Petition to forbid support of the NRA at DU

[michigandem58]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by REP (a host of the General Discussion forum).

We, the under rec'd, urge the good folks running this important site to make this a clear part of our culture and rules. Support of that awful organization cannot be allowed to stand.

If not now, when?


Respectfully,

The DU Community

[MotherPetrie]

1. K&R

[Lionessa]

2. Exactly how are you going to decide who is or is not the NRA.

As far as I can tell there is no known NRA operative here. As well, many gun owners and advocates also dislike the NRA as it is now. So who is going to get to decide who is NRA and who isn't.... hmm, maybe a jury system.

OH SHIT WE ALREADY HAVE THAT!

Issue solved.

[michigandem58]

3. I'm talking about defending or supporting the NRA as an organization

Different opinions on gun control are fine.

[Lionessa]

7. Well, I've seen none of those.

And even if I did, I'd still trust the jury system to handle them. There are many Democrats that are also NRA members, and as much as many, including me on some topics, might want this to be progressive or liberal underground it is in fact big "D" Democratic Underground.

[The Wielding Truth]

118. A few months back I had a conversation here about an NRA robocall I received that lied about Obama.

It was a crude propaganda message about how as President, in his second term, that all guns would be confiscated and the plan was a sure thing. It infuriated me and I spouted off here on DU. I was pummeled and told that the NRA had nothing to do with lobbying and fear-mongering to sell guns. I stood my ground respectfully but did not change my feelings of disgust and bullying by the NRA. They a nasty organization that used to be concerned about gun safety. Now however they want to increase gun ownership at any cost.

The NRA does not deserve to be defended here after they have pushed guns and abandoned safety.

[Lionessa]

127. Links would be nice,

I find it entirely unbelievable that you'd be so attacked here on DU and it was let stand.

Provide links and I'm willing to reconsider.

[The Wielding Truth]

161. How can I get back there? It only will take me to Nov. 18?

[pnwmom]

373. I found a thread like that. I just googled your screen name, NRA, and robocall.

And I found this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117247485#post4


You are right; there are plenty of NRA defenders on DU. In this thread, they were attacking you for saying that the NRA helps "push guns" -- as if you said that the NRA literally sells guns. Of course, you never said the NRA is in the business of exchanging guns for cash. The NRA doesn't sell guns in that sense. But the NRA is a key player in the marketing and support of the gun culture. No doubt about it.

[orleans]

375. is this what you're talking about?

NRA working w/ African-Americans interested in hunting, fishing, personal safety in Buffalo NY
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117247485

sometimes if you google
and put into the search the following
SITE EMOCRATICUNDERGROUND.COM and then add the key words you might be able to find what you're looking for

i googled
site:democraticunderground.com "wielding truth" nra robocall obama

the results look like they're pretty much in that one thread.

on edit:
that stupid smiley face is supposed to be a colon :
and then NO SPACE between the name of the website that just happens to start with a D
hence...

[The Wielding Truth]

467. Yes, thank you,orleans. Know I also know how to get there. Thanks again.

[ThatPoetGuy]

167. So you are saying...

even if your statement is proven false, even if your belief system is proven to be flawed, the best you'll do is offer a willingness to think about it... but you aren't willing to think about it without proof.

"Provide links and I'm willing to reconsider."

Such severe cognitive dissonance would likely lead you to nitpicking over whether or not harsh words constitute an attack, and so on. The three letters "NRA" are hardly searchable here, so I don't see why anyone would spend several hours dredging through thousands upon thousands of posts on the subject to provide evidence to someone who has already said words to the effect of, "even if you provide solid and irrefutable evidence, I may not change my mind on the subject."

[Lionessa]

221. Once supposed proof is provided I will consider while I review said proof for

validity within context. Then I'll be willing to change my mind if such an endeavor is presented and passes muster. One step at a time, I don't just accept links without looking into the links, many people misrepresent through not providing context and/or just plain lying. So one step at a time, provide links, I'll reconsider, take the time to review the links then we'll see if I change my mind. There are recorded incidents of such happening with me on this site.

[heaven05]

265. the nra

is a right wing tool of extremists in this society and are just as responsible for ALL the murders as ALL the shooters in situations like this that has happened since the 1980's. Period. No proof needed for this statement of mine.

