Guess Which Pro-Gun Group Is Attacking Kerry and the Democrats

[MrBenchley]

Answer: All of them. As far as I can see, every gun owner group and gun owner online forum is thick with dittohead rubbish. The one thread I can find on one forum today attacking Bush does so because he isn't enough of a right wing crazy to suit...

At least Alan Colmes blinks once in a while and shifts in his chair.

[FeebMaster]

1. Wow. What a shocker.

I mean, pro-gun groups attacking a guy like Kerry. It just doesn't make sense. I mean he's a gun owner and a sportsman. You don't get much more pro-gun than Kerry. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Warpy]

4. Kerry's a Democrat

The knee jerk jerks and the pod people on the right need no other reason to despise the man and everything he stands for. That's why the filthy attack on his war record is allowed on the airwaves unchallenged by the right, and why the gunloons are jerking their knees in such rapid succession it looks like goose stepping.

This will happen with any Democrat. The GOP has degenerated into a cult phenomenon, and anyone from outside the cult is vilified, no matter how his viewpoints might be one's own. Anyone within the cult is accepted without question, even when he violates everything the cult is supposed to stand for.

I don't find them any different from the Moonies, or the Jim Jones people or any other bunch of loonies fixated on a big daddy leader.

[FeebMaster]

7. Right. He's a Democrat.

I'm sure all the pro-gun groups just don't like him because he's a Democrat. It makes perfect sense. It has nothing to do with his record on guns. That clearly doesn't matter. He's a Democrat, a gun owner, and a sportsman. How dare the pro-gun groups not like him.

[Wickerman]

16. I guess the gun groups know what is important to them

just like Democrats, regardless of RKBA stance know what is important for themselves when they select a President.

[FeebMaster]

19. No kidding.

That's probably why they call them pro-gun groups.

[Wickerman]

22. Right -O

and why I am always so mystified when we get so many NRA posts and talking points here at DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[FeebMaster]

25. Maybe because not all Democrats are gun grabbers.

Besides, most of the time when you see people claim that something is an NRA talking point, they're full of shit.

[Wickerman]

26. true enough

if one lived down here all their life one would assume that Kerry criticism, 5 weeks from the election, was a Dem talking point, not just a NRA and RW tactic.

[FeebMaster]

27. Ahh yes the mysterious Kerry criticism

that plagues the dungeon. There's certainly none of that going on up in the GDs or LBN or anywhere else. Last time I checked GD:C2004, it was one big love-fest for Kerry. Clearly criticism of Kerry is confined to the dungeon and is obviously an elaborate plot from the NRA and the rest of the right wing to crush Kerry in the election.

[Wickerman]

29. Nah, not just the NRA, a bunch of disengenuious folks

who are much more intent on bitching about Kerry and guns than working to make sure Bush is removed from the WH. That, of course, being the stated goal of DU - not, "Support Gun Rights Over the Political Corpse of Any and All Dems who Dare Utter a Word Counter to any Gun Ownership Ideal."

Here, recycled from a previous discussion, is just one thread's worth of bitching about Kerry.

No names required:

Then again, given Kerry's apparent confusion over assault weapons and machine guns, who knows, maybe he just owns a semi-auto AK-47, which I also have no particular problem with.

..on edit removed this one particular quote..

Gun laws do not apply to the 'elite'
No one is going to try and charge Kerry for owning a machine gun for the same reason that no one is going to charge Bush for owning that banned handgun in DC. Thats just two examples.
Its no secret that powerful politicians make laws for the common folk while ignoring them on their own behalf.
This is an area where hypocracy knows no party label.
For those who think Im bashing Kerry, well IM not. Im bashing ALL anti-gun, gun owning politicians...starting with the pResident.

Good point..
Let's face it. It's election time and he's running for all the marbles. Like him or not (I like him best overall) he is going to use what his handlers see as the necessary catch phrases to get the most votes.
I still can't believe that he was so misinformed that he stated that the AWB sunset would allow machine guns on the streets, but he did.
He still has my support, but I would like to see complete honesty in all areas of the campaign. Unfortunately, he's a political animal with many handlers. Right about now, the poor guy is probably so worn down from the campaign grind that he'll say anything the handlers tell him to say.

Not only that, but the law that Kerry sponsored in the US Senate, (SB 1431), would DEFINTELY have banned his own rifle on a federal level. Just wait till the Pubs get ahold of this one when this interview comes out in print.

I also know for a FACT that when Al Gore made the disparaging remarks about the NRA to a crowd in the midwest, he was through in my state. NBC News ran that clip over and over and over...I wished I could have warned Gore to simply keep his mouth shut. Gunowners in Tennessee generally don't trust Democrats anyway and Kerry's latest comments unfortunately feed right into this perception.

http://www.sportsmenforkerryedwards.com/s1431.htm
Dumb, dumb DUMB to even breathe the word "gun" with Kerry's record. All this does is to allow the Repubs to bash Kerry in the much needed swing and southern states with his own sponsorship of draconian gun laws of his own making. Sponsoring them during the course of action in the US Senate is one thing. Kerry trying to use it as a campaign wedge issue is assinine. It just shows the lack of understanding of rural voter's thought patterns and feeds the distrust that they already have with Kerry and politicos like him.
Kerry should have never said ONE WORD about guns or the AWB and hope that Bush didn't either

Does it bother you that Kerry is a machine gun owner?

