I didn't think publishing lists of CCW permit holders was a good idea....

[RoeBear]

...but now I'm reconsidering.
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/8191627.htm
Licensed to carry

Nearly 14,000 Allen County residents had permits for handguns as of last year.

* The Rev. Ternae Jordan Sr., pastor of Greater Progressive Baptist Church and founder of Stop the Violence, an organization devoted to reducing youth violence.

* Tracy Warner, editor of The Journal-Gazette's editorial page, which has traditionally supported calls for tighter controls on guns and opposed making it easier to carry the weapons.
=====================================================

I don't have a problem with the Reverend Jordan having a permit because youth violence and adults having CCW permits are separate issues. But Mr Warner is a GIANT hypocrite!

(edited to get the right link anyone who saw the wrong one must have been awfully confused)

[MrBenchley]

1. The RKBA crowd in action

" Warner said he obtained his about four years ago after he began receiving death threats, including one that had "a disturbing reference to my family and a description and the location of my house. I wanted to have an option." "

[RoeBear]

2. So if you live in a backwards...

...'may issue' state you can get a license to carry if you are in a position of power and tell a story.

The anti-RKBA crowd in action.

[MrBenchley]

3. Yeah...especially if ignorant piecesof shit

are threatening you and your family because you dared speak out "against guns."

[RoeBear]

4. Or if you just make up shit...

...so people won't know you're a lieing sack of hypocritical shit.
Like this editor obviously did.

[MrBenchley]

6. Too too funny...

Like I said, the RKBA crowd in action...

[iverglas]

38. well lookee there

Or if you just make up shit...
...so people won't know you're a lieing sack of hypocritical shit.
Like this editor obviously did.

If it isn't another unsubstantiated allegation of wrongdoing against a person not here to defend him/herself.

Where might I have seen one of those before?

Maybe this time someone will offer some facts to back up the allegation.

Do we think?

.

[Young Socialist]

7. like this ignorant piece of shit?

"A 44-year-old saleswoman who has a .38-caliber snub-nosed revolver with her wherever she goes has never used her gun, either. But she might not be able to say that if she'd owned one on a July night 24 years ago.

"I was raped," the woman said. "Jumped from behind, forced back into my car and raped. I didn't have a gun then, but I do now. That will never happen to me again." Her name is not being used because she is the victim of a sex crime."

[MrBenchley]

9. So the entire case for CCW

is based on revenge fantasies and a bunch of flabby Republicans daydreaming about being Chuck Norries....ho-kay.

[demsrule4life]

12. And Teddy is what?

skinny or flabby? I know, who would of thunk it.

[MrBenchley]

16. Who would?

When does the RKBA crowd ever say anything bad about a Republican?

The only one who seems to is feeb...and he's pissed that they aren't crazy enough to suit him.

[demsrule4life]

19. I have talked bad about chimp

assskroft and a few others, but someone keeps saying I still support them because of their gun agenda. I gave up talking bad about them.

[slackmaster]

30. How about this one, MrBenchley?

Posted last night.

John Ashcroft can take a flying leap at a rolling donut.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=45270&mesg_id=45396

[FeebMaster]

60. Pissed is a little strong I think.

I mean it isn't like I would start supporting the Republicans tomorrow if they suddenly became pro-gun.

[RoeBear]

14. Did you respond to the right message?

Or did you just verbally attack a woman who was the victim of rape and wants the means to protect herself? How very progressive of you.

Does a woman who has been raped qualify as showing a need in your book?

[MrBenchley]

17. Roe, I responded to your post

So you do think revenge fantasies are a basis for letting people tote guns?

[RoeBear]

21. You realize that you didn't though...

...you responded to a tragic story of a woman being raped. Post number 7

But to answer your question: "So you do think revenge fantasies are a basis for letting people tote guns?"

I would answer no. Revenge and vigilantiism are not what CCW are for. They are for protecting the weak from the strong.

[MrBenchley]

23. I gave it all the response it deserves...

"Revenge and vigilantiism are not what CCW are for."
Sure folled me....there doesn't seem to be anything else to the movement, save some preposterous fantasies and a few outright lies from Mary Rosh....

[analogman]

25. What about YOUR rights?

Do you have the right to protect yourself, your family, and your property from those that would do you harm?

[MrBenchley]

26. You mean like a flabby Republican humhole

with vigilante fantasies and a loaded popgun in his pocket?

[analogman]

33. I'll ask the question again...

Do you have the right to protect yourself, your family, and your property from those that would do you harm?

It's really a very easy question...the answer is either yes or no.

[slackmaster]

34. You're wasting your time asking that kind of question

Some contributors here consistently refuse to address any question that involve themselves personally.

[analogman]

36. So it would seem.

Especially if it involves them taking a stand on something.

[CO Liberal]

53. Those Kind of Questions and Baiting, Plain and Simple

That's why some of us refuse to respond.

[slackmaster]

90. Hey CO...

What do you suppose this forum would look like if every pro-RKBA contributor suddenly stopped replying to "baiting" posts?

[CO Liberal]

112. There Would Be a Lot Fewer People Earning Tombstones

:-)

[slackmaster]

115. You are absolutely correct about that

We have some "master baiters" here.

:evilgrin:

[MrBenchley]

40. Gave it all the answer it deserved

[analogman]

43. You evaded and refused to answer.

Yes or No, Do you believe that you have an inalienable right to self defense and the defense of your family and property?

[MrBenchley]

46. I gave it all the answer it deserved

[analogman]

48. I gave it all the answer it deserved

Are you being intentionally difficult, or are you really that misinformed?

[MrBenchley]

49. I gave it all the answer it deserved

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[FatSlob]

74. Don't waste your time asking people the same question more than once

you won't get an answer.

