Second Amendment discussion on Daily Kos

[Howzit]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/21/19133/5152/392/496931

"Angry Mouse" wrote:

"When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check at the door their ability to think rationally. In discussing the importance of any other portion of the Bill of Rights, liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founding Fathers. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

So why do liberals have such a problem with the Second Amendment? Why do they lump all gun owners in the category of "gun nuts"? Why do they complain about the "radical extremist agenda of the NRA"? Why do they argue for greater restrictions? Why do they start performing mental gymnastics worthy of a position in Bush's Department of Justice to rationalize what they consider "reasonable" infringement of one of our most basic, fundamental, and revolutionary -- that's right, revolutionary -- civil liberties?

Why do they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote Democrat? Why are they so dismissive of approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns?"

SNIP

"No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights...."



Yes, why not defend the whole constitution?

[jody]

1. I'm tired of ignorant louts characterizing liberals as incapable of thinking rationally. We pro-RKBA

Democrats have proved our dedication to protecting all natural, inherent, inalienable rights and we were successful in having our majority position on RKBA written into the 2004 Democratic Party Platform so intellectually challenged people like "Angry Mouse" will understand what our party believes about RKBA.

The Democratic Party says, "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

It's very unfortunate that a few prominent Dem politicians use their media forum to call for bans on handguns or semiautomatic firearms or all firearms.

I wish those Dem politicians would add a disclaimer to their speeches, "I oppose the the Democratic Party's efforts to protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms".

[T4RSR5]

5. The platform is massive infringement!

If this platform is pro-2nd amendment, I'm a 3-toed sloth. one cannot claim to support the 2nd amendment, and in the same sentence call for massive infringements and bans violating that amendment.

Try this on for size:

We will protect Americans' First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of the press, and we will keep books out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting scary sounding ideas, authorizing the ban on Radio Shows we don't agree with, and closing the used book store loophole.

Assault weapons ban: Ban on scary cosmetic features on otherwise medium-powered, popular sport weapons. These weapons are rarely (less than 3 percent for ALL rifles) used in crimes. (but I have followed your group for some time now, and you know this already)

So, if useless bans and massive infringements was your way of getting the party's majority opinion into the platform, you have succeeded. There is no way you could call that platform pro 2nd amendment.

[jody]

6. I oppose the AWB and support efforts to enforce existing laws prohibiting sale of guns to those who

cannot legally own a firearm. The latter effort is incorrectly called "gun show loophole" but the goal is still worthy.

You might wish to read the ATF pub on gun shows at http://www.atf.gov/pub/treas_pub/gun_show.pdf

The pub was written during the Clinton/Reno era.

I fail to see how the AWB that I oppose as an infringement could reasonably be called a massive infringement as you assert in your opinion.

Have a nice day, :hi:

[MicaelS]

10. Prominent Dem politicians

It's very unfortunate that a few prominent Dem politicians use their media forum to call for bans on handguns or semiautomatic firearms or all firearms.

Speaking of said devil.... Jody, did you happen to watch the latest episode of "Law and Order-Criminal Intent" titled "Betrayed"?

Schumer had a cameo in the opening of the show, introducing the guest star at fund raiser for the NYPD Police Academy. Only on the air for about 30 seconds, but that was 30 seconds too much, and almost ruined my favorite show.

My favorite video appearance of Schumer is when he get's verbally spanked by Texas Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp. The lady was a Survivor of the Luby's Massacre, and that made her become a stauch proponent of CCW. Nothing I like to see better than Scumer made to look like he's eating a bad oyster.

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTpSygg3D5I

[gorfle]

17. Is there a better video of her testimoy?

The YouTube testimony is terrible terrible quality and the audio cuts out half-way through.

[MicaelS]

20. Yes it is a poor quality video.

This is the best one I could find. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=suzanna+hupp&hl=en&sitesearch=#

[gorfle]

2. excellent article.

It is an excellent article.

