Anybody ever heard of this?

I don't know of its validity, but it is an interesting read. Obviously, the writer is biased, but she does have interesting points. Let the flames begin!:evilgrin:

http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

but it seems as if she's treating anyone for gun control like some sort of psycho/sociopath. I'm not sure what she's trying to do; have all NRA members use a 'fluffy cloud' treatment on gun control advocates. It's a rather weird read considering the subject.

it's the crazies with assault weapons popping caps in the street that scare me.

We had a nutcase in Phoenix last year who was "dissed" in a convenience store in front of his girlfriend, he followed the "disser" out of the store and shot at the guy's car as it pulled away.

While he managed to miss the "disser" altogether, he hit two other cars and wounded the passengers in addition to shattering a window across the street.

While this doesn't happen every month we have enough people shooting in the air in this town that we passed a law and installed "electronic ears" all over the city to pinpoint random shooting after a 14 year old girl was killed standing in her back yard. http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/shannon_s_law__arizona_

in crime then.

n/t

Because they became more valuable due to scarcity.

There are plenty of firearms that are functionally identical to the "banned" ones that are available today. Some people call them "post-ban", others call them "copycats". The gun manufacturers also call them "compliant".

the Senate bill John Kerry co-sponsored is bottled up in the Senate, while 108 Demcorats have a similar bill in the House that Tom DeLay has bottled up.

Write your newspapers and call your congresscritters. It's a win-win for us.

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

for every disease. I know hoplophobia exists, I just wonder if it is medically recognized?

Right out of the David Duke playbook....good find. "among Jews, Blacks and women"


"The righter" sure convinces me that this gun rights crap isn't just plain old KKK- type craziness peeping out under a new sheet.

Now you are implying that this JEWISH group is KKK. Your post is absurd on its face.

You really think this shit hasn't been dredged up here before out of that cesspool?

prima facie absurd. It is self-evident that a Jewish group would not be using David Duke's playbook. I therefore submit that your post is a waste of bandwidth. If you have something reasonable to add to the discussion, feel free. Otherwise, don't waste valuable resources posting absurdities.

"It is self-evident that a Jewish group would not be using David Duke's playbook."
Why? Because all Jews are liberals? Is THAT what you're trying to tell us, fat slob?

Poke around in that rancid little JPFO cesspool, and you'll find those "Jews" pimping for the Confederate flag, too. And the author boasts openly on her own website of her wish to be on the SPLC's list of bigots and neoNazi lunatics.

Anbd as for wasting bandwith posting absurdities, I can't think of a more absurd waste than this idiotic filth...or JPFO itself.

Your writings are self-evidently absurd. A Jewish group would not ally itself with an anti-Semite. I have a prima facie case here. A conservative Jew is no more likely to support "David Duke's playbook" than a liberal Jew. Your post still stands as self-evidently absurd. In another post, I reference "the righter's" evident right-wing bias. However, the fact remains that "the righter" is Jewish and the website is Jewish. Therefore, reason bears that they don't use "David Duke's playbook" as you so eloquently wrote. Now, do you have anything logical to add? Good day.

It fits the bill to a fucking "T," fat slob.

"I have a prima facie case here"
Want to guess where you can put it, fat slob?

Your last attempt was not up to snuff. Note that I most certainly do not support the JPFO, as they are right wing. I merely point out the absurdity of your statement that they use "David Duke's playbook". Like I said, I have the prima facie case, which you have evidently decided to not challenge. Your position, that a Jewish group uses a known anti-Semite's playbook is indefensibly absurd. There is no reasonable way that the statement can have any validity. Your statement fails the "reasonable man" test.

No wonder you think valid psychaitric papers are published in gun nut central and that all Jews are liberal...

"Like I said, I have the prima facie case"
And like I said, would you like me to tell you where you can stuff this revolting pile of bigotry you've dredged up?

There is nothing I can do to change that. If you like, I'll let you know privately, so you can edit your post.

Five times now. And all it does is show us what's really peeping out from behind that "gun rights" sheet.

It's getting deep. Did you ever find a legitimate rebuttle for my prima facie case?

Tell us, please, HOW are "blacks, Jews and women" being "professional victims"?

Did you ever find a legitimate rebuttle for my prima facie case?

("Rebuttle" -- buttle again?)

My handy Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary says:

prima facie case. <Of first appearance.> A case in which there is some evidence in support of the charge or allegation made in it, and which will stand unless it is displaced. In a case which is being heard in court, the party starting, that is, upon whom the burden of proof rests, must make out a prima facie case, or else the other party will be able to submit that there is no case to answer, and the case will have to be dismissed.

Let me draw your attention to the bit you need to see:

some evidence in support of the ... allegation.

Y'see? Not just (wild, loony, vicious) allegations. EVIDENCE to support them.

