What are you going to do this week to support expanded background checks?

[BainsBane]

This discussion thread was locked by krispos42 (a host of the Gun Control & RKBA group).

Are you going to call your elected representatives at the state and federal level and tell them you want to see a bill passed that expands background checks to private sales, internet sales, and gun shows? Time to step up. Enough claiming you support background checks. Do something. Surely we can all agree on this?

So this is my challenge: Contact your representatives and when you're done, check in on this thread and tell us who you contacted. If you don't feel comfortable disclosing their names, simply tell us the position of those you contacted. Outline any version of a background check bill you support, but understand that no legislation passed will ever be perfect. Holding out for a perfect bill is an excuse to oppose background check legislation. This is something all of us, whether strong Second Amendment supporters or avid gun control proponents, can agree on. Let's keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those adjudicated a danger to themselves and others.

______________________________

A gungeoneer juror called this OP flame bait. I find that very sad that proposing expanded background checks, something pro-gun posters have claimed they support time and time again, is seen as flame bait.

If there are members interested in pressuring law makers to get a background check bill passed, here is a thread in GD you can respond to. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023692025

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. Oh my

[BainsBane]

3. Seriously?

That's too much for you?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. It's not so much burdensome as comical.

I mean, this is really a bizarre tactic. Beyond bizarre, even.

In another thread you're lambasting people for being "gun worshippers" but unless we recite 50 "Our senators Who art in DC" every day while facing the eastern seaboard and promptly report our penances to our Chief Confessor we are to be judged apostates.

This is your new grand tactic?

I know this would be emotionally upsetting for some but I'm honestly laughing out loud at the ridiculousness of it all. Seriously, I'm laughing my ass off.

[BainsBane]

10. You think this is funny?

32,000 people die every year. Is it really that hard to pick up the phone or send an email?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Yes, I think you're OP is funny.

Let me know when you care about the tens of millions of people hurt annually by alcohol to pick up a phone or send an email asking to reinstate Prohibition.

[BainsBane]

16. So you're with the 9% of the nation who opposes background checks

and want to make sure criminals have steady access to guns?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. Exactly as I predicted: chant the mantra or be deemded a heretic

You want to make sure drunk drivers, domestic abusers, rapists and violent alcoholics have access to booze?

[BainsBane]

22. You don't even remember the discussions you've had 1000 times before

talk about a mantra. I have the same conversation once with people. If the issue is not significant enough to you to remember, there isn't any point having it against because you obviously don't care.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. And thus the declaration of anathema. Next comes excommunication.

Does all this pontification come with its own funny hat?

[gejohnston]

21. the 91 percent number came from

GOP propagandist/pollster Frank Luntz who was hired by Bloomberg.

[BainsBane]

29. Wrong again

It came from the SEIU Daily KOS poll.
You are thinking of an earlier poll Lutz did of NRA members that showed 70% of them supported background checks.

[gejohnston]

32. No, Frank Luntz did the poll

SEIU didn't do it. As a labor union, I'm sure they have better things to do, like organize people.

[BainsBane]

35. Sigh

I guess I have to explain the basics to you. Organizations commission polls. The NRA commissioned Lutz to do their poll. Daily Kos and SEIU get together to pay for a joint poll. They then hire pollsters. There have been several of them. You obviously don't read Daily Kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/polling/2012/12/18/US/148/DON5k

Actually I was wrong about one thing. The figure is 92%, not 91%. If Lutz found similar numbers, that is additional confirmation.

[gejohnston]

39. MAIG commissioned Luntz

Yes I do read Kos. I also know they are not news.
BTW, this one question:

Would you support or oppose prohibiting felons convicted of violent crimes from purchasing guns?

That has been federal law since 1938, although the prohibition applies to all felons including insider trading.
BTW, they don't define "assault weapon" which is a political and propaganda term.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. what I do and what I post about on the internet is for me alone to determine. I don't reveal any

more private information than that which I feel comfortable.

By the way did you and your friend Justin ever determine my gender to your complete satisfaction?

[BainsBane]

4. I told him I felt quite sure you were female

I've never doubted it.

So are you saying you won't contact your representatives to support background checks?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. There is no implication there for you to infer at all.

[BainsBane]

8. You don't need to give the name of the representative

You can say simply I contacted my two senators, house rep, state senator and state house rep, or any combination of those you do contact. Some states already have expanded background checks, so for some people they will only need to contact US office holders.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. ok

[gejohnston]

6. just a heads up

all internet sales do go through a background check, since they are usually inter state and must be shipped, IAW the 1968 Gun Control Act.
Most gun show also must go through background checks because: most are FFLs, some states and gun show promoters (or their insurance companies) require them for all sales.

In the latest case, it was the VA not hospitalizing the shooter and informing the FBI. RI police notified the Navy and his employer about his report of "microwaves giving him messages" yet neither took his security clearance.

Basically, I support a model based what Michigan has been doing since the 1950s or 1960s.

[BainsBane]

27. once again you are misinformed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12624133

[gejohnston]

36. Sorry, I know the laws

Think tanks are propaganda mills. I take all of them with more than a grain of salt. I have personal experience in this area. Give me something from the ATF or a respect criminologist. BTW, if a sale is interstate and is not received by an FFL in the buyer's state it is a federal felony. It violates the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Q: May a nonlicensee ship a firearm through the U.S. Postal Service?

A nonlicensee may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensed resident of another State. A nonlicensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State. The Postal Service recommends that long guns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun.

[18 U.S.C. 1715, 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5) and 922 (a)(2)(A)]

http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-transfer
That means while I live in Florida off and on, I am still a Wyoming resident. I can not legally buy a gun in Florida, sell one to anyone if Florida unless by some slim chance they happened to be a Wyoming resident. That also means I can not buy a gun from Ted Nugent or Jerry Brown and have shipped to my house. It has to be shipped to a licensed dealer in Wyoming where I do the back ground check.
If those sales were intra state, they are no different than putting a card on a bulletin board at the local laundry mat. If the sale is in the next state, it is a violation of current law.