[iverglas]

3. ah, those crazy "liberals"

They can talk about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

Yup. Just take slavery. The founding fathers didn't do anything to eliminate it, so those liberals are completely in favour of it.

Votes for women? You bet your ass not. Liberals are tight with the founding fathers on that one.

Larry Flynt? I wonder whether we can imagine how the founding fathers would have dealt with him. Lock him up and throw away the key! say the liberals.

Same-sex marriage? Can you doubt for a moment what the founding fathers would have done if that notion had crossed their desks?? Liberals oppose same-sex marriage rights for that reason!

I'm sure all these same real "liberals" really would be overjoyed to go with the intentions of the founding fathers on this gun business. If only they could figure out what they were ...


Yes, why not defend the whole constitution?

You should probably ask the people responsible for all those amendments to it that question.

And check yer personal favourite scripture for warnings against worshipping graven images.



Those who can't shake the ick of the past off their shoes are condemned to live in the 18th century. We on the outside watch you folks in your determination to do that, shake our heads and hope that someday we can welcome you to this one.

[appal_jack]

9. Most Constitution fans are not fundamentalists

Was the Constitution a perfect document in 1791? No, of course not.

Was it written by saints? No. However, the Constitution's authors continue to stand as some of the most practical visionaries and progressives in Western history.

Is the Constitution perfect now, as amended and interpreted? Hardly. But the (originally fatally flawed) US Constitution got a whole lot better once the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were ratified. I believe that it, and our nation as a whole, got much worse with the passage of the 18th Amendment (prohibition), and that the malignancy of state prohibitionism continues to haunt the USA, much to our detriment.

As someone who often hearkens back to the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights for guidance on what liberties are worth defending, I feel no need for perfection. The Constitution was the best document that could be agreed upon at the time, and it is so much better than much of what has been written or proposed ever since (much less what has actually been agreed upon by representatives of a democratic republic). Therefore I, as an American Citizen, choose it as part of my culture, history, and yes, future. I find in it inspiration and a dream worth pursuing, and yet a dream that comes packaged with a very practical tool kit: free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, etc.

Critics can harp upon slavery and oppression of women in early America all they want to, and I will agree that the Constitution would have been a vastly better document had it guaranteed universal suffrage in its first printing, IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED with such text. But a Constitution proposing universal suffrage in 1789 would have ended up in trash bins. Such a Constitution would never have become the cornerstone of a republic that would grow into a beacon of freedom for the world for much of the past 220 years (not so much right now, unfortunately, but that is another discussion).

"Larry Flynt? I wonder whether we can imagine how the founding fathers would have dealt with him. Lock him up and throw away the key! say the liberals."

Funny, I had not seen any reference to Larry Flynt in this thread until this one of yours iverglas. Straw man much? Hardly worth even throwing a match on this one, but I'll strike anyway: this liberal considers Larry Flynt a true (even if imperfect) hero in the cause of free speech. As my Constitutional History prof. used to say in reference to the freedom of speech clause of the 1st Amendment, "No Law means NO LAW." I am the type of liberal who believes that our American liberties have been eroded and diluted by far too many poorly conceived and flimsily constructed laws and court decisions. But such poor legislation and interpretations will not distract me from the core of our nation's Constitution, and the hope it offers that a freer and more just society is possible, and entirely worth pursuing.

-app

Edit to add a word or two, and to say that I am in complete agreement with both gorfle (here) and Angry Mouse (at Kos) who both managed to state precisely what I was trying to get at, in far fewer words. Nice work, brothers and sisters! :toast: :hi: :yourock:

[iverglas]

11. funny ha-ha?

Nah. Funny odd.

Funny, I had not seen any reference to Larry Flynt in this thread until this one of yours iverglas. Straw man much?

Funny, I saw this in the quoted article:

In discussing the importance of any other portion of the Bill of Rights, liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies.

Is the first amendment not a portion of that Bill of Rights? Does the first amendment not guarantee freedom of speech? Is Larry Flynt not the free-speech hero of "liberals"?

