Cleaning up the gungeon. Do we care?

[BigBluenoser]

In light of Skinner's GD post on the proper interpretation of forum rules ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5524913 ) I was wondering if there was any desire in our small community (yes, this includes both the pro-RKBA advocates and gun control advocates) to sort of "clean up our act" when it comes to the language we use with one another.

As a pro-RKBA DUer it is my observation that we (the royal we) tend to bear the brunt of the name calling and motive attribution ("gun nut", "Republican/NRA shill", the penis thing). Folks on the other side may disagree strongly with my observation and feel the opposite is true in terms of the direction of the mud flinging.

Do we want to start alerting on each other when we cross the line? where is the line?

Guns in America is an issue that people are passionate about. People who post in the Gungeon are likely ten times more passionate than the average DUer (both sides).

I was going to start alerting on people when I saw what I perceived to be "over the line" posts, but then I figured, if the other folks who call this topic forum home don't care, or prefer things the way they are, why bother?

So, what do we want the Guns forum to look like?

Edit: link added

[Joe Steel]

1. I resolve...

As a pro-RKBA DUer it is my observation that we (the royal we) tend to bear the brunt of the name calling and motive attribution ("gun nut", "Republican/NRA shill", the penis thing). Folks on the other side may disagree strongly with my observation and feel the opposite is true in terms of the direction of the mud flinging.

In my experience, pro-gun posters begin the name calling and sink to lower levels, frequently using vulgarities in addition to mere discourtesies. Nevertheless, I agree we should do something about it. Toward that end, I resolve to seriously consider ignoring postings with offensive language. Unless they include outrageous distortions, misrepresentations or deceptions, I won't respond to them.

[rl6214]

8. I think you are wrong here

The endless stream of wingnuts, gun nuts, uber alles and the like are trigger words used to stir up the RKBA group along with the vulgarities and un-civil behavior and are normally fired off first by the anti gun crowd. I think if we could do away with the juvenile name calling we could have a lot better debate of the issues at hand.

ANY name calling is just juvenile.

[Joe Steel]

25. I am not wrong.

After quite a few years following the gun debate, I can assure you verbal abuse almost always begins with gun-lovers.

[DrCory]

28. Is the Author of Post #1

In this thread a "gun-lover"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x217242

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. Quit bothering Joe with the facts.

[Howzit]

29. a logical argument does not equal "verbal abuse"

A clear presentation of facts and logic may result in people re-examining their positions. Censuring those that don't agree with you may endear you to your clique, but it reinforces barriers between people that are closer in ideology than they appear.

[benEzra]

52. How is "gun lover" any less pejorative than "abortion lover" would be for someone who is pro-choice?

That in itself is a term of pejorative origin, concocted by the same people who believe gun owners and RKBA advocates "fondle" their firearms and usually used in similar context. I am pro-choice on the gun issue and value the right to own guns, but I am not a "gun lover".

I do not believe I have ever been uncivil to you, or used terms of denigration to refer to you based on your position on the issue. I would hope that you would extend the same courtesy to those you disagree with.

[Joe Steel]

63. What would you prefer?

Gun fan?

Gun aficionado?

I don't know of any good substitute.

[benEzra]

64. Gun enthusiast, gun rights advocate, pro-gun would all be neutral.

I'm avoiding positive terms like pro-2ndA, pro-RKBA, or pro-choice, which I'm sure you'd be averse to. But "gun lover," "gun nut," etc. are as pejorative as "gun grabber" and "anti-gun nut".

[Joe Steel]

65. Heller notwithstanding...

I'm avoiding positive terms like pro-2ndA, pro-RKBA, or pro-choice, which I'm sure you'd be averse to.

You're right. Heller notwithstanding, we'd disagree on the meaning of the Second Amendment and the proper understanding of the "right to keep and bear arms." "Choice" is something else entirely.

As for "gun grabber," no problem.

Gun Recovery And Ban

1. Recovery: Within 30 days of this procedure's implementation, all handguns, or other specified guns, in private possession shall be delivered to a law enforcement agency.

2. Prosecution: Persons found to be in possession of a handgun, or other specified gun, after the expiration of the 30 day Recovery period will be guilty of a Class A felony and shall be prosecuted.

3. Reeducation: Convicted offenders found to be in possession of a handgun, or other specified gun, shall be transported to a reeducation camp for instruction in the community's expectations.

