Why do I hear this new NRA Talking Point here on DU so often?

[stone space]

New NRA Talking Point: Opponents Of Guns On Campus Are "OK With Some Sexual Assaults Occurring"


National Rifle Association radio and television host Cam Edwards claimed that people who argue against concealed carry as a solution to rape on college campuses "are OK with" sexual assaults that could supposedly be prevented by guns.

At least 10 state legislatures are considering NRA-backed legislation to allow students to carry concealed guns on campus, and advocates for guns on campus have increasingly argued that arming students will help address the epidemic of campus sexual assault. Critics have pointed out that, among many other problems with this argument, campus sexual assaults often involve alcohol.

During the February 24 edition of the NRA News radio program Cam & Company, Edwards asserted that opponents of guns on campus believe that in "almost every sexual assault, there is alcohol involved," so a "gun wouldn't help." Because of this, Edwards said, opponents of guns on campus are "OK with some sexual assaults occurring when they could be prevented."

Edwards went on to describe the position of those who say that guns on campus are not a solution to sexual assault: "So what they're saying is, they are OK with real sexual assaults happening -- whether they acknowledge that they are saying this or not, ultimately their position is that they are OK with real sexual assaults happening because they are afraid of accidents that might take place if campus carry were allowed."

snip---------------

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/26/new-nra-talking-point-opponents-of-guns-on-camp/202676

[pkdu]

1. Smells of Luntz. n/t

[Warpy]

6. You mean STINKS of Luntz

and it's beyond insulting. Guns don't stop rapes, they only facilitate them.

[GGJohn]

15. Guns facilitate rape?

That's the absolute stupidest thing I've heard all day today.

[Warpy]

17. Sure they do

I've known quite a few women who have been raped at gunpoint, one in her own home, the rapist threatening her children with it.

Wake up. Guns don't cure problems, they cause them.

[GGJohn]

18. Guns are inanimate objects, they don't act without human interaction.

There are hundreds of thousands of DGU's each year, many potential rape victims have successfully defended themselves against rapists.
BTW, I'm wide awake, I believe that women have the right to defend themselves in any way they can, including firearms.

[Warpy]

19. No, they just facilitate bad guys being bad, they make it easier if you need a translation.

and the only way to counteract any bad guy with a gun jumping out at you is to have your own drawn, safety off, finger on the trigger, and already pointed in his direction, something that is frowned upon for people walking around.

I know that hunk of junk makes owners feel all powerful, but it's an inanimate object that is more likely to get them killed if they try to pull it on any bad guy with a gun.

[GGJohn]

20. And they help honest law abiding citizens fend off attacks.

the only way to counteract any bad guy with a gun jumping out at you is to have your own drawn, safety off, finger on the trigger, and already pointed in his direction

Absolute bullshit, there are many, many instances of armed criminals being taken down by armed citizens, even with a gun pointed at them at the time.

Try google, there are plenty of youtube videos that will back up my statement.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

89. Alcohol is a factor in nearly 70% of sexual assaults.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. Guns are used in less than 5% of sexual assaults.

[Android3.14]

2. The voices in your head, perhaps?

See this on DU often, hmm?
Let's see two instances of someone saying they are "OK With Some Sexual Assaults Occurring"

[stone space]

4. If two examples don't pop up in this very thread, I'll consider the thread a success.

[GGJohn]

5. So you can't provide 2 examples?

You said that it's popping up all the time on DU, surely you can provide a couple of examples?

[stone space]

7. Patience is a virtue.

But who knows?

Maybe we won't see it here any more.



I'm cool with that. How about you?

[Duckhunter935]

9. "Maybe we won't see it here any more."

Fine with me but you said it was so common and yet you fail to provide any evidence of that fact.

Makes you kind of wonder.

[GGJohn]

10. Yup, just as I thought, when pressed, you retreat. LOL.

[Duckhunter935]

12. normal

next will be the subject changes, name calling, insults and sexual references

[stone space]

46. #43 and #41

you can't provide 2 examples?

You said that it's popping up all the time on DU, surely you can provide a couple of examples?

All it takes is a little patience.

In this forum, you don't have to go looking for NRA talking points.

In this forum, the NRA talking points come to you.

That's how common they are.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. Why are you so scared to prove the NRA wrong?

[stone space]

50. If I want to argue with the NRA, I'll go...

...to the NRA's website, not to a website called the Democratic Underground.

Why are you so scared to prove the NRA wrong?

[Duckhunter935]

61. That's not what was asked

but that's OK

[stone space]

68. What was asked is what is often asked here in this forum.

"What is your response to the latest NRA talking point?"


It's just the same question, over and over.

[Duckhunter935]

71. But no one has produced those talking points

You must have seen them then, right?

[stone space]

72. Do you live in a parallel universe? (nt)

[Duckhunter935]

81. Nope

[Nuclear Unicorn]

79. "The NRA is wrong about me because I absolutely affirm a woman's right to self-defense!"

Said no grabber in this thread.

[Duckhunter935]

53. Where are these talking points?

I have been looking for a long time.

[Android3.14]

85. Not examples

They didn't say they were okay with some rapes. Come on, kid, be brave and apologize for making a stupid strawman argument or find actual examples.

Otherwise, you have zero credibility.

[GGJohn]

133. Uhhh, no, NU isn't doing what you claim.

But nice try there Sparky.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

56. Go look up

Nuclear Unicorn's comment list. (Or some similar handle, uses an anarchy symbol as an avatar).

