Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'm starting to believe that much of the gun debate is about something else than guns. [View all]AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)86. What I know is that (1) what has been claimed is not supported by the actual words used
by rDigital and (2) the actual words by rDigitial do not support an inference that rDigital or any other DUers
"peddle crazy fantasies such that "armed citizens would have stopped Hitler".
The actual words used in his poll (and in which he never claimed that "guns would have stopped the Holocaust"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284156
As pointed out at #85, the poster asked two questions in a poll in which other DUers could make a choice
(1) Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers, and
(2) Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers
(2) Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers
By offering a choice in poll, the author of that OP neither unqualifiedly said that "guns would have stopped the Holocaust" (your words) nor that "armed citizens would have stopped Hitler" (the words of the author of the OP above).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284156
You say that "I have no desire to play ... games with you." Actually you do. You falsely state that I know something that I do not. At a time when anyone can look at the actual words used by rDigital, you falsely state that "rDigital said guns would have stopped the Holocaust." And a fair reading of your post show that you state by implication that rDigital was a person who peddled "crazy fantasies such that 'armed citizens would have stopped Hitler'."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
116 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I'm starting to believe that much of the gun debate is about something else than guns. [View all]
redgreenandblue
Jan 2013
OP
Do you have links for your statement "Others romanticize gun possession based on some sentimental
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2013
#1
So 1) you can't support your claim about DU posts with links, 2) you speculate that the post that
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2013
#6
You should very, very carefully read one post up-thread of the person you responded to.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2013
#17
I am not going to browse through DU to pick out the instances I have noticed.
redgreenandblue
Jan 2013
#9
If you support falsely attributing statments to others, that's your choice. It's not mine.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2013
#91
If any of those links referred to text supported the quoted statements, the text would
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2013
#96
No. Notwithstanding your animosity, I don't think that I'm clever. I think that I'm persistent.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2013
#78
You are wrong. I have never accused all observers "of lying." In actual fact, I haven't called
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2013
#98
I understand what you are saying. There is a difference between statements of fact and opinion.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2013
#94
What I know is that (1) what has been claimed is not supported by the actual words used
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2013
#86
He actually wasn't elected and his party had lost seats when he was appointed.
NutmegYankee
Jan 2013
#40
Here's a link. 12 pro-gunners voted "yes" to "Anti-gunners are holocaust enablers".
DanTex
Jan 2013
#38
Actually, anyone can go to the origional text and verify that at no time did the poster claim, as
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2013
#85
Hmm... So you think that "Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers" is a reasonable point of view?
DanTex
Jan 2013
#87
No. And I particularly think that anyone who falsely attributes a statement that
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2013
#89
He, and 11 others, voted "yes" in that poll. I don't understand why you are trying to deny this.
DanTex
Jan 2013
#92
You are kidding, aren't you? You haven't seen quite a few long time DU'ers using that language?
KittyWampus
Jan 2013
#90
I agree. A lot of people are looking to express emotions rather than to find thoughtful solutions.
JDPriestly
Jan 2013
#3
Excuse me for noticing, but I think that the poster who is complaining about "big government"
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2013
#13
Since I'm of the mind that gun control will go nowhere I feel no need to be moderate in what I say
Fumesucker
Jan 2013
#30
"One way to end the debate quickly would be for young black males to start open carrying guns"
peacebird
Jan 2013
#61
I, too, feel that "gun control will go nowhere." But I see an unnecessary risk of repeating the
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2013
#104
there are ways to keep them off the streets, without banning any individual from owning them
graham4anything
Jan 2013
#54
Right. You and your militias will surrender shortly after the first drone strike.
Warren Stupidity
Jan 2013
#84
yeah, that's right. We'll drone strike you fucking teabaggers like an Afghani wedding reception.
bubbayugga
Jan 2013
#115
Those qualties are found on the fringe of both sides of the debates
ProgressiveProfessor
Jan 2013
#80
Most male Asperger patients have an attraction to Planes, Trains, Space or Guns.
TheBlackAdder
Jan 2013
#105
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but the gun HELPS doesn't it?
coeur_de_lion
Jan 2013
#110