Brady bunch to crash Virginia Tech's April 16 memorial. How compassionate.

[SteveM]

http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=8093

Like vultures on a tree, the gun-controllers always swoop in on the latest tragedy with unseemly haste. One could get the impression that they are taking advantage of the situation with another aptly termed "Lie-in." Oh, but wait: They're compassionate.

Please note that Students for Concealed Carry on Campus has announced that they will not be taking any actions on that date, nor will they endorse any actions.

http://concealedcampus.org/

[villager]

1. the Virginia Tech tragedy of a year ago? There've been a lot of other mass shootings since then...

n/t

[coriolis]

2. It's a good thing schools are gun-free zones...or somebody could get shot in them.

:eyes:

[virginia mountainman]

12. I have long wanted to, when they have a lie-in demonstration...

To take a string of firecrackers....

And just see how fast those rethugs run...

[NewHampshireDem]

3. Rather misleading post title, considering the original

Gun control advocates planning to protest April 16 on Virginia Tech’s Drillfield said today that they hope to reach a compromise with the university that will allow them to protest without interfering with remembrance events.

Crash? Uh, no.

Memorial? Uh, no.

Oh, and it's not even the Brady folks:

But Hamm said decisions on how the protest would be carried out would be determined by the students, not the Brady Campaign or ProtestEasyGuns.com.

“It’s not for us to say what’s an acceptable resolution,” Hamm said. “It’s their protest.”

Both are from the original article: http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/breaking/wb/157443

[iverglas]

5. heh; bet you didn't notice

You're in the Guns forum now. The usual rules of civil, democratic discourse don't apply down here!

The mass murder of women at the Montreal Polytechnique and the more recent Dawson College shootings, here in Canada, are commonly commemorated with calls for better firearms control -- by surviving victims of the attacks and family and friends of those who didn't survive.

Maybe the family and friends of the victims at Virginia Tech are happy about people like the one who murdered them being able to get hold of firearms as easily as he did. Who knows?

[NewHampshireDem]

7. Yeah, I found it on the recent posts page ...

It caught my eye ... I didn't know what 'Brady bunch' was referring to. I did notice, though, when clicking the link that the Bitch Girls is very clearly a RW site ... first time I've seen a link to a RW site that didn't get slammed back into trolltown. Interesting what happens in the nooks and crannies of DU.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

13. yes, quite interesting

And when one points out the ... oddness ... of the links so regularly provided down here, some think it is the credibility of the source, i.e. as a reliable authority on some fact or other, that's being questioned ...

[SteveM]

8. As usual, a little projection by the siren of incivility, north of the border.

[SteveM]

6. Look more closely and you'll see it is not misleading...

"Remembrance events" is a rather fine distinction when compared with "memorial."

"Crash?" Yes, crash; specifically, taking advantage of a memorial to get media attention.

Brady Bunch. Yes. Peter Hamm is communications director for the Bradys. Further, meeting with a 32-member student group, then walking away from the whole thing ("It's not for us to say what's an acceptable resolution, it's their protest") is disingenuous to say the least, and sounds a little chicken. (Frankly, it sounds as if Hamm is feeling the heat and wants someone else to take the fall for this inconsiderate and insensitive act.)

[NewHampshireDem]

15. So the whole campus is off limits, then?

Casting the net rather wide. Let's say, hypothetically, that an event is taking place in the chapel. Would is be 'crashing' to hold a counter-event (I'm not going to even use the word 'protest' since lying on the ground is hardly the type of thing the word 'protest' implies) elsewhere on campus?

As for 'crash' ... well, that means something very specific in this case, doesn't it? It means to go into an event uninvited, and usually with the intention of disrupting it. You seem to be strain' to do some 'splainin' in order to justify the use of the word 'crash'.

And, sorry, but in my world, college students--even if they go to VA Tech--are capable of independent thought. Perhaps some of them are tired of having the tragedy on their campus used to promote even more guns on campus. IIRC, the bodies weren't even cold when the gun nuts began crying 'the gun laws are to blame for this.' (It may have even been as the event was unfolding--Debbie Schussle (sp?) maybe?)

BTW, before you try to label me: 1. not all gun owners are gun nuts and 2. I'll be heading to Sig Arms academy in the fall to do a shotgun home defense course.

[SteveM]

21. Who said the campus is off limits? You?...

Certainly, not I. The Bradys et al can have the demonstration if they want; and before you label me, the university is wrong in denying a permit or permission for a demonstration.

Frankly, "crash" may not be strong enough. This is a media event to gain attention at the expense of those who are still upset about last year's mass killing; in other words, they don't want to disrupt but take advantage.

Certainly, college students are capable of independent thought, in my and your world. But come now: Peter Hamm of the Bradys comes to town, meets with a small group, then clears out (figuratively speaking) so these students can have a "lie-in" on their own. BTW, students are also as subject to criticism as any other adult group.

You're time line may be different from mine, but no one is faster out of the "shoot" than the Bradys when it comes to a tragedy like this.

No one is labeling you and I respect the fact you are attending a home defense course. But when it comes to labels, "gun nut" seems to be thrown about liberally whenever one disagrees with gun issues.

[iverglas]

22. whose name is on the OP?

Who used the word "crash" to describe the holding of an event nowhere near the other event in question?

The other thing that has to be remembered by anyone just visiting here is that if something happened more than two minutes / two posts ago, it didn't happen.

[SteveM]

24. Follow the thread, dear. Maybe you're imagining again?

Why don't you find out what folks at VT think about the "lie-in?" Think they want it?

Note also that I think folks can have any kind of demonstration they want, even if they are crude and insensitive.

[NewHampshireDem]

25. Straying from the original point ...

Well, let's go back to the title on the OP: "Brady bunch to crash Virginia Tech's April 16 memorial."

As I read the article I linked to, no one is intending to be anywhere near the 'memorial' or 'remembrance events' or anything. They are planning their counter-event for the campus. My question is, then, how far does the 'memorial' extend physically that you can claim they are 'crashing' the event?

If your choice of word 'crash' is not good enough--and I suggest nothing about the quality, but something about the accuracy--then what word is good enough?

As for Peter Hamm's meeting, this is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc: you assume that Hamm invited himself, organized the event, then took off. May it also be possible that one of these savy, independent thinkers at VT contacted Hamm or his organization? Occam's Razor suggests that is more likely, otherwise we're left with a rather silly image: Hamm wandering around campus trolling for gullible saps to dupe into his nefarious scheme.

As for 'gun nut', I assume you and I would agree that there are extremists on either side of every issue.

But, let's get back to the real issue, not your deflection: the headline of your OP is intentionally misleading.

[SteveM]

46. Respectfully, I believe you are splitting hairs...

You are too attached to bricks and mortar. Folks at VT want to be left alone, yet they will have a group doing a die-in to take advantage of any "remembrance events." How far does the "'memorial' extend"? On the internet, on the news, around the world you will get: video of folks at a memorial, then video of folks doing guerrilla theater. Sounds like someone is gloaming on. I am prepared to substitute "taking political advantage" for "crash." Does that sound reasonable?

I assumed nothing about the sequence of Hamm's visitations; actually, you could be correct that students may have summoned Hamm. Students, "savy, independent thinkers" that they are, are not above taking political advantage of the moment. Lord knows, I have been in plenty of campus demonstrations where that took place regularly, and sometimes to detrimental effect. (How often did I and others have to experience an anti-war demonstration spoiled by a dozen or so black-clad, masked-faced members of the "People's Communist League against White Fascism" or some such, shuffling from stage left in front of the "regular folks" we were trying to reach?)

