Gun Control & RKBA

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)

30. #7 is still not correct

Reply to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #29)

Sun Mar 22, 2015, 10:01 PM

Mar 2015

This group is not a safe group as it is not specified in the SOP.

Statement of Purpose
Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

The other group is the one that requires a "safe haven" and censors anyone that the only active host decides he disagrees with.

Statement of Purpose
Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.

Seems to me the first group is much more democratic than the second one

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:

Point proven I'd say n/t [View all] discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 OP

You know you're over the target... beevul Mar 2015 #1

But the irony is worth it all discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #2

This is about your hidden thread, I take it? Electric Monk Mar 2015 #3

Of course it wasn't you discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #8

I wish you could say the same thing on my post Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #10

Wow, that was a bit uncalled for. krispos42 Mar 2015 #5

Well I know discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #6

Yes, that is true Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #9

Actual progress on reducing viololent crime, ... not so important to some DonP Mar 2015 #12

It was never about "progress"... virginia mountainman Mar 2015 #18

IMHO... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #21

I feel for you as I have had some Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #7

And the wise always share wisdom discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #11

The one I saw was (paraphrase): I vote to hide ANY gungeoneer post. Eleanors38 Mar 2015 #39

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

If they don't learn = pass the salt DonP Mar 2015 #42

I don't understand, GGJohn Mar 2015 #13

I'll second that. beevul Mar 2015 #14

See #15 discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #16

The Jury on my post about "prigressives" (chuckle) discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #15

I find the juries are somewhat biased Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #17

Imagine yourself as a snake lover on a cat fancy website, so the juries have a pro-cat bias. Electric Monk Mar 2015 #19

I'd suggest that... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #20

Sorry but not even close Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #22

What nonsense. beevul Mar 2015 #23

Read your own post, and reflect upon why juries will tend not to have your desired pro-gunner bias. Electric Monk Mar 2015 #24

What "desired" pro gun bias? beevul Mar 2015 #25

Yes, we all know how busy Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #26

You're seriously sending folks unsoliticed pm's trying to hunt down the alerter? stone space Mar 2015 #53

I sent a nice PM just asking a question Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #54

I'd ignore it. And if I sent one (or more, as you seem to have done), ... stone space Mar 2015 #56

I guess I was brought up different Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #58

Not responding so such spam is not impolite. (nt) stone space Mar 2015 #59

not spam and yes it really is Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #60

I sent only one, where do you come up with this? Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #61

You faux-prigressive! NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #27

yep, sure is right, whoever juror 5 was Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #28

Looks like #7 was confused about which group it was in. krispos42 Mar 2015 #32

I hate bad hide and corrupt juries Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #33

maybe... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #34

The Monday morning quarterback analysis discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #29

#7 is still not correct Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #30

Not that I've seen either in this neck of the woods but... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #31

Yet, we're told elsewhere that it is rude to call them "controllers" Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #35

Five members... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #36

Juror #8 agrees with Juror #7. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #43

Really? discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #44

BTW... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #46

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

I'm good with that. Pleasure working with you. discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #51

The 2A is the only right where "progressive" = taking rights away. ileus Mar 2015 #37

I doubt I'll ever understand that either discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #38

RKBA is a fundamental human right? Where'd you get that idea? It's not. Electric Monk Mar 2015 #45

Reflect on article 3 discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #47

Banning 20 round and over mags (for example) would not be a "human rights violation". nt Electric Monk Mar 2015 #52

I do not have a problem banning magazines over 20 rounds Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #55

Maybe or maybe not but... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #57

No, it's not a human rights violation. blueridge3210 Mar 2015 #62