Huh?
Really, don't be upset. Kerry owning a machine gun isn't that big of a deal.

Well I just don't see what it has to do with
Kerry owning a machine gun.

Actually....
Kerry never said that he owned a machinegun. What he said was a "chinese assault rifle". Since Kerry obviously doesn't know what an assault rifle even is by definition, he probably included anything that is semi-automatic.
Yes, rifles can be "cut up" or demilitarized, but this is not common with semi-autos which are common in any pawn shop anyway. This is usually reserved for class three weapons like machineguns, destructive devices, etc..
And yes...it IS a MAJOR problem if it turns out that Kerry actually DOES own a live machinegun. Again, MG ownership is not banned federally, but in a deference to states rights, the Feds defer to the individual states to decide whether or not to allow them. Also Chief county or city LEO's also have a say.
Let me say this again...MA and DC are NOT class three/MG states. It is utterly illegal for an unlicensed individual to own a live MG in these states.

[FeebMaster]

32. I see you share this interesting definition of

"bitching" about things that some other posters down here seem to have.



Then again, given Kerry's apparent confusion over assault weapons and machine guns, who knows, maybe he just owns a semi-auto AK-47, which I also have no particular problem with.

This one was mine. See, like I told sangh0 up in LBN, if I don't take Kerry at his word that he owns a machine gun, people will accuse me of bitching and bashing. If I claim he might not own a machine gun, I'm saying he doesn't know what he's talking about which is bitching and bashing. If I point out that he said he had a machine gun, that's bad too for some reason. Why, I have no idea other than some people don't want civilians to be able to own them and it made them feel awkward to support someone who owned one. I guess I was screwed either way. In any case, my point stands given Kerry's speech on PBS where he was talking about the AWB and machine guns.

Of course it doesn't matter at this point since Kerry's "assault rifle" is apparently a bolt-action Mosin-Nagant and the answer to the interview was written in Kerry's name by some halfwit staffer who should be fired. I mean I've seen bolt-action rifles described as "assault rifles" down here in the dungeon before, but give me a break.


Does it bother you that Kerry is a machine gun owner?

Huh?
Really, don't be upset. Kerry owning a machine gun isn't that big of a deal.

Well I just don't see what it has to do with
Kerry owning a machine gun.

I think all of these were mine too. I still don't see where the bitching or bashing is.


The rest weren't mine, so I don't feel any particular urge to defend them, but I don't see how most of them were singling out Kerry for bitching or bashing either.

[Wickerman]

34. Guess the point is

that I call "taking to task" bitching. Call it a matter of semantics, whatever. I think we have bigger fish to fry than to continue to beat this dead horse of whether Kerry supports gun rights or not. He has said he is a hunter and supports private ownership. Yet, for some unknown reason so many here want to re-hash, post after post, his statements or staffer's mis=statements on guns. To what end? To discredit him? Sure seems that way from where I sit. Meanwhile, nary a word against Bush is spoken. Why some folks are so willing to work against the puposes of this board mystifies me. :think:

[FeebMaster]

37. That's interesting

considering that I've spoken against Bush repeatedly both here in the dungeon and elsewhere on the board. I certainly don't think I'm the only one who has.

As for the Kerry's idiot staffer issue, I'm still not sure how pointing out that Kerry is a machine gun owner, assuming he had been a machine gun owner, could be considered bashing him. It's a fairly neutral fact as far as I'm concerned. I guess now pointing out that Kerry has staffers giving interviews in print in his name could be considered bashing him, if it were brought up. Personally I wouldn't bring it up, though, since I'm sure just about all politicians or their staffers do it.

[Wickerman]

38. Again, I guess we misunderstand each other

You think I refer to you? That explains the quarrelsome nature our discussion have taken on of late. I am speaking in generalities while you thought I was speaking to you specifically. I've meant the gungeon in general on these points. Yes, your comments have filtered in on occasion, but I refer to the board at large.

My apologies - surely your liberal cred is without doubt. Hell, I've even stuck up for you at the board that cannot be named... Anyone who asks, I say, that Feeb, he is a good liberal, his commie pinko flag proudly flies in the wind. :)

So, now that we have that straight, and we have beaten the "machine gun/staffer" issue to death, back, and to death again, how about we move on and talk the re-defeat of Bush? Deal?

[FeebMaster]

39. Whether you refer to me or the dungeon in general

I still don't see it. Most people down here, barring 10 post trolls that don't last past 20, have made it quite clear they're voting for Kerry and I think have made their feelings on Bush quite clear as well. I think it's only natural that you see more talking, bashing or otherwise, about Kerry than you do about Bush and the same would hold about most of the other forums on DU. Most people here are in agreement that Bush sucks for any number of reasons. What's to discuss really? This is DEMOCRATIC Underground after all, it seems to me that there would be more discussion about the DEMOCRATIC candidate than the other guy.


My apologies - surely your liberal cred is without doubt. Hell, I've even stuck up for you at the board that cannot be named... Anyone who asks, I say, that Feeb, he is a good liberal, his commie pinko flag proudly flies in the wind. :)

I'm not a liberal and I've never claimed to be. As I've said in the past, I don't care for the term liberal, it's as meaningless as conservative. Also, I hate communists and communism in general and I don't think I'm alone here at DU in that regard.



So, now that we have that straight, and we have beaten the "machine gun/staffer" issue to death, back, and to death again, how about we move on and talk the re-defeat of Bush? Deal?