"Gun nut" is such a convenient term: when one disagrees with a strong 2A position, call 'em that. I call anti-2A extremists "gun-controllers" and "gun banners/prohibitionists" to reflect a measured description of just what they advocate, though in fact some are out-and-out "gun-grabbers."

Frankly, I don't think my headline was misleading. I'll let these "lie-in" activists argue whether or not they are making a fast and cheap political point.

[Tejas]

88. "crash" is actually rather mild compared

to the rhetoric the Brady Bunch spews given the opportunity. This includes Hamm, of which you have been enlightened is indeed part of that Fascist organization. They're nothing but ambulance-chasers, including Mr. Hamm, that wipe their butt with the Bill of Rights.

Heck, maybe "crashing" the memorial service will get VPC donations up, pitiful showing since their inception.......but that's a good thing.

[jody]

4. With SCOTUS poised to take RKBA off the table for the GE, Republican controlled Scary Brady Bunch &

NRA must get their act together to find ways to repackage the divisive RKBA issue and help Republicans win or steal another election.

If SCOTUS rules in D.C. v. Heller as most of us expect, then it's going to be interesting to see what dirty tricks the NRA & Scary Brady Bunch (SBB) will pull over the next few months because NRA & SBB ratings of candidates for House, Senate, and President won't matter.

:puke:

[iverglas]

10. ah, those Republican-controlleds

In this case, the name is Peter Hamm. I wonder whether he would be this Peter Hamm:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/mdelect/statewide/elect1025.htm

-- spokesperson for the campaign of the Democratic governor of Maryland back in 1998. When "gun interests" were apparently making large donations to his Republican opponent ...

[bossy22]

81. and your point is.........

every court has a bias of some sort

i wonder what the bias of the court was that passsed that (in my belief) "fake" decision in Roe V Wade

[iverglas]

84. no fight to start there

I think Roe v. Wade was an appalling decision.

It allowed for interferences in women's fundamental human rights without offering the most minimal justification for its decision.

Quite atrocious. Sure glad I don't have to live with it.

R. v. Morgentaler. Now there's a decision to live with. Not perfect, but not a problem in any way.

[virginia mountainman]

9. That has REALLY pissed me off...

Typical of Sara Brady's Republican ran 5th collum...Lie, Cheat, Steal, bully, that is their ways.

I won't take part in any "counter protest" out of respect, but these groups in question are proven liars, and have demonstrated a COMPLETE lack of respect in the past.

I have seen them in action first hand, and they are truly warped.

[SteveM]

14. Increasingly, they are becoming like PETA (nt)

[iverglas]

16. "out of respect"

I won't take part in any "counter protest" out of respect, but these groups in question are proven liars, and have demonstrated a COMPLETE lack of respect in the past.

Yes, a demonstration in favour of MORE GUNS! GUNS EVERYWHERE! A GUN IN EVERY POCKET! would be a little hard to make look respectful on a day like that then, wouldn't it?

Surely there must be a way, though. When yer on the side of the angels, it can't be *that* hard to get everybody to see it your way.

[virginia mountainman]

17. Who said that???

Iverglas, your pulling things out of air again...

[SteveM]

20. Out of "air," you say?

[SteveM]

18. How civil. How democratic. How compassionate.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

19. This is just as inappropriate as it would be

if the NRA picketed the memorial to protest the no-CCW rule.

Among the victims and their families, there are both people opposed to gun ownership, and people strongly supportive of gun ownership. There are people sympathetic to the positions of the Brady Campaign, and there are people who despise them. VT probably has one of the highest rates of gun ownership (off-campus, of course), among students their families, and faculty/staff, of any university in the nation.

To turn this into a political event, regardless of which side you are on, would be guaranteed to grieve and offend half of the victims' families. Save the politicking for other venues and leave the victims and their loved ones the hell alone.

[iverglas]

23. I'll bet

you think it was inappropriate for the Ban the Bomb movement to mention the victims of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in their demonstrations ...

[benEzra]

49. If they had crashed victim funerals in which half the mourners and survivors

vehemently disagreed with BTB's positions, then yes, it would have been insensitive. That wasn't an issue, of course, because BTB was in a different country and decades later.

It could also be insensitive for an antiwar groups to picket a soldier's funeral, or 9-11 truthers to picket funerals of 9-11 victims, regardless of how one feels about those two issues. There are times and places for protests, and memorial services aren't one of them; to do otherwise is to stoop to the level of the "reverend" Phelps and his WBC clan.

[iverglas]

56. gosh, it works, doesn't it?

If they had crashed victim funerals

Hell, if we were actually talking about someone crashing someone's funeral, you could have a point.

If we were actually talking about someone crashing anything, you might be saying something at least slightly related to a point.

Hell, you're not even talking about the subject line for this thread, false as it was in the first place.


It could also be insensitive for an antiwar groups to picket a soldier's funeral, or 9-11 truthers to picket funerals of 9-11 victims

Go back up a few lines and repeat.

[benEzra]

60. Crashing any memorial service is pretty damn insensitive...

especially when the student government and the student paper have both asked you to butt out and not to use their memorial service for political grandstanding, particularly on an issue on which the victims, the survivors, and their families are on both sides of.

[divineorder]

35. This protest is insensitive

A day of remembrance is like a funeral. It's a day for the survivors and the friends and those who are affected to once again remember, come to terms with the loss, and perhaps begin the long road or really healing. It is not a day for politics of any kind, or a day for outsiders to intrude. Outsiders of all stripes, religious, political, commercial-should stay away. Even the press should keep a respectful distance while covering something like this.

If the Brady people think their cause is so just, let them have it the day or week afterwards, and then let people decide if that is a cause they want to support or not. Just like the Scientologists that set up their tent the week after the shooting, the Brady people are vultures on the grief of people who are not thinking all that clearly about the issue because of that grief. If they were so confident that their cause would be supportable, let them wait a day or two. A cause is no less supportable because a protest had to wait some time afterwards, the arguments no less valid.

[iverglas]

91. now here's a question

Among the victims and their families, there are both people opposed to gun ownership, and people strongly supportive of gun ownership.


I know, given the location, that the odds are slim -- but still, 1 out of 10 people in the US ...

Do you think that among the victims and their families there might be the odd atheist?

http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/local/article/vtech_schedule_of_events/13728/

VT: Schedule of events

April 15

8-10 p.m.: vtONE April Gathering at the Squires Commonwealth Ballroom. An informal event. Bring a blanket and sit on the floor. Worship, pray, and proclaim God's power through tragedy.

--and my bet would be a whole lotta worshippin' and prayin' and proclaimin' in a few other events too.

"Proclaim God's power through tragedy". Cheezes. I can think of few things as utterly obnoxious and rude as using someone's friend's or family member's death as a springboard for one's own noxious religiosity.

I think atheists all over the internet should be denouncing the inappropriateness and insensitivity of turning this event into a bleeding revival meeting. Donchoo?

[gorfle]

26. Personally....

Personally, I think it's dumb to say that people can't demonstrate about issues directly relevant to the tragedy during the memorial day.

The tragic event is directly about firearms. I would have no problem with pro and anti-firearm demonstrations on campus on the day of the memorial.

What else are they going to do on a memorial day? Wallow in sadness? Why not debate and discuss things that can make these events happen less than they already do? Why not use it as a focal point for pointing out that CCW permit holders can walk down the main street of town but not the main street of campus? Why not point out how plentiful easy targets are on most college campuses for any deranged individual? Why not point using it as a time to point out shortcomings in NICS to identify mentally unstable people?

[apocalypsehow]

27. So, I click on that nifty little link to "thebitchgirls," find out the headline has been - *ahem* -

somewhat altered from it's original run in the good 'ole Roanoke Times, and then curiosity got the better of me.

Back to "thebitchgirls" it was, and a little check on their blogroll. First up, "Alphecca" (alphecca.com)* which describes itself as "an occasional blog of opinions by a politically independent, libertarian gun nut in Vermont".

Nice.

Then it's on to "Aubrey Turner" (aubreyturner.org). Aubrey is a big fan of Neil Boortz, the Adam Smith Institute, and Little Green Footballs, among other paragons of progressive virtue.

Charming.

Third up to bat, "Boots and Sabers" holds an entry in this intriguing blogroll of associates. "Jed," one of the savants manning this outpost of right-wing fuckery, has this to say regarding his weltanschaunng: "Politically, I tend to be libertarian on domestic issues, and somewhere to the right of "bomb them back to the Stone Age" on foreign policy issues".

Next up - Lord have mercy, I do declare all this wading through reactionary muck has tuckered me out. Someone else will just have to take up the chore of clicking through all that enlightened commentary. If you find even one that is not a bastion of reactionary filth, please do let us know.

*(actual links can be located at "thebitchgirls," if you're so inclined. I'm not hot-linking to that garbage).

[beevul]

28. That wacky Petey Hamm...

"It just doesn't make any sense not to extend the ban," says Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence." - Speaking about the AWB

"You don't like the fact that you can't have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010787



Hamms quotes can be found at many many places.

Of course theres also:

"Peter Hamm Goes After Brochin" (a Democrat)

http://progunprogressive.com/?p=360




Someone tell me again, why anyone particularly hereabouts, might listen to so much as one word this assclown says?

[apocalypsehow]

29. This Wall Street Journal article is largely a round-up of snide attacks on prominent Democrats.

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden being among just two of them. Odd, that.

:eyes:

[beevul]

31. Those never happen in GD:P do they...

"Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden being among just two of them. Odd, that."

How is Joe Biden doing in the race for president? That attitude of his toward firearms getting him far is it?

The quote in question from the WSJ was:

"You don't like the fact that you can't have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence."

That can be found at hundreds of sources. Which would you like?





And I noticed you say nary a word about Mr Hamm going after a Democrat himself.

Odd, that. :eyes:

[apocalypsehow]

32. Hey, I'm not the one sloshing around in right-wing cesspools. But whatever floats your boat.

n/t.

[iverglas]

33. it's just so hard to tell the players

I forget how that saying goes, but you know what I mean.

Peter Hamm appears to be a Democrat (my other post in this thread).

So a right-wing opinion piece attacking Peter Hamm is ... I dunno, somehow a good thing because Sarah Brady once carried a Republican party card.

Always nice to see the name of my boy Joe Biden. I doubt many people have a clue what Joe's firearms policy position is, but too many of them could figure out he was a whoooole lot smarter than they are, and that's about the biggest handicap there is in politics in some places.


I tried to find a relatively recent post of mine for you, wherein I noted the nature of where so much of this crap comes from (it's always fun to google some new bon mot or current event someone comes up with, and see where you find it), and the fascinating responses ... but it seems to be gone ...

[beevul]

34. Since when...

Since when is the WSJ a right wing cesspool?


Googling "Drop out of school" and Hamm gets 1200ish hits. The WSJ is only the first.



Tell me again, why should anyone listen to a guy that says the things he says, that comes from a lieing deceptive group that misrepresents a good portion of the statistics they use, and are led by a former repuke mayor from Indiana?

[Redneck Socialist]

37. The Wall Street Journal is as right as they come. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

38. Since, like...

You said: "Since when is the WSJ a right wing cesspool?"

Since discovering this tidy little corner of the DU, I've been on my guard for trick questions. I read your post three times, and I'll be darned if I can find any subtle mirth hidden in its creases. You know, the kind of question that's meant to be 'a fooler, a faker, a little heart breaker,' as my grandmother was always saying?

So my honest answer to your seemingly straight-faced question - "Since when is the WSJ a right wing cesspool?" - is: Since, like, forever. Or at least 1889, anyway.

Here, this might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal

Some choice excerpts: "The editorial page of the Journal summarizes its philosophy as being in favor of "free markets and free people". It is typically viewed as adhering to American conservatism...The page takes a free-market view of economic issues and an often neoconservative view of American foreign policy."

Can't get enough? Delighted to oblige: "Regarding issues of international politics and national security, the Journal editorial page is squarely in the neo-conservative camp, for example supporting the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and the legitimacy of the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp."

That makes it "right-wing" by any definition of the word in 2008. Here's what makes it a particularly odious cesspool (among many, admittedly): "Since the 1990s, the editorial page of the Journal has been criticised repeatedly for inaccuracy and dishonesty"

See how that works? Reactionary bullshit + Repeated dishonesty = Right-wing Cesspool.

Anything else I can do you for this fine evening? Don't hesitate to ask.

[beevul]

41. Fair enough.

I am not into stocks bonds or financial games. I don't read WSJ. As I said, they were just the first of 1200+ search results. If you google using the search terms as I laid them out, you'll see that.

And There is still the matter of those other 1200 hits that aren't WSJ too.


"Anything else I can do you for this fine evening? Don't hesitate to ask."

Since you asked, yes, there is:

Tell me, why should anyone listen to a guy named Peter Hamm that says the things he says, that comes from a lieing deceptive group that misrepresents a good portion of the statistics they use, and are led by a former repuke mayor from Indiana?

[apocalypsehow]

42. "Petey Hamm, Petey Hamm, Petey Hamm," everyone, it seems, is up to speed on Petey Hamm except

apocalypsehow, who is bored out of his skull on standby tutor duty, and who thus must remain sober, sane, and awake until 2 A.M.

Someone write me a brief synopsis of Petey Hamm and why I should dislike him, or not, why don't ya?

[apocalypsehow]

43. Never mind: catching up with all the replies to my posts, plus reading the WSJ article a little

closer, and some informative Googling has pretty much brought me up to speed - if not comfortable cruising speed - on the subject of Peter Hamm.

A bare outline begins to form: A Democrat. A spokesman for the Brady Campaign. Someone concerned about gun violence in the United States. And, by all I've seen in my (admittedly brief) up-to-speed-bringing of myself, a progressive.

A target of vitriol for every right-wing lunatic gun obsessive on the internet, too, apparently. This is the second thing that comes up on Google when you type in "Peter Hamm Brady Center":

"Peter Hamm's response to Campus CCW protest
'You don't like the fact that you can't have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.'

So unless you're willing to be a defenseless victim, you have no right to an education?"

This is a post at "thehighroad.org" (I'm not going to link), and I rebroadcast it here in all its primitive glory because the "logic" animating the post looks familiar. Very familiar, indeed.

Have I landed in a place designed to mess with my head? Even the things I Google related to gun lunacy down here drive me into places where odd things are said, and even odder responses are entertained as being fundamentally sound.

I say: "you don't like the fact that you can't eat a ham sandwich on my front porch? Don't step foot on my front porch."

The response comes: "So, unless I'm willing to starve to death, I have no right to ring your doorbell?"

Lord have mercy - that's a phrase from my formative years that's basically a polite substitute for "I can't believe this shit," and I've been saying that alot, lately, haven't I?

In any event, I know enough now about Peter Hamm to know that it is probable that he is on the side of the good guys in ways that don't just include the issue of gun control, and that he is under attack by the "pro-gun Democrats" here for reasons that really just kinda don't surprise me much.

My self-imposed exile from GD: P comes to an end next week, so I should be spending less time with you soon. But it's been an education hanging out with you folks; it surely has.

*Edit was correcting some wayward grammar.

[iverglas]

58. pursuing your education

The charming site to which you refer is owned by a special charmer named Oleg Volk. You may have noticed his name in the thread list in this forum. He's a local hero. He lasted 11 posts here one week.

Give it a bit, and then do a site google and you may find your name in lights. As in

site:www.democraticunderground.com apocalypsehow

only with the other url. I find out all sorts of fascinating facts about myself that way.

(Hint: read the cached versions, so as not to affect their traffic figures and suchlike stuff.)

[iverglas]

59. damn ...

Old Oleg just doesn't visit his children often enough, it seems. He fails to direct them toward the light when they are so sorely in need of it ...

Words of wisdom from gun-sucker central:

Not intending to sound racist but feeling a need to be frank, this sounds like Dems will pander to blacks as long as the latter are disarmed. I am making an association, comparing my perception of big city politics versus flyover country politics.

If I am wrong in general about the racial demographics, I am quite willing to be corrected. I don't doubt there are exceptions or extraordinary black people. Lord knows there are plenty of economically problematic white people. It's really all about welfare and an unwillingness to emigrate, but how does one explain that most black voters are Democrats? Is that not factual?

Poor confused black people.

So the thing is, the gun-suckers want black people to have lots of guns, so the Democratic Party will stop pandering to black people. Clear?

This guy cares:

The Democrats claim to be the party of minority rights. But if you really care about the rights of blacks and women and homosexuals, you let them buy guns so they can kill Klansmen and rapists and gay-bashers, rather than just lay back and be victimized.

There you have it, you fool Democrats. The solution to all that poverty and injustice.

[Redneck Socialist]

36. n/t works a lot better when you put in the subject line. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

39. Thanks, I'll look into it. n/t.

:hi:

[Redneck Socialist]

40. You're gettin' the hang of it.

Thanks. :D

[Tejas]

44. Concerning the WSJ, you might want to at least try

to "know thine enemy" before spouting off. Cesspool yes, no sense in ignoring their actions though. But whatever flics your Bic.

[apocalypsehow]

45. Not interested.

I'll leave the hours of fun to be had perusing through reactionary piles of shit and then reposting links to them on a progressive discussion board pretending they're some kind of legitimate "source" to you and your fellow "pro-gun Democrats."

Have at it.

[benEzra]

47. "Pro-gun Democrats"...

Don't forget that it was "pro-gun Democrats" that just turned the Senate blue in '06, twelve years after "anti-gun Democrats" handed it to the repubs on a silver platter in '94.

Around one in four Dems personally owns a gun, and I dare say a majority support the right to. And we'll keep them, thanks.

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[virginia mountainman]

48. LOL Another one batted out of the ballpark Ben!!!

:7

[apocalypsehow]

50. Oh wowzer, will you look at that! An internet poll!!!!11!

It must be true then!

:eyes:

You said: "Around one in four Dems personally owns a gun...And we'll keep them, thanks.

Why don't you folks try a little harder to keep them from killing tens of thousands of your fellow citizens every year? Thanks.

[benEzra]

51. I'm open to that.

I'm NOT open to taking guns from the lawful and responsible in order to look like one is "doing something" about criminal violence.

The Federal bill to require states to get their mental health records into the NICS background check system is a good one, and would have blocked the sale of the VT shooter's guns. I am OK with the point-of-sale background check, the National Firearms Act, most of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and have advocated for prosecuting felons who illegally attempt to purchase guns and for prosecution of straw purchasers, neither of which is currently being done to any significant degree. I'd also be open to the concept of having private sales go through NICS, as long as it did not involve significant fees, red tape, or registration.

The Brady Campaign doesn't seem to be particularly interested in "solutions" that don't involve taking guns from the innocent and responsible, which is why they have fallen so far since the early '90s.

[apocalypsehow]

53. Wow, a reply with actual content, and that addresses something I really said,

as opposed to something you wish to believe I typed. And a bonus! No childish "I won our debate on the internets!!!!!11!" taunt that some of your colleagues seem to believe earns them points or smiley faces somewhere. Your fellow "pro-gun Democrats" around here could take some lessons from you on how adults discuss things.

Now, to your post:
I am a "gun-grabber," I fully admit it. This is due to a number of things, beliefs, and experiences in my life, but I'm the first to also concede that my position is a distinctly minority one. I'm also the first to admit that I'm ensconced in an atmosphere that, while not an ivory one, is still the equivalent of an academic tower. I pretty much am only around folks who share my beliefs about not just guns, but about the entire gamut of progressive ideals & politics.

My druthers would be as follows:
1. A complete, total ban on handguns.
2. A grandfathered ban on any "long gun" or rifle that is capable of firing more than five rounds without having to reload.
3. Ditto for shotguns.
4. Registration of firearms, at the owners expense, to include the following:
(a) Serial # of firearm.
(b) Ballistic "fingerprint" taken of the weapon (I presume in the same manner the police match particular weapons to crimes now).
(c) Photograph of weapon, and any distinguishing marks on same listed, and entered into a database.
5. Mandatory ownership of a gun safe, along with a corresponding minimum requirement for its size, weight, level of difficulty to break into, etc.
6. Criminal liability for the owner of a firearm who manages somehow to misplace his gun, and that gun ends up being used in the commission of a felony.
(a) This would be contingent upon circumstances, of course: a gun owner who, upon having his home burglarized and safe blown up with dynamite or something, and who immediately reported the theft to the police, would as a general rule, not be prosecuted.
7. "Concealed carry" only for folks who can demonstrate a need for it, i.e., diamond vendors, the folks who drive around those armored cars full of money for banks, people who are under a genuine threat of being rubbed out by the mob for their testimony, etc.

Now, there is not much chance anything on that list is going to happen anytime soon. Fair enough. But just because something hasn't been enacted into law doesn't mean it shouldn't be. And, what's more, pretending the Second Amendment would prevent Congress from passing into law anything on my list above is simply inaccurate. Well, as of now, anyway. I have a feeling the five right-wingers on the USSC are about to turn the Second Amendment into something it was never meant to be with Heller.

That's my take on guns and gun control, in short.

[Tejas]

54. plagiarism of urban legends = fail

"My druthers would be as follows:
1. A complete, total ban on handguns.
2. A grandfathered ban on any "long gun" or rifle that is capable of firing more than five rounds without having to reload.
3. Ditto for shotguns.
4. Registration of firearms, at the owners expense, to include the following:
(a) Serial # of firearm.
(b) Ballistic "fingerprint" taken of the weapon (I presume in the same manner the police match particular weapons to crimes now).
(c) Photograph of weapon, and any distinguishing marks on same listed, and entered into a database.
5. Mandatory ownership of a gun safe, along with a corresponding minimum requirement for its size, weight, level of difficulty to break into, etc.
6. Criminal liability for the owner of a firearm who manages somehow to misplace his gun, and that gun ends up being used in the commission of a felony.
(a) This would be contingent upon circumstances, of course: a gun owner who, upon having his home burglarized and safe blown up with dynamite or something, and who immediately reported the theft to the police, would as a general rule, not be prosecuted.
7. "Concealed carry" only for folks who can demonstrate a need for it, i.e., diamond vendors, the folks who drive around those armored cars full of money for banks, people who are under a genuine threat of being rubbed out by the mob for their testimony, etc. "


Straight out of the "Brady 5yr plan", please try to be more original.