[The Wielding Truth]

356. If I can get to it I will show you that it is not easy to be anti NRA sometimes on this site.

[pnwmom]

374. Here you go.

Several people in this thread are defending the NRA, and resorting to silly semantic arguments with The Wielding Truth. TWT is pointing out that the NRA is fronting for the gun industry and helping to create demand for their products. The NRA's defenders are pretending that TWT claimed that the NRA is some kind of retail outlet for guns.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117247485#post4

[The Wielding Truth]

468. So you have my posts..and your proof. I 'm not a liar. I have opinions that are not always accepted.

[CitizenPatriot]

150. well, in theory

I see a bullying of people who want to discuss gun control -- a topic that should be open on a Democratic forum, and I don't like that. But the people who do that aren't necessarily breaking rules. We have a big tent - many pro gun Dems, and I don't want to exclude them either. NRA talking points are a danger to us all, though, and I get sick of seeing them here.

People come here to have discussions with people who share a certain level of democratic values. Yes, some members are members of the NRA. Maybe they'll rethink this now that they've been exposed as a Koch brothers GOP propaganda outlet destroying democracy by threatening our legislators. Kochs funneled millions into the NRA to attack Democrats in the last election.

Pro gun is one thing -- pro NRA is another, IMO. That's like saying someone supports the Koch Brothers. Time to wise up.

-edited to remove unnecessary blathering about a jury service-

[Lionessa]

239. Bullying is going on both directions.

One's perceptions determine which one's they notice. You just must not be noticing the gun ban advocates bullying those that just want sensible gun control and regulation.

[CitizenPatriot]

285. That may well be true

but my point is that this is a Democratic forum, so when "bullying" uses GOP/NRA talking points, it may not belong here. Not to suggest that any bullying is a good thing.

[Lionessa]

304. Are you aware of the plank regarding the Democratic Party's stance on guns?

I hate to tell you, but it isn't what you think it is.

[Heather MC]

46. Yesterday I was accused of being NRA because I dared asked the question how would gun laws have

prevented this mass shooting since it's been reported he got the guns from his Mother. If that's true then he did not have to personally go through any requires to obtain a gun.

Because of asking that question I was accused of being NRA.
Which is funny because I don't even own a Gun

[AnotherMcIntosh]

113. It is a form of McCarthyism.

We can't even be sure that those claiming to anti-Second Amendment, or anti-gun in general, are even Democrats.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

183. And if not? Then, in your view, I'm supposed to support McCarthyism? No thank you.

[morningfog]

196. Get over your strawman McCarthyism.

Gun nuts are not victims here. Don't even try that. If you don't support the NRA or praise what they have done, what do you care?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

217. Why should I care? I support free speech and dialog. I'm one of the liberals who upsets Rahm Emanuel

and others opposed to liberals and dialog.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

350. Because YOUR Speech Could Be Next

.

[beevul]

240. You better tell (D) brian Schweitzer.

Harry Reid as well:

Reid calls on NRA leader for support
Posted by Benjamin Spillman
Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Talk about bringing out big guns.

Sen Harry Reid, D-Nev., got National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre to speak about Reid's support for gun rights.

Reid is in dire straits, electorally speaking, and needs all the help he can get lining up votes on the conservative side of the spectrum.

"He is a true champion of the Second Amendment back in Washington, DC," LaPierre said of Reid at a dedication for a new shooting range.

Said Reid, while wielding an antique .22 rifle from his childhood, "These weapons become our friends. This weapon is my friend."

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., also spoke. He told a story of a traumatic childhood shooting incident to reinforce the importance of gun safety education.

http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/politics/Reid_calls_on_NRA_leader_for_support.html

Aw heck, maybe you can just purge them from the party, right?

[davidpdx]

142. This is probably my sole reason for opposing it

People on here tend to over react and do drive-by mouth offs accusing someone of doing something they clearly haven't.

I would like to see people debate what the best solution is. Except for a tiny fraction of the DU community most all of us support gun control. If someone has an idea I think we should think about what weaknesses it has and how to make it better, then to propose it to our Congress.

For instance what if a measure isn't strong enough. Can we be oppose to it on that bases and not be labeled an NRA lackey?

I think proposing bans is an overreaction. We have a jury system, MIRT Team, and Admin Team that handle things on a case by case basis.

[Heather MC]

162. I am not against Gun Control however in this case

Allegedly, Adam got the guns from his mother.

[Honeycombe8]

324. True. But Mom wouldn't have been able to buy a Glock. Besides, it's not a reason to try

to prevent more mass shootings because something that's done won't prevent them all.

[llmart]

330. What's your point?

Because he got them from his mother you're deducing that she was an OK person to have guns? Do you know her personally?

