Truly pro-gun politicians—what an honor roll!

Let’s start with Trent Lott. Trent Lott led a campus riot to keep blacks out of the U of Miss in the 1960s. In this century, he announced that we wouldn’t have "all these problems" if we still had Jim Crow. He’s one of the scummiest specimens in public life, AND he’s spent his career pushing the phony "gun rights" issue.

How about John AshKKKroft? Got his career started fighting integration in Kansas City…he’s been noticeably timid in protecting the rights of minorities, and notably gung-ho trampling the Constitution to punish them. Again, he’s not only pro-gun rights; he’s one of the shrillest and most strident proponents of the dishonest "individual rights" revisionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. He’s so pro-gun rights that he refused to let the FBI check to see if terrorists bought guns after 9/11.

Bill Frist didn’t let more than a billion dollars’ theft from Medicare by his family’s company get in the way of replacing Trent Lott as GOP Senate leader…and he’s pro-gun.

Deadheart Dick Cheney was virtually the only nutcase in the House of Representatives to vote FOR plastic guns AND FOR cop-killer bullets. He’s pro-gun.

Jesse Helms? The old turd used to scream that the UN was trying to ban gun ownership in the US to inflame his inbred supporters.

Bob "C of CC" Barr? He’s on the board of the National Rifle Association.

Tom DeLay? The corrupt loony is THE driving force behind keeping the Assault Weapons Ban from being renewed.

David Duke? Former Republican candidate and current jailbird. He’s four-square FOR gun rights.

Larry Craig is as crazy as an outhouse rat…anti-environment and pro-armed nutcase. He’s worked hard for years to keep federal firearm violations from being added to the list of offenses that trigger prosecution under federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes. However, he DID try to have Federal law enforcement officers, such as those who have to deal with the Montana Freemen, disarmed.

Orrin Hatch is one of the sleazier Republicans around. Hatch was a leader in the drive to manufacture a reason to impeach Bill Clinton. I hardly have to tell you, he’s pro-gun.

Newt Gingrich? Rupert Murdoch’s buttboy is synonymous with Republican hypocrisy and sleaze…and he stood foursquare for gun rights through out his career, before it ended in disgrace.

Dan Burton…dishonest, vindictive AND incompetent, the GOP’s walking trifecta. Burton once publicly charged that the FBI was withholding a document about Waco…only to find that he had gotten it during a previous investigation into Waco and had published it as part of his report. Burton once fired a bullet into a melon to prove that Vincent Foster did not commit suicide. He’s staunchly pro-gun.

Let’s not forget some promising newcomers like Barbara Cubin, Republican Congresswoman from Wyoming, who announced on the floor of the House that all black people were drug addicts, while she trying to engineer immunity from liability for the corrupt gun industry.

Tom Tancredo is a racist Republican who hides his bigotry behind a crusade against immigrants...which didn't stop him from using illegal immigrants to put a home theatre in the basement of his home. He's pro-gun and proud of it.

Senator Jim Inhofe is one of the most ignorant buffoons in the Senate. He claims global warming is a hoax, he claims that Israel ought to have the West Bank, Jordan, and big chunks of Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia because he thinks the Bible says so, and he pitched a public fit because a gay man was nominated to serve as ambassador to Luxembourg. Prog-unn all the way.

another thread that doesn't prove it's apparant point.

Barr and, as I pointed out, several neo-nazi types just HATE the USA PATRIOT Act.

Does that nifty fact, therefore, mean that all "real" liberals have a solemn duty to go rush out and defend the USA PATRIOT Act, lest they stand with those clowns in the "anti-Patriot Act crowd"?? :shrug:

What about it doesn't prove it's point.? Its point being, the sort of politician who is loud in the defense of the bogus "gun rights" issue.

I find if funny as hell that the pro-gun Democrat thread piddled out after a half-dozen names...and had to reach down to state legislators to get THAT long.

"Barr and, as I pointed out, several neo-nazi types just HATE the USA PATRIOT Act."
So fucking what? Does that make Barr some sort of little tin saint suddenly? (Of course, he already IS to the RKBA crowd.)

Saxby Chambliss, who ran one of the scummiest campaigns of modern times, is pro-gun.

And if we want to go down to state level, let's not forget Tom Alciere endorsed and funded by the NRA. Said Alciere before he was forced to resign from New Hampshire's state legislature: "There is nothing wrong with slaughtering a cop. Just throw the carcass into the Dumpster with the rest of the garbage. Cops are nothing but vicious, brutal thugs anyway."

It is fallacious logic to attack a person instead of thier viewpoint

Benchley has identified "pro-gun politicians" and offered factual information about them.

Are any of those facts false?

And yup: based on that factual information, he has presented characterizations of them: scummy, racist, blah blah.

Are any of those characterizations inaccurate?


If someone thinks that we are seeing false information or inaccurate characterizations here, s/he should really speak up.


"It is fallacious logic to attack a person instead of thier viewpoint"

Beep, wrong. It is fallacious to attack a person instead of his/her viewpoint for the purpose of rebutting the viewpoint.

I just don't see Benchley doing that. Do you? Can you show me where?

I see Benchley saying:

- Mr. X is pro-gun
- Mr. X is a vicious stupid dishonest racist

I just don't see Benchley saying:

- Mr. X is pro-gun
- Mr. X is a vicious stupid dishonest racist
- Therefore the pro-gun viewpoint is a vicious stupid dishonest racist viewpoint.

I just don't. Never have. If you do or have, I want to be enlightened.

There is no logical fallacy involved in attacking a person. I can go right ahead and say that George W. Bush is an ignorant doorknob; in fact, I can even do a pretty good job of proving the truth of that assertion. And I will have committed no fallacy at all. My point is that George W. Bush is an ignorant doorknob.


Saying that George W. Bush is an ignorant doorknob would indeed not be a rebuttal of his answers to this week's TV Guide crossword. Ignorant doorknob though he is, he might have got the answers right. If I want to prove them wrong, I'm going to have to present some relevant facts and arguments, not just say "he's an ignorant doorknob therefore his answers are wrong". Yup, pure ad personam is what that would be.