Disingenuous much?

And you go on to sing the first-amendment praises of Larry Flynt. What exactly were you failing to grasp in the first place?


As my Constitutional History prof. used to say in reference to the freedom of speech clause of the 1st Amendment, "No Law means NO LAW."

Then will you PLEASE go and ask the old dear how s/he explains the prohibition on making false statements under oath in court, on pain of punishment? The prohibition on advertising snake oil to cure cancer, on pain of punishment? Shall I go on? Or will you just be the one to get me the answer to the question I have been asking for some years now?


I am the type of liberal who believes that our American liberties have been eroded and diluted by far too many poorly conceived and flimsily constructed laws and court decisions.

Yeah, "liberal" is just such a warm cozy one-size-fits-all word, isn't it? I prefer my labels tailor-made, which is why I've never worn the "liberal" one.

Hell, it can even be worn by the loonytarianist among us, and who would there be to say nay?

And then there are the classic/Jeffersonian "liberals", whom most of us in the modern real world call "right wing assholes" ...


But a Constitution proposing universal suffrage in 1789 would have ended up in trash bins.

And your point is ...? Even if it were true. The old dead white guys pretty much had a free hand, I think.

That your Constitution is a bit of dead parchment whose legitimacy, like the legitimacy of all constitutions, depends solely on the adherence to the values it expresses by the people who choose to live by it? That it isn't actually received truth and wisdom engraved in immutable stone?

Okey dokey. No argument from me.


Such a Constitution would never have become the cornerstone of a republic that would grow into a beacon of freedom for the world for much of the past 220 years (not so much right now, unfortunately, but that is another discussion).

Yeah, well, sorry to burst your bubble. You'll find that most constitutional rights instruments in liberal/social democracies being writ these days are being modeled on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has much in common with the US's constitutional rights instrument, as that one did with many things that went before it. That's just how things work. They change, and often improve. You guys feel free to consider that notion.

[iverglas]

4. hahahahaha!

Shoulda read it first. I mean, not that I've actually read it; I don't voluntarily waste my time ...

This is an appeal to every liberal who thinks, despite some poor judgment on the issues of, say, slavery or women's suffrage, the Founding Fathers actually had pretty good ideas about limiting government power and expanding individual rights.

Take that, you people of the coloured / feminine persuasion. Your subjugation was just a little poor judgment. Not at all the hugest most egregious violation of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS seen in human history.

To a gun-luvvin "liberal", anyhow.

[gorfle]

7. I think they call this

Take that, you people of the coloured / feminine persuasion. Your subjugation was just a little poor judgment. Not at all the hugest most egregious violation of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS seen in human history.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I mean after all, all they did was set forth the most free, democratic, revolutionary concept in government ever to be brought forth on the Earth up to that point in time.

But I guess because it wasn't perfect it's all a bunch of 18th century horse shit.

[iverglas]

16. You do??

But I guess because it wasn't perfect it's all a bunch of 18th century horse shit.

Me, I just guess this isn't the 18th century anymore and there's a whole load of stuff has happened since then that kinda needs to be part of our current equation.

And I just can't figure out why anyone would think or say that something done in the 18th century was the peak of human perfection, when the evidence is so much to the contrary.

There is no peak of human perfection. But there is change.

[gorfle]

18. Me neither.

Me, I just guess this isn't the 18th century anymore and there's a whole load of stuff has happened since then that kinda needs to be part of our current equation.

And yet there's also a whole load of stuff that is as true today as it was then.

And I just can't figure out why anyone would think or say that something done in the 18th century was the peak of human perfection, when the evidence is so much to the contrary.

There is no peak of human perfection. But there is change

I can't figure out why anyone would think or say that, either. And in fact our Constitution has been amended many times in pursuit of that perfection.

The simple, fundamental question here is as it always has been:

Is it a valid concept to allow the governed relatively unrestricted access to firearms so that they can resist tyranny from their government?

