Colorado's Magpul to give away 1,500 AR-15 30-round magazines in last protest

[Rod Walker]

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23547501/colorados-magpul-give-away-1-500-30-round



With mere days left before new Colorado gun-control legislation goes into effect, a company will protest one more time by handing out 1,500 30-round magazines for free. Erie-based Magpul Industries announced the giveaway on the company Facebook page Wednesday.

The ammunition magazine manufacturer will take part in the "A Farewell to Arms" festival in Infinity Park in Glendale on Saturday.

On July 1, the law — which limits bans gun magazines to hold no more than 15 rounds and was signed by Gov. John Hickenlooper in March — goes into effect.

The first 1,500 attendees who are at least 18 years old will get a magazine, the companys Web page said. The event is hosted by the nonprofit Free Colorado, which advocates for the rights of gun owners, according to its website.

[BainsBane]

1. Evil fucks

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. Awww, do you has a sad?

[BainsBane]

29. and you aren't saddened by the fact that all that the magazines of choice

for lunatics are being distributed for free can shoot up a movie theater or a school? So yes, I "has a sad." I'm a human being.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. My, how quickly you lot 'forget' Virginia Tech when the circumstances become inconvenient...

To refresh your memory, it was committed by a madman using a bunch of "Brady-friendly"
ten-round magazines. Were you under the impression that Cho's victims are somehow less dead
because he reloaded?

[BainsBane]

32. non-sequitur much?

Its like responding to a post that says "cutting food stamps leads to hunger" by saying Michael Smith received foodstamps but was still malnourished.

You refuse to compromise on anything. Now your Second Amendment rights hinge on having the capacity to kill 50 children without reloading. Maximum bloodshed is always better. No wonder you refer to a group that supports universal background checks as "castlebansalot." The idea of reasonable compromise and basic human compassion are lost here.

[premium]

35. Wrong,

We refer to your group as Castle Bansalot because of all the members who have been blocked because of a difference of opinion, no matter how mild it is.

1 hack89
2 Eleanors38
3 Crepuscular
4 AnotherMcIntosh
5 Bay Boy
6 ManiacJoe
7 bossy22
8 Straw Man
9 GoldenEagle16
10 oneshooter
11 Duckhunter935
12 friendly_iconoclast
13 rrneck
14 customerserviceguy
15 CokeMachine
16 ProgressiveProfessor
17 sarisataka
18 JohnnyBoots
19 premium
20 appal_jack
21 Travis_0004
22 geckosfeet
23 rl6214
24 Hangingon
25 NYC_SKP
26 grok

I see another one was added today.
Carry on now.

[BainsBane]

36. Oh, I see

So why is it that you would want to participate in a group for which you adamantly oppose the SOP?
Do you feel a need to go to the African-American or vegan group and tell them they are wrong?

[premium]

39. I didn't adamently oppose most of the SOP,

Matter of fact, I was pretty supportive of alot of the GCP's posted there.

I was blocked because I took issue with Hoyt for posting a blatant lie about me.

[BainsBane]

40. That's too bad

So you support all of the President's gun control proposals? If so, why did you become so angry at CTYankee when she mentioned the victims of Sandyhook? That is not how proponents of greater gun control tend to respond. Nor do they worry more about gun manufacturers than victims of gun violence.

[premium]

44. I got angry, wrongly admittedly,

because he/she tried to argue on an emotional basis instead of a factual basis.
And yes, except for the AWB and the mag limit of 10 rounds, I generally support Pres. Obama's gun control proposals.

[BainsBane]

54. Your mistake is thinking emotion and fact are separate

Scientific research demonstrates that all decisions depend on emotion. If you have ever been depressed, you might have noticed that it is much more difficult to make a decision or articulate a thought. Without emotion, you cannot function in society.
Emotion and compassion are central to the issue of guns and gun control. Those dead children are the reason why most of us care so much about the issue. You prefer not to be confronted with the results of gun violence. That, I suggest, is both unhealthy and counter factual.

[premium]

59. You're correct mostly,

but when I get sick and tired of, well if you oppose this or that, then you don't care about the children of Sandy Hook, or for that matter, all children. I wasn't here for the Sandy Hook tragedy, but I'll bet that every one here, including the "gunners" were horrified.
CTyankee threw the emotional spear and I, wrongly, got angry and said something that got my post hidden.

[BainsBane]

64. All of us have done something similar

[Duckhunter935]

105. and you are not banned from here

[BainsBane]

108. Someone did tell me I wasn't welcome

Evidently this group is supposed to be only for pro-gun folk. The two or three threads I've posted in during the past eight months are apparently seizing "every opportunity" to harass people here, so I was told.

Anyone who supports expanding gun control in accordance with Democratic Party proposals is welcome in the Gun Control Reform Activism group. It's SOP does not include entertaining anti-gun control arguments. There is plenty of that in here.

[beevul]

143. Nobody told you that.

Cite it, or retract it.

[BainsBane]

144. At your request

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=125944

[beevul]

146. Nowhere in that post did I state you were unwelcome.

You said "Someone did tell me I wasn't welcome", and linked to a post written by me, which contains no such statement. It doesn't even contain an implication.

Which part of that post do you see that says you "are not welcome", and what sort of upside down backwards context do you have to read it in, to draw that conclusion?

[BainsBane]

148. I am perfectly capable of reading

As is everyone else.

And yet you as a vegan gun control supporter feel its right and proper to come and poke the meat eaters gun rights supporters in the eye at every opportunity.

Would you object to this group changing its sop?

[beevul]

149. Yup, they are, though they wont ignore this like you did - my reply:

"I am in no way violating its terms. The decision to change them has nothing to do with me. If you want your own exclusively pro-gun group, you could take it up with Skinner. I'm sure he would be interested to know that you consider this group to be exclusively pro-gun space. That probably explains why huge numbers of DUers have trashed it."

I didn't suggest changing the SOP. I said nothing that implies in any way that I consider this forum exclusively pro gun. You're again, attributing a message, a viewpoint, to someone that did not express it.

Its getting to be a habit. A not so good one, at that.

I asked if you would object to a change in this groups SOP. That's not a question about whether the SOP should be changed, not a discussion about what it should be changed to, but rather a question of your view on the matter.

One which still needs to be answered.

"If you really think the few times I've come in this group is every opportunity, you're not paying attention."

I didn't say "the few times you've come into this group". I said:

"And yet you as a vegan gun control supporter feel its right and proper to come and poke the meat eaters gun rights supporters in the eye at every opportunity.

That sentence doesn't specify a group at all. I did that deliberately, because I don't see any group or subforum in which it does not apply, and certainly, it applies here.

"Then there is the fact when I post one thing, you all swarm and leave dozens and dozens of replies."



Yeah, I'm sure it sucks when so many people openly disagree with your position on this issue, to the point where you feel outnumbered, but hey, you have a forum now where the mere questioning of your position, the mere act of asking you to cite from objective sources, and even the mere act of not agreeing with certain gun control proposals, is, apparently, grounds for being blocked.

""You could have simply ignored..."

On top of that, since you have implied that perhaps people should just ignore what you say, I have to ask, what is your intent in posting in this forum again?

"... my little two word post."

That post was two paragraphs, not two words, and as you've been repeatedly shown (whether you see it or not), it contained factual inaccuracies, and completely over the top hyperbole.

If you don't want to be called out when you spout obvious bullshit, the logical solution is - don't spout obvious bullshit.

Alternatively, there IS a subforum in which you could post it and not have to worry about having it questioned, in which dissent is silenced.

Oddly enough, you chose not to post there and came here instead, in spite of knowing you'd have your posts questioned.

An odd choice if you're expecting people to "ignore your little two word posts" indeed...

I made crystal clear, exactly what I meant by what I posted, for you to feign ignorance now, to double down on dishonesty...well, it makes someone look bad, but that someone isn't me.


On edit: it seems pretty clear from your behavior - ascribing words to people which they did not say, ascribing meanings to things people say which they clearly did not mean, posting here that people should ignore what you say (more than once) - that you have no interest what so ever in arguing in good faith for your point of view.

Which further brings into question what your intentions are, in posting.

[BainsBane]

150. My intentions

are in expressing my views. So sorry I can't get to reading every one of the hundreds of posts you kind and welcoming gunners post in response to me.

You are so welcoming. This makes that clear

Which further brings into question what your intentions are, in posting.

More words of welcome

On edit: it seems pretty clear from your behavior - ascribing words to people which they did not say, ascribing meanings to things people say which they clearly did not mean, posting here that people should ignore what you say (more than once) - that you have no interest what so ever in arguing in good faith for your point of view.

Your intent was and remains very clear. To pretend you didn't imply something is simply dishonest. The pro-gun version of "good faith" means to pretend no one dies from they policies they so assiduously promote. I will not divorce myself from reality to appease your conscience or lack thereof. Then of course the horror of challenging a noble corporation like the one in the OP (my original bullshit that prompted such outrage) whose only motive in distributing high capacity magazines is to spread peace, love, and understanding. Imagine the nerve of me thinking about the people hurt and killed with those bullets rather than corporate profits!

But no, you didn't mean ME personally, you meant anyone who disagrees with the pro-murder agenda of the blessed and noble gun lobby.