Benchley is NOT saying "pro-gun politicians are stupid vicious dishonest racists therefore the pro-gun viewpoint is wrong". His point is "these pro-gun politicians are stupid vicious dishonest racists".

Knowing that George W. Bush is an ignorant doorknob might be enough for a lot of people not to bet the farm that his TV Guide crossword answers are correct, without doing some independent checking.

Knowing how many pro-gun politicians are stupid vicious dishonest racists might give some people reason to examine the positions they espouse rather carefully. I mean, I tend to examine the positions espoused by stupid vicious dishonest racists very carefully in most instances ... but heck, yes, if I met one who said that people ought not to beat their dogs, I'd agree with him/her without too much thought for his/her pedigree. Just like I'd agree with George's crossword answers if they were the same ones I'd reached on my own.

Of course, I'd likely be able to find more smart people than ignorant doorknobs who got the crossword answers right -- and more intelligent, ethical, honest egalitarians who would say that people ought not to beat their dogs.

Isn't it funny how few intelligent, ethical, honest, egalitarian politicians -- let alone more of them -- anyone has come up with who oppose rational restrictions on access to firearms?

.

I just don't see Benchley doing that. Do you? Can you show me where?

I see Benchley saying:

- Mr. X is pro-gun
- Mr. X is a vicious stupid dishonest racist

I just don't see Benchley saying:

- Mr. X is pro-gun
- Mr. X is a vicious stupid dishonest racist
- Therefore the pro-gun viewpoint is a vicious stupid dishonest racist viewpoint.

I just don't. Never have. If you do or have, I want to be enlightened.
:shrug:

She's right.

Shot my pre 64 Winchester model 70, 270. Marlin 336 30-30 and Marlin stainless guide gun. There was ten white guys and two black guys. Still didn't see any KKK or Neo Nazis there. The two black guys went home in one piece. In fact one of them invited me to come hunting with him next month which is great since I'am new here and I dont know anybody to ask to hunt on their land. I know there is a fringe element of progun that are racists, just as there is a fringe group of antigun folks that are racists. Sure would be nice if some would stop accusing me of being a racist just because I enjoy shooting.

"Sure would be nice if some would stop accusing me of being a racist just because I enjoy shooting."

Tell us who does that, and I'll send him/her a coupla thousand words berating him/her for such scurrilous conduct. That oughta fix him/her, d'you think?

Now, if you happen to be a politician, politicians being who this thread is actually about, you could just offer up your voting record as evidence that you are a non-racist, "pro-gun" politician.

If you're not, you could offer up some who are. I'd recommend that you try to come up with at least as many as Benchley has, if you're suggesting some sort of trend, as he is.

That, after all, being what he is doing.

.

that just about all of the scummiest people in public life ALSO peddle this bogus "gun rights" crap.

Just as every racist that anyone can find supports, not gun control as the RKBA crrowd would have us believe, but the same idiotic gun rights crap.

"Isn't it funny how few intelligent, ethical, honest, egalitarian politicians -- let alone more of them -- anyone has come up with who oppose rational restrictions on access to firearms?"
Not really...anymore than anyone should be surprised that the venal politicians who spout this dishonest gun rights hooey in public also are crooked, ignorant and slimy...and on the wrong side of so many OTHER issues.

= gun ban. Every progun person on the board would like to see guns kept out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. At least with me when someone says we only want ratonal restrictions on access to firearms I think the person saying that is a LIAR, now I might be wrong, but I doubt it.

"rational restrictions on access to firearms"
= gun ban.

So. You've quoted me, and you've assigned a meaning to what I said that you have no basis for.

If you claim a basis for it, you need to present it. Really.


At least with me when someone says we only want
ratonal restrictions on access to firearms I think
the person saying that is a LIAR, now I might be wrong,
but I doubt it.

Here's what's more relevant than what you think or doubt, when you choose to express your thoughts and doubts in public: how about you PROVE it?

I don't mind being called a liar by someone who has proof that I've lied. Got some?


(typo fixed)

.

that the scum of the earth are the ones pushing this bogus "gun rights" crap.

Your not so subtle implication is clearly "therefore anyone who peddles gun rights crap are the scummiest people." It is a shameful practice to hide behind insults and smears. I rarely see a post of yours in which you did not make some sort of ad hominem attack.

The problem with this argument should be obvious to anyone reading these threads: disreputable people may turn out to hold political opinions with which you might agree, or they might be on the right side of an issue, or opinions may happen to coincide. Benchley, you make a habit of calling people racist and nazi, but you never bring attention to all of the beliefs of neo-nazis, original nazis, or racists.

For example, the German National Socialists when in power began to wage a campaign against the use of tobacco in public. This is a well documented fact, and there are writings and propagand posters to prove it. There are also many Democrats as well as Republicans who believe in banning the public consumption of tobacco, on the grounds of public health and worker saftey. For the sake of argument let's say I oppose banning tobacco in restaurants and bars. It is logically valid for me to compare people who support restaurant bans as nazis and racists? Of course not. It is both illogical and insulting for me to do so.

I could make further comparisons to prove my point. The NSDAP advocated gun control for non-aryans, they banned the use of public tobacco, banned the use of drugs, those sorts of things. The contemporary neo-nazi movement also opposes legalizing currently illegal drugs. Does that make drug legalization a good thing, just because the neo-nazis oppose it? Of course not. But that is the sum of your argument. It's illogical and insulting.

Get new arguments or continue to be spanked by your betters. Thanks.

"the German National Socialists when in power began to wage a campaign against the use of tobacco in public. This is a well documented fact"
<sarcasm>Yeah, that's why those loonies are dressing up like Nazis at RKBA events, and they're peddling crap clainming the Holocaust never happened at gun shows...because they're pro-Joe Camel. RKBA "logic"...Who doesn't see a swastika and think, "wow, smoking causes emphysema!"?</sarcasm>

"It's illogical and insulting."
To whom? The kind of people trying to pretend that "well regulated" and "unorganized" are synonymous? The people who post news stories mentioning out that there are nutcases wearing Nazi uniforms at their jamborees, then fly into a rage when it's remarked upon?