(And btw, given that the "case" you offered consisted solely of wild, loony, vicious allegations, you might not want to be so quick to call it "my prima facie case". If I were you, I'd be wanting to let the loon who owns the copyright on it take full credit.)

Case dismissed.



.

let's see him EXPLAIN how "blacks, Jews and women" ARE "professional victims."

Your allegation that a Jewish group uses "David Duke's playbook" is false on its face. Prima facie.

being "professional victims?"

since they're obviously so internally conflicted.

I guess it's like the anti-homosexual group, the Pink Pistols...

:evilgrin:

"If you oppose the NRA's particular interpretation of the Second Amendment, you're Mentally Ill."

It's similar to "If you oppose the Inevitable Will of the Soviet, you're Mentally Ill."

The political Right has been trying to undo Adorno since he first published The Authoritarian Personality; it's understandable that the rehtorical mojo would spread to the gun movement -- which, after all, is dominated by the political Right.

They claim to own the Flag, too.

--bkl
RKBA but no BS, OK?

"My short-term goal is to make it onto the Southern Poverty Law Center "hate list" "

http://www.therighter.com/biography/

Yeah, who doesn't want to stand proudly with the Aryan Nation and David Duke...(snicker)

That is indisputable. What is disputable is whether her paper is valid. That is the point of this exercise.

was so the gun nuts could post some more idiotic far right wing drivel again...like they often do. Don't you guys ever read anything sane decent people do? Mother Jones? Salon? The New Yorker?

And no, her paper is not valid. She's a fucking loony. If her paper were valid it would be published in a scientific journal, not on Jerky People's Fetish Object.

Was anyone actually NOT here the zillion times this loon has been discussed in this forum already?

She is *not* a psychiatrist, etc. etc. etc.

On an archive search for "therighter" (gosh, isn't that gold star handy), I find four threads discussing her and her nasty notions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=18344

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=8365

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=7905

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=3498

I'm not going to bother loading them up, but anyone who wants to claim to be engaged in good faith discussion of anything she says had better spend some time getting to know what's there.

.

I'm looking for dissection of the arguements raised by the writer. This appears, initially, to be a well written, well reasoned paper. I'm looking to dissect it and see if any points are valid or invalid, or unknown. Attacking or defending the writer of the paper is dumb, attacking or defending the validity of the paper is what is needed.

on edit: I have no idea as to the validity of this. Has this paper ever been peer reviewed?

What's next....a discussion of Ann Coulter's gibberish?

"This appears, initially, to be a well written, well reasoned paper."
To whom, exactly? It sure reads like mindless bigoted right wing horseshit to me. You can find the same kind of railing about "professional victims" and "Jews, blacks and women" on stormfront...

Why don't you go through and dissect it, as requested. Even a tiny bit. Use your well-known reason and intellect and point out falsehoods and facts and opinions you disagree with or agree with and why. I just saw this thing today and know nothing of it.

"Why don't you go through and dissect it"
Why don't YOU tell us why "Jews, blacks and women" are "professional victims," fat slob?

"I just saw this thing today and know nothing of it"
Well, now you know it's bigoted horseshit, more suited for David Duke than DU.

Have you ever been to one?

So tell us, fat slob, how are "blacks, Jews and women" being "professional victims"?

I was gonna just post the links to discussion here of some of these "alleged groups" and their activities at gun shows, but now I can't.

Here's something I did find, though:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=30063

the_acid_one (418 posts)
Sun Dec-21-03 07:42 PM

Just back from working the Gun Show.
Well, I just got back from working a Gun show in Nashville, TN.
I was helping out at the "Friends of the NRA" table, selling
raffle tickets to win a .50 BMG Barret rifle.

No!! A "friend of the NRA", right here at DU??

Oh dear -- s/he's departed now; but not before posting those 418 posts.

.

preclude somebody from being a Democrat?

There are some pretty famous (officeholding and officeseeking) Democrats who are members of the NRA...

how "blacks, Jews and women" are "professional victims" like this idiotic artiucle fat slob dredged up alleges?

After all, you were trying to pretend it wasn't mindless bigotry before.

I didn't read the article.

Nice try, though. Have a cookie.

why the hell are you trying to defend it?

You sure seemed eager to tell me I was wrong about it...even though I've actually looked at that bigoted piece of shit and YOU haven't.

Next ask me where you can place your cookie, and at what velocity you can put it there.

What I wrote:

No!! A "friend of the NRA", right here at DU??

What you wrote:

So, does NRA membership...
preclude somebody from being a Democrat?

Now, am I wrong to think that you know that you have asked a question implying something which you have no evidentiary basis for implying -- that I claim that NRA membership precludes someone from being a Democrat?

