And Ammo sexual as well. Althouh I suppose either could be applied to non-members.

So Wayne Lapierre would still be an ammo sexual while a democrat that supports the right to bear arms would be.. well a democrat who supports the right to bear arms.

An official that confiscates or supports the confication of firearms would be a gun grabber, while a poster on DU that supports gun control would be.. well you get the idea.

Either that or its about the Bernie vs Hillary stuff.

I'm strongly pro RKBA myself, but no matter how much I might disagree with some Democratic politicians on this issue I should get the boot if I attack them personally. The same thing with other DU members; I might be angered, frightened or insulted by their opinions, but I've no right to cast aspersions on their character, nor they on mine, period, end of subject and boot in ass to anyone who can't get behind that, be they the most strident prohibitionist or ardent RKBA enthusiast.

My .02

The personal attacks, the alert stalking, the name calling, the accusations that we are right wing/GOP shills, the running to ATA to demand we all be banned and all the rest of what characterized the ugly primary wars happens in the Gungeon on a regular basis.

I just think the control fans are so deep and dense in their hypocrisy that they actually don't see it as the "incivility" as Skinner has defined it.

They seem to see it, as our moral and ethical superiors, as their right and duty to attack everyone that disagrees with them on the 2nd amendment regardless of facts and reality.

It's become an easy way to "strike back" against any gun posts and stay anonymous.

Last edited Wed Jun 29, 2016, 10:39 PM - Edit history (1)

It will be interesting to see if the rules apply to all

and it was in the general sense not referencing anyone specific


Meanwhile "gun humper" seems to be an acceptable term.

is another recent one...

Called me a "delicate flower" jury let it stand sadly. I asked Skinner in ATA how this direct attack should stand and requested he override the jury. As usuall, do far no answer. Might try a PM to him too.

I only do it for the most egregious and direct insults, but even then it's about 50-50. I'm thinking I won't bother in the future. In a way, it's a good exercise in self-control: to remain civil when people are heaping abuse on you.

I don't call people "grabbers." I prefer "prohibitionists" or "controllers," which I think are both accurate and neutral. But just for the record, even "grabbers" as a term pales next to "gun humpers" (and its variants), which suggests sexual acts, and "ammosexuals," with its added connotation of anti-gay bias.

On 2A issues.

As in... Pro-2A are likely to selected for enforcement; anti-2A no so much.

I shall do my best to be on my best behavior.

group smears, misogyny and homophobia are still a-ok as long as it is referring to gunz

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8020318
and about 17 other threads in just one day...

My ATA questions on this. I guess I will ask again for the third time.

Lassez-faire management style.

What is surprising to see is how many egregious offenders have been FFR multiple times yet they are still here.

But it is his site. I just wish he would at least answer a PM

There is a direct relationship between their failure to get even a small win and their online rage.

The more they fail, the angrier they get.

Only online of course. To date, I still haven't seen a single one of the loudest mouths in GD describe a gun related protest they went to or petition they've started.

Plus the hypocrisy is strong in them. One, who is banned from this group, rants and spews every chance they get, but mentioned in a thread last week; "Well, they sold the high priced target handguns they inherited instead of turning them in to the police for destruction ... because they were expensive target pistols".

So profit comes first, principles when it's convenient.

Still easy and cheap to be an online gun control hero.

He did not seem to care it was pointed out on how he sold weapons to keep them in the hands of ammosexual future murderers.

that also want more gun control.

Handed down from my father, I keep it for protection also. I had two, gave one to my brother. Do I need it? not really.

The guns or me?

With UBC. just curious.

Can you show me where this is?

Meaning all

who are for a UBC allow the exemption of a parent giving a firearm to a child. Most states that have UBC laws do the same, hence why I asked if you could show me where since that is not something that is common with UBC.

Details in laws matter

You tried to set me up with something that is not true and when I pushed back against it you agree with me. Why would you do that?

Just asked a question and you answered it, thanks

without feeling abused and also believe in responsible gun ownership and common sense regulations and training.

One persons common sense is another persons infringement.

Another person's "reasonable regulation", isn't nearly enough "common sense" for the next guy.

Then we have the "Confiscate and melt 'em all down" crowd in GD.

Then there are the ones that don't want to even discuss the details of a law, call you names if you ask a question about what they mean, then get all pissed off when the "loopholes" they left in the law show up.

Maybe someday I'll finally understand the whole penis fixation too.

about that last part. Sure is crazy about that fixation

If you're not part of the right group they feel entitled to be vindictive and cruel.

Last edited Tue Jul 19, 2016, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Does it really matter what control proponents post on DU? I don't think so.