It's really just that simple. This is what the 2nd amendment is all about. Shooting tyrants. This is what they thought in the 18th century. The question is, is it a valid consideration today?

If you believe, as you have professed in the past, that the citizens of modern nations like the United States, Canada, etc., will never again for all time have the need to engage in armed revolution, then you would be right - the idea of being armed for such an eventuality is an antiquated notion.

I just am not convinced that such a time will never come again, and it's as simple as that. Civilizations rise and fall, and they have done so for all of recorded history. It is hubris to believe that somehow this has all ended for some select few nations on the earth.

If you want to make the case that the people of the United States will never again face the need to rebel against tyranny, then you will have to prove your case. Even without the numerous examples of armed conflict around the world to look at today, one need only consider the natural dispensation of man towards greed and power to recognize that such wishful thinking is just that - wishful thinking.

[iverglas]

19. nah

If you want to make the case that the people of the United States will never again face the need to rebel against tyranny, then you will have to prove your case.

Nuh uh.

If I want to advocate imposing stringent requirements and strict rules on the acquisition, possession and use of firearms in a modern liberal/social democracy, then the case I have to make is that there is justification for doing that.

And frankly, one need only look at the daily papers to see that case.

[gorfle]

22. It's as I figured.

If you want to make the case that the people of the United States will never again face the need to rebel against tyranny, then you will have to prove your case.

Nuh uh.

If I want to advocate imposing stringent requirements and strict rules on the acquisition, possession and use of firearms in a modern liberal/social democracy, then the case I have to make is that there is justification for doing that.

But you can't make any requirements or rules that contravene the primary reason for having the firearms in the first place. Which means you are going to have to address the issue of armed rebellion in a modern liberal/social democracy.

The bottom line is this, Iverglas: Before we can discuss rules and requirements for lawfully owning firearms we have to agree on what the purpose of lawful ownership is.

Then we can discuss what kinds of rules and requirements we can have in place that don't violate that purpose.

I'm not against rules and requirements to own firearms. But I maintain the primary purpose of owning them is for protection from our government. Thus any rules and regulations cannot place so much power in the hands of the government that the firearms become useless for that primary purpose. This is why in recent threads you have seen proposals on how to deal with this issue while preserving the anonymous ability to own firearms.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

12. you do seem to be confused

You may need to do some extra reading on race, sex and class.

Please get some professional help.

Okay. I think I'll consult the psychic I have on retainer. I think I see a *poof* in your post's future ...

You're just such an officer and a gentleman, arencha?

[Howzit]

13. "I don't voluntarily waste my time ..."

But you do spend an inordinate amount of time researching people like Kim du Toit on right wing sites.
How else would you know the Mrs du Toit on cornered cat was married to Kim du Toit, the "world renowned racist"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=175802&mesg_id=175963


Most of us had never heard of Kim du Toit or read any of his ramblings until you pointed us to them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=175802&mesg_id=176332

&

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=175802&mesg_id=176789


I guess everyone needs a hobby.

[tburnsten]

14. Steel on target! N/T

[iverglas]

15. please never assume

that I am as ignorant as ... well, anyone around here.

I have, as I said, known for quite some time just who Kim du Toit is. Couldn't tell you where I first became aware of his existence; it might have been in this forum some years ago.

I find it curious and somewhat fascinating that so many others would disclaim such knowledge, but there ya go. Myself, I make a hobby of knowing who's who in the right wing. Beats cleaning guns, in my books.

So the chance that I would see "Mrs du Toit" on a website and not immediately at least suspect who that was is, well, extremely low to nil.

As it turns out, Connie du Toit, wife of Kim du Toit, uses the pen name "Mrs du Toit" for reasons all her own. It took me, oh, a minute or two to ascertain that "Mrs du Toit" is Kim du Toit's wife.

But as usual, I find this fascination with what I know and how I know it and the various and sundry other things moi to be extra special charming.

[gorfle]

21. Kim du Toit

I can't help but look at this guy's name and think "Kim's Twat". :)

I've never heard of the guy either.

