Do they really think we're going to give up?

[ellisonz]

With the demise of the supposed compromise gun control legislative package, there is substantial noise that our cause for the moment is defeated: "Gun control forces seek new path after big loss" - http://news.yahoo.com/gun-control-forces-seek-path-big-loss-152516059.html - So my question to you is this: Does the NRA wing-nut cabal really think they've won?

7 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, they think they've stopped us and they're right, we won't get change.
	4 (57%)
	No, we have not yet begun to push for new meaningful gun control change.
	3 (43%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[freshwest]

1. There are new calls for citizen action by Obama on this gun control now. Not giving up.

And those families of the dead are going to keep working for it to honor their loved ones. This has happened before in many other situations and although a number of laws were passed, they didn't make the short spin cycles the media packages these efforts in. It will happen as the consciousness of Americans are refocused on more meaningful things.

There is an OP by Shampoobra that should make Americans think long and hard about the keeping company with fanatics. These are people waving their second amendment rights to shut down all other rights:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2729814

Give it a good read - it's the ultimate in stinking thinking by the rightwing nuts.

[SunSeeker]

4. Gun control action isn't a "shiny object" or "pandering." Go shit on gun control posts elsewhere.

This is supposed to be a haven for progressive advocates of gun control and you're not that. What you are doing is really obnoxious and violates the TOS.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1262503

Statement of Purpose: Gun Control Reform Activism

The Gun Control Reform Activism group is intended to:
Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.

[Hoyt]

5. [phone]

[SunSeeker]

7. Yes, your words are right there. Your pathetic game is obvious.

Your point is and was that Congress's action on gun control was them just chasing some meaningless "shiny object." That is wrong and offensive.

Sandy Hook was not a shiny object, it was a real, horrific tragedy. And the 50 or so sane, brave senators who tried to do something about it via some basic common sense gun control measures were not just doing what was popular on the AM talk shows. They were responding to their constituents and trying to do what is best for our country, even though the NRA was scoring the vote and threatening to hurl its massive campaign war chest against them.

Your views against gun control are no secret; you do not share the views of this group. You only came here to troll this group, which is a TOS violation. Find another hobby.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. You are reading things into my words that are not there nor intented

It was a critique of Congress, nothing more. However, I will delete the post in light of the offense you have taken.

[SunSeeker]

9. Bullshit. You said it twice; you intended it.

Hilarious that you scurried to delete your first post. Your second post still says gun control action is a "shiny object," albeit now you suggest it is an old shiny object that would soon be replaced with new shiny objects:

"My point was that Congress would be chasing new shiny objects in the media, which is what they always seem to do, and take no further action. Right now its doing to be terrorism. You could see that on the Sunday talk shows this AM."

How about deleting that?

And how about not coming here to shit on gun control posts in the first place?

You don't support gun control. The very fact that you posted to this group is a TOS violation.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. I have accommodated your hypersensitivity

and done as you requested.

I also did not defecate on anything (well maybe Congress).

I have noticed that you have not disagreed that Federal action is dead for now and the battleground is going to be state by state resulting in large disparities in the rules between adjacent states, which is problematic.

[SunSeeker]

15. I am not "hypersensitive," I am simply stating the obvious. Enough with the personal attacks.

You did not come here to complain about Congress, you can do that anywhere. You came here to troll this group. And you keep on doing it with each post. Federal action is not "dead," even though you wish it to be. And the states enacting their own gun control measures in the absence of federal action is not "problematic." Some gun control, even if there is "disparity" between the states, is still better than nothing and will still save lives. Saving lives is not "problematic."

You do not deny that you oppose gun control. You have no legitimate reason to come to this group. Leave this group alone.

[Pullo]

3. No, the NRA, and the pro gun side fully expects the fight to continue indefinitely

For one thing, it's good for their coffers. Even during times when it doesn't face serious opposition, the group will pretend an eminent threat exists so the money can continue to flow in. The NRA has been at this for decades.

The media's hyperbolic "federal gun control is dead" meme is just a snapshot of the moment, nothing more.

