The hijacking of the word "extremists" as it relates to supporters of gun rights.

[beevul]

Lets talk about it.

I see that word - "extremist" used by "pro control" posters, on a regular basis. The people that use it generally use it as a smear.

Take the following for example:

"...the gun extremists are incapable of treating decent pro-gun control supporters with a modicum of respect. Instead they're told that they're against freedom, for the harm of innocents, and morally baseless all because they don't believe people should have 30 round magazines, .50 cal sniper rifles, and the right to carry handguns in schools. Those are the facts. I think that statistic also says a lot about how voluminous of a wart the extremists there are and they don't just stay in the Gungeon. Whenever the topic pops up in GD or LBN they come marching out. The reality here is that there is a Democratic Party position on this issue and it's not the extremist faux-libertarian position. Democrats favor gun control, period."

The implication there, is that anyone that disagrees with bans on 50 caliber rifles or 30 round magazines, or believes that adults of legal age authorized by government - such as teachers - should be allowed to carry them in a school as well - is an extremist.


The honest and even handed way of applying the word of course, would be to those who would "ban then all" work to or intend to "ban them all" actually or effectively. And to those who want absolutely no gun laws or would work to eliminate them all.

Those who have frequented this forum for any length of time on both sides, know which of those two types are encountered more often.

The "ban them all" types.

In spite of that, the "extremist" label gets applied to those on the pro-gun side that are by no means "extremists" in the honest sense of the word, and its way past getting old.

How is this right, proper, or honest?


Discuss.

[Meiko]

1. It is not right, proper or honest but that has nothing to do with it.

Let us not forget where we are. DU is a site formed by Democrats for Democrats and they make no apologies for it, if you are not a hard core Democrat you don't belong here. If you don't follow the mindset then post elsewhere. I have seen members with very high post counts get the ban hammer because they didn't agree with party line for whatever reason.

I have been a Democrat all of my adult life and for the most part I agree with the mindset that permeates DU, the one area I don't agree with is gun control and the second amendment. So be it. Quite frankly I am very surprised that this group is even allowed to exist, it is not well liked. For whatever reason Skinner and the rest of the bosses have decided that this group should be allowed to operate and for that I am very grateful. We are actually allowed a lot of leeway in our discussions and some of them really push the envelope. I am not sure what the stats look like but I am sure we get alerted on quite a bit and if the group were allowed to decide I don't believe we would be here at all, at least not in our current form.

In exchange for our existence we put up with some nonsense, being called gun nuts for example.Most members who don't agree with our beliefs on gun control simply ignore us, some come in and argue with us and others are just plain mean spirited about it, one was recently banned. Personally I could care less. Sometimes you just have to suck it up. I am a Democrat and a gun owner. I am grateful for DU and this group. As long as we remember that it is DU and play by the rules we should be OK. DU is a good place and has sound leadership and a lot of really good folks and that's what really matters.

[Kaleva]

10. +1

[Starboard Tack]

17. +1. Well said.

[dmallind]

19. Except the party line (platform) supports RKBA

it is the banners who are straying from the official stance of the Democratic party.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

20. Thank You.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. excuse me, what do you mean by this phrase:

...if the group were allowed to decide I don't believe we would be here at all, ...

what do you mean by the group?

On DU2 every poll that I ever saw posted in GD showed overwhelming support for gun owners. Few people venture in here because of the inflammatory rhetoric and IT IS NOT THEIR PET ISSUE. They are to busy advancing their own issue elsewhere on this site.

also, I think the Admin know very well why this group is here. it is a money maker for them. Lets face it this place is their career and they have famlies to support.

Democrats own guns and we want to elect Democrats and Democrats in rural, red areas of this country know this.

[Meiko]

27. The majority of DUer's

I get the impression from reading around the place that we are not well like and most would like to see us gone. I could be misreading it, it wouldn't be the first time.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

33. I think you are mistaking a very vocal Few for a more silent majority. All the polls I ever saw at

DU2 resulted in a huge majority of DUers very much in favor of 2A.

[Confusious]

2. I never post in this group

But I see wanting guns in church, schools and bars as extremist. Permeating every nook and cranny you can find in the United States with guns, that's extremist.

You want to protect your home, that's fine.

A lot of countries do just fine without the country being the wild west. Others don't do so good with it being the wild west.