Did some quick googling on him - didn't turn up anything terribly shocking on the first page of hits, other than he emigrated from South Africa as he feared everything would go to pot after the fall of apartheid.

[tburnsten]

23. Gorfle you aren't looking hard enough!

You need to start early, dredging through every obscure essay and comment put out by as many obscure and uninteresting people as you can, making lists, lists of everyone they associate with or who has a link to a link to a link with objectionable material or even just material that is easily misinterpreted, then slander all those people as vile right wing racist filthy misogynist crapscum, then you will be able to refer to your handy blacklist any time someone posts useful information, just to be sure that the author isn't associated with any of those scumsuckers that earned their way onto your blacklist.

Then you will only be a few more steps behind iverglas' intricate techniques. and you will be on a first name basis with every vile right-winger in the world.

[iverglas]

24. I think you have me confused with the NRA

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=15

No hours of research required for that. Just ask google for nra blacklist.

It takes a while to load ...


There are also handy shortcuts for when you want to confirm your suspicion that you are dealing with right-wing scum. For instance, when you find that some asshole parading around on campus with a holster is associated with something called "Foundation for Individual Rights in Education"

http://www.thefire.org/

you google it and you find that there are useful, public-spirited organizations that do the work for you:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=1994
"the money behind conservative media".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x173197

Ain't the internet grand? That exercise probably took me five minutes -- all the way from the asshole parading around on campus with a holster to the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

Now granted, I already knew what the Sarah Scaife Foundation is.

I guess I'm just going to have to beg pardon for being an informed member of the public.

Now, if some people would spend more time becoming informed members of the public and less time yelping and squealing about somebody trying to be the boss of them, all the while covering their eyes and going wah-wah when they are shown who is *really* trying to be the boss of them ... well, wouldn't life be fine?

[gorfle]

26. Again.

I've heard of the guy who was pushing for concealed carry on campus - sounds like a fine idea to me. I've never heard of the Sarah Scaife Foundation, though.

[gorfle]

27. My five minutes.

Well I took five minutes to look over the links you provided and while I didn't dig through the DU post you linked to I still am no nearer to understanding what's bad about the guy who supports concealed carry on campus, what's bad about the FIRE, or what's bad about the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

What are bad about these things/people?

[tburnsten]

28. Apparently post #23 withstood the attack. N/T

[iverglas]

30. well then you have my condolences

but not my sympathy.

I just have no sympathy for someone who chooses to become engaged in the political process and then doesn't life a finger to become informed about the players in that process.

Fine, you don't know what the Sarah Scaife Foundation is. So now you know that you need to know, in order to be an informed member of the public engaged in issue advocacy.

You're familiar with wikipedia, I'm sure. When wiki has an entry for something, that entry will usually be among the first google search results. A search for sarah scaife foundation turns up the foundation's website first, and the wiki page second.

The wiki entry is a stub. The second of two paragraphs states:

"The organizations it has supported include the George C. Marshall Institute and Project for the New American Century."

Now, please tell me you have heard of the Project for the New American Century. If you search DU for PNAC, your computer might explode. In any event, wiki gives a handy link to its page for it.

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

You do know why your country is occupying Iraq, right?

So the Sarah Scaife Foundation funds

(a) the right-wing think tank behind the toddlers parading around on US campuses with holsters, demanding the "right" to carry firearms on campus (one of whom has his own wiki page proudly identifying himself as a right-winger); and

(b) the right-wing think tank behind the US invasion of Iraq.

And other stuff. Will that do for starters?

[gorfle]

35. toddlers?

I thought the debate was over allowing CCW permit holders, who generally have to be over 21, to be allowed to carry on college campuses as they do just about everywhere else? I don't remember anything about allowing toddlers to do so.

So the Sarah Scaife Foundation funds

(a) the right-wing think tank behind the toddlers parading around on US campuses with holsters, demanding the "right" to carry firearms on campus (one of whom has his own wiki page proudly identifying himself as a right-winger); and

(b) the right-wing think tank behind the US invasion of Iraq.