4. Perfection: Persons found to be in possession of a handgun, or other specified gun, after reeducation shall be made harmless.

[benEzra]

66. Is that really the type of country you'd want to live in?

Gun Recovery And Ban

1. Recovery: Within 30 days of this procedure's implementation, all handguns, or other specified guns, in private possession shall be delivered to a law enforcement agency.

2. Prosecution: Persons found to be in possession of a handgun, or other specified gun, after the expiration of the 30 day Recovery period will be guilty of a Class A felony and shall be prosecuted.

3. Reeducation: Convicted offenders found to be in possession of a handgun, or other specified gun, shall be transported to a reeducation camp for instruction in the community's expectations.

4. Perfection: Persons found to be in possession of a handgun, or other specified gun, after reeducation shall be made harmless.

Were that not a joke, it'd be worthy of your namesake. Somehow I don't think you're serious, though...

[Joe Steel]

67. Yes.

Is that really the type of country you'd want to live in?

It seems pretty much like Western Europe to me; strict gun laws and prosecution and imprisonment for offenders.

Yes.

[DrCory]

69. If You Honestly Advocate...

The establishment of "reeducation camps", you have lost ALL credibility.

[benEzra]

70. Except not even Western Europe does those things.

You can own an AR-15 in France, a Glock in Germany, a civilian AK in Belgium, and all of that plus full-auto in Switzerland. Most of Western Europe is not the UK, and even in the UK, sniper rifles and big-bore shotguns are legal. There are more hoops to jump through in some nations than in others, but even Western Europe is not your gun-free utopia. They have a low violence rate because of their cultural similarities to Canada or Vermont, not because they don't have access to guns.

But "reeducation camps"? Sort of like a super-Guantanamo-Bay, except containing U.S. citizens?

One of the defining characteristics of Americans is a decidedly non-subservient attitude. Alcohol and cannabis prohibition were dismal failures here, for that reason, and denying ordinary citizens the right to own guns would be an abject failure at best.

[slackmaster]

72. Feel free to call me a gun collector

As is indicated in my profile.

[SteveM]

73. Dead wrong. Again.

The whole gun-control/ban movement is based on prohibition, culture war and hatred for millions of gun-owners. Take a review of the literature over the last 40 years and you will see that the gun-control lobby, main media and many urban politicians set out to demonize the thing (guns), then to demonize the gun owner. The modern gun-control movement was STARTED by these folks and the movement was explicitly founded on such demonization.

The strategy continues to this day. You are a poor observer of how things work in the "Gungeon."

[slackmaster]

71. You're one of the worst offenders in recent Gungeon history, Joe

:nuke:

[Tim01]

2. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x218792
Post # 2.

"That's all the wingnuts have these days: "Woe is us!" Cry me a frickin' river, morans"


I think it is considered acceptable to insult pro-gun people on this board.

[X_Digger]

3. I'm numb to it anymore

It probably does color my impression of DU as a whole, but I don't think it's just the gungeon.

[CTyankee]

4. I don't care. It's in the gungeon. So what?

People who are interested in yelling at each other about guns are free to go there and get their jollies. I view it as a kind of "asylum" and as such, no place I want to be...

[rl6214]

9. See, there ya go

Perfect example.

[CTyankee]

11. (sigh) well, there YOU go...

c'mon,ri, why on earth would I go there if I didn't care? I mean, it's a choice that some people make and I don't. I'm not being uncivil; it's just not the place I want to be...

[Caliman73]

27. You are being uncivil by implying that it is an "asylum"

You could have easily said that it is not a topic that interests you, but you included a remark implying that the forum was a place where dangerously mentally ill people are kept locked away.

[CTyankee]

31. Well, I think the way these discussions often play out, it can be full of lots

of dissonance, more than is usual at DU, IMO. It's too contentious for me. Perhaps that is a better word, but I was just telling you how it made ME feel when I went there. So it was based on my subjective sense of the place..

[Caliman73]

32. If you would have resonded as in your above post in the first place

it would have been civil. The name calling makes me wary of getting involved as well, but I consider people on both sides of the debate to be people with strong feelings one way or the other. I try to point out when I think someone is being irrational or insulting, and I have crossed that line at times, but I dislike the name calling as it does nothing to advance either cause.

