Forum posts made by ladyx

Like most things that offend, its not what was said but how it was said, and the underlying worldview that was exposed. I hope enough AF clothes get donated to clothe every homeless person from coast to coast LOL.

All he had to say was that their marketing vision has always been consistent with what's in the stores now. There are a hundred ways to spin it to not openly offend plus-size shoppers, and he chose none of them.

I may have to modify my statement if a "Mediator" is different or has different powers than a "Moderator". If a mediator's jobs and powers are less than those of a moderator.

It's more or less the same thing. I think we've spent enough time on this flap by now, don't you?

And one more thing...I've got this moist, smelly pile of liquid crap on block and this isn't his thread so how does that work that he continues to see anything I do? I thought blocking scum like him made my posts invisible to him? Oh well, doesn't matter.


For what it's worth, the block option doesn't really work that way. They can't contact you, but they're still visible in the forum.

It's time to put the mudslinging to rest, and stay on topic. That goes for everyone, regardless of whether a member volunteers their time to the site or not. Keeping score on Internet slap fights is a waste of everyone's time. Besides, your positions are well thought-out from what I've seen. I'd much rather see you share those opinions than never-ending expletive-laden retorts. Let's put that in the past and all move on.

I applaud her decision, I know it couldn't be easy to do something like that, but it makes a lot of sense. I have to say though, while it's the right decision for her, we shouldn't draw the conclusion that it's right for everyone. I mean, she's really wealthy, and therefore is thoroughly unconcerned with insurance coverage or the cost of treatment. But what about those of us who are? Besides the fact that I'm sure such a preventative procedure wouldn't be covered by most insurance policies, I wonder if getting tested for that gene might cause an insurance company to jack up the premium (or deny coverage altogether) if and when they find out you're positive for it.

From the Inspector General's Report on the IRS, issued May 14, 2013:

The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions . p.2

--

I happen to agree with you, Monocle. I don't think there's any way that this leads all the way to Obama (though his spokesman said he found out about it a few weeks ago, yet he himself said he found out Friday, just like us), but if there's compelling evidence that it does, then there's no question he'd need to appear before Congress.

A lot of Americans who voted for Obama, and then voted for him again, believed in hope and change, and wanted the hope and change he said he would bring. When Americans don't get what they voted for they can get pretty dang pissed off, right. Why didn't his vision of hope and change ever materialize? Well remember, the economy was crashing on a scale of a locomotive plowing into the center of town! ALL of the focus had to go into stopping the depression the WORLD was heading for. And unfortunately, a train doesn't stop on a dime. It slows down...slowly. To get a train going again occurs...slowly. As in...chug, chug, chug...I think I can...I think I can. Obama also has had the party of "No" to deal with, filibustering more times than all the filibusters in history COMBINED. So...buh bye hope and change while this guy tries to get something done. I think that whole scenario is not only sad. It is treasonous. The American people voted for this President and those congressmen to get something done. Sadly, not much has been accomplished

In regarding to the IRS debacle, anytime a govt agency is profiling any group...it's wrong on the highest level wrong. However, and sadly, it happens. Investigate...investigate the investigation, as they will...trying to find a way to pin the blame directly to Obama's lapel like a carnation. And somehow find a way to extend the blame to the next democrat running for President, as well.

In our partisan world, there's no question that on the right wing there is the hope that at least one of these scandals will lead all the way to the President, however unlikely that might be. I, on the other hand, am really hoping that none do. But as long as the truth comes out one way or the other, that's what's most important.

I don't blame Obama for the immediate and unrelenting truculence he got from the Republicans, and obviously he shoulders no blame for the economic collapse that preceded his presidency. Congress' intransigence has been unforgivable too, I agree.

No, my issues with the President are aside from all of those onerous circumstances. Without enumerating them all here, I'll just say that I wish that the campaign and vision that he ran with actually resembled the way in which he's chosen to govern. And that has very little to do with the challenges put before him. Hell, lots of us could do a pretty good "hope and change/transformative figure" routine if the congress and economy conspired to give us a clear path to do everything we wanted. But our leaders reveal themselves in the toughest of times, not the easiest. I've been disappointed with a lot of what's been revealed.


I said in an earlier post, Various government agencies have been profiling groups for a long time. But it never bothers the average man until the profiling starts hitting home. Here is an example of what I meant. http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2281. The NAACP was profiled because of statements it's chairman, Julian Bond, made. Chairman Julian Bond criticized the Bush administration's policies in his speech to the group's July convention. The NAACP is a 501(c)(3) organization, and as such is barred from intervening in elections, but is allowed to comment on policies and government actions. The NAACP questioned the timing of the IRS action, calling it a politically motivated attempt to silence the organization and discourage blacks from voting. The IRS denied political motivation and referred the matter to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). The report from TIGTA reviews the structure and implementation of IRS enforcement in the 2004 election, finding no political motivation, but not identifying whether the NAACP was in the sample of cases it reviewed. This investigation went on for TWO YEARS! Where was the outrage? Where was the headlines? What was the difference? IMHO, most conservatives are white. Most groups associated with "patriot" are white while most associated with the NAACP are black. The IRS investigation into the NAACP ended on Aug.31, 2006, two years after it began and the only outrage demonstrated by anyone was the outrage of the lawyers for the NAACP who won, in the end.

So, again I say, Various government agencies have been profiling groups for a long time. But it never bothers the average man until the profiling starts hitting home. And that is outrageous and wrong. But in America...it happens.
Where is the outrage?

You've got outrage now LOL. As for the NAACP, agreed. Equally (if not worse) reprehensible, and you may very well be right about the reasons behind less media coverage in that scandal. Though I think you'd agree that it makes a similar scandal on a different group no less unsavory, no matter how close to home it might or might not be to the beholder. It does happen, as you said, but any outrage necessary to prevent it from happening again is essential.