[BainsBane]

41. You have never cared about facts

That applies to licensed fire arms dealers only. Many internet and gun show sellers operate as private sellers and avoid the law. Your text of the law is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

A law means nothing if it isn't enforced. That is a study that shows people are buying guns. You ignore any and all information that doesn't fit your preexisting notions. You willfully distort evidence and ignore the rest. Your continual distortion of evidence, as you did in the case of trafficking of US guns to Mexico and bans on federal funding into research on gun violence, is what makes you entirely unreliable. You willfully ignore and distort to fit your own agenda.

[gejohnston]

44. most gun show dealers are licenced

The few who are not sell antiques. At least the ones I have been to. If the gun show seller is making a profit, they must have an FFL or be in violation. Online, it doesn't matter if the seller is an FFL. If it goes across state lines, it must go to an FFL in the buyer's state. Online is a red herring. It is the same as newspaper ads or bulletin boards. As I said since most are interstate, what I said was very relevant.

A law means nothing if it isn't enforced. That is a study that shows people are buying guns

How will another law enforce the previous law? Why not look at the enforcement mechanism for the existing law? I am saying this study is propaganda and doubt its validity. Why would I take Third Way any seriously than if it were the Heritage Foundation? If it were a transparent peer reviewed study by an neutral party, I would seriously look at it.

You ignore any and all information that doesn't fit your preexisting notions. You willfully distort evidence and ignore the rest. Your continual distortion of evidence, as you did in the case of trafficking of US guns to Mexico and bans on federal funding into research on gun violence, is what makes you entirely unreliable. You willfully ignore and distort to fit your own agenda.

You are projecting.

[BainsBane]

45. Most is not all

It's amazing how you avoid reading any newspapers and magazines that show how people buy guns without background checks all the time. You know they do. The fact is that is exactly how you want it.

This is a colossal waste of time, like every discussion with you. So now you're on record opposing any and all background check legislation by insisting it isn't necessary. I knew you were spinning a big one to Loudly yesterday. I'm through with you.

Anyone who wants verification of your denial of evidence about gun trafficking to Mexico and federal research on guns can check my journal a few months back and entries will lead to those discussions. Here we have more evidence of your denials of reality.

If all gun sales already were subject to background checks, why would the NRA devote so much money to defeating background check legislation?

[gejohnston]

50. amazing you avoid articles and reports by people who know what they are talking about

It's amazing how you avoid reading any newspapers and magazines that show how people buy guns without background checks all the time. You know they do. The fact is that is exactly how you want it.

I know people do, I just don't need propaganda mills to come up with bogus studies to tell me something already know.

This is a colossal waste of time, like every discussion with you. So now you're on record opposing any and all background check legislation by insisting it isn't necessary. I knew you were spinning a big one to Loudly yesterday. I'm through with you.

I said no such thing, and you and Loudly have been debunked in that area several times. Here are three examples. I didn't say they were unnecessary, I merely pointed out the flaws in your argument. BTW, a study by criminologists Robert Wright and James Rossi, and another one done by the ATF, found criminals rarely buy guns from gun shows. Most of them or purchased "on the street" from drug dealers and fences. I think preventing theft and fixing the mechanisms in place would be better than simply passing another law.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=131549
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=131422
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=125041

Anyone who wants verification of your denial of evidence about gun trafficking to Mexico and federal research on guns can check my journal a few months back and entries will lead to those discussions. Here we have more evidence of your denials of reality.

No, it shows that I don't depend on a narrow number of publications, who are neither objective or employ professional journalists. I do wider research and actually pay attention to people who actually know what they are talking about. IOW, I'm going to believe Stratfor over MAIG or Brady for obvious reasons, two of them have a reason to lie. Also, there has never been a ban on federal research. The ban is only on lobbying by the CDC. DoJ has been doing research for years. The CDC's last study done this year, careful what you wish for you might get it.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082113-668335-cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative.htm
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

[Jenoch]

46. In Minnesota, the only time a gun can be purchased at a gun show without a background check

is from a private indivudual and not anyone with a tabe of guns to sell at that show. The vendors who pay the promoter to sell at that particular gun show are all FFL holders and they do background checks. Of course, if someone has a valid Minnesota Permit to Purchase, they have already undergone more screening than the NICS background check.

I find it interesting that you are making demands of people and then demanding that they report back to you. All of my legislators in the MN House and MN Senate to US House and both US Senators are firmly in favor of a national UBC. I almost forgot, my governor is also in favor of a UBC law, but curiously, he is not opposed to CCW permit holders carrying guns into the state capitol. The only thing I can come up with for his reasoning is that the law has been that way for over ten years and there has not been a single incident.

[Straw Man]

71. You are the misinformed one.

Interstate transfers are required by law to go through an FFL, be they from licenses dealer to individual or between two unlicensed individuals. The only transfers that don't require a background check are ones between non-licensed individuals who reside in the same state. Furthermore, the ATF takes a very dim view of those who make a living from selling firearms without benefit of a federal license, as do I. Target those bastards with stings and everything else you want, but spare me from bullshit legislation that requires me to pay an FFL to perform a NICS check for a transfer if I want to let my girlfriend borrow one of my rifles for a week.

[BainsBane]

72. Read the article

Is it really so hard to figure out people get around laws? Why does the NRA devote so much money to defeating background check legislation if all guns already go through them? Why are so many gunners spending hours arguing such checks are an invasion or privacy if all guns are already checked? Just read the study. There is evidence that significant numbers of online sales go through no background checks. That is reality, not theory.

[Straw Man]

73. You don't know squat about this -- that's obvious.

Is it really so hard to figure out people get around laws?

Nope, not hard at all. But the answer to that isn't more useless laws that only affect the already-law-abiding.

Why does the NRA devote so much money to defeating background check legislation if all guns already go through them?

Because the kind of background checks now being called for are useless and intrusive. Did you read my post?

Why are so many gunners spending hours arguing such checks are an invasion or privacy if all guns are already checked?

All guns are already checked? No one said that. Are you incapable of nuanced thought? The laws that have been proposed would make even temporary loans by close friends and family members subject to background checks. See above: useless and intrusive.

There is evidence that significant numbers of online sales go through no background checks.