[Heather MC]

355. My point is...

at this point we don't know how she aquired the guns, however, if she did get them legally then no gun law would have stopped him from gaining access to the guns. How do you regulate a parents decision to give their offspring excess to their weapons

[llmart]

415. Your argument doesn't make any sense.

Yes, the current laws do not help, but that's why we're asking for more stringent laws. Some posters here have advocated the kind of guns, the number of ammunition, the kind of ammunition, stricter background checks, on gun purchases and some have even proposed having those guns kept at your local police station.

Even if she got them legally by today's laws, she may not have been able to get them legally under stricter laws. Can you at least understand that simple statement and understand why your response isn't logical?

By the way, the word is "access" not "excess".

[davidpdx]

371. I didn't know that

I've been avoiding the news on that completely pretty much because the press is on a feeding frenzy. The Clackamas Town Center shooting in Portland was bad enough since it was in my home state. The one in CT I just can't deal with hearing about it.

[pnwmom]

376. Do the math. He was using clips that held 30 bullets each.

He had three guns. If they each held 30 bullets (and such magazines are available, even for handguns), then he could have shot 90 times without reloading, using his three guns in succession.

If he had been limited to clips with only 10 bullets each, his three guns would have shot only 30 bullets in total before he'd have to stop and reload.

If he'd had to pause, someone else would have had a better chance to stop him.

So if we changed the gun laws so that it wasn't so easy for anyone to shoot so many people in such a short period of time, no, we wouldn't prevent all shootings. But we could reduce the number of victims.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. Can you cite some examples?

[kurtzapril4]

260. That would be nice if it were true,

but there are DUer's that own guns who aren't in the NRA, and hate the NRA, and get pummeled if they DARE suggest that there's nothing wrong with owning guns.

In fact, one member here said that all gun owners have the blood of the children in CT on their hands, and several other members formed a rah rah section for that post. Which is just so ridiculous I can hardly stand it. I guess that person doesn't realise that they, as an American taxpayer, also has blood on his/her hands, following that "logic."

I don't own a gun, don't want one, and I hate the NRA. I want firearms strictly regulated. No more multi-round clips, magazines, or drums. No more selling parts that can transform a single shot rifle into a semi-automatic. But the fact is that some people DO need guns. People in rural areas might need them to frighten off critters who threaten their stock, or kill critters who are killing their stock, or put down animals that are sick or injured, and the vet is an hour or more away. Some people DO hunt for their own food. IMO, people who buy their meat shrink wrapped have no business critisizing people who hunt for theirs. Some people like to target shoot. Nothing wrong with that. When invited, I like to target shoot.

Guns need to be locked in a safe, with trigger locks, when not in use. Too bad what's-his-name's mother didn't realise that.

[marions ghost]

447. Everyone in this country

who allows this to continue, who does not do everything they can to stop it--has blood on their hands.

[haydukelives]

430. something tells

you don't believe that

[NWHarkness]

4. I was on a jury yesterday

The poster was very specifically defending the gun lobby, if not the NRA by name.

The post was allowed to stand.

[Lionessa]

8. So you always get what you want, no system will offer you that.

As you point out, without direct reference to NRA one would be hard pressed to claim they are NRA operatives.

[NWHarkness]

27. Did I say I always get what I want?

Where did come up with that?

[Lionessa]

44. You apparently wanted the jury to come to your conclusion and make the decision

you think should've been. Sounds like someone who wants to get your way all the time, rather than trusting a jury of your peers.

[Zoeisright]

152. And you sound like an NRA apologist.

Buh-bye.

[Lionessa]

227. Interesting since I'm not and have never been an NRA member.

But many like yourself in the past few days are becoming as narrow minded and accusatory and abrasive as the winger nut jobs who believe they should be able to own automatic machine guns. I'm sorry you and so many others can't see anything but black and white when the real world nearly always resides somewhere in the greytones.

[NWHarkness]

218. Well, of course I wanted the jury to agree with me

Who does jury duty and doesn't want their decision to hold sway?

I don't know why you are so intent to insult me, and don't really care.

Ride your high horse, and have a good time.

[Lionessa]

230. Not my high horse, the high horse of seeing that DU as it stands is just fine,

and juries do their jobs and do them well even if I don't always agree with their decisionis.

[NWHarkness]

238. You don't even know how I voted on the issue

But you insulted me anyway. Horses don't get much higher than that.

