Skeptic Gives Guns A Shot

[Columbia]

The firearms issue looks a little different from behind the trigger.

By Diana Wagman

Guns are bad. All my life, it's been that simple. At my son's preschool, if a child pointed a banana and said "bang," he was admonished to "use the banana in a happier way." As far as I was concerned, the 2nd Amendment gave us the right to protect ourselves against invading armies, not the right to buy a gun and keep it under our beds.

So what would make someone like me change my mind? I met this gun enthusiast. As research for my new novel, I asked him many questions, all the while voicing my disgust. My character might use a gun, but I never would. "Come to the range," the gun guy said. "I'll teach you to shoot."

...

Later, I was surprised to discover that some of my closest friends owned guns. People I never would have suspected confessed that their guns made them feel protected. Still, most of my friends thought handguns should be outlawed, completely, in every circumstance.

I no longer was so sure. I did some research — there are countless testimonials about guns saving someone's life. I looked into shooting as a sport. I spoke to a woman who had found a wounded deer and shot it, ending its agony. I changed my mind: Guns aren't bad.

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wagman15jan15,1,3263293.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[el_gato]

1. but gun owners are evil racists!

didn't you get the memo!

[CO Liberal]

2. How Many Times Have We Heard This Same Old Story??

Someone who didn't like guns went to a range, fired a few rounds, got his jollies, and is now a gun enthusiast.

It's almost as bad as those dumb old Penthouse letters: "Sirs: I never thought I would be writing to your publication, but I recently had an experience I wanted to share with your readers...."

:puke:

[Superfly]

3. Why, that's almost as bad as some of the respondents of

the poll we ran in GD yesterday...you know...the ones who used to be pro-control and are now pro RKBA

BTW, I did not vote that option.

[MrBenchley]

4. Does sound like a Penthouse letter

and probably just as real....

[CO Liberal]

5. About As Real.....

...as the breasts on a lot of the Penthouse Pets.

[Superfly]

7. I can assure you that at least one

Penthouse Pet has *real* boobs. How do I know? I'll leave that to your imagination.

[MrBenchley]

8. <snicker>

[alwynsw]

100. What's a Penthouse letter?

I need a point of reference.

[CO Liberal]

102. Penthouse Magazine

For years, the readers have been sending in letters bragging about their sexual escapades. And most of them sound about as phony and contrived as Diana Wagman's article.

[DonP]

6. About one hundredth the number of times we hear about Ted Nugent

being portayed as a "typical" gun owner by some folks.

People change their mind and it's an epiphany for them. If they are a writer by trade, and have been scrupulously anti, it's a whole new world for them to write about.

It's newsworthy because most of the major press operations don't print pro-gun editorializing beyond the ocassional letter to the editor.

[CO Liberal]

9. But It's Structured Like So Many Other Stories

Even using the same words and phrases. It's as if someone at the NRA came up with a script, and people are following it.

[slackmaster]

11. And you think the LA Times' editors wouldn't spot a contrived story?

We are talking about a first-person commentary written by a published author printed in a major respected newspaper, not some lurid anonymous screed in a Larry Flint penny dreadful.

If you really believe the Times has been duped please write them a rebuttal and let us know if they print it.

[e-mail]

[CO Liberal]

19. How Many Major, Respected Newspapers.....

...were taken in by the Hitler Diaries, the Howard Hughes Autobiography, and countless other hoaxes over the years?

It happens.

[slackmaster]

21. You have the power to challenge the story if you don't buy it

Someone with your writing skills ought to be able to whip out a compelling argument challenging the article in short order.

Of course you would have to accept a small risk that the commentary is a sincere and honest one, and that impugning it might lead to an accusation of defamation against its author.

So, are you going to show us what an experienced professional writer like you can do, or just moan and groan about it on a forum where the LAT editors will never see your viewpoint?

Are you going to just sit there fumbling with that mouse, or are you going to WHIP IT OUT?

:evilgrin:

[CO Liberal]

25. Let's Just Say I'm Skeptical

This story just fits the established pattern too nicely for me to believe it.

[slackmaster]

26. I am inclined to believe it because I have taken many newbies out shooting

It can be a lot of fun, and a trip to a real range often dispells preconceived notions people have about the "types" of people you are likely to encounter there.

The story agrees well with my own personal experiences.

[CO Liberal]

27. And I Was Taken to the Range At Boy Scout Camp.....

...hated it, and haven't fired a gun since 1967.

[RoeBear]

61. We put more opium in the gunpowder now...

...try it you'll like it...try it you'll like it...try it you'll like it. :D

[slackmaster]

66. The first 500 rounds are free

OK, I'm almost ready for Friday evening.

[Columbia]

75. Tastes change over time

You know I used to hate both guns and sushi when I was a kid. Now, I love both. Maybe you should give it a try again now and see how you like it. I don't know what kind of traumatic boy scout experience has made you so against an inanimate object, but I'm sure a trip to the range now wouuld probably dispel a lot of the preconceived notions you have about gun owners and guns in general.

[CO Liberal]

76. I Doubt That

I come in contact with enough gun owners on a daily basis here in Colorado to know that while there are lot of good ones, the group contains an awful lot of assholes.

[forgethell]

22. Makes you wonder how

they got to be respected, doesn't it??

[slackmaster]

24. Good example of circular reasoning

Yet the people who refuse to assimilate the story into their world view have made no substantive effort to challenge it.

I won't hold my breath waiting for a rebuttal based on hard evidence.

[forgethell]

35. I have no idea

what you were trying to say. clarify your question, or hey, just ask it as a question and I will try to reply.

Perhapsyou misunderstood what I was trying to say??

[slackmaster]

38. I think you were impugning the LA Times' reputation

Based only on your apparent dislike for the commentary.

