear that one is the object of collective hostility or ill-treatment on the part of others.

[stone space]

165. "Think carefully before you let you gun control opinions destroy your career or risk financial ruin"

What law are you accusing me of violating?

It must be a pretty damn serious law, given your oh-so-serious legal warnings about the horrendous consequences of voicing my opinions.

[Lurks Often]

148. You need to talk to a lawyer about the law and your lack of authority

The legislature and the university set law and policy, not you.
The legislature and the university will decide if guns are allowed on campus and classrooms, not you
If the legislature and the university change the law and the policy and DO allow guns on campus and in classrooms, you will have to obey the law.

You will have NO legal authority to prevent it and any attempt to prevent people carrying a firearm in accordance with the law will result in:
YOU getting arrested
YOU losing your job
YOU getting sued in court and YOU owing the plaintiff money.

Your inability to recognize that you DO NOT decide what the law is or that you don't even understand the law, strongly suggests that it will be you that is taken away in handcuffs in the back of a police car if you fail to obey the laws that the legislature of your state pass.

[stone space]

150. All you have is threats and intimidation.

It's hardly surprising that you support Zimmerman's murder of Trayvon Martin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1164428

I will not allow you, your friend George Zimmerman, or anybody else for that matter, to bring guns into my calculus classroom.

Is that clear?

[Lurks Often]

152. I've made no threats or tried to intimidate anyone

as usual you resort to lying and misrepresenting what other people have said, something that has gotten you banned from posting on more then one occasion here, as well as on Discussionist and apparently you're banned at Daily Kos as well for the same behavior.

As for Zimmerman, I've never meant him and I mostly think he was an idiot. But unlike YOU, I followed the trial and I understand the laws governing self defense and when it is justified, something you have REPEATEDLY proven that you don't understand.

Despite repeated attempts, you have NEVER explained exactly how you plan on keeping guns out of your classroom if the legislature and the university change the law and policy to allow firearms on campus.

Why are you unable to answer that question? How are you going to prevent it?

[stone space]

153. Are you a stalker?

something that has gotten you banned from posting on more then one occasion here, as well as on Discussionist and apparently you're banned at Daily Kos as well for the same behavior.

This is a bizarre comment to read on DU.

[Lurks Often]

173. Are you afraid or incapable of answering direct questions?

Despite repeated attempts, you have NEVER explained exactly how you plan on keeping guns out of your classroom if the legislature and the university change the law and policy to allow firearms on campus.

Why are you unable to answer that question? How are you going to prevent it?


As for the rest, just posting what I and others have seen about you Stone space/Cilantro

[gejohnston]

155. How much do you agree with Massad Ayoob?

He said Zimmerman was stupid for getting out of the car for obvious reasons. No, he doesn't strike me as being very bright either.

[Lurks Often]

175. Both Zimmerman and Martin made poor choices that night

Yes, Zimmerman was an idiot for getting out of the car and for wandering away from his car on a dark, rainy night. However nothing Zimmerman did that night was illegal or reached the threshold of what would legally be considered reckless.

Equally, nothing Martin did that night was illegal or reached the threshold of what would legally be considered reckless prior to him striking Zimmerman, knocking him down and then repeatedly hitting his head against the pavement.

[gejohnston]

185. moral of the story

the best answer to "which way is he going" is "send the cops to find out for themselves."
When driving at night and in the rain, I concentrate on the road in front of me. Chances are, I would miss a wet tee shirt contest, let alone a guy in dark clothing. I wonder about his driving record.

[branford]

156. What the heck does George Zimmerman have to do with your purported

authority to ban guns from your classroom if they are expressly permitted by state law and/or university policy?

If guns are allowed on your campus, you are free to ban them in your classroom. As a result, the administration is similarly free to terminate your employment, regardless of any tenure, and because of such intentional breach of state law or institution policy, choose not to defend or indemnify you in the resulting civil litigation, and depending on how badly may handle a student or observer trying to enforce his or her rights, criminal charges.

Your personal opinions concerning firearms will not override state law or campus policy.

Is that clear?

[stone space]

158. I have already pointed that out several times, now.

you are free to ban them in your classroom.

But it's a fact that seems to upset some folks.

[branford]

160. You really are not listening at all!

You can do whatever you want, but you are not immune to the consequences.