[CTyankee]

34. Look, that place really jarred me! I am being honest with you.

It seemed like people "lost it" when they got into debates there. I guess it was the gun thing and it is probably too hard to understand. The quality of the debate was often terrible, altho some of the other public debate on the gun issue has been a little more civilized, a little more reasoned, recently. I prefer to get my information on the gun issue elsewhere.

I called it an asylum because it seems like the place drove people crazy, a place where they go to act out. I am certain that in their ordinary lives they don't talk like that.

[Caliman73]

35. I understand what you are saying...

but you do realize that you are having a discussion in the DU guns forum with a person who has progressive values and supports private ownership...and owns firearms, right? People are passionate on both sides of the argument. They sometimes post inappropriately. That is we the OP was saying. It would be great if we could all just have a discussion about our concerns, but it seems that people cannot refrain from insulting each other.

[pipoman]

36. My opinion is that the insults begin when logic prevails

and the looser in the logical debate refuses to re-evaluate their position.

[CTyankee]

46. You assume that I was talking only about gun owners and I wasn't.

I had had enough of "Eff you and your effing ideas and eff off and STFU..." That's not even an argument, it's bizarre behavior, I don't care who says it.

I did not go to the Guns forum when I responded to this thread. I think it must have been co-posted in GD. GD, LBN, Political Videos, GD P and occasionally the Lounge are my usual hangouts. I take an occasional jaunt into the Poetry section and the Health Forum. That's it.

Nor do I run from strong debate. I DO like to see rational debate, with objective statistics, scientifically valid studies, empirical data and an intellectually defensible thesis based on reason and the aforementioned background material to support the case being made. Those kinds of argument interest me and give me a far richer understanding and appreciation for the assertions being made. Surely advocates on either side of this issue would agree...

[jody]

47. Yet you have an opinion about civil rights but don't have an opinion about the 2nd. That's odd

because the 2nd is a civil right.

I've met other people with that precise view and in each case they exclude the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment as a civil right.

[CTyankee]

48. I would be interested in seeing a strong rational debate on this issue.

I am not interested in loud arguments that tend to be super emotional and end up in screaming matches. For instance, I have not seen a debate here on the recent Supreme Court decision over gun ownership. I don't know too much about it. What I would like to see is an analysis of what the Court decided. In particular, I'd like to see what the justices said with regard to 2nd amendment civil rights in this case compared and contrasted with their views in other civil rights cases brought before them.

[jody]

51. We had many threads on D.C. v. Heller leading up to SCOTUS' decision on 26 June 2008 and after.

I and others on DU read most if not all the amicus briefs supporting petitioner or respondent as well as the opinion and dissents by Stevens and Breyer.

Those threads were quickly overwhelmed by the campaign, election, and startup of a Dem administration and Dem congress.

Please start a thread and let we pro-RKBA DUers participate or pm me with your thoughts and I'll start one.
Here's to you in hopes your thought may produce a valuable DU thread. :toast:

Re, civil rights, just one law "What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms." 18 USC 921

Re SCOTUS and Heller:

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16

And of course you will want to discuss the issue of incorporating the Second Amendment in the Fourteenth Amendment that the 9th Circuit recently ruled on in the Nordyke case.

[CTyankee]

56. The selection from the decision that you quoted is interesting, if just partial.

However, I would be interested in seeing the dissent's point of view as well because really at this point I can't put the whole thing together and frankly my interests lie elsewhere.

I know you find that hard to believe and it goes contrary to what you think I should think. I have told you that I would like to see what the members of the majority in this opinion think about other civil rights claims that come before them. That I would find interesting and perhaps I would look at those different views and ask why they decided the way they did on the other civil rights issues.

But if you are looking for me to start a thread on this subject, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it would be best if we left it there. Thanks for your time and effort. You have shown restraint and civility and I admire that.

[jody]

58. Have a good day. At least you understand that the courts recognize RKBA is a civil right. You might

like to browse this DU thread, "Conjecture: Heller was 5-4 meaning 5 justices said 2nd protects individual RKBA and 4 justices say 9th Amendment protects individual RKBA." posted Fri Jun-27-08 01:07 PM.

[Caliman73]

55. I made no such assumption

although I can see how you would come to that conclusion as I identified my position in the debate. I see fault on both sides of the debate. Also, I commented on your first post, but I was not referring to that post by itself. I am referring to the conversation that you and I are having now without descending into name calling. It is possible to do so even with polarizing topics.