[Android3.14]

84. Shouldn't you be directing that to stone space?

He's the one making the outrageous claims of people on DU "often" stating they are "OK With Some Sexual Assaults Occurring". It's his ignorant strawman OP to defend.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

87. I don't know, I occasionally have trouble with the nesting of comments.

I was suggesting it (or so I thought) to whoever was asking for examples of people who say that people who are against guns on campus are fine with rapes happening.

[Android3.14]

90. Then you directed it to me, but it is actually stone space's responsibility

The burden of proof is on stone space, for it was he or she who made the unsubstantiated claim that people on DU "often" say they are "OK With Some Sexual Assaults Occurring".

It's an idiotic claim (note I am calling the claim idiotic, not stone space).

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. A lot of people are complaining, "OMG! The Other Group said we said X!"

If X is false than people have every right to complain because the Other Group would be slandering them.

However, if people do in fact say, "X" the the problem isn't with the Other Group saying it so much as it is the people are embarrassed by what they normally say. If it's so embarrassing it makes you wonder why people insist on saying it.

Fortunately, the remedy is easy enough to affect. One merely need to state non-X to show the Other Group is engaging in slander.

An analogy would be: Imagine a group is accused of trying to suppress voting rights. The Progressive Group makes public statements to that effect. The would-be suppressors cry out, "Those Progressives are saying we're trying to suppress voting rights!"

So, the Progressives turn to their opposite numbers ad say, "Then, perhaps, you can affirm for us the right of all people to vote freely and openly."

Yet, in spite of repeated opportunities to affirm voting rights all those accused of suppressing votes can do is offer complaints that they're being painted as vote suppressors.

Otherwise disinterested on-lookers might begin to think the accusation does bear some resemblance to the truth.

[Fred Sanders]

3. An extension of the "women without guns is liberals wanting to kill women" NRA foaming mouthed idiocy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. Said the group that claims those who exercise their rights are responsible for Sandy Hook.

Tell us, do you support a woman's right to defend herself against a rapist?

[stone space]

51. OK, #43, #41, and #42. (nt)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. I notice you ca't actually refute the claim.

C'mon, dude; this is an easy lay-up shot. It's a gimme for you. You have multiple ways of proving the NRA is full of baloney. All you have to do is say --

A) There is no rape crisis. Carrying a gun as protection against sexual assault is a solution without a problem.

B) Okay, maybe rape is an issue but the police are there in a moment's notice so there's no need to carry a gun.

C) Okay, so there is a problem with sexual assault and the police aren't always there to intervene as most violent rapists are serial offenders but if it comes down to it a woman has an inherent right to defend herself.


Look at that. I provided 3 ways for you to argue the NRA is wrong.

[stone space]

82. Take your NRA talking points elsewhere.

You are on the wrong website for that.

Try the NRA's website.

That's where NRA shills belong, not here at DU.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

86. Sexual assault is an act that seeks control over others who are seen as having a lesser status.

It's a way for the attacker to assert power and/or keep others subjugated.

[friendly_iconoclast]

91. Chanting "NRA talking point(s)" is neither a refutation nor a saving throw

It's as true today as it was years ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=75521

[GGJohn]

134. And when were you appointed the arbitar of DU?

I don't remember that happening.

[friendly_iconoclast]

136. GC&RKBA tends to attract people that *think* they're arbiters of DU

They can't get the sort of gun control they want in the real world, so they take out their
frustrations here. They generally last only a year or so once they start declaring other DUers
anathema and demanding the admins ban people for the crime of disagreeing with them
("them" being the self-appointed zampolit, not the admins)

[Electric Monk]

137. GC&RKBA also tends to attract gun lovers who, when they venture into other forums, get banned.

Yesterday, after cleaning out the PPRd from the GCRA blocked list, out of curiosity I spent about an hour perusing pages 21-30 of the GC&RKBA group, and boy did I ever find a lot of former accounts.

I posted about it here http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628369#post4

but I'll copy paste into this thread as well, for simplicity sake.

Shall we play a quick game of guess how many zombies came back yet again?

Out of curiousity, I did a quick look through the gungeon archives from p21 to p30

(in no particular order, found by searching pro-gun poster profiles, except for a few I remembered by name at the top of the list)


Slackmaster
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=124430&sub=trans

AnotherMcIntosh
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=278444&sub=trans

TPaine7
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=218832&sub=trans

Clames
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=280262&sub=trans

holdencaufield
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=171399&sub=trans
Aside from the avalanche of NRA talking points, holdencaufield seems borderline aroused by armed insurrection fantasies. - EarlG

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

av8r1998
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=300629&sub=trans

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

bubbayugga
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=298772&sub=trans

raidert05
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=299549&sub=trans

JohnnyBoots
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=167048&sub=trans

Remmah2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=239166&sub=trans

iiibbb
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=159021&sub=trans

OneTenthofOnePercent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=241643&sub=trans

Dr_Scholl
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=267749&sub=trans

raidert05
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=299549&sub=trans

SayWut
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=299515&sub=trans

invader zim
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=177459&sub=trans

DWC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=252442&sub=trans

markgee
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=301368&sub=trans

guardian
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=169095&sub=trans

GRENADE
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=301501&sub=trans

Trunk Monkey
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=285363&sub=trans

CobblePuller
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302693&sub=trans

xoom
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=270103&sub=trans

Prog_gun_owner
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=299919&sub=trans

Homerj1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=214424&sub=trans

fredzachmane
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302260&sub=trans

hansberrym
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=130853&sub=trans

DemDealer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=298824&sub=trans

coljam
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=215393&sub=trans

TheFutureWillCome
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=303869&sub=trans

BigAlanMac
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=288268&sub=trans

Twofish
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=304849&sub=trans


And I'm sure this list is by no means comprehensive. It's just a quick sample.