"continue to be spanked by your betters"
Hahahahahaha! MY betters aren't lined up with Tom DeLay and Ted Nugent...or trying to pass off Tony Scalia as a voice of reason to be respected.

"disreputable people may turn out to hold political opinions with which you might agree"
Gee and they might turn out to have opinions that are scummy all the way across the board. Funny though, how EVERY racist asswipe we can find is blowing the same crackpot "gun rights" horn, though. That's "EVERY" as in "ALL OF THEM."

How hard is this to understand? It's not. I'm actually sure that you do understand it but you don't care, and so you continue to call people who don't want more gun control as nazis and racists. Pretty simple, really.

I wrote:

For example, the German National Socialists when in power began to wage a campaign against the use of tobacco in public. This is a well documented fact, and there are writings and propagand posters to prove it. There are also many Democrats as well as Republicans who believe in banning the public consumption of tobacco, on the grounds of public health and worker saftey. For the sake of argument let's say I oppose banning tobacco in restaurants and bars. It is logically valid for me to compare people who support restaurant bans as nazis and racists? Of course not. It is both illogical and insulting for me to do so.

To which you replied:

<sarcasm>Yeah, that's why those loonies are dressing up like Nazis at RKBA events, and they're peddling crap clainming the Holocaust never happened at gun shows...because they're pro-Joe Camel. RKBA "logic"...Who doesn't see a swastika and think, "wow, smoking causes emphysema!"?</sarcasm>

See, you totally ignored my whole point. Mister Benchley is the artful dodger. The point isn't that people associate nazis with smoking. The point is that it is wrong to imply people are nazis if they support the ban of public smoking, since the nazis also happened to support bans on public smoking. This is exactly what you do with people who do not support gun control. You imply people who oppose gun control are nazis, because certian neo-nazis also oppose gun control. I know that you understand what guilt by association is, but you ignore to score brownie points on a bulletin board.

Gee and they might turn out to have opinions that are scummy all the way across the board. Funny though, how EVERY racist asswipe we can find is blowing the same crackpot "gun rights" horn, though. That's "EVERY" as in "ALL OF THEM."

The plain truth is that racists do not believe in gun rights for minorities. One cannot lynch someone who can shoot back.

I personally believe that holocause deniers are reprehensible frauds, and I have to resist the urge to punch out people who claim the holocaust didn't happen. My family was directly affected by the holocaust, and I have relatives in Israel. I think you underestimate the depth of hate I hold for racists and nazis in general. You like to pass me off as a nazi because I oppose further gun control, without realizing how obscene you are being. Personally, I think you should be more careful when tossing about invectives such as 'nazi' and 'racists' but caution does not seem to be one of your good qualities.

Hey, good question.


"I'm actually sure that you do understand it but you don't care,
and so you continue to call people who don't want more gun control
as nazis and racists. Pretty simple, really."

Simple it may be, but that ain't what it is.

Consider these two statements.

1. People who are Nazis and racists don't want more gun control.
2. People who don't want more gun control are Nazis and racists.

Can ya see the difference? Simple, isn't it?

Can ya refute statement # 1? If not, what seems to be your problem?

Can ya find somewhere that anyone has made statement # 2? If not, why do you persist in pretending that someone has?


All this talk about how Democrats should spend their time telling the world they're not really gun grabbers ...

Here's an idea. We're constantly being told how *real* Nazis, the historical variety, were ardent fans of "gun control". (I'm not saying they were, I'm saying we're constantly being told it.)

So how 'bout somebody start demanding that these latter-day Nazis come clean and tell the world how they really *do* support gun control -- how that's the policy they'll implement once they're in power?

And hell, isn't it the Ashcrofts of the world that everybody here is afraid is going to come breaking down their door and stealing their guns? So how about demanding that *they* come clean in public about their real agenda, what they plan to do once they have secured the power to do it?

Or why not do it yourselves -- expose 'em all for the scoundrels they really are?


Makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than constantly berating the people who are *not* going to grab the guns -- Democrats -- for the fact that an alleged bunch of people claim to believe they will.

.

Starting with the second statement.

I just don't see Benchley saying:

- Mr. X is pro-gun
- Mr. X is a vicious stupid dishonest racist
- Therefore the pro-gun viewpoint is a vicious stupid dishonest racist viewpoint.

I just don't. Never have. If you do or have, I want to be enlightened.

The couple of posts in which Benchley has cut loose have been deleted by the moderators, and rightly so. However it is obvious that Mister Benchley implies that people who oppose gun control are racists or are in bed with them in almost every thread. As deftly as he dances around the issue it has slipped out once or twice in heated conversation what he really thinks.

Now, I don't care one whit for John Ashcroft and don't care for being told that I am in bed with him. Let's say I were to go around implying and hinting to everyone who would listen that you were an Ashcroft cheerleader, I don't believe you would approve at all. I think you would be offended, and should be. I would never do such a thing, and even though we may be on opposite sides of the issue I take care to be police and respectful. Benchley is pretty good at drawing attention to the nazi issue and cleverly calling people racists without saying so in so many words, but I'm glad the moderates remove posts and lock threads.

As for the first statement, let me say this:

People who are racists and nazis most emphatically do want gun control for racial minorities and other undesirable persons. They want gun control for the Jew so the Jews can't resist when being carted off to the camps. They want gun control for the Black man so that Blacks cannot resist being lynched. Or take any other examples of racial strife and you will see that opressors take great pains to ensure hated minorities cannot fight back or otherwise defend themselves. In Germany the NSDAP took away the right of self defense by the Jews, and in reconstruction the Black Codes ordered stiff penalties to any freedman caught in possession of a weapon.