News flash: no online sales take place on GunsAmerica. It's an electronic bulletin board. It puts buyer in touch with seller, just like a classified ad or a piece of paper on the wall in the laundromat. Shady dealers certainly make use of sites like GunsAmerica, but what they're doing is already illegal. Making it double-plus illegal will do nothing to stop it. How about urging LE to conduct more sting operations of unlicensed sellers? That would be a better idea.

[BainsBane]

75. LOL

All the NRA cares about is profits for the gun industry. Useless does't prompt anyone to spend millions. Jeez you're gullible. Useless is ignored. Privacy. The NRA keeps it's own database of gun owners. They don't give a fuck about privacy. They care about profits.

Why should any researchers know more than someone who actually believes NRA progagnda.
What a load of horse manure. I guess an organization that spends most of it's money electing and buying off Republican politicians must be telling the truth. Yeah, I'm really going to believe you over academic researchers. When hell freezes over. All that's missing is a quote from Glenn Beck.


anyway, one more to the list of people who swore they supported background checks but really don't. I've learned so much today. Sure, I suspected some gunners were not being truthful about supporting background checks, but I would have guessed it was 20%. Little did I know. I badly overrestimated this demographic's truthfulness. Live and learn. You can't deal with extremists. I'll leave them to their armed redoubts and forget they ever existed.

[gejohnston]

76. straw man speaks the truth

Why should any researchers know more than someone who actually believes NRA progagnda.

These people are not researchers using the scientific method. They are political hacks selling a product.

What a load of horse manure. I guess an organization that spends most of it's money electing and buying off Republican politicians must be telling the truth.

Actually, they spend most of the money on payroll for upper management. Wayne gets paid twice what gets spent on lobbying

Yeah, I'm really going to believe you over academic researchers. When hell freezes over. All that's missing is a quote from Glenn Beck.

You have not come up with a study by an academic researcher. Check out real ones like James Wright, Robert Rossi, Gary Kleck. Oh, you remember the Mother Jones study that mass shooting were rising, it has been debunked by North Eastern University criminologist James Fox.

anyway, one more to the list of people who swore they supported background checks but really don't. I've learned so much today. Sure, I suspected some gunners were not being truthful about supporting background checks, but I would have guessed it was 20%. Little did I know. I badly overrestimated this demographic's truthfulness. Live and learn. You can't deal with extremists. I'll leave them to their armed redoubts and forget they ever existed.

Actually no. We support UBC proposals that work, not absurd ones written by ideologues and NYC employees. Supporting something in principle is one thing, an stupid idea to put it in place is quite another.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=131821

[Straw Man]

77. You know even less about me ...

Yeah, I'm really going to believe you over academic researchers. When hell freezes over. All that's missing is a quote from Glenn Beck

... or my politics. Or the NRA. Who are these "academic researchers" who have determined so much about online gun sales? Are they Michael Bloomberg's hired flunkies? It's not a matter of believing me; it's a matter of reading the laws and observing what happens in the real world. I suspect you've never even looked at GunsAmerica. Log on there sometime and try to order a gun. You'll get a seller's e-mail and phone number at best. What you do with that is up to you.

All the NRA cares about is profits for the gun industry. Useless does't prompt anyone to spend millions. Jeez you're gullible. Useless is ignored. Privacy. The NRA keeps it's own database of gun owners. They don't give a fuck about privacy. They care about profits.

The specter of the dreaded NRA: hack polemics, and clumsy ones at that. False dichotomies get us nowhere. Many reasonable and non-intrusive suggestions have been made, but you'll settle for nothing less than the full-boat package to which no gun owner anywhere would wish to subject himself or herself.

[BainsBane]

78. The interesting thing about online articles

is that they contain lists to the organizations in question. http://www.thirdway.org/publications/719, and even the study itself. It really is a pity that they weren't bankrolled by someone reputable like the Koch Brothers. I'm sure you can poke around the site and find out who funds the organization. It is not based on the site you mention but a different one. The site is a porthole through which people buy and sell guns without background checks. The Brady Bill was created when the internet was in its infancy. It didn't account for online sales. As private sellers, these folks can legally sell guns without a background check. One person had 22 weapons for sale. The Brady Law covers only licensed firearms dealers. State laws may have some effect, but not by law at the federal level. Toomey-Manchin sought to close the loophole that this report points to. You can read the report for more detail. It's only a few pages long.

Then there is this study on the relationship between gun owners and homicide rates: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/
From Boston University. So the first was actually by a Think Tank and the second at a university. The latter is far more comprehensive given that it is subject to academic standards. I can tell from your response above that you have no familiarity with requirements for academic research. Your excuse sounds just like what climate change deniers say. Knowledge, research, and education is all a left wing conspiracy to inform the world. It must be illegitimate. So deny away. Keep telling yourself the earth really is flat.

[gejohnston]

79. on the latter,

bring us the actual study and its critiques. It is interesting how well it will play among criminologists. These public health studies generally don't. BTW, the entire theory is based on correlation between homicide rates dropping and fewer gun owners. Two problems: the study admits correlation is not causation and they are assuming there are fewer gun owners. Different polls contradict each other.
Oh, just thought I would mention

Third Way represents Americans in the “vital center” — those who believe in pragmatic solutions and principled compromise, but who too often are ignored in Washington.

Our mission is to advance moderate policy and political ideas. Our agenda includes: a series of grand economic bargains, a new approach to the climate crisis, progress on social issues like immigration reform, marriage for gay couples, tighter gun safety laws, and a credible alternative to neoconservative security policy.

Unlike traditional think tanks, we do not house scholars who work in silos on academic research. Instead, we are built around policy teams that create high-impact written products and innovative trainings to influence today’s debates.

http://www.thirdway.org/about_us

[Straw Man]

103. Loving your bullshit canards.

They just speak to your laughable lack of knowledge of the subject at hand. Or is it your intention to deliberately mislead?

It is not based on the site you mention but a different one. The site is a porthole through which people buy and sell guns without background checks.

Armslist and GunsAmerica are both listing sites. No one buys anything "from" these sites. People merely get information that enables them to contact a seller or buyer. Just as when I buy something from a classified ad in a newspaper it isn't a "newspaper sale," these are not "online sales" -- that term is used in an effort to mislead the gullible into believing that online sales of firearms are not regulated. They are regulated under the same laws that govern all sales of firearms. Anyone who makes a contact via GunsAmerica or Armslist and transacts the interstate sale of a firearm without a background check commits a federal crime. I'm amazed at how many people believe in a mythical Amazon.com of firearms, where you just punch in your credit card numbers and assault rifles come to your door.