[beevul]

3. And thats the predominant characterization.

But it must be pointed out, that by these standards, people that want to be lawfully allowed to carry in church, people of legal age that want to be lawfully allowed to carry in college, and people who want to be lawfully allowed to carry to a restrant or other establishment which serves alcohol - provided they themselves do not consume any...


AND

people that want no gun laws at all...


AND EVERYONE IN BETWEEN...


Are considered extremists.


That alone, should be enough to give one pause, and possibly cause one to reconsider how one might apply that label, and to who, and why.

Its kinda like I said in another thread - to some folks, just about anyone short of those that capitulate on every gun control desire, is an "extremist".

[Meiko]

13. If I could I would like to point out

that a large proportion of DU posters are extremists, It would be hard to deny. Just their totally unwarranted hatred of guns and gun owners is a bit extreme, wouldn't you agree. But this mindset is one of the things that makes DU what it is,extreme.

[Starboard Tack]

18. Now I disagree with you

The large proportion of DU posters are not extremists. In fact your statement is a contradiction in terms. Those who want to ban all guns are extremists. Those who carry guns to church and school and everywhere they legally can are extremists. The majority fall in the middle somewhere. I have no recollection of anyone here advocating a ban on all firearms, but there are many extremists on the other end of the spectrum. Some of these guys are way out there. You will find very few DUers who object to all gun ownership, as you will find very few who condone indiscriminate concealed carry.
The OP is one of our more extreme members and his bullshit post is designed to inflame.

[beevul]

22. Oh really?

"Those who want to ban all guns are extremists."

They sure are.

"The majority fall in the middle somewhere."

The middle of what though?

Lets answer that, shall we, in your words and using your definitions:


"Those who carry guns to church and school and everywhere they legally can are extremists."

Mhmm. Not "those who want no gun laws are extremists".

And so we see how you pretend the other end of the scale is somewhere other than the other end of the scale.

Elegant proof of exactly what I'm talking about.

Thanks for providing it.


"The OP is one of our more extreme members and his bullshit post is designed to inflame."

No, the OP was designed to point out EXACTLY what you just helped to point out.

And as to me being one of the more extreme members...I don't own a centerfire rifle. I don't carry a gun, nor do I really desire to. I don't own any so called "assault weapons", nor do I really desire to. I own two inherited rimfire rifles, one bolt action rimfire rifle, and 1 handun, and haven't bought a gun in over ten years.

If I'm one of the more "extreme" members, so is just about every gun owner that posts here.

[Starboard Tack]

24. I have zero interest in how many guns you own or not

Your rhetoric places you at the extreme end of the conversation. Who cares about your inheritance or when you bought your last "handun".
No, there are several members who post here who carry on a regular basis and are way more moderate and reasonable than you. They share their thoughts in a rational, civilized manner, without the rabid hostility that you and a handful of other extremists engage in. It's probably due to a difference in maturity.

I must say, though, it is refreshing to know that you don't carry.

[beevul]

29. Cumpulsive toter ring a bell?

"They share their thoughts in a rational, civilized manner, without the rabid hostility that you and a handful of other extremists engage in. It's probably due to a difference in maturity."

Cumpulsive toter ring a bell?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=%22compulsive+toter%22&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&sa=Search%21&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en

And you have the nerve to complain about "rabid hostility"?

Perhaps you just don't like your definition of a "rational, civilized manner" turned back on you.

"moderate and reasonable"

Define "moderate and reasonable", in terms of policy support or nonsupport.

Without a definition, its just another baseless attempt at a smear.


I support:

Background checks at retail for purchase of firearms.

Prohibitions (of firearms) for violent criminals and mentally ill.

Prohibitions for people that abuse their spouses.


I do not support:


Bans on so called "assault weapons".

Bans on handguns.

Gun registries.

Thats an extremist position, now, is it?

[Starboard Tack]

32. Your extremism is in your inflammatory rhetoric.

As you point out, I have done the same in the past. You still do it. Not necessary.
I even stopped using the "t" word because I don't want to offend anyone here. I'm finding well reasoned, civil debate far more rewarding. Hell, I'm still maturing and hope to continue to as long as I'm around. No hard feelings. I'm sure you're a nice guy.

[beevul]

34. You're right, sometimes, I DO use inflamatory rhetoric.

Generally, not out of the blue or unprovoked, however, I wont sit here and claim I'm innocent. Then again, my rhetoric pales in comparison to another regular poster on your side of the issue, and so does everyone elses...

