I will be interested to see how the gun nuts respond.

I am sure they will have to consult the NRA before responding.

Pathetic.

The ability to tell ones seriousness based on a few words. This forum is full of special people.

Check out this group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262
From a few words they can tell you your fears, motivations, racial views, skin color, body mass, courage, educational level, sexual prowess and genital size.
I know I'm missing a bunch but it is hard to keep track of all their talents.

You can tell an OCer from a soon to be active shooter by looking at him/her.

Is the firearm in a holster on his side? Open Carrier.
Is the person with friends and family smiling and having a good time? Open Carrier.
Is the person non-threatening? Open Carrier.


It's really easy to tell if you're not a "guns kill people" dimwit.


The guy intent on poking holes in folks is pretty easy to spot, just look at the 100's of youtube videos from security cameras. Or use common sense.

he will scan the crowd and target the O.C. people first.

What, do the good cowboys wear white and the bad ones wear black?

Except for the police who will hold an unchallenged monopoly on power. They are to be trusted implicitly and without question.

And don't want to live in an environment where you have worry about the special talent detector shooting first or the guy in black shooting. Either way we don't want to get caught in you little shootout.

See you in the news!

Are you aware that law enforcement tends to shoot the wrong person a lot more often than civilians do?

That pretty well explains why you lot want to stick it to everyone, rather than just the criminals.

Because you can't be bothered to examine the actions that separate one from the other, or to understand them.

Sounds like you pre judge everyone.

Its fine for you to project some twisted vision where any gun owner can just "snap".

Even though none of these criminals actually did that, they all had long histories of erratic behavior that went unmentioned and untreated by family and friends.

But pointing out that "you lot", e.g. gun control fans, who want more laws that won't address the very crimes you're decrying at the moment is bad.

Good thing gun control has proven to be ineffective or you lot might be a problem. Thankfully you don't seem to be able to get anything done in the real world. And your "impact" is limited to whining online and getting a post hidden now and then.

Have a swell day and keep up the good work.

I guess I don't need to take a swing at that one after all.

I also just noticed that one of the absentee Hosts of the "other group", is up in ATA again, demanding that we be immediately purged from DU as not "True Democrats".

It's the one that I'm pretty sure hangs out in coffee shops to dispense his gun control wisdom to eager undergrads, not the Calculuz Teacher, he's gone again, the other hypocrite who can't be bothered to post in the group he demanded.

I wonder if Skinner cuts a notch in a tree in his yard every time that happens?

If he did all his trees would be on the ground by now.

I guess they tried twice with the same complaint.


ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is NRA propaganda. You can choose to let this kind of shit slide, or you can take a stand, DU. We shouldn't be having a debate with these people, who are as Republican as they get. That's what Disscussionist is for, not DEMOCRATIC underground. If you stop them from posting these right wing talking points that could've come straight out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth, maybe they'll take their shit elsewhere.

Your choice, jury. Do you want this to be a place for right wing nonsense, or will you take a stand?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Aug 29, 2015, 02:02 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a civil post and some Democrats choose to legally carry guns. Not me.

Besides, "you can take a stand" sounds too much like actual NRA propaganda.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Opinions vary. Nothing wrong with these posts.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hey Here's an idea alerter, a lot of Democrats own guns and they don't need a junior league DU keyboard commando treating them like they're second class citizens. Ether shut up and do something in the real world about repealing the 2nd amendment and changing the Democrat platform that confirms the 2nd, or stop trying to hide every opinion you don't agree with.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I agree with the alerter's sentiments, I don't think this rises to the level of a hidable post.
Alerter, use some of this passion to argue your point in the thread.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

If that is an alert on the same post, by a different poster, that's direct evidence of organization and collusion to game the jury system imo.

I think that's a thread that needs some tugging on.

Talk about whining, lol. Skinner shut him down once again!!

Theres a "Socks Gone Wild" presentation in GD...

10 posts in GD: P - the first 10...then seven strait posts of old news in GD, about shootings.

I smell dirty socks.

some do not seem to follow the DU rules very well and must be very disrespectful of the admins to do that.

The sock, and the posts, have been hung out to dry.

It makes me wish I had access to IPs for a short time, to investigate my suspicions.

send back to their bridge

I'm about 90 percent sure that its only the sheeps clothing that was relegated back under the bridge, and that the wolf remains.

the first shutdown was not enough and he had to respond.

Whines and demands a safe haven group for his petulance.

Gets it, stays fired up for about a 3 weeks, loses interest and chases another shiny piece of tinfoil for a year or more and never posts in his own group.

Then, announces that he is "recommitting" to the cause when everybody starts going to his safe haven group. I'm sure he's still waiting for the gratuitous applause from the peanut gallery.

Then, demands (again) that Skinner get rid of all those "Right Wing Nut Jobs" down here, so he doesn't ever have to deal with any difference of opinion.

Skinner is always very patient with them, like a grown up dealing with a spoiled child that doesn't understand the concept of "no".

He's a weasel of the first order and based on their track record, a dismal failure as a gun control supporter.

Try asking him what he actually does, besides whine in coffee shops and the grad student lounge, to support gun control. I did a while back.

"I vote my conscience about gun control" Yeah, that is having a major impact on the laws.

Nada.

You said you could tell the good from the bad.

But since I have an open mind and don't pre-judge people it is impossible to know who is going to pop and pull a gun

But since you are good at twisting what others say, you have judge all those calling for some control.


Cleared the bases ha!

Sorry, I checked and nobody believes you, based on your posting history here.

Don't have such an "open mind" that everything falls out when you lean over. That's a big problem with gun control folks. They are open to everything ... except talking to and cooperating with actual gun owners about what might really work to reduce crime and violence (which is still at historic lows).

But be sure and let us all know what you are doing in the real world to make your gun control dreams come true?

I'm sure you're not like most gun control posters on DU, just sitting around posting online and celebrating when you get a post or two hidden. You must be pretty active in the control movement right?

Share with us the many things you do to get more gun control laws enacted, Petitions to repeal concealed carry in your state? Attending Town Halls and Zoning meetings and speaking up about new shooting ranges going up? Demanding gun safety course be taught in your area?

We'll all be watching to see if you actually do anything besides just post about it.

That is one of the qualities of being liberal. Live and let live, but not live and let kill.

But you and most on this thread have misinterpreted most of what I said

Not sure why I keep trying to have a civil discussion in this forum? Everyone is too damn defensive and aggressive about their need to tote guns.

Ummm, where are the examples of your work in the real world top support gun control? I didnt see them in your response? Maybe I missed them?

Don't tell us you just whine online about it and are too lazy to get off the couch and do anything about your deeply held gun control beliefs?

Sorry, you make a habit out of pre-judging others with your "anybody can snap" crapola. You just can't see it for what it is. Try substituting "Black" or "Gay" for "gun owner" in any of your posts and see how it sounds.

You're really kidding yourself if you think you are being "open minded and tolerant", based on just this thread, you are anything but.

But that's OK, just accept that you are a judgemental sort that is comfortable passing judgement on people you don't know with different opinions and interests.

It's not like your prejudiced, based on limited experience or anything.

We'll be sure to keep pointing that out to you with every new post down here.

We're all looking forward to your posts about your gun control activities in the real world.

Because you have no fucking clue what I want!

But I will reiterate it is impossible to have a civil discussion on this topic because gun nuts are aggressive. And the aggressiveness goes to the tag nut!

But please continue, it will keep you occupied for a while and then we will know where you are!

care to bet that the distribution of gun deaths in Chicago does not match the distribution of guns?

But I do oppose ineffective laws.

Still I'm always willing to help. What are your questions?

anti gun control folks want "EVERYONE" to carry a gun?

That is one of the biggest "Red herrings" in the anti-gun advocate's quiver of bent arrows .

Do they seriously believe that if pro gun folks get their way that THEY (anti gun folks), will be required to have a gun, and carry it??

fighting over turf. More legal firearms might cause a slight decrease in violent crime but would have little or no effect on drive by shootings. Better enforcement of existing laws or the legalization of certain drugs might do more to stop gun violence in Chicago than disarming honest citizens.

Obviously if there were no civilian owned firearms, legal or illegal, there would be no gun violence. Unfortunately any attempt to confiscate all firearms in our nation might lead to even more violence than we have today as it could cause to a revolution that would split our nation down the middle in the end. At the least many otherwise honest and productive citizens would end up in prisons for simply refusing to turn their weapons over to the government.

Many states do allow open carry without significant problems. All states permit some form of concealed carry. How do you tell the difference between a person legally carrying a concealed firearm from a person intending to misuse it?

In passing while we do indeed have a gun violence problem in our nation it has decreased significantly since the mid 1990s despite the skyrocketing sale of firearms in the same time frame and the spread of laws permiting the legal carrying of firearms in public.

...and a guy in a coat with a couple of hidden guns, who just entered a fast-food restaurant to kill as many people as possible?


No visible gun does not mean no gun... it just means no VISIBLE gun. I await your side to start pre-emptively attacking people in bulky clothing because you can't tell the difference. Go on, show me the courage of your convictions...

Is an armed society a polite society? Would that mean that levels of violent crime would decrease if everyone in Chicago were armed?

In which society would one expect to find less violent death; one with no firearms or one with everyone armed.

The third question got some responses, but it allowed room for equivocation. How do you tell the difference between a bad guy with a gun and a good guy with a gun? That of course leaves out the clumsy,reckless, stupid, or just unlucky, men with guns.

We don't accept the questions as presented.

For instance,

If an armed society is a polite society, then do you agree that the problem in Chicago is that there just aren’t enough guns?

Because the OP wasn't pointing at something that had happened and then claimed that something had occurred because of that happenstance.

He was using the rather silly quote that anti law people use to defend gun ownership and then applying that to Chicago. A simple answer to that question from the anti law side would be that Heinlein was a sci-fi author and what he has to say is irrelevant to the gun law debate.
Instead you and others take umbrage to the question.

1.Since Heller and McDonald expanded gun rights in Chicago, including concealed carry, has gun crime increased in the city, no less from those lawfully empowered to own and carry firearms?

2.Does permitting law-abiding citizens the means to defend themselves under current standards make Chicago more violent or less "polite?"

Simply, you and the OP (or the OP's Google dump sources since he rarely, if ever, actually shares his own thoughts or participates in his own threads) do not set the terms of the gun debate, particularly since the current status quo, polling trends, electoral realities and established jurisprudence favor those supporting firearm rights.

There are three questions on the table. Asking questions of your own doesn't answer those three questions.

How you respond is your own choice, take the OP seriously or not, but you can't claim to have responded in good faith by answering a question with a question of your own.

to take my time to answer a question, the person should add a comment or two of their own, not just copy/paste. That effort would show that perhaps the person is actually "serious" and interested in the answers.

Since the OP has made no contribution to the entire thread outside of the copy/paste, which is typical for that poster, it tells me he is neither serious nor interested in the answers.

I've had guns that are part of the history of this country.
If the state wants to take them to make lives live longer I have no problem with that. I would like to see after they take my guns they get rid of theirs..
Just my thoughts