I would imagine that both sides of the debate on guns do see your point regarding defensible positions and statistics. The problems seems to be that statistics from the same source can be interpreted to defend either position. Anyway, thanks for the conversation and good luck to you on your travels through DU land.

[beevul]

57. Part of that is by design.

"It seemed like people "lost it" when they got into debates there."

There is a certain element that deliberately does this, to turn peoiple off from the debate. That element usually manifests itself by doing exactly what you describe, right about the time facts are introduced, and the debate is being lost by them.


I wont even tell you who what "side" is doing it. Just do a DU search for "mrbenchley", if you want to see for yourself. What you'll find, is EXACTLY what you and I have described.

[CTyankee]

59. Yes, and we probably all have issues where we are more invested

and passionate than others. Also there's the factor of violence which inevitably comes up in gun debates. Violence is by definition a hot button topic and I find that it is exploited by many people in these discussions. Not because they are invalid but because they draw more attention. We need less, not more, emotionalism in discussing this topic, IMO. I wish there was a way of doing this but I'm afraid we just can't...

[beevul]

60. Well said, CTyankee

"We need less, not more, emotionalism in discussing this topic, IMO."

Truer words were never spoken.


:toast:

[CTyankee]

61. And in my case, I truly do not feel I have as much of a knowledge base,

from either side of the debate, to formulate an opinion that I feel sufficient. There are other issues where I DO feel I have sufficient information and knowledge. My advice, FWIW, to those on either side is to present a calm, rational (even dry) argument. It can be put forth strongly while not explosively. From what I see here (and it is necessarily very narrow since I am not well informed enough to have a "position") is an "original intent" argument and this is pretty dry. There are experts on either side from academia. Keeping it on this level would be a good thing, if attempts at short-circuiting the process were promptly dispensed with. Just my thoughts here on a Sunday afternoon in Connecticut...

[beevul]

62. I know exactly what you speak of.

Economics for example. I know embarassingly little about economics - in a "big picture" sense for example. I do agree with you, that calm and rational debate would be a good thing.


And I appluad you for being as open minded as well as for your personal criteria for formulating what you consider sufficient opinion.


An exception in this day and age in many heated topics.

Stick around. The "gungeon" has its goods and bads as any topics forum does. You might be interested in what Slackmaster and Benezra have to say hereabouts from time to time. They are examples of the type of debate that you describe. Calm, rational.


TY for the pleasant exchange, another exception hereabouts.

[SteveM]

74. Precisely put...

Flamers, trolls, and others regularly come by to dump their trash. The reason? To stigmatize the entire forum. This is the precise methodology of the prohibitionist -- smear the thing or behavior (in this case, Forums: Guns), then smear those using it to such a degree that others would not want to visit the forum. Some gun-control posters have said that this is exactly their approach.

Then have someone complain about how nasty and dirty it is, that it should be banned.

[jody]

78. In the beginning, some of the anti-RKBA crowd openly bragged in their posts about how many pro-RKBA

DUers they provoked into responding in kind to their taunts and were "tombstoned".

[jody]

10. Your absence from DU's Guns forum is your choice but I hope you are not ignorant about the 2nd Amd.

because if you aren't ignorant, then you support the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable or pre-existing right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

It's also important to know that RKBA is a civil right no more or less important than other rights enumerated in our Constitution or unenumerated rights protected by the Ninth Amendment, but of course you knew that already.

[CTyankee]

12. I have no opinion on gun laws or the 2nd amendment. nt

[jody]

13. Do you have an opinion on civil rights? n/t

[CTyankee]

14. yes. nt

[jody]

15. Do you support civil rights? n/t

[CTyankee]

16. Sorry, it is not my policy to debate this issue. I suggest you drop it, as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you.

[jody]

17. So you have an opinion about civil rights and no opinion on the 2nd Amd. That's unusual because the

Second Amendment protects a civil right, the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

If someone claims to support civil rights and opposes RKBA, then that is a hypocritical position.

Have a wonderful day, :hi:

[Joe Steel]

24. I am well-versed in the Second Amendment...

Your absence from DU's Guns forum is your choice but I hope you are not ignorant about the 2nd Amd.

because if you aren't ignorant, then you support the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable or pre-existing right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

I am well-versed in the Second Amendment and my expertise makes confident you haven't the first idea of its meaning.