Sure, if you want, but I think I've made my thoughts on how Kerry can win pretty clear in the past. I'm a little concerned that saying anything about Kerry or his campaign would be considered bashing him, so I guess I'll just have to stick to bashing Bush.

[Wickerman]

40. so I guess I'll just have to stick to bashing Bush

I really think 5 weeks to election that is more constructive at DU than to continue to dredge the pile for faults of Kerry. I fail to see what that accomplishes - particularly when you hold no stake in this election.

My apologies for putting you in the liberal camp - I won't make that mistake again.

[FeebMaster]

41. I'll keep that in mind

but then I haven't personally dredged the pile for Kerry's faults and there are plenty that could be pointed out. I don't really think bashing Bush is any more constructive than bashing Kerry, but I guess I'll stick with it.

[Wickerman]

42. Perhaps, but since you aren't voting

its really academic, isn't it?

[FeebMaster]

43. I suppose it is.

Maybe I should just shut up until after the election.

[UpsideDownFlag]

46. you're not voting??

thanks for doing your part.

[FeebMaster]

47. It's my pleasure.

[UpsideDownFlag]

51. not even a protest vote? write in socialism, or something.

or vote for the libertarian candidate. if you don't vote, you really are forsaking your obligations as citizen.

are you registering anyone to vote, in lou of doing it yourself?

[FeebMaster]

53. No protest vote.

Why would I write in socialism? I hate socialism. The Libertarian party can't even get Libertarians to vote for them, why should I?


if you don't vote, you really are forsaking your obligations as citizen.

I disagree. It's my vote to spend as I see fit. I choose none of the above along with the majority of eligible voters.


are you registering anyone to vote, in lou of doing it yourself?

Why would I? If anything, I'd encourage people not to vote, although I haven't done that either.

[UpsideDownFlag]

52. herein lies the pitfall of "big tent" forums. nt

[Speak no evil]

68. LB, are you saying that we should be willing to sacrifice

our guns, if that's what it takes to get Bush out?

"Nah, not just the NRA, a bunch of disengenuious folks
who are much more intent on bitching about Kerry and guns than working to make sure Bush is removed from the WH. That, of course, being the stated goal of DU - not, "Support Gun Rights Over the Political Corpse of Any and All Dems who Dare Utter a Word Counter to any Gun Ownership Ideal." "

[Romulus]

65. don't look now

but there are people in GD:2004 "bashing Kerry" over the fact he got some sun last weekend . . .:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

66. Did they bad-mouth unions too?

[UpsideDownFlag]

45. well said. nt

[MrBenchley]

30. Gee, the "pro gun democrats" sure seem to have trouble

speaking up on those gun nut forums...and the major gun groups supporting the GOP don't upset them even a tiny little bit.

"when you see people claim that something is an NRA talking point, they're full of shit."
Feel free to try to refute a specific claim, feeb. But I'd bet all this RKBA horseshit can be found right on the NRA website....

[FeebMaster]

33. Well off the top of my head

all those times people were screeching about NRA talking points when I argued that machine guns should be unregulated, they were full of shit since the NRA currently supports and has always supported the current regulations on machine guns.

I've said before that I'll be more than happy to campaign for Kerry on the gun boards if you'll explain to me how to convince them. When they say, "Kerry cosponsored S.1431 which will ban my semi-auto duck gun" what should I say? Should I tell them that Kerry didn't actually mean to support legislation that would ban their duck guns and it was all a mistake as one pro-gun control poster suggested? I don't know if that's such a good idea. I think that saying that Kerry cosponsors legislation he hasn't read or doesn't understand might be considered bashing him.

[MrBenchley]

35. Feel free to link to a pst....

"I've said before that I'll be more than happy to campaign for Kerry on the gun boards if you'll explain to me how to convince them. "
Gee, feeb, why not tell them why you're going to vote for Kerry?

"When they say, "Kerry cosponsored S.1431 which will ban my semi-auto duck gun" what should I say?"
You could actually point to the text of the bill, which shows what a pantload that claim is. Max and TxRat already explained that to the board in detail.

[FeebMaster]

36. What pst?

Gee, feeb, why not tell them why you're going to vote for Kerry?

Why on Earth would you think I'm voting for Kerry? I thought I'd made it clear who I was voting for six months ago when I said something along the lines of, I don't vote for gun grabbers, drug warriors, war mongers, or other assorted authoritarians so that basically means I don't vote.


You could actually point to the text of the bill, which shows what a pantload that claim is. Max and TxRat already explained that to the board in detail.

But the text of the bill is quite clear about classifying all semi-auto shotguns as assault weapons. What some other posters here, who may or may not have read the bill, think about it is basically irrelevant as to what it says and would do. Do you think the people on the gun boards haven't read S.1431? Do you think they don't know exactly what it's effects would be?

[UpsideDownFlag]

49. did you just call kerry a gun grabbing, drug warring, war mongering

authoritarian? this is DU, not anarchy.com.

[MrBenchley]

58. Yup...that's feeb....

Meanwhile, what's rule number one again?

[MrBenchley]

56. feeb doesn't own a gun, doesn't vote, doesn't know anything about politics

...and spends a significant amount of time fussing over why no-one listens to him.

"But the text of the bill is quite clear about classifying all semi-auto shotguns as assault weapons. "
Not even close to true, as has been explained nigh unto death by folks much more patient than I.