Read my whole post again, slowly and carefully.

If you fail to follow a state law or explicit campus policy, you can be terminated, potentially sued, and if your refusal is particularly hamfisted, criminally charged. You might not have to worry about guns in your classroom, because you will no longer have a classroom.

Your opinions about guns will not change the requirements of state laws or campus rules.

[stone space]

164. What law are you accusing me of violating?

You can do whatever you want, but you are not immune to the consequences.

If you fail to follow a state law or explicit campus policy, you can be terminated, potentially sued, and if your refusal is particularly hamfisted, criminally charged. You might not have to worry about guns in your classroom, because you will no longer have a classroom.

You don't strike me as a very good lawyer, if this is how you treat your clients.

You yourself finally admitted that I am free to ban guns in my classroom.

And I will continue to do so, with or without your approval.

[Straw Man]

166. Do you understand the meaning of the word "if"?

You yourself finally admitted that I am free to ban guns in my classroom.

And I will continue to do so, with or without your approval.

Actually, you're not free to ban anything. You are constrained to comply with federal, state, and municipal law, as well as college policy, whatever that may be. If the laws and policies happen to accord with your wishes, as in your case they do, then lucky you. If they don't, then tough shit. But absolutely none of it is in your unilateral power.

Can you say "delusions of grandeur"? I knew that you could.

[Lizzie Poppet]

171. He's not accusing you of violating any law. RIF

This is truly comedy-tier incomprehension (and some spectacularly dysfunctional critical thinking).

As has been pointed out (repeatedly and in simple terms), you may be free to ban guns in your classroom (in the sense that a person is "free" to violate any policy), but you are not free from the consequences if that ban is contrary to school policy, the law, or the valid orders of your superiors.

Also, you do realize there have probably been many, many guns in your classroom over the years, regardless of your wishes, right?

[Straw Man]

122. If your state allowed concealed carry on campus ...

... you would be violating the law by banning carry in your classroom, just as you would be violating the law by banning any other legal and non-disruptive activity -- and concealed carry IS non-disruptive: make no mistake about that. In fact, the only way you could effectively ban it would be by frisking students entering your classroom or making them go through a metal detector, two activities that would be EXTREMELY disruptive to the classroom atmosphere.

[stone space]

107. Guns are not people, Mitt.

Or do we really want to set some legal precedent that allows professors to discriminate against certain types of people?

[Lurks Often]

109. Way to miss the point, AGAIN

You've made it quite clear, repeatedly, that you are perfectly willing, even eager to discriminate against people who own guns

[stone space]

112. You see not allowing guns in classroom as discrimination.

You've made it quite clear, repeatedly, that you are perfectly willing, even eager to discriminate against people who own guns

That's a bizarre right wing view.

[Lurks Often]

113. As usual you lie and misrepresent what people post

We'll try again: You've made it quite clear, repeatedly, that you are perfectly willing, even eager to discriminate against PEOPLE who own guns


Here is the bottom line. If the legislature and the university administrators decide to allow firearms on campus and in classrooms, you will comply or risk being fired and/or personally sued in court for failing to obey the law. And you will LOSE the lawsuit.

[stone space]

118. Oh, so now you're going to get me fired from my job?

Here is the bottom line. If the legislature and the university administrators decide to allow firearms on campus and in classrooms, you will comply or risk being fired and/or personally sued in court for failing to obey the law. And you will LOSE the lawsuit.

Seriously?

Just because your guns got their delicate little fee-fees hurt?

Sorry, but there will be no guns in my classroom.

We'll try again: You've made it quite clear, repeatedly, that you are perfectly willing, even eager to discriminate against PEOPLE who own guns

Guns are not people.

Please understand this.

You may think that you were born with a gun in your hand, but you weren't.

[Duckhunter935]

119. Bet there have been several guns

in your classroom already, as well as knives, pepper spray, alcohol, pot and other illegal drugs not to mention the prescription drugs that are abused.

And he never said he would get you fired so you just posted another untruth. H stated if you broke the laws and policies and discriminated over a legal practice, you would be sued and lose and would lose your job as a result.

[Lurks Often]

120. No, you will get yourself fired for failing to obey the law

if the law is changed to allow firearms on campus and in classrooms. You will have NO legal authority to prevent it from happening.