[Drummerboy2277]

11. It's almost a lost cause

It's a shame this is my first post here but we should all really try something that does not use any of the words control, reform, etc. it only enrages the pro gun side and gives t
Ham something to dwell on... As soon as Senator Fienstein introduced and even mentioned the AWB all the pro gun side did was go nuts and call their senators day and night round the clock... I've read post after post after post about how change will come at the grassroots level, but unless we are hitting the streets round the clock with the common sense advocates, and we remove the groups like ceasefire which they view as being both religious and anti gun wanna take our guns away zealots like the westoro baptist...we do more harm to ourselves than they do to themselves... We need to reign in Fienstein, groups like ceasefire, etc and make more with the "lets sit down have a drink and figure out some common ground" I think we would advance our cause more if we weren't so rigid... Not saying that they're not that rigid either.... And most of all we need talks and civilized conversation where were not threatening each other. I've been a musician for over 30 years and I know if we approach things like us musicians do then there can and will be a common ground that we both can live with..... .. For heavens sake were not getting anywhere now..... Lets try something more from the heart.... A little compromise from both sides..... It's just my thoughts...

[ellisonz]

12. They tried that this week, it failed. n/t

[Drummerboy2277]

13. If at first you don't succeed

Then try again with a better glass of wine..... There has to be a point however small we can connect with them on.....

[ellisonz]

14. I think you're overestimating the intellegence of our political opposition. n/t

[alabama_for_obama]

30. This has nothing to do with the political opposition's intelligence…

And everything to do with the fact that when democrats and other left wing types in favor of gun control, don't get what they want on this issue, they start throwing temper tantrums and calling people names. Not exactly the behavior I'd like to see coming from my fellow dems/lefties on any issue.

You don't like the outcome, figure out how to achieve your goals some other way. But tossing insults and calling all people against tighter gun restrictions idiots, or as I'm increasingly seeing "tea-bagger scum" (etc etc). Doesn't help, it only enrages you and makes you feel incapable of effecting Amy change.

The big problem here is like the previous poster to you mentioned: with democratic leaders openly advocating for an end to civilian gun ownership, as Feinstein has done, and with hypocrites like schumer wanting concealed carry for privileged folks like himself, but not for ordinary citizens. With people like that in your corner, people with ostensibly very great power and influence over public policy, I can't say that I blame gun owners for freaking out.

[ellisonz]

32. So you would take back that vote for Obama?

I mean Obama is standing with Feinstein and Schumer on the issues.

I can't say that I blame gun owners for freaking out.

The gun nuts started freaking out as soon as Obama was elected President - they would have done that if Hillary had been elected President too. They are not of sound mind.

[Paladin]

16. "A little compromise from both sides"

As soon as you spot any compromise from pro-gun radicals, be sure to give us a shout. Your post is emblematic of the fact that it's always the gun control side that's deemed out of bounds, the side that's seeking way too much in the way of change, the side that needs to talk softly, endlessly draw back and compromise, and give in. The pro-gun side relies on such a weak-kneed defense of positions which the vast majority of the public favors on gun policy. Wayne LaPierre sees words like yours, and he smiles with delight.....

[DemDealer]

17. "Compromise" is a two way street.

Could that not be cause of the fact that every time they "compromise" the pro-gun side gets nothing out of the deal?

The only thing you ever offer them is to take away slightly less of their rights than you actually want.

[Paladin]

18. Yeah, you're breaking my fucking heart.

As if the pro-gun side has gotten "nothing out of the deal" for decades. Try reading something besides "American Rifleman" magazine to be disabused of that ridiculous mindset. Let me bring you up to speed real quick: in the last battle in Congress a few days ago, Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent came out on top, and Gabby Giffords and the Newtown parents lost. That's where "compromise" with pro-gunners has gotten us, lately.

[DemDealer]

22. The only thing you mean by "coming out on top"

is "getting to keep things the way they are."

Weighing "keeping what you have" versus "how much I take" is not a compromise. What would you offer to GIVE them, that they do not already have, that has value to them, in exchange for meaningful reform that you (and possibly I, depending on what it is) want?

If you demand from someone and offer nothing in return, you can not call that compromise. In harsher terms, we call that theft.

[Paladin]

23. As if right-wing political forces haven't GIVEN to your side, continuously.

Hey, Fat Tony Scalia GAVE you the Heller decision. Why should we be desperately searching for something you "do not already have"?
What would that be: machine guns offered as an option item on new cars, dashboard mounts included?

We live in a country where guns are passed out to sociopaths like candy bars, where mass murders involving guns happen so often they're barely front-page news any more (unless classrooms full of first graders are victims)---and you expect us to GIVE you more? Jesus H. Christ. You don't like my definition of compromise? Suits me; let's just think of it as an imposition of sanity regarding firearms policy. Feel better now?

Enjoy your stay.

[DemDealer]

25. Nice to see it admitted in words, finally

"your definition of compromise...."

Things like that are why I have a hard time talking with people on the pro-gun side. They assume we all think like you - we're going to take and nothing else, and BS them with nicer words for it like secretly creative definitions of "compromise." They're never going to work with us if you keep proving them right, and that means we're never going to get ANYTHING done, you realize that?

[Paladin]

26. As if you want anything done.

Go clean your collection of 30-round magazines, OK? This conversation is over.

[DemDealer]

27. How very adult of you.

At least the second part is right.

I used to wonder years ago, about the sanity of some of the gun lovers who talk about civil war. Then one day I figured out they weren't talking about starting one. They were talking about their belief that we would be willing to start one against them, and their concerns lied in winning it.

When you refuse to have dialog and push ahead anyway against people while denying their concerns, that's a creative euphemism for "starting a fight." You paint a clear picture of what they must see in all of us.

[ellisonz]

31. ^^^^

Blocked

[jimmy the one]

28. Buh bye

demdealer: Could that not be cause of the fact that every time they "compromise" the pro-gun side gets nothing out of the deal? The only thing you ever offer them {nra/progun} is to take away slightly less of their rights than you actually want.

You can't be serious, this is baloney. You can't have followed this guncontrol issue for the past 30 years & say that with a straight face. If you believe what you wrote you're either a gullible nra shill or an undereducated gun owner hyped up on 2nd amendment mythology.
The nra has no understanding of 'compromise' until guncontrol passage is imminent, then they barter to weaken the legislation as much as possible - the nra 'compromise'.
Yeah guncontrol has really infringed on gunrights in america, national gunstock has doubled in the past 20 years from 150 million to 300 million - how is that 'taking away slightly less of their rights?'.

DemDealer (17 posts) The only thing you mean by "coming out..."

Oh, 17 posts. If I don't hear from you again, have a nice days.

demdealer: Weighing "keeping what you have" versus "how much I take" is not a compromise. What would you offer to GIVE them, that they do not already have, that has value to them, in exchange for meaningful reform that you (and possibly I, depending on what it is) want?
If you demand from someone and offer nothing in return, you can not call that compromise. In harsher terms, we call that theft.

Please, you do not belong on this board, rightwing troll. You twist about what is actually transpiring & promote rightwing garbage. Yours is the kind of mindless opinion that prevents any kind of meaningful prevention policy regarding guns.
The nra got what they 'got' because gwbush got elected & appointed his pet rightwing cretins, elected in 2000 & gwbush presiduncy resulted in pro gun attitudes & ultimately heller in 2008 as scalia twisted 2ndA into some individual freak show.
.. NRA/gun lobby does not want to 'keep what it has' it wants more lethal & more sophisticated guns with unfettered access & little to none restrictions & regulations regarding guns; and to suggest that guncontrol efforts comprise of 'how much can I take' is asinine when they don't want to take anything they want to limit the carnage the nra & your stinking hobby have created & will continue to foist upon us under the pretext of an obsolete retro-fabrication of an antiquated amendment.

What the nra 'got' was the assault rifle ban lifted in 2004 (& a phony appeal for renewal from bush knowing it hadn't a chance in all creation), then heller in 2008.
The nra is at it's high water mark in history as far as guns galore policy goes, & you have the nerve to say it has everything to lose & nothing to gain by compromise? Background checks are some slippery slope to gun confiscation? if you're here to support nra & wayno's world hopefully you've stumbled upon an exit ramp back to nra headquarters where you belong.

We shouldn't be trying to 'compromise' with the nra anyway, we can see how they manipulate that into 'more guns more guns'. At this point we should be trying to STOP THEM, a runaway train gone insane.