For myself, on the other hand, I believe any African American should be able to own a gun, or Jew for that matter; except for felony convictions.

if you oppose the USA PATRIOT Act, you are also "in bed" with Bob Barr and various neo-Nazi & ultra-right wing groups. :eyes:

"The couple of posts in which Benchley has cut loose have been deleted by the moderators, and rightly so."
Not even close to true...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=18073&mesg_id=18115&page=

"However it is obvious that Mister Benchley implies that people who oppose gun control are racists or are in bed with them in almost every thread."
No, I come out and SAY exactly what I mean...as in..."I feel it is just awful and tragic that anyone at DU might leap to that conclusion, just because every individual or group that can be identified as vicious, stupid, dishonest, and racist, such as Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, David Duke, the KKK, the Aryan Nations, Stormfront,org, and the like, are all peddling this bogus "gun rights" crap at the top of their lungs.
Of course, perhaps if the gun rights crowd didn't anoint racist thugs like Ted Nugent and Larry Pratt as their leaders, or put just about every group or person that can be identified as working for justice, tolerance and progress on an idiotic "enemies list," perhaps other readers might not be so quick to jump to that conclusion."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=18073&mesg_id=18115&page=

"People who are racists and nazis most emphatically do want gun control for racial minorities and other undesirable persons. "
Yeah? Prove it. Let's see some statement from some racist group calling for that. It sure isn't hard to find them screaming for gun rights for all....

"We stand against gun control laws, including the civil process of holding firearm makers liable for the act of a criminal. "

http://hometown.aol.com/cofccsaxon/myhomepage/

Don't see anything there about minorities.

As well as 100% accurate to say that the Aryan Nations is pro-RKBA.

100% accurate to say that the neoNazi group stormfront.org is pro-RKBA.

100% accurate to say that the neoNazi group the National Alliance is pro-RKBA

100% accurate to say that the racist C of CC group is pro-RKBA.

100% accurate to say that the Gun Owners of America, headed by noted racist Larry Pratt, is pro-RKBA.

100% accurate to say that the National Rifle Association, headed by noted racists like Cooper and Nugent, which has just about every group that works for progress and tolerance on an enemies list, is pro-RKBA.

"See, you totally ignored my whole point. Mister Benchley is the artful dodger. The point isn't that people associate nazis with smoking."
Well thank Koresh for small favors. How often do you hear, "Cigarette, Bob?" "No thanks, I'm a Nazi, Larry."

Funny how when you see groups like the "Great American Smokeout" there's hardly any of them dressed in Nazi uniforms. Or waving Coinfederate flags. None at all, in fact. Nor do we see anti-smoking shows passing out hate literature and "holocaust never happened" propaganda.

"The plain truth is that racists do not believe in gun rights for minorities."
Oh, yeah? Let's see if that's true...

"The so-called gun control bill enacted by the government is nothing but anti-self defense laws designed to disarm law abiding citizens. The right to own guns as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution must be protected. Gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it’s a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT!!! The Texas Knights work to completely restore the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms."

http://www.texaskkk.com/platform.htm

Gee, don't see anything THERE about minorities.

"I think you underestimate the depth of hate I hold for racists and nazis in general."
Gee, why would anyone do that? After all, it's not like you are trying to deny that racists make up the leadership of the actual gun rights groups, or that racists pretty much all support gun rights quite loudly...right?

Just as the NSDAP didn't want Jews to own guns. The Ku Klux Klan prefered freedmen unarmed. It's much easier to lynch someone who can't shoot back. The same goes for the nazis, they wanted to remove the Jew's capacity for self defense so that when the time came for the 'final solution' Jews would not be able to resist.

Racists and nazis most empatically do not support the right to keep and bear arms for minorities. It makes them much easier to oppress.

"Just as the NSDAP didn't want Jews to own guns. The Ku Klux Klan prefered freedmen unarmed. It's much easier to lynch someone who can't shoot back. The same goes for the nazis, they wanted to remove the Jew's capacity for self defense so that when the time came for the 'final solution' Jews would not be able to resist."

You do notice all the PAST TENSES in this prose of yours?

Can you explain how all this constant harkening back to some bygone day and bygone bad guys has ANYTHING to do with the circumstances and conditions in which members of the minority groups in question live, in the USofA, in 2003? To anyone other than a certifiable paranoid?

Does the bleating and nattering about how laws/regulations with respect to the types of firearms that may be legally possessed, and the price of firearms licences, discriminate against African Americans have ANYTHING to do with the possession of firearms FOR USE AGAINST AN OPPRESSIVE STATE (or would-be state oppressor)?? Not that I've ever heard.

Nazis may have wanted Jews not to have weapons to prevent Jews from protecting themselves against oppressive action by Nazis and the state.

The KKK may have wanted African Americans not to have weapons to prevent African Americans from protecting themselves against oppressive action by KKKers and the state.

What the HELL does that have to do with the reasons why Jews or African Americans, in the USofA in 2003, would want, let alone need, to own firearms? And if those are the reasons why members of minorities would want/need to own firearms in the USofA in 2003, why do none of the bleaters and natterers ever say so?

All I ever hear is the usual chorus of "defending self and property" against bogeymen, not the state.

Is someone seriously suggesting that firearms laws/regulations in the USofA in 2003 are designed to prevent members of minorities from defending themselves against the state?

And if not -- what earthly relevance do all these tales of brown shirts and white hoods have to do with ANYTHING?

It's the apples and oranges all the time channel, from what I can see.

.

especially considering that the racist groups themselves say nothing at all about denying any minority their gun rights.

But then that IS a crowd whose wet dream, sold at most gun shows, is about a civil war where they shoot it out with race traitors, mongels and other undesirables.

"what earthly relevance do all these tales of brown shirts and white hoods have to do with ANYTHING?"
I think we are supposed to keep our eye on the 1930s and ignore what the folks wearing brown shirts and white hoods are doing today...but I have a suspicious cynical mind.

It's transparent AND dishonest especially considering that the racist groups themselves say nothing at all about denying any minority their gun rights.