"Do you think the people on the gun boards haven't read S.1431?"
Yeah, but I think they're lying right wing shits...which also explains why they're still passing the slimeboat horseshit around, long after it's all been exposed as lies.

[UpsideDownFlag]

44. i present you with example #30007 of why i avoid the gungeon nowadays

i cant get into arguments anymore like this. but i applaud your attempts, lunabush and benchley.

[FeebMaster]

48. The endless reminders that you're in the minority

on gun control here at DU must be disturbing.

[UpsideDownFlag]

50. i hope i'm not the minority in that i dont think kerry is a warmongering

authoritarian.

[FeebMaster]

54. I wouldn't know

and I didn't call Kerry a warmongering authoritarian, I said I don't vote for gun grabbers, drug warriors, war mongers, or other assorted authoritarians. Which is not to say that Kerry is or isn't one or more of those, but frankly I'd prefer not to discuss it because it will certainly require what some people would consider bashing.

[MrBenchley]

59. "it will certainly require what some people would consider bashing"

Can't imagine what any honest person could consider it BUT bashing.

[Speak no evil]

67. Could it have something to do with

Rebecca Peters and George Soros? My next door neighbor said that the lack of pro-gun support for Kerry is because he is tight with George Soros, and that Soros is financing Rebecca Peters to organize confiscation of guns in the US like she did in Australia.

Anybody know anything about this?

"I'm sure all the pro-gun groups just don't like him because he's a Democrat. It makes perfect sense. It has nothing to do with his record on guns. That clearly doesn't matter. He's a Democrat, a gun owner, and a sportsman. How dare the pro-gun groups not like him."

[MrBenchley]

70. Wow....Rebecca Peters is gonna getcha....

Better hide under the bed.

So what did you tell your neighbor when he demonstrated what a screwloose he is?

[Speak no evil]

71. Doing a google search

on Rebecca Peters, Soros and Kerry comes up with a lot of fodder I have not yet had time to digest.

[MrBenchley]

72. And most of it being on Free Republic isn't some sort of tipoff?

Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ight...

Of course, there is a "fact sheet" from the humholes at the NRA....but it's the usual horseshit.

[Speak no evil]

74. Regardless of the source,

Is it true that Rebecca Peters was instrumental in getting hundreds of thousands of guns confiscated from previously lawful owners in Australia and the UK after broad bans were decreed? Is it true that Ms Peters is a consultant with the UN with plans to rid the world's civilian population of privately owned guns, including those in the US?

If this is so, enthusiastic gun owners in the US would tend to be concerned about it, regardless of their political affiliation.

[MrBenchley]

75. No, there's no "regardless of the source"

It's all freeper crap...and the fact that all of the cites are on Free Republic or stupider pretty much rules it out.

"Is it true that Ms Peters is a consultant with the UN with plans to rid the world's civilian population of privately owned guns, including those in the US?"
Better hide under the bed.,...we're coming to get you! Bwahahahahahahahah.....

Feel free to link to anything sane that backs that up.


"If this is so, enthusiastic gun owners in the US would tend to be concerned about it, regardless of their political affiliation."
Especially if they're the sort that believes freeper crap. Which is why they post it here with monotonous regularity.

[Speak no evil]

76. The same info is reflected by Trauma Foundation, straight from the horse

http://www.tf.org/tf/violence/firearms/intl5.shtml

http://www.umut.org.tr/ENG/sempozyum/katilicibiyog.htm

http://www.tf.org/tf/violence/firearms/Intl/buybac3.shtml

http://www.tf.org/tf/violence/firearms/Intl/ukhomeof2.shtml

As for sources, if a Republican says Bush is a simian this is just as true as when a Democrat says it.

[iverglas]

77. quote please

A link just doesn't do it.

What is this "the same" that you are seeing at, e.g., http://www.tf.org/tf/violence/firearms/intl5.shtml?

This maybe --

The United Nations, The Organization of American States (OAS), the European Union (EU) the Summit of Nations (G-8) and several other alliances of regional governments are currently working to strengthen global gun controls. Largely initiated by the law enforcement community, these initiatives aim to trace and record the movement of weapons over borders and to reduce the availability of guns for crime, conflict and all forms of violence. As international firearm regulation is seen to be most effective when supported by strong domestic gun controls, nations are being urged to harmonize their gun laws in key areas. These include import/export restrictions, the licensing of gun owners and the registration of their weapons.

? That is, you're alleging the above (or something else; perhaps you would say what) to be "the same" as "plans to rid the world's civilian population of privately owned guns, including those in the US"?

If so, we have one of those where to start situations. If I said to you that red was the same as blue, and you wanted to show how wrong I was, where would you start?

[Speak no evil]

79. Yes; you also need to follow other links on the page you quoted

such as http://www.tf.org/tf/violence/firearms/Intl/ukhomeof2.shtml

My intent is not to convince anybody of anything, but rather to have everyone do their own research, do their own thinking and make up their own mind.

[iverglas]

87. "yes"??

So you are in fact saying that

The United Nations, The Organization of American States (OAS), the European Union (EU) the Summit of Nations (G-8) and several other alliances of regional governments are currently working to strengthen global gun controls. Largely initiated by the law enforcement community, these initiatives aim to trace and record the movement of weapons over borders and to reduce the availability of guns for crime, conflict and all forms of violence. As international firearm regulation is seen to be most effective when supported by strong domestic gun controls, nations are being urged to harmonize their gun laws in key areas. These include import/export restrictions, the licensing of gun owners and the registration of their weapons.

is "the same" as "plans to rid the world's civilian population of privately owned guns, including those in the US"?