[apocalypsehow]

57. Actually it was straight out of my mind and onto the computer screen, but believe what you wish.

BTW, I'd never heard of the "Brady 5yr plan" (Sic) until your post, and when I Googled it and finally got a look at what you're talking about, I discovered two things, only one of which surprised me:

1. The "plan" has 34 points, not 7, was "discovered" in 1993, and was a hoax. So more dishonesty from a "pro-gun Democrat."

2. Hoax or no, some of those proposals made sense.

I'll leave you to ponder which one I didn't find surprising in the least.

[Tejas]

90. I called it 'urban legend'

When I post an item as "urban legend", that means it is not true. If you're still confused, google the definition of "urban legend".

You get done figuring that out, google the "Bill of Rights".

[apocalypsehow]

94. You called it "plagiarism," and I called your claim dishonest bullshit.

Which it was.

You said: "You get done figuring that out, google the 'Bill of Rights'."

You get done figuring out that I'm not really interested in your childish interpretation of the "Bill of Rights," or just about anything else you whimper about, the better off we'll both be.

[benEzra]

55. Fair enough. Here are my views, and then my thoughts on yours.

Now, to your post:
I am a "gun-grabber," I fully admit it. This is due to a number of things, beliefs, and experiences in my life, but I'm the first to also concede that my position is a distinctly minority one. I'm also the first to admit that I'm ensconced in an atmosphere that, while not an ivory one, is still the equivalent of an academic tower. I pretty much am only around folks who share my beliefs about not just guns, but about the entire gamut of progressive ideals & politics.

Fair enough. Here are my views, some suggestions for things that might appeal to both sides, and then my thoughts on yours.

First of all, primary determinants of the overall violence rate have nothing to do with guns. Here are some Department of Justice stats on homicide trends:





Gun availability to the law-abiding did not decrease at all during that time; in fact, that decline was concomitant with a significant increase in lawful handgun ownership rates, a steep decline in the ownership of traditional hunting weapons/increase in the ownership of nonhunting-style guns (aka "assault weapons"), and a rising rate of gun ownership among city dwellers as the lawful gun culture tipped away from the hunting-centric 1950's/60's mold. The only significant changes in gun laws during that time were the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986 (which made it less of a hassle for the law-abiding to purchase ammunition, AFAIK, and made it easier to import foreign-made rifles for civilian sale), the 1986 ban on Kevlar-piercing handgun ammunition (irrelevant to the homicide rate since such ammunition never really hit the market), background checks for purchases in the early '90s, and the adoption of shall-issue CHL policies by a majority of states between 1994 and 2004. I don't think any of those laws had a significant impact on crime rates one way or the other.

What DID change? Well, besides the Baby Boomers' kids growing out of their 20's, I think the declines had a lot to do with better social safety nets now than in 1975, rising incomes, greater social cohesiveness, more educational opportunities, greater education rates, and the adoption of the "community policing" model in major cities during the middle of that time frame rather than prior keep-the-citizens-in-line models that tended to foster distrust. There are probably other factors--mental health care, possibly less inner-city blight, the decline of institutionalized racism/sexism, a greater sense of social optimism (albeit stochastic)--and there are a lot of people far more qualified to speak on those topics than I am. But those declines had nothing to do with any declines in lawful gun availability (there were none).

I'd point out the following, in no particular order:

(1) Lawful gun possession rates are not correlelated at all with homicide rates; criminal possession is. NYC mayor Bloomberg (no friend of gun owners) says that something like 90% of shooters in NYC murders had prior criminal records, and as such are barred by Federal, state, and local law from so much as touching a gun. New Hampshire has very free gun laws (arguably the most free in the nation, except for Vermont) and one of the highest gun ownership rates of any state, and also the nation's lowest violent crime rate. Gun-loving Florida and gun-hating New Jersey have similar homicide rates, 4.8-5.0/100K.

(2) The primary issue is WHO is in possession of a gun, not WHAT the gun in question looks like.

(3) Rifle bans are a red herring; rifles are among the rarest of all guns to be misused (2.91% of murders in 2006, latest year for which we have full data); shoes and bare hands account for twice as many murders as all rifles combined, including "assault weapons."

(4) Lawful handgun owners are not a crime problem, and licensed CHL holders are statistically even more law-abiding than the police.

(4) Gun restrictions that target the lawful majority instead of criminal misuse are guaranteed to fail both politically and pragmatically, as they are not only offensive to the gun-owning population, but fail to address the problem.

(5) Party strategists who view gun ownership as a "conservative" issue are out of touch with large portions of the party's base, particularly the working class, union members, etc. Many Dems and indies live outside of California, Massachusetts, and southern Illinois (believe it or not), and a lot of us own guns and intend to keep them.

(6) Hunting is almost completely irrelevant to the gun issue, and any campaign strategist/advisor who believes otherwise needs to purchase a clue. Only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners is a hunter, and many (most?) hunters also own nonhunting guns.



Some suggestions that might appeal to both sides?

Have the BATFE actually take it seriously when a criminal tries to buy a gun and gets rejected by NICS. That's a Federal felony, but is almost never prosecuted.

Stop dropping/plea bargaining gun charges against violent criminals away, and have them do the time. If that means letting harmless pot smokers go free so the police can focus their resources on murderers and rapists, then it's about damn time.

Trace guns actually used in violent crimes, and PROSECUTE THE STRAW PURCHASERS YOU FIND. If there is a gunrunner buying guns via straw purchasers in Virginia and hauling them up to NYC (or if he's buying guns via straw purchases in upstate NY, which is more common), if you trace every gun to the original purchaser, you will find some thefts, but you will also find straw purchasers who were buying the gun for someone else. Prosecute them; that's a crime under current law.

Return to the community policing model that worked well in the past, and ditch the Surveillance Nation / Homeland Security / Keep The 'Civilians' In Line model that we're currently moving toward (and which the DLC seems to like just as well as the neocons).

Decriminalize cannabinoids and shift the immense resources we waste on that issue toward legitimate police work. The U.S. homicide rate skyrocketed during alcohol prohibition and then fell 75% or so in the years after prohibition was repealed, IIRC. We have certainly forgotten those lessons.

Tax credit for purchase of a UL-listed gun safe. We went years without a safe because we couldn't afford one; we have one now, but we'd have had one a lot earlier if we could have.

Look for ways to apply NICS check to private sales without registration or hassle.



Re: the issue at large, I've written more at length here, if you're interested (verbosity warning); I'll post links so as not to clutter up this thread unnecessarily.

Gun ownership is Zen, not Rambo

How Dems should approach the issue--written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO

The conservative roots of a lot of U.S. gun control

My druthers would be as follows:

Thoughts on your druthers (and no offense intended, I'm just telling you what I personally think of them):

1. A complete, total ban on handguns.

Guaranteed to be even less successful than our current complete, total bans on pot and diacetyl morphine, AND guaranteed to completely piss off the 40 million people of voting age who lawfully and responsibly own handguns in this country. Run that number as a percentage of registered voters, considering that gun owners vote at higher rates than the population at large, and that roughly half of gun owners are Dems and indies. Or, to look at it another way, think about the political backlash that would result from a complete and total ban on hunting, and multiply it by approximately 2.50; either way, it isn't happening.