IRS Provided Confidential Info on 31 Conservative Groups to Well-funded Liberal Non-Profit Journalist Organization.

ProPublica on Monday reported that the same IRS division that targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny during the 2012 election cycle provided the investigative-reporting organization with confidential applications for tax-exempt status.

That revelation contradicts previous statements from the agency and may represent a violation of federal guidelines. Lois G. Lerner, who heads the IRS sector that reviews tax-exemption applications, told a congressional oversight committee in April 2012 that IRS code prohibited the agency from providing information about groups that had not yet been approved.


I predict substantial house-cleaning at the IRS, in short order.

Indeed, the trend here (myself included) has been to clobber the conservatives for perceived ill will/malfeasance/duplicity/venality/barbarism/bigotry/sexism, etc., and to reserve criticism of Obama and his administration to a relatively small subset of mutually agreed-to items of record. I know I've done it. Why? Because I'm partisan. I trust conservatives less than I trust liberals, in general. I feel threatened and my intelligence feels insulted by many conservative talking points, and less so by liberal talking points. I want Obama and the left-leaning makers of law to do what's best for the country, and to be right about it. I don't want tin-foil hatters to be right about anything that they throw against the wall in hopes that something will stick. I don't want to feel like a sucker and a mark for supporting him*.

The speculation I have no issue with. Without that, there wouldn't be much to talk about really, but it's getting less credible to volley every suggestion of wrongdoing by Obama et.al. back with some variation of "well, maybe...but...but, when Bush and the Republicans...."

We get it. Those were some bad dudes running the country from 2000-2008. I don't have any question about how bad they were, but that was then. And this- with a guy who made such a huge deal about transparency, and actually campaigned (with a straight face, no less) on 'Hope and Change', and post-partisan government action- is now. A handful of scandals, some of which inevitably is all smoke no fire (or at least we hope so), but is there nothing there, at all? Or are we liberals and left-leaners just going to crouch down and demand not only the smoking gun but the spent bullets before we discuss the possibility that there's a power overreach? The fact that I'm not a libertarian activist gives me no comfort, and hanging hopes on "well, maybe they targeted some liberal groups too" is just looking the other way. But hey, the IRS supervisor said it wasn't politically motivated, so maybe we should just take her at her word.

And it's true that we don't know whether it goes all the way up to Obama or not. But just as it doesn't pass a common-sense test to say that targeting conservative groups wasn't politically motivated, it also fails miserably to buy the same excuse we've gotten on: AP wiretaps, Benghazi, fast and furious, and IRS: "We had no knowledge of this. We heard about it on the news, just like you did." Not saying they're "guilty" of anything in any of those cases, but you truly didn't know about any of the goings-on in any of those situations, Barack? Really?




*and save the speech about how you can't trust any politician to be beholden to the electorate or to govern honestly and earnestly, and are inherently a sucker and a mark for taking politics seriously in the first place. I know those talking points well; I even agree with most of them. But I'm just not cut out for political nihilism. At some point, laws get passed that affect us, and some are better for us than others, despite the fact that everything is set up to placate the handful of corporations and consortiums that hold sway over the 'free' world. Therefore, I'll support the least harmful candidate and hope I haven't made the wrong choice.

The question was "Has anybody read Lerner's statement?" It wasn't asking if you specifically read it. I wasn't making any kind of personal statement toward you. The Blaze is the article quoted in the initial question on the thread.

Yes. As well as her QandA transcript.

All I'm saying is that the right wing has a record of blowing things out of proportion to make Democratic administrations look bad, and liberal groups look bad. They allow a lot of leeway to right wing spinners. This is from AP: "Lerner said the number of groups filing for this tax-exempt status more than doubled from 2010 to 2012, to more than 3,400. To handle the influx, the IRS centralized its review of these applications in an office in Cincinnati.

Lerner said this was done to develop expertise among staffers and consistency in their reviews. As part of the review, staffers look for signs that groups are participating in political activity. If so, IRS agents take a closer look to make sure that politics isn't the group's primary activity."

One of the things that the people in Cincinnati did was to make a list of things to look for in applications, one of the things they came up with was Tea Party. How is that inappropriate, seeing as the Tea Party is a political movement? Another word, "Patriot," isn't necessarily a conservative word. Are liberals not allowed to be patriots? How is linking the word "Patriot," to a flag for violation of tax exempt status targeting right wing groups?

The right wing would like us to believe that everyone with the word Patriot in their name is a conservative, but that isn't really the case. Lerner and the IRS have consistently denied that this was done for political purposes. How is that an admission that it was?

1) it wasn't just the Cincinnati office, as it turns out.
2) yes, technically, those phrasings aren't proprietary to conservative and libertarian politics, but to claim plausible deniability that they were coded as conservatives takes a high degree of self-delusion. There's no way you'd believe some homeland security hack, circa 2003, if he claimed he wasn't profiling liberals just because the targeted groups contained the words "progressive" or "change" in their titles. To wit:
3)can you name a liberal or neutral group containing the word patriot? If you can name one, can you name two or three? Because ms. Lerner could not. And given that this issue dates back at least a few weeks internally, you would think she'd be at least minimally prepared to head off what appears at face value to be politically motivated profiling.
4)they've already changed their story. First it was just a few rogue low-level employees. Then it was just one office. Now it's multiple offices, including 2 in California. And if it's all a matter of vetting course,
5) why apologize and change the story to begin with?

You're right though, that often crises aren't as bad as they might seem. I hope that's the case here, despite how it all looks and sounds.

