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
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Point proven I'd say n/t [View all]beevul
(12,194 posts)23. What nonsense.
Fully 1/3 of Dems own guns.
This site is called Democratic Underground.
Not "Antigun Underground", or "Ihateguns Underground", though both those names might be used to accurately describe the other protected forum.
The other forum, however, is no more representative of DU as a whole, than this one is, and you're well aware of it, just like everyone else is.
Not that I mind pointing out examples of the ridiculous...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
62 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
As long as their "Victories" are limited to DU threads, I can live with the petty insults
DonP
Mar 2015
#40
I hope you are right. Democratic Party elites can't seem to resist the glance back at Sodom.
Eleanors38
Mar 2015
#41
Imagine yourself as a snake lover on a cat fancy website, so the juries have a pro-cat bias.
Electric Monk
Mar 2015
#19
Read your own post, and reflect upon why juries will tend not to have your desired pro-gunner bias.
Electric Monk
Mar 2015
#24
You're seriously sending folks unsoliticed pm's trying to hunt down the alerter?
stone space
Mar 2015
#53
Forget to mention - attributing quotes without disclosure of the author, and then attack the quote? Really?
Fred Sanders
Mar 2015
#48
On the contrary, flattered to be the subject of a whole post....and who can argue with the result?
Fred Sanders
Mar 2015
#50
Banning 20 round and over mags (for example) would not be a "human rights violation". nt
Electric Monk
Mar 2015
#52