I can only repeat what I already said: here, we have one of those where to start situations. How can one possibly discuss anything with anyone who looks at an orange and says "it's blue"?

Are you so dim that you really believe this? Are you so disingenuous that you would claim to believe it, and attempt to persuade others of it, when you know it to be false? Is there another option?

"you also need to follow other links on the page you quoted"

Please. You're making assertions. I don't need to do anything except wait for you to substantiate them.

[iverglas]

78. Does she belong to the Illuminati too?

Is it true that Ms Peters is a consultant with the UN with plans to rid the world's civilian population of privately owned guns, including those in the US?

Yes, we've heard it all before ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=62366#62494

And the short answer now, as it was then, is: No.

For anyone interested:
http://www.tf.org/tf/violence/firearms/Intl/women5wp2.shtml
http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=15


"Is it true that Rebecca Peters was instrumental in getting hundreds of thousands of guns confiscated from previously lawful owners in Australia and the UK after broad bans were decreed?"

Hmm. How many speeding tickets were issued to people in the US when the speed limit was lowered to 55 mph some years ago -- people who were previously lawful 60 mph-drivers?

Amazing how those things work, eh?

Got a source for the number of firearms "confiscated" in the countries you refer to?


Is it true that you are -- but no, I won't say it. It would just be a question like yours, but even though the facts being inquired about were more apparently true than the "facts" you purport to be inquiring about, it would probably still be seen as a breach of decorum.

[Speak no evil]

80. Many sources for numbers destroyed

http://www.peacewomen.org/campaigns/featured/vivario/6-24gun%20destruction.HTML

http://www.umut.org.tr/ENG/sempozyum/katilicibiyog.htm
Scroll down to the paragraph entitled Rebecca Peters - 90% down.

If trying to find answers to questions and doing one's own thinking are a bad thing, then whatever you are not saying directly is probably true.

[Speak no evil]

81. In this context, "confiscate" means to take without bi-lateral agreement

at a fraction of market value. When your property is taken by the government and you are paid full market value for it, then the word "confiscation" would not be appropriate.

[iverglas]

82. oh look

Using the "find" function is a whole lot more convenient than scrolling:

Rebecca Peters
... Rebecca Peters was Chair of the National Coalition for Gun Control, which campaigned to tighten Australia's gun laws in the 1990s. Her research and advocacy helped bring about sweeping changes, including uniform gun laws across the eight states, a ban on semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, and a year-long buyback that destroyed nearly 700,000 weapons. Among the awards she received was the 1996 Australian Human Rights Medal, her country's highest human rights honor.

A lawyer and journalist, Ms Peters is now a Senior Fellow at the Open Society Institute, the private foundation funded by George Soros. For the past two years she directed the foundation's grants program aimed at reducing gun violence in the USA. She produced the landmark report, Gun Control in the United States: A Survey of State Firearm Laws (OSI, 2000). Currently she is focussing on the global campaign against the proliferation of small arms.

Now, let's recall that what we're looking for is substantiation of the allegation (oh, okay -- answer to the "question"):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=89110&mesg_id=89507&page=

Is it true that Ms Peters is a consultant with the UN with plans to rid the world's civilian population of privately owned guns, including those in the US?

And damned if we aren't still waiting.

You could try acknowledging that you asked a question to which you already knew that the answer was "no" ... or claiming that you don't have a clue what "the global campaign against the proliferation of small arms" actually is ... or maybe acknowledging that you know what it is but preferred to convey the impression, by asking that "question", that it is something it isn't.

Do you see another option? I don't.

[Speak no evil]

83. Starting on Tuesday OCT 12 9pm-1030 pm Rebacca Peters and Wayne

LaPierre will face in a debate on the UN gun BAN that would if Ratified by the US SENATE ban private ownership of GUNS in the USA. The debate will be on in-demand payperview and be rebroadcast until Weds OCT 20 when the last airing will be at 11pm.

http://www.thegundebate.com/vote.html

http://www.indemand.com/moviesandevents/viewProductShowtimes.jsp?page_sectionId=2&prodId=20731

[iverglas]

85. excuse me?

"Starting on Tuesday OCT 12 9pm-1030 pm Rebacca Peters and Wayne LaPierre will face in a debate on the UN gun BAN that would if Ratified by the US SENATE ban private ownership of GUNS in the USA. The debate will be on in-demand payperview and be rebroadcast until Weds OCT 20 when the last airing will be at 11pm.

Gosh, I can find you a site that says that the earth is flat.

http://www.thegundebate.com/vote.html

Should the United States Senate support the proposed United Nations treaty that bans ownership of guns?

Hmm. Have you stopped beating your dog yet?

I wonder why you aren't quoting this alleged proposed United Nations treaty ...

Gosh, do you think it might be because no such proposed treaty exists?

I checked your other link too. I haven't actually found the source of what appeared to be a quotation (the material I reproduced at the top of this post). Not that it would have proved a thing; I was just idly curious as to what idiot might actually have said it.

How 'bout you provide an actual source for the existence of this "UN gun BAN that would if Ratified by the US SENATE ban private ownership of GUNS in the USA"?

Maybe you actually believe you have done that. That would be sad.