There has been no admission that this was done for political purposes. The IRS has denied that it was political, 75% of the groups that were flagged weren't conservative groups,

From what I've seen, 75% didn't specifically include the phrase "tea party". Many more included other phrasings, and it has been stated that the profiling extended to groups "concerned with the constitution". Exact percentage might be beside the point.

Has anyone here actually read the text of what Lerner said, or does everyone just accept the story as the right wing media puts it out. Most of the quotes on the Blaze article are from straight up Republican and right wing sources.



Yes, and thanks so much for assuming otherwise. I don't know what the fuck a Blaze publishes. I'm much more familiar with mainstream media and newspapers, flawed as they are. I recall reading Chicago Tribune and Washington Post re: this issue, among others. At last check, neither is considered in the tank for tea partiers and neocons.

And yet, I hope you're right, that it's some dastardly ploy by the evil right (and they've had their share), but you really believe conservative groups would be zeroed in on without politics factoring in? The quotes and sources seem to leave that failing the smell test (though technically it is possible).

The legality of the tax status is a separate issue. Impropriety ha been established within the process of investigating that. Unless one believes its all a fabrication, I guess.

Well, since it turned out that the great outcry against Acorn was all smoke and mirrors and cleverly edited video, and the forced resignation of Shirley Sherrod, it's going to take some proof that it was a deliberate action before I'm going to accept that it's anything other than more right wing hype.

You mean other than the admission that it was? The land of "if" is in the rear view mirror on this one. The only question is who orders this to occur. The " why" is technically up for debate as well, I suppose.

From what I read, that "1/4" figure just pertained to the number of groups with "tea party" in their name, but there were many, many others who were conservative in either name or type. I'm not sure what the percentage is, and I don't really care. What's important to me is that the federal government not zero in on a particular group or individual based on their beliefs. That's entirely unacceptable, and this should be obvious.

I hope they investigate it fully, that investigators are given full unimpeded and immediate access, and I hope they terminate whomever ordered this special scrutiny for certain groups. They can say it wasn't politically motivated, and we have a choice of whether to believe that or not. Personally, I'd feel both stupid and like a willing liberal sycophant for doing so, especially at this stage. I'm far from a conservative, but I think an open mind and some intellectual honesty is called for here. Is saying "it wasn't necessarily a targeting of conservatives", with a straight face, anything more than hopeful thinking? Sure, Maybe it's nothing, just some stray words and a big to-do that turns out to be no big deal, but let's find out first before we declare the administration faultless and the GOP "crazy as usual".

How this doesn't- at least on the surface- look really, really bad to anyone is beyond me. I hope I'm wrong and that my intuition is overreacting. Any political targeting by previous administrations does not make this one's alleged actions any less reprehensible.

Oh by the way, did you guys see the news about the justice department seizing records and phone lines of AP reporters in 2012 ?

So is everything truly on the up-and-up? Is nothing as bad as it seems like it could be? Is this administration protecting as much freedom as it seems to be abusing? Can we just keep blaming Bush and pretending that two wrongs make a right, just to keep our liberal caps on straight?

Seems (and probably is) naive, but I just want to know the truth, even if it turns out badly for those I nominally support. Nobody, liberal or conservative or otherwise, deserves to be above the law, and nobody deserves undue scrutiny for their perceived ideological threats.

I don't know what power he has to simply stroke a pen and make this happen but there was so pressure and fake outrage that terrorists were going to be released and the others were going to be brought on American soil, put into American prisons, that there was no co-operation. With no co-operation the problem remains...I can stroke a pen but then what do we actually do with these terrorists.

Nothing these guys do is independent of congressional pressure. Congressional pressure never sleeps.

Correct. The willingness to bend to it hasn't slept in a long time either, sadly. Political courage isn't supposed to be easy. It's unfortunate to see the areas where our current president either doesn't have it or is unwilling to exercise it.

It wasn't Obama. It was the party of "NO". Most of the Obama agenda had to be scrapped because of two things...the economy was coming apart at the seems when he took office and that took precedence over his agenda. Also, the party of "No" got that moniker, not by accident.



None of that relates to Obama's authority to release or transfer those prisoners, which is independent of congressional pressure.

Obamas foreign policy is his, not Bush's. he owns it, and rightfully gets all blame and all credit. He did not open the Guantanamo prison, but he also can't hide behind congress when the question comes up: why are we still detaining "enemy combatants" there? There's nothing in the constitution that prevents him from acting on that without congressional approval.

The entire concept of "enemy combatant" outside of a traditionally declared war is the larger problem. Obama didn't start it, but he's continued and expanded this dark arm of US foreign policy. The republicans have done him no favors, but that doesn't excuse much of his administration's actions.

If liberals have any integrity, and I count myself as fairly liberal myself, they'll protest Obama's library just as they did for Bush's last month.

But what you're not seeing is that the author really believes this . It's his opinion, and he has every right to it, even as you have the right to say that gun ownership is not for you. And he's not alone. I agree with most of his bullet points. I do my very best to try and see things from your point of view. You have the right to believe whatever you choose to believe, and I don't have the right to call you names because of it, or threaten you because of it. And most gun enthusiasts I hang out with feel the same way. That's called 'freedom", and it's what we believe in.

To the contrary, I can plainly see that the author believes everything he's saying. He seems to lack self-awareness, but certainly not sincerity. And while I’m pretty sure you don’t cop the same attitudes that this guy does, I know that you feel the same conviction for second amendment rights.

So here’s my question: is everyone with his/your point of view so convinced that there should be absolutely no restrictions and no limits on gun ownership that the least infringement will lead to total stripping and confiscation of rights? Is that why what goes into the works as “hey, let’s talk about stronger background checks and some limits on fully automatic weapons” invariably comes out of the works as “you can’t take my guns away!!”?

