Obama would be winning by a country mile...

[iiibbb]

... if it weren't the Dem's legacy of their approach to gun-control... specifically, instead of seeking to change the Constitution by amendment, as it should be done, they looked to undermine what independents such as myself view as our right.

Still voting for Obama, because the Republicans have abandoned whatever else I felt I had in common with them.

**Edited for 1 grammar mistake**

[MercutioATC]

1. I agree that it's one of the major issues working against us.

...but, as a piece of friendly advice, you're going to catch some heat here if you continue to refer to Democrats as "them"...

[iiibbb]

5. I refer to both parties as "Them"

I'm an independent and civil libertarian. They're both "them".

[AndyTiedye]

2. As You Point Out, It is a Legacy. The NRA Will Support Repuglicans Until the End of Time

…no matter what we do from now on.

[one-eyed fat man]

26. not so last election here

Ben Chandler ran as a pro-gun Democrat, received an A rating from the NRA and won.

Nick Clooney ran as an anti-gun Democrat and, despite his being well-known as a local TV personality and famous son, got beaten like a red-headed stepchild.

The Democrats lost EVERY Congressional seat in the Commonwealth of Kentucky over the AWB in '94. That included seats Democrats had held continuously since Henry Clay was in Congress! They lost in counties that had never elected a Republican anything and where every other race, save the House Seat stayed Democrat!

The State Party has worked hard to distance itself from the National Party on guns. If we have an anti-gun candidate running for any of the House or Senate seats this election cycle they are sure aren't telling anyone.

I think if Nancy Pelosi is willing to live with a progun Congress she'll stay Speaker. If the Party insists on running enough anti gun candidates to pass the AWB she will damn sure become the Minority Whip.

[krispos42]

67. The NRA will support pro-gun candidates until the end of time

And as long as our party platform has that rather pandering plank in it on guns, most of that support will go to Repubs.

:shrug:

I bet we get most of the ACLU money for the same reason

[bowens43]

3. bullshit. For the vast majority of Americans, it's a non-issue.

Besides , your entire premise is wrong. The Constitution doesn't need to be changed. It doesn't prohibit gun control.

[jody]

8. Between 54 and 80 million gun-owners in U.S. electorate of 200 million. Over 120 million voted in

2004.

RKBA is important for most gun owners.

[iverglas]

14. keep on keeping on

Between 54 and 80 million gun-owners in U.S. electorate of 200 million.

A majority of US voters have uteruses.

And yet they didn't all vote for the party that is genuinely most likely to protect their right to determine how their uteruses will be used.


RKBA is important for most gun owners.

Sez you. Of course, what you actually sez is meaningless noise. RKBA, RKBA, brawk, RKBA.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+site:www.consumerfed.org+%22assault+weapons+ban%22+%22gun+owners%22+poll

2004, granted, but interesting.

40% of Missouri gun owners support renewing the assault weapons ban; 41% of gun owners. support strengthening it.

67% of Michigan gun owners support renewing the assault weapons ban; 62% of gun owners. support strengthening it.

64% of Arizona gun owners support renewing the assault weapons ban; 58% of gun owners. support strengthening it.

50% of Ohio gun owners support renewing the assault weapons ban; 44% of gun owners. support strengthening it.

63% of Pennsylvania gun owners support renewing the assault weapons ban; 60% of gun. owners support strengthening it.

55% of New Mexico gun owners support renewing the assault weapons ban; 45% of gun. owners support strengthening it.

53% of South Dakota gun owners support renewing the assault weapons ban; 49% of gun. owners support strengthening it.

http://www.consumerfed.org/releases2.cfm?filename=022304_assault_weapons_survey_2004_release.txt

Support Renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban - All respondents 76%, Gun Owners 57% Support Closing the Loopholes that Allow:

* Modified weapons to evade the ban - All 65%, Gun Owners 51%;
* Pre-1994 weapons to be sold without background checks - All 87%, Gun Owners 79%;
* Conversion parts kits - All 85%; Gun Owners 73%;
* Juveniles from owning assault weapons - All Respondents 85%, Gun Owners 80%.

Kinda seems like what you and your fellow travellers are actually saying is that the Democratic Party should pander to a MINORITY of gun owners, largely composed of the usual loudmouthed right-wing misogynist bigot assholes, who disagree with the Democratic Party's platform.

Or, like, do you or someone have something other than unsubstantiated squawking to offer?


html fixed

[Flyboy_451]

80. The polls listed...

Were commissioned by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, a noted anti-gun organization. This fact alone calls into question the validity of the poll results. When looking at the results from Missouri (the state in which I live) we see that there were only 400 respondents to the poll. There are 114 counties in the State of Missouri, and depending on the dispersion of those polled, the results could easily be far from accurate. St. Louis County and Jackson County are two that have historically been in favor of gun control legislation, yet I find it difficult to believe that polling people within these two counties would result in numbers that are representative of the state as a whole.

On top of this, we have to consider that the wording of poll questions can often be engineered to influence the results. This is a tactic that any organization with an agenda knows, and takes advantage of. Any information presented by an organization that is not unbiased should be taken with a grain of salt at best.

There are a certain number of voters that are dissatisfied with the current administration. Some of these are gun enthusiasts (notice I did not say gun owners, because there is a BIG difference). Gun enthusiasts represent a large group of people that are politically very vocal. To alienate this group could easily prove fatal in an election that is likely to be very close. By bringing this issue to the table, the Democratic party, may be shooting themselves in the foot when comes to attracting this populace.

JW

[iverglas]

83. fascinating speculation

Now, if you happen to have any actual facts to discredit the amazingly consistent findings of the polls, or any credible polls showing significantly different findings, do feel free to post them.


Gun enthusiasts represent a large group of people that are politically very vocal.

Well, they're certainly very vocal. However many of them there are.

[iiibbb]

86. Certainly more than the last two elections were lost by I'd say...

[Truth4Justice]

90. Remember John Lott says "2.5 million gun defense uses per year. What a load!

:puke:

[krispos42]

113. No, FSU criminologist Gary Kleck says 2.5 million times a year

From the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995

Data from the NCVS imply that each year there are only about 68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies,<16> or about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries.<17> These figures are less than one ninth of the estimates implied by the results of at least thirteen other surveys, summarized in Table 1, most of which have been previously reported.<18> The NCVS estimates imply that about 0.09 of 1% of U.S. households experience a defensive gun use (DGU) in any one year, compared to the Mauser survey's estimate of 3.79% of households over a five year period, or about 0.76% in any one year, assuming an even distribution over the five year period, and no repeat uses.<19>



<snip>

Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way. Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.

<snip>

The most technically sound estimates presented in Table 2 are those based on the shorter one-year recall peRiod that rely on Rs' firsthand accounts of their own experiences (person-based estimates). These estimates appear in the first two columns. They indicate that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns.

<snip>

Are these estimates plausible? Could it really be true that Americans use guns for self-protection as often as 2.1 to 2.5 million times a year? The estimate may seem remarkable in comparison to expectations based on conventional wisdom, but it is not implausibly large in comparison to various gun-related phenomena. There are probably over 220 million guns in private hands in the U.S.,<57> implying that only about 1% of them are used for defensive purposes in any one year--not an impossibly high fraction. In a December 1993 Gallup survey, 49% of U.S. households reported owning a gun, and 31% of adults reported personally owning one.<58> These figures indicate that there are about 47.6 million households with a gun, with perhaps 93 million, or 49% of the adult U.S. population living in households with guns, and about 59.1 million adults personally owning a gun. Again, it hardly seems implausible that 3% (2.5 million/93 million) of the people with immediate access to a gun could have used one defensively in a given year.

<snip>

How could such a serious thing happen so often without becoming common knowledge? This phenomenon, regardless of how widespread it really is, is largely an invisible one as far as governmental statistics are concerned. Neither the defender/victim nor the criminal ordinarily has much incentive to report this sort of event to the police, and either or both often have strong reasons not to do so. Consequently many of these incidents never come to the attention of the police, while others may be reported but without victims mentioning their use of a gun. And even when a DGU is reported, it will not necessarily be recorded by the police, who ordinarily do not keep statistics on matters other than DGUs resulting in a death, since police record-keeping is largely confined to information helpful in apprehending perpetrators and making a legal case for convicting them. Because such statistics are not kept, we cannot even be certain that a large number of DGUs are not reported to the police.

<more>

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

The crime rate is lower now even though the population is somewhat larger, so this number is probably down to around 2 million times a year.

[iiibbb]

115. Even if that's an order of magnitude high...

...it would still be an order of magnitude greater than gun deaths (including suicides).

[Flyboy_451]

126. better than polls

I have something better than polls with regard to how gun owners and enthusiasts view the assault weapons ban. How about the historical fact of the democratic party, which vocally supported the original ban, being promptly voted out of office, even in states that historically supported the Democratic party? The Dems. lost majority leadership as a result of their support for the ban. I would say that pretty well tells us where gun owners and enthusiasts stand on the issue.

JW

[iverglas]

130. have you discovered perpetual motion too?

If not, you're doing so well on proving that correlation equals causation, you really should give it a try.

Too bad you don't have any, like, facts ...

[Flyboy_451]

136. I think you may have misunderstood

the intention of my original post. I am not saying that the polls are definitively inaccurate. Simply pointing out that polls in general, can be very misleading. Is it reasonable to assume that a poll commissioned by a organization with a well known agenda is accurate? Is it reasonable to assume that a sampling of only 400 people is representative of an entire state? The 2006 census shows an estimated population in Missouri as almost 6 million. Firearms ownership in Missouri is quite common. Hunting, sport shooting, and recreational shooting are all quite popular throughout the state. I, personally, find it hard to believe that a sampling of less than 7% of the population can be interpreted to be an accurate representation.