You haven't.

"The facts are simple," says Charles K. Johnson, president of the International Flat Earth Research Society. "The earth is flat."

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

There ya go. QED. He said it, so it's true.

Some idiot apparently implied that there is a "UN gun BAN that would if Ratified by the US SENATE ban private ownership of GUNS in the USA", so there must be one.

Not.

[iverglas]

86. I found it! I found it!

http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?cmd=print&id=256776

Post Title: Dont Forget to watch WayneLaPierre debate Rebecca Peters on the UN GUN BAN
Posted by: Ohio,John at 6:04 PM 9/22/2004

Starting on Tuesday OCT 12 9pm-1030 pm these will face in a debate on the UN gun BAN that would if Ratifyed by the US SENATE ban private ownership of GUNS in the USA.
The debate is set so the viewers will recieve a unique code at the end of the show allowing you to place one vote on who made the best case in the debate and one question on . Should the US Senate ratify the proposed UN treaty that bans pvt ownership of firearms?
the debate will be on in-demand payperview and be rebroadcast untill Weds OCT 20 when the last airing will be at 11pm

Get on payperview and then make your vote...

Well hey now, there's the expert you were quoting!

I like this reply:

Post Title: Re: Dont Forget to watch WayneLaPierre debate Rebecca Pete ... (kenthor)
Posted by: DoctorWho at 5:12 PM 9/23/2004

I will vote as I always do.
Bush is the Man.....

And a whole new place for all the Kerry supporters in the crowd to take their message:
http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zeroforum?id=40

That's what you were doing there, right?

[Speak no evil]

89. Thanks for your effort

I started this, asking questions and you suggested that my questions were really assertions. I am looking for substantive evidence to support or refute the allegation that the UN wants to ban all civilian gun ownership, or to have severe restrictions applied in the US. I have not found any statement made directly to this effect issued by the UN or their representatives. The only thing that seems to come though is their philosophy of guns in the hands of civilians being a bad thing, and the fewer guns available the better place the world would become.

I have found the UN consultant, Rebecca Peters involvement with bans of certain guns in the UK and Australia – the fact that something has been achieved in one country seems to suggest the possibility of something similar in another country. If similar restrictions, even way short of a complete ban were instituted in the US, a great many people would be very unhappy about it. Nobody likes to be made a criminal because of changes in law. Should I wait until restrictions are announced, or see if there is any substance to the rumors beforehand?

I am a gun enthusiast and I may be mistaken, but I think you are not very enthusiastic about the concept of civilian gun ownership. It would bother me if any of my guns were banned, while you would probably think this a good thing. I am not going try to persuade you that civilian gun ownership is a good thing and you will not succeed in persuading me that it is a bad thing in and of itself.

Having said that, I believe that certain people are not to be trusted with any guns. If you can’t trust someone with a semi-auto rifle or shotgun, then they are not to be trusted with a single shot. Instead of regulating firearms, people who have demonstrated irresponsible or dangerous behavior should be restricted from having them.

People who have demonstrated responsible behavior, without any criminal propensity to hurt others can be trusted with guns. I think that laws on safe and secure storage in the home are appropriate, short of leaving guns at the range. The most effective storage is a properly installed safe. People who leave guns laying around the house where kids or criminals can get to them are idiots. You may not agree with me, but I believe in the right to self-defense:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x87385#88708

Thanks for all your effort expended in trying to help me get my mind right.

[Speak no evil]

92. Post Scriptum - A Question of Intent

Now that I have my mind right, it is obvious that neither the UN nor the US senate would announce an outright ban on civilian gun ownership tomorrow. To do so would result in a public outcry and possibly an armed revolt. Besides, an outright ban would be impossible to enforce without complete registration of all gun owners first.

A more effective approach towards a civil society is incremental restriction and prohibition. The principle is the same as with boiling frogs: I am told that if you drop a live frog into a pot of hot water it will immediately jump out. To boil a frog, put it in a pot of cold water and gradually turn up the heat. By the time it realizes it is in trouble it is too late. If things move slowly enough, no one will notice, complain or do anything about it until it is too late.

More important is intent, but we only get glimpses of that; for instance: When Senator Dianne Feinstein was interviewed on the assault weapons ban on 60 Minutes (2/5/95), she said publicly: "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."

[Speak no evil]

91. I am glad to be wrong

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

It seems there is a connection between the flat earth society and the UN - must be a coincidence...

Peace

[Speak no evil]

84. A more accurate analogy of the gun bans in UK and Australia

Iverglas said:
“Hmm. How many speeding tickets were issued to people in the US when the speed limit was lowered to 55 mph some years ago -- people who were previously lawful 60 mph-drivers? Amazing how those things work, eh?”

Lowering the speed limit is a well intentioned minor inconvenience that affects everyone equally. A better analogy would be that cars, trucks and SUVs with automatic transmission are banned because they are too easy to drive. The owners of such vehicles then have to surrender the vehicles within a few months and would be paid $2000 for each vehicle regardless of market value or loan amounts owed.

After this, all vehicles with engines powerful enough to exceed the speed limit are banned in the name of public safety and to make police chases easier, combined with limits on gas tank size to limit range of fleeing criminals. This would be more than just an inconvenience and would achieve what?

