the anti gun zealots are, well just like zealots everywhere. They just spread disinformation to people who don't know any better.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

I think I'll stick to the facts myself and leave your disinformation to fool others with.

you will find that everything is from government statistics and other neutral sources, not propaganda from lobby groups funded by authoritarian and racist billionaires like Mike Bloomberg. I'm counting the advocacy "research" funded by said billionaire. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't make them less true.

Doesn't say much for the "brain trust" running the gun control organizations and their lazy, cheap followers without a "win" in 20 years.

And they don't even have to resort to Penis jokes ot try and make their point.

I think you've proved my point about the lengths you and your ilk will go to ie when someone criticizes your precious along with the attitudes and behaviours surrounding it.

No, it doesn't say much for your brain trust at all, DonP.

I guess that explains why gun control is such a failure as a "movement".

Well, that and the fact that violent crime continues to fall even with over 12 million people with CCW permits. So the whole "more guns more crime" thing kind of falls apart.

The really sick part is that seems to make some gun control types angry.

Thanks for the confirmation.

in order to frame sensible gun control types for your own dishonesty and lack of intelligence.

You know, the one that costs millions of $ cdn and never solved a single crime? The one they're still trying to resurrect in Quebec for some odd reason?

"Sensible Gun Control Types" has become pretty much an oxymoron. Of course perhaps we missed it and you can point to a success they've had in the past 20 years or so.

Gun control supporters seem to be pretty cheap, they never actually join any of the dues required organizations they claim to support. They're lazy too, never actually showing up for things they claim to support as "deeply held beliefs" at protests or town halls. It seems gun control has devolved into a handful of whiners that fight all their battles online.

The results they don't have, including even the unused "safe haven" on DU they demanded, pretty much support that fact.

"Dishonesty and lack of intelligence"? Well, typical gun grabber, you've devolved to personal insults. But at least you haven't gone all the way to genitalia shaming ... yet.

... meanwhile violent crime continues to drop without any of their or your help.

The one the hosts even abandoned for quite some time. The latest one had to whine to the admins because there was nobody left to block posters. Funny thing is, this is his favorite group and he almost never post in the group he hosts, lol. He does try to host here and gets his hat handed to him, lol.

Question a gun nuts' credibility and 'facts' and all the personal attacks start...along with a typical conservative move of blaming others for your own failures and stupidity.

Are you sure you're on the right site? DU is devoted to liberals after all...and all your failed right-wing fairy tales/behaviour won't work here.

You started with the personal insults son. Can't handle it being thrown back at you?

...opposing those who would trample on a enumerated constitutional right is "right wing"? Who knew?

sometimes the two are mutually exclusive. That said, gun control is not always right or left wing. Historically in the US, and Canada, stricter gun laws were often supported authoritarian and regressive forces. In Canada, it had to do with non-egalitarian politicians who "for unwashed's own good" and fear of immigrants. In the US, it had more to with race and labor. Many of the local gun laws being repealed or eroded were lobbied for by the KKK in the early part of the previous century. Michigan's purchase permit is a prime example. Florida's 1893 ban on open carry is another. It was passed because it was common for black migrant workers to open carry pistols, a practice that offended some white people. Of course, there were those in organized crime like Tim Sullivan.

In the US, politicians of both parties often support different views on it. For example, one of the Republican candidates, governor of Ohio, supported gun control laws opposed by his Democratic predecessor.

... and supported by our "downstate" (i.e. not Chicago) Dems.

The Collar County GOP voted against it.

But for simple minded people big, clear black and white lines are important. That's why they rely on Bumper Stickers and cartoons for their philosophy. It seems to be the most complex thing they can grasp.

This whole thread exist to bash those that support sensible gun laws, as you reactionary, lying hypocrites have shown with almost every post here.

Have someone stand up and point that finger of yours back to where it belongs and y'all throw childish temper tantrums.

Are you SURE you're of a healthy frame of mind to have guns around yourself? You seem awfully touchy!

we bash the logical fallacies, poor arguments, inaccurate claims, and out right lies in their arguments. Even then, we don't actually bash them, just counter them with facts, evidence, and reason. We do not bash individuals.
Define "sensible", it is a weasel word used by advocates who hire focus groups and the intellectually lazy.

You lot don't take it too well when your attempts at cultural warfare meet with resistance.

You probably don't realize that your schtick is rather shopworn, and we twigged to it
years ago:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665

"NRA talking points"? How about anti-gun talking points?

They are obsessed with and have to lie to make a point. A vast majority of RKBA supporters do not give a damn about weapons at a convention and just will follow the rules of the venue and never complain.

I'd lean towards 'Moron'.

If there was any sincerity at all he was hoping that guns would be allowed and that someone would be hurt -- all so he could say 'I told you so'.

Secondly, he should have known that the rule wasn't from the RNC but was imposed by the Quicken Loans arena.

Lastly, I suggest he read the platform of the Democratic party.

Stunts and disingenuous campaigns do nothing to further his positions.

The venue made the rule, not the RNC.

Ohio has about 400,000 concealed carry permit holders and I don't recall seeing numerous shooting reports per day from the Buckeye state.

Very, very few of the shootings you see in the news involve concealed carry permit holders.
These are the people that follow the law and do the paperwork and take it seriously.

Venue says no guns. Do you see large protest marches of CCW blockading the venue? Are they threatening violence to the policy makers? They are all acting very reasonable to me.

I do like the idea of pushing concealed carry in venues where the repubs control the environment, but as noted the hoped for multiple random shootings and showdowns are highly unlikely to occur.

...still smells bad.

That “a liberal Democrat,” who’s “passionate about gun control and discouraging gun violence.” started a petition that had so many other "liberal Democrats" hoping for massive gun violence.

It isn't.

1) The instigator didn't think that allowing carry in the convention would actually cause violence.

2) The instigator thought that allowing carry in the convention would actually cause violence.

The first invalidates the gun control premise. The second is vicious.

It would be the same thing if somebody started a petition demanding that the anti-gun/gun control candidates we have MUST demand that there be no armed security anywhere at our convention.

Both are equally unlikely to ever happen and both sides are equally hypocritical about the issue.

But I'm sure the originators are slapping themselves on the back and talking to themselves about how very, very clever they are.

Just another example of gun control's emphasis on style and symbolism over action and substance.

We are constantly being told that it is safe to bring weapons to college campuses, national parks, shopping malls, even bars. Yet, despite this "logic," the NRA banned guns at its convention, as did the RNC (at the direction of the Secret Service). The point is, obviously, that if it is so safe to carry guns in OUR public spaces, why not in the public spaces of the groups who push the pro-gun legislation? Why the disparity (rhetorical question)?

they didn't.
in all fairness, and why I don't believe partisan blogs, and take in account that journalists are usually lazy or dim.
The last gun show I went to, however, the promoter's insurance company did ban all loaded guns inside.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/nraban.asp

Statistically, it has been proven to be safer than driving to any of those places.

Or for that matter, on the campuses that allow adult students to carry, if licensed by their state?

But with over 12 million people now with CCW permits, violent crime continues to drop? Funny how none of the facts support more restrictions, ain't it?

Sorry to hear you don't like allowing private property owners the choice of allowing or banning firearms on their own property. That's what the whole convention thing is all about.

FWIW, The NRA chooses the venue and if it's allowed by law in the state and venue, their meetings allow CCW. That was a gun control meme that just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Like many f them.

Now it's your turn to explain why the same high profile people that demand citizens be disarmed, all have many people with guns surrounding them? Are they more important than a single mother in Chicago?