If such groups as Gun Owners of America or the NRA were to publish polls (as I am sure they have in many instances) of such small samplings, claiming their point of view, I would question their accuracy as well. If a person or party wants to make use of polls for debate purposes, I would think it to be wise to search out polls that bring as little into question as possible. Polls are not facts, they are interpretations of samples taken from a whole. If the manner or intention in which a poll is taken or presented is questionable, it is of little use.

JW

[iverglas]

138. polls

First one that came up -- poll obama mccain, google news:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1840327,00.html?imw=Y

All four polls of registered voters were conducted by telephone Sept. 7-9. The Michigan poll of 966 voters, Missouri survey of 940 voters and Virginia poll of 920 voters all have a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The New Hampshire poll of 899 has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

And these are the polls that influence voters in the US, eh?

There might well be a larger margin of error in the consumer federation polls. One would expect to see far less consistent state-to-state results if the thing were really unreliable.

It means absolutely nothing to raise standard quibbles about polling, to attack a particular poll. Were its respondents unrepresentative? Find out. Is its margin of error too high for it to be reliable? Find out. Were its questions biased toward a particular answer? Find out. Who commissioned it? Who cares, unless you can show that the polling firm itself attempted to influence the outcome?

[Truth4Justice]

89. Great post!

[tucsonlib]

20. Re: RKBA is important for most gun owners.

I know it's important to me! Why, it probably ranks at least 25th....maybe even 23rd on my list of "issues likely to influence my vote".

[jody]

23. Apparently Obama and Biden don't agree with you and are addressing RKBA in their public appearances.

[Truth4Justice]

91. Move toward the middle. Once elected the new ban on assualt weapons begins.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. Only idiots would do that.

[Truth4Justice]

98. Most candidates move to the center. Then went in office they can bring about change.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. The AWB wouldn't change anything except piss off likely voters

and ensure that Obama would serve just one term.

[SteveM]

103. Hmm, addicted to losing? Do you do the GOP's work for free? (nt)

[krispos42]

114. And the way your frothing at the mouth for such a thing to happen...

...justifies EVERY SINGLE charge the NRA and other gun-rights levy against Democrats.

[iverglas]

125. hmm

You do notice that I didn't fall for it. ;)

Ever want to know what's under the wolf's clothing, just ask!

[iiibbb]

24. I'm not a single-issue voter...

...but guns are in my top 10... top-3 if you lump all the civil libertarian issues into one pot.

[Herman74]

49. So a strong majority of American adults get by okay without guns...

...have to wonder about them, right, Jody?

[krispos42]

70. Not a bit

Their right to keep and bear arms is as secure as mine is. I don't care if they use it or not, I care that they have it in the first place.

[SteveM]

104. Sums that up pretty well (nt)

[Truth4Justice]

92. Never needed one myself. nt

[iiibbb]

11. You miss the finer point...

Their approach... I do not dismiss the idea of gun control out of hand... but their approach is what has caused them problems beginning in 1994.

[krispos42]

69. The vast majority of Americans don't own guns and don't plan to

Of which a small segment are very anti-gun.


However, a very large minority of Americans do own guns or plan to. And for a decently large segment, it IS an issue.


Specific gun-control laws must pass Constitutional muster. It's not a black-and-white thing. It does prohibit SOME gun control, such as gun bans or prohibiting keeping working guns in your house, but is allows others such as registration and background checks.

[Truth4Justice]

88. Exactly!

[RoccoR5955]

4. WRONG!

As a matter of fact, my DEMOCRATIC congressman carries a gun, and he's from NY! Maurice Hinchey, (D-NY22) was once busted for a gun that was in his luggage.

BTW -- Why do all the people who say that it's their right to carry a gun, refuse to read the first part of the second amendment? "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Why is the part about a well regulated militia never mentioned? And as far as the right to bear arms is concerned, back when this amendment was written, the highest form of weapons technology that was available was what? A flintlock? If it was advocated that every man, woman, and child could carry a flintlock in 1776, why is it that in 2008, it is not advocated by second amendment groups, that everyone be able to carry today's highest form of weapons technology, a tactical nuclear device? Well, if you want your rifle, or assault rifle, for that matter, I want my shoulder mounted nuclear grenade launcher!

'nuff said!

[jody]

6. Sorry but you need to read SCOTUS on D.C. v. Heller. "The Second Amendment protects an individual

right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

See http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

You can have a different opinion but the case I cited above is the law of the land, get used to it.

[iiibbb]

9. You miss the finer points...

1) I know there are pro-gun Democrats...

... but the Democrats have a "legacy"... which is different.

2) Why do people always assume that 2nd amendment supporters mean "right to carry".

[iiibbb]

16. If the 2nd only applies to flintlocks

Then the 1st only applies to feather pens and a block printing press.

[apocalypsehow]

18. And if apples were oranges, I dunno

alligators would fly helicopters.

What a jumble of dumb. :thumbsdown:

[iiibbb]

22. His premise...

is as far-fetched as mine. The only difference is that I know mine is far-fetched.

I basically think that we should have access to the same things that a beat police officer has.

That means: Hunting rifles, semi-auto rifles, pistols, and shotgun.

That doesn't mean:Machine guns, .50 cal, grenades, etc. etc. etc.

[apocalypsehow]

33. His premise? Huh?

"I basically think that we should have access to the same things that a beat police officer has"

I like to sprinkle my ice cream cones with Grape Nuts.

That means: whole wheat grains on a cold ball of sugar.

Help me out here... :shrug:

[iiibbb]

36. The right has more to do with the

right to defend ourselves as individuals, or collectively against tyranny, than it has to do with the technology we use to claim this right.


Now I'm not an absolutist. I'm not going to argue we should have grenades, or nuclear bombs or whatever.


If we wish to change the meaning of the Constitution, we should amend it. That's what we did to give Blacks the vote, women the vote, or any changes brought about by the amendments that followed the bill of rights.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[tucsonlib]

60. Damn! Just When I'd Written You Off As Hopeless....

...you go and hit a home run. Kudos! And right on! I hope your wife enjoys a full recovery. And yes, it is too bad every American doesn't have the kind of health coverage you and your family are so fortunate to receive. Your employer is one-in-a-million. God bless him. But the burden should be taken off his shoulders. Employer-based health insurance is an outdated, inefficient, immoral method for dispersing health care.

C'mon, now! Post something rude and cynical again so I can retort in kind. I've only so much love to spread around.....

:loveya:

[apocalypsehow]

63. I still call ruder. And #1 vitriolicist.

Thanks for the good wishes, BTW. :hi:

[tucsonlib]

64. Re: #1 vitriolicist

So you can throw your voice. BFD.


:toast:

[iverglas]

62. my work here is done

So I'll just wander off.

My mum, a senior citizen getting max govt income assistance benefits because she has min income, and my sister whose partner is self-employed, are both really ill, and I have no idea what we'd be doing here if we were facing two family members without private resources needing extensive medical care as they do (one with bad colon cancer, one with an as yet unexplored lymphoma). Or what we would have done when my dad was dying of metastasized melanoma in hospital for six weeks.

As was the case with my dad, we will not be one penny out of pocket through the whole process. Not a penny; no co-pay, no deductible, no exclusions, no extras. (Except any prescription drugs in my sister's case, which aren't publicly covered in this province for non-seniors and non-low income.)

I frankly can't even imagine it. I feel like the post-feminist generation, who think everything they have just fell into their laps. As an adult I have never known a world without universal health coverage. The idea of not having it is simply a nightmare world I really can't even imagine.

I've been trying to get some other info just for info purposes, about unemployment insurance caregiver coverage, but the server problems tonight are stymying me. I think the gist is that two weeks wouldn't be long enough for either that or sick benefits to kick in, but for anything much longer, the Employment Insurance plan would pay sick benefits, and in serious situatoins would pay caregiver benefits. It also pays maternity and paternity benefits, a year that parents can divide as they choose.


I too wish the best for your wife, apocalypsehow, and me being the charitable soul I am, you can tell her I bear her no ill will. ;)

[apocalypsehow]

65. Gosh n' darn it, don't be wandering off.

You want to leave me at the mercy of this crowd? :P

It literally is incredible to me to ponder what we would've done without the fantastic (and overlapping) coverages that spared us anything more than a couple of up-front deductibles. It would've been a financial nightmare, on top of the medical nightmare we were already facing. Fortunately, it didn't happen. But then we had the coverage, and millions upon millions or our fellow citizens do not.

Thank you for your best wishes: I hope the same for your family in the challenges they face on the medical front. But my wife wanted me to pass along this message verbatim: he leaves the newspaper turned to the Sports section, and doesn't pick up his dirty socks off the hall floor. ;-)

[krispos42]

72. Best wishes for your family

:-)

[apocalypsehow]

82. Thank you, my wife & I sincerely appreciate your kind wishes.

:-)

[iverglas]

158. hey, I just realized

You were talking to me! Thank you. But I'm sure you meant the same for apocalypsehow. Maybe you even meant to reply to him. ;)

[iiibbb]

75. Whatever

I stick to my original thesis... which has nothing to do with the origins of my own political beliefs or interpretations of the 2nd amendment... or how much I agree with you getting time off during your wife's illness (because believing in one's right to own guns and good health care are not mutually exclusive).

You've come in to this discussion and drawn in all manner of non-sequiturs about flintlocks and what does libertarianism really believe in, or how I self describe myself etc. These things are irrelevant to my original premise.

Without the legacy of their approach to gun control (whether you are right or I am right in the grand scheme of things), Obama would be taking this election going away... and he may yet... and more power to him.

Good luck in life.

[iiibbb]

76. Furthermore... why does your narative even matter?

Does it matter to you the two friends of mine that were saved by guns? Does it matter to you the two times that I've been in harm's way with no police to protect me?