[friendly_iconoclast]

138. "(O)ut of curiosity I spent about an hour perusing pages 21-30 of the GC&RKBA group"

How kind of you to spend your valuable time surveying old GC&RKBA posts in a undoubtedly
high-minded and purely disinterested effort to better DU as a whole.

Hmm, what was it I was saying about would-be DU arbiters?
I'd also remind you that "host burnout" is not an unknown event at GCRA...

I could say something snarky here about having an excessive interest
in others' affairs...but I won't. Instead, I'd point out that this is one of the busiest groups at DU,
and we do get trolls from outside.

There's not much doubt you knew about the trolling already, as it was pointed out in a thread you yourself started:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172158158

[DonP]

150. Perhaps a little introspection?

Maybe a little navel gazing is in order, on why the three original "hell for leather - everybody agrees with us" hosts and eager participants of Castle Bansalot faded into invisibility and obscurity?

One after the other they just burned out and went away.

Might be time better spent than giving a detailed and loving proctoscopic examination to the past residents of a forum inhabited with those evil "gun humpers"?

In the meantime, with that "tide turning" thing and all, at least 3 more states are about to pass constitutional carry, several others are loosening their concealed carry laws and a bunch of Congressional House Dems have signed a letter protesting the proposed M855 ammo ban by BATFE.

Obviously those pro gun DINOs from those Red States will have to go in the next election because they can't pass the grabber purity test, right?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

139. Controlling AND obsessive.

Totally not creepy.

[Duckhunter935]

142. Isn't that the truth

Kind of wants to be the host of all DU

[DonP]

151. Not the first one that thought they were in charge

My favorites were the arrogant ones that kept "demanding" that Skinner close the Gungeon and ranting in Mega.

Right up until he TS'd them and dumped the Mega carbuncle.

[petronius]

8. Sounds like the same sort of flawed logic that leads to ad hominems along the lines of

'gun owners who fail to support XYZ Gun Control Proposal are OK with (or in favor of or in support of) some number of murders (or other violent crimes/criminals).'

(For my part, I have no objection to allowing otherwise-qualified CCW holders to carry on campus as they do off-campus, and see no reason to treat public campus spaces any differently than public spaces elsewhere.)

[Duckhunter935]

11. where is this great list of NRA talking points?

They must be posted somewhere, right?

[malokvale77]

13. It is getting a little tiresome.

It is not so much that I disagree with 2A, as I have to wonder about the sanity of those who would forgo all the others for that one.

But what the hell do I know?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. Isn't that like claiming gays are a little too spun up over marriage equality?

And, no, it isn't just the RKBA. Where controllers are concerned one must also guard against censorship, denial of due process, unreasonable search and seizure and a glib -- almost sociopathic -- desire to turn the military on the citizenry.

[stone space]

54. WTF??? Marriage is not a deadly weapon.

Isn't that like claiming gays are a little too spun up over marriage equality?

This is offensive in the extreme.

Stop comparing deadly weapons with living, breathing, human beings.

This is DU, not some right wing homophobic cesspool.

[Duckhunter935]

62. it's about rights

and even us as firearms owners and democrats are allowed to voice our opinion. Post in the other group if you want debate censored.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

77. To those who oppose marriage equality it means the end of civilization.

The lesson here is: Just because someone possesses an irrational fear doesn't mean they get to impose their phobias as a law upon others, especially if it entails abrogating basic human rights.

[hack89]

14. It's a stupid argument

it is like saying that opposition to draconian gun control means you support the murder of little kids.

Not that we have seen that particular argument here.

[blueridge3210]

16. Except from the odd "Glib, Sociopathic gun controller". (nt)

Last edited Wed Mar 4, 2015, 11:14 AM - Edit history (1)

[NYC_SKP]

21. I don't believe that point has ever been made by a DU member on DU.

Could it be that you're thinking of a different board or site?

[Electric Monk]

22. Wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026248156

Took me under a minute to find with google.

[NYC_SKP]

23. Well, not surprisingly, you are incorrect. That is not a DU member making that point.

That is a DU member reporting a NY Times article that discusses the new silly point.

And I believe that member is not a big proponent of the RKBA.

Keep Googling, it will probably take quite a while to find an example of a DU member expressing agreement with that POV, the one that the OP says is a frequently seen NRA talking point.

I'll be here all week. Good luck.

[GGJohn]

25. EM being wrong? Say it ain't so.

[Electric Monk]

26. No, in that thread Nuclear Unicorn is all about that NRA talking point

Paraphrasing, sure, but basically making the same point, that if you're against guns on campus, you're pro-rape.

[NYC_SKP]

30. They never say "if you're against guns then you're pro-rape"... That's an enormous stretch.

They simply say that preventing the ability for women to be armed could result in more victims.

That's nothing like saying that people who oppose guns are pro-rape. That's just silly and it's not been said in that thread.

Here are NU's replies:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026248156#post9
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026248156#post14
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026248156#post19
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026248156#post45
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026248156#post27
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026248156#post30
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026248156#post35
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026248156#post15
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026248156#post46

I simply don't see that sentiment expressed in any of the replies.