[RoeBear]

62. This is our stumbling block...

...you think that everyone who carries a concealed weapon is Charles Bronson in Death Wish. When in fact more people carry one like they keep an inflated spare tire in their trunk or a fire extinguisher in their kitchen.
In all actuality it's the last thing anyone wants to do, use their gun to defend themself.

[MrBenchley]

63. No...

I think the push for concealed weapons is a bunch of flabby Republicans who daydream about being Charles Bronson in death wish...but who come acroos more like Bronson Pinchot.

"In all actuality it's the last thing anyone wants to do"
Yeah...we can tell from the Volk photos and the constant din...

[RoeBear]

65. It's like a group of blind men examining an elephant...

...and trying to describe it to others. Unfortuanately for you, you have your hand up the elephant's ass.

[MrBenchley]

67. It's more like what comes out the elephant's ass....

and the RKBA crowd trying to pretend it's chocolate pudding...

[analogman]

24. Not exactly..

The entire case for CCW is based on the inalienable right to self-defense enumerated in the Constititution. (remeber the Constitution?)

[MrBenchley]

28. Too too funny

So show us the part in the Constitution that enumerates that neurotics get to carry popguns in their pockets because they're paranoid...

[analogman]

31. It's pretty clear to me.

So show us the part in the Constitution that enumerates that neurotics get to carry popguns in their pockets because they're paranoid...

The part where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Besides, there are already existing laws that prohibit criminals and the mentally ill from carrying weapons. The fact that you so despertely wish to ignore is the fact that criminals will carry weapons whether it's legal or not. They just don't seem to care about laws...that's why they're criminals. However, the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms for self defense is what is guaranteed in the Constitution, not the rights of criminals.

[MrBenchley]

32. You left off half of the Second Amendment

but then that's no surprise...

"the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms for self defense is what is guaranteed in the Constitution"
Not hardly...the right of the people in each state to form a well regulated militia for collective defense is what's in the Constitution, as the courts have said again and again and again and again and again.

[slackmaster]

35. Pot, meet Kettle!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=45318&mesg_id=45480

[analogman]

37. OK, let's discuss the entire thing.

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.

Keep in mind that, in the 18th century the term "well regulated" meant well prepared, and not "government controlled" as it does in the current context. (Kind of like the word "gay" used to have a totally different meaning than is does today.) If a "well prepared" militia is necessary to the security of a free state (could that mean necessary to maintain freedom from oppression?)then any law that compromises my ability to be well prepared to maintain my freedom from oppression is an invalid law?

[MrBenchley]

41. Been there, done that

Peddle it to someone who swallows NRA propaganda...

[analogman]

44. Your rights are propaganda?

You let the NRA dictate your rights?

[MrBenchley]

45. The NRA's lies are propaganda...

but it's wonderful to see that they're also gospel for the gotta geta gun fraternity...

By the way, you wouldn't like to show us any dictionary anywhere that shows that "regulated" and "prepared" are or were synonymous, would you?

[analogman]

47. ...the gotta geta gun fraternity

I'm in no way saying that everyone should have a gun. There are certainly people that do not want to own a firearm and that is certainly their choice. I'm merely saying that no one, especially the government, should be able to prevent law abiding citizens from possessing firearms for self defense.

[MrBenchley]

51. So in other words

that claim about "regulated" and "prepared" was hooey...

[analogman]

52. Not hooey at all...

I believe that I have a right to possess firearms for the protection of myself, my family, and my property. You, apparently do not share that belief. I can't imagine that either of us is going to change our position any time soon so further discussion really serves no purpose. That's ok though, that's what free speech is all about.

[MrBenchley]

56. Then let's see the proof...

I'll ne here holding my breath, until somebody shows us that "regulated" and "prepared" were synonymous in the 1790's (snicker).

"further discussion really serves no purpose"
Especially not with someone who's going to rant about banning doctors and spout silly NRA propaganda....

[Withergyld]

98. You also forgot to include Title 10 Section 301 USC

Which defines who is a member of the Militia.

It is every able bodied Male, and in the day of equal rights for Women, the progressive view would be to extend this same right to Women. In fact the ADA restricts dicrimination against the disabled, so should it not also apply to them also???

So in actuality the RKBA belongs to everyone except those under 17.

[demsrule4life]

89. People just don't like having their names posted for the public

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1255074

[pnb]

72. Hmmm...

Why no comment about an unsubstantiated allegation against people not here to defend themselves...?

[iverglas]

73. well just maybe ...

Why no comment about an unsubstantiated allegation
against people not here to defend themselves...?

... because

(a) no one was named; "group libel" isn't known to our legal systems, as I understand it; and

(b) I didn't really think that much substantiation was needed, hereabouts, for allegations about the various failings of Republicans.

There's also

(c) I don't read everything Benchley or anybody else writes in this forum, and I actually had not read that post of his or any of the posts following on it, or anything else below the one I responded to all the way down to, and including, Benchley's post 56.

But mainly (a) and (b). And most particularly (b).

Or ... were you suggesting that "the entire case for CCW" was a person not here to defend itself?

.

[MrSandman]

92. Chuck who?

[iverglas]

42. ignorant, for sure

"I was raped," the woman said. "Jumped from behind, forced back into my car and raped. I didn't have a gun then, but I do now. That will never happen to me again."

Anybody who actually thinks that having a firearm in her handbag is going to stop someone from jumping her from behind and overpowering her and disarming her is obviously ignorant of things like the laws of physics, I'd say.

And everybody else just has to hope that she doesn't think someone is about to jump her ... that being the kind of thing that people with post-traumatic stress and the heightened fight-or-flight response that goes with it really are just a tad more likely to think than other people ... when all he's really doing is asking directions to the nearest phone booth ...

I am so fucking sick of women's fears and traumas being exploited by men to further their own agenda. When will the big girlie posters start appearing this time?