Probably not, so I won't even bother telling the stories that are every bit as heartfelt as yours and about a wife who has to be married to you.

You burble about rights you presume not to exist... but if you have some privilege(or right) to health care, then I certainly have one to protect myself.


I really do not understand the basis of your dislike for me. I suppose it'd make me laugh, if I were a jerk.


but your reaction and your maturity in dealing with people with different viewpoints certainly helps me understand why someone like Bush can be elected twice.

[apocalypsehow]

81. Dislike you? Perish the thought! You're A-Okay out my way, and that's a fact, Jack.

"You burble about rights you presume not to exist... but if you have some privilege(or right) to health care, then I certainly have one to protect myself"

Ha ha!!!(<----------*nervous laughter*)

Don't pull my leg like that! It looks bad to the viewing audience. Heck, a few of them might even really believe that you fail to grasp that health care (and the "privilege" or right thereunto) and protect(ing) myself are such two very different categories of things that lining them up in the same sentence is kinda the point where most of us starting laughing at the author, instead of with him.

"but your reaction and your maturity in dealing with people with different viewpoints certainly helps me understand why someone like Bush can be elected twice"

Doobie-boogie-moogie-moogie-moo! There, see? I can type incoherent nonsense too! It's like when I was a kid, and we used to play this game called "telephone," and....

[iiibbb]

85. Again

I stick to my thesis... the legacy of the Democratic party is a principle factor in this election being close.

Dismiss it if you like.

I now know not to bother with the rest with you. I thought I was clarifying myself, but apparently you're too busy trying to be a jerk than to understand where I am coming from (which is in fact pretty damn liberal compared to the majority of people) because you're caught up in semantics.

Narrative is useless with people like you. There's no point in talking further to you, so I will not try.

[apocalypsehow]

87. Well, gee, rainy days and Thursdays always get me down.

Or was that Mondays? My sister had a crush on Karen Carpenter's brother when we were tweens, and she kept that turntable humming all hours of the day and night.

"There's no point in talking further to you, so I will not try"

***placemark***

[DrCory]

77. Is this...

a violation of the rules?


"apocalypsehow (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-11-08 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #36
58. I'm going to take the time because I have the time
Edited on Thu Sep-11-08 12:26 AM by apocalypsehow
since my very generous employer has granted me extended paid leave in the aftermath of my wife's (successful) surgery that was likewise picked up by our very generous health plan. It took her about two weeks to recover, and now we're just on a kind of gentle home vacation; she's pursuing her hobbies and passions till she goes back to work, and I'm interacting with a passel of Republicans "RKBA Democrats" on a discussion board. Ah, the gun dungeon: a good time had by all. One misses the joint after first immersion, and time constraints don't allow one to keep up with the dynamic of the place since GD: P is always beckoning. I really need to start spending more time here."

It might just be:

"Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know."

That isn't very progressive behavior.

[jody]

100. Interesting question. In another DU thread, a poster implied Obama and Biden are "Gun crazies"

because they recently stated they support the Second Amendment.

Another DUer was so angered by Obama's recent support for the 2nd Amendment that the DUer said if "I wanted a Republican, I'd vote for one" which IMO means Obama and Biden are Republicans in that poster's mind.

Those statement were not deleted and remain along other posts repeating debunked gun-grabber myths and a litany of scurrilous phrases describing the group of pro-RKBA Democratic members of DU of which I am proud to be a member.

Thanks for raising the issue. :hi:

[apocalypsehow]

117. Gee, all this hand-wringing by the manly sure does surprise.

Why, I figured handling all them shootin' irons day in and day out woulda put extra hair on your chests. Guess I figured wrong.

Anyhow or anyhoo, there's a clever little button the powers-that-be have put at your disposal. It's not hard to find: it's even labeled, and there's a little red arrow pointing at it just in case you're not sure. It says "alert."

Instead of sniveling around about a perceived "personal attack" ( :eyes: ) for a about a dozen posts in a thread where I think I've spotted one, I usually just avail myself of that little button.

But, hey: don't let me interfere with a good :cry:

[DrCory]

128. Nothing "perceived" about it...

Clear as day, there it is. Really now, don't embarrass yourself by pretending otherwise. Are you exempt from the rules? Have you ever required others follow rules in any context? If so, was that "sniveling" on your part?

[SteveM]

107. I see this rule violation, too, but figure all gloves are off in this forum...

That's why I ask some gun-control posters who are so -- OH, baby, BABY -- vitriolic (ooo, I love how you say that): "Are you still going the GOP's work for free?" 'Figure that's kind of mild, given the kind of garbage that backs up here.

[iverglas]

118. help me out

As quoted by you:

"Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know."

So. Which member of this message board was accused of being etc.?

[DrCory]

127. Nice Try...

But, you know the answer. Don't pretend otherwise.

[beevul]

97. The question is...

"From a progressive point of view - hell, just from a human decency point of view - it isn't even close."

The question is this:

If gun rights should be low priority this election for various reasons, should not gun control be equally as low a priority for most of the same reasons?

Like you say, it isn't even close, right?

[jody]

99. beevul, touche with an Occam riposte. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

116. That's the question, is it?

I'd say your answer is wandering around without a clue.

Let's take a peek at a couple 'a real basic concepts real quick:

(1) People not having access to the Healthcare they need = Bad. Priority our politics should attach to rectifying this national disgrace = Very High.

(2) Protecting some nebulous, silly concept of a "right" to tote around firepower for "self-defense" = Very Low. Since the Redcoats haven't watered their horses in the Potomac River recently, this doesn't even rank as a "priority" of any kind.

(3) On the other hand, protecting human beings very real right to walk around unmolested by bullets puncturing their persons = Good. Priority our politics should attach to making the daily carnage that is gun violence in America go away (or at least go way down) = Very High.

There: I've notched the level of mental effort required to understand the progressive point of view on these matters down to the limit I'm capable (without breaking out crayons and poster board, that is), and all just for you. Don't you love it when common sense and politics merge into one seamless fabric?

That's what we call a "win-win." :thumbsup:

[DrCory]

137. For whom do you speak?

"There: I've notched the level of mental effort required to understand the progressive point of view on these matters down to the limit I'm capable (without breaking out crayons and poster board, that is), and all just for you. Don't you love it when common sense and politics merge into one seamless fabric?"

Progressive point of view? As defined by whom? Do you presume to speak for all progressives? Can you present a platform, or does this definition of progressiveness exist in your mind alone?

[iverglas]

119. Hey, here's a question. Or two.

The question is this:
If gun rights should be low priority this election for various reasons, should not gun control be equally as low a priority for most of the same reasons?


Which forum of DU should I go to, to find the passel of people wringing their hands about how soft Obama / the Democratic Party are on firearms control, demanding that Obama / the Democratic Party shape up and that Obama publicly announce his support for the firearms control measures said people advocate, reproducing websites and news releases and god knows what from self-described Democrats demanding that Obama / the Democratic Party toe the firearms control line, threatening not to vote for Obama / the Democratic Party if they don't, predicting dire electoral consequences if Obama / the Democratic Party don't do as is demanded ... day after week after month?

Which one is that? I seem to have missed it.

I've also missed all the same stuff happening anywhere in the real world. Do you have opinion columns by Democratic Party supporters (or anybody) calling for Obama / the Democratic Party to get tough on firearms control, websites belonging to obscure groups within the Democratic Party calling for Obama / the Democratic Party to get tough on firearms control (and maybe linking to Green Party front groups calling Democrats capitalist running dogs), letters to the editor from Democrats decrying the softness of Obama / the Democratic Party on firearms control ...

Got any of them?

I'll be here waiting.

[beevul]

165. Hahahaha.

I could not have said it better myself:

"Which forum of DU should I go to, to find the passel of people wringing their hands about how soft Obama / the Democratic Party are on firearms control, demanding that Obama / the Democratic Party shape up and that Obama publicly announce his support for the firearms control measures said people advocate, reproducing websites and news releases and god knows what from self-described Democrats demanding that Obama / the Democratic Party toe the firearms control line, threatening not to vote for Obama / the Democratic Party if they don't, predicting dire electoral consequences if Obama / the Democratic Party don't do as is demanded ... day after week after month?"


"Which one is that? I seem to have missed it."

"I've also missed all the same stuff happening anywhere in the real world. Do you have opinion columns by Democratic Party supporters (or anybody) calling for Obama / the Democratic Party to get tough on firearms control, websites belonging to obscure groups within the Democratic Party calling for Obama / the Democratic Party to get tough on firearms control (and maybe linking to Green Party front groups calling Democrats capitalist running dogs), letters to the editor from Democrats decrying the softness of Obama / the Democratic Party on firearms control ..."

"Got any of them?"

"I'll be here waiting."

Ok, I COULD have said it better myself, but thats not the point.

The point is, that what you wrote is important and true.


It just means something entirely different than the message you intended to convey. :rofl:


Democrats here on DU have come around over the last couple years, on what the importance and the truth contained in what you just wrote and more importantly what it means. Democrats in congress came around to the meaning of it last cycle, and won plenty for it, including enjoying control of a pro-gun congress because of it.

I know you didn't intend it, but you hit one out of the park.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[krispos42]

71. Freedom of the press is not limited to steam-powered printing presses...

Nor does the right to be secure in your papers stop with electronic communications.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. History is fun

The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791. The Girandoni Repeating Rifle was already in use by the Austrians prior to that (1780). Americans were aware of it's existence, and it's use against the French. It was carried by Lewis on the famed Lewis and Clark Expedition. It was a 20 shot .464 caliber compressed air gun. Every bit as powerful as a flintlock musket. Able to kill humans, and at least deer, an animal illegal to hunt today in most states with an AR-15 'assault rifle' because the .223 is too pathetic to kill it humanely or reliably.