I'm stunned. You actually believe the KKK doesn't want to deny minority their rights? If you actually had a suspiciously cynical mind you would realize that the KKK is lying. Good grief.

Who is it that's screaming that "gun rights" isn't really just the tired old racist agenda using new code words, but a stirring movement of freedom for all? It sure as hell ain't me.

"If you actually had a suspiciously cynical mind you would realize that the KKK is lying. "
Gee, I could have sworn I mentioned to someone in passing that the gun rights crap was complete horseshit. Could it have been Iverglas?

Typical.

By whom?

Look them up.

What a bunch of silly schoolchildren some people do become, when all *they* have left to say is "ew, naughty word!"

.

claiming that gun control is racist...and bigoted against Christian whites....from a bunch with the slogan "No Jews. Just Right."

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/readerMail/mailArchives.asp?action=viewLetter&letterID=21630

you mean "obscenity" Look them up.

Okay:

obscene: 1 : disgusting to the senses 2 a : abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity b : containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage <obscene lyrics>

profanity: 1 a : the quality or state of being profane b : the use of profane language 2 a : profane language b : an utterance of profane language

Six on one hand, half-a-dozen on the other.

When someone starts using profanity, I consider that they have lost the debate. While I realize that strong language is allowed on the board, that doesn't mean that they are necessary.

The funny thing is, I am not even as anti-gun-control as he thinks, but it is just that he adobts the position that an opposition to gun control is racist on its face I have to say something. It is not any more or less racist than supporting public smoking bans, and the like. Add in the absurd notion that the Ku Kluckers believe in minorities owning guns, well then.. :)

(If you'll excuse the profanity.)

"profanity: 1 a : the quality or state of being profane b : the use of profane language 2 a : profane language b : an utterance of profane language"

Uh ... did you try looking up "profane"? Try "blasphemous". "Blasphemy" being a synonym for "profanity" that your dictionary seems not to have noticed.


"When someone starts using profanity, I consider that they have lost the debate."

Like I said. Silly schoolchildren. I suspect that Benchley is from a more robust generation, like myself. We're not afraid of words, and we don't play the "ew, he said a naughty word" game and pretend we've won some battle by doing that.

You can consider whatever you like. A debate is lost when a debater's arguments are defeated. Not when somebody says "ew, naughty word".


"The funny thing is, I am not even as anti-gun-control as he thinks, but it is just that he adobts the position that an opposition to gun control is racist on its face I have to say something."

Unfortunately, what you keep saying -- this ^^^ -- is false. You might want to try something else.


Fact: racists and their organizations oppose gun control.
Fact: organizations dedicated to racial equality support gun control.


Now, if racists liked hot dogs and egalitarians liked hamburgers, I'd have to agree that the correlation might not mean much. Of course, I doubt that such correlations would be easy to find.

It's just that when the correlation between Thing A and Thing B is sooooo strong, inquiring minds start to wonder. Don't *you*???


"Add in the absurd notion that the Ku Kluckers believe in minorities owning guns, well then."

I'm not good at adding faerie dust to much of anything, and I'm afraid that alleged absurdity of this notion is just faerie dust. (Of course, if the notion you're talking about is "minorities should own guns", it ain't really faerie dust, it's straw; nobody ever said that the KKK did believe or say that.) If it's so damned absurd, why can't someone prove that it's false??

I do doubt that the KKK has a written policy that minorities should own guns. But that's never the point, is it? Planned Parenthood doesn't have a policy that women should have abortions -- but it supports their right to do it.

When it comes to minorities owning guns, do we know of something the KKK has said to indicate that it doesn't support their right to do it?

.

It just means you can cuss, which any school child can do. It doesn't mean anything except you know some good anglo-saxon words. If really you want me to cuss, I can. :)



When it comes to minorities owning guns, do we know of something the KKK has said to indicate that it doesn't support their right to do it?


ROFL!

"Using profanity does not prove robustness"

You just can't help taking things that people say and pretending they said them in the opposite direction, can you?

Wrinkling your nose at naughty words is prima facie evidence of a LACK OF robustness.

That does NOT MEAN that using naughty words IS evidence of robustness.

Nor, just in case you're still confused, does it mean that NOT using naughty words is evidence of NOT being robust.


"It doesn't mean anything except you know some good anglo-saxon words."

And I never, ever said it meant anything else.

YOU are the one who said it meant something else. Any chance you recall that?


"If really you want me to cuss, I can."

I just could not care an iota less than I do, actually.

I have had nothing at all to say about your choice of words.

YOU are the one who had something to say about someone else's choice of words. Might you recall?


Jeepers Creepers, eh? *He* makes word choices an issue by issuing a unilateral silly victory proclamation in some debate, based on someone else's use of a word that makes his nose wrinkle. (Do I get to pick a secret word, and then if you say it, I win some debate?) And then HE acts as if someone else was claiming to have proved some point (a point that HE made up out of whole cloth) by using the word in question.


Gosh. It sounds so familiar.

I know it will to Benchley, anyhow.

.

"The funny thing is, I am not even as anti-gun-control as he thinks"
Jeepers, and here I was obsessing for hours on that very subject. "I wonder if Liberal Classic supports closing the fgun show loophole?" I asked my wife. Do you know what she said?

She said, "Who cares. It isn't germane in any way to anything in this thread."

"it is just that he adobts the position that an opposition to gun control is racist on its face"
Gee, it sure seems that pretty much everybody who is racist is shouting this utterly bogus gun rights argument at the top of his lungs. In fact, it's hard to find anybody who isn't racist who is peddling this crap...the list the RKBA crowd tried to put together petered out after half-a-dozen names, and had to go down to state legislature levels to get THAT large.

"It is not any more or less racist than supporting public smoking bans"
Except that you don't see many anti-smoking activists dressing in Nazi uniforms in public....or handing out hate literature....or pretending the Holocaust didnn't exist....or wearing whtie sheets...or spouting racial hate in public.

What the HELL does that have to do with the reasons why Jews or African Americans, in the USofA in 2003, would want, let alone need, to own firearms?