That poster is in a catagory by him/her self. Much like iverglas and mrbenchley before her, were.

But nobody in this forum is innocent. Not a single one of them. On either side.

The "t" word?

Not sure I follow you. Oh, toter? If thats what you mean, fair enough, however that word never bothered me much by itself.


Anyway...

Farther down this thread, this implication is made:

"And therein lies the extremism of the pro-gunners -- not just this OP, but I'd say about half of the pro-gun regulars. Gun extremists are people with absolutely no tolerance for any kind of gun control..."

Sure, those words are't specifically used, but the implication is clear as day - half of the regulars are "gun extremists".

In spite of the fact that not a single one of the regulars espouses anything resembling "no tolerance for any kind of gun control".

Not a single one.

Your thoughts on that?

On edit: Sometimes i'm a nice guy, and sometimes I'm an outright asshole: I'm human.

Likewise, no hard feelings.

[Starboard Tack]

54. No, I don't think half the pro-gunners here are extremists.

As I've said, I would estimate a handful at most. But that is also because the extremists don't usually last long, on either side. Those on what you describe as "my side" of the issue, I don't see any extremists, except in terms of rhetoric. I don't really feel that I'm on one side or the other, actually. I support gun ownership and I support the use of a gun for home defense. I have owned guns and have hunted some, though not for sport, but for vermin. I have always loved target shooting and used to shoot skeet competitively. If I or my family were to receive threats, I would seriously consider carrying a firearm. Permits are pointless.
What I oppose is routine carry, for no apparent reason, including cops carrying without good cause. I would prefer to live in a world where handguns and machine guns no longer existed, but that is not realistic. I dislike any kind of prohibitive legislation, when it comes to individual rights, but I do support gun free zones and local government rights to protect the public in the way they see fit. Public safety trumps individual rights.
I want to live in a healthy society, where people don't feel the need to walk around with loaded weapons. I hope that is what we all want. The question is "How do we get there?" Education, awareness, resistance to the fearmongering of special interest groups who profit from the peddling of fear. One thing is certain, we won't get there by putting more handguns on the street.

[Meiko]

28. I have read many times

that many prefer a total ban on firearms. The problem is most don't post here so it's hard to get a read.

[Starboard Tack]

30. Well, Meiko, it's here that we are talking about.

[ileus]

12. What about protecting your person? Or your family?

outside the home?

My life, and my loved ones lives aren't any less valuable outside our home.


Lucky thing for us we're not one of the wild west countries you speak of...

[Confusious]

26. Obviously you think we are

If you feel the need to carry a gun outside the home.

Or we will be if everyone carries a gun.

Which means my personal preference of not carrying a gun, nor every really needing one in 43 years, is a moot point.

Of course, there is the time that person who shouldn't have had a gun did have one, and shot me in my own home through the window. Now if I had owned a gun, and decided to shoot back, I probably would have faced charges myself, since I lived in an Apt complex and would have almost definitely hit someone else.

Part of the problem is the constant insistance of the gun lobby and gun owners to not have to register their firearms, nor close gun loopholes like the gun shows. That puts those guns out on the streets leading to shootings like mine. If you just had to register every firearm you wanted to carry and open to criminal charges if they were stolen, I would be OK with it. But you're not, so I ain't.

We need guns to keep our freedoms, they say. If the government every decides to take away your rights, what are a bunch of overweight guys with pea shooters going to do against tanks and drones?

[PavePusher]

43. "wanting guns in..."?

How about "pro-choice"?

[Confusious]

50. Terrible try at dressing the issue up,

it's still extremist bullshit.

A gun isn't an extension of your body, as much as you might think it is or need it to be.

[PavePusher]

56. Your attempt to ascribe a position to me that I do not hold...

is Teh Phale.

[Confusious]

58. Well maybe you should make yourself more clear

Hard to understand people when they mumble something about "pro choice."

makes one search for the usual talking points that fit.

If you'd like to make yourself more clear, please, feel free. Otherwise my last post stands.

[NewMoonTherian]

4. I'll own the term extremist.

If it would be fair to apply it to anyone on this board, I'm the one. Someone(for the life of me I can't remember who) liked to use the term "absolutist" and I adopted that too. I'm happy to be a human rights extremist, absolutist, whatever.