And would I be wrong to think that you know perfectly well that when people ask a question of that nature, what they are almost always trying to do (barring abject dimness) is make someone believe that the person of whom it is asked said, or did, or thinks, something that s/he has never said, done or thought?

Why do we suppose that I REALLY said what I said?

Could it be because of the incessant protests heard here that the "RKBA"ers here are *not* members of the NRA and do *not* support its leadership, politics or philosophy?

Gee, yeah. I think that might just be why I REALLY said what I said. I also think that anyone with a normal kind of short-term memory knew that.

Now, as far as the entirely separate issue that *you* raise -- I'm not a Democrat, I thank my stars that I am not in a situation where I might find it necessary to be a Democrat, and even if I were a Democrat I'm quite sure that I would regard Democrats who belong to the NRA as little different from any of the other thugs and idiots who belong to the NRA. I'm quite able to accept that some people who belong to the NRA really don't have a clue, but I wouldn't extend that generosity to present or past or would-be elected members of legislative bodies.

.

"I'm quite able to accept that some people who belong to the NRA really don't have a clue, but I wouldn't extend that generosity to present or past or would-be elected members of legislative bodies."

If John Kerry actually does have a NRA membership, he's not a Democrat?

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20040427

"If Kerry campaign officials thought their candidate's Vietnam resume or membership in the NRA--he enjoys hunting as much as any red-blooded American--would inoculate them on the gun issue, they were as badly deluded as the folks who thought Saddam had WMDs."

Guess that's that gun nut "logic" percolating at top speed: A second rate cartoonist points out that gun nuts would lie about Kerry even if he had NRA membership, and you leap to pretend Kerry HAS NRA membership and that somehow this disqualifies him from his own party.

Sure glad I ain't got a speck of whatever the hell that is...because it sure ain't logic.

Rall says Kerry has a NRA membership. There are no weasel words.

n/t

Refill wants to jump in here to defend this dreary bigoted bit of horseshit...until he's called on it.

all over the country, and NEVER, EVER seen Stormfront there.

next ask me if I believe you.

You believe that Ted Rall is "pimping for Tom Delay", and that Bill Clinton doesn't know what he's talking about re his '95 SOTU speech and the cost to Democrats politically.

That doesn't bode well for the credibility of your belief structure.

if I care what YOU think...

P.S.: Rail is a fucking idiot...and a second rate cartoonist.

Here, let me reciprocate:

The moon is made of green cheese. I shall now go on at considerable length to discuss the way in which this cheese can be mined in order to feed the starving masses on earth. I will want your "dissection of the arguments" I raise. I certainly will not be interested in commentary on my premise, or suggestions that I may not know what I'm talking about, or insinuations that I'm doing anything less than sincere in making those arguments. Noooo.


Has this paper ever been peer reviewed?

Yeah. It's quite common for articles that describe the author as "a psychiatrist" when she IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN a psychiatrist to be peer reviewed.

Hmm. Who exactly would be the peer of someone whose materials are published with a description of her as a psychiatrist when she is not? And when that description has been extant for a long time, despite its falseness?

Well ... a panel of liars and loons, maybe?

And then, if they approved of what she said, we'd know that what she says is approved of by liars and loons.

Me, I could have figured that out without all the bother.

.

Offer the evidence that she is not a psychiatrist. That would be a valid way of attacking the work.

"Now we are getting somewhere."
Off the paths of delusion and into the miasma of denial?

and didn't find much. I'll go through the others after lunch, which is where I am headed now. I'll be sure to eat an extra potato cake for you. I'm headed to Izzy's, the best deli ever! Funny coincidence, I'm going to a Jewish deli for lunch...it was scheduled a week ago! Do you have any real tasty Jewish delis in your hometown?

the Righter says they're professional victims.

She should be ashamed for using her credentials to frame a very weak argument.

The Nolympics Section.
STOP GUN CONTROL AT THE OLYMPICS!

http://www.therighter.com/

"First, there was the horrible decisions to ban guns from the Olympic spectators. Could there be a sillier decision than this? We are in a war, people (even if it is not a real war so we do not have to follow the Geneva convention on prisoners)!
If we had not banned guns from the Olympics, when some nut pulled out a gun and started shooting inside the figure skating arena, law-abiding gun owners would be able to pull out their guns and fire back in his direction. But the Olympic tyrants did ban guns, and now spectators will have to huddle in fear knowing that no-one in the crowd has a gun as they watch the figure skaters dress up like Hunkleberry Hound and the Littlest Mermaid while they perform their triple luntzes and flying figs. It will be a Capade of Terror that could have been averted simply by a lack of metal detectors and security. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/bob/02/29.html

never misses the valiant attempts of the pro RKBA gang to protect us at public venues.