[Electric Monk]

31. And here's Nuclear Unicorn, yet again, different thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026258092#post2 and the sub-thread

[GGJohn]

32. Again, you're wrong.

What a surprise!!!!

[Electric Monk]

34. You're not seeing it because you don't want to. nt

[GGJohn]

35. And you're seeing it because you want to.

See how that works?

[Electric Monk]

36. Maybe Nuclear Unicorn would care to jump in and clarify their position. Seems pretty clear to me. nt

[GGJohn]

37. Of course it seems pretty clear to you, because that's what you want to see.

Again, see how that works?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. Okay.

Do you support a woman's right to defend herself against sexual assault?

[Electric Monk]

93. and if I don't support concealed carry on campus, I'm pro-rape. That's the corollary, right? nt

[NYC_SKP]

95. Do you support the right of a woman to choose to protect herself, provided training and permit?

Or do you support a blanket "No You Don't Under Any Circumstances" anti-firearms policy?

It's really that simple.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

97. Maybe not pro-rape but certainly anti-common sense.

It'd be silly to pretend sexual assaults don't happen on-campus. So, if you support the right to self-defense off-campus it makes no sense to claim an exception on-campus as if on-campus sexual assault is not an issue.

You do support self-defense against sexual assault off-campus, don't you?

[Electric Monk]

98. Thank you both for making stone space's point for him, and making GGJohn's denial look stupid. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

99. What point would that be? I also note that you'ved dodged yet another question...

You do support self-defense against sexual assault off-campus, don't you?

Your sort are rapidly approaching a level of forthrightness and credibility seen elsewhere only amongst adherents and spokespeople of a certain moneymaking pseudo-religion invented by a hack pulp
science fiction writer...

[Duckhunter935]

101. that poster in question

does seem to have a problem answering simple questions.

He had to run to Skinner as he had a sad that I could still post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12597631

He even convinced me to stay with DU so I can point out the insults.

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. They seem to spend more time 'policing' this group than tending their own

They seem a little put out that they can't banish us to some sort of Internet gulag.

Such are the troubles of the self-appointed zampolit...

[Duckhunter935]

106. there is not much to tend to over there

can't get any fewer posters or it would be completely dead

[Electric Monk]

108. Fewer zombies, I'd wager

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628369#post4

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. But *lots* more banned posters...

[DonP]

110. When you only have 3 sheep in the whole flock you have time on your hands

He seems to run to ATA on a regular basis to snitch to "Mom and Dad".

The pattern is usually; First, complain about the paid NRA shills here. Second, pick one or two to focus on and demand that MIRT look into having them banned. Third, when they don't get banned demand that Skinner close the Gungeon entirely as a hotbed of ReichWing thinking and anyone that participates here be banned for life.

By then Skinner seems to understandably get tired of the whining and slaps them on the wrist. That's if they haven't already pissed off another forum or two before they get to the third step.

In another month or so Bansalot will go back to being the intellectual desert it was before and the current 3 participants will drift away again.

[friendly_iconoclast]

112. I think they've realized the other group is something of a...

...call it "an area where a identifiable minority group is forced to or chooses to dwell", and
are not a bit happy about it

[Electric Monk]

114. This subthread is a perfect example of why GCRA should exist, to keep your type of disruptor out. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. Perhaps you should consider spending more time there

I even have a topic you might put out for discussion:

"If 90% of Americans agree with us, why is this place slower than molasses
flowing uphill in January?"

[Electric Monk]

119. I have the answer to that question already

right here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=158158

[friendly_iconoclast]

121. Second-hand amateur psychoanalysis to go along with heavy-handed political policing?

I can see why GCRA is the way it is...

[Electric Monk]

113. Now you're just making shit up about me. Back it up or stfu. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

116. If I may...the search function is not your friend in this case:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1259&page=9&sort=author

[Electric Monk]

117. This proves that I've posted a couple bug reports and asked some legitimate questions. So? nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

120. Many, if not most, of those questions concern a group that you do not host (this one)...

...and/or posters that are banned from the group that you *do* host (GCRA)

I note that you've made quite a business here lately proclaiming that GCRA is yours to
run, yet your latest missive concerns GC&RKBA and a poster who is banned at GCRA

That very much counts as "minding others' business for them"...

[Electric Monk]

122. You forget about the GC part of GC&RKBA. DU doesn't have an RKBA only group for your kind.

The gungeon is for all who wish to discuss gun related things, from both sides. GCRA is for those who accept its SOP about gun related things. Would you like me to draw you a Venn diagram?

[friendly_iconoclast]

126. "(Y)our kind"? Just what kind would that be?

The kind that doesn't accept that your diktats about gun control are axiomatic?

DU has long been known for having posters that have decided that whatever gun control
measures *they* want are reasonable and common-sense, at the same time declaring that those who don't agree with them don't want any gun control.

[Duckhunter935]

128. wow, might want to calm down

You seem to be having an issue with the posters here. Take a break from this group. We like open discussion but we do not want people to get too stressed out trying to defend the indefensible.

Easy fix is to go back over to your "safe haven" and police the two or three posters.

I know you will not answer simple questions put to you from multiple posters, but I have yet to get a response to my PM back from you either asking you a simple question. Are you ashamed to take responsibility for your actions? I hope you are not as I really think down deep, you are better than that. You just do not want it in the public discussion. I give you my word it will not be spoken about in any group or forum.

[friendly_iconoclast]

129. Posters that spend that much energy attempting to 'police' DU tend not to end up well

I've seen more than one flameout in my time here

[Nuclear Unicorn]

100. As I noted elsewhere --

A lot of people are complaining, "OMG! The Other Group said we said X!"