Also, a complete and total ban would be counterproductive in the long run. As it now stands, there is a strong incentive for gun owners to follow the law, there is a national background check for purchase, every handgun is tracked from manufacturer to purchaser and a record made of the sale, and people who wish to carry handguns must first apply for a license. Make handguns illegal, and the legitimate trade in handguns will go underground (there are already ~100 million handguns in private hands in the USA, and they're not going away; nor is private handgun ownership). Right now, it is easier to get pot or heroin in most cities than it is to get Demerol or fentanyl, and alcohol prohibition increased the sale and use of hard liquors as opposed to beer. There are sociological and criminalogical lessons to be learned there, and if you don't heed them, the Le Chatelier-Braun principle will bite you in the posterior.

BTW, trivia time...recognize this handgun enthusiast?

2. A grandfathered ban on any "long gun" or rifle that is capable of firing more than five rounds without having to reload.

Not just no, but hell no. No, as in millions of people giving you the finger and quoting Plutarch.* Let's not go there.

Besides, rifles are not a crime problem in this country and never have been.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

Check out the FBI stats. Colorado had zero recorded rifle homicides in 2006. Illinois had 4, out of 487 murders. Going after rifles is nonsensical, IMO.

(And a 5-round capacity is ridiculous. That takes us back before the Civil War; the Henry and Spencer carbines hit the civilian market in the early 1860's and held up to fifteen rounds, and 30+ round small-caliber carbines (lever actions with spiral magazines) date to the 1870's or 1880's, though they were eclipsed by the more powerful Winchesters.)

3. Ditto for shotguns.

Ditto for shotguns. Only 3.21% of murders in 2006 involved any type of shotgun.

4. Registration of firearms, at the owners expense, to include the following:
(a) Serial # of firearm.
(b) Ballistic "fingerprint" taken of the weapon (I presume in the same manner the police match particular weapons to crimes now).
(c) Photograph of weapon, and any distinguishing marks on same listed, and entered into a database.
5. Mandatory ownership of a gun safe, along with a corresponding minimum requirement for its size, weight, level of difficulty to break into, etc.
6. Criminal liability for the owner of a firearm who manages somehow to misplace his gun, and that gun ends up being used in the commission of a felony.
(a) This would be contingent upon circumstances, of course: a gun owner who, upon having his home burglarized and safe blown up with dynamite or something, and who immediately reported the theft to the police, would as a general rule, not be prosecuted.

That's unnecessarily intrusive and not particularly helpful, IMO. The USSC has already ruled that criminals cannot be prosecuted for failure to register guns, on 5th amendment grounds.

Ballistic fingerprinting is useful for matching a recently fired bullet to a small sample of guns, but it is more like matching tire tracks than matching fingerprints. Like a national database of tire tracks of individual cars, the idea breaks down once you get into millions of possible matches and significant elapsed time (shooting a gun changes the wear pattern on the bullet), doesn't work at all for shotguns, and doesn't work for fragmenting rifle ammunition.

Lack of registration is currently the single biggest protection we have against partial gun confiscation, and for that reason I will continue to oppose it until new bans on currently legal guns are completely ruled out (and registration has a pretty bad track record of abuse in this country, IMO).

7. "Concealed carry" only for folks who can demonstrate a need for it, i.e., diamond vendors, the folks who drive around those armored cars full of money for banks, people who are under a genuine threat of being rubbed out by the mob for their testimony, etc.

Why? CHL holders are statistically even less likely to commit criminal violence than even the police.

And from a progressive standpoint, why should it be OK for a businessman to have a CHL to protect his money or diamonds (a mere possession), but it not be OK for the ordinary working-class person who merely wants to protect his life, not his money? Your diamond merchant is in a lot less danger than the woman who cleans his office at night, or the convenience store clerk, or the taxi driver.

I hold a CHL that is valid in ~33 states. To obtain it, I had to pass a Federal background check, state background check, mental health records check, have my fingerprints run by the FBI (clean), take a class on self-defense law using a state-approved curriculum, pass a written test on same administered by the sheriff's office, and demonstrate competence with a handgun on a shooting range, live fire. If you think about it, I am certifiably less dangerous to you and to society at large than a random sampling of your coworkers or the people you meet at Starbuck's.

Now, there is not much chance anything on that list is going to happen anytime soon. Fair enough. But just because something hasn't been enacted into law doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

In this case, IMO it shouldn't be.The right of peaceful individuals to own and use guns, as long as they do not use them to threaten or hurt others, is deeply ingrained in this country--to the point that it is at least a de facto part of the social contract, even if you hold to a non-rights view of the Second Amendment.

But if you tried, you'd take the Democratic party down the same road as the Temperance Party. Roughly the same percentage of the population supports comprehensive gun bans as support bringing back alcohol prohibition (circa 20%), and falling. Let's work together on the things we do agree on.

That's my take on guns and gun control, in short.

Thanks for sharing, and for the civility. Even if we disagree, it's a hopeful sign for this nation that we can at least talk to each other and civilly disagree.



------------------------
*Пάλιν δ̀ὲ̀ του̑ Ξέρξου γράψαντος 'πέµψον τὰ ὅπλα' ἀντέγραψε 'µολὼν λαβέ' (Plutarch, Moralia, III, Apophthegmata Laconica, "Sayings of Spartans")

(to Xerxes demand, "hand over your arms," (Leonidas) retorted,"come and get them".)

[apocalypsehow]

61. *Placemark* for later. n/t.

(Dinner reservations call).

[apocalypsehow]

68. Well, horsefeathers.

The post I *really* wanted to reply to was in that other, now locked thread. I understand it is considered impolitic to drag the issues of a locked thread into a current one, so we'll leave that discussion for another opportunity.

As to this one, I say: fine.

Those are some impressive statistics you got there, all wrapped up with with a tidy pictorial bow, and more than a few of them, I'm sure, also happen to be accurate in context. If I had the time and/or inclination to spend my evening tracking them down, I'm sure I could find any number of things about them to quibble with. But since I'm not, let's just take them at face value, and put them in the stipulated column.

So what?

Every one of those stats and their "trends" does nothing to obviate the fact that in any given year in the United States there are roughly 10,000 homicides committed a year by firearms. This varies up or down in any given year, of course, and, yes, this is the figure for murders only, not suicides.

The bottom line is that there are far too many firearms circulating in the national bloodstream and winding up in the hands of folks who should not have them. You put forward these proposals in your post:

"Some suggestions that might appeal to both sides?

Have the BATFE actually take it seriously when a criminal tries to buy a gun and gets rejected by NICS. That's a Federal felony, but is almost never prosecuted.

Stop dropping/plea bargaining gun charges against violent criminals away, and have them do the time. If that means letting harmless pot smokers go free so the police can focus their resources on murderers and rapists, then it's about damn time.

Trace guns actually used in violent crimes, and PROSECUTE THE STRAW PURCHASERS YOU FIND. If there is a gunrunner buying guns via straw purchasers in Virginia and hauling them up to NYC (or if he's buying guns via straw purchases in upstate NY, which is more common), if you trace every gun to the original purchaser, you will find some thefts, but you will also find straw purchasers who were buying the gun for someone else. Prosecute them; that's a crime under current law.

Return to the community policing model that worked well in the past, and ditch the Surveillance Nation / Homeland Security / Keep The 'Civilians' In Line model that we're currently moving toward (and which the DLC seems to like just as well as the neocons).

Decriminalize cannabinoids and shift the immense resources we waste on that issue toward legitimate police work. The U.S. homicide rate skyrocketed during alcohol prohibition and then fell 75% or so in the years after prohibition was repealed, IIRC. We have certainly forgotten those lessons.

Tax credit for purchase of a UL-listed gun safe. We went years without a safe because we couldn't afford one; we have one now, but we'd have had one a lot earlier if we could have.