And perhaps you meant "portal."

The Brady Bill was created when the internet was in its infancy. It didn't account for online sales. As private sellers, these folks can legally sell guns without a background check.

A pointless observation. The same laws apply to online sales as apply to any kind of sale: no interstate sales without a background check, no dealer sales without a background check.

The Brady Law covers only licensed firearms dealers.

There is no such thing in the ATF's eyes as an "unlicensed dealer." If you are selling firearms as a business, you must be licensed. Yes, people break that law. I suggest vigorous prosecution of such people, via sting operations and the like. The ATF could start with the very sites mentioned. Why close them down when they are such fertile ground for hunting out miscreants? Your thoughts?

Toomey-Manchin sought to close the loophole that this report points to.

Toomey-Manchin is history. Tell me what "loopholes" you oppose and why. Should I have to do a background check to lend a firearm to a friend? To a relative? What about if I go away and leave a housesitter in my home?

I can tell from your response above that you have no familiarity with requirements for academic research. Your excuse sounds just like what climate change deniers say. Knowledge, research, and education is all a left wing conspiracy to inform the world. It must be illegitimate. So deny away. Keep telling yourself the earth really is flat.

I'm familiar enough with those requirements to know that these studies don't meet them. Unlike climate science, which uses established scientific methods to arrive at solid conclusions, these studies merely manipulate data to arrive at a pre-ordained conclusion.

[Duckhunter935]

108. I must be doing things wrong

Purchased two weapons online and had to go to the local FFL to pick them up and pass a background check. Who would have thunk it.

[BainsBane]

112. Because an unlicensed dealer isn't regulated under the law doesn't mean they don't exist

Last edited Fri Sep 20, 2013, 01:17 AM - Edit history (2)

Obviously they do. There are some very basic concepts that entirely elude you. Just because something doesn't exist in a legal text doesn't mean it doesn't happen in real life. Have you never in life pondered the gap between law in theory vs. reality? It is the most basic of concepts that astounds me has to be explained to any adult.

You also missed the most basic point of that study written in simple English. Those sites advertise gun sales between private parties who then carry them out on their own without background checks. Reality is obviously meaningless in comparison to your dogma. The only difference between your reaction to climate science and guns is that you are so ideologically blinded by your pro-gun religion that you refuse to consider facts. Whatever. No one dies from guns either. That's all a liberal conspiracy, along with higher education and science--all those pesky researchers trying to inform the public.

Like all ideologues, you dismiss anything that doesn't confirm your world view. You could witness 100 guns being sold in front of your face without a background check, and you'd deny it. Tens of thousands of guns are trafficked from the US to Mexico. Do you actually think those are legal sales? The fact is you don't care. Your desperate need to justify the fundamentally irreconcilable requires an astounding degree of self deception. I actually find that sadder than if you were knowingly spreading false propaganda because you have thrown out intellectual integrity in favor of objects that you have imbued with sacred qualities. There is nothing I respect less than people who dismiss all data because they don't like what it says. So now I know that nothing you say is reliable. Lesson learned.

You won't have to worry about my pestering you with horrible proposals to increase public safety. I'll keep posting, but you can assume that nothing will be directed toward you and others who think like you. You are free to enjoy your blood-drenched wonderland filled with guns secure in the notion I will never again appeal to you to do anything in the interests of another living soul on this planet. I know a lost cause when I see one.

[Straw Man]

115. You haven't a clue.

Because an unlicensed dealer doesn't isn't regulated under the law doesn't mean they don't exist

I acknowledged that they exist and I discussed some possibilities for stopping them. To wit:

There is no such thing in the ATF's eyes as an "unlicensed dealer." If you are selling firearms as a business, you must be licensed. Yes, people break that law. I suggest vigorous prosecution of such people, via sting operations and the like. The ATF could start with the very sites mentioned. Why close them down when they are such fertile ground for hunting out miscreants? Your thoughts?

Did you even read my post, or were you in too much of hurry to launch your screed? "Isn't regulated under law"? It's fucking illegal to deal in firearms as a business without a federal license. Get caught doing it and you serve time. You can't get much more regulated than that.

I'm denying nothing, despite your persistent mischaracterizations.

As for the rest of your hysterical rant, it's really nothing more than a polysyllabic "Fuck you." It doesn't dignify a response. Post all you want, but don't try to pretend that you're interested in any sort of dialogue. That would be a lie.

[gejohnston]

74. I read all six pages

it reads more like a jr high term paper, and not a very good one. This is how it is really done:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42687.pdf

[Jenoch]

88. "...if all guns are already checked?"

You do know that background checks on gun sale are about checking the background of the person purchasing the gun and not about checking the background of the gun? Or did you?

[NYC_SKP]

9. This seems more like a Gun Control Reform Activism thread. I'd be happy to post a reply over there.

Just kidding, that's never going to happen even though that's where this OP should be.

You must admit that it's written, literally, as a challenge and it has a disagreeable end to it.

And I anticipate that if you don't get a lot of replies reporting what member's plans are, that you'll be inclined to declare them full of shit or something.

That's not consensus building. That's just acting out.

Instead of "Let's sit down at the table and talk about some common ground", it's a "put up or shut up" thread.

And that isn't going to do much good.

Now, if you'd like to join a conversation about possible reform measures, you should contribute to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172131377

[BainsBane]

11. People have talked endlessly

What point is there talking? We've talked until we're blue in the face. That's an excuse for doing nothing. We've talked through ALL of this ad nauseum. It's time to act. I'm taking people here at their word that they support background checks. So they should act on it. Either they care or they don't. I posted the same thread in GD. I put it here because so many gun owners come here. I will also put it in the other group.


I already gave Saristaka my feed back on his proposal. But he can devise the perfect theoretical bill and it amounts to nothing if it isn't passed. This seems the equivalent of setting up a government commission to make sure nothing is done. It's time to act now.