If X is false than people have every right to complain because the Other Group would be slandering them.

However, if people do in fact say, "X" the problem isn't with the Other Group saying it so much as it is the people are embarrassed by what they normally say. If it's so embarrassing it makes you wonder why people insist on saying it.

Fortunately, the remedy is easy enough to affect. One merely need to state non-X to show the Other Group is engaging in slander.

An analogy would be: Imagine a group is accused of trying to suppress voting rights. The Progressive Group makes public statements to that effect. The would-be suppressors cry out, "Those Progressives are saying we're trying to suppress voting rights!"

So, the Progressives turn to their opposite numbers ad say, "Then, perhaps, you can affirm for us the right of all people to vote freely and openly."

Yet, in spite of repeated opportunities to affirm voting rights all those accused of suppressing votes can do is offer complaints that they're being painted as vote suppressors.

Otherwise disinterested on-lookers might begin to think the accusation does bear some resemblance to the truth

[GGJohn]

135. The only looking stupid here is your continued insistence that NU

has made NRA talking points like the OP falsely claims.

[GGJohn]

33. So far there Sparky,

you're 0 for 3, or is it 0 for ......................?

[Duckhunter935]

104. Look

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12597631



I guess he wants to censor me

[beevul]

123. Its unbelievable how they can say anything they like, but you get a hide for quoting them.

Unbelievable.

[Duckhunter935]

125. some are more equal than others I guess.

[beevul]

127. Preserved in the "Just looking for input" thread.

They can hide it, but they can't run from it.

[sarisataka]

130. My last hidden post was the same

in commenting on the vile insults and grave dancing directed at a victim of gun violence (who happened to be a gun owner) I made the mistake of quoting some of the insults- with references.

Yet I was the one who was insensitive

Oh well,

[Duckhunter935]

131. I like the one I had hidden for posting

a youtube video to properly answer a question over an advertisement.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=151959

[stone space]

141. I like the one I had locked on the aniversary of John Lennon's assassination.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172156873

[Duckhunter935]

143. well it did not meet the SOP

Locked is quite different than hidden as you know.

[stone space]

145. Nothing to do with gunz, huh?

well it did not meet the SOP

Let them delete my post just above, then.

[Duckhunter935]

146. That was an original post

unlike the ones in the subthread. I expect you know that since you were the author.

Here is the SOP for this group.

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.

The host of this group that locks very few posts decided it did not meet the SOP for the group. Did you PM him?

[stone space]

147. "and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence"

Sounds like a reference to John Lennon's assassination to me.

[Duckhunter935]

148. did you communicate with the host?

[stone space]

149. Right here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172156936

That was snuffed out just like the John Lennon thread.

[Duckhunter935]

152. Yep and if you read the SOP it says discuss

I bet if you took ten seconds to post your thoughts on how gun control measures would have helped it would not have been locked. You just posted a music video in The John Lennon thread.

and the host did reply to you and you seem to not have linked to that part. Let me help you out.

Aside from the fact that John Lennon was killed 34 years ago (as opposed to a more recent event), there are other places to do this. DU has several Groups and Forums where memorial threads for people can be held. The specific proper location depends on the life of the person being memorialized, of course. But a memorial thread to John Lennon would have been quite appropriate in The Lounge and/or Music Appreciation.

If one was to put the murder of John Lennon in the context of gun control, then the murder and its circumstances could be discusses. Given the long time frame and the massive regulatory changes since 1980, I don't see how his death could serve as an example of need for any particular form of gun-control, but I leave it to the membership to exercise its collective imagination.



Regarding the Newtown shootings, I suspect there will be several memorial threads in GD and Politics 2014 for you to join.



Memorial threads are, by definition, the celebration and commemoration of a person's life and accomplishments. The SoP of this Group (as well as nearly all other DU Groups) are sufficiently narrow to exclude memorial threads.

-Krispos42, Group Host

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172156936#post121

[stone space]

153. The discussion got snuffed out. (nt)

[Duckhunter935]

154. no, just in this group it violates the SOP.

You are free to post in the other places suggested by the group host.

But a memorial thread to John Lennon would have been quite appropriate in The Lounge and/or Music Appreciation.

Did you post in those places? Why not if you did not and felt the need?

The host also suggested the following

If one was to put the murder of John Lennon in the context of gun control, then the murder and its circumstances could be discussed.

You chose not to start a new thread using that advise so I guess it must not have been hot enough for you to bother and follow the hosts advice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172156936

You know if you can take ten seconds to add your thoughts to one of the drive by posts, it will meet the group SOP and you can have all of the threads you want here.

[stone space]

155. Host was likely embaressed by the first two comments blaming the victim. (nt)

[Duckhunter935]

156. I highly doubt it

Maybe Krispos42 will answer but my guess is it just violated the SOP like he said.

[stone space]

157. The discussion was snuffed out...

..before anybody had a chance to counter the victim blaming.

[Duckhunter935]

163. did you post it anywhere else?

[blueridge3210]

158. "Blaming the victim"?

I see no one blaming the victim; I see some poster's attempting to actually engage in a discussion, which your OP failed to do.

The OP was, therefore, locked for violating the group SOP as you could not muster up enough interest to make any comment other than posting the video. You then posted a "whine-fest" OP complaining about the first OP being locked instead of sending a PM to the Host; the "whine-fest" was also, correctly, locked for being off-topic. You're not the victim here.

