Since I can't post in Bansalot

[hack89]

I will post here in response to this OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628653

This OP is not completely accurate. The NRA allows guns at daytime events at the Music City Center. Concerts and other night time events are held at the Bridgestone Arena. The Bridgestone Arena bans guns for all events, not just the NRA.

So no, the NRA is not afraid of guns. They just have to obey the same local laws and regulations everyone else does.

[NaturalHigh]

1. You mean the facts were "fudged" over there?

I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you!

[blueridge3210]

2. *Gasp* (nt)

[CC]

3. Why are they holding their nighttime

events at a venue that does not allow guns? You'd think they would be sure to spend their money at a place that would allow guns. Still a bit hypocritical.

[hack89]

4. Because it is not that big a deal to them?

there are very few large venues that allow guns.

Can we at least agree that the NRA is not afraid of guns?

[safeinOhio]

5. Just wondering what ever happen to

the NRA's 2008 "Obama's secret 10 point plan to take away grandpa's shotgun" and when they doubled down on it in 2012? I read it in the barber shop in the American Rifleman mag, the nonpolitical publication.

[hack89]

6. Beats me

they are fear mongers and liars - Obama and Democratic leaders have actually been very good to gun owners. I live in the bluest of states and I never worry about someone taking my guns away.

[CC]

11. I'll give you that the

NRA is not afraid of guns but they do have a problem with other people having gun when around them. So maybe it is just a people problem.

[hack89]

12. So why do they allow guns in the main venue?

why did they allow guns in the past whenever local laws permitted them to? I think you are merely projecting your fears on the NRA. One major aspect of the gun control movement is a complete mistrust of people not like them.

[CC]

14. Not my fears.

I don't like the NRA and haven't since leaving the membership about 30 years ago when they started going off the rails. Also the NRA not allowing working guns in the large venues is standard procedure for them and actually makes good sense. The hypocrisy is that they no longer seem to think others should be allowed to have the same say. We will have to agree to disagree on the optics of it. As for my fears or lack there of, never assume.

[hack89]

15. The disabled gun policy applies to vendors

any gun they have on display for sale has to be inoperative. That is a common sense safety policy when you will have thousands of people of varying ages and skill levels handling the guns.

The NRA allows licensed gun owners to carry fully operative guns at daytime events at the Music City Center. Concerts and other night time events are held at the Bridgestone Arena. The Bridgestone Arena bans guns for all events, not just the NRA.

It would be hypocrisy if the NRA thought that local gun ordinances did not apply to them. You should be happy the NRA does not think themselves above the law.

[DonP]

7. I'm sure there will be hundred of shootings, just like Indianapolis last year - oh wait.

But the big question is ... will Shannon Watts show up again with her armed bodyguards and handful of sign carrying protestors?

[Lurks Often]

8. Bansalot makes it sound like they won some sort major victory

over there. Of course given how few that crows actually wins, I suppose the NRA abiding by the laws of the state they are in and the rules of the convention center probably does count as a victory to them.

[beevul]

9. Don't we go through this annually?

SSDY.

[VScott]

10. Forget it...

they're rolling.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026471538#post8

[ileus]

13. controllers not accurate....tell me no.

[Electric Monk]

16. I have to laugh every time you call GCRA "bansalot" because very few DUers are actually blocked.

The vast majority of DUers, by far, are able to post there whenever they wish. It's only the small clique of hard core gunthusiasts that are blocked. In the four months as host so far, I have blocked exactly three posters, and unblocked one long time DUer as well when they asked.

It's also hilarious how much attention you pay to it, while at the same time calling it inconsequential.

[hack89]

17. DU is just fortunate this forum is not moderated the same way as Bansalot

otherwise there would be two moribund and irrelevant forums instead of just one.

[Electric Monk]

19. You are the reason gun threads aren't allowed in GD, and that GCRA was created.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Royal+you

[hack89]

21. Does it make you sad that you can no longer spam GD with gunz threads?

which group do you think respects that ban and therefore does not have a long string of locked threads?

If in fact you represent the DU view on guns, why is your forum dead and your anti-gun screeds not welcomed in GD?

[Electric Monk]

22. I don't spam GD with anti-gun threads. That would be other regular DUers

who dislike the gungeon and are likely unaware of the more recently created GCRA. Some people never get out of GD, LBN, and the lounge.

[hack89]

23. Your forum is two years old

time to stop making excuses don't you think?

[Electric Monk]

24. Thank you for your concern. nt

[hack89]

25. You brought the subject up

I can understand your embarrassment but don't blame me for your problems.

[blueridge3210]

18. It's not called "BansMostOfDU"

Bansalot refers to the large number of people blocked for single posts that were only revealing facts regarding guns.

[Electric Monk]

20. You could be honest and refer to GCRA as "BansGunNuts" if you like. Most DUers aren't Gun Nuts. nt

[NaturalHigh]

30. I'm banned and I own a total of two firearms.

I made a total of one post in there and was banned.

No, let's just be straight here - you're the host of Bansalot.

[beevul]

31. If you'e going to lean on that crutch...

"You could be honest and refer to GCRA as "BansGunNuts" if you like."

If you're going to lean on that crutch, then it is you guys who should be "more honest", and rewrite your SOP to actually reflect the way you interpret it, and enforce it.


As such, you and your buddies have no room to be criticizing the honesty of others.

[Electric Monk]

32. "members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence"

Gun nuts disagree with that part. Seems plenty clear enough to me. Thank you for your concern.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1262

[beevul]

33. Anorexic.

I doubt you could point to even a single blocked poster in the forum you host, who has stated that they believe that "more guns" is a solution to gun violence.

As excuses go, that's pretty fuckin thin, even for you, ElMo.

[Capt. Obvious]

39. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Mon Apr 13, 2015, 01:07 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Anorexic.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=165449

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Elmo" ? as in "tickle me Elmo" ?

Name calling, intentionally rude, straight out of junior high = hide

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Apr 13, 2015, 01:22 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attack.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "Elmo" was the objection? It's short for "ELectronic MOnk" I presume.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just in time for Christmas it's Stop Touching Me Elmo

Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: ElMo is short for Electric Monk. Good grief.

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

[beevul]

40. Nothing abusive or malicious about that alert, no sir.

I just wonder who initiated it...

[DonP]

41. Hard to tell who tried that dumb of an alert

Could be anyone, since I haven't seen one person in gun control that has even a vague grasp of irony, sarcasm or a discernible sense of humor. (Pssst, bad cartoons that somebody else drew is not evidence of a sense of humor)

But it seems most of them have been pretty busy, transcribing Wayne LaPierre's speeches for all of us and at the same time reminding us we're all NRA shills.

But it could be any of them? But ... since there are only 3 or 4 regular posters (on a good day) that narrows the pool down a bit.

And one we know is very, very touchy about their "dignity" and another is obviously smarter than everyone else.

[beevul]

42. Note the misrepresentation.

From the alert:

"Elmo" ? as in "tickle me Elmo" ?

What I actually typed was this:

ElMo


Misrepresentations of that sort are the stock in trade for a certain bunch. When I said I wonder who alerted on it, I was thinking more the plural 'who' than a singular one. That same bunch, in any case.

[Electric Monk]

43. EM is an acceptable shorthand. Calling me a muppet is simply rude, on purpose, and you know it. nt

[DonP]

44. And calling us "Gun Humpers" or "Asshole" isn't rude? Got it.

Funny how "rude" is defined differently by different people, some with thin skin.

Glass Houses and all that.

You'll note that most of the jury (5 - 2) thought it was a pretty stupid alert as well.

Better luck next time.

[Electric Monk]

45. You're self-identifying with this guy I called a gun nut asshole? That's on you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4877982

It speaks volumes, actually, that you think that meant you too.

Or were you thinking of something else I wrote? Feel free to provide links.

[DonP]

46. Thanks for the confirmation El-Mo, of that hypocritical double standard you seem to embrace

That's just part of the reason the "Activism" concept is pretty funny, based on results.

[hack89]

34. Can you show a single post that says anyone here believes that?

Last edited Mon Apr 13, 2015, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)

lets be honest - there is at least an 80% overlap on where both forums stand on gun control. With more in common than in disagreement, the debate should not be so acrimonious. The underlying issue here is your unwillingness to accept that disagreeing with you on some matters of gun control means that we don't disagree with you on all matters of gun control.

[Electric Monk]

36. Here's a recent example

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=165261

Reminds me to check with my new neighbors to make sure they have sufficient capabilities to be counted on when trouble starts.

[DonP]

37. Wow! Once again proving that El Mo's sarcasm and irony meter really needs new batteries

We''ll take up a collection and maybe get enough so you can buy or lease a sense of humor.

[hack89]

38. Gun control truly is the new Puritanism- humorless and sarcasm impaired. Nt

[Electric Monk]

47. You asked for an example and I gave you one. "Just kidding!" is so junior high. nt

[hack89]

48. Doubling down?

never crossed your mind that such over the top comments might be sarcasm?

Not a particularly strong endorsement, don't you think? Pretty weak sauce to tar us all as foaming at the mouth to flood American streets with guns.

[Optical.Catalyst]

50. Mr. Monk is that the best you can do?

Re-read my post. I never used the Gee word. I referenced the original article you cross posted to show the ridiculous concept about quantity of personal effects implying intent. Then I changed the subject to my new neighbors.

For your information Mr. Monk, I live on the Gulf Coast and occasionally we have this happen:



Being informed about a neighbor's capabilities covers much more than the violence you some how extract from my post.
Capabilities of interest include but are not limited to:

1. Knowledge of first aid
2. Possession of a 4-wheel drive vehicle
3. Chain saw and tools to cut up downed trees
4. Portable lighting
5. Emergency generators

Yes self-defense would also be a concern, but only if lawless individuals engage in helping themselves to property that is not theirs by way of threat.

[Electric Monk]

51. In a forum about guns, in a thread about gunthusiasts with anger issues? LOL, of course you did, ya.

[Optical.Catalyst]

52. Did what?

You are going to have to be more specific; you are not making sense.

[Electric Monk]

53. mean potable water and working generators, not quantity of guns. nt

[Optical.Catalyst]

54. I say capabilities, you imply what you want thinking it makes your point

[Marengo]

55. One could interpret that as an implication of dishonesty.

[GGJohn]

26. Yeah, the vast majority are allowed to post there, but the vast majority don't.

Maybe gun control isn't as strong here as you and your cohorts would have us believe.

[Electric Monk]

27. I have addressed this talking point already

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

[GGJohn]

28. If gun control is so popular, then why can't you controllers get anything passed?

And don't give me the standard NRA crap, the last time, the AWB went down in embarrassing defeat, 40-60, and we lost the Senate in 2014, maybe not because of gun control, or maybe because of it.

The point remains, if gun control is so popular, then why can't your little group generate the discussion that this group does?

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. The "standard NRA crap" IS what you'll get, they are the controllers 'Big Bad'

Last edited Thu Apr 9, 2015, 07:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Culture warriors need a boogeyman, a Satan, so they can save society from it-
regardless if society wants to be saved or not.

Think Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984, alcohol in Daniel Okrent's Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition (an excellent book, btw), or cannabis in pretty much any of Harry J. Anslinger's
work and William Bennett's latest emission Going to Pot:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2015/02/05/bill-bennetts-confused-and-confusing-defense-of-pot-prohibition/

Bill Bennett's Confused And Confusing Defense Of Pot Prohibition


“With marijuana,” declare William J. Bennett and Robert A. White in Going to Pot, their new prohibitionist screed, “we have inexplicably suspended all the normal rules of reasoning and knowledge.” You can’t say they didn’t warn us.

The challenge for Bennett, a former drug czar and secretary of education who makes his living nowadays as a conservative pundit and talk radio host, and White, a New Jersey lawyer, is that most Americans support marijuana legalization, having discovered through direct and indirect experience that cannabis is not the menace portrayed in decades of anti-pot propaganda. To make the familiar seem threatening again, Bennett and White argue that marijuana is both more dangerous than it used to be, because it is more potent, and more dangerous than we used to think, because recent research has revealed “long-lasting and permanent serious health effects.” The result is a rambling, repetitive, self-contradicting hodgepodge of scare stories, misleading comparisons, unsupportable generalizations, and decontextualized research results...

...Bennett and White exaggerate the increase in marijuana’s potency, comparing THC levels in today’s strongest strains with those in barely psychoactive samples from the 1970s that were not much stronger than ditch weed. “That is a growth of a psychoactive ingredient from 3 to 4 percent a few decades ago to close to 40 percent,” they write, taking the most extreme outliers from both ends. Still, there is no question that average THC levels have increased substantially as Americans have gotten better at growing marijuana. Consumers generally view that as an improvement, and it arguably makes pot smoking safer, since users can achieve the same effect while inhaling less smoke...

...When it comes to assessing the evidence concerning marijuana’s hazards, Bennett and White’s approach is not exactly rigorous. They criticize evidence of marijuana’s benefits as merely “anecdotal” yet intersperse their text with personal testimonials about its harms (e.g., “My son is now 27 years old and a hopeless heroin addict living on the streets…”). They do Google searches on “marijuana” paired with various possible dangers, then present the alarming (and generally misleading) headlines that pop up as if they conclusively verify those dangers. They cite any study that reflects negatively on marijuana (often repeatedly) as if it were the final word on the subject. Occasionally they acknowledge that the studies they favor have been criticized on methodological grounds or that other studies have generated different results. But they argue that even the possibility of bad outcomes such as IQ loss, psychosis, or addiction to other drugs is enough to oppose legalization.

As you can see with all these examples, the CW's approach to factual accuracy relies heavily upon the
faith promoting rumor and the pious fraud...

[benEzra]

56. Ah, William J. Bennett...father of the original Federal "assault weapon" ban. (n/t)

[oneshooter]

49. And even fewer post over there. n/t

[Puha Ekapi]

35. GCRA aka Bansalot aka...

Last edited Mon Apr 13, 2015, 10:28 AM - Edit history (1)

...Native American Free Zone

Considering that Indigenous people are majority gun owners, as well as staunch Democrats who gleefully give the middle finger to the controllers, it's reasonable to assume that the majority of NDN people would be unwelcome in bansalot.