"Never again" is a slogan, not reality. No one can *ever* guarantee that something will never happen to him/her. There is no such thing as perfect safety. And anyone who makes it his/her aim to prevent anyone from ever doing anything to him/her again by equipping him/herself with the means to kill anyone s/he perceives as likely to try it, particularly when coupled with an exacerbated tendency to perceive precisely that, is simply a ticking time bomb.

.

[LiberalFighter]

139. Would she had been able to have used the gun under...

the circumstances that she experienced? Meaning would the gun had been accessible during the rape? Would she had been able to use the gun or be used on her?

I think it takes more than just owning a gun and knowing how to use the gun.

It also requires avoiding places that would place one in a dangerous situation as much as possible. It isn't always possible.

[RoeBear]

8. You know what? I think I was being too hard on you.

You came out and supported concealed carry and I didn't commend you for it. Well I'm going to right that wrong and say

"Thank you Mr Benchley for supporting the right to carry concealed weapons!"

[MrBenchley]

10. Gee, roe, if the RKBA crowd wasn't so busy telling me what I think

they might actually hear what I've got to say.

I think anybody who can demonstrate an actual need ought to be given a pistol permit...after they're trained and regulated a lot more stringently than they are presently.

But for the record I oppose the idiotic CCW laws...where every nutcase gets a pistol permit unless some reason can be found to stop him.

[RoeBear]

11. Well darn it...

...that brings us back to the Jim Crow days.

Only the rich and powerful and well connected get to protect themselves and families.

BTW- what is it all those 'nutcases' are doing that upsets you so?
I sure don't read about it much in the paper.

[MrBenchley]

18. Who are you trying to kid?

Ofh, that's right...you're busily trying to pretend Mississippi wasn't a Jim Crow state and Wisconsin IS.

[RoeBear]

22. I corrected myself on that...

...or would you prefer to pretend that I didn't?

[RoeBear]

61. Can I take your lack of...

...a continuing attack on my character as some form of an apology?

[CO Liberal]

13. I Second The Motion, MrB

There are pro-gunners out here in Colorado that I wouldn't trust with a waterpistol, much less a gun.

And many of them are the spokesmen for pro-gun groups, such as the Rocky Mountain Firearms Coalition. What a bunch of wackos.....

[MrBenchley]

20. Exactly so...

You'll notice the howl that goes up on these pages whenever the name of a public figure spouting this bogus "gun rights" horsecrap is mentioned.

[analogman]

27. What about free speech?

I think anybody who can demonstrate an actual need ought to be given a pistol permit

Should only the trained and regulated be given a permit for free speech?

[MrBenchley]

29. Who the hell are you trying to kid?

[CO Liberal]

54. Hey, Analogman - Here's a Quarter

Go buy a clue.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[MrSandman]

111. And who judges "actual need"...

The AG? The yahoo sheriff who dispenses political favors? Wanting gov't go have all that power led to Patriot.

[MrSandman]

114. Someone must want more power to AG

[subversive_derisive]

136. every nutcase gets a pistol permit ...

Much easier not to apply for the permit and just carry anyway.

[pnb]

70. The article doesn't mention why he was threatened.

Have you become psychic?

[MrSandman]

5. Implied by Warner:

I still favor eliminating other's options.

Still hypocritical.

[slackmaster]

15. Who believes him?

Not me. It's way too easy to fake having received death threats just so you can meet some bureaucratic "needs" test to get a permit.

Tracy Warner is a liar and a hypocrite. He's as corrupt as the day is long.

[analogman]

39. Interesting, isn't it.

I think this is as wrong as it would be to post the names of everyone in the state who DIDN'T have a firearm in the home? How do you think that would go over with the public?

[iverglas]

55. gosh

I think this is as wrong as it would be to post the names of everyone in the state who DIDN'T have a firearm in the home?

And how did we make *that* leap?

CCW holders don't "have a firearm in the home". (Well, they might, and they might also have a bowl of ice cream in the home. Neither concerns us.)

They have, or might be expected to have, a firearm ON THEIR PERSON.

Isn't that kind of the point of the thing?

When they have a firearm in their home, then obviously the firearm is not in a movie theatre, or a bar, or a restaurant, or a municipal office, or the mall ... .

When they have a firearm ON THEIR PERSON, it might be any one or more of those places on any given day. I mean: duh?

They get to walk around in public with a firearm concealed on their person. Why shouldn't anyone else get to know they're doing it??

Someone a while back cited one of the most bizarre court cases I'd ever heard of -- an individual who was required to leave his firearm outside a retail store was injured when someone held up the store. (Apparently there was some finding that if he'd had his gun on him he wouldn't have been injured; how anyone would determine that, for instance discounting the idea that if he'd pulled his gun he might have got killed or he might have killed someone else, dog only knows.) The store owner was found liable for his injuries because the store owner had prohibited from bringing his firearm into the store. (Given that the store owner didn't compel him to enter the store, I still didn't get the point, but oh well.)

So it seems to me that what business owners who don't want firearms on their premises (on the persons of customers *or* employees) would have to do is post signs saying "no people with CCW permits allowed".

That way no one would find him/herself in the position of being in a store without a firearm when s/he would have preferred to be there with a firearm, and been legally entitled to be there with a firearm.

Any irresistible urge that anyone had to enter the store, which required leaving the firearm outside, could be countered; it wouldn't be the firearm that was prohibited, it would be the person. And any person who entered without a firearm would then really obviously be the author of his/her own misfortune if s/he got shot by a robber. I mean, if it weren't obvious in the case in question in the first place. S/he would have been there without the owner's permission, and contrary to the owner's strict instructions.