Paladin (8,541 posts) As if the pro-gun side has gotten "nothing out of the deal" for decades. Try reading something besides "American Rifleman" magazine to be disabused of that ridiculous mindset. Let me bring you up to speed real quick: in the last battle in Congress a few days ago, Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent came out on top, and Gabby Giffords and the Newtown parents lost. That's where "compromise" with pro-gunners has gotten us, lately.

Spot on paladin, you make more sense than that rw troll ever will.
Hey, if I get banned awhile or post hidden, it was worth it. I'm rolling the dice, 7 come 11.

[Paladin]

29. Roll on, Jimmy One, roll on. Nice post. (nt)

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. The problem lies, to a large extent, in the NRA's near total control of the pro-gun-rights "voice."

If national polling is even remotely accurate, a majority of gun owners support many types of reforms (expanded background checks, for example). The problem is that is majority's voice is never heard. The only voice on that side of the debate that one ever hears is that of the NRA, and their positions are extremist, to say the least. There IS a willingness to compromise on the part of the majority of is gun owners.

A political organization that actually represents the position of the majority of the tens of millions of US gun owners is desperately needed...something to break the NRA's stranglehold on that side of the debate.

[Drummerboy2277]

21. Yes but don't forget....

There's not only the NRA but also the GOA the gun owners of America, and countless and I mean countless other groups, we have the likes of ceasefire and Maig, mothers against guns, and that's about it...... It is a culture all to its own that I have recently noticed.... As a musician the last thing we ever come into contact with is firearms unless you play in a pit symphony and are doin the 1812 overture and need a cannon...lol.... Or your a Spike Jones tribute band....LOL.... But there has to be some way to not seem or like like the big bad liberal threat to these people...and remember outside of the gun thing there are commonalities... Remove politics guns and religion and you get peace.... The cardinal rules among most musicians is no religion no politics... And everyone gets along fine... Matter of fact the only arguments I remember having in the last 30 years was about who's helping the dru member pack the gear up....

[jimmy the one]

24. Dancing with the Devils - a documentary

elison: Do they really think we're going to give up? Does the NRA wing-nut cabal really think they've won

I voted No but with a caveat that guncontrol has been activated for decades, & we're not just starting to fight etc.. iow, I voted No, rather than Yes they think we'll give up. NRA won a battle, not the war.

lizzie: The only voice on that side of the debate that one ever hears is that of the NRA, and their positions are extremist..

I think what mayor bloomburg could do, is prepare or fund a documentary expose' about the nra, it's deceptive practices throughout the past 3 decades, it's outright fraud, it's buying off politicians. Read HWBush's nra resignation letter from his life membership, as well as norman schwarzkopf's similar resignation from nra.
Show clips of ted nugent spewing profanity while straddling assault rifles, & wayno's 'jack booted thugs' remark, as well as his sickminded claims that clinton enjoyed hearing of childrens gundeaths since it bolstered guncontrol efforts - surprised wayno didn't take that very tack last december, missed a 'golden opp' redirected at obama? yuck, but same thing different decade.
Yeah, show charlton heston with his musket above his head shouting 'from my cold dead hands' and then read charlton heston's ~1968 letter where he supported the 1968 guncontrol act after robt kennedy was shot.
Cite Jack Anderson's expose' book on the nra from ~1996 - 'Inside the NRA, Armed & Dangerous' where he listed some of what I speak of - tho nra brags of it's members voting politicians out, only about 4% of it's own members vote in it's own nra elections!
Show how the nra misleads about firearm statistics, & portended - in it's own nra half hour tv clip - how london was aflame & britons unable to defend themselves against rioters since no handguns (the rioting would've been 10 times worse with guns involved). Show how the nra LIED about australian gun buyback of 96/97 where they said blood was running in the streets, prompting aussie PM howard to insist to nra to stop with their slander.
Explain the diff between the 80 million gun owners in america & the few hundred thousand which buy into nra far rightwing cretinism.

EXPOSE POLITICIANS WHICH RECEIVE NRA FUNDING & THE AMOUNTS.

It couldn't just be an hour long documentary, would take a 10 part series. At least.

Don't try to dance with the devil, show him as the devil he is.