And other stuff. Will that do for starters?

So the Sarah Scaife foundation sucks for funding groups who support this War in Error.

Does this mean that the pro-firearm group is somehow related to the War on Terror? Money is money. I guess it sucks that a pro-firearm organization is getting money from a shitty source, but I don't fault them. They are doing a good thing. They get their money where they can. I'd rather see them get their funding from a left-leaning source, but until then, I'm glad they are getting funding.

[iverglas]

31. at the DU thread linked to

Start at this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=173197&mesg_id=173631

and read down.

[gorfle]

37. OK

OK, so the guy is an "ultra-conservative republican".

Does this invalidate his stance on the right to carry concealed weapons on college campuses?

I'd be willing to be that most pro-firearm folks are Republican-leaning. OK, so they are wrong on a lot of issues. Does this mean we should discount their support of the issues they are right on?

[iverglas]

39. pick a topic, any topic

OK, so the guy is an "ultra-conservative republican".
Does this invalidate his stance on the right to carry concealed weapons on college campuses?

There is proof beyond what any reasonable, decent person would doubt that the guns-on-campus "movement" is astroturf, organized and funded by the hard right wing in the US.

The question of whether firearms should be permitted on campus is a separate question; it is a public policy issue that should be debated on the merits of the various positions on the issue.

The hard right wing does not engage in debate of public policy on the merits of any positions on any issues. The hard right wing uses demagoguery, fear, and appeals to values that it frames simplistically dishonestly, by omission of crucial intelligence, in ways that tug at the consciences of listeners, and most especially that appeal to their self-interest and self-image, while refusing to address the merits of dissenting opinion.

The hard right wing doesn't actually give a shit about you and your pop-guns. But it does find you to be convenient idiots. Unless, of course, you're genuine fellow travellers.

[gorfle]

41. Who cares?

There is proof beyond what any reasonable, decent person would doubt that the guns-on-campus "movement" is astroturf, organized and funded by the hard right wing in the US.

Who cares? If a "feed the poor movement" was astroturf funded by the hard right wing, would that make feeding the poor a bad thing? As they say, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once and a while.

The question of whether firearms should be permitted on campus is a separate question; it is a public policy issue that should be debated on the merits of the various positions on the issue.

Okay....so why are you dragging all these other irrelevant connections into it? The reason we are discussing this in the GUNS forum is because of the GUN connection. If you want to go banter on about all the various right-wing fanatics in the world and there goings-on, I'm sure there's a forum here for that sort of thing.

The hard right wing does not engage in debate of public policy on the merits of any positions on any issues. The hard right wing uses demagoguery, fear, and appeals to values that it frames simplistically dishonestly, by omission of crucial intelligence, in ways that tug at the consciences of listeners, and most especially that appeal to their self-interest and self-image, while refusing to address the merits of dissenting opinion.

All true. Doesn't have beans to do with the gun issue at hand. The right to bear arms is a valid civil right no matter which side of the political spectrum decides to endorse it. Has the right wing successfully used it as a wedge issue against the left? Absolutely. Does this make the right to keep and bear arms somehow invalid or less in value? No.

The hard right wing doesn't actually give a shit about you and your pop-guns. But it does find you to be convenient idiots. Unless, of course, you're genuine fellow travellers.

And conveniently, I don't give a shit about them, either. But unfortunately they for a long time have been the useful tools for preserving our rights to our "pop-guns". Unfortunately to get that support I've helped sell us down a road with a bunch of other bullshit along for the ride. It is precisely all their other bullshit that has driven me out of the Republican party. But make no mistake - it's very obvious to me and everyone like me that by so doing I'm also abandoning my staunchest ally in my cause. And that sucks.

But I will continue to raise awareness and appreciation and acceptance of the right to bear arms in my new party.