At least we're back on subject. :)

what earthly relevance do all these tales of brown shirts and white hoods have to do with ANYTHING?

Because Mr. Benchley is making it a brownshirt and white sheet issue. I personally feel that accusations of nazi and racist should be avoided. I find them far beyond polite discourse. However, when the ugly spectre of racism is raised I believe it is important to say something about it. I also feel the urge to respond to blatantly fallacious guilt by association arguments.

For once I'd like to talk about gun control without all the nazi and racist garbage.

"Because Mr. Benchley is making it a brownshirt and white sheet issue."
<sarcasm>Yes, I made up quotes from all these racist idiots and lied about what they stand for.</sarcasm>

"when the ugly spectre of racism is raised I believe it is important to say something about it."
Like how unfair it is to point out that ugly racists are ugly racists?....


For once I'd like to talk about gun control without all the nazi and racist garbage.
Gee, nobody is stopping you. But it appears what you want is for no-one ever to notice what sorts of scum are making this bogus gun rights argument in public.

But that's NOT what the KKK says.

"Racists and nazis most empatically do not support the right to keep and bear arms for minorities."
Let's see you prove it. I sure can find plenty of crap about them trumpeting "gun rights for all Americans" and have posted it too..

Surely, you can't be that gullible.

They're not shy about spouting racism in other parts of their rants. So why do YOU suppose they suddenly drop it when they start parroting the gun rights horseshit, do you suppose?

Haley's the former RNC head best known for a shady multi-million dollar "loan" made to the Republicans by a Chinese businessman. He's currently cozying up to the C of CC. Last year an aide of his complained out loud that there would be ''coons'' at a campaign stop at the state fair. Embarrassed that a reporter heard this, Mr. Barbour warned that if the aide persisted in racist remarks, he would be reincarnated as a watermelon and placed at the mercy of blacks.

And he's another one peddling this phony "second amendment" crap to the uninformed, dishonest and ignorant.

Friend of the lead miners, bitter opponent of global warming, gay rights, women's reproductive rights, and civil rights in general. One of the leaders in the attempt to tear down the church/state wall and force public school kids to pray. He was shocked, shocked I tell you, to hear that his chief aide got caught using his office computer and his office hours running an itnernet site gloating over Mel Carnahan's death and spreading personal attacks about Democrats. And he's pro-gun all the way.

of Alabama...called a black assistant U.S. attorney "boy" and a white civil rights attorney a "disgrace to his race." As a prosecutor, Sessions used to pursue civil rights workers on phony voter fraud charges. As Alabama attorney general, he refused to aggressively investigate burnings and bombings of black churches. He said he thought KKK members were "OK" and charged the NAACP with being "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." And oh, yeah, he's another loud voice for "gun rights."

Perhaps the stupidest person in the entire Congress...Once actually pleaded aloud in a hearing, "Cutting energy conservation programs when there's an energy crisis--that's not dumb, is it?"

He's tried for years to represent the "income tax is a hoax" loonies in Congress (another pet issue of gun show habitues). Bartlett's another dumb cluck trying to tear down the church/state wall, privatize social security, end reproductive freedom and attack gay rights. And he's big time gun rights.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

from the RKBA crowd...who is surprised?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And of course, it would be not implying anything to notice out loud that two of our most rabid members of the RKBA crowd focused on a BLACK Democrat for these lame attacks.

Kinda suspected as much. I'd just never heard of her.

Obviously, one allegedly rather dim and allegedly rude black woman being *for* something cancels out all the vicious dishonest racist white men who are *against* it, in those guilt-by-association sweepstakes that they're all pretending not to be playing ... since they can't win.


Interesting point, about the ethnocentricity of hurricane names. Don't the people in the Caribbean, where those big winds tend to get noticed first, get a say in it all?

Interestingly --

In the Atlantic Ocean, the practice of naming tropical storms using female names was started in 1953. Male names were first used in 1979. Today a United Nations weather committee rotates six separate lists with alternating female and male names in alphabetical order. They chose names that are common in French, English or Spanish, are easy to pronounce and have fewer than 10 letters. Names of violent, very destructive storms such as Andrew and Hugo are retired from the list.

I guess "English" means "the Queen's English". ;)

.

is the source of the lie about the Mars probe....which is all over the web among the usual bunch of dishonest right wing pieces of crap like Newsmax.

for being “rabid”. That term could very easily be applied to your broad brush “RKBA people are racist” too.
Yea, put your foot in your mouth again!
If I made the statement that there were too few Hispanic named hurricanes, I would sound like an idiot.
So I guess being Hispanic disqualifies me from stating the obvious fact that she is an idiot! Regardless of race!

like I'm supposed to be surprised to see a member of the RKBA crowd attacking a Democrat...or parroting racist Rush Limbaugh....

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080103/content/illustrating.guest.html

"Yea, put your foot in your mouth again!"
Hahahahahahahahaha...

This idiot picked the time Trent Lott's racism hit the headlines to announce that he had "segregationist feelings" about Cynthia McKinney. When his quote hit the headlines, he took decisive action: he ordered his chief aide to hurry over and paint his black lawn jockey white.

Anti-reproductive choice, anti-gay rights, anti-health care, anti-environment he stands strong for privatizing Social Security, prayers in school, tearing down the church/state wall, vouchers instead of public schools, tax cuts for the wealthy...and gun rights.

Who had a chief of staff that claimed OUT LOUD Anne Frank's diary was humorous fiction?

Who once served an endangered species at a fund-raiser?

Who said "A species goes out of existence every 20 seconds. Surely a new species comes into existence every 20 seconds."

Who publicly claimed that environmental concerns arose due to paganism and witchcraft?

Who claimed there were never grizzly bears at any time in Idaho?

Who said "Of all the species on earth, it's the white Anglo- Saxon male that's endangered"?

Who did the Boise Idaho Statesman call a "poster child for the militias"?

Helen Chenoweth....gun rights advocate...that's who.

Except that I'm not done last week's work yet.