[jody]

26. Suggest you read SCOTUS on D.C. v. Heller because from your other posts "you haven't the first idea

of its meaning" and those posts suggest you are NOT "well-versed in the Second Amendment".

[virginia mountainman]

38. See what I mean...

Just like teaching Hellen Keller to talk. Glad to see you still have the ability to be nice Jody.


Anymore, I feel like Capt Picard...

[SteveM]

75. OK, once again, let's hear your "well-versed" knowledge (nt)

[rrneck]

5. A good rule of thumb

would be to not to say anything to anyone on this forum that you would not say to them in person.

on edit

The less than courteous posts here might be the result of a misconception. Those who do not own guns and have no experience with them or their owners may perceive gun owners to be a bunch of toothless, uneducated rednecks that would love to take a shot at anyone that disagrees with them. In this forum nobody will get shot at, so that defensiveness begins to show with a more confrontational attitude.

[jody]

6. I no longer care since we pro-RKBA Dems have received the brunt of such attacks and endured.

In the beginning, those pro-RKBA Dems who responded in kind were quickly banished, i.e. Tomb Stoned, while too often the anti-RKBA poster lived to malign another day.

That has gradually improved in recent times so I've reconciled myself to accepting the current taunts from anti-RKBA posters as a price we pay to educate them because they are woefully ignorant of the Second Amendment right.

It's obvious that such ignorance extends to some Senators and Congresspersons and even into the executive branch.

[spin]

41. If the people we elect are so ignorant that they can't understand...

a subject as simple as firearms then we are in deep trouble. Most of the problems our country faces are far far more complicated.

So I hope that the anti-gun politicians are merely playing to their base. Many of the very liberal areas of this country are subject to draconian gun laws and because of that few voters are familiar with or care about firearms. It's easy to gain the support of the base in these areas by passing "feel good" laws. To be a pro-gun politician in these anti-bun areas is political suicide.

If the anti-gun politicians actually believe the bullshit they spout then they obviously haven't taken the time and effort to understand the issue of firearms. If they are that lazy, then why would they take the time to understand and make intelligent votes on really intricate issues like our financial crisis?

[jody]

42. Agree, We the People particularly blue&grey collar workers who sweat for our daily bread allow

politicians to keep us fighting among ourselves over a few divisive, polarizing political issues like same sex marriage, prayer in schools, RKBA, abortion, and others while the corporatists pay for campaigns of Democrat and Republican candidates.

I believe the corporatists would lose lose some of their power if we workers could ever find a way to resolve differences on RKBA.

I believe the same about other divisive, polarizing issues.

[virginia mountainman]

43. Cases in point.....

Heat Seeking bullets...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ&feature=related

Caroline McCarthy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

How bad, ineffective, Bullshit Gun Control laws get passed..... Dumbassery at work..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE-jrJ-7Sek

How poorly are people in that community are being served by this council?????

[spin]

53. Three great videos well worth watching...thanks.(n/t)

[virginia mountainman]

54. Yea, but will the people that need to see them the most, watch?

I doubt it....

[spin]

7. The language the anti-gun folks use convinces me...

that they have so much repressed anger that it's a good thing they don't own firearms.

But all the name calling and the insults do little to advance their argument. "Going over the line" probably does make them "feel good", but maybe that explains their support of a new AWB.

[jeepnstein]

18. Free Speech, Baby!

I dislike coarse and vulgar language. But if that's the only way someone knows how to communicate then why should we censor them? Vulgarity tends to shine a light on the true nature of the individual using such language.

Everyone slips and lets on fly some times. When it's a common occurrence or used to draw attention to ones self, well you just have to consider the source.

[Tim01]

22. Almost all of the time,

name calling will totally derail the topic and just result in more insults and deeper hostility. There is nothing to gain from allowing the same people to insult others over and over. Some people you just can't reach.