I know there are tons of closet-Republicans (or worse) here and you have to contend with a lot of bullshit from people who really are right-wing at heart. Make no mistake - I am not one of those people. I recognize the erosion of civil liberties, the theocracy, the immoral war, and all the other bullshit that the Republican party has brought us. There are no doubt millions of people like me, and it's people like me who are going to turn this election from another tightly-contested election into a landslide as the traditional Republican base finds its rolls extremely weakened. So you're not going to win any arguments with me by saying, "Well the 2nd Amendment sucks because it's the champion cause of the Right Wing!". So what. It's also my champion cause and I'm not in the Right Wing. Sometimes, I won't look gift horses in the mouth very long if they support my cause. Like when the Supreme Court hands down its almost certain pro-2nd amendment decision, right-leaning or not I'll be very proud of our Supreme Court Justices who supported it.

[tburnsten]

29. The NRA list is about people who are anti-gun

and public figures. Their list is quite public, as you have just shown, and they make no attempt to hide behind any allegations of noisome misdeeds, instead they quite plainly state that the list is of anti-gun individuals who occupy some space in the public eye or are directly involved in politics, so that people who are in a position to vote them in or out of office will be aware of how that candidate stands on this one issue. Not a list of doctors who should be boycotted because of their stance on an issue completely unrelated to medicine. look at the difference.

[iverglas]

32. yesssss

and my list is about people who are anti-humanity.

And when someone on my list comes up in discussion, I'll be happy to tell you about them.

Their list is quite public, as you have just shown, and they make no attempt to hide behind any allegations of noisome misdeeds, instead they quite plainly state that the list is of anti-gun individuals who occupy some space in the public eye or are directly involved in politics, so that people who are in a position to vote them in or out of office will be aware of how that candidate stands on this one issue.

You can call agitating for the invasion of Iraq "noisome misdeeds" (as the PNAC, funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which funds the outfit behind the guns-on-campus agitation, did). I call it right-wing scummery.

And when I find these deep right-wing pockets funding some astroturf gun militancy brought up in discussion here, I'll plainly state what they are, so that people are in a position to understand who they've chosen to get into bed with.

[tburnsten]

33. I wasn't talking about PNAC or Sarah Scaife

I was talking about the NRA list of political figures who are against the civilian ownership of firearms. Little different.

[iverglas]

34. lord jeezus (with addendum)

I think I am going to abandon all hope here.

You were talking about the NRA blacklist because **I** raised the NRA blacklist in response to some drivel about me spending my time drawing up blacklists.

The Sarah Scaife Foundation and PNAC and FIRE are on my blacklist, as they are on the blacklist of every decent human being in the world.

I responded to your comments about the NRA with relevant comments about those organizations.

If you have this much difficulty following a conversation you are engaging in, perhaps you need a nap.



-----------

For your reference, this is what you said:

You need to start early, dredging through every obscure essay and comment put out by as many obscure and uninteresting people as you can, making lists, lists of everyone they associate with or who has a link to a link to a link with objectionable material or even just material that is easily misinterpreted, then slander all those people as vile right wing racist filthy misogynist crapscum, then you will be able to refer to your handy blacklist any time someone posts useful information, just to be sure that the author isn't associated with any of those scumsuckers that earned their way onto your blacklist.

Then you will only be a few more steps behind iverglas' intricate techniques. and you will be on a first name basis with every vile right-winger in the world.

Perhaps this will help you follow the trail.

[gorfle]

36. But why is FIRE indecent?

The Sarah Scaife Foundation and PNAC and FIRE are on my blacklist, as they are on the blacklist of every decent human being in the world.

But why would a decent human being not support FIRE? Because they support allowing CCW permit holders to carry firearms on campus like they do virtually everywhere else? Or because they accept money from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, as if the money were somehow tainted? The former makes them a fine, upstanding organization. The latter just makes them desperate. But it has nothing to do with the issue they support.

I went to the FIRE website and looked at their Issues page. Except for the religious stuff, all of it seems pretty upstanding to me.

[iverglas]

38. do your own homework, will you?