Over at highroadrage.com, there's a right wing loony who actually DOES use Bob's phrase "Our Great President" in all seriousness, complete with capitals. I shoulda copyrighted it.

She should be ashamed for using her credentials to frame a very weak argument.

She DOESN'T HAVE any credentials. Don't you read what I write? ;)

Click on the links in my "dog almighty" post. Read about her "professional" background. The woman is a sad case, quite obviously at least mildly deranged - the paranoia is quite evident.

.

nope, I guess I missed the dog almighty post. I posted my learned reaction to the article, not having a doctorate, but more than a layman's appreciation of psychology. (and no, that doesn't mean I have been psychiatrically hospitalized,:silly: thank Koresh).

Geez, I shoulda read the whole freakin' thread.

One of the ways the New Right collects followers is by having its ideologues pose as "non-partisan, serious scholars" and such. At first blush, about half the Conservative Commentariat appear that way. It's easy, it's effective, and it also serves to get these American Kulturkampfers on TV every night.

I've been taken in by a lot of mountebanks, I'm still occasionally taken in by the odd fraud, and I'm sure I'll be taken for a sucker again before I leave this vale of illusion. It's a personal and social learning process.

We can all learn from FatSlob's mis-step. The bonus is that we have, as a political movement (the Libbruls, not the RKBAers), learned where yet another "intellectual land mine" had been laid. And lest we think less of FatSlob, keep your eyes open -- I'd wager that at least one of us will stick a foot in a similar trap before the afternoon has left for supper.

They're clever. We're intellectually honest enough that being clever hasn't been working too well for them lately. Humility and tenacity will win over the Neo-Con artifices of mock gravitas and well-subsidized hot air.

--bkl

usually claim to have more faux credentials than simply being "the righter."

"Humility and tenacity will win over the Neo-Con artifices of mock gravitas and well-subsidized hot air."
Your lips to old Nobodaddy's ear. Thanks for saying that.

It's my own hot air, I admit, but a lot of us forget it; it's as much me warning myself not to get too haughty, either.

--bkl

as well as phony "grass-roots" groups...what are called astroturf.

Amusingly, the "gay gun owners group" (which has Barney Frank, Barbra Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell on its enemies list but not a single harsh word for Fred Phelps or Rick Santorum!) used to have an actual link on its site to the right wing think tank that whistled them up out of thin air, and that think tank had a page on its site chortling about what a "good trick on liberals" their phony gay group was.

They were so proud of themselves that they had to go brag about it. It was an exercise in cheap irony, and the whole world sees them for what they are -- sophomoric wankers.

Here's a further take on it -- real "Astroturf" tries to advance a position, NOT brag to the world how clever it is. So those guys were twice removed from honesty. Pretty pathetic record for a one-laugh joke, huh?

--bkl

that put an article in a PR trade journal about the success they were having with their astroturf anti-environmental groups a few years ago...and then were surprised it reached a wider audience?

If it wasn't H&K it was somebody like them.

I recall a Law Review article on why women should be disarmed...the argument was that women having guns supported the "phallusocracy".

I recall a Law Review article on why women should be disarmed...the argument was that women having guns supported the "phallusocracy".

This is "faux scholarship"? What did the authors do, MAKE UP NUMBERS about the violence against women that has been endemic throughout human history and geography, and that would be called something like "genocide" or "holocaust" if it had been perpetrated against another social group??

What it sounds like, to me, is opinion, and argument for a particular course of action.

Or ... were you actually telling us that the article advocated that women, quâ women, should be prohibited from possessing weapons? That's what "women should be disarmed" means, I'd say ... and yet somehow I doubt that it's what the article actually said.

You didn't perhaps mean to say that the article argued that "women should be UNarmed", did you?

In any event, I'm not seeing any "faux scholarship" in what you've said so far.

.

When I googled the phrases "law review" and "women" and "disarmed" I found a piece of dishonest crap that claimed to be from a law review, posted on a gun nut forum. It basically noted that gun grabbers wanted to disarm women, that battered women ought to shoot their abusers, and that since the Seocnd Amendment did not permit this exempption, it ought to be rewritten in some unspecified way that would let gun nuts shoot whomever they felt deserved it.

Are you surprised? Me neither.

Next ask me if I believe you.

... if FatSlob's mis-step were an accurate characterization of this incident.

.

FatSlob could be a stealth Freeper for all I know, but I'll always give him -- and anyone -- the benefit of the doubt. All they have tp do is to make the effort to post in good faith. I'd rather be shown to be gullible than sacrifice trust.

It's tough to support gun rights and NOT be an NRA member and NOT support any of their lunacy -- AND be a liberal. Our fellow liberals are entirely justified in subjecting us to greater scrutiny.

In this case, it's FatSlob's karma. I assume he wants to keep it in good working order. If he doesn't, a tombstone awaits.

--bkl