Look for ways to apply NICS check to private sales without registration or hassle."

All well and good: I'm for 95% of that, at a minimum. But I think there is a fundamental disconnect between what you see as reasonable and I see as simply bending over backward to make something that should be fettered with all sorts of obstacles easier to obtain. Society in general and government in particular should make those who want to be "law-abiding gun owners" jump through about fifty hoops and meet every kind of code, training requirement, and safety regulation in the book. And why? Because a firearm is a class of thing that is uniquely easy for a human being to use to inflict death and/or serious injury on another human being.

I don't care nearly as much about some law-abiding gun owners "hassles" than I do about the 10,000 people murdered every year with firearms - not to mention the tens of thousands more who are wounded, maimed, and disfigured.

This is where the real divide is between you and I, and it is very difficult to reconcile on any terms that would make one or the other of us very happy.

Finally, just a word about your Plutarch cite. I really rather would wish that this sort of talk would go away, because you and I both know that fantasy talk about restaging the Battle of Thermopylae with the U.S. government in the role of the Persian Empire and the "law-abiding gun owners" standing in the pass to oppose them is just the sort of rhetoric that makes the noisy among you a laughing stock. I don't know if you were trying to deliberately make a play on the caricature and pulling our legs a bit, or just forgot that this isn't some gun-loving freeper outpost where such tall talk is all the rage keyboard-to-keyboard.

Regardless, you and I both know that that is exactly what it is: tall talk, keyboard-style. If tomorrow afternoon Congress passed and W signed into law a statue worded precisely as I described, "benEzra" and no doubt about a million others would indeed flood websites everywhere with angry denunciations of the law; the legislators who sponsored it would be electronically smitten hip and thigh with imprecations aplenty; and there would be an endless stream of posts in countless places about how unfair it all was. And then I guarantee you that, as the date for law to take effect approached, 999 out of a 100 "law-abiding gun owners" would quietly comply, muttering oaths under their breaths as they did, but doing it. Like the signs that came down in 1964 throughout the South and large parts of the Midwest, those firearms would be consigned to the slag heap - willingly in almost every instance.

To say otherwise is to belie a notion that you and your colleagues obsessively parrot: the notion of the "law-abiding gun owner."

[benEzra]

71. How do you feel about the 100,000 Americans who die from alcohol yearly?

I don't care nearly as much about some law-abiding gun owners "hassles" than I do about the 10,000 people murdered every year with firearms - not to mention the tens of thousands more who are wounded, maimed, and disfigured.

How do you feel about the 100,000 Americans who die from alcohol yearly? (Per the CDC.) Do you believe prohibition is the answer, or are you OK with lesser measures aimed at mitigating misuse rather than curtailing legitimate use? Are you OK alcohol use by responsible adults, despite the death toll, and the countless more who are wounded, maimed, and disfigured?

FWIW, to put that number into perspective, all rifles combined, including your dreaded "assault weapons," account for less than 500 murders/yr nationwide.

[iverglas]

72. doncha love this one?

I mean, as analogies go ...

Apparently some people are addicted to firearms.

One wonders whether the dependance is physical or psychological, and whether the disease model should be adopted, and whether the 12 steps will work any better for this problem than they do (don't) for alcohol dependance.

[bossy22]

73. there is no such thing

as an addiction to alcohol either....though alcoholics will tell you otherwise

[beevul]

74. As if significant numbers of those deaths were due to alcohol addiction, rather than use.

If your going to make such a bizarre claim - and its not clear whether you have or haven't - then the onus is on you to show how many alcohol related deaths are due to addiction, and why that makes any difference at all in the context of "caring" about alcohol related deaths versus firearm frelated deaths, and what the answer might be from a gun hater/banner to eliminating those. If theres an answer from that poster at all.


If your not going to make such a claim, then Its not quite clear what your point of saying what you said is at all, except maybe to muddy the waters.

[iverglas]

75. nah

the onus is on you to show how many alcohol related deaths are due to addiction ...

The onus is on you, you being the person proposing the analogy, to establish that there is an fact an analogy. I gave it a shot. I could add the many quibbles I've raised in the past ... such things as how firearms are not consumed, requiring regular replenishment of supply; alcohol, being consumed, does not remain in the market circulating endlessly among users; no significant proportion of firearms users experiences either physical or psychological cravings (call 'em what you will) for firearms; few firearms users acquire firearms as an end in themselves; it really is more difficult to mass produce firearms clandestinely than to mass produce alcohol; ...

Over to you.


Its not quite clear what your point of saying what you said is at all

I think my point was perfectly clear to you and everyone else.

Your purported analogy is dumb, and the persistent use of it by dozens of posters in this forum, not one of whom has ever done anything but assert it without in any way demonstrating its validity, is disingenuous.

[beevul]

83. I proposed nothing.

I proposed no analogy. In fact, I see no analogy. Benezra made no analogy. He asked " How do you feel about the 100,000 Americans who die from alcohol yearly? How do you feel about the 100,000 Americans who die from alcohol yearly? (Per the CDC.) Do you believe prohibition is the answer, or are you OK with lesser measures aimed at mitigating misuse rather than curtailing legitimate use? Are you OK alcohol use by responsible adults, despite the death toll, and the countless more who are wounded, maimed, and disfigured?" That ain't making an analogy, its putting someone on the spot. If you can't tell the difference between the 2, then I'm sorry for you. If you can tell the difference but say the things you say in spite of it...well, everyone hereabouts can make up his or her own mind what words might apply.


I simply said that "If your going to make such a bizarre claim ...".

I also said "If your not going to make such a claim..."

That should tell you I said that you MAY have made a claim but it wasn't clear at all if you did, and what you'd need to do if you WERE making that claim, and what it meant if you said the words you did, but WEREN'T making that claim.


"I think my point was perfectly clear to you and everyone else."

Yes, you were muddying the waters, and in doing so, claimed someone made an analogy that really didn't. I trust you'll be scolding yourself like you do everyone else when they say you did or said something that you didn't. Well, if you don't live on a one way street, that is.


"Your purported analogy is dumb, and the persistent use of it by dozens of posters in this forum, not one of whom has ever done anything but assert it without in any way demonstrating its validity, is disingenuous."

I made no analogy. And what you claim you see dozens of posters using, is no analogy, and you have not ever done anything but assert that it is, without in any way demonstrating that it is. And thats whats disingenuous.

And its also another 12 or so scoldings that everyone can rest assured you'll be giving yourself.

[iverglas]

85. Oh, I see.

That ain't making an analogy, its putting someone on the spot.

Okay then.

How 'bout them Maple Leafs?

If the relevance of the question isn't that it is ABOUT AN ANALOGOUS SITUATION, then it must be relevant just because somebody decided to ask it.

So. Do you think the rain will hurt the rhubarb?

[beevul]

93. Translation:"Look, up in the sky..." N/T

[apocalypsehow]

86. I'm telling you, I keep having flashbacks to Ray Milland in "X: The Man with the X-Ray eyes"

And I think: if I could just get my hands on some of Dr. Xavier's super-duper eye-drops, I could at last see just how that analogy works. Or how what I plainly wrote garners the reply it did. Or..."

Answers to any number of baffling questions, actually. Too bad it's fiction, just like so much I run across in the posted responses of our "gun-loving Democrats."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. What I love is that neither of you has the courage to answer.

Iverglas you and Apocalypsehow talk a good game but you never answer the direct questions. As clever as you are Iverglas, I thought for sure you would have a good counter argument, can't say the same for Apocalypshow, but I was hopeful about you.