[Pholus]

5. Ahh, yes. There is only ONE "extremist" view, and it's the one you disagree with.

[beevul]

7. I am just pointing out...

I am just pointing out that there are some here that seem to catagorize and label as "extremists", people who are nowhere near the extremes on pro-rights end of the scale.


Is that right and proper in your book?


How can someone who is nowhere near the end of the scale be an extremist?

[Pholus]

9. Growing a thicker skin might help you.

Either that or go outside, breath in the nice summer air, feel the sun on your skin and forget about all this for a while. Take time for your hobbies or spend time with your kids. Try to make time for something positive in your life, rather than hanging around this group because you're getting emotional and taking it too personal right now.

Because if you're worried about name-calling you are DEFINTELY in the wrong place. Gun-grabbers or gun-huggers, everybody here merely wants to do some rhetorical smackdowns worthy of the ages. *Everybody* here thinks that they are right, the other side is wrong, that they have logic on their side and that some clever combination of words will magically "win" it all. You know, the classic definition of being DELUSIONAL.

So just take all this a bit less seriously and you'll be happier and live longer. Here's a hint: From your perspective, someone will ALWAYS be wrong on the internet. Wringing your hands about some perceived unfairness is a waste of time and worse than useless.

Nor does playing a victim card make you a winner.

Just some food for thought...

[beevul]

11. My skin is plenty thick.

Thick enough, in fact, that since I became a member of DU I have had a grand total of one person on ignore in the 8 or 9 years I've been here - Mrbenchley, and even then it was for a short time. I can tolerate just about anything. Of course, that doesn't mean I have to be silent about it. Pointing out the dishonest way that word "extremist" gets applied, doesn't mean I'm taking this personal. It means I see dishonesty coming from some of those folks on the other side of the issue, and I'm pointing it out. No more, no less.

As far as teh kids...the're grown and moved out...at least the two legged ones. The four legged ones...well...theyre usually on my lap while I post...at least one of them. Theres just no such thing as an empty nest, when you have pomeranians, and american eskimo dogs.

The victim card? LOL, no. We - those on the pro-gun side - are winning.

That doesn't mean taking our collective feet off their throats (figuratively speaking of course), and ignoring obvious dishonesty from some of the folks on the anti-gun/pro control side of the issue. On the other hand, I suppose the word could catch on, and be so deliberately abused equally by both sides, that it ceases to have any real meaning anymore when people use it.

Kind of like what happened with the words "terrorism", and "terrorist" - so used, abused, and misapplied, that theres just no telling whether theres any truth anymore, when they're applied.

[Pholus]

14. About imagery and questions being begged...

Can you explain to me how someone who internalizes the debate as having "feet on throats" EVEN in a figurative sense is NOT somehow an extremist?

[beevul]

23. Figures of speech now make one an extremist?

Here, I'll give you some examples of what I support, and what I don't, then you can re-evaluate your application of that word:

I support:

Background checks at retail for purchase of firearms.

Prohibitions (of firearms) for violent criminals and mentally ill.

Prohibitions for people that abuse their spouses.


I do not support:


Bans on so called "assault weapons".

Bans on handguns.

Gun registries.



Do I still get placed in the extremist camp in spite of those things, and if I do, does the word even have any real meaning anymore?

[Pholus]

35. Sorry you are indeed an extremist.

After all, according to many posters in this very forum I am an gun grabbing extremist for pretty much your position. Of course, I do add that I feel that gun owners should be required to carry additional liability insurance so that I am not forced to pay taxes (against my will) covering the societal costs involved when guns end up being used inappropriately. You might interpret that as a de facto gun registry so on that point we'd probably disagree.

[beevul]

36. Interesting.

I hadn't seen any regulars denouncing much of what I posted, in fact, most that i've seen want the same and a little more.

Everyone is an extremist I guess.

Lol.

[Pholus]

38. Seems to be, doesn't it.

Of course, that's because of the points covered in my second post in the thread...

[ileus]

6. Anyone dumb enough to own a gun is an extremist.

Don't forget;

you'll never get to use your firearm in self defense
you're 3000x more likely to shot yourself or someone you love with a gun
guns in the home kill people
guns outside the home kill people
we've outgrown the 2A by 200 years
women near guns are always in danger
water guns are hateful

this and that and go here for the truth, cross posted at banguns.com

[Gman]

8. Extremists never think they're extremists

And they lament that everyone is not as wise as them.