This guy spent, I’m guessing, close to 4k words making a passionate defense of gun ownership vs. the “anti-gunners". Is he- are you- really of the belief that there’s this huge groundswell of “let’s take all the guns away” activists? Yes, there are some. I’m not one of them, neither are most of the people you interact with here. Not being a tea party patriot is not tantamount to supporting total confiscation, yet the author lumped everyone who doesn't by default launch unprompted into a founding fathers speech into that same "anti-gunners" group.

You, on the other hand, (and I use the generic "you", because while some people may not feel this way, in my opinion the vast majority of you do) you do believe that it's proper and right to hurl insults, call names, act boorish... Hell, that Kristin thing actually posted that I should be shot. Twice, if I'm not mistaken. If that's not the ultimate hypocrisy, I don't know what is. And not a single damned one of you pointed this out, or raised up a red flag and said, "Hey, we're all entitled to our own opinions. It isn't right to say that to someone just for posting what they believe in."

People get personal and go overboard, Nudes. At times I do too, as can you, as can everyone. Of course it’s out of bounds, and highly ironic, to suggest that you should be shot. That goes without saying. Anymore, I do my best to ignore the mudslinging and move along. Most of the time, I succeed in doing so. Easy for me to say, I wasn’t the target, I know- but this issue is just another political issue on which the divide might be empathized and understood, but never ultimately crossed. Conservatives will never agree to higher taxes and an expanded welfare state, and gun enthusiasts will never sign off on restrictions to gun ownership. These are the facts on the ground, and they appear permanent.

You're all for peaceful coexistence, except for people like me. You're all for freedom, except for people like me. Freedom of expression, freedom from religion, freedom from persecution... except for people like me.

Who is “all” of us? Are you addressing the four or five people that look at these threads who actually support across-the-board disarmament and criminalizing of firearm ownership? Because the rest of us have no problem with the concept of firearms for private ownership and use. Some of us take issue with the idea of the guy down the street having a collection of Uzis in the back bedroom, but that’s very different from “all gun owners are crazy, they should be shot.” I do realize it’s gotten personal toward you in these threads, but in general, why the absolutism? Is any discussion of further restriction equally offensive as full-scale revocation of gun rights? Or is your ire here being cast a little too broadly?


And it's the gun owner's fault that there's no peaceful dialog going on about this subject.

You know, I have to say, I did find it a bit amusing in that essay that he felt so hurt, so persecuted, so singled out by others for his beliefs, but seemingly had no idea where it was coming from. And yet, his essay is so damning toward those who disagree with him, so unrelentingly haughty and condescending, that it becomes clear that the people around him aren’t so much reacting to the concept of gun ownership, they’re reacting to his way of handling other points of view.

It’s like saying “all conservatives are dumbasses who are stuck in the past, can’t open their minds, can’t understand that that they’re old-fashioned bigots that abet the wealthy and turn their backs on the poor. So fuck them for not seeing things my way”, then being mystified by the lack of empathy and understanding in the responses. But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised: he’s judging opposing viewpoints based on a small minority and internet comment sections (!)*. So aside from a lack of self-awareness, I’d say he suffers from a lack of perspective. Most people don’t want to take away his guns, and those that do? Fuck’em, there are bigger things in life to worry about.




*I really can't stress enough how myopic that is. The only people that use comment sections are old ladies and trolls, seriously. That's a terrible gauge of public opinion, and perhaps the very worst place to look to as a marketplace of ideas.

Fuck me!! - here you lot go again, arguing about your gun laws.

Is Lush really the right place where you all have such 'voices??'

Why don't you intelligent folk go do some good, and lobby your opinions where there are people who will really be able to make a difference. That ain't here.

Some of us do lobby for the causes we care for in our real lives. Whether that makes a real difference remains to be seen. As far as Lush goes, this section of the forum actually is the place where us lot share such 'voices'. Sorry to see that it frustrates you so.

Oh boy. Well, first of all, thanks NP for posting this. It's not the even-handed piece I was hoping for, and I know by the prior comments that I'm not alone with those feelings, but it does give us plenty to chew on. I was going to leave a general comment, but it's just going to work out better for me to address some things point-by-point.

-

Is it because my side of the debate is actually loony? I don’t think so; at least, I think I’m pretty normal. Sure, we’ve got some oddballs we all wish would go away, just like any group does.

But all the pro-gun people I know are normal people too — people so normal that nobody knows they’re gun people until they’re told. In fact, there are so many gun owners that if we are all crazy like some suggest, the daily crime rate in America would look more like our crime rate for the entire decade combined, and CNN would actually have something to report on other than the latest gossip.

That is to say, there’s a hundred million of us, owning a few hundred million guns combined, and we contribute to society peacefully every day. Many of us even literally protect society for a living, or used to.

I've no doubt that this is true. I know lots of gun owners, and I'm sure I know many more than that and just don't know it. I used to be a gun owner. I know gun owner does not equal "gun-nut". The problem is largely a PR one, as I've mentioned. Some, like SWW suggest that this is on purpose: get the crazy ones out, loud and proud, while the grown-ups secure gun rights behind the scenes. I'm not sure this is true, though I'm not certain it's not, either. What I do know is that the NRA can be unnecessarily provocative, at least from my perspective, and that among those looking to secure their rights to own guns, there's an awful lot of fear, and fear in turn sows other unpleasant attributes, such parnoia, intolerance, and hostility.


I’ve come to realize after the Sandy Hook shooting that the reason we can’t have a rational gun debate is because the anti-gun side pre-supposes that their pro-gun opponents must first accept that guns are bad in order to have a discussion about guns in the first place. Before we even start the conversation, we’re the bad guys and we have to admit it. Without accepting that guns are bad and supplicating themselves to the anti-gunner, the pro-gunner can’t get a word in edgewise, and is quickly reduced to being called a murderer, or a low, immoral and horrible human being.