David

[apocalypsehow]

95. What I love is that I've now got a dose of this on rush order:

Like a kid who doesn't have his clubhouse pass yet, I'm eager to try a big dose of that out here in the DU Guns forum. It may well be the key to unlocking the mystery behind a disturbing pattern of recurring imbecility, repeatedly encountered, in these environs. My quickened pulse ticks off the seconds till its arrival in my mailbox....

:woohoo:

[SteveM]

96. Hmm, with those eyes you better not look in the mirror.

[benEzra]

52. The Virginia Tech student government and student newspaper have formally asked the BC to stay away.

Turning on one another or the university will not make the day any easier, which is why we believe the lie-in on the Drillfield is an inappropriate statement to be making on such a sensitive day. Keeping guns out of hands in which they don't belong is obviously important, but it is not a message that needs to be communicated on the one-year anniversary.

Next week will be an incredibly difficult time for us all. Out of respect for those who lost their lives and were injured last April, we need to come together, not get lost in the politics of it all.

and

Only a year has passed since the shootings, and the memories are still raw in people's minds. The university canceled classes on April 16 to ensure all Hokies have the day to reflect, congregate and remember.

This is not the day to push an agenda, even if it has relevance to Tech. The process of buying a gun has a clear connection to the shootings, but that does not mean a protest should take place on April 16. There is going to be a commemoration in the morning on the Drillfield, which is likely to invoke strong emotions for a lot of people. Such a gathering should not be followed by a lie-in that has political goals, it is simply the wrong venue at the wrong time.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, and there are strong opinions on all sides of the gun control issue. Regardless, an issue as divisive as that one should be set aside for one day, when the unity of the campus is so crucial.

If Protest Easy Guns wants their cause respected, then they should respect the April 16 event proceedings. If anything, the efforts will be overshadowed by the rest of the day's events. The lie-ins would be welcomed on a larger scale if one did not take place on the Drillfield on a day where both the university and several student organizations have planned commemorations.

It is admirable that the group is working toward changes it believes in, but the anniversary of the shootings is not the time to do it.

Hopefully, Protest Easy Guns will rethink their decision to lie-in on the drillfield and save their demonstration for a different day.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:T91jJdfB2aAJ:www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/2008/04/09/editorial__april_16_should__be_for_remembrance+april+16+should+be+for+remembrance&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=us&strip=1

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:RXxjkD04JroJ:www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/2008/04/11/editorial__april_16_settlement_is_important_for_achieving_closure+april+16+settlement+is+important+for+achieving+closure&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=us&strip=1

And the student government's objection:

http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/157483

Tech's Student Government Association passed a resolution Tuesday night asking protesters "to respect the Virginia Tech community's wish to peacefully embrace the university day of remembrance by holding their demonstrations on a different date."

Sophomore Alyson Boyce, one of the sponsors of the resolution, said it isn't meant to discourage protests in general.

"We just want April 16 to be a day to honor our friends," she said.

[iverglas]

62. bully for them

I gather that Bush asks certain people to stay away when he comes to town, too.

Like I wuz saying -- on the anniversary of the Montreal Massacre, family and friends of the victims speak at events and call for better regulation of firearms ...

The event -- the mass murder -- was a public event. It doesn't belong to the student government or student newspaper of that institution.

[benEzra]

63. Here, unlike in Montreal, many family and friends of the victims oppose what the BC supports

as did many of the victims themselves, in life. This is Virginia Tech, not Montreal Tech. And to take a memorial service set aside to remember the fallen, and make it a jab at those even among the victims, survivors, and their families who own guns, would be insensitive indeed. There are victims and their families on both sides of the gun issue.

If you read closely, it appears that the writer(s) of the student paper editorial may be sympathetic to the Brady Campaign's message, but they are not sympathetic to the idea of turning the day and the field into a political stage.

[iverglas]

64. and like I already said

The event in question, the mass murder, was a PUBLIC event, and one about which the PUBLIC quite reasonably has concerns and opinions.

If people want to commemorate the event or remember the people PRIVATELY, they are entitled to do so and to expect no uninvited guests at their party. It seems to me that the PUBLIC nature of the event, the mass murder, is implicitly recognized in the holding of PUBLIC events at the institution.


make it a jab at those even among the victims, survivors, and their families who own guns

How paranoid would one of those people have to be to interpret the planned activity as such a "jab" at them?

[benEzra]

65. In any case, the friends and associates of the victims, on all sides of the issue,

have publicly asked the Brady Campaign not to show up on that day. (Unless you thought the student government and student paper were run by, oh, the NRA or something.) It remains to be seen whether the Bradys will honor that request.

[bossy22]

78. Virginia Tech

is private property- they can ban whoever they want from protesting on their property

[iverglas]

80. uh

what the fuck might you think you're talking about?

[SteveM]

87. "Bully for them"? And likening their actions to Bush? How compassionate.

[chunkstyle5]

66. Here in Minnesota

The local antis are gonna have a lie-in at our State Capitol this week. I'm thinking of bringing a sign reading "Carry permits could have saved these lives".

[iverglas]

67. Well I think you should do that

Be sure to report back on how it goes.

[chunkstyle5]

69. Gladly.

If I can get a photo, I'll put it in photobucket or something, if you want to see.

[bossy22]

70. it will probably go something like virginia

where the anti's try to get the police to remove the counter-protestors

[DonP]

76. Or like that last Million Mom march?

Where the "peaceful" protestors against violence on our streets tipped over the tables, tore up and threw away the printed material the Second Amednment Sisters had and screamed in their faces to get out. I guess it made sense. If you don't believe in the 2nd amendment we shouldn't be too surprised that they aren't real keen on the 1st either.

That kind of behavior, coupled with a few high profile instances of Million Mom March members getting caught with guns themselves or involved in actual shootings, may be why it has become nothing more than a "logo of a letterhead" and not the "powerful grass roots organization" it and the Brady Campaign purported it to be for so long.

Leave the VT campus to decide how they want to remember their fellow students on the campus. I have no doubt Brady will hold their "Lie In' somewhere nearby anyway and try to upstage the on-campus events with the media. Helmke and his buddies seem to try that every chance they get. The post Heller SCOTUS press conference that they had to broadcast on their own website was a great example. They had about 8 people, employees I'm guessing, in front of their microphone and no news meida pick-up that anyone was able to find.

NIU is doing a similar event opening up the discussion of what to do with the building involved in the shooting there in the next couple of months. As an alumni I've been invited and I'm thinking of going.

[bossy22]

77. didn't the last MMM

only draw like 200 mothers are something like that.....i know that they were having financial problems and got "bought out" by the Brady Campaign

[DonP]

79. Yup, that was pretty much it.

Even their own coverage for their web space and their MySpace page (comments disabled) had nothing but tight shots of three or four people in close-ups.

More importantly, they don't have a single candidate speaking at any of their events. At their 1994 kick off they had all kinds of politicians speaking at their rallies.

Political types can smell a dead fish a mile away and don't see much of an upside to getting involved with them. Sooner or later the Joyce Fondation will decide to stop pounding sand down that particular rathole.

[bossy22]

82. the Joyce Foundation

http://www.joycefdn.org/

click on the link on the left side that says gun violence

that picture always makes me laugh
"we call police"

you know what, im going to stick a sign outside of my house that says "we call the Fire Department" Just to make sure that people know that when there is a fire....we don't end up callin the exterminator

[Tejas]

89. MMM spokesperson convicted of attempted murder

Yep, how soon the antis forget, much less how many of them are even aware of that debacle.