Was I correct?

[forgethell]

40. No, I was

saying that people, institutions, etc. that repeatedly fall for hoaxes and/or tell lies are not to be respected, either for their intntelligence or their ethics, depending on what is involved.

For example, the NY Times has recently undergone a scandal or two, and until some serious changes are made there, I will have to think about anything I read in their pages before U accept it as true. I know, I know, there have been some changes made, but my opinion, and I won't argue about this, I'm as entitled to an opinion as anybody, is that the changes have mainly cosmetic.

[slackmaster]

42. OK, then I take it you do not accept the commentary as genuine

It's hard to tell what you mean since you have not addressed the article directly.

I'll repeat what I've said to CO Liberal about it: If you think it's a fraud I hope you will compose a thoughtful, well-written rebuttal to the LA Times.

[CO Liberal]

45. It Just Seems Too Much Like a "Formula Article"

We've seen too many of these articles that sound like they were written by the same person.

[forgethell]

48. Actually, I neither know nor really care

about the article in specific. I was making a general observation about some of the major media today, who are constantly being taken in by hoaxs. Hoaxes from both sides of the political spectrum, and from your general, 'I'm just greedy' con man.

That is why I don't just read liberal newspapers and magazines. To get the truth, you have to know what both sides say, in their own words. a sort of 'adversarial' context. Get the info, make up your own mind. Sort of like our judicial system is supposed to be. But so many juries get taken in too.

Oh, well, life's tough, then you die.

[MrBenchley]

16. You might recall we used to have a visitor

who asked the same questions over and over and was always "surprised to learn" the answers...until Iverglas busted the act.

[slackmaster]

44. WTF is this? No link???

Goose, gander, pot, kettle, etc.

[Emoto]

33. I dunno

I guess I haven't read as many of those stories as you have. It doesn't surprise me that certain themes are repeated, though.

This past fall I took a friend of mine ( a doctor of neuropharmacology or some such - hardly a neanderthal) shooting for his very first time. He had been an "anti" for most of his life, but started to notice the lack of a scientific approach to the anti gun arguments. By the time I met him, he had about decided that much of the standard anti gun arguments were based on poor logic, and was re-thinking his opinion on guns being "bad". As we became friends (through a couple of other mutual hobbies) he learned that I had guns. I told him if he ever wanted to go try them out, that I would teach him basic safe handling practices and then he could shoot mine. eventually, he asked to try them, so we went to the range and shot a variety of rifles and hand guns. He had a blast. really enjoyed himself. I don't think he went out and got his permit or anything, but he did have fun.

So, I know it can and does happen.

[MrBenchley]

14. Gee, Ted's a LEADER of the largest gun owner group, Don

and it's noteworthy that although he's a feeble-minded racist sack of shit, and although you can find gun owners flapping their yaps all over the Internet (usually regurgitating the same lies and horseshit), you can't find any gun owner even suggesting that he ought nnot to represent them where other gun nuts can hear them.

And I'd bet big money that instead of finding some complaints about Ted and his ugly stupidity on some on-line gun owner klavern, the RKBA crowd will bitch about how unfair it is to mention that Ted is A DIRECTOR OFTHE LARGEST GUN OWNER GROUP WITHOUT A MURMUR OF COMPLAINT ABOUT HIS PRESENCE.

"It's newsworthy because most of the major press operations don't print pro-gun editorializing "
They're too busy tallying up the dead and wounded caused by the corrrupt gun inndustry.

[DonP]

23. Make that a hundred and one times ... and counting.

[MrBenchley]

28. If you didn't want to hear about NRA fucktard Ted

you shouldn't have brought him up.

[RoeBear]

20. It's probably the...

...opium that the 'corrupt gun industry' puts in the gunpowder that causes this reaction.

[Jeep29]

67. Over the years

I've taken about 100 people to the range that have never shot a gun before. I'd say 95% of them were thrilled to have gone and over half resulted in a trip to the gun shop to pick out a new shootin' iron. If you want to see a look of pure joy you should see them after a 30 round mag dump from the sub machine gun. Most folks that go with a open mind really have a good time. BTW, anyone in the Ft Campbell area that would like to go shoot a 50 BMG "Sniper Rifle", a variety of assault rifles, or a 9mm SMG just drop me a line.

[CO Liberal]

69. Count Me Out

I'd rather wade through sewage than go back to a shooting range.

[RoeBear]

89. There's your problem...

...finding someone with an open mind.

[Superfly]

10. I will use this opportunity to say

Adios, J/PS...at least for a week. I am taking my wife on our honeymoon, finally... We are going to be touring the wine regions of Argentina and enjoying a much needed rest.

Have fun...and behave!

Brian

[CO Liberal]

12. Bon Voyage!!!!!!

Have a safe trip. The battles will still be here upon your return

:-)

:toast:

[Superfly]

15. Thanks...

I can tell you that I will not be missing the battles, but I will miss the people. Hugs....

[DonP]

17. Have a great time on the pampas! (ntxt)

[slackmaster]

13. Have a good one!

:toast:

[RoeBear]

18. Does the honeymoon and this...

...-"Penthouse Pet has *real* boobs. How do I know? I'll leave that to your imagination"- have anything in common? Inquiring minds want to know.

[beevul]

29. Have a good one...

Enjoy it 'Fly.



:toast:

[alwynsw]

30. Safe trip

'nuff said

[DavidMS]

31. Have a wonderfull time!

N/T

[Fescue4u]

32. LMAO...

"use the banana in a happier way." "

Why do people talk to kids like they are morons?

[MrBenchley]

34. Because some grow up to be morons

who write crap like this essay....

[slackmaster]

39. It always seems to boil down to schoolyard invective

With zealots. "I disagree with you, so you must be stupid."

:eyes:

[CO Liberal]

41. I Did a Google Search on Diana Wagman

It seems she also writes romance novels. So she has some experience in fantasy writing.....

[slackmaster]

43. So do I, but that doesn't mean everything I write is fantasy

I've also done 13 years of technical and engineering writing. I'm also capable (so I like to tell myself) of writing expository essays and opinion pieces. I've had many letters to newspaper editors published.

Ms. Wagman makes her living by writing romance novels. That says nothing whatsoever about the veracity of the commentary in the LA Times.

[RoeBear]

49. Why is that...

...relevant?

[slackmaster]

50. I think it's a positive for her credibility

She has made no effort to hide behind a veil of anonymity. She's an obscure writer to most but still a publicly known figure who has no known connection to any right-wing, conservative, Republican, pro-gun, etc. organization. If she did you can bet MrBenchley and others would be all over it like white on rice.

[CO Liberal]

51. Only Because You Agree With Her

I see her as a hack writer who is pandering to a target audience - in tis case, pro-gunners.

[slackmaster]

52. What would possess her to do that?

Do you have any evidence that she's been paid for the commentary?

Are you suggesting she's doing it for publicity to sell more romance novels? Maybe she's counting on sales to Pink Pistols members. (No slam on gay people or people who read romance novels intended.)

Her demographics don't fit the common stereotype of gun owners here.

Why?

:shrug:

[CO Liberal]

53. More About Diana Wagman

http://www.laweekly.com/ads/labooks/sponup.htm

About the Author

Diana Wagman is a novelist and screenwriter who lives in Los Angeles. Her first novel, SKIN DEEP, was published in 1996, and her first produced screenplay, DELIVERING MILO (2002 release date TBA).

Again, a fantasy writer.

[slackmaster]

55. Yes, just like the LA Times said

Again, what does her occupation have to do with her credibility?

I notice nobody has managed to link her with Gun Owners of America or the JPFO.

Keep digging CO. Maybe you'll find a smoking gun, or at least a smoldering cigarette in the ashtray. So far you don't even have lipstick on Larry Pratt's collar.

[CO Liberal]

57. As a Professional Novelist and Screenwriter......

...she makes things up. How are we to be sure that she didn't make up her "trip to the firing range"? I mean, people have been forced to return their Pulitzer Prizes for making stuff up, right?

[slackmaster]

58. I generally take people at their word until they give me reason not to

Unless there is a financial transaction involved. Then I require some form of verification or confidence that I have recourse should they turn out to be liars or cheats or thieves.

Maybe it's a symptom of the same otpimistic attitude that allows me to go about my business without feeling any fear whatsoever of being shot randomly by someone who is carrying a concealed weapon with or without a permit. I trust people at shooting ranges to behave responsibly until I see them actually violating a rule of safe gun handling.

I mean, people have been forced to return their Pulitzer Prizes for making stuff up, right?

Yes, and the Bancroft Prize as well. But in those cases there was a concrete incentive for them to lie in the first place: Royalties, notoriety, prize money, etc. Most people don't tell lies in the absence of a motive.

[CO Liberal]

59. Sometimes, Motives Are Not Visible

I just have a hard time believing all these stories about people magically turning from "anti-gun" to "pro-gun" after just one visit to a firing range.......

[slackmaster]

60. Imaginary motives being among them

I just have a hard time believing all these stories about people magically turning from "anti-gun" to "pro-gun" after just one visit to a firing range.......

I've seen people go from politically neutral and fearful of firearms to begging for more ammo for my AR-15 in two hours. It's pretty normal, I think.

[CO Liberal]

62. I Think It's Pretty Sick

IMHO.

[alwynsw]

73. For some, your thought is correct, for others,

it's almost like convincing someone to try a new food. They're dead set against it until they take the first bite. Of course, as is the case with trying anything that is outside one's experience, it requires an open mind.

[CO Liberal]

77. There's a Difference Between an Open Mind.....

...and having your brains fall out.

[beevul]

64. What does that say about all the...

anti-gun actors, CO?

The act out falsehoods for a living. Are you willing to apply your logic to them as well?

[MrBenchley]

54. Hard to imagine a more vapid or feeble-minded thesis

"Who needs gun laws....I had fun!!!! You can too!!!! Wheeeeeee!!"

[slackmaster]

56. Very Lame Straw Man

Her essay didn't even mention gun laws. The word "law" doesn't even appear in the piece.

[Withergyld]

63. Almost correct

Slack,
Wouldn't that be a "strawwoman"??
:hi:

[slackmaster]

65. I was thinking more like

Strawbitch.

:evilgrin:

[alwynsw]

74. Sorry, CO

I have only my personal experience to draw from, but no one I know who shoots reads romance novels. If she was aiming at her target audience with the editorial, she missed the bullseye in my neighborhood.

(I just love it when I get a chance to insert multiple puns into a post.)

[Columbia]

36. The entire article

is reprinted in its entirety here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59586

Just for everyone who doesn't have access to the LA Times online archive. What is quoted above are just brief excerpts from the article.

[CO Liberal]

37. There's a Reason For That, Columbia

Posting entire articles is a violation of DU's rule concerning copyrighted articles. And a violation of federal law, BTW.

[Columbia]

46. That's why I didn't post the entire article

But I realized that some people may be commenting on this article, but not able to actually read the whole thing. So that is why I posted that other link I found.

[MrBenchley]

47. Wonder if the nuts at highroadrage.com

are still bragging about trolling here with nicknames like leftofstalin?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

70. Hahahahahahahahahaha!!

Funniest post yet.

[alwynsw]

71. If only once you would cease the broadstroke attacks and

sarcasm and engage in civil discourse and argument, you might find that we RKBA proponents aren't the lunatic asswipes you make us out to be.

[MrBenchley]

72. Hahahahahahaha!

You guys are really topping yourselves in hilarity....

"engage in civil discourse and argument"
You mean like screaming "they're going to take our guns!!" every other post? How about if I make up a phony Thomas Jefferson quote or lie about crime statistics in other countries? Or let's have big cheer for John AshKKKroft's phony crime stat padding. Wait, I'll post a piece of right wing propaganda from some idiotic site and then pout if anybody points out what a pantload it is.


That's clearly the RKBA crowd's idea of " civil discourse and argument" as we see here every damn day.

[alwynsw]

82. As I said [b]broadstroke[/b]

You mean like screaming "they're going to take our guns!!" every other post? How about if I make up a phony Thomas Jefferson quote or lie about crime statistics in other countries? Or let's have big cheer for John AshKKKroft's phony crime stat padding. Wait, I'll post a piece of right wing propaganda from some idiotic site and then pout if anybody points out what a pantload it is.


That's clearly the RKBA crowd's idea of " civil discourse and argument" as we see here every damn day.

Show me an instance wherein I've done any of that.

Comments such as yours emboldened above stink of bigotry and bias as surely as the venom spouted by George Wallace towards blacks.

[MrBenchley]

92. Next ask me if I care

"Comments such as yours emboldened above stink of bigotry and bias"
No, that's the gun rights public figures you're thinking of: you know, Trent Lott, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, Jeff Cooper, Charlton Heston, Tom DeLay, John AshKKKroft, etc., etc., ad nauseam. I am just pointing out the rotten tactics actually being used on this board pretty much every day.

[alwynsw]

99. I repeat: show me an instance...

(note proper use of ellipses)

[demsrule4life]

78. Why?

Why would you want the best pro RKBA resource we have to change?

[demsrule4life]

79. It's very simple

Repugs are all pro gun. So all gun owners and pro RKBA are scum. It really is a waste of time to "debate" with him.

[alwynsw]

80. I'm just giving the opposition every opportunity

to behave cordially. Most do. Some are boors. I keep hoping.

[MrBenchley]

81. I'm always happy to behave cordially....

Of course, where I ccome from so few people who lie routinely, or promote the agenda of riff-raff like Ted Nugent, John AshKKKroft or Tom DeLay, are considered "cordial".

[slackmaster]

83. The way you treat people seems to be contingent on their opinions

That is, the extent to which they agree or disagree with you on specific political matters rather than their overt behavior, manners, degree of civility, etc.

Where I come from it's considered socially appropriate (and expected) to disagree with a person on ideas and still treat them in a courteous and respectful manner.

[CO Liberal]

84. IMHO...

...any person who aligns themselves with the likes of Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre, or John Lott/Mary Rosh deserves NO respect or courtesy.

[demsrule4life]

85. And what regulars on this site would that be?

Myself and the others have made it known we don't support them either but yet we have to read statements saying all gun owners are scum or all people at a shooting range are scum.

[CO Liberal]

86. And Us Pro-Control Folks Have To Constantly Read...

...broad-brush statements from people on YOUR side of the fence implying that everyone in favor of gun control is really out to confiscate each and every gun out there.

Neither side has a monopoly on the high road here, Dems. In fact, many time we're all wallowing in the gutter.

[demsrule4life]

87. Being called a gun grabber

or scum is the same? I never thought of "gun grabber" as being a personal insult, it is something you would like to do. Now being called scum is a personal insult. And there is tons of that on YOUR side.

[CO Liberal]

94. That is NOT Something I Would Like to DO!!!

I'll type this slowly for you, Dems.....

Gun...Control...Does...NOT...Equal...Gun...Confiscation.

[Columbia]

96. Diane Feinstein on Gun Control

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

- U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

[CO Liberal]

103. She Does Not Speak For Every Person In Favor of Gun Control

Would you like it if I saddled you with every asshole statement Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre, and John Lott/Mary Rosh have made??

I repeat: NOT EVERY PERSON IN FAVOR OF GUN CONTROL FAVORS GUN CONFISCATION.

[Columbia]

107. Maybe not all

But many. I have no faith in groups like VPC to ever stop passing increasingly restrictive gun laws. When will it stop? IMO, the answer is never unless one of two things happen:

1 - Firearms of all types are completely banned and confiscated

-or-

2 - The Supreme Court finally reaffirms the right of the people to keep and bear arms and tosses 99% of the laws on the books out

[MrSandman]

108. Got to VPC website. See...

Ban Handguns Now.

See...
"Officer Down" explains how the firearms industry has evaded the current ban, and how assault weapons continue to pose a stark threat to America's law enforcement personnel. The new report lists the known incidents of police officers killed by assault weapons from 1998 through 2001, including year, state, manufacturer, model of assault weapon, and caliber. It also offers expanded narratives for 15 of the law enforcement shootings that occurred during this period.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0305officer.htm

None of the 15 shootings could have been prevented by the banning of sales of a weapon type. None were dependent on weapon type.

To control access of "criminals" to guns...prosecute "criminals" attempting to purchase weapons illegally.

If a crime is committed while in possession of a firearm, prosecute for the use of a gun in a felony. No pleas.

ed for structure

[CO Liberal]

111. And I'll Have No Faith In The Nuts Ruining America.....

...until they rid their management of the assholes, such as Ted Nugent and Wayne LaPierre.

[MrSandman]

113. NRA will distort statistics as bad...

see their use of averages in comparing crime rates. At least they are not advocating preemption of the rights of others.

[CO Liberal]

115. Given The Choice...

...between a thoughtful person such as Diane Feinstein or an asshole like Ted Nugent, I'd tend to go with the Senator from California.

[MrSandman]

116. There is middle ground.

Feinstein is demonized by the anti-gun control extremists as typical of gun control advocates. Nugent, et al. are typical of the Pro-RKBA according to Gun control advocates. As long as that is accepted, the threat that either extremist group feels will be great enough to generate donations/dues.

When I post that NRA stats are deceiving, I am DEFENDING Ted Nugent?

When I post quotes from VPC website to show they are attempting to ban classes of weapons I am ATTACKING Feinstein?

Some actually think the current level of federal regulation is adequate. I still think he is wrong about the gun shows as no one has shown a substantial correlation between private sales and crime.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/cg/index.html?type=page&pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws

[MrBenchley]

114. By the way...

You will notice that once again there is no link for this alleged quote by Feinstein...Are you surrprised?

But then you will also have noticed that "every asshole statement Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre, and John Lott/Mary Rosh have made" gets defended fiercely here by the RKBA crowd....

[MrBenchley]

112. Another attack on a Democrat from the RKBA crowd

And without any sort of link to back it up....

Who would have thunk it?

[MrSandman]

124. Reportedly said on "60 Minutes"

2/5/95.

[MrBenchley]

127. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrrre.....

And THAT's why there's no link, because, uh......

[MrSandman]

134. If you disagree, write CBS, get a transcript.

Do you know how many pro-RKBA groups you could expose? You couls single-handedly discredit a whole movement. Or you could show it is a red herring. I did not use her quote. If you want to use the lack of a link to discredit, do your own work. With a date and a show, it should be easy. As I teach my kids, there are more sources of info. than the internet.

[MrBenchley]

136. Too TOO funny...

Yeah, that's why there's no link backing up yet another RKBA claim....

"Do you know how many pro-RKBA groups you could expose? You couls single-handedly discredit a whole movement."
Which movement would that be?

The movement that depends on horseshit from Marry Rosh for science?

The movement that peddles phony Thomas Jefferson quotes?

The movement that includes every racist in public life that can be found?

Too TOO funny.

[slackmaster]

139. Appeal to the Web Fallacy

If it's not posted on a Web site, it must not be true.

[MrSandman]

140. Sarcasm on> Can't be <sarcasm off

[beevul]

147. Heres a couple...

links to the transcript.


"Stahl CA) at podium, holding up an AK-47]: California Senator
Dianne Feinstein worked for more than a year to get the
assault weapons bill passed, in the face of ferocious
opposition from the National Rifle Association. She says
she got the_best_she could. Feinstein's office]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: If I could have gotten 51
votes in the Senate of the United States for
an_out_right_ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr.
and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it.
I_could_not do that. The votes weren't here."

Take your pick, they're identical, as far as I can tell.

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Books%20and%20News/What%20Assault%20Weapons%20Ban%3f

http://www.scfirearms.org/2ndamend/60min.txt


The last time I posted them, it was pointed out that one was a comic book fan site, and the other was a gun dealer page(which is not true).

From the comic book site:

"I may have talked about the great religious anecdotes, such as the time Jesus healed the male lover of a Roman centurion with no recriminations, only praise for the centurion’s faith. Or his in-depth analysis of how religious intolerance has little backing from the bible. Or the hypocrisy of drug laws, sex laws, and the laws about any number of other things that really “ain’t nobody’s business” but the person doing them.

I remember when I found out that Peter McWilliams was dead. I was doing a web search on Tianamen Square for a reader of my web site. Somehow the search ended up on an obituary for Peter. It was the extremest irony. Our government killed Peter. They killed him because he was an outspoken advocate of other people’s rights. He could have quietly continued to use medical marijuana and he would still be alive today. But because he came out publicly in support of other people’s rights to use medicine that keeps them alive, our government forced him off of marijuana, and he died as a direct result of it. He choked on his vomit while trying to take his AIDS medication."

I have never spammed you, not even to ask you to buy my own book. But ending prohibition is one of the most important issues facing our generation. The violence and the deaths caused by prohibition should have been stopped by our parents. They left the responsibility to us, and we cannot let it pass to another generation. The longer prohibition remains, the more people will die like Peter."

http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Mimsy/raisingpeter.shtml

From another page on the same site:

"If you support keeping drugs illegal...

"You support robberies and assaults on innocent people.
The high prices of drugs caused by prohibition force many drug addicts to turn to robbery in order to pay for their drugs. Legalization would drop drug prices. Drug users would no longer need to rob/assault innocent people in order to support their drug habit. This violence against innocent people would end if drugs were legalized. "

"You support clogging our prisons and jails with nonviolent people.
Nearly 50% of all people in prison and jail are serving time for nonviolent drug charges. There are thousands of people in prisons for 5, 10, 50 years--even life--for possessing marijuana or cocaine! The average rapist is set free after serving only 3 years in prison, the average murderer is set free after serving only 9 years in prison! To house just one prisoner for one year costs the taxpayer $40,000! The result of these harsh penalties? Drug use has increased! (Tough laws have not stopped me from using marijuana--nor will they ever!)"

"You support organized crime and drug cartels.
Huge drug cartels and criminal organizations thrive off the enormous profits caused by drug prohibition. These organizations are responsible for thousands of murders! Many of people killed or hurt are innocent people who get in the way! These violent organizations will never be put out of business--unless drugs are legalized. "

http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Guests/Legalize.html

Hardly the views of a right winger.



And whats this? A gun dealer?


"Grass roots South Carolina "

"Who We Are and Our Purpose

Modeled after similar organizations in other states, GrassRoots South Carolina is a South Carolina 501(c)4 Corporation. Our primary goals are to educate merchants, to keep our membership up to date on firearms and CWP issues, and to keep our membership aware of legislative issues of concern to law-abiding firearms owners in South Carolina."

"Our mission is to educate and promote acceptance of responsible firearms ownership within the State of South Carolina and to protect the rights of law abiding citizens with regard to firearms ownership. Initially we focused all of our attention on Merchants who posted against the lawful carrying of concealed weapons in their stores. Since then we have broadened our scope and are currently increasing information delivery to all firearms owners, the concealed weapons permit holder, and instructor. No doubt as we continue to grow we will further broaden our objectives to improve all aspects of lawful ownership and carrying of firearms in South Carolina. "


http://www.scfirearms.org/AboutUs/default.html

[MrBenchley]

150. Too TOO fucking funny....

"It Isn’t Murder If They’re Yankees "

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/

As for the other page...

http://www.scfirearms.org/AboutUs/officers.html

And it's amazing how many of these guys are members of jpfo...they sure don't seem to be Jewish.

[MrSandman]

152. Glad you found it.

see post 141

[Columbia]

151. For a transcript

Go here:

http://www.scfirearms.org/2ndamend/60min.txt

[MrBenchley]

153. THERE's a site to believe....

[Columbia]

155. THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT

Can be found if you have Lexis-Nexis access at:

http://80-web.lexis-nexis.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/universe/document?_m=94ddd7cbcaebe6f45957f7ae835f0d69&_docnum=8&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkVb&_md5=4d34818e322ae976d847ab4d5b216769

SHOW: 60 MINUTES (7:00 PM ET)

February 05, 1995, Sunday

TYPE: Profile

LENGTH: 2389 words

HEADLINE: WHAT ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN; CLINTON CRIME BILL 'COSMETIC,' WITH EFFECT OF ADVERTISING ASSAULT WEAPONS TO BENEFIT OF GUN DEALERS

ANCHORS: LESLEY STAHL

BODY:
WHAT ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN?

...

Senator DIANNE FEINSTEIN (California): If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, 'M--Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.

...

[Columbia]

156. By the way, the transcript is identical to the ones already posted

[MrBenchley]

161. And shows the quote was wrenched out of context

in a lame attempt to make it seem the Senator said something she did not.

One ought to begin to wonder why every RKBA argument is based on either distortion or outright deception.

[Columbia]

163. She said those words

You are missing the entire point of this discussion. A point was made that gun-control does not mean confiscation, and this is an instance when a leading legislator IS advocating for confiscation. Can you at least concede this point?

[MrBenchley]

157. Gee.....too too TOO funny

After all that huff and puff...it turns out she's NOT talking about banning all guns after all.....just about the fight in the Senate over the assault weapon ban.

Who'd have guessed that?

[Columbia]

159. You're right

She's not talking about banning ALL guns in this case.

She's talking about the banning and CONFISCATION of so-called assault weapons.

We were discussing whether gun-control advocates were for confiscation or not and here we have a shining example of the leading gun-control advocate in the Senate saying that if she had the votes, she would have gone door to door and confiscated every semi-automatic rifle with certain cosmetic features owned by the law-abiding American public.

[MrBenchley]

160. In other words....

it was another anti-Democratic Party pantload from the RKBA crowd.

Really, who is surprised?

[beevul]

162. In other words...

/Jack Nicholson on


You can't handle the truth!

Chuckle :evilgrin:

[MrBenchley]

164. On the contrary

Turned out the truth was that the RKBA crowd was wrencching something the Senator said way out of context.

Sooner or later, one begins to wonder why every RKBA argument relies on distortion or outright deception.

[beevul]

169. Please elaborate...

"Turned out the truth was that the RKBA crowd was wrencching something the Senator said way out of context."

on this.


First you said "Another attack on a Democrat from the RKBA crowd...And without any sort of link to back it up...."

Please retract.

The transcript shows plainly that it was not an attack, but a factual posting.


Theres nothing out of context. Shes a gun grabber, and the transcript shows it. So what if shes not going after all guns...yet. So what if shes talking only about assault weapons.

Like I said. You can't handle the truth.


For REAL distortion or outright deception, please see the E-mail from Michael Douglas, or brady/VPC's webpages.

[Columbia]

165. Negative

I'm an equal opportunity basher when it comes to gun rights. I despise gun-banner/grabber Democrats like Diane Feinstein and Republicans like Sarah Brady equally.

[MrBenchley]

168. What a pantload

[Columbia]

170. You know you've won when...

the pantload comment comes out. B-)

[MrBenchley]

176. Actually, you know how desperate the RKBA crowd gets

when they declare "victory".

Very sad......one ought to wonder why every RKBA argument depends on distortion or outright deception.

[CO Liberal]

166. Very Misleading, Columbia

Kindly post what transpired immediately BEFORE and AFTER Sen. Feinstein made her statement.

It doesn't help your cause to post things out of context.

[Columbia]

167. The transcripts are identical

Any of the links posted above will get you all the context you need. She was indeed talking about confiscation of certain firearms, there is nothing to be argued there.

On edit: See post 147 for transcript links.

Also, it is interesting to note that MrBenchley was not using the context argument whatsover when the transcripts were posted, but only after his assertion that the quote was bunk was refuted.

[MrBenchley]

171. Amazing, isn't it?

Turns out "Senator Feinstein's going to take all our precious guns" refers to the fight over the AWB.

"It doesn't help your cause to post things out of context."
If the RKBA crowd keeps things IN context, they don't have a cause.

[Columbia]

173. It is quite amazing

That when you are proven wrong, you never admit it.

The quote is real and you can put it in whatever context you want it in and at the end of the day she is still saying she wants to confiscate certain firearms and probably all of them if she (or you) had the chance.

[beevul]

175. I'm not sure about before...

her comment, but sometime after it, didn't CA register, then say they wouldn't confiscate, and then in fact confiscate assault weapons?

I know this isn't the context of her words, but how about the context of her actions CO.

[RoeBear]

91. Maybe you're not after 'each and every' gun...

...but if you were in charge the slippery slope would be getting pretty dangerous. You have no problem banning handguns (too concealable, but no real military purpose) and want the AWB (too militaristic, but not concealable) extended and added too.

Tel me why I shouldn't worry about all guns being criminalized if the decision were yours?

[CO Liberal]

95. And Tell Me Why I Shouldn't Worry...

...about every asshole who wants to carrying a concealed weapon.

[demsrule4life]

97. Since my father has a concealed weapons permit

and I have a concealed weapons permit, we are assholes even though neither one of us has ever broken a law?

[CO Liberal]

104. I'm Not Saying Every Person With a CCW Permit...

...is an asshole. But there sure are an awful lot of them out there.

And while you say you and your father have never broken the law, I've seen a lot of statements on thsi board from pro-gunners saying they intend to disobey laws they disagree with. Doesn't sound very law-abiding to me......

[RoeBear]

98. Because CCW holders...

...commit less crimes than the police.

[CO Liberal]

117. That May Be True Of The CURRENT CCW Holders...

...but what guarantee do we have that as CCW permits become more common there won't be assholes out there aabusing the priviledge?

And how to you put the genie back in the bottle? How do you reassert control over the CCW process once that control has been lifted?

[slackmaster]

118. If the screening process turns out to be inadequate it can be fixed

And how to you put the genie back in the bottle? How do you reassert control over the CCW process once that control has been lifted?

Except for Vermont and Alaska, every state that allows concealed carry (with or without a permit) has a pro-active process to screen applicants. I think it's inaccurate to say control has been "lifted" in the states that have gone to fair-issue - Rather control has been SHIFTED from a subjective system to an objective one.

[MrSandman]

121. Genie has been out since mid to late eighties...

At least in my state 1987. Open carry is not by permit. Anyone who may own a handgun may openly carry. Even in vehicles. No road rage shootouts I can recall.

[demsrule4life]

122. There are no guarantees in life

Is it guaranteed some idiot driver won't kill you on the way home from work tonight? Is it a guarantee that just because someone has a drivers license they will drive responsibly and not drink or do drugs before driving? I have a news release for you, life is not safe. Gun control or no gun control your life won't be any safer. Hell at our ages our hearts will prob kill us before anything else.

[MrSandman]

135. What evidence exists to suggest

that there are a$$holes abusing the privilege. Most states have CCW laws which require issueance. Which ones have had trouble with permit holders commiting violent crimes while exercing the permit's privileges. States began Shall issue about 1985 with FL. WV was in 1987. Other states I am unsure of, but where is the data to support your concern?

ed fer spellin...s

[MrBenchley]

137. It's on the same link as the Feinstein quote

[MrSandman]

138. It wasn't on either link.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5072/quotes.html

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=942

Where is your evidence. I haven't even seen evidence of a causal relationship on VPC or AGS website.

[MrBenchley]

141. Too TOO TOO funny...

The website of a guy who admires Ronald Reagan and links to Rick Santorums home page is your source.....

Says it all.

[MrSandman]

142. So you are saying all these links

are wrong? For 9 years? The Senator hasn't seen that the sites corrected them? If she didn't say this I think those not in favor of outright bans would rush to discredit her as it is used so much by anti-gun controllers. I haven't seen anyone doing that. Can you show me one example of someone for "reasonable" gun control either correcting the mistake or taking Feinstein to task. If not, by the logic of some, her remarks will stand as typical of Gun Control advocates.

But the question at hand...

You are unable to find links to support a link between shall issue CCW and increased violent crime? Oh yeah, it is the GOP. Except in states with democratically-controlled legislatures?

[MrBenchley]

143. I am saying that the quote is as phony

as everything else in the "gun rights" platform.

"If she didn't say this I think those not in favor of outright bans would rush to discredit her"
Why? Beccause gun nuts like the idiots at KABA.com are lying about a Democrat AGAIN? BFD....those assholes lie as reflexively as they breathe.

"You are unable to find links to support a link between shall issue CCW and increased violent crime?"
Hell, I've posted this over and over again....Florida passed its idiotic CCW law in 1987, and between 1987 and 1993 (when the Brady law was passed) violent crime jumped 31% and the violent crime RATE jumped 17%.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/total_Index/total_crime.asp

After the Brady law passed, crime went down in every state...but it declined less in Florida than it did in states with sane gun laws.

[MrSandman]

146. Correlational, not causal

So the quote is phony because at least two pro-RKBA sites aeference and you dispute it. Two posters have provided the citation. Independently.
Unless you can show the citation to be incorrect, I will go with the remark as cited. Not because of who says it is true, but because anyone who can dispute 220 year-old quotes can't dispute on on nat'l TV 9 tears ago.

Off to soccer

[MrBenchley]

148. A steaming pantload from the RKBA crowd

You have to wonder why every pro-gun argument involves either a flat out lie or a turd dredged out of some right wing cesspool....Remember, the claim in Florida was that letting neurotics lug popguns around in their pockets in public was going to CUT crime...but as we saw instead, crime skyrocketed 31%. At which point the gun industry commissioned Mary Rosh to LIE about it.


And yeah, the quote is phony.....nor is it up to me to prove it isn't...because I didn't dredge it up in the first place. And just the fact that you're trying to fob it off that way tells me what a steaming pantload it is.

And is anyone surprised the RKBA crowd is engaging in its daily Democrat bashing with a phony quote? I'm not.

[MrSandman]

172. Not only are ther several links...

there is the transcript. You don't believe, well I won't argue, but if you want to say I am Democrat bashing with a phony quote, it becomes up to you to discredit evidence presented.