But why would a decent human being not support FIRE? Because they support allowing CCW permit holders to carry firearms on campus like they do virtually everywhere else? Or because they accept money from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, as if the money were somehow tainted?

Or try asking me some questions that aren't quite as loaded.

The former makes them a fine, upstanding organization.

That's your opinion.

The latter just makes them desperate.

That's an allegation of fact for which you have offered not a shred of evidence or argument.

What's plain is that the holtser-wearing babies are no more than astroturf for the right wing. As I've said, I don't doubt that you're aware of this.


You look at the FIRE website and see "upstanding". I look at the FIRE website and see David Horowitz and Mark Steyn and all their fellow travellers, engaged in a focused and well-funded battle by the far right wing to take over the post-secondary institutions of the US. I guess I need a new prescription from the place where all you folks buy your spectacles, which no one will ever give me directions to.


If it's all in front of your eyes, will you disregard it or paint it over with pretty words?

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/13/list

They're conducting fucking WITCHHUNTS, for fuck's sake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_(conservative_writer)

This is the right wing. This is not loonytarians and Ron Paul-ites and John McCain. This is the hard, hard-core right wing.

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2005Q3/saf.html

And they lie and they lie and they lie. In that case, they lied about a Republican who didn't meet their high standards.


But don't click! You might lose that plausible deniablity virginity.

[gorfle]

40. The never ending trail of guilt by association.

do your own homework, will you?

For your assertions? I don't think so.

But why would a decent human being not support FIRE? Because they support allowing CCW permit holders to carry firearms on campus like they do virtually everywhere else? Or because they accept money from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, as if the money were somehow tainted?

Or try asking me some questions that aren't quite as loaded.

Are you afraid to answer a simple question? Why would a decent human being not support FIRE?

That's your opinion.

So it's your opinion, I take it then, that the opposite is true? That because they support the right of CCW permit holders to carry on college campuses like they do virtually everywhere else they are not an upstanding organization? Well guess what, that's your opinion.

That's an allegation of fact for which you have offered not a shred of evidence or argument.

OK, I don't care where they get there money to do the good work they do. How about that?

What's plain is that the holtser-wearing babies are no more than astroturf for the right wing. As I've said, I don't doubt that you're aware of this.

And again, there are no babies wearing holsters. But keep up the insults - it sure helps you make your case.

I don't know or care if they are astroturf for the superbowl. Their mission is a valiant one, and I support it. So should any decent human being.

You look at the FIRE website and see "upstanding". I look at the FIRE website and see David Horowitz and Mark Steyn and all their fellow travellers, engaged in a focused and well-funded battle by the far right wing to take over the post-secondary institutions of the US. I guess I need a new prescription from the place where all you folks buy your spectacles, which no one will ever give me directions to.

Be careful you don't run out of ink in that pen you're drawing all those connections with.

If it's all in front of your eyes, will you disregard it or paint it over with pretty words?

(links snipped)

After a brief skim of the 15 pages or so you linked to I could not find anything related to the discussion at hand of the pro-CCW permit activist. All I get is that David Horowitz is an asshole. OK, so he's an asshole.

In the future, please do your own homework if you would like to try and make a point and provide your assertion, along with pertinent quotes rather than just dumping a bunch of links and thinking you've made a coherent argument.

I'm not going to waste 30+ minutes reading your homework assignments and then try to deduce what point or insinuation you were trying to make. If you've got a point, state it, cite it, and then I'll discuss it. If you just want to dump some links out there and scream, "SEE THERE!" you're wasting your time, as I'm not going to click on them.

[iverglas]

42. like I said

If you just want to dump some links out there and scream, "SEE THERE!" you're wasting your time, as I'm not going to click on them.

WAH-WAH.

[iverglas]

25. yes, that would be

why Connie goes to pains to explain that it's pronounced "dew twah", as I of course pronounced it on sight ...

If you're familiar with Victorian pornography at all, you'll be extra amused by Connie du Toit's name.


You just keep googling Kim du Toit now. It isn't really all that hard to find his stuff.