And how would a business owner be able to enforce that rule without having a list of people who had CCWs? If the owner advertised for office staff, and wanted to be sure that no one s/he hired would be entitled to bring firearms to work, how could s/he do it? If the owner hired someone entitled to carry concealed firearms, and prohibited that person from carrying one on the job, and a robber burst in and shot the employee, the owner would apparently be liable.

It strikes me as fairly reasonable, and really not contrary to public policy, for business owners to want there to be no firearms in their places of business. They apparently can't prohibit firearms without opening themselves up to disastrous lawsuits, so they have to be able to refuse to employ people entitled to carry concealed firearms.

And they can't do that unless they know who they are. Am I right?


So, analogman, you analogous to anybody we know?

.

[MrBenchley]

58. You might recall

that the specious argument by the RKBA crowd against this public access was that it opened them up to crime...in other words, that their pocket pals made them less safe and that they needed to pose as we unarmed citizens...

You might also recall the wonderful examples of charmers who applied in Minnesota....some of whom GOT their permits...

--Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
--Has fled from any state to avoid prosecution for a crime or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceedings.
--Is an unlawful user of any controlled substance as defined in Chapter 152.
--Has been committed to a treatment facility in Minnesota or elsewhere as a "mentally ill," "mentally retarded," or "mentally ill and dangerous to the public" person as defined in Minnesota Statute § 253B.02.
--Has been convicted of a gross misdemeanor for the crime of assault motivated by bias (609.255).
--Danger to self or others.
--Marijuana conviction in Texas.
--Crim. History states "disqualified for Firearms".
--Warrant out of another state (ND).
--Applicant lied regarding current address.
--Reckless discharge of firearms.
--Several law enforcement contacts for mental health issues. Two commitments by county and one self commitment.
--Pending case involving a loaded uncased handgun in a motor vehicle. Found during a traffic stop on a driving complaint.
--Charged in WI with Carrying a ConcealedWeapon, pled to Transporting a Loaded/Uncased Firearm. Involved a traffic stop, had 2 handguns in vehicle, one loaded under the driver's seat, the other unloaded in the glove box. Subject had a large knife on self and another one
located in the driver's side door pocket.
--Continued assaultive behavior pattern with alcohol use.
--Arrested & placed in treatment.
--Arrested for 2nd degree assault, domestic assault and animal cruelty
--Interviews with people that know the applicant revealed explosive temper and brought illegal weapons to work place.
--Charged and investigated for CSC with the use of a firearm.
--Investigated and arrested for terroristic threats.
--Convicted for possession of a pistol without a permit, threatened wife and child during incident.
--Applicant divulged he had shot a person in the past.
--Convicted for multiple DWI and history of assaultive behavior.
--Threatened mother with a rifle.
--Convicted for domestic assault.
--Threatened Co-worker.
--History of suicidal thoughts and threats.
--Multiple DWI convictions and history of assaultive behavior.
--Suspected gang member, arrested and charged for firearms violations.
--GM theft conviction as armed security.
--Multiple alcohol related offenses.
--Suicide attempt, conviction for criminal damage to property and auto theft arrests.
--History of assaultive behavior, and burglary arrests and convictions.
--Conviction for GM possession of a firearm and assault.
--Arrests for firing gun in city limits, suspected gang member.
--Incidents of threatening behavior, history of alcohol abuse.
--Assault 5 conviction, felony theft arrest.
--Incident involving terroristic threats with the use of a firearm.
--Multiple DWI arrests
--Terroristic threats arrest.
--Suspected gang member, domestic assault arrest.
--Arrest for assault 1, criminal vehicular injury related DWI conviction.
--Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle conviction and arrest for robbery.
--Gross misdemeanor theft conviction and numerous pending investigations.
--Six DWI convictions.
--Disorderly conduct conviction, arrest for domestic assault.
--Conviction for reckless discharge of a firearm and threatened suicide with a firearm.
--Convicted for possession of a pistol without a permit.
--Domestic related arrest, felony burglary conviction.
--Convicted possession of a pistol without a permit, attempted burglary and assault arrest.

Yeah, these are the voters Democrats should be pandering to...NOT!

[slackmaster]

59. Er, most people in those categories were denied initially AND

Failed to get approval on appeal.

Thanks for a dishonest attempt to distort the record.

[analogman]

66. They failed to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon...

This in no way keeps them from actually carrying one. It only prevents them from doing so legally. If they really want to carry one the absence of a piece of paper signed by some government flunky isn't going to stop them.

[MrBenchley]

68. Not all of them....

Thanks to the really crappy CCW law, some of them got their popgun permit....

And you're right about one thing...it's too easy for this sort of scumbag to get their hands on a gun, thanks to the GOP and the corrupt gun industry.

[analogman]

69. I agree that it's easy for criminals to get guns....

But I'm not sure it's the gun industry's fault that criminals get guns. Most criminals don't buy their guns from licensed dealers or gun shows..they buy them from other criminals, or they simply steal them from you and me.

[MrBenchley]

71. Yeah, sure...

Tell us, do you think it's the lawn care industry that's arming criminals? It sure as hell isn't AARP or the National Association of Realtors fighting to keep the gun show loophole wide open and to keep common sense gun control from being passed.

"Most criminals don't buy their guns from licensed dealers or gun shows..they buy them from other criminals"
Who buy them from gun shows and dealers....

"they simply steal them from you and me"
They sure as hell don't steal them from me....

[analogman]

75. Important note:

I believe your information on the "gun show loophole" is in error. If you or I buy a gun from a gun dealer, whether it's at his store or a gun show, he has to follow all federal laws.

For a simple, clear explanation please see this link

[MrBenchley]

76. Too TOO funny...

We've been all through this "there is no gun show loophole" crap here already.

[analogman]

77. Have you ever bought a gun at a gun show?

Despite what Big Media may have told you, the "gun show loophole" is a lie spun by some people who are afraid to let you and me own a gun.