In some states it's still legal to own a Cannon. (Oregon comes to mind) A crew served weapon not normally considered 'arms' by the courts. (Technically cannon is ordnance, not arms. different classification back in the day) I expect that a tactical nuke would be classified the same, or at least as a 'destructive device', something our courts have held to be quite different from 'arms' for a very very long time.

Reductio ad absurdum and a couple other genetic fallacies besides.


(The Girandoni repeating rifle ultimately failed in the 'marketplace' of military arms at the time, because it was fragile due to manufacturing methods, and required much more training for the common soldier than a musket. But at the time, it was light years beyond anything else on the battlefield for volume of fire. The original 'assault weapon' if you will.)

[SteveM]

105. The "militia clause" has been discussed here ad nauseum...

Perhaps you are new to this forum?
(1) "Of 60-plus law review articles treating the Amendment that have appeared since 1980, only a handful defend the position -- and that handful appears generally in minor journals authored by officers or lobbyists for anti-gun groups. Even its most vehement opponents are compelled to recognize that the individual right view now represents the 'standard model' among scholars writing on the Amendment." (Kates & Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate, 1997). Note that Alan Dershowitz (no friend of guns) acknowledges an individual right; says if you don't like that, repeal the Second Amendment. Laurence Tribe (the svengali of the militia clause at one time) now recognizes the individual right.

(2) Note also various dicta and findings in 2A cases before the federal courts recite the law regarding militias which commands that those reporting for duty must bear THEIR OWN ARMS as the state cannot be expected to provide for them. Kinda hard not to have an individual right and fulfill the secondary militia need, no?

(3) The highest form of communication (speech) technology was a manual wooden printing press. That what you're using, now?

(4) The Constitution refers to the "right to keep and bear arms" which means those arms designed to be carried and operated by one person, and firing a ballistic projectile. If you wish to get a "tactical nuclear device," try to and take your chances on how arms are defined. If you wish to get a "shoulder mounted nuclear grenade launcher," take your chances on how arms are defined. BTW, you can own combat tanks, aircraft, heavy machine guns, field guns, etc., LEGALLY in this country. But you will be regulated since they are not ballistic-round small arms as protected by the Constitution.

I think your remark -- "'nuff said" -- indicates you are closing your mind to sound sources and argument. Wanna say something further?

[RoccoR5955]

110. Sorry folks...

... I forgot the :sarcasm: tag in the second part of my post :)

[tucsonlib]

7. And Obama would be winning by a country mile...

if the country weren't inhabited by a gaggle of closet racists. If the media would do their job. If the polls weren't skewed. If Joe and Jane Voter didn't swallow GOP lies. If the elections weren't rigged. If Fox Noise, O'Leilly, Rush, Coulter et al would STFU. If our schools started teaching civics again. If the median I.Q. in the U.S. suddenly jumped 50 points. If people threw out their T.V. If the draft were reinstated. And on and on.......

[iiibbb]

10. They seemed to have no problem getting elected before the AWB.

[iverglas]

12. aha

Correlation really does = causation.

And here there have been those right here in the Guns forum who have said nay. You fuels, I say to them.

[iiibbb]

13. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation...

...but it can still mean causation.

you are willfully myopic if you don't see the wall that went up between independents and the Democratic party after the AWB.

And I think I have a better feel for what drives an independent voter than you do.

[iverglas]

15. "I have a better feel for what drives an independent voter than you do."

Perhaps.

That wouldn't actually be grounds for believing you are one, of course. Or that there is any particularly large and significant class thereof.

Calling one's self "independent" just isn't real meaningful, is it? One could vote for the same party every election of one's life, and call one's self "independent".

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

25. I can help you out if you like

I'm a social libertarian. I'm a fiscal conservative.

Now, just hypothetically, if someone said that to me in real life, I'd say: you're a selfish jerk.

Let me know if you need my assistance.

[iiibbb]

27. and I'd say...

... you're rude... but have a nice day.

Fiscal conservative does not equate to being against government programs... it's just insisting that the investment in infrastructure be well made. I don't see how that is a selfish position.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[iiibbb]

48. Done, done... and done.

Thanks for the advice.

Really hard to resist hijackers sometimes. I stand by original post. I stand by my place on the political spectrum... and I'm really quite amazed that anyone would find it so offensive as to devote the amount of time they have to tearing me down.

Too bad because I really like to talk about issues, but it's just a poisonous atmosphere. Can't talk politics of moderates on seemingly any board.

[iverglas]

50. and post 14 stands forever unanswered

Whoa, well done. All dissent eliminated from view ... well, your view ... with the click of a mouse.

Or so you say. I often don't believe such claims.

But then when I see what asses some of the people who make those claims subsequently manage to make of themselves, when they assume that something was in an invisible post rather than reading what was actually there, well, I believe, and I am grateful for the entertainment.

[iiibbb]

56. What you have is not dissent

Don't kid yourself. You're patting yourself on the back for how rude can be. That's not the mark of dissent. You chose the level of discourse.

Have a nice one.

[SteveM]

109. Another apt summation! But Some folks are in troll-training (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

102. Looks like it's been answered to me.

[iverglas]

59. uh

Yer only allowed to say you're putting somebody on ignore if you actually do it.

[jody]

78. Again, welcome to DU.

:hi:

[tucsonlib]

31. I Believe iverglas Was Alluding...

..to you proclaiming yourself a social libertarian, not to your self-proclaimed fiscal conservatism.

[iverglas]

34. heh

It's the combo.


"Social libertarian" (when accompanied by "fiscal conservatism")* = you're not the boss of me and I will do what I want.

"Fiscal conservative" (always) = I'm all right Jack, and fuck the rest of you.

(* I'm a "social libertarian" on issues of genuinely personal, private concern. I don't extend it to cover the entire spectrum of whatever I might feel like doing when I wake up today (edit: or to mean that I may never be required to forego the exercise of any right in the interests of the public or other individuals). Some "social libertarianism" is just another shade of I'm all right Jack.)


The combo is often found personified in people who have no actual problems and just can't stand the idea of being compelled to contribute to the welfare of those who do -- so they have to invent some problems for themselves, and beat their breasts about them and pretend to believe their invented problems are far, far worse than the problems of people who have no jobs, can't afford adequate housing, are denied access to opportunities because of their personal characteristics or affinity group, live one precarious job away from having no access to healthcare, are preyed on by drug-trafficking organized criminals ... and assorted other undoubtedly self-inflicted woes such as those.

In these instances, "independent" actually means "isn't that Ron Paul just a prince?"

[iiibbb]

42. Way to project... you would make a great racist.

You obviously have absolutely no idea what I am like, what social problems I'm concerned about or how I prioritize them...

I have no interest in Ron Paul. Liberatianism's weakness is in economics. The free-market doesn't work for poverty, environmental issues, etc. because people generally don't make decisions for the collective (be it willfully ignoring information, or simply through not being able to process all of the information). Which is really better for the environment... paper or plastic? Seems like a simple question. Does bioenergy have a place in solving our energy woes? How big of a role?

[tucsonlib]

28. Re: I'm neither Democrat or Republican

"I don't know what else to call myself but independent... I'm a social libertarian. I'm a fiscal conservative."

I know! How about calling yourself a "Screw You, I Got Mine" Wing-Nut? Or, more simply, how about a "Bill Kristol Republican"?

Why would somebody who could never, by his own admission, support Barack Obama, post an OP like this one?

[iiibbb]

30. What's with the vitriol?

I'm pro-choice but have no interest in abortions.

I'm for the de-criminalization of certain drugs, but have never taken them...

I like what Obama has been saying about health care... but I am pretty well off on the insurance front without the government's help.



actually... you really don't know what you're talking about... and you're rude.

[apocalypsehow]

32. ...

Have you seen my Chilly Willy video, BTW?

[iverglas]

35. well, I'm glad to see we're all on the same page now

Rude, ruder and rudest.

Dibs on rudest.

[iiibbb]

37. granted...

...but I don't know why you would relish that role.

I am just hoping Obama wins and our country get's back on the right track. I don't care which party accomplishes it.

[iverglas]

39. sorry

The club has three members at present, and you aren't one of 'em.

If I found myself on the same page as you, well, we all know what I'd have to do. I'm sure I can think of someone I could borrow the firearm I'd need to do the job from. I mean, maybe not on this side of the border, since I don't actually know anyone who owns any, except somebody in Vancouver, and that's a long way to go ... but then so's Arizona. But it would be necessary. To shoot myself.


So, you more of a "social libertarian" than Michael Badnarik?



How 'bout that Ron Paul?



Funny what passes for "social libertarian" in the US, eh?

[Howzit]

51. Your chart shows John Kerry as a Right Authoritarian

I thought that was Bush's position?

Perhaps this chart needs re-calibration - where does it come from?

[Howzit]

52. Perhaps we should all take the test and let that serve as calibration

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

[Howzit]

54. This test shows me left of Obama

I am third row left of center and second row into libertarian.

Does that make me OK, or this test suspect? Perhaps if they asked questions about gun ownership and the right to self defense I would have moved to the right?


EDIT to add score from test:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-2.88&soc=-1.69

[iverglas]

57. "questions about gun ownership and the right to self defense"

are simply so irrelevant to the world at large that they aren't included any more than views on UFOs. Or wait, were UFOs there? I think they were.

If they'd asked questions about gun ownership and the right to self defense, I'm quite sure you would have moved to the right.

Me:

-8.12 left-right and -7.95 libertarian-authoritarian.

Yeah, as I recall the pic can't be reproduced. Colour me just nestled down in the lower left corner.

Pretty much the diametric opposite of Tom Tancredo here, who looks to be about +8.25 left-right and +7.5 libertarian-authoritarian.

[Howzit]

66. If looking at a graph makes it easier, I have just figured out how to map your co-ordinates

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.12&soc=-7.95

[Howzit]

68. "questions about gun ownership and the right to self defense are simply so irrelevant

to the world at large that they aren't included"

If you really believed that, why do you spend so much time at this very forum every day?

[Howzit]

84. Crickets!

[Name removed]

93. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

94. no, crickets as in

the question was meaningless, so could not be answered.

I do not post extensively about "gun ownership and the right to self defense".

So why would my believing that "questions about gun ownership and the right to self defense are simply so irrelevantto the world at large" that it wouldn't occur to anyone to include them in a political ideology quiz have anything to do with why I post here?

"Gun ownership and the right to self defense" is a dog's breakfast. You choose to smush them together. Big deal.

Kinda like "pornography ownership and the right to self pleasure". No necessary connection. And what's it got to do with political ideology?

Restrictions on access to firearms, and restrictions on access to pornography, may well be matters of political ideology.

That you choose to frame your ideology as having something to do with "gun ownership and the right to self defense", or vice versa, does not make this meaningful as a concept. And does not place any onus on me to pursue a discussion in response to what is essentially a loaded question.

If the earth is spheroid, why do you wear socks?

[apocalypsehow]

61. For the record:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97

That's me.

"Does that make me OK, or this test suspect? Perhaps if they asked questions about gun ownership and the right to self defense I would have moved to the right?"

That's you. A dude like me couldn't make some of this shit up in the wildest fantasy of a novel, so I just cut & paste to stare at it awhile.

[iiibbb]

55. Gee... Iverglass was right.

I'm not a right-leaning libertarian scum after all. I'm a left-leaning scum (4 cells south and 4 cells west of the origin).

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-3.62&soc=-3.69

[iverglas]

53. "Perhaps this chart needs re-calibration - where does it come from?"

From the real world, where minute differences between one right-wing authoritarian and another right-wing authoritarian aren't mistaken for the gulf that actually exists between right-wing authoritarians and left-wing libertarians. As they are in the US.

Who did that Vietnam war thing, anyhow? Who gave you "welfare reform"?

A Democrat, any Democrat, may be better than any Republican. That doesn't make any particular Democrat a non-authoritarian non-right-winger.

G'head and do the test. My recent results are elsewhere in this forum this week, so we can all compare.

You wouldn't know, of course, but I'm having an election of my own just now. The date is Oct 14. Here's the Political Compass's analysis of the situation when we last had an election:



(Now you'll know better, if you happen to see the Liberal shills in the Canada forum here pretending to be left/libertarian. On an internet forum anywhere in Canada or Europe or the Antipodes, they'd be immediately recognized for what they are. As would a large number of people in this place, and I don't just mean the Guns forum.)

[apocalypsehow]

38. That's not very fair: I'm much ruder than you.

x(

Fine, then: I call "vitriolic-est."

[iverglas]

41. wull yeah

but fingrpik has a rude *and* a vitriol. We might have to arm wrestle.

[tucsonlib]

43. I'll see your rude...

..and raise ya two vitriols.....

[iverglas]

46. fold

All outa vitriols til I get to the clinic to renew my prescription ...

[tucsonlib]

40. Simple. My BS Detector Just Shot Off the Dial.

How can a social libertarian favor Universal Health Care? That you would brag about not needing "the government's help" for your health coverage demonstrates not only a lack of empathy for 48 million of your fellow Americans, but also a misplaced confidence in the coverage you think your Insurance Company provides. And, of course, you would never stoop to enrolling in Medicare when you retire, right? If you're really the social libertarian and fiscal conservative you claim to be, why aren't you voting for Ron Paul, or some other candidate who shares your views? Why, in short, would you go against every principle you profess to believe in and vote for Obama?

[iiibbb]

44. Get your BS detector adjusted... it's on the fritz

Universal health care is an economic issue that doesn't fall within "social" aspects of libertarianism. Social libertarians, at least as far as I'm concerned, think that people should have the freedom to live their lives and make decisions for themselves that concern their own life.

Besides... I called myself an independent first... Iverglass claimed to want further description.

I thought I'd add it for the sake of discussion, but obviously Iverglass and your goal isn't discourse.

C'ya

[apocalypsehow]

45. Hah! And to think that at first I didn't think I was going to like you. n/t.

[iverglas]

47. there, you see?

I am such an excellent judger of men.

fingrpik. Quit picking and shake hands.

I'll stand in the middle and you may each kiss a cheek.

[SteveM]

111. Ahh, true love. And all 3 are in the same circle. What's that movement?! (nt)

[iverglas]

134. so was it you bought me my gold star then??

I was just being too lazy to sort out the whole paypal thing again when it expired in the spring, and there it was, a gold star beside my name.

Never figured out who the benefactor was.

Wickerman denies. Fingrpik denies. I don't think apocalypsehow was around, and besides, he's married. So's Wickerman, of course. So's Dave; I forget whether I asked him ...

You???

[SteveM]

108. And yet, with a smirk and a middle-finger, the DNC lists the AWB + (nt)

[ellenfl]

19. he IS winning by a country mile. the polls have been skewed.

the corporate media is loving this. the closer the polls, the more money they make. i quit watching the polls because i get fearful that the rw will be able to steal the election again BECAUSE of the close poll readings.

ellen fl

[iiibbb]

21. You may be right about the polling

It makes me nervous because I truly think McCain/Palin would be a disaster. My stomach has been in knots for weeks. I hate that it's this close.

[ellenfl]

79. just keep telling yourself that it is not close . . . and get everyone out to vote! eom

[pipoman]

74. ...if

he would propose a believable plan for preserving/creating blue collar and farm jobs.

and/or

would state no intention of signing any new federal gun restrictions not related to enhancing the effectiveness of NICS.

[stckyfngz]

96. I don't buy it

n/m

[iiibbb]

112. You don't have to buy it...

... left-leaning people haven't been buying it for years. But the fact of the matter is that Congress went to Newt et al. immediately after the AWB. Gore lost his own state of TN. Kerry lost by a sliver. McCain got a huge boost from a moose-hunter running mate. This election shouldn't be this close.

Any cursory review of right-minded political board and you'll find that terror, taxes, guns, and abortion are the dominant rally points for the right. Republicans have it wrong on terror and taxes because the war and borrowing to prosecute it are so easily demonstrated. There's never going to be agreement on abortion (people go one way or the other)... but guns. The AWB was pure fluff. So-called common-sense measures are fluff. The failure of the Democratic platform to recognize it is costing them big time. One thing I've learned as a participant in both boards is that there are those on both sides who are completely insular on their thinking. They don't spend any time trying to really understand where the other side is coming from. They dismiss it out of hand. Their prerogative... but their missed opportunities.

The 50% of the response to this post has been a desire to kill the messenger... which to me really just helps prove my point because those people are in effect alienating someone who would've been to find common ground. Pretty much explains the hardening of the gun-rights movement of the past 15-25 years.


Oil is the other rally point... but I think the Dems have the upper hand on this as well if they worked at it.


However.. the point is that the Dems never get to make their points about Energy or the War or the Economy... because the dishonesty associated with prosecuting their anti-gun legacy (and that does not negate the dishonesty from the pro-gun's side, but pro-gun people are not scrutinizing those lies... and those lies are also a response to those of the left)...

Some independents put up a wall to discussion about other points. Since this war dominates my thinking, I'm ignoring the wall right now... but it's still there.

[iverglas]

120. interesting

Republicans have it wrong on terror and taxes because the war and borrowing to prosecute it are so easily demonstrated. There's never going to be agreement on abortion (people go one way or the other)... but guns.


The Republicans have it wrong on "terror".

The Republicans have it wrong on taxes.

The Republicans have it wrong on abortion.
(Who gives a fuck which way people go? They have it wrong. C'mon. You can say it.)

"But guns". Huh.


Yes, there are stopped clocks and blind pigs and all them things.

But ...


The Democrats have it right on "terror".

The Democrats have it right on taxes.

The Democrats have it right on abortion.

(I wouldn't go quite so far as to say "right" on all of these, but certainly not way wrong.)

"But guns"?


What a strange coincidence.

The Republicans have it right on guns, on the stopped clock / blind pig principle.

But the Democrats have it wrong, on the ... what principle was that?


Actually, I don't gather that the Republicans are working on the stopped clock / blind pig principle. I gather that their thing on guns is actually right, not just some kind of accident. Right -- based on right thinking and right interpretation of the constitution and the right thing for the country.

And so the Democrats are ... stupid? evil?


Or just not right ... wing ...


The Republicans' position is a defence of all things right. Principled. But:

However.. the point is that the Dems never get to make their points about Energy or the War or the Economy... because the dishonesty associated with prosecuting their anti-gun legacy

"Dishonesty"? Them's some mighty unfine words there.

[iiibbb]

121. I'm sorry...

...I don't live in your bipolar world.

Well... I'm not actually sorry.

For Pete's sake, you are at the extreme left and extreme libertarian scale of that graph you posted upthread... what sense of perspective could you possibly have?

However... yes... the Democrats can be right about all of those things... and still be wrong about their approach to guns.

[iiibbb]

123. I don't think Democrats are stupid or evil.

on the whole ... I also don't think Republicans are stupid or evil on the whole.

But they-re both pig-headed about some of their key issues which impair their performance in the voting booth amongst independents.

[iverglas]

129. then how do you explain this?????

How do you explain that the position YOU espouse and the REPUBLICANS espouse is simultaneously espoused by the representatives of the RIGHT wing of the political spectrum? -- not just in the US, but EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

How do you explain that the position you CONDEMN and the Democrats ESPOUSE is simultaneously ESPOUSED by the representatives of the LEFT wing of the political spectrum? -- not just in the US, but EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD.