[NYC_SKP]

14. I didn't see the one in GD, so I owe you an apology.

I'm sorry for assuming that you only posted this here.

I wonder though, did you use the same wording?

I hope you did.

[BainsBane]

20. Not precisely

The target audience is different. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023692025

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. The target audience is different. -

oh please. if you cross posted word for word, I could understand but .... no. couldn't do that could you.

[Jenoch]

87. "This seems the equivalent of setting up a government commission to make sure nothing is done."

Have you considered the possibility that your observation is what was done by the Administration last January?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. You must admit that it's written, literally, as a challenge and it has a disagreeable end to it. --

sort of like a litmus test so she can take it back to MIRt and accuse long time DUers of being trolls.

[BainsBane]

17. It is indeed a challenge

but it has nothing to do with MIRT or trolls.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. yeah, right.

created any more sock puppets lately?

[BainsBane]

23. I'm sorry you find so objectionable the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals

and those adjudicated a danger to themselves and others. I won't bother you further.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. I am sorry that you continue to try and put words in my mouth.

[BainsBane]

28. I've had it with your insults

You are repeatedly rude and hostile. I'm not interested in being a target for you to work out your inner angst.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

30. good lord. I am short and to the point. you however, run on and on and on

and hidden in the wall of text is thin veil of superiority and condescension.

and on edit for your edit.

Then do not come in here and talk differently ... target audience.

what is that code for trolls?

[Duckhunter935]

109. Already the law

I guess we do not have to change anything

[Jenoch]

69. After seeing the edits in the OP.

it seems the OP has decided that her "shit doesn't fly". (Those words were in her unedited OP.)

I am not opposed to background checks and all of my legislators are in favor of background checks, but the OP seems to think we need to support whatever bill might be written without knowing the details. That shit doesn't fly with me.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

70. even if her post was of substance, it is her style that leaves me cold. Her tone and demeanor have

always come across (to me) as someone who is here to lord over the rest of us.

and then I get called rude and hostile when I call her on it ... lovely.

She is just mad at me because I have exposed some of the games she has played on this site.

so she deflected by getting even more offensive to me.

whatever, I hope she is truly done with me because I was done with her a long time ago.

[sarisataka]

31. Federal Congress critters have already heard from me

and I don't see anything happening there until after midterms.

I know I saw something about MN as a target for state level UBC by a GC group (likely in one of these forums). We are a good choice, blue state with a history of recreational firearms use- deer opener is already nearly a recognized holiday. There is a opportunity to get a bill in place that is likely not quite what either side wants but is pretty good overall.

Maybe I can get lucky again and get an elevator meeting with Tim or Fong.

[BainsBane]

34. a bill failed in committee last spring

there is a local gun control group I'm trying to find out more about. Do you know anything about
Protect Minnesota- working to end gun violence?

[sarisataka]

37. A bit

I saw a booth at a county fair (Washington?)
I have distaste for their attempt to portray themselves as a local Brady or VPC but that is to be expected. They opposed shall issue when they were Citizens for a Safer Minnesota. IIRC they were for AWB, mag limits, pretty much everything.

Their positions now seem to be what most do term reasonable. In the vein of Minnesota Nice, they are reaching out to gun owners:

Do you believe in:

universal background checks for all gun sales to make it difficult for prohibited buyers to obtain guns
working against illegal gun trafficking
openness in record-keeping for gun sales, gun crimes and gun deaths and injuries
requiring gun owners to report stolen guns?

I find attempts at rapport encouraging.

here is their website http://www.protectmn.org/

[BainsBane]

38. Yeah, I looked at that before

and I saw a thing to donate money. I guess I need to contact them to see how I can get involved. I don't have money to give right now.

[sarisataka]

40. They have a volunteer tab

I don't know what they have going on now but groups like this are always looking for door knockers and envelope stuffers as an election nears

[rrneck]

33. Nothing. ntt

[Callmecrazy]

42. Lemme ask you this...

What red flags are we supposed to look for in these background checks? Felonies? Domestic Violence? Mental Illness? Jaywalking? Cat Hater?
What are the parameters? Where does it start? Where does it end? And how exactly is it going to prevent anyone from getting a gun if they really want one?
In my opinion, background checks will only appease the naive if they think it will prevent anyone from buying a gun.
So what the hell are we really talking about here?
Say I wanna buy a gun. The FFL guy runs my SSN and it says I can't have a gun. Do you really think that would prevent me from getting a gun off the street?

[BainsBane]

43. felons and those adjudicated a danger to themselves and others

the same restrictions that currently apply to sales from licensed dealers. It will make it harder for felons and the dangerously ill to acquire guns. So if people really, really want them, they probably can get them anyway, but why make it easy for criminals to have access to guns? How does that help you?

[warrant46]

60. Well drugs are illegal, if I wanted Drugs

I would get $$$ and go to Milwaukee

[Callmecrazy]

47. You're dreaming...

Look, I wish things could work that way and there would most definitely be a lot less drama in the world. But on my planet it just isn't so. Anything can be had for the right price if you're willing to pay for it. I could leave my house right now and be back in an hour with a nice little 9mm and a box of bullets for about $100. Gotta love Capitalism.
So yeah. I could call my Congress critter and scream for background checks but it's like pissing in the ocean. It won't prevent anyone from getting a gun if they want one.


You have to change people's minds about guns, not the laws.

[BainsBane]

48. So in other words, you want to make it easy for criminals to have access to guns

and make sure the suicidally depressed already adjudicated a danger to himself and others can get them real easy? It's not worth 10 minutes to call your congressmen and say you want to see the legislation passed because it's only human life, and why should you care about that? You've got to watch the X factor.

The reason the NRA opposes background check legislation is exactly what they have said: criminals won't submit to backgroud checks. They can't abide that. It would decrease profits, and lord know profits are more important than victims of gun violence.

[Callmecrazy]

51. In other words?

What's the matter with you?
I said exactly what I meant to say. Do you think a background check would have stopped all the lunatics out there? I just said that they CAN get them real easy.
No legislation can ever be written to stop someone from getting hold of a weapon.
Guns don't kill people, the bullets do. How about starting a campaign to prevent easy access to ammunition?
Hell, I'd sign a petition advocating that. An empty gun can't hurt anyone.