"And yet you as a vegan gun control supporter feel its right and proper to come and poke the meat eaters gun rights supporters in the eye at every opportunity.

More outrage at Democratic Party positions. Again, I suggest that is an issue for you to take up with Skinner. Tell him that that only pro-gun views should be allowed here and that those of us who support our Democratic President and Vice President's gun reforms are full of "bullshit."

If you don't want to be called out when you spout obvious bullshit, the logical solution is - don't spout obvious bullshit.

You don't want to hear from me, don't talk to me. It's really simple.

Yes, we Democrats spew lots of bullshit. Isn't it awful when we have the nerve to do it on a Democratic site called Democratic Underground.

[beevul]

157. The other group isn't the only one with an SOP.

"My intentions are in expressing my views. So sorry I can't get to reading every one of the hundreds of posts you kind and welcoming gunners post in response to me."

We are a far more welcoming lot than you of the other group, that's a fact. We don't allow or disallow participation based on strict on adherence to a specified position.



"Your intent was and remains very clear. To pretend you didn't imply something is simply dishonest. The pro-gun version of "good faith" means to pretend no one dies from they policies they so assiduously promote. I will not divorce myself from reality to appease your conscience or lack thereof. Then of course the horror of challenging a noble corporation like the one in the OP (my original bullshit that prompted such outrage) whose only motive in distributing high capacity magazines is to spread peace, love, and understanding. Imagine the nerve of me thinking about the people hurt and killed with those bullets rather than corporate profits!"

No. Just no. You don't get to declare for me, what my intent was. Thats my place, not yours. What you're doing, is a continuation of what you've been doing, constantly - deliberately demeaning people that disagree with you on this issue, deliberately mischaracterizing their position, the things they say, and torturing a meaning from the things they say - in an effort to silence viewpoints that disagree with you.

The anti-gun version of "good faith", is to demean those that disagree, misrepresent the things they say, try to bait them into saying something out of frustration that is either hideable or bannable, and count coup afterwards. The anti-gun view of "good faith" is to label every one of us and the forum some of us frequent "gun nuts" in spite of the things we agree on. The anti-gun view of "good faith", is to pretend that none of us are for any form of gun control, talk to us and about us like we aren't for any form of gun control, and label us "extremists".

But above all, its to pretend that there aren't things which you could be focusing on which would make a HUGE difference in terms of lives saved - which we would either agree with or at least not disagree with, before you come asking some of us for more regulation than we feel should be enacted. And that's just another thing that really brings your intentions into question - not your intentions on DU, but in general.

When I said:

"On edit: it seems pretty clear from your behavior - ascribing words to people which they did not say, ascribing meanings to things people say which they clearly did not mean, posting here that people should ignore what you say (more than once) - that you have no interest what so ever in arguing in good faith for your point of view."

I was most definitely referring to YOUR behavior. You, the individual, not anyone else.

"the pro murder agenda". Remember when I said you ascribe to people words they did not say, and meanings to their words to which they do not mean?

Well, now you're ascribing to people, positions which they do not hold.

What part of that is "good faith" in your book, eh?

"More outrage at Democratic Party positions. Again, I suggest that is an issue for you to take up with Skinner. Tell him that that only pro-gun views should be allowed here and that those of us who support our Democratic President and Vice President's gun reforms are full of "bullshit."

Says the person demeaning, misrepresenting the words meanings and positions of, supporters of the second amendment - something that our president, and our party support.

I remember skinners words, do you?

"I have very little sympathy for the pro-gun argument. But there are many pro-gun Democrats, and they can make their case here."

Heres some sauce to go with them:





"You don't want to hear from me, don't talk to me. It's really simple."

Nobody here says they don't want to hear from you. All that I think any one expects is that you behave in a reasonably civil way - and heres a free hint:

"evil fucks" "pro murder agenda" Those are but two examples of your "civility". I really don't need to scour posts to find more, because you and I and everyone that reads this, KNOWS these are but few of a plethora of like examples. Anyone that's interested can search your posts for a simple confirmation.

Well, behaving that way, really just isn't civil.

lastly:


I remember your gom jabbar. Now you remember mine

You lot have your SOP. We too have an sop:

"Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence."

Discuss: Verb

1.Talk about (something) with another person or group of people.

2.Talk or write about (a topic) in detail, taking into account different ideas and opinions.

Synonyms

debate - argue - dispute - talk over - moot - agitate

If you do not wish to discuss any of these things when people post, and just want to give out nasty one liners and generally behave in an uncivil manor, you are not adhering to OUR sop the way you'd have everyone adhere to yours in the other group.

You should give that some thought.

[CokeMachine]

158. That was great!!! I iwish I could rec individual posts!!

You say what I want to say but I am usually better at talking to computers (mainframe/COBOL)

Thank you.

[BainsBane]

159. I thought I was conversing with "pro-gun Democrats"

Not the gun lobby or manufacturers. Evidently you've decided to take personally my referring to gun corporations as "evil fucks" and having a pro-murder agenda. No one forces you to identify with and advocate for corporations over the party and your fellow citizens. That is entirely your choice.

No where else on DU do members take comments against corporations personally. It is quite revealing.

[beevul]

160. You just can't stop can you.

" I thought I was conversing with "pro-gun Democrats"

You weren't in good faith, discussing anything.

" Evidently you've decided to take seriously my referring to them as "evil fucks" and having a pro-murder agenda."

It wasn't clear who you were referring to, and no matter who it was you were referring to, it was nothing that could be in any reasonable way, be construed as "civil discussion".


The rest of your post, is just so much doubling down - that is to say, continuing to do what everyone here knows you're you've been doing.

[BainsBane]

161. It is clear if you read

It's really that simple. The OP was about a corporation distributing high capacity magazines. Who else could I have possibly been referring to? "Pro-murder agenda of the blessed and noble gun lobby" was likewise clear. Standard English grammar exists to facilitate understanding. I do my best to follow it.

The issue highlights a key point of contention many have with subscribers of this group. Every thread criticizing the NRA, gungeoneers come to defend them. Every thread about a gun corporation, gungeoneers defend them over their fellow citizens. That is not something one expects to see from progressives, not just on the gun issue but on any subject matter. Most progressives do not privilege corporations above citizens. I don't understand that kind of point of view. I don't understand how people can privilege anything and everything about guns over their fellow citizens. And no, I don't respect your views. I believe them to be fundamentally immoral. I do not respect a pro-war position or or the GOP determination to eliminate Obamacare and foodstamps. All of those policies cost lives. I'm not going to pretend there is an equivalency between life and death to make you feel better. I have a strong commitment to social justice. Without that, politics are pointless. There is what is just and what is wrong, and and pro-gun position is morally wrong because it results in tens of thousands of deaths a year.

Your view of discussion would require me to abandon any sense of social justice. I will not do that. When I believe a policy is fundamentally immoral and even evil, I have every right to say so. If I did not believe current gun policy to be heinously deadly and unjustifiable, I would not be working for gun control.

[beevul]

184. You do your best to follow it when it suits you.

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 07:03 PM - Edit history (2)

"It's really that simple. The OP was about a corporation distributing high capacity magazines. Who else could I have possibly been referring to? "Pro-murder agenda of the blessed and noble gun lobby" was likewise clear. Standard English grammar exists to facilitate understanding. I do my best to follow it."


You do your best to follow it when it suits you. When it doesn't, you feign ignorance at what someone says to you. Then you attribute an implication which was never implied, and/or meaning which was never meant, and/or position your interlocutor does not hold, to that poster. You've done it several times to myself alone. It certainly isn't what anyone can call reasonably civil.

"The issue highlights a key point of contention many have with subscribers of this group. Every thread criticizing the NRA, gungeoneers come to defend them."

No, they (other than low post count trolls) come to correct misrepresentations, factual inaccuracies, and flatout falsehoods. Of course, that's makes it easy for you and those who feel as you do, to characterize it as "defending" them, which you do.

"Every thread about a gun corporation, gungeoneers defend them over their fellow citizens."

OMG how terrible. Some of us actually believe that companies shouldn't be sued out of existence for selling a legal product in cases where someone misuses it. I would think that the only people that have a problem with it, are those that actually think companies should be sued out of existence for the misuse of a legal product. Too bad for them.

"That is not something one expects to see from progressives, not just on the gun issue but on any subject matter."

Fortunately, your "expectations", along with your vision for what makes a good progressive are not binding on the rest of the world.

"Most progressives do not privilege corporations above citizens. I don't understand that kind of point of view. I don't understand how people can privilege anything and everything about guns over their fellow citizens."

Of course you don't. Of course, none of us does that, so what your having trouble understanding is something which in fact does not exist on our part.

You're again misrepresenting a viewpoint, then attributing it to others, and doing it in a way that attributes the worst possible connotation. This has been your game since you discovered that arguing your position on facts and in good faith is too fair. You believe your morality on the issue is the only possible morality that is...moral.

"And no, I don't respect your views. I believe them to be fundamentally immoral. I do not respect a pro-war position or or the GOP determination to eliminate Obamacare and foodstamps. All of those policies cost lives. I'm not going to pretend there is an equivalency between life and death to make you feel better. I have a strong commitment to social justice. Without that, politics are pointless. There is what is just and what is wrong, and and pro-gun position is morally wrong because it results in tens of thousands of deaths a year."