But they-re both pig-headed about some of their key issues which impair their performance in the voting booth amongst independents.

Good lord. I don't think I've ever read such a simplistically WRONG-headed analysis of Republican party policy.



edited for clarity

[iiibbb]

133. I explain it this way...

...people caught in the middle don't exactly have a voice out there putting forth their viewpoint. Part of the problem is we only have representatives of the left wing and right wing out there espousing views and polarizing the population.

Withing each party no doubt the people who have the most passion about any particular issue are the ones that wind up define the party. Because of the group-think on both sides, neither takes the time to step back and have a look from the outside.

As an independent I'm constantly on the outside looking in. You aren't. You've got zero perspective.

[iverglas]

135. Nope. Explains nothing.

I'm not talking US party politics. I'm talking universal.

The libertarian left (that's me, Gandhi ...) advocates tight restriction on access to firearms, and doesn't want to possess firearms.

The right (the middling to libertarian economic right; some elements of the extreme authoritarian economic right may differ) advocates loose limits on access to firearms, and wants to possess firearms.

All over. Europe, Britain, Canada, Australia, South America ...


(Speaking of which, I had a chat with a woman from Brazil at the bus station on the way to the roller coasters last month. She was touring eastern Canada and the eastern US. I took the opportunity to ask her about the firearms control situation, and specifically the recently defeated legislative proposal. Stupid people, she said. They think they need guns to defend themselves against criminals; can't they figure out that this just makes it all the more likely criminals will use guns?)


I'm foreseeing one of the usual standard imaginary rebuttals to what I'm saying, not necessarily from you, but I'm not going to try to forestall it, in case we can avoid it.


As an independent I'm constantly on the outside looking in. You aren't.

What in the hell is that supposed to mean? "Independent" means you don't self-identify as Republican or Democrat. Well, I assure you, neither do I. What "inside" am I in, exactly?

And as I said, my point is not dependent on US party politics (in fact, the Democratic Party position on firearms / firearms control equates to a right-wing position, in the minds of the rest of the world. It's simply less right-wing than the Republican Party position, making it "left" in comparison.)

Meaningless noise is all that is.

[iiibbb]

139. The views of Ghandi are irrelevant to why Democrats keep losing presidential elections

"What in the hell is that supposed to mean? "Independent" means you don't self-identify as Republican or Democrat. Well, I assure you, neither do I. What "inside" am I in, exactly?"

You are Ghandi apparently... except without the wit or thoughtfulness.


Fine... I'm not an independent, I'm a moderate. I am mid-spectrum... whatever. I know there's no point in trying to categorize myself because the last time I tried to clarify myself you chose to distort it rather than understand it. I'm not going there again.

I mean hell... what does "right-wing" and "left-wing" mean? We have that silly little spectrum you introduced up thread, but that's still not a linear relationship to beliefs in particular issues. Maybe there's an anti-gun moderate out there who is fiercely against abortion too.

Is all the grief you're giving me just because of labels? Well... this is America... and we're dealing with American demographics and politics, not world demographic and politics. So fine... Democrats and Republicans are both right-wing. One is left-right and the other is right-right.

Whatever.

The point is that Republicans need to lose this election. Democrats need to win it because it's better for the U.S. and better for the world in general. Unfortunately, Obama may not win, and it's not inconceivable that it's a lot to do with the Democratic Party's gun control legacy.

[iverglas]

141. let's quote you

As an independent I'm constantly on the outside looking in. You aren't. You've got zero perspective.

And now:

Fine... I'm not an independent, I'm a moderate.

Well hey. Shift those goalposts! Faster!

I mean hell... what does "right-wing" and "left-wing" mean?

Yes, I know this is difficult for someone where you are. It's not hard at all for the rest of the world.

We have that silly little spectrum you introduced up thread

Do you, now. Was there something you found wanting in its analyses of, say, the candidates in the US primaries this year? Something silly about its placement of historical figures in the charts? What exactly would your "silly" assessment be based on?

but that's still not a linear relationship to beliefs in particular issues

Attempting to parse that ... I believe that is the exact point. The spectrum shown is two-dimensional, not linear as things are so often portrayed in the US. There is a third dimension generally considered to be reflected in the fraternité (best translated as "solidarity") part of liberté, égalité, fraternité, but that's not really here yet.

Maybe there's an anti-gun moderate out there who is fiercely against abortion too.

I'm sure there is. In the US, at least and especially. There are outliers everywhere, and they won't be accounted for by things like this. All that would happen in this case, though, is that the individual would be bumped a little downward on the libertarian/authoritarian axis, which is exactly what it should do. I don't know what "moderate" means, so I can't tell what other effects it might have. "Moderate" is a word used in US politics that has about as much meaning a "liberal", and again, really isn't used anywhere else.

So fine... Democrats and Republicans are both right-wing. One is left-right and the other is right-right.

Yup.

Well... this is America... and we're dealing with American demographics and politics, not world demographic and politics.

Yup. And that's what I've been speaking to -- the tiny narrow spectrum within which US politics is played out, and the distinctions within that spectrum. Democratic Party, Republican Party.

Unfortunately, Obama may not win, and it's not inconceivable that it's a lot to do with the Democratic Party's gun control legacy.

And so the denizens of the gun dungeon will keep telling the world at large as loudly and for as long as it takes to make it come true.



oops, fixed that html
eek, axis, not access

[iiibbb]

143. As I predicted.

You are harping on terms that I attempt to self describe myself. "Independent" is unacceptable because you are "independent". "Moderate" is unacceptable because it's a moving goalpost. "Social-libertarian" is unacceptable because although I am according to your little test... I fail to be as left or libertarian as you.

OK... I give up trying to self-describe myself to you.

---------------------


"Yup. And that's what I've been speaking to -- the tiny narrow spectrum within which US politics is played out, and the distinctions within that spectrum. Democratic Party, Republican Party."

And you've done a pretty poor job of getting that point across with me before this sub-thread I have to say.

And ultimately you've basically admitted to hijacking my thread given that my original post was stated fully and accurately within the context of the American political spectrum.

[apocalypsehow]

146. As I predicted

going to the Mall to pick up a new iTunes card wasn't near as fun as watching you wiggle.

"And ultimately you've basically admitted to hijacking my thread given that my original post was stated fully and accurately within the context of the American political spectrum"

I saw no such thing. You didn't either. Piling up adverbs doesn't help.

"OK... I give up trying to self-describe myself to you"

I think you've done a swell job. I would bet you that I know (a) what part of the "American political spectrum" you squat on, (b) which ticket you're voting for in the Fall, and, just for extra credit, (c) what it says next to "party affiliation" on your voter registration card.

And therein lies the rub, to coin a phrase.

[iverglas]

147. I wouldn't know

You are harping on terms that I attempt to self describe myself.
"Independent" is unacceptable because you are "independent".

Wtf? I am not "independent". I've been a card-carrying member of the New Democratic Party for ... uh, cripes, nearly 40 years. With hiatus. I was pointing out that this statement of yours:

As an independent I'm constantly on the outside looking in. You aren't.

was simply ludicrously meaningless. I am allegedly on the "inside" of something. What??

"Moderate" is unacceptable because it's a moving goalpost.

No, moderate is just dumb. My point was that you called yourself an independent, and I responded to that, and then you decided to call yourself a moderate ... and I STILL don't know WHAT RELEVANCE this has to ANYTHING.

"Social-libertarian" is unacceptable because although I am according to your little test... I fail to be as left or libertarian as you.

What are you purporting to be referring to here? Political compass puts you in the minus on the "libertarian" axis, somewhere around -4, if I recall correctly. So you're a social libertarian. Fine. Who says nay? I don't recall saying so myself.

You were apparently in the libertarian left quadrant. And you're the outlier with right-wing views on firearms, like the outlier with right-wing views on abortion would be. Moderately (heh) libertarian left with idiosyncracies. Not in sync with the great mass of libertarian leftists in the world. Just as anyone who worked against reproductive rights and scored as you did would be.

As you said, though, if there *had* been questions about access to firearms, as there *are* about access to abortion, you would quite likely have scored a little differently. It's hard to say how, because the issue isn't neatly categorized. Anti-choicers aren't actually acting in any public or collective interest, so their views are obviously anti-libertarian. Firearms control advocates are quite different, in that their goal is not to interfere in the exercise of individual liberty, it is to promote and protect the public/collective interest in both collective and individual safety and welfare.

The quiz also didn't ask whether we thought selling child pornography was just dandy, because although it is a freedom of speech issue, even the most libertarian of us agrees that restrictions on the exercise of that right in that way are justified. You will take great offence, but I will make the analogy. A person selling child pornography is hurting no one, just as a person toting a firearm around the mall is hurting no one. There are overriding considerations that justify the infringement. A different sort of quiz would be needed to test the tolerance for those limits.


And ultimately you've basically admitted to hijacking my thread given that my original post was stated fully and accurately within the context of the American political spectrum.

Oh, blah de blah blah blah.

the Dem's legacy of their approach to gun-control

-- from your first post -- is the legacy of the modern libertarian left, embodied elsewhere in social democrats and democratic socialists. "Libertarian left" is is what the Democratic Party is when compared to the Republican Party.

[iiibbb]

149. Your narrative is irrelevant...

...to my original post. How I got into this discussion with you I don't know... and don't care anymore.

"As you said, though, if there *had* been questions about access to firearms, as there *are* about access to abortion, you would quite likely have scored a little differently. It's hard to say how, because the issue isn't neatly categorized. Anti-choicers aren't actually acting in any public or collective interest, so their views are obviously anti-libertarian. Firearms control advocates are quite different, in that their goal is not to interfere in the exercise of individual liberty, it is to promote and protect the public/collective interest in both collective and individual safety and welfare."

You already admit that the political spectrum model is non-linear... and therefore of little use. Parties have platforms... individuals are pegs that fit into holes (parties) that are approximately the same shape. So really... what does all your blather about how I self-identify doesn't conform to your irrelevant party alliances have to do with my original post?

The Democrat candidates aren't getting elected because they're platform contains an element which prevents pegs that almost fit into their hole from actually making it in.

If the Democratic party were to adjust their platform, they would get their candidate elected, and the world would be better off... but you don't seem to care about that... you would rather argue about how I self-identify.

[iverglas]

155. what the fuck?

You already admit that the political spectrum model is non-linear... and therefore of little use.

I SAID no such thing. I certainly didn't "admit" something I would not say.

The Political Compass model is non-linear -- because political ideologies in the modern world are non-linear. They have more than one dimension. The two dimensions measured at The Political Compass are, to put it somewhat simplisticly, positions on personal freedom and positions on economic freedom.

I, for example, favour extensive personal freedom and oppose extensive economic freedom. Again, putting it simplisticly.

What IS of little use IS a linear model. And that's a great big problem in the US political arena -- that public political discourse is often conducted as if the spectrum there IS linear, when it isn't. A linear model could be used to plot left-libertarians and right-authoritarians -- what would amount to an axis consisting of a line drawn between me in the lower left and Tom Tancredo in the upper right of the two-axis model it uses. But it can't account for right-libertarians (the image projected by the US Libertarian Party or Ron Paul) or left-authoritarians (likely where an old timey Communist Party would go).

The Democratic Party in general, and its leading candidates for the nomination, all fit into the right-authoritarian quadrant, to greater or lesser degree. Authoritarian, not because of their or the party's position on firearms control, which wasn't counted, but because of things like their positions on same-sex marriage rights and "terrorism", one would presume.

So really... what does all your blather about how I self-identify doesn't conform to your irrelevant party alliances have to do with my original post?

Talk about blather. You are the one who inserted your self-identification -- "independent" -- into the discussion. I don't know why, personally.

The Democrat candidates aren't getting elected because they're platform contains an element which prevents pegs that almost fit into their hole from actually making it in.

And I'll say it again: sez you.

If the Democratic party were to adjust their platform, they would get their candidate elected, and the world would be better off...

And if they adjusted their platform and promised to outlaw abortion, then I think you really could say they'd get their candidate elected. There's the real campaign that needs to be waged against the party platform.

If you want a party that has the platform you propose, you and your apparently huge band of fellow believers should probably form one. Surely there will be no shortage of smart politicians to lead it. The fact that there isn't such a party just might say something.

[iiibbb]

159. WTF WTF?

First - you said I am an outlier... meaning that I had certain attributes that place me left on the scale, but then have this distinct "right" attribute of being in favor of guns. Thus the X=Y axis of your little test are really meaningless. It's not like we tic off attributes down the line and move left or right. There is no order to them. You seemed to acknowledge this fact about the model you chose... which is good because it means you recognize the limitations of those models... but the fact that the model doesn't capture the nuances in individual beliefs supports my viewpoint. If you think the model is accurate, and that I'm an outlier, then you are a fool.

Second- I ask again... how does this argument we are having have anything to do with the original post? I really don't see what it has to do with anything.

Third- That's right... sez me. I'm a voter who can go for either a Republican or a Democrat... so anything the Democrats do that earns my vote takes one away from the Republicans for a net change of +2. With someone as left as you claim to be, Democrats also may or may not have your vote... but if they adjust their platform to suit the far left, they may lose me... so at the very best they remain neutral to Republicans... and that assuming they go far enough... suppose someone like you throws your vote to the Green party. Then they actually lose 2 votes. So then the calculus is who's worth more. Well... I'm pretty sure there's over 50 million gun owners... and there are not 50 million Green Party types out there.

Fourth- Some Democrats have taken a pro-life stand and have gotten elected that way... note the recent special election in MS this past spring. Thanks for proving my point.


Again... all I'm talking about is the Legacy of the Democrat party's approach. Things like the AWB don't help with crime rates and just piss off gun owners. If the Democrats adjusted their strategy and started going after the root causes of violence (poverty, and poor education), then they would have a bigger impact on guns AND they'd be getting elected which would let them implement their platform.



But really... you just want the last word... and nothing you're saying is adding to the original post...

[iverglas]

160. thanks for proving mine

Some Democrats have taken a pro-life stand and have gotten elected that way

Note how I say "anti-choice", and you say "pro-life". That's usually a pretty good indicator.

What point of yours you think I proved, I don't know. That if Democrats nominate scum, scum will vote for it? That was my point, I think.


the fact that the model doesn't capture the nuances in individual beliefs supports my viewpoint

Listen. I'm going to say this one more time.

The "test" in question measures attitudes about two things:

- personal freedom
- economic freedom

It does NOT measure attitudes about the balance to be struck between personal freedom and the public/collective safety/welfare.

It does NOT include attitudes about access to firearms and selling child pornography, for instance, because those attitudes are based on a complex of factors that would have to be measured separately to determine the REASONS for the attitudes. Two people could take the same position for very DIFFERENT reasons.


So let me say it one more time.

The "test" appears to measure the attitudes that it does measure relatively accurately -- an assertion supported by how the various public figures to whom it has been applied, based on their publicly stated policy positions, can be plotted on the chart, and the fact that the plotting appears to be really quite accurate.

YOUR POSITION on access to firearms MATCHES THE POSITION taken by the authoritarian right. It is INCONSISTENT with the positions taken by the libertarian left (or the relatively libertarian left, in the case of the US).

What we can deduce from this, no one knows. We could theorize that you lied when you gave the answers that resulted in you testing as libertarian left. We could theorize that your position on the issue is simply not sufficiently examined and has been adopted for some reason other than reasoned analysis and principled decision-making.

We could also say that the issue itself is one on which reasonable people of goodwill who otherwise share virtually all of the values that come into play simply disagree. There are many such disagreements when it comes to where to draw the line as to whether private/individual or public/collective interests should prevail.

If you graph eye colour of children by eye colour of parents, you will find that virtually all children of two blue-eyed parents have blue eyes, and virtually all children with at least one brown-eyed parent have brown eyes. My family is the outlier: two blue-eyed parents and four brown-eyed children, one of whom has a blue-eyed child. The model used for this genetic prediction 30 years ago resulted in me and my siblings all being fathered by the milkman. We weren't explained by the model. But 99.99% of the population was.

You can be the 0.01% in this case if you like. I don't have a model to explain you. At least, so I must say in this venue.

But to claim that you are any more significant in the great scheme of US party politics than I and my siblings are in the great scheme of genetics are is another thing altogether.


With someone as left as you claim to be, Democrats also may or may not have your vote...

Do try actually reading my posts. I'm not voting, even though my future will to a large extent be determined by the outcome of your votes. But if I were voting, I WOULD BE VOTING DEMOCRAT (and not just because I don't consider the US Green Party particularly "left", any more than the Canadian Green Party is). Despite the fact that I regard the Democratic Party overall as economically right-wing and intolerably authoritarian in its attitudes to women's rights and GLBT people's rights and equality rights in general, and so on.


but if they adjust their platform to suit the far left, they may lose me

And I would not be asking that they adjust their platform toward the "far left". I might be asking, when they are in office, that they behave a little less like right-wingers ... welfare reform ... but I am very well versed in the ways of electoral politics, having slogged away in that arena for 40 years this summer and been a candidate myself, and I don't think that elections are the time for radical innovation.


I'm pretty sure there's over 50 million gun owners

Hooray. And every single one was "pissed off" about the "assault weapons ban" and every single one of them voted Republican last time out, right?

If not, well, I guess you just don't have much of a point.


typos fixed

[iiibbb]

161. Anti choice vs pro life proves something?

1) What does it prove? The terms pro-life and pro-choice are common vernacular. You are a semantics-nazi... although perhaps you call it something else.

2) Blah blah blah...Authoritarian Right.... blah blah blah... why bother having a 2 axis model if the only viable spectrum in your mind is the "authoritarian right" and the "libertarian left".

It's meaningless... and continues to have nothing to do with my original post.

3) I know you're not voting... I tried to generalize my sentences but apparently missed a few... hooray for your semantics superpowers.

4) But because Democratic platform retains a call for ineffective firearms policy they keep losing their elections... and keep welfare reform is off the table...

Democrats have to get elected to get to square two.

5) 80 percent of gun owners aren't hunters. The lack of credibility the Democrats have cost them votes... I'm not saying that they'll turn the entire 50 million... but this is a close election, and 10 million might be helpful.

Too bad... no welfare reform for you. There goes Roe v. Wade... the war continues... religious wingnuts entrench.

But the Democrat platform is unscathed... ineffective gun control is saved... victory!!!

[iverglas]

162. what quirk of nature is it

that makes you incapable of giving an honest representation of what you read?

why bother having a 2 axis model if the only viable spectrum in your mind is the "authoritarian right" and the "libertarian left".

Quote what I said that justifies this assertion. Now.


The terms pro-life and pro-choice are common vernacular.

Yes, they are. "Pro-life" comes from the vernacular of the misogynist right wing, and "pro-choice" comes from the vernacular of the feminist left wing.

But oops, nobody said anything about "pro-choice". The contrast was between PRO-LIFE and ANTI-CHOICE. The first being the dishonest representation of the anti-choice position used by the misogynist right wing, and the latter being the accurate representation of the anti-choice position used by the feminist left wing.

Do try reading more carefully. Or not playing three-card monte so unskilfully.


because Democratic platform retains a call for ineffective firearms policy they keep losing their elections

Sez you.

Hopes you?

Tries you?


Too bad... no welfare reform for you.

Lordy. "Welfare reform" was the viciously right-wing policy instituted by Bill Clinton. And yet I'd still be voting Democrat in this election ...

[iiibbb]

163. Snore

Semantics wars are a bore.

Since we're no longer talking OP I'll just let you have the last word... you seem to want it so bad.

[iiibbb]

140. Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a

whole nation of arms as the blackest.

Ghandi

http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1913

Edited to add...

Below Ghandi extols the virtues of non-violence... but he hardly condemns self-defense. What he does condemn are those who expect others to provide for their protection. So those of us who expect the police, or national guard to protect us from harm... are the lowest by his estimation.



http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/Gandhi.html

A non-violent man or woman will and should die without retaliation,
anger or malice, in self-defense or in defending the honour of their
womenfolk. This is the highest form of bravery. If an individual or
group of people are unable or unwilling to follow this great law of life,
retaliation or resistance unto death is the second best, though a long
way off from the first. Cowardice is impotence worse than violence.
The coward desire revenge but being afraid to die, he looks to others,
maybe to the government of the day, to do the work of defense for him.
A coward is less than a man. He does not deserve to be a member of a
society of men and women. (II-148).

> Non-violent resistors will calmly die wherever they are
but they will not bend the knee before the aggressor. (I-398)

> Those who die unresistingly are likely to still the fury of violence
by their wholly innocent sacrifice. (I-278)

> If the people are not ready for the exercise of the non-violence of
the brave, they must be ready for the use of force in self-defense.
There should be no camouflage... It must never be secret. (II-146)

> No doubt the non-violent way is alawys the best, but where
that does not come naturally the violent way is both necessary
and honourable. Inaction here is rank cowardice and unmanly.
It must be shunned at all cost. (I-402)

> He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour
by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently
dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.
(I-77)

[iverglas]

142. yeah, I realized afterward

I'd avoided one of the fake rebuttals, and intimated the other.

Note how Gandhi uses the word "nation".

No further comment needed.


The rest of your cutting and pasting is about "self-defence". Not about access to firearms by individuals. Actually, it's about defence of others. Not self-defence at all.

Non-responsive.

And you really thought I'd be impressed by talk about defending the honour of their womenfolk ...

So those of us who expect the police, or national guard to protect us from harm... are the lowest by his estimation.

And that is utter bullshit and spitting on the memory of an individual you have no business speaking for. But I'm sure he wouldn't spank you if he were here.

[iiibbb]

144. "Actually, it's about defence of others. Not self-defence at all. "

He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour
by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently
dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.

[iiibbb]

150. I have to think that Ghandi

pretty much nailed it. Obviously the man(woman) who can meet conflict in a non-violent way is the greater man(woman)... but if one is not prepared to be non-violent that person must be prepared to meet violence with violence and not rely on someone to step in for them... because those that would demand that others step in for them are the cowards.

[iiibbb]

145. I am non-violent

I've never been in a fight in my adult life.

I've talked my way out of a number of potential conflicts.

I've been a victim of crime twice... opting for the non-confrontational approach.


...but I draw the line if I feel my life or my family's is threatened. I have no expectation of anyone else to lay down and take it.

[Howzit]

151. OK. How can we vote for a "real democrat", since all the serious contenders are on the right?

They all show as right of center, but many of them by virtue of their voting records, suggest that they don't think individual gun ownership should be encouraged.



Before you point out that Kucinich shows as left of center, he isn't a serious contender for president, or much else. Curiously, the political compass shows me and Kucinich in the same block, yet I consider him way left of me - how do you explain that?

[iiibbb]

152. Because the axis are not linear

The whole test is based on a preconceived model of political ideology. As Iverglas has already pointed out we would wind up on different locations if the questions were changed. What's funny is that Iverglas meant it to show that you or I are right leaning nutjobs, but as it turns out we're not. So _now_ that it doesn't show us the result she wanted she says the model is no good.

What I wonder is, when the people that made this model chose to not include guns, were they declaring it irrelevant?

[iverglas]

157. oh ...

What's funny is that Iverglas meant it to show that you or I are right leaning nutjobs, but as it turns out we're not. So _now_ that it doesn't show us the result she wanted she says the model is no good.


... go suck a lemon, will you?

Your position is not CONSISTENT WITH the position adopted by people who do, demonstrably, fall into the left-of-centre, below-centre (lower left) quadrant. It also is not consistent with those who, like the main pack of Democratic Party presidential nominee candidates, fall into the moderately right-of-centre, above-centre (upper right) quadrant, but are still lefter and lower than the farther right/authoritarian Republicans, and are thus left/libertarian COMPARATIVELY in the US.

The "middle" in the US is right/authoritarian on the Political Compass's absolute scale.

I DID NOT SAY "the model is no good". I said there are OUTLIERS everywhere. There undoubtedly ARE people who are strong trade unionists and internationalists and anti-racists and would like to outlaw abortion. Probably, oh, hundreds of them in the US. They're weird. They don't fit. They're also not really very relevant, and the best explanation for them is that they're misguided.

I may also have said that the results anyone posts here are dependent on him/her having answered the opinion questions truthfully. What would I know about that?

The only reasonably objective points of comparison are the public figures whose positions have been plotted.

And the fact is that the graph for US politicans shows that those who favour more stringent firearms control are ALL considerably to LEFT of (economically) and BELOW (less authoritarian than) those who favour less stringent firearms control.


typo fixed

[jody]

154. The data used by the Political Compass is neither ratio nor interval and the degree of ordinality is

debatable although IMO it would be unwise to claim it’s purely nominal.

Those who love discussing the finer points of such models and whether they transform a WAG (wild ass guess) into SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) might recognize the inherent weaknesses in such models by comparing the Political Compass to the Rapture Index, “the prophetic speedometer of end-time activity”.

Alone those lines, one could go into a cattle pen with assorted young bulls and pick up an Angus scat and label it 1, a Bordelais scat and label it 2, a Charolais scat and label it 3, and a Droughtmaste scat and label it 4.

One could then calculate sample statistics like the arithmetic mean which would be 2.5 and other statistics to construct a scatological model.

A knowledgeable person might wryly observe even though the average is 2.5, it’s still bull shit.

Have a peaceful day, :hi:

[iverglas]

156. why me?

Curiously, the political compass shows me and Kucinich in the same block, yet I consider him way left of me - how do you explain that?

My first thought would be that Kucinich isn't actually as left as you think he is. I dunno. You're the one who answered the questions!


OK. How can we vote for a "real democrat", since all the serious contenders are on the right?

By holding your nose, I guess.

It's what I'd be doing. Up here, I've done it twice, when I engaged in what we call "strategic voting", sometimes thought to be wise in multiple-party systems, when the candidate of one's preference in the riding where one lives has no hope of winning, and voting for him/her might split the vote sufficiently between two candidates to allow the truly obnoxious candidate to win up the middle. I voted Progressive Conservative in 1974 because I despised the Trudeau Liberals of the day, and Liberal in my last provincial election because the need to defeat any and all Conservative candidates and oust the vile Harris government was so great that it overrode any other consideration.

If I lived in riding where my own party, the New Democratic Party, had less hope (by my own always fallible estimation) of beating the Conservative on October 14, I might very well vote Liberal. Fortunately for me, I live in a riding now held by the NDP, although it's a swing riding, but it's unlikely that however the vote split it would go Conservative.

If I lived in the US, I would be voting Democrat. With my nose firmly pinched. Maybe not that firmly; since there isn't an alternative to voting Democrat, I wouldn't be doing it despite myself, really, as I would be by voting Liberal here.

What I WOULD NOT BE DOING is yammering on in public about my opposition to this or that Democratic Party policy or candidate. I WOULD NOT BE DOING THAT. Even though I would be much more opposed to Democratic Party policy and candidates in general than any of these supposed Democratic voters with objections to the firearms policy would ever be.


They all show as right of center, but many of them by virtue of their voting records, suggest that they don't think individual gun ownership should be encouraged.

Sigh.

"Right of centre" is a measurement of their positions on ECONOMIC freedom. Nothing to do with firearms.

"Above centre" is a measurement of their positions on PERSONAL freedom.

What the site does NOT do is measure the extent to which someone is supportive of interferences in the exercise of individual freedoms where a demonstrable and important public/collective interest is at stake. As in my selling child pornography example, and as in the case of access to firearms.

[dassix]

122. yesterday...

I went to buy a smith and wesson 9mm tactical handgun. The owner of the shop brought up the two candidates as he was ringing me up...
He talked bad about mccain - which was surprising then went on to say he is still voting on mccain due to the fact that he isn't for banning assault rifles. He said something along the lines that obama would make a great president, however he makes a good portion of his salary off sale of assault rifles and could not have that token taking out of his little gun store.

I totally agree that gun control helps get the repukes a lot of their votes they otherwise wouldn't get.

[iverglas]

131. ... all my troubles seemed so far away.

Does anybody in the real world actually say "repukes"?

[iverglas]

132. wait, wait!

... he makes a good portion of his salary off sale of assault rifles ...

ASSAULT RIFLES?!?!?!?

Prepare yourself for the shitstorm about to ensue.

Any minute now ...

[dassix]

124. oooo and yea...

had to spell out exactly what I was buying....such a very beautiful gun. Can't wait to get it out on the range.

[apocalypsehow]

148. You sound particularly energized.

Did R. Lee Ermey autograph the stock?

[dassix]

153. I don't think so

But maybe if I reexamine it I will find the signature :shrug:

[dassix]

164. what? In favor of guns?!

That means you cant be on the left iiibbb. :evilgrin: