Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWe need a Pro-RKBA group on DU
Those who support the RKBA are harassed and intimidated by those who do not here in the RKBA group. This is especially true for newbie posters who are scared out of the pond by the "big fish". It would be a good place to further discussion and share info with each other in a peaceful friendly manner without all of the personal insults and harassment.
There are many 2nd amendment supporters and firearms owners here that would support an additional non-battleground group (safe haven)
35 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired | |
We need a Pro-RKBA group on DU. | |
10 (29%) |
|
We do not need a Pro-RKBA group on DU. | |
25 (71%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
rrneck
(17,671 posts)reduced to a smattering of adolescents, Google dumpers and whining scolds. The gungeon is already pro RKBA.
safeinOhio
(33,877 posts)NRA trolls.
I'm sorry, I forgot all the old timer NRA trolls.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Or would you rather be a whining scold?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)on page 1, including this one. Why don't our "pro gun progressives" ever trade in facts, instead of everything but? It's a curiosity...
rrneck
(17,671 posts)relevant facts you have.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Laugh-a-minute down here.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)Perfectly understandable. Um, you are aware that this subthread is visible?
So, I'll ask again, what relevant facts do you bring to the discussion?
I await your next adolescent evasion with baited breath.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)And for those of you who are joining our sub thread already in progress, please see post #10.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)what you demanded of others?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)I guess descretion is the better part of valor.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240136886#post8
So are you going to produce something of substance or continue your losing streak? I don't see a lot to brag about here. Can you produce some relevant content, or do you prefer to continue to jump up and down squealing, "Somebody else did it too!"
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)all that much more difficult. Nice to see progress!
rrneck
(17,671 posts)What are you afraid of?
Are you able to discuss the issue?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)You can run but you can't hide.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)already in progress, apocalypsenow was bemoaning the lack of substantive content contributed by certain members and has spent this entire subthread avoiding doing the same.
He is, apparently, immune to embarrassment.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)And you never started. See post 42 in response to your post 10.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Get back with me when you, like, actually want to discuss something.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I posted the first response in this thread, and this sub thread is the result. The issue at hand is the posting habits of anti gunners and their lack of constructive content. You have proven to be a prime example.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)and this was proven by citing the number of OP's that poster had put up in this forum. You came along and mumbled something about wanting proof, and I invited you to use your mouse to scroll up and down the forum and count them for yourself. Everything after has just been you posting for, I don't know, the sake of doing it, I guess. Not one of your subsequent replies has answered anything, nor asked anything new, nor "discussed" anything of substance.
, indeed.
Edit: typo & clarity.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)And every reply kicks the OP. You're satisfied to be the adolescent. Fine. You're in the RKBA group. But you can't discuss RKBA. Rather, you avoid the obvious.
Do you have any facts or logical arguments relevant to the ownership and carraige of firearms in the United States?
I can't wait to hear from you.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)and here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67553
and here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67568
and here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67991
And I'll be happy to keep kicking the OP as often as you'd like to. , indeed. And yet again.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I have been asking you for facts for some time now. You are obviously afraid to produce them or you don't have any.
And oh - thanks for the links.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)That's turning out to be a tough nut to crack: persistence is the key!
Clames
(2,038 posts)Sad thing is you did it all by yourself.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Funny how that seems to work.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Overcome your fears and actually make a stand. Or did you get your ideology out of a cereal box?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)regarding firearms policy. You started this bemoaning their lack but you haven't provided any. What are you afraid of? You're here to discuss the issue aren't you? Or Do you have other motives?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)But hey, credit due- you don't even need Google to dump shit on the board.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)You'll get there with effort!
rrneck
(17,671 posts)It must be terrible to live in fear.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)this thread again:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=68015
Clames
(2,038 posts)Unless you are trying to prove you are full of it.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Try reading what I've linked this time.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)you're to afraid to attempt. Typical.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)Pretty much the same with every anti more interested in scoring cheap rhetorical points than adult discussion.
You can run but you can't hide.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)elleng
(135,477 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)More 'unlikely' than anything.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)welling up with tears as someone dismisses his NRA talking points as the nonsense they are, or talks mean about the almighty PRD....oh, the humanity!
Skittles
(157,924 posts)seriously
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)with him, so terrified was he - apparently - that a gang of criminals was going to listen for the sound of the shower knob being turned, and bust down his front door. Or was that he was askeered that the Zombie apocalypse was going to break out while he was bathing? I don't remember, but I do remember how proud he was of having rigged up a waterproof way to keep his pistol close at hand, even while showering....
Now that is some serious paranoia going on - and I think it's widespread.
-..__...
(7,776 posts)Or was it the shower AR-15?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)strapped to his side...never can tell when you're gonna need to plug a bad guy or go playing Free-lance Cop in between posts, doncha know?
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)Seriously, I agree it seems a little extreme to me, but I really don't care.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)moronic, and potentially dangerous. I think people who do such things should be mocked for the ridiculous paranoiacs they are; further, I think people who do such things should probably be monitored by the authorities.
Now, why are you so worried about what I think about paranoid morons who like to shower with their deadly little Phallic Replacement Devices?
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)The difference is that the guy with the AR-15 in the shower isn't trying to restrict my Constitutional rights.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)shower flips out and decides to start spraying lead at people with his precious little Phallic Replacement Devices, he is going to violate a whole lot of peoples actual "Constitutional Rights" to do all sorts of things. Therein lies the problem. That you cannot see it surprises me not in the least, but neither is it my problem.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)so they can have access to a firearm while they are showering is not some kind of paranoid fanatic, and probably an unstable one at that? Don't tell me about what doesn't bother you or any of that other jazz about phony "constitutional rights": we're not talking about whether such a person is "bothering" anybody or not, or whether they have a "constitutional right" to bear their deadly little toy in the shower.
Just so there's not mistake, and you don't go running off on a tangent as is the usual around here, let me spell it out again, in a simpler form: don't you think people who think they need to be armed even while showering are paranoid fanatics, who might even be a bit unstable? Doesn't showering with a gun even strike our "pro gun progressives" as, well, a bit odd?
AGAIN: I am NOT interested in hearing how it doesn't bother you, whether there is a "constitutional right" to shower and bear arms at the same time, yada, yada. Answer the question put to you, not the one you imagine is on the table.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)I think that somebody who believes that guns are "deadly little phallic replacement devices" is just as unstable (if not more so) than somebody who chooses to shower with an AR-15.
However, I don't believe that the government should be investigating them and I don't feel that being "a bit odd"...or even "a lot odd" correlates with one's likelihood to commit mass murder.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)with their deadly little toy is "unstable." Well, that's nice to know. But there is no moral equivalence between a poster on the internet who uses an apt zinger in his posts and some guy who doesn't even think he can go to the freakin' shower unarmed.
Quite telling, that.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)There IS a moral equivalence.
His posted pic MAY have been a joke and it MAY have been serious. IF it was serious, it's a little extreme in my personal opinion and MAY indicate some degree of instability.
Your posts aren't presented as a joke. I'll take you at face value that you're serious. Your posts ARE a little extreme in my personal opinion and MAY indicate some degree of instability.
Only one of you is proposing violating my Constitutional rights.
Might you understand why I feel that he's less of a danger than you?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Sounds like you were set up and bought it hook, line, and sinker.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Now, I realize that "pro gun progressives" tend to tell a lot of falsehoods: their very presence on DU is a falsehood, of sorts, since they ignored the TOS when they signed up. But if you wanna accuse one of your fellow "pro gun progressives" of lying, be my guest: it happens a lot - daily, HOURLY in fact - when it comes to the way business is done in the Gungeon, so it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)You seem to believe that "pro-gun" and "progressive"...at least as DU defines the terms...are incompatible.
I'd argue that supporting Constitutional rights is a very progressive stance.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Clames
(2,038 posts)The Elmer Fudd of troll hunters is something to be laughed at and maybe pitied.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Skittles
(157,924 posts)you poor thang
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but it would be nice if we could get a few more antis capable of a coherent argument.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)among Pro-RKBA persons. Open carry is a huge one.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)The echos from the Antis in this thread contradicts your boring statement but yet sure enough you're here.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I support RKBA but I recognize there are a lot of good people here who may disagree with me and I don't think there is anything to be gained by creating a group where everybody agrees with each other. WTF would we talk about - how stupid the people are who don't feel the same as we do?
Sometimes the threads in this group degenerate into nothing but name calling but occasionally some valid points are raised. I think people on both sides of the issue need to man up and stop whining. If you want to discuss issues relating to specific firearms, ballistics, reloading or gunsmithing, go to the Outdoor Life group.
DWC
(911 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Paladin
(28,707 posts)As if Gun Control/RKBA isn't tilted far enough towards a gun-friendly outlook, already. This is a Democratic forum, and if you're upset with an occasional confrontation with the Democratic position on gun policy, tough shit. If all you want is vigorous agreement with your viewpoints, find a new place to lurk......
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Is it the position of the Democrat in Main Street or the party power structure and pundits? It seems to be the case.
bluerum
(6,109 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)mainstream of progressive and liberal thought. Looks like they reckon they can handle themselves in debate with others, and since that's sorta the point of a Discussion Board I reckon I agree with them, for once.
Fun stuff.
jody
(26,624 posts)didn't you?
petronius
(26,654 posts)reacting to is really that there is a set of posters who have little to no interest in participating in any form of firearms discussion, and are here only to snark and bait. I don't know what motivates that behavior - perhaps it's just a horror that the gungeon and/or pro-RKBA liberals even exist - but it's not anything really to do with the pro-control perspective (even if most of these particular DUers identify with that position). The solution therefor is not to try and form a new group excluding that viewpoint,or to craft rules or procedures or standards beyond those DU already has: the disruption would still occur in one form or another, and as others have said, echo-chambers are boring.
The only thing really to do IMO is just to ignore (informally or with the feature) those DUers that contribute nothing, and interact with those that do. And, although DU juries drawn from the general community do tend to be biased against the RKBA participants, it's worth it to alert on the more egregious flamebait and insults...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,555 posts)Agreed. There are several pro-control or, at least, pro-more-control-than-we-have-now, posters who engage in discussion, employ logic and generally make sense. They're generally pleasant and respectful and are in no small measure one of the main reasons I read and post here.
However, using ignore in either sense does kind of produce a bit of an echo-chamber.
petronius
(26,654 posts)an echo chamber, and ignoring all the pro-more-control posters would have the same effect, as you say. I was intending to suggest just ignoring those posters that are all noise and no signal, not the interesting posters from any perspective.
That said, I don't use the ignore function; I find my informal ignore ability is quite sufficient, and there's always a chance that an interesting point might even accidentally be made by anyone, or in a reply to one of the noise-only types...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,555 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)I think it is telling that the vitality of the 2nd Amendment in DU is reflected in its history here.
First, there was one open forum. Then the controller/banners retreated to their new Castle Bansalot safe haven where debate is severely limited and controlled. Then the Ads opened up GD to debate on guns (where previously such was line-itemed out), presumably to allow controller/banners the largest forum for their campaign of mainly stigmatization & accusatory attacks on fellow DUers.
We don't need yet a a 4TH gun group/forum.
Maybe a poll should be done to see how many DUers would like to see a Return to GD's previous TOS. I'm betting most would vote to leave the original open-debate Gungeon as-is, and to leave the controlled show Bansalot as-is.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)For the daily load of EXTREME humor they provide me and other Liberals!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Since share the same view on guns as Bill Crystal, Bill Bennet, Christie, Nixon, George Will,........................................
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Since (you) share the same view on guns as George W. Bush, Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre, Bill Akin, Tom Coburn, John Boehner, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Pat Buchanan, Janet Brewer, George Zimmerman, Rick Perry, David Duke, Ron Paul, Cal Thomas, Scott Walker, John Thune...really, we could go on and on and on, but your reply is absurd, and you know it: the vast majority of actual progressives and liberals do not support so-called "RKBA," while the vast majority of Republican and conservative nut-jobs do.
Also, Bill Crystal is a liberal Democrat, so what his inclusion is doing on your bogus list is yet another curiosity.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)William Kristol
Zimmerman is a registered Democrat.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)(and murderer) when it comes to "RKBA" issues. I can post an even more comprehensive list of Republican and conservative nut-jobs who love them their guns, if you wish...I could fill this forum with a list of those names - as you well know.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)he only bought a gun based on a suggestion by animal control. I don't based my opinions on what others think, so I really don't give a shit what Sarah Palin thinks. Do other people or orthodoxy form your opinions?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)You're the one who brought up a tiny group of supposed conservatives who supposedly support gun control (though a look at each of their records shows they mostly don't), so don't go whining around when that silly tactic is thrown back in your face.
Here's the bottom line: for every single marginal "conservative" or supposed Republican you can name who supports some weak version of gun control, I can name a thousand - ten thousand - of same specimens who embrace the bogus and bloody "RKBA" cause. And, of course, the vast majority of Democrats in general and progressives in particular support more civilized gun laws, and less gun deaths in America.
But this is the typical Gungeoneer game: when bested on the facts or shown how truly unpopular the deadly little fetish of "RKBA rights" is on the progressive side, you simply change the subject, and pretend you've somehow "proved" or "won" something.
Back to your original tactic: want to keep playing this game you initiated of how many Republicans support "RKBA rights" vs. how many progressives support civilized gun control laws? I'll be happy to oblige.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)not George Zimmerman. Judging from your posts, you lack the intellect to tell the difference.
Most Democrats actually don't, just the talking heads.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)is being "in his corner" then I'm guessing you are OK with vigilantism and summery executions of people you don't like.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)fund? I'd be curious about that....
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and I don't give a shit him. I only care that the system works properly and the correct and the most just result comes out of it.
No, I don't give to any defense funds. Were you part of the lynch mob that followed Rosanne Barr's tweets?
http://digitaljournal.com/article/322124
We are having this conversation because I object to trial by media and lynch mobs in all cases. If you can't tell the difference, I can't help you.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)"Don't be a dick."
You passed that line in a full sprint several posts back.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)The rampant trolling in this group.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I kind of miss Hoyt though
rDigital
(2,239 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)but he did provide comic relief. He was definitely a hoot and a holler.
petronius
(26,654 posts)I really hope that's a temporary block...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)can't remember where I read it
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Insults dominate this forum in a way that would not be tolerated anywhere else on DU and trolls take full advantage of that.
Spryguy
(120 posts)Hoyt go? I haven't seen him post in a while.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)and it screws up conversation on GD .
petronius
(26,654 posts)the majority of those non-SoP gun threads in GD and elsewhere...
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)The topic was calling for another Gun thread, for " Gun people " definition, people that advocate Guns. Period
petronius
(26,654 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)seen it or ever posted through seeing it in GD. Some would argue when we have a mass murder, Gun violence crimes at a national level it is GD material, I wouldn't argue.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)The repression some urge is right in line with George Will, George Wallace, Nixon, Bloomberg etc
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)peoples desires to discuss guns, some to advocate and some of US ( ME ) that don't. It's Neither progressive nor regressive to discuss, which is the main AGENDA here, or the only thing Progressive.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)elimination of this group and PPR status for many posters here.
The are those who are so touchy on the guns they call for bans that which offends them, use slurs rather than dialog, and are clearly among those who make DU suck.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)I've used slurs in some real Flame Games, and have been censured for being inappropriate and over the top, and I was guilty. But let's be honest Look back through and the spewers of Hostile , Animosity with Caustic superlatives Aren't one sided.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 2, 2012, 04:08 PM - Edit history (1)
agenda, but this absurd stretch to pretend that conservatives are the major supporters of gun control again rears it's silly head.
1. George Will is not some big supporter of gun control. Neither was George Wallace. Bloomberg is a liberal independent, not a Republican. Nixon has been dead since 1994, and out of office since 1974. It is to laugh that you're even bringing him up.
2. Private gun ownership is not the issue: so-called "RKBA" and the easy access to firearms on the civilian market is the issue, and you well know it.
3. If you really want to play this absurd game of how many Republican politicians and conservative notables support some weak version of gun control - a tiny handful - versus how many Democratic politicians and liberal commentators and progressive notables support gun control, bring it on. I could make a list that fills this forum of the latter, and I could make a further list that could fill this forum of Republican politicians and conservative notables who support so-called "RKBA."
Why do you "pro gun progressives" continue to pretend that there is some huge group of conservatives that support sensible gun control when you know for a fact that there is not? To ask the question is to answer it, and that answer is disruption, pure and simple. You know it to be untrue, know that the time it takes to debunk it diverts the debate into other channels, and delight in the disruption such an absurd claim causes. That's the bottom line: disruption.
Edit: typo.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)He was better at it. Less wordy.
jody
(26,624 posts)inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights which government is obligated to protect under our Constitution whether enumerated or unenumerated but protected by the Ninth Amendment.
Those who oppose our "agenda" can enter this group and present their case for replacing our Constitution which requires government to protect the inalienable/unalienable rights of a minority against the tyranny of a simple majority.
They should be forewarned they will find here a group of patriots ready to debate and defend ALL inalienable/unalienable rights.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)1776 and 1777. They say:
A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776
And
A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OF VERMONT 8 Jul. 1777
And
As natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights it is impossible for PA citizens to have given away the right of self-defense and the right keep and bear arms for self-defense when they ratified our Constitution (1787) or when they ratified the BOR (1790) or VT (1791) to have given the same rights away when they accepted the amended constitution.
The men and women who fought against King George in the war for independence believed that each person was a sovereign unto them self and did not have to beg a king or other artificial authority for a privilege. When they approved a compact for a central government they retained some of their rights and powers that government were obligated to protect.
Writers used the word "patriot" to identify those who defend our Constitution and the principles of individual freedom that preceded our Constitution. Jefferson and Madison understood that and that's why they started the Democratic Party and were authors of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions that defended state rights protected by the Tenth Amendment.
The Oxford English Dictionary third definition of "Patriot" is "A person actively opposing enemy forces occupying his or her country; a member of a resistance movement, a freedom fighter. Originally used of those who opposed and fought the British in the American War of Independence."
Those of us who defend the inalienable/unalienable rights our Constitution requires government to protect are "patriots" in the exact way the word was used since 1773.
Are those who wish to ignore those rights "unpatriotic"? Perhaps that's your problem.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Really thanks
ileus
(15,396 posts)Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)We're ENTERTAINED by them.
Silly fundamentalists.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)I see a lot of low post count posters that dip a toe into the RKBA group and are pounced on by the antis and then they never post again. That's what I'm concerned with. Voices being silenced through intimidation.
Also, since it seems like not enough people have an appetite for a single issue RKBA forum, I say something needs to be done about the malicious posters.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)That's takes gall, actually: if the TPTB were to "do something" in this forum about posters who do not belong on a progressive discussion board, this forum would quickly empty out, with PPR's handed out left & right. You are tolerated here, with the "pro gun progressive" nonsense; but that doesn't mean anything more than that: tolerated. Not accepted; not embraced; not liked. As the DU jury system has shown, over & over & over again, when put to the test.
Edit: typo.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Posters who provide NOTHING, no debate, no logical arguments, no facts, merely emotion, hyperbole and insults...that's a different matter altogether.
Rather telling that you think people who actually SUPPORT the Bill of Rights--all of it--should not even be "tolerated" on this board. THAT takes gall.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Not one thing in the DU TOS mentions people who think they "actually SUPPORT the Bill of Rights" in the manner you and your pals do, i.e., by willfully misreading and misconstruing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution in a right-wing manner, have any business here: indeed, quite the opposite. The "RKBA" cause is a right-wing cause, not a progressive one. It is the cause of the NRA, of Antonin Scalia, of nearly every Republican elected official in the country, and nearly every conservative commentator who opines with any kind of platform whatsoever.
So, yes: "tolerated" is the precisely correct word. And, yes, it takes gall to pretend it is anything otherwise: for all sorts of reasons that I'm sure are complicated, scarcely-disguised right-wingers are pretty much allowed a sub-forum here to spew right-wing talking points. That's fine by me, but let's not pretend there actually is any such thing as a "pr-RKBA progressive." There is not.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)So, the Second Amendment is a right-wing amendment, in your view?
Which amendments are progressive ones, then?
What other parts of the Constitution must we jettison to meet your purity test?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here" (emphases added).
Not one thing in the DU TOS mentions people who think they "actually SUPPORT the Bill of Rights" in the manner you and your pals do, i.e., by willfully misreading and misconstruing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution in a right-wing manner, have any business here: indeed, quite the opposite. The "RKBA" cause is a right-wing cause, not a progressive one. It is the cause of the NRA, of Antonin Scalia, of nearly every Republican elected official in the country, and nearly every conservative commentator who opines with any kind of platform whatsoever.
So, yes: "tolerated" is the precisely correct word. And, yes, it takes gall to pretend it is anything otherwise: for all sorts of reasons that I'm sure are complicated, scarcely-disguised right-wingers are pretty much allowed a sub-forum here to spew right-wing talking points. That's fine by me, but let's not pretend there actually is any such thing as a "pr-RKBA progressive." There is not.
Handy link to the original (which can also be seen by scrolling up slightly with your mouse):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67738
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!" - All the best to you in that regard!
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Obviously you don't know too many progressives, because if you did you'd know how many are quite comfortable with the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. Go read it sometime. You might learn something.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here" (emphases added).
Not one thing in the DU TOS mentions people who think they "actually SUPPORT the Bill of Rights" in the manner you and your pals do, i.e., by willfully misreading and misconstruing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution in a right-wing manner, have any business here: indeed, quite the opposite. The "RKBA" cause is a right-wing cause, not a progressive one. It is the cause of the NRA, of Antonin Scalia, of nearly every Republican elected official in the country, and nearly every conservative commentator who opines with any kind of platform whatsoever.
So, yes: "tolerated" is the precisely correct word. And, yes, it takes gall to pretend it is anything otherwise: for all sorts of reasons that I'm sure are complicated, scarcely-disguised right-wingers are pretty much allowed a sub-forum here to spew right-wing talking points. That's fine by me, but let's not pretend there actually is any such thing as a "pr-RKBA progressive." There is not.
Handy link to the original (which can also be seen by scrolling up slightly with your mouse):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67738
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)you were wrong the first time you wrote it. You're still wrong, no matter how often you copy and paste.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here" (emphases added).
Not one thing in the DU TOS mentions people who think they "actually SUPPORT the Bill of Rights" in the manner you and your pals do, i.e., by willfully misreading and misconstruing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution in a right-wing manner, have any business here: indeed, quite the opposite. The "RKBA" cause is a right-wing cause, not a progressive one. It is the cause of the NRA, of Antonin Scalia, of nearly every Republican elected official in the country, and nearly every conservative commentator who opines with any kind of platform whatsoever.
So, yes: "tolerated" is the precisely correct word. And, yes, it takes gall to pretend it is anything otherwise: for all sorts of reasons that I'm sure are complicated, scarcely-disguised right-wingers are pretty much allowed a sub-forum here to spew right-wing talking points. That's fine by me, but let's not pretend there actually is any such thing as a "pr-RKBA progressive." There is not.
Handy link to the original (which can also be seen by scrolling up slightly with your mouse):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67738
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #173)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)it's called winning an all-too-easy argument.
Now, how about we deal with this question here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67503
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)A while back there was a thread in meta about the need for an anti gun group since this group was so mean to the antis...and there was so much discussion about how evil this place was and how the pro gun rights people were so mean. Next time it comes up I will post a link to this thread.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)and obsessive.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)The hilarity of the situation is amusing
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)The ones with ads by R. Lee Ermey, Ted Nugent, Pat Boone, NRA, EAA, and ED treatments?
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)What is it about this urge to pretend to be a "progressive" on a Democratic discussion board in order to spew right-wing talk about guns?
I don't think it's simple disruption and the desire to troll, though that's a part of it: I think it's something deeper, though just what would probably take a battalion of psychiatrists to diagnose.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)They like pushing a right wing agenda on a Democratic forum. On some gun forums people even brag about their DU trolling exploits.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)nut site that had a forum not viewable to the public unless you were registered and invited to the group. Somehow this poster had gotten invited. This forum was made up of "pro gun progressives" posting here on DU, and was basically a bunch of guys sitting around laughing about how stupid liberals were, how they'd "fooled" the DU'ers here, how laughable it was that they basically had their own little playground to romp around in on a progressive discussion board, etc., etc.
You could tell from certain posting styles and talk about specific OP's who the posters here were on the openly right-wing "RKBA" site, but since they used different monikers there really was no ironclad proof. Later, the forum was shut down, and was made inaccessible for normal posters, but I'm not sure what caused that to happen. I guarantee you some version of that is going on right now somewhere out on the internet.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Firearms for personal defense, hunting and sport transcend the standard political labels and parties. Those you accuse of pretending may well be at least as progressive as you are when measured across the board. You see limited vignettes here.
I'm out here on the left coast teaching firearms on the weekend to mostly LBTQs and women. Few if any repukes in my classes. That horrifies some, but I do it because today in our environment it is the most effective means of self defense. I wish it was not necessary, but clearly it is.
The Pink Pistols (http://www.pinkpistols.org) got it right with their motto "Armed gays don't get bashed". There was a post earlier today about how TG sisters were being killed in Philly and how violence against LBTQs is up (http://www.democraticunderground.com/113719213). The threat and violence are real. I invest my time to help those who are the most targeted by it. Its quite a bit more effective than whining about rude toters, arguing about DGU stats, or writing screeds with passion but no accuracy.