As usual, you deliberately choose to lie and misrepresent what people say. One would have thought that your repeated time outs for precisely this behavior would have taught you a lesson.

[Duckhunter935]

123. You would think the time outs would help

but I guess not in all cases sadly.

[stone space]

154. A Zimmerman supporter is going to lecture me on the law? Seriously?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1164428

[Lurks Often]

172. Someone has to educate you on the law, your posts show you don't understand anything about the law.

[stone space]

174. Let me educate you. Your support for Zimmerman is support for murder.

Someone has to educate you on the law, your posts show you don't understand anything about the law.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1164428

[Lurks Often]

176. More lies from you and proof you don't understand the law

[stone space]

177. No lies here. Your support for Zimmerman is support for murder.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1164428

[stone space]

179. #BLACKLIVESMATTER!!!!!!!!!

Zimmerman's shooting of Martin was a legitimate self defense shooting

[Lurks Often]

182. Why can't you answer simple questions Stone Space/Cilantro?

Despite repeated attempts, you have NEVER explained exactly how you plan on keeping guns out of your classroom if the
legislature and the university change the law and policy to allow firearms on campus.

Why are you unable to answer that question? How are you going to prevent it? Why are you scared to answer this question?

Is it perhaps, deep down, you actually recognize you CAN'T prevent people from carrying guns into your classroom if the legislature and the university change the law and the policy? Is it perhaps that you realize all your tough talk is meaningless?

[stone space]

184. You're a Zimmerman supporter with a Lucky Gunner Complex. (nt)

[Duckhunter935]

180. to bad the LAW said he was not guilty

murder. As he did not meet the criteria of murder as found by a jury of his peers.

Why do you insist on posting thing that are not true?

[stone space]

181. #BLACKLIVESMATTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

to bad the LAW said he was not guilty murder. As he did not meet the criteria of murder as found by a jury of his peers.

Why do you insist on posting thing that are not true?

[Duckhunter935]

183. yes they do

[Eleanors38]

73. Yeah, esp. For the women, some 18,000,000 of 'em.

[Kang Colby]

56. Yawn...

Notice how the controller arguments these days simply amount to name calling and emotional pleas riddled with half truths, thinly veiled lies, and outright dishonesty. However, their arguments mean nothing. Years ago, firearm enthusiasts and sportsmen/women might have had something to worry about....but now gun control is a resolved issue. Gun owners won.

Sure, the NRA membership is strong. However, the Bloomberg organizations and Brady Campaign combined can't even rival the membership of GOA alone in total numbers. GOA makes NRA look like another Bloomberg org by way of political comparison.

For the first time in history Americans are radically changing their views on gun ownership and self defense. Female gun ownership is up nearly 300% in recent years. Women will ultimately vote against what they see as an attempt to leave them and their families defenseless.

There are well over 300 million guns in civilian hands alone in this country, compounding at a rate of nearly 10% per year. At that rate, we will have 600 million firearms in civilian circulation within seven years.

Advances in 3D printers, dedicated CNC mills, and other technologies will greatly lower the LOE associated with the home based manufacture of firearms and magazines in the coming months and years.

The general public does not give a crap about gun control, D list celebrities have more Facebook "likes" than MDA and the other Bloomberg groups....think about that for a minute. Nationally the side of civil rights needs to push for a piece by piece dismantling of the Brady Act, GCA, and NFA. The only compromise that needs to be made is which law to start chipping away at first.

2015 was a good year....and freedom marches on. Here is a list of a few gun rights accomplishments this year: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/20/a-survey-of-legislative-action-on-second-amendment-issues-in-2015/

[MarianJack]

59. So again...

...the solution to gun violence is to throw more guns at the problem.

And I'm lying when I express my desire for gun nuts to stay away from my family and I?

Yes, yawn...the NRA/gun apologists ARE getting to be VERY boring!

[Fred Sanders]

68. Marian, note the passive-aggressive voice and the "more guns" is the solution. Always the same.

If you respond to any of these gun folks, who protest too muchthat they are NOT NRA aficionados....the passive part gets dropped and the aggressive part gets triggered faster than a bullet tearing through flesh.

Supporting all the positions of the NRA - but they definitely hate the NRA like any true liberal, they insist!

It is good fun to see the twists and turns made to escape that logical embrace.