[warrant46]

52. Actually I called to suppport expanded VA Health Care for Mental Illness and Paranoid Behavior

Worrying about access to the Navy Yard is a Red Herring

The Voices were telling the Shot Gun Man to do "Bad Things"

What if the Voices told him to shoot his neighbor because he believed the Black Dog was Sam and he was the "Son Of Sam"

Yikes

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/berkowitz/letter_1.html

[BainsBane]

54. That's good

Is there some reason you would want guys like that and felons to have easy access to guns so hat you wouldn't call about background checks?

[warrant46]

55. What does that have to do with the Veterans Administration treating mental illness

[BainsBane]

57. Did you read the OP?

Read the OP.

[warrant46]

58. Read it and called my Congressman about how to stop the problem

[gejohnston]

56. IIRC, the Texan

who sold DB the revolver got five years for interstate sale.

[warrant46]

59. DB was extremely mentally ill

These guys will kill regardless of whether they have guns.

If they use ropes to strangle they usually don't show up on the radar until they have rung up 5 or more victims.

What is scary about these guys is they will kill someone because the voices tell them wearing a red shirt is the devil's work and they must punish the devil.

[gejohnston]

62. True. One thing I don't get

is why they don't realize the voices are full of shit. I talk to my dogs like everyone else. If they start talking back, I hope I know enough to having my wife move my guns out of my reach and check myself in to a hospital.

[warrant46]

65. I think they are beyond that

After all as DB wrote

Dear Captain Joseph Borrelli,

I am deeply hurt by your calling me a wemon hater. I am not. But I am a monster. I am the 'Son of Sam.' I am a little brat.

When father Sam gets drunk he gets mean. He beats his family. Sometimes he ties me up to the back of the house. Other times he locks me in the garage. Sam loves to drink blood.

'Go out and kill,' commands father Sam.

'Behind our house some rest. Mostly young — raped and slaughtered — their blood drained — just bones now.

Papa Sam keeps me locked in the attic too. I can't get out but I look out the attic window and watch the world go by.

I feel like an outsider. I am on a different wavelength then everybody else — programmed too kill

[hrmjustin]

49. I did call my senators here in NY today. I rarely do that but I have done it before.

My congressman is a lost cause.

[ileus]

53. Nothing...

[BainsBane]

64. Okay, so it's clear that when gungeon folk claim they support expanded background checks

they were not being truthful. You don't. So you stand with the 8% of the nation on the far right who opposes them. Understood.

[ileus]

68. Just because I say nothing doesn't mean I oppose expanded checks.

As long as it doesn't end up forcing registration or some other kind of government database I don't see a problem. Of course any bill put out there will end up being bogged down with useless shit like magazine limits. Or dumbfuck shit like you can't let your wife shoot your pistol without filling out a transfer form. Or you can't loan a friend a deer rifle for hunting season.

Show us a bill that only expands background checks...it'll never happen if we let the 2A regressives write it. There is why I never said I supported the bill that was killed earlier this year, it was full of shitty pet agendas.

[Callmecrazy]

61. What? No snappy retort to post 51?

I say we should control the amount of ammunition a person is allowed to possess. And tax it heavily. Dollar a bullet? Why not? A limit of, let's say 25 rounds in a thirty day period. If you use that up and want more? Sure. Turn in your brass and you get one bullet for every casing you turn in. You want more than 25 rounds? Tough shit. Oh and you have to carry liability insurance if you own a weapon.

Your thoughts.

[BainsBane]

63. You've got way more spare time on your hands than I do

You're obviously not interested in doing anything about background checks, something that 92% of Americans support. I see no reason to talk to you further.

[Callmecrazy]

66. IN OTHER WORDS...

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2013, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

You can't find anything wrong with my logic and you are stuck on this fucking background check baloney.
I feel the same.
What we have here is ... failure to communicate. Some people you just can't reach.
For the record, I think background checks are a fool's errand.
Nothing personal. Good night and good luck.


ON EDIT: I was the juror who called this flame bait. I'm no gungeoneer. I fucking hate guns. I wouldn't have even bothered with this OP had I not been called for the jury and been pulled into this lame prose. And I still think my idea is much better than yours.
And one more thing...
.
.
.
Ah fuck it.

[hack89]

67. After I get back from the range I'll send a couple of emails.

Of course my state already has UBCs and everyone of my reps in DC voted for UBCs so they really don't need much of a push.

[Deep13]

80. what can I do?

The Rs are not going to listen to me regardless and the Ds are already on board.

[BainsBane]

82. Exert enough pressure and they have to listen

If everyone calls, they will listen. Remember when George W Bush tried to privatize social security? Remember how that went over? The Rs listened. They had to.

And the Ds will jump ship if you don't make sure they know where you're at.

[NYC_SKP]

83. ^^^^Now this was a failed jury^^^^

Guilty of nothing more than not towing the majority DU line. Rich in snark but not really worthy of a hide.

Author: rl6214
Subject = Not a damn thing, maybe go out shooting.

Alerter comments: Calling the vast majority of DUers "anti-gun nuts" is a far right-wing insult.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Ah another gun humper spewing shit on DU. Fuck him and the AR-15 he rode in on. Hide it.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: I can accept gun nuts being allowed post here. But they have to understand that they are on the fringe of American society and should show a little bit of respect for the views of the vast majority of Americans, Democrats and DUers.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: And for the record I am not a so called Anti-Gun nut.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't really like the post but it's mild compared to stuff that is left standing on a daily basis. Until DU actually moderates this place I guess this is allowed.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Give it a rest.

Sad to see.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

84. Agenda and anger...

...great attributes for a juror.

[NYC_SKP]

86. Petty games with juries are not going to help anyone move forward...

.

Neither are long-term grudges.

In December, when admins decided to let guns into GD, I wrote a snarky protest post and WOW did it upset people.

I don't think anyone actually read the entire post, which I self-deleted at Skinner's request.

Suddenly I became a gun-nut gunner freeper gunhumper.

[BainsBane]

94. DUers have long memories

I'm often on the receiving end of it.

[Jenoch]

95. In your case,

their memories are not ALL that long.

[NYC_SKP]

97. The blocking from group was personal.

It started with an insult in the Hawaii forum, a baiting insult by another member.

I took the bait, unfortunately.

He can't let it go, wants me banned.

[BainsBane]

98. You want to know the world's best blocking story?

It was in the men's group. I won't name the person blocked or the host who did the blocking, but you could figure it out if you went there. I don't even remember the subject, but the person--a feminist--made a point that pissed one of the hosts off so he called her a "whore." He waited a couple of days after her post to hurl his insult, but then someone alerted and a jury hid it. THEN he blocks her because of his jury hide. It was the old, she made me do it thing: 'Your honor, she made me mad. I had to hit her," only in this case it was an obscene, sexist insult.

I'm banned from there and am eternally gratefully to the host who banned me, who is incidentally the same person who banned the woman above, only he managed to avoid hurling sexists insults at me.

Multiple edits: sorry, can't write today.

[NYC_SKP]

101. Well there it is!

That's funny in a sad sort of way.

[opiate69]

120. The last thing this group needs is any more negative publicity.

Last edited Sun Sep 22, 2013, 11:31 PM - Edit history (1)

However, I'm editing instead of deleting so that anybody who may be interested in reading the actual events described above may do so by checking the edit history.

[Major Nikon]

121. There's more to the story which adds to the hilarity

The banned person in question performed another drive-by of the men's group (one of many) insulting a poster there and opining about how she wished she hadn't taken the group off trash, so she was given the favor of not having to worry about it again. Nobody was called a "whore", as "attention whore" is obviously not within a cab ride of the same thing.

BB got banned for similar behavior and got a sock account tombstoned by Skinner for alert trolling, which goes a long way toward explaining the 4-2 hide. Here's the alerter's comments which as you can see follows BB's proclivity for duplicity and alert trolling so it isn't too hard to figure out where it came from and now this same person wants to whine about grudges and alert trolling. The Freudian projection is thick enough to cut with a knife.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Rude and over the top are the kindest things one could call this. I'm sure its probably fine with most people on here to use the term "whore" this way but it is a nasty slur that is bigoted against sex workers. It doesn't matter who you're using it against, it is still wrong.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Aug 27, 2013, 11:54 AM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

[opiate69]

122. Yep.. and the fact that now, she sits in a position of authority on MIRT...

after getting busted engaging in behavior for which other posters have been specifically PPRd is, frankly, almost enough to make me wash my hands of this place after 12+ years.

[BainsBane]

124. Awful, isn't it?

MIRT should be comprised entirely of men who called women "whores." Oh right, an adjective in front means it's okay, as is the fact you don't happen to happen to like the woman in question. That makes all the difference in the world.

I'm sure the gun activists are thrilled you've turned their group into a soap opera. One thing I will say about them, as much as I disagree with them on issues, at least they have political conviction and talk about actual issues.

[opiate69]

125. Such a vivid imagination...

MIRT should be comprised of people who actually respect DU... people who don't spend an inordinate amount of time complaining vociferously about what a "cesspool" it is.. people who don't willingly break the rules in order to alert stalk others. Male, female, or other. And if you want to chastize the person who brought this drama into this group, find a mirror. Because it was you, my dear dogslife, who felt compelled to drag the Men's Group into this. Nobody else.

[BainsBane]

126. Talk about an active imagination

Jeez. I'm not even the one who complained about the bikini babe thread. Nor did I mention anyone by name above. You chose to take it personally, even though it didn't involve you. That of course doesn't stop you from following me in here to disrupt this group because a discussion about expanded background checks pales in comparison to your personal grudges.

Now, if you don't mind. I'm going to leave the men and women of the Gungeon to their usual business. This entire exchange is disrespectful to them.

[polly7]

128. Hey, wth is going on. I was just on a jury for this post.

I agree with you .... anyone who was busted and had a sock-puppet banned and twists someone's words to imply any woman was called an outright "whore" when it was obviously a bullshit accusation has no business pretending she cares about rules here. Anxious to see the result of that jury, now!

Oh .... here we go:

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
At Sun Sep 22, 2013, 10:18 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Such a vivid imagination...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=132190

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Coming to the gungeon to carry on a personal grudge against another poster. He can't even be bothered to talk about background checks, the subject of the OP, but instead is determined to disrupt a safe haven group with his personal beefs. The post he is blaming for this was on Thursday and named no names. So making a big shit storm about it today sucks. He needs to keep his personal fights in his own group.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 22, 2013, 10:25 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Hide......No wait. Its posted in the Guns Group. Its always like that. Leave.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I agree with the poster. And there is no grounds to hide it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Seems okay for the topic and location of the post. It is not over the top.

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

Holy crap, I'm in the Gun group? I didn't notice that ...

[opiate69]

129. polly!!

I love how she dragged MG shit in here, and yet I'm the one disrupting merely by correcting her misrepresentation....

[BainsBane]

130. "correcting it" by insisting

the woman deserved to be the target of misogynist insults. That's far from a correction, but it does show what you are.

[polly7]

136. Yeah I know ..... it sucks, but some just need the extra drama and a

patsy to pin something or other on to make themselves look better. Don't mind me, this is the anniversary of the night I lost my Dad to suicide and I'm in a super pissy mood. But I still voted right on that dumb jury alert!

[opiate69]

138. Oh, shit.. I am so sorry.

[polly7]

139. No, it's ok. I'm just not in the mood for that kind of baloney,

and that's what it was! Now I'll go because I know I'm about to get a post hidden and I don't care ..... plus, I usually stay far away from any talk of guns! Shoulda looked where I was lol.

[hrmjustin]

132. I Work with BainsBane in Mirt everyday and she does her job very well.

I am very happy to be serving with her.

[NYC_SKP]

127. Major Nikon. Please just knock this off.

IMO, this behavior makes you and others in this group look bad and it ain't cool.

There are very few members I expect this from but not of you so just please stop it.

[BainsBane]

131. The events are exactly as I described them

You didn't bother to even try to dispute the facts. You instead insisted that the use of the word "attention" nullified the insult and then went on to explain why you believe the woman in question deserved it through a series of bizarre leaps about off-site activity that I have no idea how you imagine you can divine.

That you think some women deserve to be called "attention whores" is your problem entirely. That is not something anyone in civil company calls a woman. Nor did you bother to answer my email that you found so absurd you felt compelled to post in a group to which you know I cannot respond. Why should an adjective before a sexist slur matter any more than one before a racist or homophobic one? The only difference is that you clearly think there is something normal and acceptable about using sexist insults.

All this because an entirely different woman in a different group didn't like your bikini babe thread.

[opiate69]

133. I thought you were going to "leave the men and women of the gungeon to their business"?

You're drifting into disruption territory by trying to goad me into continuing the derail. Were I the host, you'd be quickly approaching a group ban.

[hrmjustin]

134. It is her thread. If you don't like her then don't respond to her and place her on ignore.

Ignore is your friend.

[BainsBane]

135. So you are unable to answer the question

understood.

Moreover, I am not the one insisting on using the Gungeon to pursue a personal grudge entirely unrelated to gun policy. That is entirely your doing.

[opiate69]

116. Got a link handy? Because this version of reality does not comport

With observable reality.

[BainsBane]

117. I could easily provide a link

but I'm not anxious for a jury hide. Feel free to do so yourself.

[opiate69]

118. I dont have anybody on mail block. just sayin'

[warrant46]

85. Wow what language and respect shown

Speechless

[BainsBane]

89. I think juror 2 hit the nail on the head

Describing a call for background checks as "ant-gun nutt"ery is very extreme.
This is a Democratic site. People in this section of DU sometimes seem to forget that. They are so accustomed to being surrounded by people who think just like them, they have lost touch with what most Americans believe.

You all have alerted on posters who call gun proponents "nuts" many, many times. You can hardly be surprised when it works the other way.

[NYC_SKP]

90. "anti-gun nut" refers to the GCRA group, not to your OP.

Are you telling me that GCRA is NOT anti-gun nut?

Hell, I'm anti-gun nut as are you, neither of us likes gun nuts.

The jury results indicate a double standard against the minority POV.

Also, Democratic site for Democratic members includes Democratic gun owners and supporters of the second amendment.

If anything, zealous gun banners (not referring to you) are the minority among Democrats in the real world.

[BainsBane]

91. Yes, there is nothing nutty about it

Our views are in keeping with the overwhelming majority of Americans, as polling data shows, and from what I can tell not unlike your own. As juror 2 acknowledged, there are Democratic gun owners, but many of them are on the extreme of the political spectrum on the gun issue. I again cite the SEIU Daily Kos poll I link to elsewhere in this thread.

[NYC_SKP]

92. Correct. We have the same goals, you and I and most in the GCRA group.

But different opinions about how to get there and, probably, how far to go.

More in common than not, to be sure.

[BainsBane]

93. Remember that we have several gun owners in that group

at least two of our most active posters are gun owners. Obviously everyone isn't on the same page. Some of the gun control folk are more prickly than others, though I don't know that much reflects any kind of extreme ideology. We don't talk about confiscation or anything like that in there. We hate the NRA, make no mistake about it, but we seek the same kinds of reforms that you yourself have said you support.

Also keep in mind some members have family victims who have been killed by gun violence, through murder, accident, or suicide. Then there are people like me who have been victims of non-lethal gun violence. This stuff is all very real to us.

[beevul]

105. Yeah they sure are.

"Our views are in keeping with the overwhelming majority of Americans, as polling data shows, and from what I can tell not unlike your own."

Your little protected group doesn't even respect the Party Platform, let alone "keeping with the overwhelming majority of Americans".

The evidence?

Not a single poster has been blocked from your group, for advocating a total gun ban, which is contrary to the party platform, and contrary to the beliefs of roughly 8 of every 10 Americans.

But boy howdy, say so much as a peep or two over there about supporting amendment 2, and you're blocked.

Had you forgotten the posts over there discussing preemptively blocking people for being pro-gun?

[Duckhunter935]

111. I posted once

Banned no warning or request to update or remove. Very democratic.

[beevul]

114. Theyre allowing...

Navy Yard weapon exempted under proposed ban

"Easy solution: add it to the ban list"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12624764

They're allowing that in the other group.

From the current Democratic Party Platform:

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation.

Banning a common Remington 870 shotgun is WAY WAY outside of any honest definition of "reasonable regulation", but such sentiments are welcome over in that group.

But boy oh boy, if you post anything that even HINTS that you would "preserve Americans' Second Amendment", you're blocked. The authors of the Democratic Party Platform itself, would be blocked from Gun Control Reform Activism...yet they say WE are the problem.

I don't think they have any business questioning anyone elses bonafides, that being the case.

[Jenoch]

96. I have yet to alert on a single post on DU.

[Mojorabbit]

99. and then

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Whining about juries makes DU suck.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Sep 19, 2013, 02:34 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: The jury system works well for weeding out objectionable posts.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Oh FFS grow up. This is a message board.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Not cool. Petulance.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Whining because their post was hidden? WTF? Deserves to be hidden again!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

I voted to leave it alone.

[NYC_SKP]

100. So, that was alerted on my reply?

Probably by one of three people.



LOL @ "Petulance"!

[Mojorabbit]

102. Yes! Dueling alerts! LOL nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

104. My reply #70 in this thread was also alerted on. 0-6 Leave It Alone --- someone

lost their alerting privileges for 24 hours ... heh

[beevul]

106. ...I repeat...

...I repeat...there is no concerted effort to block or ban those with differing viewpoints on the pro-gun side.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

107. nope, none at all ...

[NYC_SKP]

110. None exists. I shall not cast asparagus on my fellow members!

[BainsBane]

113. Wow

Be assured it was not I.

[NYC_SKP]

119. I'm confident that it wasn't.

You're passionate about the topic but you're not vindictive.

[krispos42]

140. I'm locking this

Not for an SoP violation; feel free to re-post the OP.

But this thread has degenerated into something from the worst of Meta to the point I feel it is getting very disruptive to the Group. There are references to things that happened in other Groups, such as bannings, jury actions, and insult exchanges, and this discussion is disruptive and does not serve the SoP.

So before it gets any worse, I'm going to shut it down. BainsBane can made a fresh start with a re-post.

Regards,
Krispos42, Group Host