Dems in tight races oppose gun ban .

[-..__...]

Do you support gun legislation? Better think again. While the Presidency could easily be ours, a few seats in the Senate or House is the real gain.

Think about it.

**************

"Some Democrats in tight re-election races are opposing a renewal of the assault-weapons ban, despite its overwhelming support from Democratic Party leaders.

The ban, which was enacted in 1994, prohibits the sale of certain assault weapons. With the ban’s expiration looming in September, several lawmakers are rallying to extend it for another 10 years.

However, the often contentious and polarizing issue has pinned some Democrats into an awkward political position of deciding whether to support their leaders or echo what their constituents want.


Democrats who oppose extending the ban are Rep. Charlie Stenholm, running against Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R) in Texas’s 19th District; Rep. Max Sandlin, seeking Texas’s 1st District seat; Rep. Rodney Alexander in Louisiana’s 5th District; and Rep. Rick Boucher in Virginia’s 9th District seat.

Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas) supports the current ban but has not determined whether he would vote to renew it, according to Frost spokesman Justin Kitsch.

Kitsch said Frost, who is locked in a heated battle for the state’s 32nd District against incumbent Rep. Pete Sessions (R), does not expect the issue to come up before the election".

[Columbia]

1. How much do you want to bet...

That each of these Democrats who voice their opposal of the AWB renewal will be duly re-elected?

[-..__...]

2. Voices of reason.

There might be some hope, yet.

[DoNotRefill]

8. Boucher routinely gets an NRA "A" rating....

which is why he's still in office. Last cycle, his opponent, a fundie pro-life Republican, had an NRA "A+" rating, but the NRA endorsed Boucher anyway.

If he were anti-gun, he'd have been out on his ass many cycles ago.

BTW, Boucher has ALWAYS been pro-gun. It's not a new thing for him. He voted for the '94 ban because his arm was being twisted by the Leadership, and we forgave him for it.

[Columbia]

9. All these great pro-gun Dems

Where are all the anti's to tell us they are just right wing wackos and assholes?

[iverglas]

3. somebody has to say it

So it might as well be me.

Do you support gun legislation?
Better think again. While the Presidency
could easily be ours, a few seats in the
Senate or House is the real gain.
Think about it.

Do you support women's reproductive rights? Better think again. While the Presidency could easily be yours, a few seats in the Senate or House is the real gain. Think about it.

Yeah. Think about it. Good advice. Think about all the things that decent people want, and want their government to do (or not do), and how many seats you could win if you just abandoned your commitment to them all. And your principles, and the whole purpose of being a political party, and this political party in particular; but what the hell.

[Columbia]

5. Yeah, you're right

Who the hell cares about winning elections anyway? So long as those pesky bayonet lugs aren't let loose on the streets again! As long as one child is saved from a bayonet lug, losing every seat in Congress will be worth it! That'll show them Republicans! <Dean> Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaah! </Dean>

[Wcross]

6. Write your representative Iverglas

I am strongly opposed to "feel good" gun laws that do nothing to reduce criminal misuse. I would much rather see us gain seats than falling to a mis-guided principle. If you feel your quality of life as a citizen would be better with more ineffective gun laws on the books you should contact your representative. I don't know what kind of influence the folks in Ottawa would have on our congress and senate but you could give it a shot.

[library_max]

57. Hee, hee, hee, that's so funny!

See (guffaw, snicker), iverglas is (snort) Canadian (har, har, har). And as funny as that is all by itself (chortle, chortle), it's even funnier when she expresses an opinion about (explosive laughter) gun control!!!

Oh dear me, them Canadians is so comical!

[MrBenchley]

7. Amazing how many people want to fold

just to placate the Tim McVeigh wannabe crowd...

[T Town Jake]

10. Gee, Benchley...

...the Democrats would still be in charge of both Houses of Congress had it not been for those slop buckets the gun control crowd had the Party toting around (see: 1994, Mid-term Congressional elections of). The day the Democratic Party drops those slop buckets and tells the gun control crowd to go join the Greens is the day the Republican Party becomes a minority party in this country for the next one hundred years.

[MrBenchley]

11. Too TOO funny...

see: 1994, Mid-term Congressional elections of)
Oh yeah, Newt Gingrich's dishonest Contract on America...want to show us any mention of guns in that? (Don't strain yourself,the subject never comes up.)

[-..__...]

12. Which article were you reading?

Since the article I posted never mentioned a thing about "women's reproductive rights". I assume you did read it and at least tried to understand it?

Think about all the things that decent people want

There's nothing decent about gun-control; or at least not in the form or fashion some over zealous hand-wringers would like to have it.

[iverglas]

13. oh, I understood it

Since the article I posted never mentioned a thing about "women's reproductive rights".

And -- amazingly -- I didn't say it did.

I assume you did read it and at least tried to understand it?

And I gather you read what I posted in reply, it's just too bad that you didn't understand what I said.

I find it just about not credible that anyone actually didn't understand what I said, but I'm willing to lend a hand to someone who has a colour of credibility to his/her claim that s/he didn't.

It goes like this.

Someone argues that a political party should stop saying "x" in order to get elected.

Someone else replies by saying "well why don't we just stop saying 'y' while we're at it, because abandoning our commitment to 'y' will get us a whole lot more votes than abandoning our commitment to 'x'."

IF getting votes is the standard by which to measure whether a plank should be in the Democratic Party platform, THEN the Democratic Party would be wise to propose to outlaw abortion and nuke Baghdad, I'd think.

Why bother wasting time and energy on the piddling few votes to be had by abandoning commitment to protecting the public from the appalling harms associated with the present state of firearms regulation in the US -- when you can get millions and millions and millions of votes by promising to do something as simple as I've proposed?

Outlaw abortion. Nuke Baghdad. Cut income taxes in half. Abolish welfare. Just think of the possibilities.

And let me know if you're still having troubles with the concept. Or get back to me if doing any of these things -- including abandoning commitment to decent firearms regulation -- doesn't actually get the votes of all the fundie right-wing assholes whose votes you were angling for, eh?

[-..__...]

14. Do you have a license...

or insurance for that apples and oranges cart?

[JayS]

15. If you don't...

...take that cart on public streets you don't need a license. :)

[Columbia]

16. Run for your lives!!!

Just a reminder of what many people here are willing to sacrifice elections for.

[FeebMaster]

17. OH MY GOD! IT'S HIDEOUS!

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

[T Town Jake]

18. Wow, that sure is...

...a scary looking thing...I don't care how many seats it costs our Party, we must be brave and stand up to the Right-To-Keep-and-Bear-Bayonet-Lugs crowd! </sarcasm>

[-..__...]

19. Is that what that is?

I thought it was a cock ring of some sort for penially impaired gun-nuts with erectile dysfunction.
;)

Okay, so seriously now; which one of you "racist humoles" can tell me why
(and for what firearm), that particular device was produced?

[MrBenchley]

20. You MEAN...

You think we're supposed to piss away an issue that 70% of the ovters support so that a handful of loonies who think their lives are stunted and incomplete without this...



can have one?

Gee, that IS pathetic. No wonder most people are for gun control.

[iverglas]

21. precisely

Of course, the people in question aren't just sacrificing an election when they vote on the basis of whatever the fuck that was.

They're sacrificing the lives of thousands of Iraqis (and Colombians and whomever else the US administration decides to murder next month), and the well-being of all the USAmericans without health care, and the futures of all the USAmerican kids sent to fight wars, or denied decent jobs and any kind of security in which to raise their own future families, and the health of old folks who have to choose between buying medicines and eating, ... .

Of course, one might suspect that people who cast their votes on the basis you refer to don't really give a shit about the lives of people in countries they couldn't find on a map who speak languages they don't understand, or about their own neighbours who don't have health care, or about whether the kids in places in their own country where they themselves never go (at least without a handgun in their pants) have a future, or whether somebody's grandparents have food on the table ... .

[MrBenchley]

22. Great post!

Amazing that somebody would put THIS



above the future of their country....

Especally when pretty much every politican arguing for unfettered access to THIS



IS your actual scum of the earth like AshKKKroft, Cheney, DeLay, Lott, Craig, Musgrave, etc....

Of course, maybe that's what is to be expected of someone who wants to pretend THIS



is the sum total of the issue. One makes one's own judgement about the honesty of THAT argument.

I for one am proud to stand with THESE folks.

[FeebMaster]

23. Except when you're talking about the AWB

that pretty much is the sum total of the issue.



This picture is better.

[MrBenchley]

25. underwhelming knowledge of feeb...

[FeebMaster]

26. There you go again

with your underwhelming knowledge of feeb bit. It's really one of your weakest, I think. My suggestion is much better and makes more sense.

Here's my old post again in case you've forgotten:

You may be underwhelmed by me or my opinions but I don't understand how you could describe your knowledge of me as underwhelming. It just doesn't make sense. You should say something like "My overwhelming knowledge of FeebMaster has left me underwhelmed with his opinions and character." or something like that.

[Lamorat]

38. oohhhhh

A bayonet lug! Dear God! We're doomed if those get around!

C'mon.

[Columbia]

24. Inta tetakallum Arabi?

[iverglas]

28. Farsi-e man xoob nist

and my Arabic is even worse, being non-existent, me never having needed that one. Farsi-e shomo?

(My Russian is almost as bad as my Farsi, my German somewhat better, my Spanish infinitely better and my French almost impeccable; French did get me along with some of my Arabic-speaking clients, of course.)

And your point was, kind sir? Shoorly not that thou speakest Arabic.

And I mean, it's not even like I said that speaking Arabic was an indication of giving a shit ...

[MrBenchley]

29. You know...

On the open Delphi boards I post at, where people of all stripe paste opinions, it's comnmon for right wing fuckwits losing arguments to accuse others of being "Saddam appeasers" or "terrorist sympathizers" or the like.

One wonders if that was what the point of Columbia's obscure post was...or if not, whether he will come back and try to explain it....

[iverglas]

31. oh, I just figured

... that it was in, um, response to my comment about some people not caring about people in countries that they couldn't find on maps who speak languages languages they don't understand.

Of course, what I *didn't* say was that people can only be regarded as sincere in their caring about people if they understand the language they speak -- i.e. that since I don't understand Arabic (which I don't), I obviously don't care about people who do.

*That* wouldn't have made any sense. So I hardly would have said it, or anything from which it was a necessary or even rational inference.

Columbia may be wanting to forget what happened last time we had a similar little conversation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=54881#55045

well, funny you should ask

And I'm surprised that I haven't mentioned it before. Maybe I have.

I started working with Iraqis opposed to Saddam Hussein in about 1980. I talked to quite a lot of them over the next decade and a half. In fact, I devoted a decent chunk of my time to helping them. I also, of course, became quite conversant with the ways of the Iraqi government. I wonder how many here could have found Iraq on a map back then ...

It was more useful to me (and admittedly a lot easier, in terms of both access to instruction and ability to learn the language itself, Farsi being an Indo-European language) to learn Farsi than to learn Arabic.

It might be inferred from my decision to learn some Farsi that I cared about what happened to people who speak Farsi, i.e. Iranians, although that isn't a necessary inference.

It cannot be inferred from my decision not to learn Arabic that I do not care about what happens to people who speak Arabic, i.e., in this instance, Iraqis.

And of course I wasn't suggesting that it could be inferred from anyone's lack of knowledge about other countries and their people that such a person didn't care about them.

I was saying exactly what I said: that people who cast their votes FOR right-wing political parties on the basis of their concern about their own access to a bit of obscure hardware -- i.e. who vote FOR all the right-wing policies those parties espouse and propose to implement, including the policy of murdering people in remote countries -- obviously don't give a shit about dead foreigners. Among a whole lot of other things they obviously don't give a shit about that decent people do.

[MrBenchley]

32. And of course, let's not forget....

"people who cast their votes FOR right-wing political parties on the basis of their concern about their own access to a bit of obscure hardware"
SIMULTANEOUSLY want to pretend that the bit of obscure hardware amounts to the sum total of the argument...and that it also MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

[Columbia]

33. Continue with your self-righteous indignation all you want

But at the end of the day, votes and elections are lost due to a stubborn loyalty to an utterly meaningless and ineffectual piece of legislation.

All the precious issues mean nothing if you can't get elected.

[T Town Jake]

36. Gee, that's a lot of typing...

...to contain so little content. Kinda like keyboard cotton candy. But what little content it does contain comes through loud and clear, and can be boiled down to this: Gun Owner = Indifferent to "murdering people in remote countries" as well as being indecent-type folks in general ("Among a whole lot of other things they obviously don't give a shit about that(sic) decent people do").
Gee that's nice, Iver - more sweetness and light from our gun control crowd...
</sarcasm>

[iverglas]

47. gee, I missed some awful offal here

But what little content it does contain comes through loud and clear, and can be boiled down to this: Gun Owner = Indifferent to "murdering people in remote countries" as well as being indecent-type folks in general ("Among a whole lot of other things they obviously don't give a shit about that(sic) decent people do").

Can it really?

And here I thought I'd said (emphasis added)

Of course, one might suspect that people who cast their votes on the basis you refer to don't really give a shit about ...

Damn, I knew I did say that, and I was right:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=66713&mesg_id=67297&page=

Now, what was this "basis you refer to"?

I was speaking, of course, to Columbia, in response to
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=66713&mesg_id=67258&page=
in which he reproduced a picture of something or other and said:

Just a reminder of what many people here are willing to sacrifice elections for.

So hmm. I wonder whether I might have been referring to THAT THING as the "basis <he referred> to", on which basis some people decide how to vote?

Y'know, I just think I might have been. Me being able to follow the thought through more than one post at a time.

It would seem to me that the only way what you "boiled down" my thought to could have come through "loud and clear" FROM WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID would be if you didn't have a clue what I'd actually said, or were deliberately disregarding what I'd actually said.

I just don't know how you could have missed what I said in the post you responded to, which was (emphasis added):

I was saying exactly what I said: that people who cast their votes FOR right-wing political parties on the basis of their concern about their own access to a bit of obscure hardware -- i.e. who vote FOR all the right-wing policies those parties espouse and propose to implement, including the policy of murdering people in remote countries -- obviously don't give a shit about dead foreigners. Among a whole lot of other things they obviously don't give a shit about that decent people do.

Of course, if you hadn't been rubbing those two thoughts together in your head -- to remember that the "bit of obscure hardware" I was referring to was the object in the photo reproduced by Columbia -- well, lord knows what people who don't can't or won't rub two thoughts together are capable of.

We seem to have been given a good example of it, though, I must say.

Misrepresentation -- whether because of incompetence, insouciance or intent, who knows? -- would seem to be the answer.

No. Nothing I have ever said can imaginably be boiled down to Gun Owner = Indifferent to "murdering people in remote countries" as well as being indecent-type folks in general. Not by any reasonably intelligent, reasonably honest person.

[T Town Jake]

68. Well, gee-whiz, let me quote you directly then:

They're sacrificing the lives of thousands of Iraqis (and Colombians and whomever else the US administration decides to murder next month), and the well-being of all the USAmericans without health care, and the futures of all the USAmerican kids sent to fight wars, or denied decent jobs and any kind of security in which to raise their own future families, and the health of old folks who have to choose between buying medicines and eating, ... .

Of course, one might suspect that people who cast their votes on the basis you refer to don't really give a shit about the lives of people in countries they couldn't find on a map who speak languages they don't understand, or about their own neighbours who don't have health care, or about whether the kids in places in their own country where they themselves never go (at least without a handgun in their pants) have a future, or whether somebody's grandparents have food on the table

The question on the table is: just who are these people referred to, variously as "they're" and "that people who," in the quote cited above? Any reasonably intelligent and reasonably honest person trudging through those two sentences disguised as paragraphs could only conclude that the reference was directly related to those whom shared a certain viewpoint related to the issue at hand. And, ergo - since it was not toasters or blenders that were being discussed, but firearms - the logical conclusion is obvious: the reference was to those who believe in the RKBA. At least anyone with a reasonably intelligent and reasonably honest habit of believing that the words their eyes are telling them are present in a given text are really there. All the typing in the world in an attempt to "explain" that the words in question really do not mean what they say - laced, as always with quaint sneers and too clever by-half insults - cannot obscure the simple truism that whom says A must say B.
You said A, directly implied B, and are now complaining that though, yes, you did say A, that's not what you really meant. You really meant X, Y & Z and something else altogether, and some people are just too dense to understand that..."people who don't, can't or won't rub two thoughts together," if I may quote you directly, again. Which translates to (I guess, I don't have my code-book handy to help me decipher it all): you're too stupid to understand that I didn't mean what I wrote. Yep, I think I understand that one perfectly, dense as I am...

[FrontPorchPhilosophr]

30. Actually, I Bought One of Those For My Mini-14

Before e-bay went "postal" - or was it liberal democratic?

Like "Banned in Boston", if the blue-noses don't want me to have one, I should buy 2....

Guess I'll have to check Gunbroker.com or AuctionArms.com now.....

[billbuckhead]

34. The first step to liberal aquiescence is backing down from the NRA

Over and over again the NRA thugs threaten and their fellows travelers threaten Rosie O'Donnell's children and then these lying punks tell Americans that the Democrats are going to come to their homes and get their deer rifles and shotguns. I bet gun enthusiast posters here will soon be here saying this crap.

[FeebMaster]

35. Actually, since I started posting, I've been saying

it's the Republicans you really have to watch out for as far as gun grabbing goes. The gun grabbers here don't seem too interested in that though. I wonder why.

[billbuckhead]

39. Who are you calling a "gun grabber"?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[library_max]

42. Hey, look, another stab in the back when I'm not around to defend myself!

And look who it's from! Slackmaster! Who ever, ever, ever would have thought it?

Could you please confine your slams against me to when I'm actually present in the thread? Is that too goddamn much to ask?

[MrBenchley]

43. Where's that guy who was calling for "civility and respect"?

Or do you suppose this sort of thing is what he meant by the term?

[slackmaster]

52. Quoting you constitutes "stabbing in the back"?

How do you figure that, library_max?

You posted that you support an end to all civilian gun ownership, which implies that at some point guns would be confiscated, and you haven't said anything to contradict it AFAIK.

Are you bothered by people pointing out what you've actually written?

Could you please confine your slams against me to when I'm actually present in the thread? Is that too goddamn much to ask?

What slam?

And yes, as a matter of fact your request for me to post replies to you only when you are actively posting IS too much to ask. Your buddy MrBenchley quotes my previous posts all the time, and I haven't replied to him in months.

[library_max]

55. I'm not talking about posting replies.

I'm talking about bringing me up, by name, in order to criticize something I'd said and invite others to do likewise, in a thread that started while I was out of town for a week and of which I was completely unaware. I would never have found out about it at all if I hadn't been trying to do an Author search on myself and hit Subject and message by mistake instead.

And again please let me remind you that this is not the MrBenchley complaint desk. This is the library_max complaint desk. Please take all complaints about MrBenchley to the MrBenchley complaint desk.

[slackmaster]

56. WADR I think you are being overly sensitive

...in a thread that started while I was out of town for a week and of which I was completely unaware....

It's not my responsibility to keep track of your schedule or to notify you when I quote your posts.

I would never have found out about it at all if I hadn't been trying to do an Author search on myself and hit Subject and message by mistake instead.

Maybe you'd better make a habit of doing that periodically. I'm not going to stop quoting that post unless you retract what you said in it.

This is a public, open, asynchronous, one-to-many discussion board. You have no right to be "present" when others are mentioning your name or discussing your post. You provided a perfect counterexample to contradict what CO Liberal wrote.

If you want to change your story feel free to do so at any time.

You may also feel free to mention me or quote my posts at any time. If having people do that "behind my back" bothered me, I wouldn't post here.

[library_max]

59. What did CO Liberal write?

CO Liberal isn't even on this thread!

Do you even know what thread you're posting on?

Is it actually impossible to scan through the posts on a thread and see whether a particular poster has or hasn't posted there yet before using it as a forum for attacking him or her?

I should have realized that your sacred guns are so precious to you that my suggestion that they ought to be banned justifies in your mind any kind of behavior you might choose to engage in, "unless (I) retract what (I) said in it."

Thanks for your permission to engage in boorish behavior myself, but I won't, just the same. And I know that I can't change yours, but that doesn't mean I can't object to it.

[slackmaster]

60. Pardon me, I meant billbuckhead

As a quick traversal back up the thread would have revealed. I get the two confused sometimes, and right now I'm focusing on work so I can't give this thread my full attention for more than about a minute or two at a time.

I should have realized that your sacred guns are so precious to you that my suggestion that they ought to be banned justifies in your mind any kind of behavior you might choose to engage in, "unless (I) retract what (I) said in it."

If you're so ashamed of what you wrote that you feel my quoting you without including any kind of judgemental or disparaging comments about it or about you constitutes "boorish behavior" that's not my problem. Frankly I think your snide remarks about what you think are my attitudes about guns are a lot more boorish than just about anything I've ever posted here.

[library_max]

61. billbuckhead objected to the insulting term "gun grabber"

and "in response," you pulled out a two-month-old post of mine which didn't mention the term at all and had nothing to do with the conversation (which was between billbuckhead and FeebMaster). Well, gee, nothing thin and unconvincing about that excuse. Certainly convinces me that you weren't trying to get people to attack my position when I wasn't there to defend it - not.

I'm not ashamed of what I wrote, although it is fair to remind you that I wrote it only after you hounded me all up and down that thread demanding to know what gun controls would ultimately satisfy me. That you keep pulling it out, especially when I'm not around to defend myself, seems to me a clear indication that you consider that particular expression of my opinion to be a crime against humanity for which I need to be punished. I could be wrong, of course. Maybe you really did succeed in persuading billbuckhead to like being called a "gun grabber" by quoting my two-month-old post on an entirely different subject.

And color me astonished that you can't see what's wrong with your own behavior in this matter. I've always depended on the objectivity of RKBAers (sarcasm off).

[slackmaster]

62. Pot, meet kettle

:nopity:

[FeebMaster]

41. Why, I'm not calling anyone a gun grabber.

I'm simply pointing out, for the people that are gun grabbers, whether they refer to themselves as gun grabbers or not, that there is a political party in the US that has passed a fair amount of gun control in the last few decades. Certainly more than you'd expect from their pro-gun rhetoric and certainly more than the Democratic Party when they've been in charge.

[MrBenchley]

37. You will notice our "pro gun democrats"

are willing to do anything...EXCEPT put up pro-Democrat posts on gun nut forums.

[library_max]

44. Interestingly enough, they don't post much on DU either,

outside of the Gungeon.

I just did a little research (anyone with a star can do the same) on the posts in active threads for the last month by our Gungeon regulars. Granted, Gungeon threads stay active longer than threads in most forums, which skews the percentages, but that applies equally to everybody. Now, who can spot the trend here?

FeebMaster, 95% Gungeon threads (also Late Breaking News and GD).
Columbia, 93% Gungeon threads (also Editorials and GD).
OpSomBlood, 93% Gungeon threads (also Late Breaking News).
mosin, 92% Gungeon threads (also Late Breaking News and State).
RoeBear, 91% Gungeon threads (also Editorials, Lounge, and State).
TX-RAT, 88% Gungeon threads (also Late Breaking News, GD, Lounge, and Environment & Energy).
FatSlob, 83% Gungeon threads (also Ask the Administrators and State).
iverglas, 83% Gungeon threads (also Late Breaking News, Editorials, GD, and Lounge).
MrBenchley, 82% Gungeon threads (also Late Breaking News, Editorials, GD, Lounge, Media, Bush & Conservatives, Meeting Room, 9/11, and State).
slackmaster, 81% Gungeon threads (also Late Breaking News, Editorials, GD, Lounge, and State).
library_max, 75% Gungeon threads (also Late Breaking News, GD, Israel/Palestinian, and GD2004).
billbuckhead, 66% Gungeon threads (also Late Breaking News, Editorials, GD, Lounge, Activism, Politics & Campaigns, Environment & Energy, 9/11, and GD2004).
CO Liberal, 65% Gungeon threads (also Late Breaking News, GD, Lounge, Activism, Media, Civil Rights, Economics, Ask the Administrators, GD2004, and State).
lunabush, 56% Gungeon threads (also Late Breaking News, Editorials, GD, Lounge, Activism, Media, Bush & Conservatism, Meeting Room, Environment & Energy, 9/11, and GD2004).

So congratulations, slackmaster, on being the pro-gun progressive most interested in other issues on DU. As for the rest of you, you're more addicted to this forum than MrBenchley - be ashamed.

By the way, these results do not itemize the rather high percentages of GD, Editorials, Late Breaking News, and State threads primarily about guns which were among those that interested our pro-gun progressives.

[MrBenchley]

45. Interesting...

I'm also intrigued by how many "newbies" we have who can bring up threads from long ago...almost as if they had been here before or something.

[FeebMaster]

46. You mean the dungeon isn't a part of DU?

I've been living a lie!

[library_max]

53. You really need to learn to read all the way to the ends of sentences.

The exact quote you're complaining about: "Interestingly enough, they don't post much on DU either, outside of the Gungeon."

And hey, as long as you're here, let me add that in addition to the very worst record for interest in non-Gungeon threads (four out of 74), a full 50% of the non-Gungeon threads you posted on were about guns. The other two were about smoking laws. So, hey, hurrah for DU and go Kerry/Edwards, eh?

You do know that it's Kerry/Edwards now, right?

[FeebMaster]

58. You know, I think I might have noticed a thread or two

on the subject of Kerry/Edwards in my endless quest to find new gun threads up in the GDs and LBN.

I've mentioned before that I'm basically here to talk about guns and gun laws. When a thread catches my eye up in the GDs and LBN I post in it. If they aren't about guns, they're about smoking, the draft, or mandatory national service, usually. I did have an interesting discussion on US involvement in WW1 and WW2 a couple of weeks ago. Not a pantload to be found.

If you have a particular problem with my posting habits, feel free to ask the administration to ban me. I won't be offended and will be happy to abide by their decision. I'm nothing if not respectful of private property.


Did you ever figure out how to get guns banned in the United States? I think you mentioned wanting to get that done. I hope you aren't just holding your breath hoping that some Congressman is going to introduce a bill to do it someday.

[iverglas]

48. awwww

You're right, your percentages are skewed by the timeframe!

I got bored with talk of USAmerican politics in the last few weeks in particular, when I had quite a bit of my own politics to be thinking about, and focused my procrastinatory efforts here, to ease my playload.

So all the reams and volumes and epics I've written in places like GD and LBN and Civil Rights escaped your survey. ;)


p.s. -- and aha! Even without looking in archives, I find 15 threads in Civil Rights in which I've posted. And that's obviously an undercount, since I notice one thread in particular that I recall well, in which I posted a very many words in a very many posts, isn't showing in that list. (Your survey counts number of threads posted in rather than posts posted, I assume, let alone words typed.)

And oops, I forgot about your timeframe. Those weren't in the last month. Not doing well at rubbing two thoughts together here today ...

[library_max]

50. Yeah, sorry about the timeframe.

But if I left it open for all active threads, the fact that most threads move faster than JPS would have skewed the results even more seriously, though probably not in your individual case.

[iverglas]

51. yeah, and

I *never* post in firearms-related threads outside here. Well, once, I think. But only once.

[library_max]

54. Maybe I should have named the guilty parties.

FeebMaster, Columbia, and slackmaster.

[-..__...]

64. What are they guilty of?

[FeebMaster]

65. Posting in the dungeon, of course. (nt)

[-..__...]

66. Judged by a jury of one.

Hmmm, gotta love that "Patriot Act" mentality. B-)

[Columbia]

67. Hey, look, another stab in the back when I'm not around to defend myself!

And look who it's from! library_max! Who ever, ever, ever would have thought it?

Could you please confine your slams against me to when I'm actually present in the thread? Is that too goddamn much to ask?

[T Town Jake]

69. "Maybe I should have named the guilty parties"...Hilarious...

...DU's very own free-lance Robespierre, complete with a very helpful Committee on Posting Safety to help confirm the "guilty" verdicts. Guilty of what? one inquiring mind wants to know...why, "guilty" of not posting the way library_max wants is the real answer, of course... <snicker>
Hilarious - just too, TOO, rich for my ticklish ribcage...

[slackmaster]

49. Thank you, thankyouverymuch, thank you!

So congratulations, slackmaster, on being the pro-gun progressive most interested in other issues on DU.

:toast:

[-..__...]

63. Well, there's a productive use of ones time.

Which begs the question; why?

If there's a point to made or some relevancy to J/PS on your "research", can you please explain the purpose of your post?... please don't beat around the *¹.

(and here I am feeling so left out of your "study" ;( ).



¹ insertion of obligatory * bashing.

[Columbia]

27. Oh and by the way

You are in violation of McFeeb's Law too.

[slackmaster]

4. Typical bad writing

The ban, which was enacted in 1994, prohibits the sale of certain assault weapons.

Nope. It defines what an assault weapon is, and prohibits manufacture and sale of all new assault weapons for other than law enforcement or government use.

The writer doesn't understand the subject.

[Wickerman]

70. very enlightening

and locked.

Thanks for playing.