A story from one of my classes...
Before they come to the class students are told to wear closed in stout shoes or boots, sneakers at minimum, and sandals are unacceptable. This is a basic safety precaution and my range is in open desert. During an after lunch session I noticed one of the students on the line wearing stiletto heels which they had not been wearing earlier. When I asked about their choice in footwear their response was "I don't get harassed when I am in sneakers." It was both hilarious and thought provoking.
Some of us defending personal firearms, and yes even concealed carry, are as progressive as most posters here. We bring different views and experiences to site than others have. They do not come from the GOP or the NRA and claims that we are just spewing talking points is both insulting and not true. When we deny that, we are called liars or worse. Rules for this group are different than other groups and such nonsense is tolerated. Still we persevere...
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Do you "teach" at an accredited institution? What is your tenure status? Public or private institution? Have you been published in any peer-reviewed journals? If so, which ones, and what was the title(s) of some of your work?
Tell us some of these things, "Professor".....( ).
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)I am retired from $BIGJOB and $PRIORJOB. Teaching is my retirement job. I don't need the money. The homestead is paid for, it backs up to BLM land and is actually making money from solar.
I am a widower. My wife died of breast cancer. In the course of our marriage we worked and lived in multiple nations, with me being the camp follower. We settled in MD for our daughters to graduate from a US high school. After they graduated we moved to Socal.
I am black though like the president, I am actually mixed race, as was my wife.
After resisting it, I recently accepted a full professorship at the public university where I have been teaching for some time. Did not really want or need tenure, but it was the right thing to do for any number of reasons.
I teach geek stuff. EE and CS, including computer modeling and computer forensics. My passion is working with students trying to figure out if this is the career for them. Not that many full profs teach 200 level classes, but I really enjoy it.
Title of my dissertations/papers/thesis would disclose my identity. They can be found on Google. Several people have told me that I can be found anyway. If your desire is to "out" me, knock yourself out.
.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)About what I figured, "professor."
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Given the vituperativeness here, I will not out myself...however, if it really matters to you, it could be figured out according to some.
My credentials are as I present them, whether you like them or not. I really does not matter. Its not as if it would have mattered to you in any case.
Any more ad hominems you want to throw?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)confirm this dubious claim. Therefore, your claims and posts deserve to be evaluated in that light.
*Bookmarking* for future reference.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)It would not matter if I was the Chancellor of the UC system, and out of office politician(Grayson), or a self proclaimed Canadian felon (Hoyt), what matters is the content of my posts. Who I am does not matter. Its one of the underlying concepts of the Internet.
I have no onus to document my bonafides to you or anyone here on DU. That you are pushing for it shows just how much of a desperate rube you are. You cannot effectively defeat my words so you go after me instead. Nice try.
There is a long standing screed that applies to people like you and your juvenile tactics, though not all of them are topical in your case, but it is still apropos:
http://www.fenixdev.net/
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)making the dubious claim, and folding it into your schtick here on Democratic Underground of being a "pro gun progressive." You also frequently indulge in the logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority" using those unestablished "bonafides" (Sic), i.e., inserting your claim that you know more than this or that poster because you once used to be something you refuse to provide proof of: a "Professor."
Now, I don't buy your claim, and I doubt many here on DU do. But if you are going to make that claim - and you have, frequently - and if you are going to use that argument that you were once a "Professor" as a talking point in your arguments - and you have, frequently - and if you are further going to fold that (likely bogus) identity into your online presence, you are gonna be called on it.
The fact that you refuse to provide proof merely lends strongly to the case that it couldn't be proved, because the claim is false.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)I would be a pro gun progressive, even if I wasn't currently teaching. If my handle was 12345 would it calm your inflammation?
Keep up with the ad hominems...you continue to negate your credibility and delightfully so.
Your desperate attempt to out me is truly amusing.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)professional repercussions if you somehow admitted to being a "pro gun professor"? Oh, wait, you said you were "retired," so that's a no-go.
The bottom line is that you have made repeated claims to having been a "professor," and frequently use that dubious claim in your arguments as a classic logical fallacy. Now, if you don't want to provide any substantiation for those claims, fine: but you should stop making claims you're unwilling to back up with proof.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)In technical discussions certainly, Gun control and RKBA not that I recall this evening.
Given your attitude and that of some others, once you had my name and school there would be a never ending stream of poutrage letters. I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)It really is that simple.
"Given your attitude and that of some others, once you had my name and school there would be a never ending stream of poutrage letters."
First off, that's a dodge because you are supposedly "retired," so no matter how many "letters" sent to that institution it would have exactly ZERO effect on you, regardless. Or have you forgotten your claim that you are "retired"? Second, one would think a "pro gun professor" would welcome such attention, especially if he had tenure. Academic street cred, and all of that. One begins to suspect you've never stepped foot into a faculty lounge on an American campus.....
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Being a prof is my retirement job. I have adequate pensions from $PRIORJOB and $BIGJOB. It means I don't need to work for living, but do so because I love it.
One of the things a pro does is not do things that interfere with their performance. I keep the university and firearms separate since they have no relevance to each other. I don't do politics either. CS and EE are hard enough at the university level without distractions.
I fully believe that you and some others here would so the hate mail thing...if you do, you will have to at least do some work for the data. Its the least I can do.
What do any of your ad hominems have to do with the SOP in this group?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Pick one.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)this group.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Pick one.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Also use a TOR node much of the time.
What kind of prof would I be if I did not play with some of the leading edge tools.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)shows you posting on days and at times every university or college I've ever known was in session.
But I bet you got an explanation for that, too, huh?
"I teach at night...I only teach weekends...I only teach on...yada, yada, yada."
Except you don't, do you, "professor"?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Depending on lecture and lab, I post during "working hours" from campus occasionally. I do it using private bandwidth.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)and do not pack heat on a campus you do not work at. What you do is post on DU, in the Gungeon, during times and hours of the day that make it all but impossible to actually be a "prof" and post as prolifically as you do . And you well know it.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Check your BP while you are at it, while it is amusing to play with you like this, if you had a stroke I might feel bad.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)before checking the actual law and policies has come back to haunt you. Fun stuff.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Keep looking, the answer is out there somewhere...
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)oh, wait: you refuse to do that.
As I said below: the fact remains, by your own errant post, posted before you had taken the time to check the actual law or review the actual policies, shows that you are not a "professor." Either that, you are willfully breaking the law, which puts paid to the "law abiding gun owner" nonsense. Either, or. The former is the actual truth of the matter, but you can embrace whatever bogus narrative you wish. This "professor" claim is busted, for all time, on DU: there's no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)i think even Hoyt figured it out eventually
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)when the facts say that that is impossible. Unless you're breaking the law. And that would put paid to your claim to be an "law abiding gun owner," in any event. Funny stuff.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)And by your own error in failing to check the law and the policies before posting. Funny stuff.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Keep at it...you might get lucky
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)(2) by your own hand: you are not a "professor" of anything, actually, but you play one on DU.
As I stated below: the fact remains, by your own errant post, posted before you had taken the time to check the actual law or review the actual policies, shows that you are not a "professor." Either that, you are willfully breaking the law, which puts paid to the "law abiding gun owner" nonsense. Either, or. The former is the actual truth of the matter, but you can embrace whatever bogus narrative you wish. This "professor" claim is busted, for all time, on DU: there's no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)It means that you cannot figure it out.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)But you claim to be a "prof." Laughable stuff.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Which leads me to believe you do no such thing. More fun stuff.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)And proxies take many forms. Open proxies make you an internet pariah, private proxies are transparent. I assume you know the difference.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)to being a "prof," or cease making the claim.
And keep bragging about using proxies: it's a sure way to call attention to yourself. Unwanted attention, I'd wager....
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Using a proxy has other benefits.
The only thing busted here is your reasoning.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)reasons that I wanted to see a different Pro-RKBA group. It's much easier to discuss the issues at hand when you are discussing the issues and not defending yourself from vitriolic shenanigans.
I do see the error of wanting such a group now, but I still wish the harassment was addressed. I guess ad hominems, insults and sliming are par for the course for the time being.
Any request demanding that you give away your personal identity on an anonymous chat forum is suspect and beyond the pale. It's interesting though that people still try this kind of chest beating macho manhood measuring contest on a PUBLIC forum. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
The intimidation and harassment need to come to an end.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 3, 2012, 12:16 AM - Edit history (1)
The retreat to ad hominems is nothing new. I don't cite my $DAYJOB to give me any authority here on DU in the gun control group but some fix upon it rather than take on the content of my posts. It shows how weak their arguments are. What would they say if my handle was 12345? I have certainly posted enough technical content in other groups to establish my technical bonafides.
Their latest is the talking points canard. If its something they don't like they use that card dismissively and then whine when it is refuted. Sometime I counter such arguments with similar tactics...it often winds them up even further, showing the shallowness of their arguments.
What I find most amusing is the poutrage generated when I talk about teaching fellow liberals and progressives how to defend themselves with firearms. It seems to be the worst kind of subversion. Bring up the Pink Pistols and who knows what may break loose.
They sure seemed scared of of a single armed black man...can't imagine why.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)relationships with students....but you already knew that, Professor. I've met quite a few interesting people through my firearms training classes. Once, I even went pistol shooting with former Ohio governor Ted Strickland. Awesome experience.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)I carry concealed on campus between my motorcycle to my office and back. I do it to secure the weapon. Its more secure in my office in a safe than in a car or on the motorcycle. Admin knows and its not a problem.
The geek community likes to think it is a meritocracy...race, gender, title, or age are not supposed to matter. However, technical fields of study do not exempt them from the human race. Being a minority prof makes you both a role model and at times a target. That said I love teaching.
The firearms classes on the weekends are also divorced from the University, though a couple of young adjuncts have taken classes from me.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)No, you don't.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Not the only one either, though the numbers are probably in the single digits.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Might wanna try another line of work to claim you're in, cause you just busted yourself on this "professor" claim.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)on campus thanks to either legislation or court rulings, not ONE allows employees other than campus police on duty to do so.
You might wanna rethink this "professor" claim...
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)I think I've FOUND precisely what we're looking for: further *Bookmarking* for future reference.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)You think you have found the answer since it is what you want it to be. Fairly typical mistake when you are in a hurry. You are so worked up at this point you are double posting responses...chill, get some oxygen and think about it.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)STUDENTS, to "carry concealed" on campus, unless they are Campus Police. Now you're just trying to dodge and weave. I would too, if my major claim to fame here in the Gungeon had just been busted.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #204)
petronius This message was self-deleted by its author.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)wide, tall, & deep you've truly stepped in it this time. Good stuff, and funny to boot.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)not one?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Too bad, it was a clue that had eluded you.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)you had taken the time to check the actual law or review the actual policies, shows that you are not a "professor." Either that, you are willfully breaking the law, which puts paid to the "law abiding gun owner" nonsense. Either, or. The former is the actual truth of the matter, but you can embrace whatever bogus narrative you wish. This "professor" claim is busted, for all time, on DU: there's no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)anonymous on the internet. Attack the content, not the person. What you are doing isn't right and everyone can see it.
You are being a bully.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)it's called winning an all-too-easy argument.
Now, how about we deal with this question here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67503
rDigital
(2,239 posts)You can CCW in College as a Professor in Colorado. You are so wrong it hurts.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)it's called winning an all-too-easy argument.
Now, how about we deal with this question here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67503
rDigital
(2,239 posts)I can keep going with this. You lose. Quit bullying in my thread.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)no campus carry in the Golden State. Deal with it: he's busted.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but I thought I would give you a troll snack. McDonald won't be overturned by anyone partly because it could begin a right wing attack on other incorporation rulings. The larger reason is that no one will have standing to make a case in our lifetimes. I don't see Brady or anyone else pushing anything through the court system to SCOTUS. Brady lawyers depended on "states rights" cases to argue against McDonald, which is a 14A ruling, not a 2A ruling. I would think it would be harder to do since one of those were pretty much overturned. I'm voting for Obama either way.
http://themoderatevoice.com/78129/mcdonald-v-chicago-second-amendment-applied-to-statesmunicipalities/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
BTW, Jerry Brown as California AG supported McDonald
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/07/local/la-me-brown-guns-20110407
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)unless he's campus police. All the rest of that jazz you posted is simply irrelevant.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Yes, if the employee has a valid concealed carry permit and the weapon is carried in accordance with the law, i.e., concealed. For assistance in any situation of concern, such as a performance review, please contact the Office of Human Resources at the link below.
http://hr.colorado.edu/Pages/ColoradoConcealedCarryAct.aspx
Can an employee bring a concealed weapon to the office?
Yes, if the employee has a valid concealed carry permit and the weapon is carried in accordance with the law, i.e., concealed.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)You have never shown that I used $DAYJOB here in the Gun Control group to add authority to my posts despite repetitive claims. Still waiting for that answer.
You have tried to show that my class schedule should have prevented me from posting at times...and failed.
You have made false claims about the law here in CA (and elsewhere) and ignored what should be obvious. Others have figured it out, but you apparently cannot, blinded by your passion.
You have been dancing hard for the last few hours. Trying hard but getting nowhere. You have posted multiple replies and generally worked yourself up to quite a state.
I would give you the answer, but its just too much fun to watch you...maybe some other member will take pity upon you and deliver your from your ongoing embarrassment.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)it here than the man on the moon - otherwise, you would have posted it.
Instead, you kept talking about "exceptions," which was a coy way of trying to say you were some kind of law enforcement honcho, retired FBI, etc.
But now that that's out of the way: you are an African-American professor at the University of Colorado? And a "pro gun" one at that? Did I get that right?
rDigital
(2,239 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The only African American in the Wyoming prison system is the warden
http://corrections.wy.gov/institutions/wsp/index.html
BTW, in Wyoming you can carry on campus as long as you have written permission from the head of security.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Bizarre stuff - I sometimes think our "pro gun progressives" get confused as to what thread they're posting in. Open your windows when you clean your guns, guys: those cleaning agents can be powerful stuff in unventilated rooms.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)shit hole.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)nothing more, nothing less. He has now stated he is a "professor" in California, so the Colorado part is moot.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)And I said where I taught much earlier
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Link to where you said you taught, please: let's see it.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Funny stuff.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)is simply false. There is no campus carry in California, unless you are campus police, or a retired Federal law enforcement agent, and you are neither. So, question answered. It only took four hours for you to finally come clean.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)That is what you are claiming?
rDigital
(2,239 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)or went to bed. Did he say he taught at UCLA?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)after hours of dodging and obfuscation. You are not packing heat on a California campus unless you are campus police, or a retired Federal law enforcement officer. And you are neither. Busted.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Can an employee bring a concealed weapon to the office?
Yes, if the employee has a valid concealed carry permit and the weapon is carried in accordance with the law, i.e., concealed.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)he is looking up Hawaii's laws or just talking shit?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)"Currently, there are 21 states that ban carrying a concealed weapon on a college campus: Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming."
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx
So much for the "professor" claim.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)and that state explicitly outlaws guns on campus:
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx
rDigital
(2,239 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)You don't even need a license to open carry in OHIO....in a College!
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)(l)This section does not apply to a duly appointed peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California, any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of this state or of the United States who is engaged in the performance of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4, or an armored vehicle guard, engaged in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 7521 of the Business and Professions Code.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/15/1/s626.9
The Universities are free to make their own regulations and exception, but the state does not ban anyone with a CCW from carrying at a College.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)each university in California is empowered to make THEIR OWN determination on who can pack on campus in that status. Laughable attempt to distort the law.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Keep moving them goalposts, but you have to provide proof. Quit bullying. FOR SHAME!
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)there is no such thing.
"Currently, there are 21 states that ban carrying a concealed weapon on a college campus: Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming."
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx
rDigital
(2,239 posts)http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/15/1/s626.9
You are not breaking a law:
626.9 (l) This section does not apply to a duly appointed peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5
(commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the
federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California, any person summoned by any of
these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in
assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of this state or of the United States who is engaged in
the performance of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter
4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6, or an armored vehicle guard, engaged
in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision
Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)any person, it does not distinguish employees from anyone else.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx
rDigital
(2,239 posts)note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.
They can make their own rules and exceptions. There is no law, bully.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Again:
"Currently, there are 21 states that ban carrying a concealed weapon on a college campus: Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming."
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx
And then you come along and say: "The School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire them for carrying firearms"
Make up your mind...
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf
rDigital
(2,239 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)we are quoting from the California Penal Code. The one about Wyoming is also wrong, you can carry if you get written permission from campus security. Now getting that permission is a different issue.
rDigital
(2,239 posts):
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Most weapons are not permitted on campus. For example:
Any knife including a belt buckle knife, dirk dagger, cane sword, pen knife, lipstick knife, switchblade, butterfly knife or any knife that has a blade longer than 2 1/2 inches, opens automatically or has more than one sharp edge
Any gun without written permission...The punishment for having a weapon varies depending on the type of weapon. Punishments can be fines, imprisonment and student judicial sanctions."
http://map.ais.ucla.edu/portal/site/UCLA/menuitem.789d0eb6c76e7ef0d66b02ddf848344a/?vgnextoid=5eda12f78892a110VgnVCM400000e4d76180RCRD
rDigital
(2,239 posts)626.9 (l) This section does not apply to a duly appointed peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5
(commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the
federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California, any person summoned by any of
these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in
assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of this state or of the United States who is engaged in
the performance of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter
4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6, or an armored vehicle guard, engaged
in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision
Note: So carry on School property is legal if you have a California Issued Permit/License to Carry. The
School can keep Students, Faculty and others who work on campus from carrying and can expel them or fire
them for carrying firearms but they are not breaking a law just a rule of the School.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)So, so much for that.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)none of the prohibited weapons are firearms.
so, you contradicted yourself and stepped in it.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)It's plain as day. They have regulations at the school, which they also have exceptions to, but those regulations BEAR no criminal legal teeth against someone with a California CCW.
He'd be legal even without permission, just subject to being fired/expelled. With permission he is 100% in Coolsville.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)meets none of the other criteria for concealed carrying on a California campus.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)thinking he is exposing some dark evil agenda. Either that, he is just being a troll for something to do. Either way, I'm out of troll food.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)"packing heat" around a California campus (of all places!) claims are simply bogus. I think if they were legitimate, we wouldn't have this big long paired set of sub-threads, full of coy game-playing and semantics and proven falsehoods by the "professor," but, rather either a straightforward "I work on this campus and have written permission from the powers that be to carry a concealed weapon," followed by, if doubt was expressed, "believe what you want."
That's how a legitimate tale of "professors" and "concealed carry on campus" and the like would go. That is hasn't is yet more circumstantial evidence that these dubious claims are bogus, as they undoubtedly are.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)so you are basing your whole argument on an over generalization? A stereotype of a state as large and diverse as California? Maybe the Dean is from Montana or northern California.
When I lived there, there were some good liberal and moderate folks, ran into some people who think Rick Perry is a liberal too.
Mike Savage was a local at KSFO.
I went to a church in Vacaville where the minister was really right wing. Went to a church in Wichita, where I was sent after California, the minister was a well loved guy who was believed in liberation theology.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)virtually impossible, unless he's campus police or retired Federal law enforcement. He's neither.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)and ignorant on this subject.
He's legal without permission: per YOUR own link he can avoid school sanctions with permission, but he encounters no legal wrath for carrying in college on a California CCW. You're licked either way.
It's plain as day. They have regulations at the school, which they also have exceptions to, but those regulations BEAR no criminal legal teeth against someone with a California CCW.
He'd be legal even without permission, just subject to being fired/expelled. With permission he is 100% in Coolsville.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)closer. He said he had permission, now he is letting you make a fool out of yourself and went to bed. If you want to continue to tilt at windmills, that's your bag. That is the problem with creating a reality that no one else shares.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/117267479#post300
besides repeating refuted nonsense?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Federal law enforcement, or have "written permission."
Our "professor" is neither of the first two, so the argument hinges on the validity of the third claim - a claim you and your friend have made, but the "professor" HAS NOT.
So much for that noise.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)So you have nothing else better to do than personally attack other people?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)He makes repeated claims about being a "professor," and folds those claims into Appeals to Authority in posts and replies to other posters. Yet he refuses to substantiate those claims, and will not even now clear this whole thing up by simply saying "I teach here and I pack heat on campus with written permission from the powers that be." This he refuses to do.
So, so much for that.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)all that matters is that it IS LEGAL to carry as a civilian a loaded concealed firearm onto a college campus in California with a Cali CCW permit.
There are certain rules that can get you in academic/employment trouble, but there is NO LEGAL PERIL. You've been wrong the whole time. You are personally attacking posters who do not share your views.
What you are doing is disgusting. Argue the issues. Leave these people alone. You're bullying from behind a keyboard, shame on you.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)It really is that simple.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)He could face academic or employment sanctions if he didn't have his "exception", but it matters not as far as legality.
You been beaten bloody in this argument. It's time to go home, drink a glass of warm milk and promise that you'll never be a bully on DU you ever again. Then you'll have my forgiveness and possibly that of others, but you gotta promise! You can't claim others are wrong when the stench of ignorance permeates your every argument in this thread.
I'm voting for Obama, and that's that, Sweetie.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)He's still legal with a California CCW. LEGAL. He cannot be arrested. They can ask him to leave or fire him if they found out, but he is legal. If he has an exception, as he claims, in writing then he's totally fine.
You're still being a bully and you're inflating my post count. I'm sure the Prof will chime in sometime, but you've been so consistently wrong throughout this whole thread. You keep moving the goal posts. You were wrong about Colorado, and you were wrong about California and you are wrong on this as well if the Prof speaks the truth.
Give it a rest.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)and retractions would be in order. That he doesn't is a curiosity. Actually, it's not.
Good evening.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)we're all going to need some more ignorant bullying soon.
If he has a CCW Permit, he still doesn't need anything else to be legal. Violating the school's rules is not against the law. No jail time, no fines, no nothing. If he has an exception, which he claims he does, and there's only ONE that could apply to him he's 100% in the clear.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Where have I heard that before.................................Orly, is that you?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)I have no dog in this particular fight, but reciprocity on your part might make him more amenable. If you haven't already done so, I certainly may have missed that due to long absences.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And they've decided to take a leave since being scolded by Skinner.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... I prefer the group the way it is. In my youth, I made an informed decision to support and defend the RKBA for myself and others. Every time I read the contrary opinions expressed here and the "arguments" they bring forward -- I congratulate myself on my original decision.
Nothing is more reassuring to your beliefs then hearing someone scream against them with hyperbole, backed by no facts or logic.
I've made a vow to go out and purchase 10 rounds of ammunition for every smiley face and kicking man emoticon posted in this group by an anti-gun advocate. And I will buy them mail-order (to cut down my carbon footprint).
sarisataka
(20,774 posts)there are pro-gun echo chambers where I discuss technical details and such. There is no point in policy discussion because there is no opposing viewpoint.
I like to have the chance to discuss opposing views with those willing to do so.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)wow. pathetic.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I just appointed myself as the word usage police for the day.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I'm in full support of our 2nd amendment.
Cheers!!!
theinquisitivechad
(322 posts)Not comparing pro-gun rights to creative speculation, but DU makes an attempt to provide a forum for almost every population of the democratic community, regardless of whether or not they are believed to be misguided (barring communities for illegal or inappropriate discussions, of course).
I am very much FOR gun control, but I think these folks need a safe place, too. It also gives a spot to re-direct campaigning gun rights activists.
Let's do it.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)Speaking for myself, I enjoy the constructive discussions with those who view the issue differently and the few loons here (on both sides) don't make me feel "unsafe".
Riftaxe
(2,693 posts)I have to vote a sound no on this one, where else are you going to see the prohibitionists in all their astounding ignorance and stupidity?
To be so both profoundly stupid and ignorant as the prohibitionists, then brag about it....well where else you ever likely to see such a convergence? Other then their brethren at the race sites that is.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)This RKBA group is already Pro-2A and dominantly so. Thank you all for your input.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Pro RKBA folks here are kinder, less abusive to others, and not afraid of others coming into this forum.
To this day only one member is blocked in contrast to the other group where hosts and others bully new posters and then block them.
It's pathetic, but I'm glad I stand with the more reasonable among us.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)along with most of the members in this thread. That you should give you an idea about how the DU community feels about pro-RKBA opinions on a website for liberals and progressives.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and pro RKBA liberals.
BTW, the SOP says center left Democrats.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)after being declared full of shit by Skinner?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Deep13
(39,156 posts)...a bit of an echo chamber. What you are in effect suggesting is that anti-gun and pro-gun people should not talk to each other. There is middle ground to be had.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)from when he was a ship's engineer back in the 60's. He went ashore with some of his shipmates in a nothingtown called Port Chicago, CA. It never recovered since the explosion in the 40s, and basically didn't exist except as a residential area for the Navy depot there. Anyway, they call a taxi to the dock, and when they climb in they see that the driver is a remarkably unattractive, very overweight woman with poor hygiene. She asked, "where to, boys?" and before anybody else could speak, one of the guys said, "the cheapest whorehouse in town!" The driver turned around, flashed a gap-toothed grin, and said,
"You're in it, honey."
theinquisitivechad
(322 posts)Which is not uncommon. Thanks for the laugh