[MrBenchley]

78. Yeah, surrrrrrre...

"the "gun show loophole" is a lie spun by some people"
Would that be the people who sabotaged their own disgraceful liability immunity bill when the amendment to close it was attached?

"When Craig's bill reached the Senate floor last week, he faced difficulty defeating two attempts — from the middle — to amend it. One added an extension of the ban on 19 kinds of assault weapons, passed a decade ago, that is due to expire this fall and which Bush claims to want extended. The other closed the gun show loophole and subjected gun transactions among individuals attending these shows to a simple criminal background check.
Liberals and moderates in both parties combined to win both votes with minimal suspense. Faced with a conflict between its campaign to fix court cases and to eliminate all restrictions on firearms, the NRA decided it no longer supported its own bill. This forced Craig to follow orders. Not only was the bill killed, but the extension of the assault weapons ban that Bush said he wants remains unpassed by a Congress ruled by his own party."

http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2004/as-insight-0310-0-4c09r1428.htm


Amazing...if it weren't for denial, distrotion and deception, there'd be no RKBA arguments at all....

[analogman]

79. It is seem that you have no personal experience with guns or gun buying,

So I'll help you out. All gun sales by gun dealers at gun shows must conform to federal gun sales laws. That includes background checks. If an non-federally licensed individual sells a gun to another individual the same rules do not apply. For example, you could buy a gun from another private citizen with no FEDERAL paperwork required. Some states have stricter laws. <p>The point of all this is that criminals do not buy their guns from licensed firearms dealers specifically to avoid the background check that they would be subject to, whether at a gun show or a gun store. The "loophole" is a fantasy. For all practical purposes it is a non-issue for law abiding citizens and criminals alike. Only those intent on taking guns away from law abiding citizens continue to cling to this myth. It sure as hell isn't causing any criminals to lose any sleep.

[MrBenchley]

80. In other words, there IS a gun show loophole

and the gun lobby wants it wide open.

Now go peddle your "personal experience" to somebody who gives a big steaming crap.

[analogman]

81. I'm sorry the facts don't agree with you...

Despite your personal feelings about guns the fact is they are here to stay. No amount of government interference is going to ever remove guns from our citizens. The Gun Show Loophole is a falacy created by Big Media to play on Joe Citizens ignorance of guns and gun laws and to create an atmosphere where a large percentage of the public agrees to surrender to the government it's right to protect itself. You appear to have taken the bait....hook, line, and sinker. I wish you the best.

[MrBenchley]

82. The facts agree with me....Tom DeLay agrees with you

"The Gun Show Loophole is a falacy created by Big Media to play on Joe Citizens ignorance of guns"
But the intellectual elite, like Ted Nugent and Larry Craig, know better......(snicker)

[analogman]

83. Again, reality and your position just don't line up..

Tom DeLay, Ted Nugent, and Larry Craig have absolutely no bearing on our discussion. If you have never purchased a gun at a gun show, or anywhere else for that matter, your only information comes from what other people want you to know. Without firsthand experience you can't truly examine the issue from both sides. That's just reality, and sometimes reality ain't pretty.

[MrBenchley]

88. Facts line up with me, fatheads line up with you

"Tom DeLay, Ted Nugent, and Larry Craig have absolutely no bearing on our discussion"
They do if you're going to parrot their talking points...Larry Craig tried to pull this same line of crap on the Senate floor and got a horselaugh for his pains.

The plain fact is that the gun lobby is fighting hard to keep the gun show loophole wedged firmly open...and was even willing to scuttle the disgraceful liability immunity bill rather than take a chance on it being closed.

[FeebMaster]

91. Don't worry Benchley,

your side still has Bill O'Reilly.

[MrBenchley]

93. Gee, feeb....

We been through that....the only time it's ever mentioned that the odious O'Really supports gun control is when he's trying to bamboozle gullible people into thinking he's a moderate...

On his program he hasn't said dick about gun control....

Want to look at some of the shitheels who are for "gun rights"?

[FeebMaster]

94. What do you mean

he hasn't said dick about gun control?

He said the AWB should be renewed because people don't need bazookas and machine guns.

Here's another good one from O'Reilly:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/oreilly010504.asp

"The irony here is that Dean is not an ideologue, he's only playing one on cable. As we have reported, the National Rifle Association loves this guy, and so did many Vermont business people. There's no doubt the governor is a committed secularist, but if you want a bazooka in your bedroom, Dean is apparently down with that."

[MrBenchley]

95. Gee, you think that was a good one?

Telling....

Nice to see some people on this board will swallow flat-out lies from right wing loonies, as long as they slander Democrats in the process.

[slackmaster]

96. Speaking of flat-out lies

Have you found any proof that taggants are used in European smokeless gunpowders yet?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=44507&mesg_id=44563&page=

[FeebMaster]

97. I thought that it was good

in that it shows O'Reilly talking about bazookas and displaying his ignorance to the world. I didn't say that it was good to show my agreement with it. I don't agree with O'Reilly and I don't want to see the AWB renewed.

[MrBenchley]

99. Hey, it shows O'Really lying about Dean

and nothing more....

[FeebMaster]

100. You're right.

Since Dean supported renewing the AWB and O'Reilly seems to be implying that he didn't.

[MrBenchley]

101. Face it feeb...your only beef with the GOP is that

you don't think they're ugly and crazy enough.

[FeebMaster]

102. If you say so.

I thought my beef with them was that they were a bunch of authoritarian jackasses, but apparently they're just not ugly or crazy enough for me. So many years of my life wasted. I just hope I have time to turn things around.

[MrBenchley]

103. You're the one that says so, feeb

Even those nutcases are not pro-gun enough to suit you....

[FeebMaster]

104. Yes.

Which makes them more authoritarian. Although I think that, in general, calling them pro-gun at all is a stretch.

[MrBenchley]

106. In other words, they're not crazy enough to suit you...

[FeebMaster]

108. I wouldn't put it that way,

since I'm not crazy. My position is reasonable and practical. It also results in the most freedom for everyone involved. I call it a win. The Republicans, on the other hand, are sorely lacking in the freedom department.

[analogman]

105. Guns don't have rights, people do.

One of those rights is the inaleniable right of self defense against criminals and tyrants. A gun is merely one of the tools we have at our disposal to protect rights.

Have you sold your rights for the false perception of safety?

[MrBenchley]

107. Just ask John AshKKKroft, or Tom DeLay

or Jeb Bush, or any of the other scum bags peddling this dishonest "gun rights" crap.

[analogman]

109. I'm asking you...

Have you sold your inalienable rights for the false perception of safety?

[MrBenchley]

110. And I gave that all the answer it deserved.

"the false perception of safety"
Gee, I'm not the one crying that I need a popgun....

[subversive_derisive]

137. Loophole??

Gun Show Loophole is a myth.

Take the time and drive your butt down to a gun show and look around... nothing but dealers peddling guns and following all of the state and Federal laws.

However, private transactions between individuals remain unregulated. It wouldn't be too sexy to call it the "Pivate Transaction Loophole" because you can start to draw parallels to other private sales coming on the block for the sake of taxation: cars, jewelery, etc.

Then again, it is always better to shroud feel good legislation under a veil and make it seem like it only affects a limited number of people - none of which you directly know.

Get informed. If you don't take the time to see for yourself what the issue is, all you do is spread propaganda.

[analogman]

64. I agree with most of your posting.

If the gun owner voluntarily went into the store then he had implied agreement with the store owners policy and should not have been able to collect for damages resulting from an armed robbery. The store owner was also completely within his right to prohibit firearms on his property. I, personally, will not voluntarily patronize any establishment that infringes on my right to carry a gun for self defense.

Do you believe that individuals have the right to possess a gun for defense purposes?

[texasdem99]

84. You're wasting your time, analgoman

You'll never get a straight answer from the "pro-control" crowd. (They prefer that euphemism better than "anti-gun", while we get to be called "gun nuts").

And any questions about personal experience will be ridiculed, and will go categorically unanswered.

Apparently this means nothing to some people with regards to debating this issue.

Good luck.

[analogman]

85. Apparently so...

Seems that, when faced with facts that do not fit their perception of the way things should be, the anti-gun nuts resort to the time-honored debating method of "I know you are, but what am I?" Either that, or they steer the topic into some personal attack or other childish area.

[texasdem99]

86. Dude, you're spot on

Around and around and around and around you'll go with them, getting nowhere.

By about the second or third reply you'll be personally attacked, like clockwork.

Welcome to the Gungeon, by the way! This is the status quo here, I'm afraid.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

113. ah, nothing like a newbie

And any questions about personal experience will be ridiculed, and will go categorically unanswered.

In all those months of lurking, are you really saying that you read nothing about MY "personal experience"?

Why, wasn't it only about 10 days ago that I wrote at some length about MY personal experience and was pretty much ignored? I do believe it was.

I suppose I should read on and undoubtedly discover how unforgivable it is for me to have taken a weekend away from the computer ... and not yet answered a question that I have already written several tomes on, in this forum, in the past ... for the benefit, yet again, of yet another, um, newbie ...

.

[slackmaster]

116. The comment was addressed to someone other than you, Iverglas

Please give the newbies some slack, as they have yet to encounter your many candid posts about personal experiences.

[iverglas]

117. well just fyi, slackmaster

The comment --

You're wasting your time, analogman

-- was addressed to analogman and obviously was ABOUT the question he had asked me (given that it was posted in reply to the post in which he asked me the question), which was:

Do you believe that individuals have the right to possess a gun for defense purposes?

(and which wasn't exactly on point in the context of this particular thread, but who can resist a good fishing expedition?)

I can't really think what else "You're wasting your time, analogman" might have been ABOUT, except the question addressed to ME.

Hence my response, i.e. to a comment ABOUT ME.

Now, when it comes to time-wasting, I'm of the view that repeating my views of things over and over and over any time I happened to be asked something about them by someone I'm to assume is a newbie is one of the most egregious instances of it.

My growing tendency is to say, in response to such queries: get yerself a gold star and do a search of the archives, or spend *your* time looking through whatever threads might seem relevant, to find the answers, rather than asking that I spend *my* time patiently explaining things all over again. Let alone making outrageous comments about the non-forthcomingness of answers, as someone who claims to have been "lurking" for months, and could therefore really be expected to know exactly how false that comment is when applied to me, me having been the one to whom the question in question was addressed, did here.

Speaking of gold stars, mine expired rather abruptly last week and I've gotta get around to figuring out that pay-pal stuff again ...

.

[slackmaster]

118. Whoops - right you are

I apologize to all for failing to trace the thread back - I got it confused with another in which I had told the same newbie that another user has never and probably will never divulge any information about HIS personal experiences.

Many people like yourself and CO Liberal have been quite candid. I remain deeply suspicious of anyone who steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the life experiences that helped form his or her present political views.

[iverglas]

121. and on the question our friend was undoubtedly referring to

... Pete Puma was, I believe, the one who recently inquired about certain people's personal experiences with firearms. I've answered in the past, but declined to answer that time, essentially because giving too many details makes me identifiable.

I do not know people who own firearms, at present. When I lived for a short time in a small town, I knew people, particularly in the legal community, those being the ones I knew, who hunted; the man I was involved with was the one whose depressed, disabled 13-year-old son killed himself with one of those hunting weapons. I have one friend who owns two firearms (or did some years ago); I never saw them and we agreed, when he rented my next-door apartment, that they would not be kept on the premises. I never conducted a search to see that he was complying, but as far as I knew he didn't want to keep them there and was quite happy to leave them at his house in the country with his soon-to-be ex-wife and all his other stuff.

I have once held a firearm. I was the intermediary by which the firearm was removed from a situation in which the police regarded its presence as potentially dangerous (and nobody else disagreed, or cared), when it was handed to me by the person lawfully entitled to be in possession of it and snatched from my hand by a boy in blue before I could turn around and say "here ya go". And to preserve my image as an international woman of mystery, that's all I say about that!

I'm just no more interested in firearms than I am in sportscars or stamp collections. There are loads of things that I'm not personally interested in that I have informed opinions about and care about as matters of public policy; same-sex marriage, or marriage of any sort, for that matter, comes to mind. There are things I have no interest in having or doing that I think should not be restricted or prohibited by law, and I'm sure there are things that I would like to have or do that I do think should be restricted or prohibited by law. It ain't that hard for me to distinguish between my interests and the public interest, or to figure out why many things that are in the public interest are really in my interest anyhow, Ayn Rand notwithstanding.

.

[texasdem99]

126. Finally! Thank you

Sarcasm off. You can take a "thank you" from someone you're less than fond of, I hope.

My God, could it be that I have much more respect for anything you say now? 'Tis true, although I'm sure you're not up awake at night wondering my opionion of you. :)

[texasdem99]

119. Hello Iverglas

Actually, I was lumping you in collectively with MrBenchley. Analgoman asked a direct question, which I once did, and you BOTH categorically avoided the question, in both instances. At least you're consistent.

Analgoman, being a newbie pro-gunner like me, IN MY OPINION, is going through the same thing with both of you. Hence, my comment.

You're not going to ask me to provide a link to that, are you? I can't really link to my opinion, sorry.

BTW, what's with the obsession with newbies? The Internet is a big place, you know. Lots of people register with DU. If you don't like people joining the fray, then I suggest you go to the "Ask The Administrators" forum and propose that DU accept no new members that don't agree with you. Until then, we're here, please try and get used to it.

Lastly:

"Let alone making outrageous comments about the non-forthcomingness of answers, as someone who claims to have been "lurking" for months, and could therefore really be expected to know exactly how false that comment is when applied to me, me having been the one to whom the question in question was addressed, did here."

Jaysus! That's a mouthful. What in the world are you trying to say? The syntax in this sentence could be called obfuscated, at best. You've got me on that one. I have a BA in English and I can't even decipher what your point is.

[demsrule4life]

120. Whew

I thought there must of been something wrong with me with my lack of understanding with some of her posts.

[slackmaster]

122. Iverglas uses deeply embedded sentences

e.g. "The doctor who the nurse whose dog died married left." (Not a quote from Iverglas, rather a classic example from a linguistics text.)

Aside from wordiness, that's what makes some posts hard to read.

[iverglas]

125. well, as long as we're commenting ...

... on people's syntax and what not ...

I guess I wouldn't be surprised if someone who writes "I must of" didn't follow some of what I write. Sorry, but sauce for the goose and all that.

As to why someone with a degree in English wouldn't follow, I have no clue. I do write, day in and day out, for a very sophisticated audience, to be sure, and mainly read material written for the same audience, so I guess it's just a matter of habit, on my part.

Let alone making outrageous comments about the non-forthcomingness of answers, as someone who claims to have been "lurking" for months, and could therefore really be expected to know exactly how false that comment is when applied to me, me having been the one to whom the question in question was addressed, did here.

Well, let's break it down.

We have Pete Puma, who tells us he lurked for months before posting. I therefore assume that he has read lots of things I've written. Why wouldn't I assume this? Why would he have lurked and yet not read what I've written?

We have Pete Puma, claiming, in response to a post asking me a question, that no answer will be forthcoming. Why would he claim this, if he has read what I've written on this board over several months? What evidence is there that I don't answer questions?

He bases this claim (as I anticipated) on my having declined to answer his question about personal experiences with guns. In point of fact, I had answered that question in the past, much more than once, and had given ALL the information I have again summarized in the post I just wrote here, above.

I declined to answer his question in the instance in question out of pretty much sheer peevishness. I do get dreadfully bored with newbies arriving and interrogating people already involved in an ongoing and, one would hope, evolving discussion, about things that have been oft and thoroughly discussed in the past. And I do scratch my head about the reasons for these interrogations, and if I don't come up with a good one, I just don't feel any obligation to play.

The mere asking of a question does not impose any duty on anyone else to answer it, and I would say that this is particularly true when the question has been repeatedly answered in the past and there is no apparent reason for it to be asked again.

And anybody wishing to draw conclusions from anyone else's declining to answer any question really oughta have some basis for those conclusions.

.

[MrBenchley]

124. Geeze, Pete, I gave the questions the answers they deserved....

"BTW, what's with the obsession with newbies?"
Gee, perhaps it's because they often make such a big noise on arrival (like anybody else gives two shits) and then trudge over the same old horseshit that's long ago been dismissed as such? (Or turn out to be somebody who'd been tombstoned before under another name...)

[texasdem99]

123. Um, I remember you discussing a couple of gun related tragedies

in your life, which were certainly poignant.

"I also have personally known one person who was murdered by firearm, and one person whose minor child committed suicide by firearm. Whether *I* have ever hunted, or played with guns, or grew up with guns, or had anything else to do with guns, hasn't got thing one to do with what happened to those people, and the public policies that I advocate as ways of preventing what happened to them happening to others."

But, again, for the millionth time, you never answered the original question on that thread, which was my question if you had ever even seen a real firearm or not. And then you proceed to ridicule the original question, by saying that it had no relevance to the discussion.

Remember, I said in my response, "Any questions about personal experience will be ridiculed..."

Whee! Around and around and around we go again...

[iverglas]

127. and of course

I'm still waiting for some explanation of what the question of

<whether> you had ever even seen a real firearm or not

has to do with anything being discussed on this board.

Should I express no opinion regarding the legal rules relating to same-sex marriage, me being heterosexual and having no desire to marry anyone at all? Need I have seen a real homosexual in order to have a useful and worthwhile opinion on the matter?

I'm sure they sell firearms at the local Canadian Tire, and I'm sure I've passed by the display cases quite a few times in the past. And I see cops from time to time, and they have guns. So yup, I've seen real firearms. I probably saw the ones my lawyer buddies hunted with in that small town. Big whoop. Don't recall having any more reaction to the sight than I did to the fishing rod display or the cops' hats. Didn't break out in a rash, or a fit of the vapours, or have an uncontrollable urge to either grab 'em or caress 'em. So ... what was your point?

.

[texasdem99]

128. The point was

for people to maybe have some introspection on the way personal experience may have bearing on our overall opinion of the gun issue. Again, I said that a couple of times on that thread.

You have had negative experiences. I believe I have had some "positive" ones, if you want to call them that. Hence our visceral opposition on this issue, giving some credence, IMO, to my original intent; that maybe personal experience plays into our feelings on guns and gun control.

Honestly, I really meant it to be a fairly innocuous question. But wasn't perceived that way. Oh well.

"Must of" got me on that one. Sometimes I don't proofread the grammar well enough before I hit the reply button.

[iverglas]

129. "Hence"??

You have had negative experiences. I believe I have had some "positive" ones, if you want to call them that. Hence our visceral opposition on this issue, giving some credence, IMO, to my original intent; that maybe personal experience plays into our feelings on guns and gun control.

I'm not seeing any "hence" about it.

I have had negative experiences with cats; two tetanus shots come to mind. I own four of them, and feed and shelter a number of others in the local feral cat colony. Where's the "hence" in that?

I happen to have known a person whose child committed suicide by firearm, and a person who was murdered by firearm. If I had not known those people, do you really suppose -- are you really suggesting -- that I would be opposed to restrictions on the acquisition, possession and handling of firearms??

Do you maybe think I am so shallow that my positions on matters of public policy are entirely determined by my personal experience? That if the child who died had been someone else's lover's kid, or the woman who was murdered had been someone else's client, the problems associated with firearms use would have escaped my notice and I would then just have thought that unrestricted firearms acquisition and possession and handling was a grand idea? Maybe if I didn't know any gay men or lesbians, it would just never have occurred to me that they should have equal rights?

Let me assure you: *I* am not that shallow.


Honestly, I really meant it to be a fairly innocuous question. But wasn't perceived that way. Oh well.

And you still wonder why.



Not to belabour the point, but it wasn't you who said "must of".

.

[texasdem99]

130. Well, I assumed it was

me with the "must-of". Showing you some humility. Although I doubt you'd ever give me credit for it.

Ok, you win. I'm shallow. Whatever.

We beat this to death already.

[iverglas]

131. gosh, funny thing is

Ok, you win. I'm shallow. Whatever.

"Whatever" indeed.

In this instance, I must construe "whatever" as meaning "you, iverglas, never said or implied that I, Pete Puma, am shallow, but I'll pretend you did and then pretend I agree with you, for reasons only I can explain, but I won't".

Beat it to death indeed. And went down exactly the well-beaten path that some of us had no difficulty foreseeing that the question in question would take us down in the first place.

All the way to the conclusion that someone who advocates restrictions on the acquisition, possession and handling of firearms must've been bit by one as a child. There's just no other possible explanation for *some* people's positions on public policy, apparently.

.

[texasdem99]

132. Oy!

Do you ever lighten up?

Let it go, I'm sure I'll get on your nerves again in due time over something else.

[iverglas]

133. sorry, pal

"Let it go" is not an appropriate response to objections to a series of unfounded and inaccurate allegations/conclusions about another person.

Apologies, in themselves, aren't much better. Improvements in behaviour are what I tend to watch for, myself.

So rather than assuring me that you will "get on <my> nerves again in due time over something else" (as if that were what you'd done), you might consider assuring me that you won't misrepresent me or my positions or my actions, in future. Or just not do it; that would be fine with me.

.

[texasdem99]

134. Uh,

Ok, so being civil to you has no effect.

I'm not your fucking pal. Far from it. Don't insult me.

No truce, or levity, ever, is your message.

Fine, I hear you loud and clear.

[iverglas]

135. no okay about it

You inaccurately stated that no answers to questions would be forthcoming from me -- something that I find it impossible to believe you could actually believe if you had been reading the board for months, and so something that I cannot understand why you would have said.

You got an answer to your pointless question (the same answer as I had given numerous times in the past), and you then mischaracterized that answer as providing an explanation for my position on restrictions on firearms acquisition, possession and handling ... exactly as I had anticipated would be done in the very first place.

There was no "levity" here, and no "civility" either.

It is not civil to say things about other people that are not, um, accurate.

It is not civil to characterize the reasons for what other people think, say and do as something other than what they say those reasons are, when there is no basis whatsoever for any other characterization.

I fully expected that if the original question about "personal" experience with firearms had been answered, it would have been met with one manifestation or another of the "bit by a firearm as a child" characterization. As it turned out, I was pretty much right. I'm really not stupid.

And as I said, all I really ask is that I not be mischaracterized.

There simply is no "truce" when one person behaves improperly, another person objects, and the first person says "hey, don't be so hostile" or words to that effect. There's no room in this case for agreeing to disagree. There's no disagreement; there was mischaracterization and objection.

So yes, "I win". I was mischaracterized, I objected, and that seems to be about where it stands.

.

[Columbia]

138. Ok, boys and girls

I'm turning this car around right now! No Disneyland for anybody! :dunce: