so, lots of people here like guns...

[UpsideDownFlag]

i must say, it is sort of a surprise to go into a progressive forum and see "gun porn".

how's about this for a gun thread: I hope that when kerry wins, he makes it one of his first priorities to reinstate the AWB, and make registration of handguns and semi auto rifles and shotguns compulsory.

eh?

[FeebMaster]

1. So you're saying you hope Kerry only gets one term?

Why have the AWB if you're going to register semi-auto rifles and shotguns?

[jpgray]

2. We don't call this forum the Gungeon for nothing--I hope you're ready

I'm not taking a position here, but I think you ought to know what to expect. Welcome to DU, by the way. :toast:

[UpsideDownFlag]

3. thanks.

i may have overreacted a bit, but seriously- this is DU, not NRA4ever.com... i was just a bit surprised.

[havocmom]

10. Yep, the 'Democratic Underground' not the Bury Democratic Candidates

Before They Have a Chance. Wouldn't it be better to make progress on many fronts and many issues than drowning while hanging onto one single issue which cost elections time after time? What, pray tell, progress do we make if we don't win elections? How do we save America if we slit our own throats politically?

If saving lives/preventing terrible injuries is one's aim, go and work for making cars illegal. More are killed and maimed by them than guns, to say nothing of the cost in lives and national treasury to secure the fuel for the damned things. Work tirelessly for mass transit if you really want to save lives.

Gads, it gets so tiresome beating our heads against this wall over and over again while the ship of state flounders because of so many OTHER ISSUES.

[library_max]

44. And yet every attack we see,

on Kerry, our platform, or Democrats in general, and every word of praise for Republicans that we hear in JPS, comes from the RKBA crowd.

[FeebMaster]

46. Actually, it was the gun control crowd that was

pimping John McCain, a Republican, as Kerry's VP.

[-..__...]

4. Yeah....

whatever.

:eyes:

[stepnw1f]

5. How about the Nazi Party

Let's just buy nukes. Shit.... assualt weapons are pea shooters compared to what a tyrrany has.

[UpsideDownFlag]

6. what about the nazi party? besides the fact that most neo-nazis are

gun lovers? or how about that guy graced the pages of DU's most recent top 10 conservative idiots list, the repub who supports eugenics?

[Endangered Specie]

7. Heh...

I suppose you dont know about THAT forum...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=22105

The presence of a few idiots in Nazi uniforms need not spoil a family outing.

[stepnw1f]

9. What about him?

I have a big boot to stick in his ass. No need for guns.

[enfield collector]

19. the nazi party were huge fans of gun control.

it's much easier to murder innocents if they are unarmed.

[skippythwndrdog]

27. Too true.

1935: "This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
- Adolf Hitler

[MrBenchley]

33. And yet every numbnutz with a swastika spouts "gun rights"

at the top of their lungs...

Why, you'd almost think this "Nazis loved gun control" is just another bit of dishonest right wing horseshit, or something....

[Vladimir]

72. Mussolini loved trains that run on time

shall we complain about punctuality so as not to appear fascists? My pen is ready!!

[MrBenchley]

85. Wonder if that's why

so many right wing loonies hate mass transit?

[library_max]

34. Source? /nt

[Columbia]

38. Fake

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html

[library_max]

40. Thank you, sir. Hey, iver!

I'm useless at clip art. Do you have a medal or award or anything for "honesty in argument even when it doesn't benefit your side"? Because I think post #38 calls for one.

On edit: oh, I see you've also exploded this myth. Still, I think it is very, very cool that Columbia "told the truth and shamed the devil."

[iverglas]

51. well hmm

"Honesty" didn't get us much, but how about "integrity"?


http://joyfellowship.bc.ca/awards.htm

Ah, I see. I'd gone to Images from having selected "Canadian sites" at Google, and it kept selecting Canadian sites. Switching ...

I kinda think this one fits:


http://www.thesitefights.com/wepatrol/mia.html

and here's the one I'm aiming for after that unfortunate incident with dogbone ;) :


http://members.aol.com/erin310/honesty.html


(typo fixed)

[iverglas]

39. well, I can give you a few

The quote:

1935: "This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future!" - Adolf Hitler

Google finds 641 sources:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22a+civilized+nation+has+full+gun+registration%22&meta=

http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/GUNS.html
"We Need Government Control, Not Gun Control. Tyrants have always loathed an armed people."
Good liberal sentiment.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=69
"Gun Control: the Open Door to Dictatorship"
("In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent.")

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/fame.html
"Gun Control Hall of Fame - By Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership"

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/national.htm
"National Gun Registration - Paving the Road to Tyranny"
("Reprinted from NewsMax.com" ... and they wonder ...)

http://www.conservativeforum.org/quotelist.asp?SearchType=5&Interest=65

and one could go on.


But here's one I like:

http://www.rense.com/general17/hitlersgermany.htm

From David M. Deane
[e-mail]
11-27-1

Just thought you'd like to know that the following Hitler quote is bogus:

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

There wasn't much "gun control" in Hitler's Germany (not to be confused with German actions in conquered countries). What "gun registration" which did exist was enacted by the Weimar Republic, almost a decade before Hitler came to power. Hitler did not confiscate guns from ordinary Germans: the Allied armies did that. Ironically, Hitler's Germany had freer gun laws than any country in Europe today.

This is not meant to cast any "positive" light on Hitler, but to draw your attention to the historical anachronism of the bogus quote: gun registration was not a political issue during the 1930's in Germany, and Hitler would never have made such a boast. It would never have occurred to Hitler to credit gun registration (which he did not do) for the streets being safe: Hitler would have credited his rise to power for peace and safety (ie, all the nasty communists were locked up, hence no more street fighting).

There simply was not that much crime in 1930's Germany to begin with: the above bogus quote in fact sounds like a product of 1960's America, when crime was in fact just starting to become a big political issue (hence the anachronism of projecting the issue of street crime back on to 1930's Germany, where it hardly existed and was not a political issue).

"Bogus". It's such a nice word.


And another:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlergun.html


Hell, not even smart gun fans buy this one (I was going to say honest, but reading other stuff on this particular site dissuaded me):

http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusAntiGunQuotes.htm

Perhaps the most infamous bogus quote is attributed to Adolf Hitler. Usually, the questionable passage reads as follows:

1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!

Note: This passage sometimes features different punctuation and slight wording changes including a beginning of, ‘For the first time in history, a....’ Various citations include: Adolf Hitler, April 15, 1935, in address to the Reichstag; Adolf Hitler 1935 'Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation) April 15th, 1935 Page 3 Article 2 by Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann -"Abschied vom Hessenland!". "Adolf" is sometimes misspelled as ‘Adolph’ on the Internet.

While the above 'quote' makes a nice T-shirt, there are numerous problems with this alleged statement. (1) It violates the rule of not beginning a sentence with a number. (2) It isn’t phrased in Hitler’s style. (3) Major changes to the German gun laws occurred in 1928 and 1931 (under the Weimar Republic) and in 1938 (under the Nazi’s). No significant changes happened in the gun registration laws in 1935. Furthermore, the changes in 1928 and 1931 were designed to disarm the Nazis and Communists and therefore it is doubtful that Hitler would trumpet the success of any law aimed at his goon squads.

That's at least smart.

So what does that make our buddy whatsisname here?


(typo fixed)

[DoNotRefill]

94. Hey Iverglas....care to comment on this quote?

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." --Heinrich Himmler

True, false, undetermined?

Thanks.

[library_max]

49. Any hope of an apology for posting a bogus quote? /nt

[MrBenchley]

56. Are you kidding?

[library_max]

81. Hey, fair's fair. Columbia told the truth. Why can't skippy? /nt

[FeebMaster]

83. Good job.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x78861

[library_max]

84. Thanks for the link, Feeb.

Skippy's had a link back to here for more than four hours now. I guess he doesn't want to rumple up this thread by admitting that he was wrong.

[FeebMaster]

86. Oh, did you miss the thread where he apologized?

Here's a link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=78861&mesg_id=78861

[library_max]

87. So why not apologize here?

Why run away and apologize somewhere else? The offense was committed here.

[FeebMaster]

88. You should read the other thread.

He explained in his first post.

[library_max]

89. And I gave him the link he said he couldn't find in that post. /nt

[Endangered Specie]

8. Well, as a "gun-grabber", your going to be a minority in the gungeon.

Welcome though, we always need reinforcements :hi:

[FeebMaster]

11. Not just the dungeon

unless you ignore all of those meaningless online polls we've had up in GD.

[-..__...]

12. "your going to be a minority in the gungeon".

Telling... isn't it?

[UpsideDownFlag]

13. yes, its interesting that there are so many people in the J/PS forum who

sound like charlton heston and ted nugent when it comes to guns.

[FeebMaster]

14. Yes, you should call them

pro-gun "Democrats" or if you want to be incoherent "pro gun democrats."

[turnkey]

20. non-partisan issue

Maybe because gun ownership isn't a Democrat/Republican thing. Mine are tools that are used for specific purposes.

[library_max]

35. Another thing you'll want to know, JibJab,

is that we get a lot of "visiting" freepers and trolls in this forum making pro-gun posts before they get tombstoned.

[MrBenchley]

23. Yup...

Just as its telling that this is the only place on DU where we actually have "pro gun democrats" pimping FOR Republicans....

[FeebMaster]

29. Actually it was the gun control crowd

who were actively pimping for John McCain as Kerry's VP.

[TheRovingGourmet]

15. This would be a good thing if you really want the

Republicans to solidify their control of the House and the Senate in 2006 and want to see Kerry made a fool of when he tries to implement his plan.

[skippythwndrdog]

16. Are you saying that you can't understand that valuing rights and

being progressive should be at odds?

Our 2A rights are just as dear as the rest. Would you muzzle a disparate opinion on any other issue? Should people be forced to surrender or register any object others might deem offensive?

[library_max]

36. Maybe he can just distinguish between real rights and made-up ones. /nt

[Vladimir]

17. Good bit of gun grabbage

oh wait, you don't want to grab any guns, do you? What you want is to have guns registered so that the state has some idea of who, exactly, is running around with a Magnum 44 pretending to be Dirty Harry. Which is sensible. :)

PS I love gun porn, for that matter I love replica guns, but I have never felt the urge to own the real thing. Maybe its a European thing, maybe I'm just frustrated. Who knows?

[goju]

18. Kerry is smarter than that

I think he genuinely believes that the AWB and closing the so called gun show loophole would make people safer. He's genuine about his concern, if not misguided. Nevertheless, he is too smart to hang his presidency on some Asscroft-esque political move.

The AWB is all but dead at this point. I can see the issue revisited next year especially if we pick up more seats in the house. But Kerry wont be leading the charge.

And, by the way, Kerry cant just reinstate the AWB all by himself.

[MrSandman]

21. Welcome to DU...

:hi:

[MrBenchley]

22. Sounds DAMN good to me

and millions of other Americans...

[slackmaster]

24. You have a right to your opinion

:toast:

I hope that when kerry wins, he makes it one of his first priorities to reinstate the AWB, and make registration of handguns and semi auto rifles and shotguns compulsory.

I hope that doesn't happen, because it would be likely to trigger a backlash that would give the GOP even more power.

[gatlingforme]

25. LOL, I think George Bush should just resign and give up .

[skippythwndrdog]

26. I can promise this.

If compulsory registration happens, I have a number of handguns, rifles, and shotguns that were either purchased legally from private owners, were gifts, or that I inherited that will never be registerd so long as they are in my possession.

[Vladimir]

28. Why not? n/t

[seabeyond]

30. dont like them like i dont like abortion

i do see it is their right and not mine to take away from. like it is my right to smoke without having my children taken away from me.

[iverglas]

31. that's funny

"dont like them"

Wasn't it you who was just telling us you were gonna go out and get yourself one?

i do see it is their right and not mine to take away from. like it is my right to smoke without having my children taken away from me.

And it's my right to poop in the park and not yours to take <it> away from <me>.

So there. Nyah nyah.

At least, I think that's what you were saying.

[seabeyond]

32. so poop in the park

no i didnt say i was going to go out and buy a gun. my husband already has guns. i dont like them, but i married him knowing he had guns. been married a decade and he nor i have bought one

[iverglas]

37. well mea culpa

I guess I had misinterpreted this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=77327&mesg_id=77362&page=

i had to sit with this

female, older, always i opposed guns, didnt like them at all

i have children now, little ones, and have had to ask myself, if someone came into my home would i kill. without a doubt. i wouldnt feel guilt, hate anger.....has simply bottom lined to this person chose to invade space. i have to assume he intends harm.

as a decision to acquire/consider acquiring a firearm/firearms.

I guess it was just a decision to be okay with using them.

[seabeyond]

73. decision to be okay with using them

yes

[FeebMaster]

41. If you want to fit in with the gun control crowd here

it's important to make as many references to defecation as possible; "pantload" and "pooping in the park." Folks down here can't get enough of it. Shitting oneself is a government recommended form of self-defense in Australia, after all.

Why bother having an AWB if you're going to register semi-auto rifles and shotguns?

[library_max]

42. You'll also have to get used to pointless questions asked over and over

just to be annoying. Because I think there's someone down here who does that.

O8)

[FeebMaster]

43. If you don't want me to ask questions over and over again

maybe you should just answer them.

Have you read the AWB yet?

[library_max]

45. " . . . pointless questions asked over and over . . . "

Somebody missed a crucial word.

[FeebMaster]

47. Pointless is a matter of opinion.

Have you read the AWB yet? It's a simple question and only requires one word to answer.

[MrBenchley]

48. Pointless is pretty much feeb's entire shtick....

[FeebMaster]

50. Yup.

"Pointless is pretty much feeb's entire shtick...."

Of course, I generally read a law before blindly supporting it.

[Vladimir]

52. Because you may wish to use the AWB

as a starting point for tighter regulation or just to ban a certain sub-class of semi-auto weeapons... and you may wish to have registration regardless of which guns are banned or not.

[FeebMaster]

53. If you want tighter regulation

or to ban a certain sub-class of semi-auto, just do it. If they're registered it should be relatively easy to round them up. I wouldn't use the AWB as a starting point for anything, unless you want to fail. If you want a good starting off point, use the NFA. Now that's a gun law.

[Vladimir]

54. The AWB bans a certain class of semi auto

much as it is shit, that is technically its purpose.

[FeebMaster]

55. I wouldn't say it bans a certain class of semi-auto.

It bans manufacturing of weapons with certain features for civilians. Weapons with those features manufactured before the ban were grandfathered and perfectly legal to own and sell. Weapons manufactured after the ban for the civilian market lack enough features to classify them as assault weapons and are not banned either.

[MrSandman]

57. Did it it not fail to ban any classes of semi auto?

After all, you have gas operated, blowback, delayed blowback, and recoil. Which class was the manufacure of banned?

[FeebMaster]

60. The scary looking class.

Assuming they're less scary without flash suppressors and bayonet lugs.

[MrSandman]

62. In profile, maybe...

Head on, they are all scary looking.

[Vladimir]

58. Semantics aside

where depending on our level of pedantry we could end up discussing the meaning of class, you see my point about how its not necessarily contradictory to registration?

[FeebMaster]

59. I didn't say it was contradictory.

Just unnecessary.

[Vladimir]

61. But its not even that

You may wish to have all semi-autos registered, and quite separately not allow the further manufacture of some semi-autos whether registered or not.

[FeebMaster]

63. Yes

but the AWB is pointless as far as that goes. If we were talking about a ban on all semi-autos with detachable magazines or something like that it'd be one thing but we're talking about what amounts to a ban on flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. Just let it go and pass something really horrendous like amending the NFA's minimum barrel length for rifles from 16" to 18" with a couple month free registration period. You could register tens of thousands of weapons, maybe more, right there.

Don't you see? You don't even have to pass a law to register guns. The law is already there. You just have to amend it to affect more and more guns.

[Vladimir]

64. Amend, pass, all the same to me

Obviously between amending existing legislation and passing new legislation one makes the choice that is more likely to succeed. However, there is no need to let the AWB sunset in order to pass new legislation, and keeping it on is a PR victory against the gun lobby. Moreover, keeping it on allows you to use the amend option, letting it sunset doesn't.

[FeebMaster]

65. How are you going to amend the AWB

to make it useful?

[Vladimir]

66. Not being a lawyer

I couldn't give you the details of the wording but a start may be to remove the grandfather clause or at the very least remove its sell-on component. That is the major reason why i see the AWB as a bit of a joke. After that... well I am sure people who know a lot more about guns than me could go into specific features that should be banned. Maybe what you said about detachable magazines.

[FeebMaster]

67. You understand that the only result of removing

the grandfather clause would be that people would take their AWs and replace flash suppressors with muzzle breaks or nothing, take off bayonet lugs, and permanently pin collapsible stocks so they no longer collapse, right?

What sell-on component are you referring to?

"After that... well I am sure people who know a lot more about guns than me could go into specific features that should be banned."

Maybe you should learn a bit about guns so you can decide what you think should be banned on your own. It's people who don't know anything about guns writing laws that got you the joke that is the AWB in the first place.

[Vladimir]

68. Well there are two ways to handle

the grandfather clause. You could either demand that the weapons be turned over (maybe with recompense if that was necessary), or you could allow the owners to keep them but prohibit the weapons from being sold further. And if they had weapons which could be modified to comply, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to modify them and comply in that way.

As to the second point, yes, I'm not the world's expert on guns. I do however know enough to realise that the AWB has more holes than swiss cheese and that bayonet lugs and suchlike make little difference to a semi-auto's effectiveness. But it has just occured to me what feature could be banned - how about all semi-auto weapons full stop? After all you don't need them for hunting (if you know how to shoot anyway although i concede they make life easier), home defence (i keep reading here that shotguns, which can be semi auto but are mostly repeaters AFAIK are the weapon of choice there), self defence in general (where a revolver is quite sufficient)... how about that? You see, that's the point Feeb - I don't need to be the world's expert on guns to give you a working and stringent AWB. On the other hand, I would rather leave it to the experts because the same effect may be achievable by less of a sledgehammer method.

[FeebMaster]

69. If you want to ban semi-autos

why not just say so in the first place?


You see, that's the point Feeb - I don't need to be the world's expert on guns to give you a working and stringent AWB.

Well if you banned all semi-autos you could at least be honest and call it a semi-auto ban.


On the other hand, I would rather leave it to the experts because the same effect may be achievable by less of a sledgehammer method.

So you want to ban semi-autos without actually banning semi-autos. Good luck with that. You'd better hope the person who writes that bill is less inept than the person who wrote the AWB.

[Vladimir]

70. This is not about what I want

I was giving you "semi-auto" as a possible definition of "assault weapon" for the purposes of making the AWB more useful. As has been stated many times in this forum, the term assault weapon was undefined in law prior to the AWB. So redefining it seems a totally fair and honest thing to do. It is only one example, and I only gave it because its the most trivial one that illustrates my point - that the AWB is ammendable to make it useful.

What "the same effect" referred to was "a working and stringent AWB". So to spell it out:

One could ammend the AWB in a useful manner by defining the term "assault weapon" to mean any semi-automatic weapon. A firearms expert could probably think of other ways to ammend the AWB in a useful manner, which may or may not include the quality "semi-automatic" in the definition of "assault weapon".

[FeebMaster]

71. Amending the AWB to ban all semi-autos

would basically involve repealing the entire AWB and passing a semi-auto ban in its place. In any case, the AWB will more than likely be gone in just over a month, so you might as well forget about it and start working on a separate semi-auto ban.

Personally, if I were on the gun control side, I'd let this obsession with Assault Weapons and the AWB die. The NFA is a way better law to amend. You get registration with fingerprints and pictures of the owner, background checks that take months, a $200 tax for each registered weapon every time it changes hands, vague "sporting purposes" crap that lets ATF declare all sorts of things as NFA items without passing new laws. To amend the AWB to do the things you want, you basically have to start from scratch. The NFA has been in place for 70 years and has a lot of the stuff you want already.

[MrSandman]

90. Don't forget obtaining approval...

From the local chief law enforcement officer.

[FeebMaster]

91. Whoops, that's an important one.

You'd think given the hundred or more times I've typed that out here I wouldn't be able to forget something that important.

[MrSandman]

92. Have them update the training syllabus...n/t

[FeebMaster]

93. They're going to dock my pay for that one.

:(

[MrSandman]

95. Thank Heavens for the Minders

:evilgrin:

[udeligv]

74. how nice

That's what you hope, huh?

News flash, bud: the President doesn't have the authority to reinstate the AWB, or to make gun registration compulsory. All he can do is try to get Congress to do it, and sign the bill if they do.

(The present incumbent, you might recall, said he'd sign the AWB renewal if they passed it, and it didn't make any difference. What makes you think Kerry would have any better luck?)

Which, whether or not you think these would be good things, are politically impossible in the US right now, and are going to stay that way for at least the next four years. The votes just aren't there on the Hill; the struggle for control of Congress is far too intense and the numbers too close and the gun vote too dangerous in most states.

I'm used to seeing the right-wing gun buffs in the firearms forums (try saying "firearms forums" twenty times very fast) talking about how Kerry's going to take their guns away if he gets elected, and I've given up trying to explain to the damn fools that he couldn't do it even if he tried.

I guess this is just another example of the essential similarity of certain seemingly opposite viewpoints.

[iverglas]

75. not especially

It's just never "nice" to see anyone, let alone such an intentionally obnoxious transient, misrepresenting what someone else said.

What someone else said was:

I hope that when kerry wins, he makes it one of his first priorities to reinstate the AWB, and make registration of handguns and semi auto rifles and shotguns compulsory.

What you said, in supposed "reply", was:

News flash, bud: the President doesn't have the authority to reinstate the AWB, or to make gun registration compulsory.

Sheeit -- DID SOMEONE SAY HE DID? Did anyone even say anything that implied that s/he thought that the President had such authority?

I think not. In fact, I know not. As does anyone who read what was said and is minimally capable of understanding English.

I guess this is just another example of the essential similarity of certain seemingly opposite viewpoints.

It sure seems to be.

There sure is a marked similarity between "this" -- your post -- and what's found on those firearms forums you were talking about. It lies in the manifestly very similar viewpoint on the question of integrity in discourse.

[goju]

78. Look at it this way

I know you like to play semantics but, it doesnt really get anywhere. I dont think we need to dissect every sentence and define every word, or do we?

The statement was:

"I hope that when kerry wins, he makes it one of his first priorities to reinstate the AWB, and make registration of handguns and semi auto rifles and shotguns compulsory."

Now we can parse this sentence till the cows come home but, since we are in an "informal" venue, I dont think that is necessary or helpful.

One can "reasonably" infer from that statement that either the poster DOES believe it is within the power of the president to do such things, or the poster simply wants Kerry to address those issues when elected. Im quite sure if the poster was writing a legal brief, it wouldnt be open to such "interpretations". But, thats not what s/he was doing.

So, is it worthy of YOUR time to jump all over the responder because he made ONE inference, and you made ANOTHER? Im quite sure you will support your post by pointing out the lack of an explicit assertion in the statement that involved presidential powers but, its only a message board, not a court room. You have to calm down and let people speak freely, and try to understand people arent always clear in their postings. Both posters, in this case, werent "absolutely" clear.

Im not picking a fight with you but you do this frequently in your responses. You parse each sentence to death for grammar/meaning and then proceed to tear apart the poster for his/her lack of clarity. The question is, why dont you point that semantical dagger at the "anti gun" posters in the way you do the RKBA'ers? Im quite sure we would be equally entertained by your semantical surgery regardless of which side of the gun control issue you target.

[iverglas]

79. talking to the wrong person, chum

So, is it worthy of YOUR time to jump all over the responder because he made ONE inference, and you made ANOTHER?

I just wasn't the one either inferring or pretending to have inferred something that no reasonable person of integrity would have either inferred or pretended to infer from what was said.

Im not picking a fight with you but you do this frequently in your responses.

Amazingly, what I don't do is pretend that people meant things that they plainly did not mean.

Unhappily, there are a lot of people who do just that all the damned time.

Why don't you take your chiding finger and point it at them, for wasting the time of all of us with their antics?

Oh ... no mirror handy?

You parse each sentence to death for grammar/meaning and then proceed to tear apart the poster for his/her lack of clarity.

That's all just absolutely fascinating, but it has NOTHING to do with what you're purporting to talk about here.

**I** was not tearing anyone apart for lack of clarity.

Your new little chum wasn't either -- s/he was using a "lack of clarity" that could have existed only in the eye of someone "parsing <the> sentence to death", or doing something else boring and unpleasant, to portray someone else as uninformed or as having attempted to mislead readers.

The question is, why dont you point that semantical dagger at the "anti gun" posters in the way you do the RKBA'ers?

Well, gosh, if **I** had been pointing such a thing at anyone, you'd have a point.

Since the person doing it was not moi, and was specifically the person a mere one post ahead of mine in the little subthread you seem to have been reading, go tell it to him/her, s/he being someone who might care.

And ask yourself your question too, mutatis mutandis, while you're at it.

One can "reasonably" infer from that statement that either the poster DOES believe it is within the power of the president to do such things, or the poster simply wants Kerry to address those issues when elected.

So ... since the first inference would mean that the writer believed something that is a nonsense, and the second inference would mean that the writer was saying something that made absolute sense and was just exactly what one might expect someone like the writer to say ... why did this individual latch onto that first allegedly reasonable inference, do you suppose?

If the individual in question had settled for the second inference, there really wouldn't have been any comment necessary at all, would there?


"I hope that when kerry wins, he makes it one of his first priorities to reinstate the AWB, and make registration of handguns and semi auto rifles and shotguns compulsory.
Now we can parse this sentence till the cows come home but, since we are in an "informal" venue, I dont think that is necessary or helpful.

Exactly damned right you are. There was no need whatsoever to (pretend to) infer that the writer of that sentence was speaking nonsense.

I trust that that I can count on you to explain it to our visitor, just in case s/he returns.

[UpsideDownFlag]

80. i should clarify.

i would be pleased if kerry requested that congress create a bill to the effect of what i was saying.

of course i understand what he can and cant do- but face it, a heck of a lot of legislation starts b/c of the exec branches' request. see?

[library_max]

82. And that's another thing you'll want to get used to.

Most of our RKBAers see exactly what they want to see and nothing more. And if they can find a way to misrepresent your statements to their advantage, that's what they'll do. With exceptions, of course.

[Van23]

77. I've tried to

make the same point about Kerry on right-wing pro-gun sites but to no avail. Kerry's NOT going to take anyone's guns away. Some of these idiot right wingers will vote for Satan if he runs on a platform promising not to "take your guns away."

[OpSomBlood]

76. You want to ban "assault weapons" AND "semi auto rifles"?

Looks like someone needs to do some homework.

I think your master plan would be a fantastic way for the Dems to lose a whole lot of elections. But I guess you could take comfort in the fact that you were "right"!