Also mention how the Dixie Swastika came down in a sudden flash of mass national sanity, that really must be frightening to the NRA and their friends at DU.

[MarianJack]

71. It's like arguing with teabaggers

All they do is keep repeating the same BS talking points over and over.

It reminds me of the playing chess with a pigeon analogy. No matter how well you play, the pigeon is going to knock over all the pieces, crap on the board and strut in triumph. I've put more people on ignore in this thread than I have in 12 years of membership to this site...Yikes!

PEACE!

[Duckhunter935]

80. That's unfortunate

Now you insult DU members that do not agree with you as "teabaggers". Truly sad in my opinion.

[pablo_marmol]

100. "It's like arguing with teabaggers."

Yet it's The Controllers who are oblivious to existing gun laws, the manner in which the gun violence rate has dropped since '93, ballistics, basic firearm characteristics/function, the fact that many highly credentialed liberal criminologists oppose their pridefully ignorant views, etc.

Talk about projection! It would be hysterical if the political cost wasn't so f'n devastating!

[MarianJack]

102. So, once again...

...the answer to all of the gun violence in this country is to throw more guns at the problem.

Maybe they could've saved the Titanic by cutting out the section of the hull that had the hole in it, too?

What amazes me is how the gun/NRA apologists in this thread are so intent on THEIR gun rights, but so offended by MY right to not have them around my family. with the idea that I will be converted to the church of the holy firearm and run to the gun shop the next day to get a trusty assault rifle of my own.

I'm not interested in having someone charging to my rescue

These guns, Guns, GUNS rationalizations are getting to be SO boring.

[Straw Man]

105. Nope.

So, once again...

...the answer to all of the gun violence in this country is to throw more guns at the problem.

As Straw Man, I recognize one of my kin there. Nobody here is saying that but you.

What amazes me is how the gun/NRA apologists in this thread are so intent on THEIR gun rights, but so offended by MY right to not have them around my family.

Could you show me where the latter right is to be found in our legal system? I ask because I've never heard of it. The criminal code ostensibly protects you from criminal violence, but not from being in the presence of firearms.

[MarianJack]

124. There has been a lot of the baloney...

...notion in the responses to this thread that guns have nothing to do with gun violence. BS!

So I guess I'll just have to suck it up 7 learn to like all of these open carry nuts who feel the need to carry their assault weapons anywhere they want to go. Again, BS.

This veneration of the church of the holy firearm in this thread is getting to be SOOO boring!

[Straw Man]

127. Another straw man.

There has been a lot of the baloney...

...notion in the responses to this thread that guns have nothing to do with gun violence. BS!

Where was this said? I haven't seen it.

So I guess I'll just have to suck it up 7 learn to like all of these open carry nuts who feel the need to carry their assault weapons anywhere they want to go. Again, BS.

This veneration of the church of the holy firearm in this thread is getting to be SOOO boring!

Your discourse might benefit from less repetition of your favorite "B" words: baloney, BS, and boring.

[MarianJack]

134. Implication...

...look it up.

"Baloney", "BS" & "Boring". Sorry it bothers you, but I call'em like I see'em. What I am not going to do is let the gun worshipers to dictate my rhetorical style in expressing my opinion while they retain the right to express themselves in any was they see fit.

Sorry if it bothers you (well, not really), but baloney, BS & SOOO long past boring.

[Straw Man]

136. I know what "implication" means.

What it doesn't mean is "the right to misrepresent others people's opinions and publicly put words in their mouths."

My suggestion was aimed at helping you avoid a rhetorical style that is repetitive and juvenile. Feel free to carry on in whatever style suits you.

[pablo_marmol]

106. You just destroyed what little cred you had by stuffing words in my mouth.

Point to anything suggesting "more guns" in my post.

[MarianJack]

125. Again, BS

Had you read my response, I said nothing about you.

Had you read many of the other responses in this thread, you'd have seen that that is the exact implication of the gun worshpers.

I didn't try to stuff words into your mouth, but many of the gun worshipers have stuffed enough into my mouth that my mouth is starting to feel like Jenna Bush's after a college frat kegger.

Again, SOOO boring.

[pablo_marmol]

128. You want real BS - check your post #59 in response to #56.

The member simply stated that the public wasn't buying into your belief system -- as evidenced by the rise in female gun ownership, gun sales in general, and a long list legislative victories for gun rights. From that you dishonestly reported his position as the SOOOO boring "gunz for everyone" strawman.

Meanwhile, you're so utterly uneducated that you're unaware that liberal criminologists James Wright, Peter Rossi and Gary Kleck all started their criminology careers assuming a relationship (as you do) between the raw numbers of guns in the country and gun violence. All three -- and many others -- have reversed their positions as they actually studied the evidence. But facts like these don't matter to you. You know better. The arrogance astonishes!

Absolutely nothing you have posted has produced a hint that you've done the slightest bit of honest research on the subject of gun violence. Yet you have the audacity to slur fellow Democrats, and show not the slightest ability to confront your own biases.

You're right......you didn't try to stuff words into my mouth - but by virtue of the fact that you failed to address any of the points I had made I felt compelled to conclude that I was being lumped into your "gun-humping" "NRA-loving" crowd.

You really make me laugh when you order gun owners who you believe "are desperate to protect you and your family" to stay away from your family. As if gun owners give a crap about you! Additionally, you lack the education to realize that the large numbers of families who are armed are IN FACT protecting those who aren't - since in the majority of cases criminals can't be sure of who is armed and who is not. In the UK, "hot" burglaries, or burglaries where the residents are in the dwelling at the time of the break-in are four times higher that in the U.S. Why? Because the criminal knows that there's little chance he'll be looking down the barrel of a gun -- not so in the U.S.

As Kang Colby stated --- "gun control" is done. Put a fork in it. You can kick and scream about it all you want, slur honest fellow Democrats all you want while misrepresenting their positions. Nobody really cares about your tantrums.

Edited to add: Why don't you show the courage of your convictions and write Charles E. Cobb Jr. a letter informing him that he's an "NRA apologist". (Author of This Nonviolent Stuff'l Get You Killed - How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible)

http://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/0465033105/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438414690&sr=1-1&keywords=this+nonviolent+stuff%27ll+get+you+killed

[MarianJack]

133. Are you honestly trying to perport...

...that the gun apologists in this thread are not avoiding the role of guns in gun violence?

When I say "baloney" & "BS", it's because I consider what is being said to be baloney & BS. However, apparently the gun worshipers believe that any type of rhetorical tool is AOK for them but I MUST follow strict guidelines that THEY want me to follow. Again, baloney & BS.

I didn't say that gun owners are desperate to protect my family. I was responding to a recent gun lover theme that they would be happy to not use their guns to protect my family. I don't want them to.

However, I apparently forget that NOTHING negative could POSSIBLY happen because all gun owners are completely responsible and would NEVER so anything stupid or dangerous that would endanger the public. Foolish me

You may not like the way I express my OPINION, but I frankly don't care about the rantings of those who worship at the alter of the holy firearm. YES, that has gotten to be SOOO boring!

[Duckhunter935]

135. simple question

do you think the majority of the almost 90 million firearms owners are responsible and should not be considered a threat?

[pablo_marmol]

137. Silly question IN THE EXTREME!

Are you honestly trying to perport that the gun apologists in this thread are not avoiding the role of guns in gun violence?

Obviously guns are involved in gun violence. Just like knives are involved in knife mayhem, and blunt objects are involved in blunt object mayhem. What's your point?!

As educated citizens know, a very small number of citizens own a very large percentage of the wealth in this country. Likewise, a very small percentage (criminals) commit a very large percentage of violent crime. Further, we commit more murders with instruments other than guns in this country. Where's the outrage over that fact? Rhetorical question -- given that there there isn't any, it's obvious that what The Controllers are interested in IS NOT violence control, but rather culture war.

You may not like the way I express my OPINION, but I frankly don't care about the rantings of those who worship at the alter of the holy firearm. YES, that has gotten to be SOOO boring!

Yet in never crosses your mind that the reason the people responding to your OP aren't worried in the least about their gun rights, or "gun worship", but that they are sincerely vexed at the political damage caused by the pridefully ignorant, dishonest culture war our party is waging against gun owners? Quite honestly, I don't give 1/3 of a rat's backside whether or not a willfully ignorant person is bored by a particular conversation.

[MarianJack]

138. Boring again and...

...I'm long past done with you.

Bye!