[Hoyt]

15. +1.

[Common Sense Party]

16. Spoken like a true anti-gun extremist.

[DanTex]

25. LOL

"Ban them all" is a pure strawman. None of the pro-control regulars that I know of think that all guns should be banned. In fact, I don't even know anyone who posts here who thinks all handguns should be banned. But even if they did, this wouldn't constitute "extremism" -- not on a Democratic website. A handgun ban is sort of the equivalent of single-payer healthcare -- it's to the left of what is politically achievable, and one can be a progressive and still think that this is not the right solution for the US, but it is a fact that several other developed nations have such a system in place and they all have much better results than the US does.

And therein lies the extremism of the pro-gunners -- not just this OP, but I'd say about half of the pro-gun regulars. Gun extremists are people with absolutely no tolerance for any kind of gun control -- who think that a ban on .50 cal rifles or 30-round magazines is "the first step towards confiscation" and the people who favor this kind of policy don't respect the constitution. People for whom the very thought of a handgun ban turns their face bright red and causes smoke to blow out of their ears.

And this is the reason that this OP, and so many other pro-gunners here, fail to distinguish between people who advocate for sane gun laws, and people who hate guns and want to "ban them all". For a gun extremist, there really is no difference, because any restrictions on gun rights are the work of evil prohibitionists who don't respect the constitution and are bigoted against white rural conservative males.

[beevul]

31. This, is exactly what I'm talking about.

"And therein lies the extremism of the pro-gunners -- not just this OP, but I'd say about half of the pro-gun regulars. Gun extremists are people with absolutely no tolerance for any kind of gun control -- who think that a ban on .50 cal rifles or 30-round magazines is "the first step towards confiscation" and the people who favor this kind of policy don't respect the constitution. People for whom the very thought of a handgun ban turns their face bright red and causes smoke to blow out of their ears."


"Absolutely no tolerance for any kind of gun control." Finally, a definition that we can refer to when the term is used.

I support:

Background checks at retail for purchase of firearms.

Prohibitions (of firearms) for violent criminals and mentally ill.

Prohibitions for people that abuse their spouses.


I do not support:


Bans on so called "assault weapons".

Bans on handguns.

Gun registries.

So I guess I'm not the extremist after all...of course one can only wonder who that word is meant to describe when its used, which brings me to this:


Half the regulars have no tolerance for any gun control? Of course, you didn't say exactly those words, but the implication is there.

Is this really what you believe, or are you just slinging mud?

[DanTex]

40. I stand by my last post entirely.

It's fine that you don't support a ban on assault weapons. I never said that anyone who opposes a ban on assault weapons is an extremist. A pro-gun extremist is someone who considers supporters of the assault weapons ban to be "anti-freedom" or "gun grabbers" or not respecting the constitution, etc.

In this forum, if you mention support for the assault weapons ban, you will be greeted by disdainful and disrespectful comments from a bunch of the pro-gun regulars. Those people, who can't even stomach the thought of a world without assault weapons, would be the pro-gun extremists.

[beevul]

49. I'm glad you do.

Do you remember saying this:

"Gun extremists are people with absolutely no tolerance for any kind of gun control -- who think that a ban on .50 cal rifles or 30-round magazines is "the first step towards confiscation" and the people who favor this kind of policy don't respect the constitution."

You got called on it, and by your own words, you stand by it "entirely".

Of course, there aren't any posters here, among the regulars that remotely fit that description, are there?

Not really, no.

So, even though you stand by it "entirely", you've got to try to change that definition if you really want to use the phrase broadly, right? To "stick it to" those of us you disagree with. And try to get people who might not have any idea either way, to buy it on your word.



Which brings us to this:

"A pro-gun extremist is someone who considers supporters of the assault weapons ban to be "anti-freedom" or "gun grabbers" or not respecting the constitution, etc."

Do you stand by them both?

"In this forum, if you mention support for the assault weapons ban, you will be greeted by disdainful and disrespectful comments from a bunch of the pro-gun regulars. Those people, who can't even stomach the thought of a world without assault weapons, would be the pro-gun extremists."

People who "can't even stomach the thought of a world without assault weapons", who are they? Have you seen any of them posting regular lately? Are they representative of any majority?

Or are they a caricature you've painted and hope to convince people that it fits any significant number of regulars in this forum?