And without first accepting that guns are good, and a cherished perennial right, not to be infringed by anyone for any reason, those seeking tighter controls can't get a word in edgewise, either. See how that works? This is why the prospects for real conversation are so bleak.


You might think that’s hyperbole too, but I’ve experienced it personally from people I considered friends until recently. And every day I see it on TV or in the newspapers, from Piers Morgan to the Des Moines Register’s own Donald Kaul, who among others have actually said people like me are stupid, crazy or should be killed ourselves. YouTube is full of examples, and any Google search will result in example after example of gun-owning Americans being lampooned, ridiculed and demonized by the media and citizens somewhere.

Let's be fair, nobody's forcing Skynrdfan68@gmail.com to upload his pro-gun rant to YouTube. Nobody's rounding up small town residents who hate Obama and forcing them to expound on their belief system and their interpretation of the US Constitution. I'll say it again: gun advocates have perhaps the worlds worst spokespeople and overall public front. Look at what happens here even here on the relatively small community of Lush. The typical gun advocate is: 1) shirtless in his avatar, 2) angry right off the bat at everyone, 3) uses woefully poor grammar, and 4) at some point either slips into hate speech, compares the US government to the Third Reich, or both. I realize that we may be living in a style-over-substance culture, and that's probably to our detriment, but one has to admit: presentation and marketing of opinions matters a great deal. If you can't sell your ideas and make both the idea and the messenger seem sane, you're dead in the water.


Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners always talk about 90 percent of Americans supporting this gun control measure, or 65 percent supporting that one, as if a majority opinion is what truly matters in America.

It's not the only thing that matters, but it does matter a hell of a lot. Here's guessing that this same author would definitely slip a "65% of Americans believe in a balanced budget" stat into his column in the (all too common) event that Congress and the President decide to spend lavishly and fail to address the deficit problem. We don't live in a black and white world, and absolutes rarely factor in. It's disingenuous to say that majority opinion- representing the way most Americans feel- is irrelevant to a particular issue. Should it rule the day? Perhaps not, but it does warrant mentioning.


We don’t trust anti-gun people because you think America is a democracy, when it’s actually a constitutional federal republic. In the American system, the rights of a single individual are what matters and are what our system is designed to protect. The emotional mob does not rule in America.

Thanks for the constitutional lesson, Mr. High Horse. It doesn't really matter here, except to brandish your credentials. Not using correct semantic nomenclature is a disqualifier? Whatever you say, cowboy.


Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they lie to us. President Obama directly says he won’t tamper with guns or the Second Amendment, then turns around and pushes Congress to do just that.

Nothing Obama proposed presents a challenge to ownership of firearms. If one is absolutist about it (and that's increasingly the way people on both sides are getting), then I guess anything other than "go get all the guns you want, restriction-free" is 'tampering with the Second Amendment'. Otherwise, his comment here is intellectually dishonest.


We don’t trust anti-gunners because they appoint one of the most lying and rabidly (and moronically) anti-gun people in America, Vice President Biden, to head up a “task force” to “solve” the so-called “gun problem,” who in turn talks with anti-gun special interest groups instead of us to complete his task.

Fair point. One could argue that all points of view should be involved in a policy issue like this, though what do we expect the NRA to have done, other than vehemently oppose any restriction whatsoever, regardless of what it is?


Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they tell us they don’t want to ban guns, only enact what they call “common sense gun laws.” But like a magician using misdirection, they tell everyone else they want to ban every gun everywhere.

Very liberal use of the word 'they'. And what "common sense gun laws" is he referring to? Yes, Senator Feinstein said she's like to see all guns turned in (nice video find from 18 years ago, btw). I'd like to see lots of things happen, but even if I'm a US Senator, that doesn't make them likely to happen. You can't, if you're willing to have the intellectually honest discourse that you claim to seek, take one person's quote and turn that into "they tell everyone else they want to ban every gun everywhere." This guy, again, is seeking a white hat/black hat divide, where it's actually way, way more nuanced than that.


While some are busy trying to placate us with lies, another anti-gunner somewhere submits a gun ban proposal — proposals that often would automatically make us felons for possession. Felons, for no good reason. And you anti-gunners can roll up your grandfather clauses and stuff them where the sun don’t shine. If it ain’t good enough for our grandchildren in 60 years, it ain’t good enough for us right now.

Yes, people will submit crazy shit at the state (and occasionally at the national) legislative level. It happens. And yes, the ByronLords of the world, that equate 'gun owner' with 'bloody-handed amoralist' exist too. But they're not the ones you have to worry about, much like those who seek tighter controls on guns don't really have to worry about fringe libertarians that want to overthrow the Federal government and impose anarchy. (Well, except for the occasional federal courthouse bombing, then maybe you do have to worry about those people).


Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they make horrifying predictions about how there will be blood in the streets, gunfights on every street corner and America will become the Wild West again if citizens are allowed to carry concealed firearms. We don’t trust anti-gun people because we know that despite the millions of Americans who have carry permits, those who carry guns commit crimes at a much lower rate than people who don’t. We know because we know ourselves and we’re not criminals. We know because concealed carry is now legal nearly everywhere, and guess what? Violent crime continues to go down. What a shocker.

Now he's all over the map. There are all kinds of people- most even- who have no issue with concealed-carry while wishing for better controls elsewhere. I don't personally buy that the movie theater gunman (for instance) would've been stopped faster if others had been packing. I fail to see how that wouldn't have just ended up with more stray bullets and bystanders struck by them...but that's neither here nor there.


Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they say gun control is about crime control. Anti-gunners claim that ending crime and “saving children” is why they want to ban so-called “assault weapons.” Yet our very own government says that assault weapons are used in less than two percent of all gun crimes and Department of Justice studies say the last assault weapons ban had little or no effect on crime.

And I see merit in legislation that eliminates that 2 percent. Versus what, the legal right to own an Uzi? It's at least a worthwhile debate.


Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when it comes to their “We need gun control to save the children” argument, many of us can’t understand how an anti-gun liberal can simultaneously be in favor of abortion. Because you know, a ban on abortion would save a child every single time. I’m personally not rabidly against abortion, but the discongruence makes less sense still when the reason abortions are legal is to protect a woman’s individual rights.

Uh oh. God-Squad alert! And willfully bringing a completely unrelated issue (women's reproductive rights) into the fray. Win the argument on its own merits, not by slinging moralist mud re: your own bias about abortion.

Anti-gunners think that for some bizarre reason, the founding fathers happened to stick a collective right smack dab at the top of a list of individual rights, though. Yeah, because that makes sense.

Which anti-gunners? This whole essay gets really straw-mannish. Who is he talking about, other than the personally constructed idiot-mass that opposes his vision of Second Amendment rights. By the way, the constitution is full of collective rights. The indivual rights ARE the collective rights.


Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they are purposely misleading to rile the emotions of the ignorant. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they say more than 30,000 people are killed each year by guns — a fact that is technically true, but the key piece of information withheld is that only a minor fraction of that number is murder; the majority is suicides and accidents. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know accidents and suicides don’t count in the crime rate, but they’re held against us as if they do.

Okay, but for many, including me, whether it constitutes "crime" is sort of irrelevant. The facts are that guns were the instrument used. Don't misunderstand this as me building an argument to ban guns, but in point of fact, the 30,000 number (or whatever it happens to be) is a gun-related death number, crime or no crime.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because not only is the violent crime rate approaching historic lows, but mass shootings are on the decline too. We don’t trust anti-gun people because they fail to recognize that mass shootings happen where guns are already banned — ridiculous “gun-free zones” which attract homicidal maniacs to perpetrate their mass shootings.

I've yet to hear a surviving mass-shooting perpetrator explain that he picked his target based on the fact that it was in a "gun free zone". The existence of gun free zones is ridiculous to him, same as the concept of school teachers packing heat is ridiculous to others. That's an ideological stalemate, and either side is free to ridicule the others' position, but it won't bring about a solution.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gun people put us down with dismissals like “just another dumb redneck with a gun.”

If it's in reaction to an actual dumb redneck with a gun, then what does one expect? Context matters. Otherwise: straw-man argument.

We are told all over the Internet that we deserve to be in prison for being awful, heartless people; baby-killers and supporters of domestic terrorism, even.

Straw man argument.

We don’t trust anti-gun people because even our own president says people like me are “bitter” and “cling to our guns and religion.”

How does he know Obama was talking about him? If memory serves, Obama was discussing his difficulties with rural, working class white people, many of whom are bitter about the Federal Government and do cling to guns and religion. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words, but it's not inaccurate. If that applies to the author of this piece, then so be it.

One need only go to any online comments section of any recent gun article in any of the major newspapers to see all this for themselves.

How naive is this guy? He doesn't know internet comment sections are little more than troll lairs? The fact that he's willing to use that as an exhibit of evidence does his credibility no favors.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when things like the Boston Marathon bombing happen, everyone correctly blames the bomber, not the bomb. Nobody is calling for bomb control because killing people with bombs is already illegal — just like killing people with guns is illegal too.

Yes, but guns aren't illegal. Key difference.


Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they completely ignore the fact that true conservatism is about, in part, the preservation of traditions and long-standing principles. We don’t trust anti-gunners because the American Revolution was kicked off by an attempt at gun control when the British marched to Concord to seize the colonists’ muskets and powder. Since the shot heard ‘round the world was fired on Lexington Green, the possession of a firearm has been the mark and symbol of a citizen, distinguishing them from a subject of a monarchy or tyrannical government. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they prefer the post-modern world where anything means anything, and they therefore don’t understand the power of or need for the preservation of traditions — or at least, ones of which they don’t personally approve.

Okay, this makes sense, except for the first part about completely ignoring what true conservatism is all about. As somebody that leans liberal, I can tell you that this isn't true. Liberals are well aware that conservatism is about preserving traditions and long-standing principles, they just don't believe that some of those traditions are necessary or relevant today.

We don’t trust anti-gun people for this reason because history shows us that every genocide and democide is preceded by expansion of government power and gun control. We don’t trust anti-gunners because here in America, gun control is rooted in slavery and racism, with some of America’s modern anti-gun laws being direct copies of former Nazi laws that banned gun possession for Jews, blacks, gays and other “undesirables.”

This is probably the best pro-gun argument, if only there were a movement to ban all guns, when there really isn't one afoot here in the US.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners tell us that the police and military are the only people who should have guns (which is a joke in itself), and that we need to give up our own guns and trust the government.

It's a joke to this guy, but not to the citizens of virtually every other first-world society, most of whom have somehow have managed to enter 2013 without being strangled under the hold of a tyrranical fascist government regime. But again, a full-scale ban on firearms isn't on the table. So why does every pro-gun argument/monologue/tirade assume that it is?


Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they always bemoan the NRA, claiming the NRA is the source of all their anti-gun legislation problems. We don’t trust anti-gunners because it never occurs to them that perhaps it’s not the NRA per se that has the power, but the millions of members that belong to it, and the millions more Americans who otherwise support it and its mission. The NRA is probably the largest private organization in America; maybe that has something to do with its influence...? We also don’t trust anti-gunners because they’re too ignorant to understand that the NRA only represents a minority of us anyway.