In the case of the handguns banned in the UK in the name of public safety, what has this achieved?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12518284&method=full&siteid=50143

GUN CRIME ROCKETS 35 PER CENT


By Bob Roberts, Political Correspondent

THE full scale of law and order breakdown in Britain was revealed last night.Gun crime has soared by 35 per cent, robberies are up 14 per cent, sex offences by 18 per cent, violent crime by 19 per cent and burglary by eight per cent.In the 12 months to March last year there were 9,974 offences involving firearms.Handgun use rose by 45 per cent, said official Government statistics. The figure has doubled since the post-Dunblane ban on such weapons from 2,636 in 1998 to 5,871.Total crime in England and Wales is up 9.3 per cent.But the Government shrugged off the shock figures and blamed new police methods of recording crime where incidents seen by officers are logged even if they have not been reported.Home Office minister John Denham insisted crime was "stable" and said the true rise, taking into account the new system, was only two per cent.He also pointed to the British Crime Survey which showed a seven per cent drop.Mr Denham said: "Crime has been falling since 1997 and the risk of being a victim is very low, around the same as in 1981."But victim support groups and politicians said lawlessness was out of control.


http://www.hardylaw.net/FailedExperiment.pdf

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=438

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8073

Could these reports be due to the fact that the victims have been disarmed?

[iverglas]

88. blahblah

"Lowering the speed limit is a well intentioned minor inconvenience that affects everyone equally. A better analogy would be ..."

A perfect analogy to making the possession of firearms by people who were previously lawful owners illegal is making anything else done by people who were previously lawful doers of it illegal.

Period.

If you want to argue the merits of each prohibition, you're in a different ballgame.

The fact that a law makes it illegal to do something that was previously lawful to do is something that most people wouldn't consider worth commenting on. It's pretty much tautological. That's what laws tend to do.

And it is no more worth commenting on in the case of the possession of certain types of firearms than it is in the case of driving at certain speeds.

Argue the merits of the laws you dislike if you wish; don't insult my intelligence by blabbering about how the law made it illegal to do something that it was previously legal to do and expecting me to agree that you have said something important and meaningful.


"GUN CRIME ROCKETS 35 PER CENT"

Oh no! It's the British Bloodbath! I must phone my friends and family and find out what funeral arrangements they want us to make.

And my stars, if it isn't Gary Mauser.
http://www.hardylaw.net/FailedExperiment.pdf

And if it isn't
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=438
the old lie about Adolph Hitler:

“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.” Adolph Hitler 1933

And if it isn't http://www.chronwatch.com/

A Vote for Bush Is a Vote for Life--Yours!

Doncha just love a newbie?

[Speak no evil]

90. I rest my case

"If you want to argue the merits of each prohibition, you're in a different ballgame."

I believe that the merits of each prohibition is the most important topic. However, if you are saying that we won't find agreement on this one, I believe you are correct and I am going to let it rest.

[iverglas]

93. how interesting

"I believe that the merits of each prohibition is the most important topic."

Then I'm left wondering why you toss scarlet fishies like "... Rebecca Peters was instrumental in getting hundreds of thousands of guns confiscated from previously lawful owners in Australia and the UK ..." (emphasis added) around.

That, after all, was the particular herring that I was addressing.

I would have to agree with you absolutely -- the appropriate topic for discussion is the merits of a policy, not whether it is different from a previously existing policy, which it will be by definition.

And I believe that was my point.


"However, if you are saying that we won't find agreement on this one, I believe you are correct and I am going to let it rest."

Fascinating. I mean, given that I haven't expressed any opinion, in our little discussion, about the merits of any policy ... and that I've been pretty much absent from any recent discussion hereabouts.

Perhaps I could borrow your crystal ball?



edit
... Oh dang. I'd wondered how long it would go on, and here I forgot to check before going on ...

Toodles!

[Left of Lenin]

94. Could this be what you were looking for?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x90113

[cracker1]

95. What is not to like

Kerry unfortunately has voted against every right to bear arms issue since he has been in public life. .

[MrBenchley]

12. The plain fact is, those folks hate gays, blacks, Jews and uppity women

Now that Strom has left the party, they're not voting Democratic.

Meanwhile, this sure puts the lie to the claim that there's any significant (or even marginally visible) number of Democratic gun "enthusiasts".

[louis-t]

2. And don't forget

he's going to ban the Bible.:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

6. The GOP goes diving for dimwits....

[louis-t]

10. "diving for dimwits"

that's funny!

[MrBenchley]

14. It does appear to sum up the right wing...

It's not an ideology but a pathology...

[Bluzmann57]

3. Very strange

because Kerry has never once come out against guns. In fact, he even was photographed shooting Skeet. I guess it just shows that some of these people have no minds of their own.

[MrBenchley]

5. It also shows how dishonest the whole movement is...

since most of Kerry's positions are ones the unelected drunk pays lip service to....

[FeebMaster]

8. Exactly.

I mean it's perfectly clear that Kerry is pro-gun. He even owns a couple.

[Speak no evil]

69. See post# 67

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=89110&mesg_id=89317&page=

[PsN2Wind]

9. I like to point out to those single issue types

that eventually the idea of an armed populace, you know the one that was always going to save us from an oppressive government, might begin to make those now in charge a bit nervous. And that since they were very willing to abrogate those rights afforded us by the Bill of Rights, it will only be a matter of time before the 2nd amendment is trumped in the name of "Homeland security".