She's a good one. (Who is she?) Maybe I'll poke around the underbelly of the Canadian right wing and find a few of these creatures for you next week, in reciprocation.

.

was one of the loudest voices about how awful it was that Bill Clinton had an affair...until it turned out she had had one too and busted up a marriage doing so. "So what," she said. "At least I didn't lie about it." Whereupon a videotape of her being asked about it and lying on camera surfaced.

She was one of the nuttier specimens that turned up in Newt's revolution.

This one's fun:
http://www.canadiancontent.ca/articles/050901racism.html
"Journey into darkness: Covert research in the Canadian racist underground" by Matthew Lauder

For two years I was a neo-Nazi. I shaved my head, went to meetings, listened to white power music, confronted antiracists, and talked with some of the most important racialists in Canada and the United States. In the eyes of the far right, I was a committed racialist ready to defend the white race.

But my neo-Nazi image was a façade. I was, in fact, an investigator working on a confidential antiracism project. ...

In early April <Paul> Fromm held a meeting in Toronto. With more than 90 people in attendance, Doug Christie, a lawyer for many far right extremists, highlighted Ernst Zundel’s Canadian Human Rights Tribunal case. ...

After the meeting, several people gathered at a nearby coffee shop to discuss the movement. To my surprise, Wolfgang Droege, then leader of the Heritage Front, asked me to help revive his ailing group.

<At a "straight pride" meeting> Paul Blair, the executive director of the Freedom Party of Ontario, was also present. ... There was also a potentially violent side to the protest. Mixed into the largely peaceful crowd were about 10 racist skinheads who acknowledged carrying weapons.

So we have some names. Marc Lemire, Ernst Zundel, Wolfgang Droege, Doug Christie, Paul Blair, Paul Fromm. The Freedom Party, the Heritage Front; the new Canadian Heritage Alliance (not to be confused with the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition in Parliament ... hard as it is not to, sometimes ...).

(But hey, the rest of that longish piece is a fun read. You might have thought that Canadian mothers didn't have 'em, but some indeed do.)

Now, let's look some of 'em up with "gun control" in the search terms.

Forgive me, but I might have to cite some nasty sites.

http://www.freedomsite.org/pipermail/fs_announce/2003/001056.html

And here, in the interests of full disclosure and honest discourse, I admit that I find this:

UpFront: FRONTLINE has just been completed and is in the mail. If your a subscriber, expect your newsletter within the next few days.

Contents include:
- 2002: A Year of Betrayal in Nova Scotia
- More Special treatment for Blacks in Ontario
- "Diversity" In New Brunswick?
- Revisionist Ernst Zundel Arrested in the United States
- Ernst Zundel reporting from inside one of America's prisons
- New NDP Leader Jack Layton - TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER!
- What is the role of women in our cause?
- White Workers Unite! Heritage Front Halifax
- Gun Control Is Really White Control
- Vox Populi: THE LEFT COAST
- and much much more ...

Damn, I almost wish I were a subscriber. I wonder what the role of women *is* in their cause?

Ooohhh ... I think I get it. "Gun control" -- control over guns -- is really "white control" -- control over whites. Let's see whether we can confirm or refute this theory.

Here's a fun discussion board:
http://pub137.ezboard.com/falbertaoutdoorsmenfrm3.showMessage?topicID=31.topic

- The man is a sleaze-I suppose this could be said about most of the people who operate down in Ottawa-but when it comes to the issue of gun owners rights I am very concerned that the average citizen's in this country do not associate people like <George> Barkhouse with the gun lobby.

- The man is a walking $h!T magnet and we've got enough problems just dealing with the new gun tax/reg. program . I say thanks but no thanks George, take your boundless energy and righteous inclination and start fund raising for the grits <Liberals>, in the end you'll do us all more good on their side.

- Damn Right. I am all for the fight against Gun Control, shame it is being faught by a extreme right wing white supremist.

Damn again, eh? They just don't seem to be able to get out from under the racist filth, even up here.

More about Barkhouse: http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/0111_charity/resources.html


Here's Warren Kinsella, a Liberal back-roomer whom all the folks in that first article I cited have been ... gunning for ... ever since he started writing about them:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/witness/Kinsella/NPost010699.html
(more worth reading there)

Similarly, the far right generally supports the genocidal program devised by Milosevic, and called ethnic cleansing: The forced separation of certain races, creeds and ethnic groups has been a core belief of the far right, after all, since the establishment of the Ku Klux Klan in Tennessee in 1865. As the passage from the Zundelsite makes clear, the far right also possesses a lively paranoia about "One World Government" and its assorted manifestations -- the United Nations, the global banking system, gun control and black helicopters.

Okay, it's second-hand, and zundelsite has been shut down by order of the human rights commission, I believe, so I can't check, but Kinsella is a recognized authority on the far right in Canada (whether anybody here recognizes him or not) -- Web of Hate: Inside Canada's Far Right Network -- so I'll take his word on that.

Heh heh. Referring to the NATO military effort against Milosevic, Kinsella says:

If a cause may be judged by the character of those who support it, so too may it be judged by the quality of those who do not.

But that's just one Liberal backroom boy's opinion, as expressed in the genteel-ly right-wing National Post.


Oh look! I was trying zundelsite.com -- but I was mistaken:

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/zgrams/zg1997/zg9709/970914.html

In voting patterns, Reform comes closest to the Perot movement in the United States and represents what people thought the country OUGHT to be before "political correctness" started to destroy it with multi-cults, "Human Rights" Commissions, "Hate Laws", "Gun Control Laws" and other tribulations.