[stone space]

159. John Lennon was the victim.

You're not the victim here.

And he got blamed for his own assassination.

[blueridge3210]

160. No, he didn't. (nt)

[stone space]

162. Not in your make-believe world. (nt)

[blueridge3210]

164. Not in any world. (nt)

[Duckhunter935]

161. can't take the time to post a few comments

to prevent posts being locked for not meeting the SOP.

Shows once again how motivated the controller side is and they need a billionaire to fund the astroturf "gun safety" campaigns.

While the RKBA side is motivated and at the minimum comments, researches and provides factual rebuttals. Just look how extremely busy that other group is.


like watching paint dry over there

[GGJohn]

24. Link to the specific post claiming that plz. eom.

[Electric Monk]

28. Here's Nuclear Unicorn again, different thread, making the same argument

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=162458

that if you're anti-guns-on-campus, you're pro-rape.

[GGJohn]

29. Ummm, not even close.

Only in your mind is this even close to what the OP is claiming.

[GGJohn]

27. ...

Why do I hear this new NRA Talking Point here on DU so often?

Except you don't.

[ManiacJoe]

38. It would seem that neither side really understand the proposal.

Concealed carry on campus is not about arming the students. It is about letting the staff and faculty carry.

Concealed carry requires one to be 21 years old. For the traditional students, only half of the senior class meets that requirement.

[stone space]

39. Faculty?

News of an Idaho State University associate professor shooting himself in the foot has gone national.

The Tuesday incident must have been embarrassing for the chemistry prof. It happened in the middle of a classroom full of students while he was giving a lecture.

The good news is that the wound to the professor’s foot was minor and he was treated and released that day at Portneuf Medical Center. It’s also extremely fortunate for both the professor and the university that no one else was injured.


But it’s concerning this incident happened during the second week of fall classes at ISU — the first semester in which some students and faculty can carry guns on campus.


It’s fruitless to debate the merits of Idaho’s new guns on campus policy. Those arguments for and against were held during past sessions of the Idaho Legislature. And despite pleas from the police and university administrators and faculty, state lawmakers gave the green light to make it legal to bring a gun onto the campus of any Idaho college or university as long as the gun owner has an enhanced concealed carry permit.


The professor who shot himself this past week at ISU had such a permit along with the associated training.


Still, he had the gun in his pocket where it somehow fired during class.

http://www.idahostatejournal.com/members/campus-accident-brings-gun-focus/article_2385575a-358a-11e4-9363-0019bb2963f4.html

[Straw Man]

40. If idiots invalidated concepts, ...

.... no one would be allowed to drive.

[stone space]

49. The Gun Goons forced their guns onto Idaho State University...

...and couldn't even make it two weeks into the first semester before this happened.

[Straw Man]

57. So ...

The Gun Goons forced their guns onto Idaho State University...

...and couldn't even make it two weeks into the first semester before this happened.

... you're claiming that this couldn't have happened anywhere else? What's the difference between an accident that happens on a university campus and one that happens somewhere else?

[Duckhunter935]

64. the question is was he forced to carry?

No and we all know that to be true.

[DonP]

83. Well, he is faculty and everyone knows they are dumb as shit

Pocket carry without a holster that's pretty stupid on its own.

Can't be trusted with sharp objects either I bet.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. And you, of course, have said you would have a student arrested even if it were legal.

I guess that means you would be calling this guy --

[stone space]

52. I would not allow that in my calculus classroom.

Now, you tell me why you think that was safe.

[Lurks Often]

58. That's hilarious

Exactly how are you going to prevent a law enforcement officer from coming into your classroom if he wants to come in? Answer: You'll do nothing or risk getting dragged away in handcuffs for interfering with a law enforcement officer or some other convenient catch all charge.

And yes, the DEA guy is an idiot for violating basic safety rules

[stone space]

59. I do not allow gunz in my calculus classroom.

You'll do nothing or risk getting dragged away in handcuffs for interfering with a law enforcement officer or some other convenient catch all charge.

All you got is threats and bullying.

You think I'm going to allow myself to be bullied into allowing gunz into my calculus classroom?

Think again.

Now, tell me why you think that was safe, and why you want faculty to be threatened and bullied into allowing gunz into our classrooms.

[Lurks Often]

60. You have repeatedly failed to explain how you will prevent guns in your classroom

IF the law is changed or if law enforcement chooses to come into your class room.

So will you provide an explanation as how you intend to prevent the above from happening or are you just making noise?


And I did not threaten or bully you, I explained to you what would happen if you interfered with a law enforcement officer.

[stone space]

63. I do not allow gunz in my calculus classroom.

It's that simple.

[Duckhunter935]

65. I will ask one more time as you fail to answer a simple question

if it was legal and the weapon was properly concealed, how would you know to kick them out or fail them?

Simple question you seem to have a problem with an answer.

[Lurks Often]

66. Ok then

I think your grasp on what will happen if the law is changed or a LEO chooses to come into your classroom is lacking a basis in reality, but I'll stop wasting our time asking for a detailed explanation on how you plan on making that happen.

[stone space]

67. I think that you don't grasp the idiocy of what took place in that video.

And why I would not allow it to happen in my calculus classroom.

[Lurks Often]

69. I've seen the video, the DEA guy is an idiot

for violating basic safety rules.

What I think you don't seem to grasp that if the law is changed or a LEO chooses to come into your classroom, you will have no legal standing to prevent it.

[stone space]

70. So let me get this straight.

What I think you don't seem to grasp that if the law is changed or a LEO chooses to come into your classroom, you will have no legal standing to prevent it.