[sodom]

19. forcing people to be civil might force them to examine their beliefes

i lurk on these forums a lot, and what i see is just as sickening as the content i see on right wing forums. its discouraging and depressing to read. i think it comes out of frustration, but mostly i think it comes from ignorant and arrogant people who can not defend their political ideology so the seek to demonize anyone with an opposing view.

politically im all over the map, but i would consider myself very liberal in the true sense of the word. i believe in a persons right to liberty and that also extends to their right to defend that liberty. the government, the military, the police...none of them are going to protect that right for you. it is up to the individual to protect his or her freedoms. it simply does not matter that a civilian with a gun has no chance against a nuclear power with the worlds largest and most advanced military. principles are supposed to count for something, and we can not allow ourselves to give into fear.

liberty, not safety, is the founding principle our nation was established on. i simply do not understand a rational argument for people who are anti-gun on one hand and then expresses support for the constitution, liberty, and the founding ideas our nation was established by. maybe someone would take care and enlighten me.

because the way i see it now, is that our rights trump your safety.

[Caliman73]

44. I don't think that will happen

What makes people examine their beliefs is when reality challenges their perceptions. That rarely happens on an internet forum but if we engage in civil discourse, it may allow more information to be shared about each side's concerns. I am pro 2A, sodom, but I can tell you now that if you beat people over the head with your belief that "our rights trump your safety" you will not have many listeners. Safety is important to every citizen which is why even the NRA has not fought for no restrictions in firearms ownership. The practice of all rights is not absolute. Safety is important which is why the right to free speech is limited when it comes to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater thus inciting panic. The 2nd is limited in that people who have violent criminal records or who have a history of mental illness involving violent ideation are restricted from legally practicing their right to own firearms. Where most firearm owners differ from people opposed to private ownership is about what threat firearms actually pose to public safety. There are deaths and destruction caused by firearms and those are tragic and senseless when innocents are involved. The problem is that people opposed to private ownership believe that firearms are the cause of the violence and seem to focus on eliminating the supply of arms which is impossible without curtailing more freedoms, and which will not have an overall effect on violent crimes. While in principle your argument is correct, we have to live together and we can best do that by dispelling myths and fear rather than basically telling people "tough shit".

[virginia mountainman]

20. I am frustrated....I am angry.....I am gobsmacked by the amount of dummassery

I have been in here, for several years, gently arguing my points, only to have hard headed nimwits, sit here, and argue with me about the color of the sky.

Many will freely admit, that they don't know much about the issue, but they insist that "They are right, and if you disagree, your nothing but a gun nut"

You try to show these fellow democrats, just how they are wrong, you post FACTS, and they scream about you being a shill for the NRA.....Like somehow, if you post a fact, your suddenly a shill.....

The big straw breaker for me was when I posted about a dog attack, involving me, my CHILDREN and my little hound.... Read thru this post a little bit....It will piss you off..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x202319

That post, was a real eye opener for me, because MORE THAN A FEW ASSHOLES in here, the focus, quickly was not on the fact, that my dog, and children where in a high state of danger, but the fact that I used a gun..... I could not believe, their could be so many narrow minded people on a board for people that are supposed to be the "bastion of open mindedness" I have a feeling these assholes would have liked to have read about the dog killing my dog, or hurting my family, anything, but the fact that a gun, solved the problem, without bloodshed.

It really pissed me off.

After that thread, I decided to stop "Mincing words" and trying to hold every ones hand on this subject {which I will do, in cases of a SINCERE want for truthful information}

But if I sense, any bullshittery, your going to get told, very BLUNTLY, EXACTLY, how it is,

This may entail the use of "high impact" words.

I mean really, some of these people, sit in here, and argue the exact same things over and over again?? Why should we repeatedly, need to explain to the SAME PEOPLE over and over, things like the "Assault Weapon Ban" did not ban ANY machine guns??? MY GOD, it is like trying to teach Helen Keller to talk some times....

WATER....WAAAAAAATER......WAAAAAAAAATERRRRRRRR

We are progressives, we are not supposed to be morons, incapable of learning a few basic facts about things we want to pass laws about...

It is almost like the Bushco Shouting "Terra Terra Terra" and the way the Repukes line up

Democrats do the same damn thing when ever republican Sara Brady shouts "gunnnnn control" "gunnnn control" "gunnnn control"... I get sick, when I see Democrats, jump to attention like a sock puppet, when she does that.

I don't mind people that actually want and pull for gun control, but it runs all over me, when some are so poorly misinformed, as to have no idea what they are saying..Their are several folks on this fine board, that are NOT misinformed, and do support gun control, this is fine..

The problem comes when idiots want to ban things that are already banned.....