Are they the same people who can't stand the idea, that people want to ban something simply because they don't like it or have been misled by someone who doesn't?

Tell me, is there any valid reason in your opinion, to oppose such a ban?

The goalpost moves like the one you gave a perfect example of above, are the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to reasons why people don't trust on this issue.

You, much like one or two of your most notorious colleagues on your side of the issue, don't seem interested in doing anything but putting your full effort behind painting a picture of the gun forum and the regular pro-gun posters that post here frequently, that is completely unrepresentative of fact, truth, or reality.

That doesn't help you with the trust issue either.

Does that matter to you, at all?

[DanTex]

51. And you are exactly what I am talking about!

The gungeon has many pro-gun extremists. You are a great example.

Not only do you come in with this OP tarring gun control advocates as wanting to "ban them all", but you're also one of the people who regularly pushes the loony Fast and Furious conspiracy theories. For a great example of a gun rights supporter who is not an extremist, see Kaleva's posts right below here.

[beevul]

55. Yes, you are talking, that for sure.

"The gungeon has many pro-gun extremists. You are a great example."

Wait...what happened to "I stand by my last post entirely", which was you referring to yourself saying this: "Gun extremists are people with absolutely no tolerance for any kind of gun control..."

I guess you don't stand by it after all, huh?

Or is it like I said - your standards change based on non-objective criteria.

Sure looks like they do, to these eyes (and I'm sure I'm not the only one).

"Not only do you come in with this OP tarring gun control advocates as wanting to "ban them all"

I never said nor implied in any way in the OP, that gun control advocates by and large want to "ban them all". Thats either baseless mudslinging on your part, or reading comprehension fail on your part, or both. The reader can make that decision for themselves, and decide how it speaks to your credibility.


And lastly, this little gem:

"you're also one of the people who regularly pushes the loony Fast and Furious conspiracy theories"

Feel free to cite any "loony conspiracy theories" that I've pushed - I'll wait right here.

Meanwhile, I've had this discussion with you in the past, or had you forgotten:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=7127

And lastly, do you have any idea where the whole "gunwalker" thing coming to light originated?


Nra? nope.

Right wing bloggers? Nope.

Pro-gun community? Nope.

It came from the ATF agents themselves:

http://cleanupatf.org/forums/index.php?/topic/153-atf-operation-gunrunnerfast-furiousphoenix-division/page__st__1100

From an atf agent posting under the name Doc Holliday, and a couple others.


Oh, and look at this:

Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.


ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.


On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:


"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

looks like ATF emails show that ATF used at the very least, SOME of the aftermath of fast and furious to *shock* do exactly what the ATF agents on cleanupatf.org said they wanted to do - support a demand letter for multiple gun sales.

I know, I should know better than to use fox CBS as a source, because they're just so right wing and everyone knows it...Just like those ATF agent whistleblowers.

[PavePusher]

57. Such fine dance moves you have...

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm

[Kaleva]

37. Such a view would be considered extremist on a Democratic website

Your comment:

"But even if they did, this wouldn't constitute "extremism" -- not on a Democratic website."

There is no evidence that suggests that there is more then a very small fraction of Democrats who support a total ban on all guns for civilians. Thus such a view would be considered to be extremist even within the confines of the Democratic Party.

[DanTex]

39. I was talking about a handgun ban, not a ban on all guns.

Please don't twist my words. I still have you down as one of the pro-gun people that can be reasoned with. But I was very clear about the difference between a handgun ban and "ban them all", and I don't see how you could have missed this.

The polls I've seen have a handgun ban at around 30%-35%. Single payer healthcare runs around 25%-30%. So if you define a handgun ban to be "extremism", you have to define single payer to be extremist as well. Good luck with that on DU. On a progressive/Democratic website, neither of those are extremist in any way.

[Kaleva]

41. Sorry. My mistake.

I don't think a ban on all handguns would be an extremist position here at DU but I also think DU in general is to the left of the Party rank and file. It certainly would be an extremist view amongst the Democrats where I live. Especially when one considers that the Dem candidate for Congress, Gary McDowell, highlights the fact he's a member of the NRA.

[DanTex]

42. Thanks. Yes, I agree, DU is to the left of the "average" Democrat.

I would imagine that Gary McDowell is not a fan of single payer healthcare either, and he might even be against Obamacare.