You want idiots like that to bring their gunz into my calculus classroom by force of arms?

And you seriously expect me to allow it, when that video (not even posted by me) shows just how stupid an idea it really is?

[Lurks Often]

74. You keep missing the point, it doesn't matter what you say, think or believe.

If the law changes to allow firearms on campus or a LEO comes in your classroom, you have NO LEGAL STANDING to prevent it.

Just as it doesn't matter what I think of the laws that prevent me from carrying certain places, I may think them silly or unnecessary, but I am required to obey the law or suffer the consequences laid out under state or Federal law.

[Straw Man]

124. Straight.

You want idiots like that to bring their gunz into my calculus classroom by force of arms?

Nope: force of law.

And you seriously expect me to allow it, when that video (not even posted by me) shows just how stupid an idea it really is?

That particular idiot was a law enforcement officer who was giving a demonstration to a classroom full of kids. In so doing, he violated one of the cardinal rules of firearms instruction, which is that there is to be no live ammunition in the classroom. Actually, that's an NRA protocol -- I suspect that he as a law enforcement officer either was not aware of it or felt that it should not apply to him. He was wrong.

There is no excuse for handling a loaded firearm in a crowded place. Well-trained people don't do it.

[stone space]

75. I do not allow gunz in my calculus classroom. (nt)

[Hangingon]

73. I,me,mine and my

I;ll bet your university thinks it is "their" classroom

[stone space]

76. Labor counts for something in education.

Yes, when I'm the instructor, it's my calculus classroom.

[Straw Man]

103. So ...

Labor counts for something in education.

Yes, when I'm the instructor, it's my calculus classroom.

... how do you think the university would feel about you violating the law in "your" classroom? And if you violated the law and the university took you to task, do you think your union would support you? I don't.

[Duckhunter935]

107. well it is his classroom

I guess in his mind, the university has no control over it.

[beevul]

165. LOL.

[DonP]

111. FWIW, State University, it's the taxpayers classroom N/T

[Nuclear Unicorn]

80. Weren't you just complaining about bullies?

I think you were.

[friendly_iconoclast]

92. Repetition is not refutation, nor is it an answer to the question you were asked

Last edited Wed Mar 4, 2015, 03:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Added on edit: Unlike certain other posters, I recognize that proper spelling is important...

[ileus]

166. How about guns?

[ManiacJoe]

132. Sorry I missed the "responses".

No need to pile-on now...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. So prove the NRA wrong. Tell us you support a woman's right to defend herself against a rapist

[ileus]

44. You don't...

I would say instead of being "pro-rape" they're misguided in thinking that a whistle is the better weapon against rape.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

55. Which is why we need 0 mph speed limits on highways.

Unless you remove the speed component of driving, there will always be 'some accidents'. So anyone who thinks we need continue to have speed limits of 55, 65, or even higher amounts is clearly 'ok with some number of traffic accidents'.

But more realistically, adding guns to college campuses will increase the number of shootings on campus. In fact, you'll probably end up with more dead students than you do 'rapes prevented' by guns.

So people who want guns on campus are 'ok with some negligent homicides on campus'.

[NYC_SKP]

94. I'm OK with a woman's right to choose.

To choose to protect herself as she sees fit, provided she is well trained and legally armed.

I am vehemently opposed to any law that prevents her from having the ability to choose that form of protection.

Your argument is specious, you seem to think that allowing any gun means allowing every gun, and that's silly.

[Duckhunter935]

102. I am too

unlike some posters

[friendly_iconoclast]

115. Me three. None of that 'equality, except for *those* people', thank you very much

[ileus]

140. So we never did get any real examples of "NRA talking points" go figure...

[Duckhunter935]

144. they have been asked over the years

and still have not come up with that list of mythical NRA talking points.

Am I surprised they do not again, NO

[Nuclear Unicorn]

170. C'mon, man. It's Media Matters.

If you can't trust someone whose armed bodyguards violated gun control laws to supply pro-gun control talking points who can you trust?

[Neon Gods]

167. Stone Space:

Your problem here is that in your post you made a remark you couldn't support: "Why do I hear this NRA talking point on DU so often?" and immediately the sharks took you off your real point, that the NRA talking point, "opponents of guns on campus are OK with some sexual assaults occurring when they could be prevented." is stupid, or disingenuous at best. Pro-gunners often reply to examples of concealed carry gunners shooting some innocent to death by saying the percentage of concealed carry gun owners who go rogue like that is very small. So in essence they are saying they are okay with some shooting deaths. (In fact neither side is "okay" with sexual assaults or innocent people being shot to death.)

Pro-gunners are very good at changing the subject, getting us off point, and making untrue assumptions, like self defense requires a firearm.

[Straw Man]

168. Sharks?

The "sharks"? Really? What does that make you? The Jets?

(In fact neither side is "okay" with sexual assaults or innocent people being shot to death.)

Bingo.

Pro-gunners are very good at changing the subject, getting us off point, and making untrue assumptions, like self defense requires a firearm.

Please show me where anybody has said that firearms are the only means of self-defense. They aren't. They are, however, the most effective.

[Neon Gods]

172. "Please show me where anybody has said that firearms are the only means of self-defense."

I'm not going to go through the posts to find examples, but when someone says people can't be denied the right to own a firearm because self-defense is a God-given right, how do you interpret that statement? I read that all the time (not necessarily here), and I'm pretty sure you do too.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

175. "how do you interpret that statement?"