Wrong. By leading the lobbying effort and by speaking for gun ownership, they represent gun ownership as a concept. And gun owners at large allow them to do so by maintaining membership and by not speaking out in opposition to them, or to discredit thir assertion that they're leading the Second Amendment defense in this country.


No, anti-gunners, we don’t trust you. And you’ve given us no reason to, either. We gun owners obey the law each and every day, same as you. We defend your nation, protect your communities, teach your children, take care of you when you’re sick, defend you when you go to court or prosecute those who do you wrong. We cook and serve your food, haul and deliver your goods, construct your homes, unclog your sewers, make your electricity, and build or fix your cars.

People who choose not to carry or own guns do all of these things as well. Gun owners have earned no moral high ground. They are no more "American" than those who don't own guns. They can occupy a high horse all they want, and pat themselves on the back for their American-ness (same as liberal activists will do the same), but we're all one big family, we just feel differently about certain issues, including gun ownership.


Anti-gunners label people like me “gun nuts” even though we're anything but nutty. Our enjoyment of firearms doesn’t define us; it is but a single value and right we enjoy and cherish, among many other rights and values we enjoy and cherish — including the very same ones anti-gunners do too — like the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Internet trolls and the minority anti-gun zealots excepted, nobody's going to call you a gun nut unless you act like one. Supporting gun ownership does not qualify as gun-nuttery on its own, no matter how many straw men one chooses to set up and knock down.


No, anti-gunners are absolutely right: There can be no rational debate on this issue anymore. Anti-gunners don’t understand guns, they don’t understand crime, they don’t understand American history and traditions, they don’t understand gun owners and don’t care to understand us, and they reduce people like me to a debasing label or a number they’ve got no clue about.

Anti-gunners reject our passions, our traditions, our knowledge, our experiences, our beliefs, our wisdom, our rights. Anti-gunners reject our very individuality by reducing us to labels, stereotypes and false or distorted statistics. Screw you for destroying that individuality and denying our humanity.

So your precious traditions aren't shared unanimously, rub some dirt on it and get back in the game, captain. Conservatives label liberals all sorts of pejorative names, attribute awfulness to them that they haven't earned, same as you're whining about here. I do wish you could find a time machine to take you back to 1951, I think all involved would be happier that way.


And unlike most anti-gunners, it seems, I have served my community and nation in various roles throughout the years — roles that, ironically, often entailed guns. Where I was once given a uniform and a gun, and trusted with it to ensure the safety and security of others, I am now a pariah among many of the very people I sacrificed for. I am sadly one of many here, too. What a terrible, hurtful insult and betrayal!

Cry me a river. Also, that's a baseless assertion, to assume that those who wish to see some degree of gun control aren't civil stewards, don't volunteer, don't work for their communities, etc. If you're a pariah, you might look at your own behavior and outlook. Reasonable people would not assign you pariah status based on the fact that you own a gun. And why worry about unreasonable people? They'll always exist, and they'll exist outside of reasonable discourse. The fact that you've given up on that says as much about you as it does the seemingly hopeless stalemate that you see on this issue.



An anti-gunner reads a book though, or sees a documentary on TV — or perhaps worst of all, gets a degree —

Anti-education too? Okay.

and suddenly they have the almighty authority and expertise to tell us how we ought to live our lives, replying to our objections to their onslaught by throwing pictures of dead kids in our faces and commanding us to shut up, because we’re just a bunch of stupid radicals and liberals alone know what’s best for America.

Did we just slip into "Liberal tyrant alert" here? Do you post on infowars.com?

You anti-gunners out there will lead us down a path you do not want to go down. Your lack of care and understanding of those who abide by America’s oldest and deepest-rooted tradition will cause a social rift in this country of the likes we have never seen in America’s young history. Your lack of understanding chances causing a civil war — a civil war that will be far worse, more acrimonious, more prolonged and more deadly than the last one.


Nice melodramatic hyperbole. And the least savory among gun owners who will take up arms in opposition to the law of the land for their own version of "freedom" wouldn't be the least bit responsible for that "civil war" either, right? But threatening an uprising if things don't go your way down the road is a pretty level-headed thing to do...


Anti-gunners may think the military could prevent such a thing — an argument often used against us pro-gunners — but with only a few million people in the military, and with the United States containing 300 million citizens spread across nearly four million square miles, many of whom are themselves veterans, well, military occupation of this country is impossible.

And why would the military need to take action, unless laws were broken?


And there will be no hope for resolution but through victory by force initiated by one side or the other, God help us, for we will not plow for those who didn’t beat their swords into plowshares.


What the hell does that even mean?


-

So this guy says we must mend fences, but basically spent a few thousand words ennumerating how little trust he has for the tiny minority that wants to ban all guns. What a nonproductive exercise. Almost as non-productive as my response LOL, but I couldn't let it go.

No "side" has the monopoly on what is right or what is true. Self-righteousness only deepens the divide, and his preening essay is part of the problem, not the solution.

I can't tell you the number of times I got turned down on account of my collar bones.

"She's got a great face....buttercollarbones!"

Not too surprised though. Fashion isn't looking for real people, only avatars for their ideal aethetic. Seems sort of futile to expect empathy within the world of commercial fashion marketing.

Charles' brilliant, sadly true quote of the year:


“Bro, I knew something was wrong when a little pretty white girl ran into a black man’s arms. Something is wrong here. Dead giveaway. Dead giveaway. Deeeeeeeeeeaaaaaad giveaway. Either she’s homeless, or she’s got problems. That’s the only reason she’d run to a black man.”

And now if any states actually pass any laws concerning guns in schools the gun lobby will take them to court crying about how it is all a patchwork of regulation and it will be too difficult for law abiding citizens to carry guns into schools because the laws are so different from state to state they just get too confused to follow the laws.