As for violent crime in FL, the rate went down. No way to tell if CCW had anything to do with it. I doubt it did. To say crime went up without taking population differences into account is similar to the way the NRA uses statistics. No not similar, they did exactly that in DC.

[alwynsw]

93. One of the most nearly accurate statements yet!

Neither side has a monopoly on the high road here, Dems. In fact, many time we're all wallowing in the gutter.

[MrBenchley]

88. You have to wonder

why any "cordial" person would do so, wouldn't you?

[slackmaster]

90. I'll try to explain it but you have to have an open mind to understand

It's possible for a reasonable, intelligent, cordial person to come to some but not all of the same positions held by said individuals (who deserve to be maligned) independently of anything Nugent, Lott, etc. have said.

My views on the right to keep and bear arms, gun control, and related issues are mine alone. I have read many other peoples' views and certainly incorporated them into mine in many cases, but agreeing with Ted Nugent on some aspects of gun issues is not the same as buying into everything the man stands for.

WADR I think MrBenchley has failed to appreciate that most of us on the pro-RKBA side, at least we who haven't been booted from the board for disrupting, have minds of our own and are not swayed by Mr. Nugent's views one way or another. Socially rejecting and becoming overtly hostile toward a person who happens to agree with Nugent on one or two issues but is not a racist or hack guitar player or a rude person makes just as little sense as becoming a racist yourself because you agree with him on guns. Neither overgeneralization characterizes how thinking people behave IMO.

[MrSandman]

101. By lumping Pro-RKBA as

Racist, Pro-Grime, Anti-any restrictions; it is easier to assuage the cognitive dissonance that would result if one were to accept there are members of <insert favorite oppressed group> who support the RKBA without being a front group for racists...ad infinitum.

[CO Liberal]

105. Just Remember That...

...next time you want to accuse every person in favor of gun control of advocating gun confiscation. That's a lie, perpetrated by the assholes on your side of the fence (such as Nugent, LaPierre, and Lott/Rosh), and each time you repeat the lie, you validate the assholes' position.

[MrSandman]

106. Actually, I mentioned anti-any restriction

because I believe that some people should not have guns. I do not believe I repeated the lie, yet I am linked to a$$holes yet again. QED

[slackmaster]

119. Let me offer one small amendment to your othwise golden statement

...next time you want to accuse every person in favor of gun control of advocating gun confiscation. That's a lie, perpetrated by the assholes on your side of the fence (such as Nugent, LaPierre, and Lott/Rosh), and each time you repeat the lie, you validate the assholes' position.

OK, but I would temper that by noting that validating the assholes' position on that subject is not the same as validating, "pimping for", etc. the assholes.

[CO Liberal]

120. But...

...if someone constantly repeats the same drivel spewed by a particular asshole, it can be assumed that the person agrees with most of what the asshole stands for.

[slackmaster]

123. I absolutely, positively, DISAGREE with that assumption

You seem to be assuming a Package Deal Fallacy in which beliefs on logically unrelated subjects are somehow connected. Why, for example, would someone who believes the federal assault weapons moratorium should be allowed to sunset also be a racist? I believe strongly in the former and strive not to be a racist (with some success, I believe).

My cousin in New Jersey hates broccoli every bit as much as George Herbert Walker Bush and mentions it and rants about it at every available opportunity. That does not mean he shares the same view as GHWB on most of what he stands for.

[CO Liberal]

125. One or Two Agreements Is One Thing....

...but when someone agrees with the majority of as asshole's stated positions, it's safe to assume that the person is in agreement with most of what the asshole stands for.

[slackmaster]

126. OK, give us an example of someone on DU who does that

Or has done that, and not been tombstoned.

I see a lot of pots and kettles in this thread. Generalities and Bogeymen without actual names.

[CO Liberal]

128. I'm Not Gonna Name Names, Slackmaster

Since that could be construed as "calling out another DU-er", which is a clear-cut DU rule violation.

Those who have done this in the past (and are still here) know who they are.

[slackmaster]

129. I have to hand it to you CO

There's no possible way anyone can argue with that kind of reasoning.

[CO Liberal]

130. I'm Not Gonna Be Backed Into Violating a DU Rule, Slackmaster

DU is my home on the Internet, and I won't do anything to jeopardize my standing here.

[slackmaster]

131. I think it's safe to provide links to posts without comment

As in all the times MrBenchley has linked to the post where I said something to the effect that the GOP's plank on gun control was written better than the DNC's.

But if you wish to be extra cautious I can respect that.

[demsrule4life]

132. I don't think that would be against the rules

since it has already been posted on DU. That is the way I would do it.

[CO Liberal]

133. I'm Still Not Gonna Risk It

Sorry.

[MrSandman]

144. Cut and Paste the posts w/o comment

[CO Liberal]

145. That Could Still Be Regarded as "Calling Out" another DU-er

And I won't do it.

[MrSandman]

149. Fair enough

Truly, good to see integrity. Wasn't trying to have you call anyone out. I agree with people on some things and totally disagree on others. Doesn't mean that our world view s are identical.

[RoeBear]

154. Tell me the name of a gun control proponent that posts here..

...who isn't in favor of gun confiscation?

BTW- if a person is in favor of allowing cities to ban handguns they
are in favor of confiscation

[MrBenchley]

109. Hahahahahahahaha....

Tell it to Ted Nugent.. Maybe he's dumb enough to buy the phony doctors group.

[MrSandman]

110. QED...I don't know Ted.

ed fer spellin...S

[RoeBear]

158. Is that SOB Nugent in favor of...

...motherhood and apple pie? Because if he is then I'll just have to change my opinion on those two subjects. :P

[Moderator]

174. locking

it's getting too big