I interpret that statement as it is made: People have a God-given right to self-defense and a gun is one of the most effective means for doing so. If a people can defend themselves by bashing in an attacker's head with a tire iron I'd say, "Go for it." But tire irons are cumbersome and hard to carry.

I'm not going to go through the posts to find examples

Kinda hypocritical for the guy who just wrote he wanted links to examples of defensive gun uses. You snark to me you want 10,000 examples yet you lack the fortitude to find 1 example to support your case; relying, instead, on your subjective biases.

[Straw Man]

180. Interpretation

I'm not going to go through the posts to find examples, but when someone says people can't be denied the right to own a firearm because self-defense is a God-given right, how do you interpret that statement?

Not going to do the work necessary to support your contention? Got it.

I interpret that to mean that depriving people of the most effective means of self-defense is unjust and regressive.

Let's skip the pretense that there is no slippery slope. There was a movement in the UK to ban pointy knives:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

A weapon that cannot be used offensively can't be used defensively either. Where does it stop?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

169. "So in essence they are saying they are okay with some shooting deaths."

So in essence you're okay with drunk driving deaths.

So in essence you're okay with alcohol fueled domestic violence.

So in essence you're okay with people being bludgeoned to death with baseball bats.

So in essence you're okay with everyone who ever defensively used a gun being turned into a victim.

You must be because that is your rule. Whatever causes harm should be banned and any who oppose the ban will be blamed for subsequent harm even if they have no personal culpability. We already know the harm done by alcohol. Yet, you aren't working towards reinstating Prohibition. Baseball bats kill more people annually than do rifles but you want rifles taken away while you leave the deadlier threat undisturbed. If we're to be held responsible for what happens when people do own guns then by your rules you should be held responsible for what happens when people are denied the right to defend themselves. That means we're responsible for 12,000 homicides and negligent discharges but you will be responsible for 700,000 defensive gun uses that are prevented.

Your rules.

[Neon Gods]

171. Whoa. I think you missed my point

I wasn't writing something I believe, I was showing how silly the NRA's claim was.

And while we're at it, would you please provide me a list of 700,000 defensive gun uses (wasn't it 2.5 million?). No, not every one, but at least say 20,000 or even 10,000 of them. If they are real, don't you think researchers could at least show documentation for 7,000 (1%) of them?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

173. "I wasn't writing something I believe, I was showing how silly the NRA's claim was."

Instead of asking for 10,000 hyperlinks -- a claim everyone knows you made only because its logistically untenable those giving you a way to weasel out -- why don't you explain what you actually mean.

Last time I checked gun owners ARE supposed to submit to onerous taxes, laws, regulations and fees because the controllers insist they be held responsible for every suicide, crime and negligent discharge. So "in essence" that is exactly what is going on with controllers.

But please feel free to explain how your proposed gun control will 1) reduce violent crime and suicides and 2) not penalize or unduly impact those who have a right to defend themselves

In the meantime, because I'm such a giver --

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

The CDC has those reports you're looking for. Do let us know what you find there.

[Neon Gods]

176. "...a claim everyone knows you made only because its logistically untenable..."

Yeah, everyone knows.

Okay, so DonP below tells me to Google "Armed Citizen" and I will find what I'm looking for, but knows I won't. But I did and guess what, I found examples for about 5-10 incidents a month. That would work out to be 120 a year, plus or minus. Obviously a majority of defensive uses are never reported, and not every DU that is reported will make it onto gunner websites, but you claim 700,000 and I'm seeing 120.

The Slate article claims the CDC examined numerous surveys, but correct me if I'm wrong, but these surveys are based on answers provided by gun owners, right? Based on their recollections. I'm assuming none of the surveys tried to validate the claims of the DU claims made by gun owners, whom - let face it - have a vested interest in claiming DUs, and we know from the Emily Miller story that gun owners are human and sometimes, um, spin the truth. The point is, if our positions were reversed, you would almost certainly refuse to accept my numbers. I'm not being contrary, I'm just very skeptical of the self-reported numbers because in talking to friends, co-workers, and relatives, none has ever been attacked or needed a firearm for protection at any time in their life.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

178. Then if we cannot come to terms as to what qualifies as a DGU there is no point in

arguing that the number of DGUs is insufficient. The 1st Amendment was established to guard against censorship. The lack of anti-censorship lawsuits doesn't invalidate the purpose of the 1A.

Let's take your hypothetical 120.

How many of them should be denied their right to defend themselves?

Of course, the controllers are still wringing out the bodies from Sandy Hook for every drop of bloody propaganda they can get out of it. Yet, the number of people dying in Sandy Hook like rampages is less than 120.

It's not about numbers. It's about rights. People have the right to effective self-defense. Other people have no right to deprive people of rights based on irrational fears and a psychological need to control.

You may not like that fact but the sooner you learn to accept it (and the fact people will refuse to relinquish their rights) the sooner you can move on in your life and be happier.

[DonP]

174. Just Google "Armed Citizen" and count for yourself

Every story listed on any of the several sites has a link to the local newspapers or TV station that carried the story. Certainly not an exhaustive roster, since many defensive used don't involve a shot being fired, but a starting point for scoffers to begin learning.

But I doubt you'll bother. It's easier to claim it never happens or rage about the "wrong source", even with links to neutral sites, and facts can make one doubt their child like belief system.

[samsingh]

177. kick

[Nuclear Unicorn]

179. Do you affirm a woman's right to self defense, even if she elects to carry a gun?