They won't even attempt that rationale. They'll just keep yammering about the 2nd Amendment and quoting stats that may or may not be true about how much safer we are with tons of guns in everyone's hands. It's almost not even worth talking about anymore.

Like many, I'm not advocating for zero guns; mostly, I'm just put off by what passes for gun advocacy among its supporters. The discussion escalates into absolutism immediately, and the loudest spokespeople for 'gun culture' seem to be shirtless booger-eaters drinking a constant cocktail of fear and intolerance. Even the official NRA spokesperson, LaPierre, is an inflammatory troll, and it would appear that the gun-people like it this way.

Find better advocates, gun-people.

Does seem kind of sketchy to me. And if I'm saying it's sketchy...

LOL.

The guy is apparently a libertarian extremist who would most like to see the government fail. And notwithstanding the 'fig leaf' of adding the metal piece into his plastic gun, he's come up with a wholly libertarian-idealist firearm, right? We can all make them in our neighbor's garage, they're undetectable, and the technology is getting more and more affordable and widespread. Also, wasn't this technology essentially predicted in that movie In the Line of Fire ?

I find this pretty fucking scary. And as I've seen and heard from people all over, especially 'round these parts, there are plenty of paranoid people who really think the President is some sort of thinly-disguised tyrant intent on turning everyone into socialist drones, etc. This seems like the perfect thing for those types. "Laws be damned, I love this country too much to....follow its laws".

I'm looking at a Fox News story that says it contains one "non-functioning" part made out of metal to sure it can be picked up on metal detectors.

Correct.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2365007808/

He essentially added the metal piece to come into compliance with current firearms laws, but it was just a wink and a nod gesture. Nobody would do that on their own, they'd just use a plastic piece instead.

Crock of shit.

Congress killed his shutdown effort. He made the mistake of promising something he couldn't be sure to deliver on, and congress slapped him with it. He could be clearing out detainees that have been cleared to go already, and that's totally on his head. But the fact Guantanamo is still open is on Congress' head alone.

He's a hypocrite on this issue and many others, Congress or no Congress. You and I both know that he could unilaterally decide to clear that place out this afternoon if he wanted to. Congress should've forced the issue as well, and certainly shouldn't obstruct the issue, but I'm looking to the guy do what he said he'd do. He has not followed through with reversal of neo-con policies in deed or in spirit, at all. If he can't technically close the prison, he can take away its reason for being funded, then it's up to our fiscally conservative brethren to make an argument for funding and staffing an empty prison.

He'll never explain why he didn't do this either, same as he never explains much of anything. Transparent administration, my ass.

As for the comments about how the government owns bigger and badder weapons; The taliban and it's subsidiaries have success held off the might of our military for the better part of 12 years. That is a country with a 1st grade education and weapons that are by in large substandard to what we have.


So your plan would be to become the "cold dead hands" Taliban and start a civil war over it? Hmm.

Regardless, I do understand that the fearful handgun owner and the avid hunter don't want a reality where they can't have them. Most of us agree that they should have them. The gun-nuttery comes into play when the discussion of assault rifles and background checks draws a cavalcade of absolutist "don't take my guns" talk. 0-60 in two sentences. Failure to not flip out in a common-sense discussion is what looks insane, not gun ownership itself.

The government cannot and will not take all guns away without repealing the 2nd Amendment. To not believe that requires a leap in paranoia that's kind of beyond discussion. And if the amendment is repealed, it's the law of the land. To rebel against that would be criminal.

I am starting to detest him as much as his predecessor , but think of the even worse freak'n alternative we had to choose from too.

They have our tits in a wringer and our balls in a vice.

Say what we want about George W. Bush, but at least he owned that shit. Twisted as it was, he bought into the whole neo-con "axis of evildoers" worldview. Misguided nitwit, yes, but at least he didn't grandstand on the senate floor about the ills of the war on terror before conducting said war with even more gusto than Dubya himself.

How the fuck did he win the Nobel Peace Prize? (same way Yasser Arafat won it, I guess...) What a worthless award that is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/02/guantanamo-bay-prison-stain-america-reputation

Some of the detainees have been cleared for release since 2007. The majority of them should be home by now. Besides, I thought it was going to close in 2010.

So why is Guantanamo still open????



Ask this asshole:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/President_Barack_Obama.jpg/220px-President_Barack_Obama.jpg


He's the one responsible for keeping it open. Here's his contact info: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments

You know, it would be different if he'd promised to close that place when he ran for President...

Oh wait! He did promise that!

Obama's hypocrisy list is rather long, unfortunately.

Sarin gas doesn't kill people, people with sarin gas kill people.

I am not exactly sure if your serious or not but I will paraphrase Diane Fienstien "Mr and Mrs America, if it we're up to me, I would come for all your guns." That includes handguns, shotguns, rifles of all shapes and calibers.

No, I wasn't serious; not even a little bit.

I'll leave you and yours to your deranged paranoia, clutching your guns in fear, when nobody's actually coming after them. Yes, you can find the occasional politician that expresses a desire to see all guns outlawed, but outside of your conspiracy-prone fear-logic, the idea of gun seizure and eradication is a straw-man argument at best. Nobody in their right mind thinks that's actually going to happen, but it works out for the gun industry to keep that fear alive among their minions and devotees. More guns get sold that way, so it makes perfect marketing sense.

There's no room for negotiation, let alone compromise anymore, apparently. That's how we get these creepy line-in-the-sand talking points in response to the mere suggestion of expanded background checks, or regulation to eliminate gun marketing to children.

It makes me somewhat embarrassed to have once owned and carried a gun, honestly. At the very least, I know I wasn't this big of a creep about my rights to do so.