[jimmy the one]

83. better sit down, kang

kang: Female gun ownership is up nearly 300% in recent years. Women will ultimately vote against what they see as an attempt to leave them and their families defenseless.

Ultimately? I think maybe 80 - 90% of females do NOT own any guns. What kind of argument you make, kang? other than lying by statistics.

kang: There are well over 300 million guns in civilian hands alone in this country..

Well the ratio of guns per existing gun owner has gone from about 4.5 to over 6, iow most all of those new guns are going to existing gun owners to supplement their arsenals.
{On EDIT: Obviously I wrote this wrong, or there would be nearly 500 million guns, rather than the approximated 280 - 300 millions; It is rather that, iirc: Of those gun owners owning more than 2 firearms (or 3?), their ratio of guns has risen from approx. 4.5 to over 6. This would be qualified by say 30% of gun owners owning more than 2 or 3 guns: (~25 million x 6 = 150 million guns, plus remaining ~55 million gun owners x 2 = 110 million guns, for grand total 110 = 150 = 260 million guns, more or less. Mea culpa.}
More importantly, gun ownership has been declining since the early 1990's, by about 25%:

gallup & gss, & pew by affidavit, agree that gun ownership rates declined about 30% from the period ~1992 thru 2000 (the Clinton years), the very years the most dramatic decline in violent crime rate occurred (dropping ~35%).
That is a correlation between ~30% dropping gun ownership rates, with ~35% dropping violent crime rate.



The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our {PEW} surveys largely confirm the {GSS} General Social Survey trend.
In our Dec1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home.
A Jan2013 Pew survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of {GSS}. http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/ --- pg4;

[Kang Colby]

88. Giddy up!

Did you forget to crop out the Gallup poll? Back in the real world, CCW and purchase permits (in the few states that require one) are going through the roof. I guess all the seasoned gun collectors are just getting around to their first purchase permit. Right.....

With that said, I think most gun control advocates are fundamentally kind hearted people, who are simply looking for a policy lever to reduce violence, suicide, and negligent injuries and or death. I want those things too, however my argument is that there are much more effective methods for reducing violent crime and suicide. Education, health care, living wages, combating poverty, and treating drug "crimes" as a matter of public health policy vs. fueling a violent "drug war", are more effective areas of policy focus in reducing violent crime and suicide.

When you do a deep dive on the UNODC, FBI UCRs, and Census Crime Rates data, you quickly realize that there are many other variables with a stronger correlation to crime, murder, and suicide than firearm ownership. I think gun control advocates are looking for the easy "policy lever" but down deep inside I'm sure they too question the efficacy of additional gun control within the United States.

[stone space]

95. "the side of civil rights"

Nationally the side of civil rights needs to push for a piece by piece dismantling of the Brady Act, GCA, and NFA.

[Fred Sanders]

126. The logical failure of the gun lovers is legendary. Always the solution to so many guns is more guns.

Now we have one, maybe same as another one or two, that just gave up the argument of MORE GUNS and is turning to the last ditch and equally illogical "there is nothing we can do" in the infamous passive-aggressive voice....I think we gun haters are making progress!

[MarianJack]

168. Some of the responses to this thread...

...have been SO ridiculous.

In 12 years here, I'd put a total of 6 people on ignore. In the last 72 hours, in this thread alone, I've ignored another 9, all very apparent disciples if the church of the sacred firearm...Yikes!

Sometimes you just have to say no more BS!

PEACE!

[Fred Sanders]

169. I have 39 on Full Ignore...35 are gun lovers....and counting...debating idiots is a waste of time,

there is nothing I want to hear from a brainwashed and propaganda carrying member of the NRA.

Not a thing.

Full Ignore is there for a reason, and we have both found the reason.

You have done a valuable service by getting them to post all their nonsense in GD for all to see and gawk over as they rarely come up from the Gungeon to spread their inanity elsewhere.

[MarianJack]

170. For gun worshipers,...

...guns ARE their religion.

WWJS, Who would Jesus shoot?

PEACE!

[Ilsa]

151. I have a friend who said

Her son is wondering if he should buy a gun because so many people are armed now. I explained to her that him having it would increase the chances that he or someone in their home could accidentally be shot. She certainly doesn't want him armed, but these NRA asses are pushing people to be afraid and take action they normally would not.

[MarianJack]

167. All fear, all the time!

PEACE!