Or ban stupid none nonsensical bullshit, like barrel shrouds, and "Things that go" up

Or pass a gun show loophole bill, that registers "gun shows" and REMINDS gun dealers to do the required background check...NO SHIT....this is basically all the damn bill does.....


I am sorry, if my language of late, is a bit strong, but I am so damn sick and tired, of dealing with the same bullshit over and over...

thoughts anyone??

[X_Digger]

21. If I still lived in VA, I'd buy you a beverage of your choice.

The only bright spot for me recently is how quickly new efforts to trot out feel-good,do-nothing regulation gets smacked around.

[virginia mountainman]

49. That is a bright spot...

All this talk from the "Brady bunch" and it seems to get absolutely no traction, except in the press, which is beside themselves because their "cries" are being ignored.

And make my beverage a "Cheerwine" (had grandparents in North Carolina, that got me hooked on the stuff)

:toast:

[SteveM]

76. Our backdoor neighbor in G'vill, FL brewed stump rum within sight of the stadium (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Relax, and ignore the trolls.

If weak penis trolls is all they have, well, I guess we've won. There's some other civil rights that need defending too, if you need a breather.

[virginia mountainman]

50. Good advise.....I may just take a breather....

Concentrate on those that actually are receptive, and ignore the "lost souls" of the Party..

You know, the ones that are so far gone, that it is pointless to even try..

[BigBluenoser]

23. Interesting stuff...

The issue as I see it is that for the most part only we (the gun nuts) and our erstwhile opponents (the gun grabbers) post in the gun forum. There really does not seem to be many moderates who are spectating that are available for conversion to either side - or perhaps there are and just do not post.

As such we (now I mean both sides) are engaged in a futile propaganda war in which victory is impossible.

In any event, I've decided to start alerting on posts that direct the term "gun nut" or "the penis thing" at any specific DUer or group of DUers. I would encourage the anti crowd to do the same thing on their end with whatever they find demeaning. I'm just tired of reading threads where only the first handful of posts are meaningful and the rest are just mean.

Do as you will y'all.

[Caliman73]

30. I would prefer to engage in honest discussions about the issues.

Regardless who started it or who gets it more, the point is that when people characterize other people by derogatory names, it is a clear sign that they are not willing to discuss the issue. I say that regarding both sides of the issue. As Democratic party members or progressives, liberals, moderates, or whatever affiliation; on this site gun owners and proponents of private ownership seem to be minorities. I accept that it is not a popular topic within the Democratic platform, but I think that when EITHER side reverts to calling names it is a failure of intellect and humanity. I am as guilty as anyone else. I plan to make sure I am not insulting anyone who differs from my views, but from the discourse that continues to go on within this thread, I suppose BigBluenoser is correct and the solution is to have people come in and referee since we don't seem to be willing to do so ourselves.

[spin]

40. Our problem in this country is that...

we play politics and political issues like two football teams competing in the Super Bowl.

The object is to win. Second place finishes count as a loss.

We need to realize that we are all in the same boat. If we all row together we will reach the other shore. If however, we fight and bicker among ourselves and if some people stop rowing and some drill holes in the boat, we will be lucky to just go in circles.

We could just stop listening to all the propaganda from the NRA and the gun grabber organizations. We could find solutions that actually work and hold the feet of those we elect to the fire until they pass truly effective legislation.

Somehow I doubt that will ever happen.

[aikoaiko]

37. I've been making a serious effort to avoid name calling, even in retaliation.

I had a plea to reduce name calling about gun issues in my sig line, but I don't think it had any impact.

The way I see it, both sides are somewhat "wounded" from name calling. In typical us-them group dynamics its easier to not see or forgive name calling done by "US" and easy to take offense at name calling from "THEM".

I wish the mods would delete penis=guns provocations as the gender based pejoratives that they are.

[spin]

39. The "penis=guns" insults are at the very least lame...

as many gun owners and CCW permit holders are women. For example, my daughter who is proud to be a woman and wouldn't swap genders period.

In my opinion, such an insult reveals more about the poster than gun owners.

[slackmaster]

68. The best I can manage is to endeavor to respond to the insults with logical arguments

People who fling insults often are blind to their own ad hominems.

[frebrd]

77. As a concerned firearms owner, I come here primarily for information.

Anyone who obviously has come here primarily to spew insults gets put on the Ignore List.

Works for me!

:)