Okay, back to the Heritage Front question: pro or con?

http://www.heritagefront.com/reports/hf_report_nov97.html

(Note that the Ottawa dictators now have grandiose plans for global gun control, as mentioned in the news section of this issue. More evidence of Canadian elites wanting to export and promote their control-freak mentality beyond Canadian borders! -Editor)

I kinda think that this settles that; I don't think they approve. Heritage Front is one of the groups behind FreedomSite:

The Heritage Front is an organization that was created to support Euro-Canadians. Discrimination against traditional Euro-Canadians values is common in Canada and we are seeking to change that. Our Membership comes from all walks of life, and is open to men and women who are supportive of equal rights for Euro-Canadians and special privileges for none. The Heritage Front has been in public existance for over 10 years and is Canada's largest Racialist Organization. The Heritage Front's mandate is to preserve our heritage - in a militantly pro-White, militantly positive sense. We are proud of who we are, our history and accomplishments.

And they don't mince words. FreedomSite is also backed by the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee, the Canadian Heritage Alliance, Canadian Association for Free Expression, Citizens For Foreign Aid Reform, Canadian Patriots Network (all clickable on that site).


Okay, I'm hungry. Later, we'll do the more genteel right wing.

.

Imagine, far-right racist groups OPPOSED to gun control....

What a wonderful article....and what pathetic wankers...

"Bergmann’s next demonstration was held on July 9, 2000, in London. Hoping to publicize his Straight Pride operation, he planned to infiltrate the parade and, at a predetermined point, remove his clothing to reveal his Straightman costume underneath. Bergmann also planned to use the media to announce his intentions of running for city council. "

"Although Melissa supports a policy tough on crime, she neglected to tell her new racialist supporters about her youngest brother, Andrew Guille. In February 2001, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record reported that Andrew has a 1999 conviction for possession of child pornography. In an interview with Brian Caldwell of the K-W Record, Melissa denied that her youngest brother was involved in the CHA. She later wrote a letter to editor calling Caldwell “a liar.”
Andrew, however, is very much involved. Not only does he attend meetings, he is a full member and writes articles for the group (under the pseudonym of White Fire). "

I left when I was 16. It isn't actually infested with these guys -- it was of the genteel white Tory persuasion when I lived there, and still is to some considerable extent -- but for some reason they made it home. I'm trying to remember the names of the long-ago original ones; I think the big cheese was Andrew Taylor, smarmy little guy with an actual Hitler moustache, but I don't remember the outfit's name (heritage something, something front ...).

No, there we are. I remembered that his claim to fame was a phone line with racist recorded messages, and google found him. Don Andrews.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/canadian/heritage-front/ara.0694

The neo-Nazi Western Guard Party was born in 1972 out of the ashes of the Edmund Burke Society, an anti-communist "conservative organization" formed in 1967 by none other than Don Andrews and Paul Fromm. Led by Andrews, and later, John Ross Taylor, the WG's Manifesto declared the Party to be "dedicated to preserve and promote the basic social and spiritual values of the White People", and further stated that "we fight for our Christian moral values, our European Racial heritage and the spiritual and cultural rebirth of our people".

Yeah, that's right, the Western Guard Party. Headquartered a short distance from my childhood home, as I recall.

And Kitchener-Waterloo: that's where I moved to when I was 16. Such a small world. If I tell you that prior to WWI, Kitchener was called "Berlin", you might imagine why some of these folks feel at home there ...

.

that seem to fool only themselves...

"we fight for our Christian moral values, our European Racial heritage and the spiritual and cultural rebirth of our people"
Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrrre...

Yes, the guy who sent Ronald Reagan to honor the SS at Bitburg is for gun control...has lied about "gun rights" for years.

Pat's said that blacks were better off under Jim Crow, that Martin Luther King was "one of the most divisive men in contemporary history", and that the US government was right to shield Klaus Barbie for war crimes. He once wrote a column complaining about a "so-called Holocaust survivors syndrome" and has said out loud that Jews were not killed at Treblinka. Even William F. Buckley said in Nazional Review, "I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge of anti-Semitism. "

And hilariously, when one of his campaign's co-chairmen was discovered to have spoken at meetings organized by white supremacists and militia groups, among them the Aryan Nation, even Pat had to flee that person's company.. That disgrace was Larry Pratt, president of the Gun Owners of America.

Citizen Buchanan (blegh, by the way) is in favor of protectionism and increased tarriffs. A great majority of Democrats also support tarriffs and other policies aimed at protecting businesses from foreign competition. Does this mean Democrats are wrong in supporting the policies, as Buchanan also publically in favor of them? Consider that Lenora Fulani was his Reform Party running mate at one point based in part on this position. Later Fulani broke off the partnership, for what I believe were good reasons but that's not what I'm aiming at.

Where I'm going is that I cerntianly do not say that Democrats are toeing the fascist line when supporting protectionism policies similar to Buchanan's. I would be wrong to tar any Democrat with the Buchanan brush on protectionism. The merits of protection versus the flaws of free trade should be debated, not "oh look you're in bed with Pat."

Cheers.

Yup, the man who blamed homosexuals and atheists for 9/11, Jerry Falwell is an ardent foe of gun control. Here he is drooling all over Wayne LaPierre in public.

http://www.nljonline.com/December2000/NRA.htm

"Following the Listen America broadcast, Mr. LaPierre presented Dr. Falwell with a framed certificate recognizing the Lynchburg, Va., pastor’s “life membership” in the NRA."

http://www.nljonline.com/December2000/NRA.htm

Jerry once publicly equated being black with being an alcoholic. He said "I do question the sincerity and non-violent intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations." And he fought bravely against the Teletubbies.

Smith was one of only five senators who voted against the 1991 Civil Rights Act, one of three who voted against the National Energy Policy Act in 1992 and one of three to vote against confirming the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. During his stint in the Senate, he voted against funding for Head Start, food stamps and emergency aid for hurricane victims. He waved plastic fetus around on the Senate floor as a prop during a graphic appeal to ban late-term abortions. He was staunchly anti-reproductive choice and civil rights, and so far to the right that he left the GOP for an even crazier bunch of goons. He was so far right that he could call John Sununu a "moderate."

And, yes, he was pro-gun rights.

You really should study a subject before making a demagogic diatribe like you just did.

Are you PRO abortion?

Looks like this thread has run it's course and is on it's 2nd day w/no new posts for several hours.

Otohara - DU moderator