[gejohnston]

44. out of couriosity

what does single payer have to do with guns? Being an NRA member and supporting Obamacare are not mutually exclusive in themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McDowell
http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/37387/gary-mcdowell

[DanTex]

52. It's an analogy. I didn't say they were mutually exclusive.

Single payer and handgun ban have a lot in common:
1) They are only supported by about 30% of the population, meaning politically both are non-starters
2) Right-wingers would consider them "extremist" or "un-American", etc.
3) Several other developed nations have them, and the ones that do have better results in terms of health care delivery and gun violence, respectively

[gejohnston]

53. Most don't have total bans

and I seriously doubt the stricter laws have anything to do with their gun laws, mostly because little to nothing changed before and after the laws. There are also countries labeled as "highly developed" countries that have very poor results compared to us and other "very highly developed" countries. I have yet to see an adaquate explaination how the level of development is relevant (as opposed to income inequality, which I find more convincing)
Politically, I think simply lowering the age for medicare (and federally fund it across the board) would have been more of a starter than creating a complex system or having a committe some up with repackaged Nixoncare (which happened.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/

[Kaleva]

45. He's not against ObamaCare and he's very pro-union.

McDowell's already been endorsed by the AFL-CIO and I think the UAW too.

He's anti-NAFTA and he's vowed to fight any reduction of benefits in Social Security and Medicare.

Here's a link to his campaign website where he talks about where he stands on various issues. Other then guns, one may consider him to be a moderate to left of center Dem.

http://www.mcdowellforcongress.com/home/issues

I'm going off topic here but IMO, for the Dems to take back control of the House, candidates like McDowell are needed to run and win in Republican leaning districts. While one cannot count on their vote in attempting to pass stricter gun control laws, one can count on their vote on other very important issues.

[gejohnston]

46. not to mention this guy

who opposed the AWB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_DeFazio
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Peter_Defazio.htm#Gun_Control
www.ontheissues.org/House/Peter_Defazio.

[ellisonz]

47. +1

[Oneka]

48. In the last week alone,

I carried a pistol into a bar, my church, onto a college campus, and into a hospital. No one was shot, in fact no one in any of those places knew i was carrying a pistol. Am i an extremist? Who cares.

I think it's pain, that generates the labeling of pro gun folks, as extremists. Pain that they (advocates of more gun control) are on the losing side of this issue. Their sacred (gun control) cow is being butchered, as we speak, and it's finest cuts are being offered up, in sacrifice, on the table of political expediency. Most Democratic legislators, run from anti gun rights legislation ,knowing that having an anti-gun record is political poison.
Advocates of more gun control, are losing the battle in terms of individual rights, and electoral politics.

The pendulum has swung, and continues unabated, toward more individual rights for gun owners, and the advocates of more gun control, see, pro-gun democrats as a big part of the cause. They can expect a pro gun attitude from a right winger, or a tea party member, but from a fellow democrat? why that's just EXTREME, hence the name calling. EXTREMIST, GUN RELIGEONIST, RIGHT WING TEABAGGER, GUN NUT, COWBOY, HIDDEN CRIMINAL. Just a few of the names that pro gun DU members are shackled with, by advocates for more gun control. I have been told i have secret fantasies about killing unarmed, fleeing storm refugee's, shooting ten year old boys who lost their baseball in my backyard. I have been likened to a "ZIMMERMAN" for my beliefs on gun-rights, and self defense-rights. Does any of that matter? Not really.

Being called a few names in the short term, is not all that significant, when you look at the big picture, and see how the gun rights cause is advancing.

[needledriver]

59. In order to determine "extremists"

it is necessary to define the limits of the subject under discussion.

The extreme limits of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are:

1) Total and complete ban on private possession of any type of firearm.

2) Total, unregulated, and complete access, possession, and bearing of any type of firearm.

People who advocate for either of these positions are, by this definition, extremists.

In discussions in this group, I have not seen anyone advocate for option 2. I have seen people advocate for option 1. We have all read posts from people who drop by and state their heartfelt opposition to all guns, any guns, no matter what.

So, the only actual extremist position that gets any bandwidth on DU is a total ban. Every other position is a couple of clicks off of the extreme limit, which is why "hijacking" is an entirely appropriate descriptor for the term "extremists". When a sane and sober citizen is "extreme" for wanting to legally carry a concealed weapon as he goes about his normal business, the word is well and truly hijacked.