Clearly you don't respect our views on guns or gun policy. In other news, the sky is blue, and water is wet.

The "pro-gun" position. Like it or not, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is part of the bill of rights. Both our party platform and our president recognize and acknowledge it. Its not going away. Clearly you have an issue with the party platform, and with the president, and amendment 2. And not just with a minor part of the party platform, but one of the core tenets. (on edit) Remember this:

The thread title:

It's time to rewrite the 2nd Amendment- How would YOU rewrite it?

Your response to it:

This:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2894402

Sure, you carefully and cleverly (not) tie the "thousands of deaths a year" to the "pro-gun position", but its the second amendment which restricts government from the ability to remove those guns from private possession, which prevent from stopping the deaths you refer to by removing the guns.

Like I eluded to before, there are other things which could be done, for which little to no resistance would be met, which you - and the others who frequent that other group for that matter - just never seem interested in pushing very hard for. If you guys expended half the energy on those other things that you do trying to poke us in the eye both here on DU, and in the world with proposed legislation, we might save many of those lives you speak of. You however, seem more interested in eye poking, than saving lives. That really brings into question, whether its the saving of lives you're truly interested in, or whether your just interested in waging a war on people you don't understand, don't give two shits about, and by your own words, whos views on guns you have no respect for and find "immoral" - and then cloaking it in some contrived justification in the form or your "morality".



"Your view of discussion would require me to abandon any sense of social justice.

Bull. My view of engaging in discussion means good faith discussion, in some manor that resembles civil, if even loosely. If your view of social justice is defined as engaging others as you have right up to the post I'm replying to, where tactics of misrepresentation, false attribution, and statements of flatout falsehood are regulare fare, then, madam, I say your definition of "social justice" is far from what everyone elses is.

"When I believe a policy is fundamentally immoral and even evil, I have every right to say so."

Did someone say you didn't? Your method of say so, is quite another matter.

And of course theres the matter of doing so in accordance with this groups SOP.

Or do you think the other groups SOP is the only one that matters?


Edited a second time, for conciseness, clarity, and to add this:

Heres you posting in the other group:

6. Have you read the SOP of this group

Or do you simply not care about respecting group rules on this site?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12623493#post10

10. Read the SOP

And say whether you support it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12623493#post10


Well, have you read this groups SOP? Or do you simply not care about respecting group rules on this site?

Read the SOP. And say whether you support it.

Or is the behavior you demand only necessary for others, and not so much for yourself?

[CokeMachine]

187. WOW -- another home run!! Thank you!

[beevul]

188. Thanks.

Though I did have to edit it a wee smidge for clarity, and to add the icing on the cake.

[CokeMachine]

46. Do a search on that group for the newly banned poster.

He/she didn't even disagree with anyone there or their SOP. Also, look at who called the hosts on the poster.

[premium]

47. Yep, it's there for all to see.

It's ironic, members of that group can come in here, post flamebait, post snarky remarks, insult members of this group, attempt to get our posts hidden, or, ideally, get us PPR'd, and they don't get blocked, not that I want anyone blocked, vigorous debate is good for transparency, but even the mildest or perceived dissent is greeted with an immediate block.

[krispos42]

109. Not only that...

...but the Hosts there discuss how to bait them in the Forum & Group Hosts Group.

[gejohnston]

115. That's pretty low class

why bother with the pretense?

[krispos42]

117. *shrug*

They've been operating under the impression that my viewpoints on guns leads me to use my powers as sole Gungeon host to supression the side I disagree with, up to and including banning people.

I think I've banned a total of 4 people, maybe 5, one of which was later reversed in a democratic and transparent process.

The rest, except one, were all nuked, and I took them off the list.


But, their SoP is different. It is designed to be a single-viewpoint discussion zone, and they seem to be quite zealous about enforcing the SoP.




Makes my job easier, at least.

[beevul]

145. Not the "impression", so much as the assertion, I think.

"They've been operating under the impression that my viewpoints on guns leads me to use my powers as sole Gungeon host to supression the side I disagree with, up to and including banning people."

I doubt very much any of them actually believe it.

I think its simply too easy and too tempting a "club" for them to beat a pro-gun poster over the head with.

Its very clear which side desires the other to be squelched.

[friendly_iconoclast]

123. Can you post some of those discussions here? Or is that a no-no?

[krispos42]

132. I think I could and be within the rules.

Please note that only Hosts have access to this workspace, but it is not a completely private forum. Hosts with access to this forum have not signed any confidentiality agreement, and Hosts are free to discuss with other people what goes on in this workspace and how Hosts do their job. As long as you remain professional and polite in your postings here, you shouldn't have any problems.

The real question is "should I?"

The details of how they run their Group isn't my business.

Not only that, but since I have no other Hosts to discuss action with in the F&GHG, it would be unfair to criticize them when I do not have to leave an equivalent "paper trail" in my management of the Gungeon.

Finally, I'm not interested in being either an informant or a muckracker. This might be going back to my days as a DU2 moderator and the Hot Tub, but I'm inclined to keep what happens in F&GHG, in F&GHG.

[beevul]

147. I for one would like to see it.

I for one would like to see it.

If it were a bunch of us who were hosts in this forum, and we were conspiring to do the same thing to those in the other group, you know too well that they'd get wind of it and make it an issue publicly.

[premium]

135. I figured they did,

shows you how insecure their beliefs really are when they plot to try to get their opponents posts either hidden or get us PPR'd.

On posting some of their conversations in your forum/hosts group, I don't think you should, those of us with 1/2 a brain already knew what was going on, they make it pretty obvious.

Thanks for confirming it though.

[Duckhunter935]

104. I like the no warning

1 post and banned, not even a change edit or delete after being notified. The system works very well over in Castle Bansalot.

[krispos42]

107. And when somebody gets the nuke...

...I believe they they un-ban them.

[NYC_SKP]

151. I was ROBBED! I mean literally. My blocking from that group was below rookie.

Robb couldn't handle it.

[premium]

152. When he blocked me,

I PM'd him asking why, all I got back was a nasty PM.

[NYC_SKP]

153. That's more than I got.

[premium]

154. LOL nt.

[Duckhunter935]

155. SOP over there, join the club

received the same thing. Banned on first post without warning and no chance to explain or retract. I think it took about 1 or 2 minutes.

[BainsBane]

170. You obviously don't fit the SOP

so the only reason to go there would be to obstruct. It gets in your craw that there is one place where people can discuss gun control without you all being able to shit all over it. That is precisely why that group exists. We know full well why you all are on this site.

[Duckhunter935]

179. Sorry but no, I was not there to obstruct

You are wrong on that point. I voiced my opinion and was banned after one post. No jury no warning just bye. Unlike you who have been allowed to have your comments voiced over here in this forum. We are not afraid of differing viewpoints and ACTUALLY welcome people with those other viewpoints. We LIKE discussion not CENSORSHIP. That is why the other place is called Castle Bansalot.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. I see you're *still* misrepresenting other DUers here.

You refuse to compromise on anything.

I support universal background checks, and have said so here on several occasions-some of which
occurred before you blew in here. On the contrary, it's the gun Prohibitionists' uncompromising
pursuit of an 'assault weapons ban' that killed the chance to get UBCs through the Senate-
so speak not to me of "refus(al) to compromise".

Now your Second Amendment rights hinge on having the capacity to kill 50 children without reloading.

I refuse to compromise my Second Amendment rights for some demonstrably ineffective, feel-good
legislation to make the research-averse and factose-intolerant feel like they've 'done something'.

No wonder you refer to a group that supports universal background checks as "castlebansalot."

Not me:

http://www.google.com/search?q=castlebansalot+%22friendly_iconoclast%22&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

http://www.google.com/search?q=castlebanalot+%22friendly_iconoclast%22&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com


Do you normally have a problem discerning an individual from a collective?

Thanks for stopping by, I haven't had the opportunity to fisk one of you lot in quite a while:

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

[BainsBane]

38. "Demonstrably ineffective"

Those magazines are demonstrable EFFECTIVE at doing exactly what they were designed for: massacring people. The Second Amendment says nothing about making the job of homicidal psychopaths as easy as possible.

When you argue against background checks and challenge people on their utility, people tend to get the impression you don't support them.

Evidently the irony of this statement is lost on you:

Do you normally have a problem discerning an individual from a collective?

Thanks for stopping by, I haven't had the opportunity to fisk one of you lot in quite a while:

Not much for self-awareness, huh?

[BainsBane]

42. This would be a good example

of why you don't fit the SOP of the Gun Control group. It's like posting recipes for steak dinner in the vegan group.

[premium]

45. Oh bull, I'm stating a fact that goes against your

perceptions and biases and you just don't like hearing it, so prove me wrong on my previous post, what is the % of hi cap mags used in crimes to the % of hi cap mags available to the public that aren't used in a crime?

[BainsBane]

48. very few

but they are very efficient at killing, and they cost lives, not thousands but some. Then there is the fact they have no other purpose but mass murder. They aren't effective in either self defense or hunting. That someone likes to get their rocks off shooting up targets dummies of women or the President doesn't compare to the lives taken with those magazines. It's estimated that a few more children would have survived if Lanza had been forced to stop to reload, since he was killed while reloading. Most people in this country believe that no sane person needs a magazine like that.

And you quite obviously do not fit the SOP of the Gun control group. Everything you post makes that clear. So whining about banning is ridiculous, much as it would be for a carnivore to whine about being banned from the vegan group or an animal hater from the pet group. The difference is those people don't share the gunner persecution complex and stick to the areas of the site that are relevant to them.

[premium]

49. Lanza wasn't killed while reloading, he took his own life when

he realized that the game was up, and he left a trail of half empty mags, he didn't even empty those hi cap mags.
Most of the modern mass murders off themselves before the cops can, that's what kind of cowards they are.
You can't even get that right, so why should we believe anything you post?

I saw that Robb posted a thread in your group, but because I'm blocked, as are most of us here, we couldn't respond, so I xposted it here, you might be pleased by the comments so far, which puts to rest your assertion that we oppose all gun control.

[BainsBane]

52. Oh right.

Truthfully I don't remember all the details. Perhaps what I recall is that during a reloading a teacher was able to take kids to safety.

[premium]

56. That is correct, a teacher was able to get several children

to safety while he was changing mags, very brave teacher, but the mag he was changing out was only 1/2 empty, as were just about every mag they found on the floor, so that teacher was not only very brave, but very lucky.

[friendly_iconoclast]

106. But we don't want the gun control *they* want- therefore we want none, in their eyes

Who was it that's refusing to compromise, again?

[Lizzie Poppet]

50. "the fact they have no other purpose but mass murder" Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

If that was their "only" purpose, there would be no one left alive in the US. The real fact (consider looking up that word some time; it has an actual definition that you apparently are unaware of) is that high-capacity rifle magazines like the ones Magpul are distributing are only very rarely used in any crime at all (to say nothing of "massacres&quot .

Seriously...stop making shit up.

[BainsBane]

51. So what are they used for?

What purpose do they have? You haven't named one.

[premium]

53. When you're at the range or just out in the desert

target shooting, it's convenient not having to load every couple of seconds, they're also used extensively in competitive shooting sports.

Just to clarify, I don't own any of those rifles, the only firearms I own are a Colt Python .357 and a 12 ga. pump shotgun, but am thinking about buying a .410 shotgun for game bird and a 30.06 or a .243 hunting rifle for bigger game, price of meat is getting ridiculous.

[BainsBane]

57. There is an easy solution to that

Those magazines could be made available at shooting ranges but not offsite. The trade off between anyone having access to them and the loss of lives is not worth it.

[Travis_0004]

127. Most shooting ranges don't have storage facilities.

Also, the shooting range I go to is unstaffed. If they do have storage lockers, who is going to monitor them.

Plus, you think somebody who was going to go on a shooting range would be stopped by a 'no taking mags home' policy at a shooting range.

[Jenoch]

137. I don't have

any 30 round magazines, but I agree with storing them at the shooting range. The shooting range I use is located about 30 feet out the backdoor of our cabin.

[premium]

138. Same as me.

I can step out the back door of my house, walk about 10 yards and target practice if I wanted to, I live on the outskirts of my little town and there's nothing around me for miles except desert.

[Jenoch]

140. We have a 100 yard shooting range cut into

the woods right out our back door. The first thing my brother did after we bought the place was to build a left and right handed shooting bench.

[Lizzie Poppet]

55. Primarily? Plinking at (inanimate) targets.

When they're used at all (instead of just sitting in someone's gear bag or gun safe for months at a time), they're used the same way as most other firearms products: for recreational shooting ("plinking&quot .

[BainsBane]

58. Which is exactly what I said

There is no equivalency between that and lost life. They could be made available at shooting ranges but not offsite. It's an easy enough solution.

[premium]

61. During my 30+ year career as an armed USFS Ranger,

I frequently would run into people shooting rifles with hi cap mags, not once did I feel threatened by the average citizen hiker, not once, they were, for the most part, well behaved law abiding citizens, it was the idiots that were growing MJ in our national forests armed with handguns and shotguns that I felt threatened by.

Your idea of storing hi cap mags at a shooting range is just not workable, that horse left the barn along time ago.

[BainsBane]

68. Why isn't it workable?

You're lucky you didn't run into a mass murderer, but then you're not a child at an elementary school or a college student.

[premium]

71. Too many hi cap mags in public hands

there are millions upon millions of them, plus, no politician is going to try and pass a bill like that.
I never worried about running into mass murderers in our National Forests, although, on occasion, I would back up local law enforcement.

I once pulled over a car in Helena, MT for DUI, guy looked at me like I was crazy, told me that I didn't have jurisdiction because I was a Ranger, I told him I'm arresting him for suspicion of DUI and was just waiting for the Helena Police Dept. to respond. He wasn't a happy camper needless to say.

[BainsBane]

84. All of the proposed provisions have been for new sales

to decrease the number in circulation. There is nothing unworkable about that? How is it that you guys never deal with the nature of legislation that has actually been proposed and always invent some conspiracy theory about confiscation or some other dreamed up nonsense that has nothing to do with drafted legislation?

I have no idea what your story about MT has to do with this discussion.

[premium]

86. I've come out in favor of a 15 round limit

several times here on DU, I feel that's a fair compromise.
As far as the MT. story, I was just reminiscing.

[BainsBane]

94. Are there magazines that size?

And why 15 vs 10, as the President and VP proposed?

[Duckhunter935]

113. I prefer 20 round magazines

and load 15. 20 rounders is what my rifle was designed for. Do not need 30 as it overheats.

[Duckhunter935]

111. might just work

in 2 or 3 hundred years as magazines do not expire and repair parts are easy to get, mainly the spring. You are now going to ban springs?

[BainsBane]

70. Obviously they are used to murder lots of people

and given the fact that they have no legitimate function for ordinary private use, making such a minor compromise shouldn't be difficult. If it is, we truly are dealing with the most selfish collection of people who have ever existed in human society. That is precisely the sort of thing that makes ordinary folks think gun proponents simply do not care about human life. The few seconds it takes to reload is too much trouble to make a sacrifice that could save lives? Really?

[premium]

74. See, you're doing it again,

you think that because we have a difference of opinion, we must be, how did you say it,

the most selfish collection of people who have ever existed in human society. That is precisely the sort of thing that makes ordinary folks think gun proponents simply do not care about human life.

Which is simply not true. This is a diverse country with many differences of opinions on firearms, doesn't mean we don't care about human, or for that matter, animal life.
The vast majority of hi cap mags or semi auto rifles will never be used in a criminal way, or, for that matter, all firearms.

[BainsBane]

89. The majority don't need to be used in mass murders

to make them extremely lethal and dangerous. Is that really your answer? That if the majority of guns aren't used to kill, the lives lost aren't worth concerning yourself with? That is what you are saying. You are saying that a gunner's rights to have any and all ammunition clips at his disposal whenever he wants and for whatever reason is more important than the lives lost with the magazines that are used in mass shootings. You don't live to have he brass tacks pointed out, but there they are. I'm doing it again because that is what you are saying. You want to pretend your political positions have nothing to do with loss of life, but it simply is not the case.

These kind of responses make it clear that you people are not open to compromise and that your only concern is your own guns, even when you adamantly resist reforms that have absolutely no bearing on the Second Amendment.

[gejohnston]

90. open to compramise

Neither are you. Compromise means give and take, as in a current law gets repealed in exchange for magazine restriction. The word you actually mean is concession, or what degree. MT was a true compromise, in that it federally mandated BGC in some intra state sales, all interstate sales must have BGC under the 1968 Gun Control Act and Brady Law, while loosing some obscure parts of the GCA.

[BainsBane]

96. The word is compromise

You have already won everything. You align yourself with a powerful corporate lobby. What compromises do you insist I won't make? What compromises have you proposed? It would be nice to hear something besides my Second Amendment rights depend on . . . having any and every weapon and magazine clip in existence anywhere and everywhere I want it and even where I will never go, so I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure guns are out and about on every city street in the country because it makes me feel good. Oh, then there is the argument that gun safes violate the Second Amendment, and all kinds of nonsense.

[gejohnston]

101. Like what?

Winning everything would be going back to 1933 regulations to some people.
No, because theater and morality plays distracts from real solutions.

[BainsBane]

97. Yet once again, you refuse to consider the mortality

that results from policies you advocate. It concerns you so little, you can't even bother to comment on it.

[gejohnston]

100. I only consider the effectiveness

Morality is a religious concept and subjective. You are not the final authority on morality anymore than Pat Robertson is. It is the same argument Pat uses against marriage equality. That is why I ignore it.

[AtheistCrusader]

193. Less than 3% of the people who die by gunshot isn't 'lots of people' in any meaningful sense.

[Lizzie Poppet]

63. No, you said is was a "fact they have no other purpose but mass murder."

You shouldn't try to change your story when it's so easily verified what you actually said...

[BainsBane]

69. Reading is fundamental

but your state of agitation may have imparied your comprehension.

Then there is the fact they have no other purpose but mass murder. They aren't effective in either self defense or hunting. That someone likes to get their rocks off shooting up targets dummies of women or the President doesn't compare to the lives taken with those magazines.

So yes, I mentioned recreation or folks who like to "get their rocks off shooting up targets." Are you asserting that recreation is more important than the children's lives that could be saved from keeping such magazines off the streets?

[Lizzie Poppet]

72. Ah, so YOU contradict yourself within a single paragraph, and it's MY problem?

Pure. Comedy. Gold.

Almost as funny as you continued attempts at telepsychoanalysis, erection of straw men, reliance on planted axioms, etc...

God, you're bad at this.

[CokeMachine]

73. Careful

You said erection and men in the same sentence. Jury, jury -- is there a jury out there!!!

kinda

[BainsBane]

91. At least I can read

I didn't contradict myself. I qualified my point.

You seem to think this is a game. I don't. I know it's about human life.

You haven't put forward a single argument substantive or otherwise. You rely on mockery that only highlights your your character. It was particularly touching to see you align yourself with the local misogynists. Who cares if they are rape apologists, right? The enemy of your enemy is your friend, even if they argue women don't have a right to talk about rape or domestic violence.

[Lizzie Poppet]

103. Forgotten more about reading than you'll ever know, Sparky.

You can scramble and backpedal all you like, but you fucked up (yet again) and don't have the character or personal honor to admit it, even when we rub your nose in it. You actually think I'd bother wasting my time in substantive discussion with someone like that? Don't be absurd. No one's treating the subject as a game. We're treating your irrational outbursts, your seemingly neverending factual blunders, your inane sweeping generalizations, your tiresome, continual outbursts of bullshit amateur psychoanalysis, etc., as a game...and you as a joke.

Is that clear enough for ya?

You want to be taken the least but seriously and offered substantive discourse? Stop trolling, stop insulting us, and actually converse like a goddamn adult. Everyone gets a Mulligan...but you used yours up a while back.

[BainsBane]

156. You're lecturing me about conversing like an adult?

Look in the mirror.

If you decide to take one sentence out of context for your own purposes of distortion, that is entirely your problem. Spew all the venom you like, it doesn't change the fact you have aligned yourself with corporate profits, rape apologists, and those who seek to silence discussion of domestic violence in pursuit of what, I don't know. Presumably you want a gun for self protection, which I have never said you should not have a right to do. But when any and everything about guns is more important to you than the crimes you seek to be protected against, you've lost your way.

[Lizzie Poppet]

162. If you're going to call something a "fact," consider selecting things that are, you know...true.

Your assholish slander about what I've" aligned myself" crossed an unforgivable line. Before I put you on Ignore though, just wanted to tell you I've otherwise enjoyed your flailing, your astonishing lack of attention to either factual due diligence or even the most basic elements of sentential logic, your inane amateur psychoanalysis...basically, it's been pure comedy gold. You're everything I could ever want in a radical gun control advocate. that is to say, utter, ineffectual incompetence. Try not to hurt yourself lunging for the alert button...

You have a nice life, and bless your heart.

[BainsBane]

163. Well you did just that

In the thread about gun violence against women. Perhaps you should figure out who you are supporting before your validate their ideas. Since you have me on ignore, you aren't going to pay attention to any of that, though I would think if you cared you would have bothered to figure it out before validating him in that thread. All you had to do was read the posts above your little high five you offered him.

Your personal animus against me because of a disagreement on guns prompted you to validate the views of misogynist who has described 95% of women as "disgusting" and invades every thread about violence against women to insist we have no right to discuss such matters. So ignore me while you validate him and guys like him. You really ought to pay attention to some of the people you defend. Who knows. Perhaps you do and just don't care.

[gejohnston]

76. They are very effective for self defense

and generally not legal for hunting.

[BainsBane]

92. How do you figure that?

Ten bullet holes isn't enough in a corpse for you? You need to put in 150?
Seems to me that would be awfully heavy to cart around for "self defense."

[gejohnston]

98. If they weren't, cops and military wouldn't use them.

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 10:28 PM - Edit history (1)

That simple. There is a difference between overly prepared, or passing the point of diminishing returns, and ineffective. Personally, I found myself using 20 round mags before the military started using 30 rounders. I first used the latter in Korea. I prefer the 20 because it was easier to lock in the magazine well and easier to handle from a prone position because of my shorter than average arms.

I don't think 150 round magazines would actually work. The 100 round drums cause the guns to jam, the Aurora shooter found. Most of the carnage was actually with a shotgun. There is a reason militaries use belt fed weapons instead of mall ninja drums.

[Jenoch]

139. How can a 30 round magazine

be both effective at mass murder and ineffective at self-defense?

[beevul]

66. Which is why they are standard issue for law enforcement...

"Then there is the fact they have no other purpose but mass murder. They aren't effective in either self defense or hunting."

Which is why they are standard issue for law enforcement almost 100 percent of the time.

Because its the job of law enforcement to commit mass murder, right?

"So whining about banning is ridiculous, much as it would be for a carnivore to whine about being banned from the vegan group or an animal hater from the pet group."

And yet you as a vegan gun control supporter feel its right and proper to come and poke the meat eaters gun rights supporters in the eye at every opportunity.

Would you object to this group changing its sop?

[BainsBane]

83. Unless you do change the SOP of this group

I am in no way violating its terms. The decision to change them has nothing to do with me. If you want your own exclusively pro-gun group, you could take it up with Skinner. I'm sure he would be interested to know that you consider this group to be exclusively pro-gun space. That probably explains why huge numbers of DUers have trashed it.

If you really think the few times I've come in this group is every opportunity, you're not paying attention. Then there is the fact when I post one thing, you all swarm and leave dozens and dozens of replies. You could have simply ignored my little two word post.

[Duckhunter935]

116. I like having you here

I group is better than banning opposing viewpoints

[BainsBane]

120. Beevul disagrees

[beevul]

141. Reading comprehension is your friend.

"I am in no way violating its terms. The decision to change them has nothing to do with me. If you want your own exclusively pro-gun group, you could take it up with Skinner. I'm sure he would be interested to know that you consider this group to be exclusively pro-gun space. That probably explains why huge numbers of DUers have trashed it."

I didn't suggest changing the SOP. I said nothing that implies in any way that I consider this forum exclusively pro gun. You're again, attributing a message, a viewpoint, to someone that did not express it.

Its getting to be a habit. A not so good one, at that.

I asked if you would object to a change in this groups SOP. That's not a question about whether the SOP should be changed, not a discussion about what it should be changed to, but rather a question of your view on the matter.

One which still needs to be answered.

"If you really think the few times I've come in this group is every opportunity, you're not paying attention."

I didn't say "the few times you've come into this group". I said:

"And yet you as a vegan gun control supporter feel its right and proper to come and poke the meat eaters gun rights supporters in the eye at every opportunity.

That sentence doesn't specify a group at all. I did that deliberately, because I don't see any group or subforum in which it does not apply, and certainly, it applies here.

"Then there is the fact when I post one thing, you all swarm and leave dozens and dozens of replies."



Yeah, I'm sure it sucks when so many people openly disagree with your position on this issue, to the point where you feel outnumbered, but hey, you have a forum now where the mere questioning of your position, the mere act of asking you to cite from objective sources, and even the mere act of not agreeing with certain gun control proposals, is, apparently, grounds for being blocked.

""You could have simply ignored..."

On top of that, since you have implied that perhaps people should just ignore what you say, I have to ask, what is your intent in posting in this forum again?

"... my little two word post."

That post was two paragraphs, not two words, and as you've been repeatedly shown (whether you see it or not), it contained factual inaccuracies, and completely over the top hyperbole.

If you don't want to be called out when you spout obvious bullshit, the logical solution is - don't spout obvious bullshit.

Alternatively, there IS a subforum in which you could post it and not have to worry about having it questioned, in which dissent is silenced.

Oddly enough, you chose not to post there and came here instead, in spite of knowing you'd have your posts questioned.

An odd choice if you're expecting people to "ignore your little two word posts" indeed...

[CokeMachine]

142. Great reply -- wish I had your patience. nt

[BainsBane]

85. Society would be a lot better off if cops didn't have such large magazines anyway

Then maybe they'd put ten bullets into someone as opposed to sixty.

[gejohnston]

87. Even when they had mostly six shot revolvers

and pump shotguns, they still managed to overkill.

[BainsBane]

95. no doubt

but why make it easy for them?

[BainsBane]

79. Obviously I don't think that

If I had I wouldn't have said very few.

[premium]

80. Ok, thats a fair point

and I'll retract and delete my post.

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. Yep, demonstrably inffective. The VT shooter killed more people w/ smaller magazines.

And despite all the flop sweat and underwear-wetting from certain quarters, rifles are rarely used in crime.


And STILL you persist in misrepresenting the postion of others:

When you argue against background checks and challenge people on their utility, people tend to get the impression you don't support them.

Nuance, do you grok it? I am under no obligation to support any and every proposal for UBCs.
Manchin-Toomey was fatally flawed due to the insistence of others on piling on every other
antigun measure they could think of.

Try again with something like the current NICS and we'll talk. Until then, don't piss on my
leg and tell me it's raining.

[BainsBane]

81. Know what else killed more people

the A bomb.
Your point is ridiculous.

Nuance, do you grok it? I am under no obligation to support any and every proposal for UBCs.
Manchin-Toomey was fatally flawed due to the insistence of others on piling on every other
antigun measure they could think of.

That you consider background checks anti-gun really says it all. Sure, you support a theoretical background check but not actual law. Therefore you oppose them. You opposed the most modest of bills that didn't even extend to personal private sales.

I don't think you're under any obligations to support anything. I don't for one second have any illusions as to what you are. The most active gungeoneers are on the far extremist end of American political culture. Your positions are overwhelmingly opposed by the vast majority of Americans. Your side benefits from the corruption of the American political system that is held hostage to corporate profits and tea bag nuttery. I don't expect reason or human compassion here. On the rare occasion when I encounter it, I am pleasantly surprised. It's been a lot time since I have, though. I know realize most of what people were saying after Sandyhook was not true. It was simply an effort to derail gun control, which is why you all get so pissed off about the Gun Control group. You're angry you can't shit over those threads like you do on everything else about gun control on DU.

[BainsBane]

82. More misrepresentation

Manchin-Toomey was fatally flawed due to the insistence of others on piling on every other
antigun measure they could think of.

The other measures were separate amendments. Background checks stood alone as an amendment and it was the only one that had a hope of passing. Did you even bother to read about the actual legislation in the paper or do you just repeat what you heard on Fox?

[friendly_iconoclast]

131. I'll leave the interpretation of Fox to you. I don't watch it.

[AtheistCrusader]

195. And the amendment applied to shit like

me going to a gravel pit to target-shoot, and handing a gun my father passed on to me, to my brother to use for a few minutes. Suddenly, a 'unlawful transfer', and a felony.

Fuck that shit.

That bill was poison from the start and had nothing to do with a reasonable background check law.

[BainsBane]

78. False on every front

On the contrary, it's the gun Prohibitionists' uncompromising
pursuit of an 'assault weapons ban' that killed the chance to get UBCs through the Senate-
so speak not to me of "refus(al) to compromise".

I know that's the NRA-Fox News take on the issue, but it is clearly false. Everyone knew weeks before the vote that there was no chance the AWB admendment would pass, and it was separated from other parts of the legislation. The idea that Tooney and Manchin who negotiated that bill refused to compromise is completely false. The grave dancing that gungeoneers did on the night that bill passed, and I believe that was your OP, showed exactly how they felt about background checks, as does your ongoing effort to blame Americans rights to exercise their free speech on failure of the bill. It failed because the NRA spread lies about gun confiscation, and their lackeys on- and offline helped them do it. That story you tell about its failure is one such distortion. Anyone familiar with the circumstances of the bill can knows that it is a falsification.

I refuse to compromise my Second Amendment rights for some demonstrably ineffective, feel-good
legislation to make the research-averse and factose-intolerant feel like they've 'done something'.

The Second Amendment says nothing about huge magazines. That's complete bullshit. That "feelgood" measure could have saved a half dozen children's lives of the day of Sandyhook, since children were able to escape when the shooter was reloading. Your refusal to compromise is obvious. Limiting mass murder magazines in no way infringes on Second Amendment rights but opposition to it shows just how incredibly selfish gun proponents are. No one rights but yours matter, including the rights of the rest of us to live.

The incredible selfishness displayed by gunners, as you do in regard to extended magazines, is what makes people respond with such revulsion. One cannot reason or negotiate with people who do not acknowledge that others have any rights, most especially a right to live.

[oneshooter]

88. If you are going to use the term, at least use it correctly

Properly written it is" Castle Bansalot" with the proper capitalization and a space between the two separate words.

[BainsBane]

99. Actually it's the Gun Control Reform Activism Group

You don't even come close to the proper spelling.

[BainsBane]

110. Well, I have my own name for this group

[friendly_iconoclast]

112. Stick with 'Gungeon'- it has a long history here at DU. You don't...

[BainsBane]

114. If you insist on insulting Democrats who support Democratic Party policy

on guns with your nasty terms, you can hardly be surprised if they come up with a different name for your group.

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. "Democratic Party policy" like thinking the Second Amendment protects an individual right?

I seem to recall a rather prominent Democratic ex-senator from Illinois saying that...

[BainsBane]

119. No one is challenging that

What we're asking is that the gun forces agree to certain reforms than can reduce the lethality of gun violence and help prevent criminals from having easy access to guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

121. Next time a universal background check proposal appears in Congress...

...concentrate on getting that passed, and don't try to grasp for the gun control "new Jerusalem".

That's what did in the last UBC proposal.

[BainsBane]

122. still rewriting history

according to the NRA view of the world. That is exactly what did happen, but why let facts enter your mind at this point.

[friendly_iconoclast]

125. Not a bit. D. Feinstein tried to weld it to an assault weapon ban- and lost big time.

[BainsBane]

126. Oh, so your point is not what was it play at the time of the vote?

But that we dare not exercise our First Amendment rights to free speech about assault weapons if we want to try to keep criminals from accessing guns?

[friendly_iconoclast]

128. WTF are you talking about?

This is like talking to Dennis the Peasant:

[BainsBane]

133. You've obviously created your own alternate reality

The AWB was severed from background checks. They were in separate amendments. Weeks, if not months, before the vote took place, EVERYONE knew the AWB was off the table. So it wasn't an issue on the final vote. Your point seems to be that background checks failed because we dared to discuss a radical provision passed under George W Bush. Americans shouldn't speak our mind about assault weapons because it might hurt the feelings of the paranoid NRA followers who will retaliate by making sure criminals have steady access to guns. The failure had nothing to do with the fact that the NRA lied to its followers that the President was going to confiscate their guns, and the fact that their followers are low-information voters with very little education who believe that Teabag propaganda.

Your view of the story of that bill is right wing fiction. You must get your news from Fox and Rush to believe that version of events.

[Jenoch]

136. "...because we dared to discuss a radical provision passed under George W Bush. "

To what, exactly, is this a reference to?

[BainsBane]

178. The AWB

The narrative they advance here is that background checks passed because people talked about banning assault rifles and that forced the otherwise reasonable NRA to oppose background checks. Pure BS and entirely counterfactual to the events surrounding the actual bill.

[Jenoch]

180. The AWB was passed and went into effect in 1994.

[BainsBane]

181. and was renewed under Bush

[Jenoch]

182. If you are going to discuss

gun laws, I suggest you read up on them. Tbe 1994 AWB was passed in 1994 and was to last for ten years. It expired in 2004. What it really did was to increase the demand for those types of weapons. Millions of them are in circulation only because of that AWB.

[BainsBane]

183. I stand corrected

Bush supported renewal of the ban. So members here are to the right of George W Bush. My point holds.

[Jenoch]

185. "So members here are to the right of George W Bush."

Then the Democratically held U.S. House was also 'to the right of George W Bush" in 2004. (Using your logic, of course.)

What was your point again?

[BainsBane]

124. It is useful to know, however

that Bush administration policy is too left wing for you. Does that extend to other areas besides guns?

[friendly_iconoclast]

129. Please, *do* go on- I'm dying to see where you go with this...

[BainsBane]

164. The AWB

[gejohnston]

167. actually no,

it was the idea of Bill Bennett. During the Bush administration the "ban" only applied to some rifles made in Europe using the "sporting use" definition under the Gun Control Act. it banned some AK looking rifles, but didn't ban the manufacture in the US. The Walther PPK fails the "Saturday night special" test under the Gun Control Act, (as well as many small but high quality European pistols including many Berettas). That does not stop them from licensing a US company to make them, as the case with the PPK, or set up a US subsidiary, (which Beretta does) or just sell those pistols only to LE (like Glock does.)

[BainsBane]

168. and you all oppose that now

which puts you firmly to the right of the Bush administration on that issue.

[gejohnston]

171. No because it isn't a right left issue

the real world isn't that binary. Since Bloomberg and Trump are both right wing, does that make you lean to the right? North Carolina's purchase permit for handguns was passed in 1919 by a white supremacist government. Same with South Carolina's 1911-1965 handgun ban. Then there is Mitt's "AWB". New York's licensing law in 1911 was pushed through by a gangster named Tim Sullivan. See where I'm going with this? Do I associate Sarah Brady, you, or any other gun control advocate with any of these people? No.
There are gun control advocates, here in DU, who equate all gun owners, including liberal ones (like me, Maya Angelou, Jerry Brown, Ted Strickland, most if not all of the gungeoun) with some sociopath.

IIRC, haven't you equated us with the drug dealers and gangsters shooting up your neighborhood?

[BainsBane]

172. polling data indicates otherwise

There is a clear breakdown along party lines and the only demographic with majority opposition to the President's gun control measures is the Tea Party. See the Daily Kos SEIU polls on gun control that demonstrate that.

The vote on Toomey-Manchin also reflected that political division. Republicans and four DINOs voted against a Democratic President's proposals on gun control.

There is also a breakdown between rural/exurban vs. urban, which likewise reflects the political division between Republican and Democrat.

I have to wonder what it means to be a Democrat from a state that elects no Democrats at the federal level?

[gejohnston]

173. at one time we did

Until the 1980s one senator from each party was sent to DC. The perception became that the national party did not care about rural issues and didn't care about the people. How does feel? It is what it is.
My observations are not poll driven. Most people don't study issues but just follow the leaders.

[BainsBane]

174. Don't you think that probably makes you more

conservative than most Democrats?

[gejohnston]

175. no

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:12 AM - Edit history (1)

I think most Dems are closer to the center with the country. That is why GOP is screwing themselves. most of WYO is PINO and actually independent. I'm willing to guess Colorado is too, since a lot of Democrats are equally pissed off. It was very easy, and no corporate money used, for a grassroots effort to recall a couple of state reps. Those petitions had to be signed by a lot of Democrats given the demographics. Bloomberg is pouring money in to save their jobs. Places like Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, the rule is constituents over national party or some New York billionaire that uses city tax money for his pet project.

[Jenoch]

189. A reminder...

"...There is also a breakdown between rural/exurban vs. urban, which likewise reflects the political division between Republican and Democrat..."

Have you ever been to the 8th District? This is a solid DFL area that is also pro-RKBA.

I still do not understand your deal with urban vs suburban vs rural on the gun issue. Shouldn't urban residents be able to own guns to protect themselves and their families?

[AtheistCrusader]

192. How do you kill 50 children with one 30 round mag?

Non-sequitur indeed.

[bossy22]

77. magazine of choice?

kinda like Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys are the cars of choice for those who speed. It has nothing to do with the fact that they happen to be 2 of the most common models of car on the road

The reason that the 30 round magazine is used is because it comes standard- that is all.

[BainsBane]

93. Then we should all get behind changing that

A ten round clip could just as easily be standard.

[friendly_iconoclast]

130. Good luck with your "beer keg ban"!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x362693#363432

[BainsBane]

165. You're lost again

I wasn't even a member then.

[rrneck]

2. Cheap advertising. nt

[rdharma]

3. Does that mean they aren't moving out of Colorado?

[premium]

4. They've already started moving their operations to

S.C.. They expect to be completely gone by the end of the year.

[rdharma]

5. Good!

[premium]

6. Yeah,

loss of jobs an tax base is always a good thing.

Funny thing is, I generally support CO. mag limit of 15 rounds. It's reasonable.

[rdharma]

7. MagPul wanted to move to a "right to work" minimum wage state!

Now they've got an excuse!

Scumbags!

[premium]

8. And you know they wanted to move

even before the new gun laws passed in CO..........how?
They said that they would've been perfectly happy to stay there if CO hadn't passed the mag limit law.

[rdharma]

9. Oh, they said that?

Must be true then, eh?!!!

[premium]

10. They said it and I'll take their word over yours.

They have more credibility than someone on an internet board.
Have a good night.

[rdharma]

11. Cheap minimum wage non-union labor.... no benefits.... low taxes.

The Republican model! Easy to see whose side you're on!

[gejohnston]

12. was it a union shop to begin with?

Colorado has lower taxes.

[rdharma]

13. "Colorado has lower taxes" HUH?!!!!!!!

NO WAY!

[gejohnston]

14. State income taxes for CO is a flat 4.7 percent

SC starts at 7 percent.
The biggest shock I had was how much higher they are than Wyoming's.
state income tax
sales tax, three times Wyoming's
property tax on vehicles, Kansas has that too. Being a Wyoming resident stationed in the military, I avoided those.

[rdharma]

15. It's a manufacturer...... not your personal income taxes!

OMG!

[hack89]

19. Colorado has a lower corporate tax rate than SC

4.63% vice 5%

[DonP]

23. That seems to have shut him up, certainly on the subject of tax rates

No evidence that they ever were a Union shop in Colorado either or that they won't be one in SC.

Sad to see the loss of skilled machinist jobs. But we lost several manufacturers for the same reason, including Les Baer when Blago was trying to pass an AWB in Illinois. They just moved across the river from Geneseo to Iowa. Voila! No threat to close down their business or overtax it anymore.

I've also heard that Kahr Arms and Stag Arms are both leaving Connecticut for SC too, and even Colt has been making some noises about relocating part of it's production facilities.

I expect the same "good riddance" and "who needs 'em" comments from the anti folks.

But when the tax base is impacted, like we've had in Chicago and you have to close schools, fire houses and cop houses, they blame the evil NRA instead of stupid public policies that drive revenue away and didn't improve public safety one bit.

[Lurks Often]

34. Stag Arms is still in CT as of right now.

PTR, which is in CT, is moving to SC and taking just about all their employees and Kahr is going to re-locate their corporate headquarters from NY to PA. The site in PA is big enough for Kahr to move production there, but they have not made any statements about doing so yet.


On edit: My guess is that Stag, Ruger, Colt and Mossberg are all waiting to see what happens with the Federal lawsuit that was filed last month and to be realistic, it's only been less then 4 months since the bill was signed in CT.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. You 'bong'ed him pretty good with that gem.

[gejohnston]

20. those are lower in CO too.

But if you have a profitable business, personal income tax can make one decide. If tax rates were an issue, it would be cheaper and easier to go to Utah or Wyoming.

South Carolina's problem is less about tax rates than it is about how the money is spent.

[Lizzie Poppet]

21. Now that you've conclusively refuted rdharma's argument, I'm confident he'll man up and admit it.

Said no one, ever.

[premium]

16. You have no idea what side I'm on

so why don't you stop with the disruptive behavior and try to add to the debate. Barring that, why don't you head back to Castle Bansalot where you won't get challenged on issues.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. Y'all be kind to him- school's out, and he's got a lot of time on his hands.

Not only that, the former bongbong's posts are a fine example of the "Ian Paisley Effect"-

i.e., someone whose pronouncements are so hateful and OTT they serve only to make their opponents
more resolute...

[beevul]

67. Most of them have that effect. N/T

[BainsBane]

169. As do you all

Gunners have done more to make me realize how essential gun control is than the Brady campaign ever could. As I've said before, you should really go on the road. We'd get legislation passed in no time.

[BainsBane]

166. Like you

You and your friends have done more to convince me how dangerous gunners are than anything I could have possibly learned from any gun control organization. Congratulations on that. Before reading posts on here, I had no idea some gun owners spent so much time imagining how they were going to kill people. I actually thought they might just be normal folk with guns. I also didn't realize how much they privileged corporate profits over their fellow citizens. You sure have set me straight. It's been enlightening. Of course I realize members of this group are not typical gun owners. I've read enough to know you are on the far extreme of American politics.


As for your allegations about my being someone's zombie, you really are not up to date. I'm supposed to be Iverglas' Zombie, not your gun foe. You haven't kept up with the witch hunts at all. Go on, ask MIRT to have Skinner check my IP address for the fourth time.

Your little hallway gossiping is precisly what I would expect here, and from you especially. So enjoy your JR lunch room conversation. It suits you.

[hack89]

186. So you are still politically impotent and ineffective but you are more motivated

looks like win-win for both sides. You have an engaging hobby and we get the status quo.

[ileus]

18. Link?

This is the first I've heard of this?

If it's true I may have to stop buying magpul stuff.

I have two more complete sets of AR furiniture to buy and I love the magpul stuff I have on the first AR.

My wife has always wanted a set of pink furinature to her AR and now that magpul makes it I was thinking it would be a great Christmas or Anniversary gift.




My daughter hates pink (I'm painting her room now purple and blue) to cover the pink she picked out when she was 4. (now 11)
She may refuse to be seen shooting it....LOL

[armueller2001]

24. A mag limit of 15 rounds is reasonable under what basis

Because it is a multiple of 5? Or because it is half capacity of the ubiquitous 30 round magazines? Why not 11 rounds, or 17 rounds, or 14? How about a 1 round magazine?

If a magazine limit is to be discussed, it should be based upon statistical data and science instead of picking numbers willy-nilly. Factors such as typical accuracy percentage under stress and consideration for multiple assailants would be a good place to start. Is there any data to show that lethality of mass shootings drops in relation to magazine capacity? Or are we just doing something to "do something"?

[ileus]

17. There are several sites that have pmags in stock now for 15 bucks

for the non windowed mags.

I laugh at the dumbasses that paid up to 50 bucks a few months ago.

Now if only Ammo would start showing back up on the shelves...

[jimmy the one]

22. mag suckers pulled in by magpul

..{magpul} will protest one more time by handing out 1,500 30-round magazines for free. Erie-based Magpul Industries announced the giveaway .. The first 1,500 attendees who are at least 18 years old will get a magazine.. The event is hosted by the nonprofit Free Colorado, which advocates rights of gun owners..

One small string attached: Tickets: $5 per person to attend, $15 for attendance and one PMAG® 30 AR/M4 GEN M2 ... Event registration and pre- purchase of Magpul magazines available at www.freecolorado.com ... Important Information: Advance ticket purchase is strongly suggested and encouraged. Free Colorado is a non-profit organization registered in Colorado.

FAREWELL TO ARMS: Magpul Selling Off Last Legal Magazines June 29 Bid farewell to 30-round standard capacity magazines, at least in Colorado, starting July 1. But, before then, on June 29, join Second Amendment supporters for a sending off event featuring live entertainment from Matt Buckstein and Flash Cadillac, with a special appearance by conservative talk show host, Dana Loesch.
The first 1,500 attendees through the gate will receive a free Magpul Gen M2 MOE 30rd magazine .. courtesy of Magpul Industries.
Here are the details: A Farewell to Arms Freedom Festival Glendale, CO
Tickets: $5 per person to attend, $15 for attendance and one PMAG® 30 AR/M4 GEN M2 MOE®, 5.56x 45 Magazine, $25 for attendance and two PMAG Magazine{s}, $35 for attendance and three PMAG® 30 AR/M4 GEN M2 MOE®, 5.56x 45 Magazine.
Pre-purchase strongly suggested – supply is limited. Attendee ticket required to enter event.Event registration and pre-purchase of Magpul magazines available at www.freecolorado.net.

Count how many times 'Free' was used in my above post.
Cheaper by the dozen - SUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HolyMoley]

25. But wait, there's more!

"All products have been generously donated to free Colorado and all proceeds from this event will be expended on defending 2nd Amendment rights in Colorado".
So, in effect, MagPul is giving away free mags.
The event organizers are charging tiered pricing for admission.



http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013/06/26/a-farewell-to-arms-magpul-selling-off-last-legal-magazines-at-june-29-event/

It does look to me that the the flyer is poorly worded or unclear.
Does it mean the first 1,500 attendees will receive a free mag regardless of what they pay at the gate?
Or, is it for an additional fee (with money going to the cause), each person will get an extra 1-2-3 mags?

[jimmy the one]

26. farewell to con men

holymoley: "All products have been generously donated to free Colorado and all proceeds from this event will be expended on defending 2ndA rights in Colorado".

..read your advert again, where it says: ..your last chance to purchase 30rd standard capacity mags in CO..
Magpul is obviously using the 'free giveaways' ploy to get gunnuts to come in where they can unload other magpul magazines (it says so), their last gasp at profits in the west for awhile. And to try to offload tons of magazines which they'd otherwise have to ship somehow to their new home in wherever it was (& legal concerns with shipping magazines xcountry?). And who's to say FreeColorado won't give magpul a 'going away present' to thank them with some proceeds, for defending 2ndA colorado rights by giving away the 'free' magazines?

holymoley: So, in effect, MagPul is giving away free mags. The event organizers are charging tiered pricing for admission.

Right, & you doubt there is some kickback to magpul? I also need correct you somewhat - magpul is giving away free mags as a come-on to get gunnuts in where they might buy more gunnut stuff at exorbitant prices in an effort to bilk colorado one last time.

FAREWELL TO ARMS:.. first 1,500 attendees through gate receive a free Magpul 30rdmag Tickets: $5 per person to attend, $15 for attendance and one PMAG® 30 AR/M4 GEN M2 MOE®, 5.56x 45 Magazine, $25 for attendance and two PMAG Magazine{s}, $35 for attendance and three.. Pre-purchase strongly suggested – supply is limited. Attendee ticket required to enter event. Event registration and pre-purchase of Magpul magazines available at www.freecolorado.net.

4:30pm,jun 29,2013,GlendaleColorado:
Gunnut at the gate: Hi there, is this magpul's farewell to arms event?
'FreeColoradoGateman': Yes it is! Only $5 admission per person!
Gunnut: And this is where I can get a free magpul 30 rd AR15 magazine?
Gateman: Yes it is! Only $15 admission!
Gunnut: But you just said only $5 admission.
Gateman: That's if you don't want the free magpul magazine!
Gunnut: But how is the magazine free then?
Gateman: It is! only $15 admission!
Gunnut: Wait a minute, how come others only have to pay $5?
Gateman: Because they don't want the free magpul 30rd magazine!
Gunnut: But then I'm paying $15 for admission, ten more.
Gateman: Right, cause you're getting the free magpul magazine!
Gunnut: But why should I pay $10 extra to get the free magazine, if it's free?
Gatman: Nobody's forcing you to pay anything! but if you walk away you'll miss out on magpul's free 30rd magazine giveaway!

[premium]

33. Hey JtO,

saw your comments about me over at Castle Bansalot.

Not the same level as daniel musso, but we have a 'premium' anthole on DU elsewhere:

very cute.
Notice that your brethern blocked another one that didn't walk in lockstep with the Castle Bansalot crowd.
Can't have dissent in the ranks now, can we?

[CokeMachine]

60. That was a close one for JtO

the Guns of the Democrat Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=3535

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:08 PM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

[premium]

62. Yep,

but to be expected.

[jimmy the one]

134. for the record

premium: .. saw your comments about me over at Castle Bansalot.

.. so was I a bigot to report you, when you essentially admitted you got emotional on it, & admitted you were wrong? CTyankee was civil throughout while you were awfully uncivil.
And what is/was your sanction? your post gets semi-hidden, oh my will you ever survive, how was your ordeal, poor man? should I worry on a vendetta (3-3 result), a new hatfield & mccoy? AOL & other places you'd get banned for a few days to a few weeks from posting, depending on severity of offense, including to permanently banned.

premium above: I got angry, wrongly admittedly, because he/she tried to argue on an emotional basis instead of a factual basis.

And there you countered her alleged 'sin' by committing the very same sin, eh?

And yes, except for the AWB and the mag limit of 10 rounds, I generally support Pres. Obama's gun control proposals..

for the record then, you 'generally' support the recent stronger guncontrol improvements in New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Colorado, California et al? and feel nevada's governor was wrong to veto nevada's guncontrol bill? Those states applied obama/biden's guncontrol proposals.

Notice that your brethern blocked another one that didn't walk in lockstep with the Castle Bansalot crowd. Can't have dissent in the ranks now, can we?

You are not in guncontrol 'ranks', you are adversarial & contra. I'm not jewish, but imagine a 'Synagogue Bansalot', & groups of nazi skinheads wanting to come in on service day, saturday I think it is, wanting to have open discussions with their 'brethren' to explain how wrong it is, to be jewish. There's outreach for sure, but elsewhere not in the synagogue.
I've been banned from some pro gun websites before, had posts deleted, there's two alternate universes.

[locks]

65. Bye bye

You didn't realize that all the sensible people in Colorado got together, took all the free Magpul magazines and destroyed them so Magpul company would get out of town and out of state faster. LOL

[CokeMachine]

75. Got any proof of that??

Otherwise, I'll just have to assume it's some kind of fantacy or (what is that stuff that comes out the back end of a bull)?



edit: spelling

[Robb]

190. Aw.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=305060&sub=trans

[CokeMachine]

191. Aww -- you are one to critique!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022928786

Note to everyone please click on the Edits link to see what Robb was/is up to. Please read all of the edits!! A flagrant violation of the SOP (messing with the software) but he is one of the chosen few so it's cool. He made all of the edit after it was too late for juries to give an opinion. He doesn't even have the guts to admit his original OP was pure bullshit.

Oh Well -- Some animals are more equal than others. Jury please note this comment is from the book Animal Farm

[premium]

194. That was a classic,

his original OP was bullshit, so when called on it, he edits it 5 times, even some of his allies criticized him for it.

[Robb]

198. Aw.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302085&sub=trans

[krispos42]

210. I don't want any gravedancing in the Gungeon over banned members of either side.

I've enforced this in the past.

[Robb]

211. Heaven forfend.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7788178&mesg_id=7799078

[krispos42]

212. A 3-year-old link to GD on DU2 is relevant... how?

Gravedancing is allowed in GD, as far as I know. "General" discussion, and all that.

This is not 2010, nor is it GD, nor is it DU2.

Or are you upset that a union-bashing poster got the nuke?

[NYC_SKP]

196. The double standard is remarkable.

I don't dare even comment beyond that.

[Robb]

197. Aw.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=279126&sub=trans

[beevul]

199. Thanks for dropping by and...

"Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence."

Thanks for dropping by and not adhering to this groups SOP, robb.

Theres a word for such behavior...

[Robb]

200. Were those banned trolls buddies of yours?

I'm sorry.

[beevul]

201. Says the one trolling...

Says the one trolling, and now repeatedly not adhering to this groups SOP.

[Robb]

202. I know it is a discussion Progressive Gun Enthusiasts(tm) are loathe to have...

...but perhaps considering how many right-wing trolls pretend to be left-wing "gun enthusiasts" might be worth your time.

Or, perhaps not. It rather depends, doesn't it?

[beevul]

203. Non sequitur.

That is not a topic which falls within this groups SOP.

Now, I know you guys love to lean on your sop in the other forum.

Heres ours:

Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

Please note, that you now have three posts in this thread that are not in keeping with this groups sop, which is far more than You allow in your group, in almost every case.


I'm sure everyone else will.

[Robb]

204. You've rather made my point for me.

(bows, exits)

[beevul]

206. 4 posts now in this thread...

4 posts now in this thread, completely ignoring this groups SOP.

[Adsos Letter]

205. Jury results

At Wed Jul 24, 2013, 01:58 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Aw.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=129137

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Does not fit the SOP of the group.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jul 24, 2013, 02:07 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Robb may be a dingbat, but he isn't violating any SOP. He's just pointing out, with admirable simplicity, the true nature of several posters in that thread.
And yet...and yet...he remaineth a dingbat. But not an SOP transgressor.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: An SoP alert needs to be made on an OP. This was a reply post.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Proud to report in as Juror #1

[beevul]

207. This groups SOP says...

This groups SOP says:


Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.


Which of his posts in this thread fits any part of this groups SOP?

[Adsos Letter]

208. He's just pointing out participants in this thread who have been banned.

Nothing wrong with that, especially given the context.

[beevul]

209. If you say so...

Me, I think its a tad hypocritical for him to be blocking others from the forum where hes a host, as in blocking several for a single post, and several more for a second post, on the basis that they violated the SOP of that group, then come to this group and pretend our sop doesn't exist.

I rather doubt I'm alone in that.