[Speak no evil]

73. This wouldn't surprise me one bit (nt)

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Sandpiper]

11. "Gun rights" groups are nothing of the kind

Gun rights just make for nice cover for their real agenda: getting Republicans elected.

[skippythwndrdog]

13. Gun groups have been co-opted by the extremist in their midst.

The same thing has happened with a number of primarily liberal organizations such as PETA and the Sierra Club, to name to.

Extremists in charge are why I never joined the NRA. Some of the pro-gun groups started out with nitwits in charge. PETA was a good thing until the idiots took over. Same with the Sierra Club. I won't even get into the whole ALF, ELF bunch of loonies.

We have 'em on both sides of the fence. Al least our loonies generally support freedoms.

[MrBenchley]

15. Tell us, skippy, what's extremist about the Sierra Club?

[skippythwndrdog]

31. I'd call advocating the removal a dam that's been in place for years

extreme, considering the vast amounts of heavy metals that are trapped in the silt above the dam that would be released if the dam were removed. Let's not forget the thousands of people that get their water from the dam for both drinking and irrigation. Northern Arizona. You look up the dam.

Also, their backdoor support of ELF is a kicker.

AS I recall from my reading, John Muir supported hunting. He even acted as a guide for T. Roosevelt. What's the SC position on hunting today?

[MrBenchley]

57. A single dam? Ri-i-i-i-i-ight....

"the vast amounts of heavy metals that are trapped in the silt"
So where is this dam? Toxic Valley? Alamogordo?

"their backdoor support of ELF"
Feel free to document that....

"AS I recall from my reading, John Muir supported hunting. He even acted as a guide for T. Roosevelt."
Ahem...

"Anticipating the animal rights movement, Muir argued with vigor about what he considered the questionable ethics of hunting (calling it the "murder business"). "

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/John_Muir

"Teddy Roosevelt. ...He could answer Muir, on being told hunting was childish and he should give it up, "Perhaps you're right,"..."

http://www.mandala.co.jp/echoes/JMI/ch19.html

"What's the SC position on hunting today?"

http://www.sierraclub.org/huntingfishing/

Sure would be nice to have an INFORMED discussion once in a bloody while, wouldn't it? Wonder why "pro gun democrats" can't hold up their end.

[skippythwndrdog]

60. Glen Canyon Dam, I believe, but I stink with names

Check the Arizona Republic archives.

Perhaps you should read Theodore Rex.

Now I get slammed for asking a question?

What about the E.L.F. issue? I notice you didn't touch that one.

[MrBenchley]

61. Nothing like an informed discussion...

Especially with "pro gun democrats"....you don't even know which dam you're pissing and moaning about?

"Perhaps you should read Theodore Rex."
Or perhaps I'll just keep on pointing out what a pantload some of these posts are, and backing it up< with evidence/b>.

"What about the E.L.F. issue? I notice you didn't touch that one."
Jeeze, skippy, I said quite clearly be sure to show us any evidence that claim wasn't horseshit. And we're still waiting...

[MrBenchley]

17. Here's a nice article pointing out the genesis of this dishonest bunch

"Guns entered national politics in the 1970s. What is called the gun rights movement sprang into motion against a waning civil rights movement and a growing push for women's rights. One organizer of gun rights from the early '70s put it bluntly when I interviewed him. Conservatives were taking a beating. Something was needed to "reverse the flow in the pipes" of the civil rights movement. The social movements based on the rights of women and minorities had bolstered the Democratic Party. Conservatives who had fought against the gains of civil rights and the Equal Rights Amendment needed to counter. Enter the gun.
And when the gun spoke, it championed the cause of conservative and libertarian America. A proxy politics, the gun rights movement is a potent reaction to the social and political agendas of what is perceived as "liberal America." It takes aim at a range of social solutions for crime, international conflict and personal security. In America, the gun has become a litmus test for political beliefs.
The beginnings of this movement were quiet. In the early '70s, the Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative political organization, started the Student's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. From it sprang the Second Amendment Foundation and then Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In those groups a righteous cause and a political vision was born. Guns began their career as key props in a changing political theater. "

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html

[UpsideDownFlag]

18. lol, i covered that a while ago. apparently their support doesn't matter.

[MrBenchley]

20. I remember...

Meanwhile, remember when we had a rash of threads alleging gun control groups were attacking Kerry and the Democratic party?

[UpsideDownFlag]

23. that was my main reason for abandoning the gungeon.

i was tired of having to defend my candidate.

[MrBenchley]

24. Glad you're back...

[UpsideDownFlag]

28. i can take it for small amounts at a time. so i'll fight the good fight

for a while.

[gatlingforme]

55. What is wrong here? I guess you are pretty lonely defending your

candidate? who would that be? it is not Kerry because here on DU we all support him.

[MrBenchley]

62. You tell us what's wrong here....

"it is not Kerry because here on DU we all support him"
Let's see, not one, not two, but three threads bashing Kerry for having an assault rifle (that he turned out not to have) and a police lodge's valentine to pResident Toot posted almost verbatim...not to mention the "gun grabbers, drug warriors, war mongers, or other assorted authoritarians" crap in this very thread.

Yeah, the support from "pro guyn democrats" really shows....

[Romulus]

63. if you still think

that FOP thread was "support for Bush/an attack on Kerry," even after I explained why I posted it, then you really have gone off the deep end . . .

[MrBenchley]

64. Yeah, rom, I still think that valentine to pResident Turd

was exactly what it seemed like...

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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