[Lionessa]

242. I'm only replying to what you typed here.

If you see it as anything more, than your imagination is running wild with you.

[NWHarkness]

244. What I typed

was that I served on a jury that dealt with the issue at hand. I didn't say how I voted, but you made an assumption and insulted me based on that assumption.

Whose imagination was in play?

[Lionessa]

252. Your opinion, regardless of your vote, was made clear in your initial response to my post.

Why else would you post what you did except to point out how you think the jury system doesn't work? Please explain.

[NWHarkness]

259. If I didn't think the jury system worked, I wouldn't serve when asked

My point was that no one should expect juries to automatically go one way or the other.

You might have asked for a clarification from the get-go, I would have gladly explained.

[Lionessa]

267. My point to start with was that juries assure that there is no

"automatic" about such topics. So I still see it as the same, you disagree with that as being a good choice. Whatever. Let's be done.

[NWHarkness]

281. I can't argue with that

because I don't know what it means.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. I will vote to hide any post that even comes within a country mile of suggesting NRA arguments

Regardless of other content.

They're killing people.

[DocMac]

148. I'm doing the same thing.

And my ignore list is growing fast. It's like pulling weeds.

[llmart]

328. I'm using the Ignore feature for the first times since I joined DU.

We have bigger fish to fry right now and going forward as our President said. Our energies should not be wasted on reading their pro-gun garbage or their handwringing "that won't work". "We can't do that in this country." or whatever else garbage posts we've seen in the past couple of days.

Let the sane ones of us start the conversation about what we're going to do to solve this problem.

I think the number of recs this post has received shows the majority of us are ready. What's the old proverb? A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step? or something like that. Every small and large step counts. We must start to take our country back.

[RomneyLies]

357. I'm paying attention to who are the gun nuts

and will vote to hide ANY post of theirs that is alerted on regardless.

[davidthegnome]

366. Regardless of what? The content?

You do realize that that is unfair and irresponsible? Some of the comments I'm seeing here really stink of McCarthyism. How do you determine if someone is a gun nut?

Oh hell, just go ahead and alert on me. I support second amendment rights so I must be a gun nut, regardless of the fact that I don't own one and actually DO support reasonable gun control laws.

[ThatPoetGuy]

457. I have a hard time with real problems, no need to create imaginary ones.

"How do you determine if someone is a gun nut?"

How do you determine if someone is a racist? Racism is prohibited here.

If they make a sweeping generalization, like, "All Asian people are good at math," does that make them a racist? It's a racist comment, even though it's a positive generalization; would that be ban-worthy? Would that be hide-worthy? It's for the community to decide.

The jury system allows us to create the standards for the community we'd like to build here. That person doesn't want to see what he or she describes as "gun nuts." I agree -- I don't think gun nuts have any more place here than racists.

We probably won't agree as to the particulars; we might draw the line in different places; but I agree with that person that there's a line that should be drawn. I hope he or she participates in many juries and helps to shape a better future for DU than the gun extremists have made thus far.

For me:
* if someone has posted fantasies about murdering cops, that person is a gun nut and should be banned;
* if someone's worldview is shaped entirely by a paranoid fantasy of "them" "coming to take our guns," that person's perspective is worthless, brainwashed, bought and paid for by the NRA, and should be banned;
* if someone states false information and continues to repeat it after it's been debunked, that person is too far gone to participate in discussion and should be banned;

among others.

[Chemisse]

87. That is probably because it doesn't violate a rule here.

So expecting the jury system to take care of this (as someone posted above) is unrealistic.

[Lionessa]

233. Juries here are not held to the violation of rules, once alerted on

juries are free to decide based on whatever criteria they want. I served on a jury where one juror flat out said, I think the post is fine but I don't like the poster so I vote to hide. AND reasons are even required, one can simply silently vote on a jury. So any posts that become too offensive, too NRA as it were, will be removed or hidden.

[Chemisse]

255. I see that this happens.

But I don't think it is supposed to happen that way.

I try to determine if the general guidelines have been violated, and don't vote to hide unless I think they have. Maybe next time I will look at the instructions first. I haven't done that in a long time.

[RomneyLies]

358. I've given up on trying to be objective

I will take past poster positions into account every time from now on.

Any gungeon denizen who has a post alerted on and I'm on the jury, I vote to hide regardless.

[axetogrind]

5. I agree with you.

I'm a liberal gun owner and I detest the NRA asshats with a passion. I, like you, say leave it up to the jury system.

[morningfog]

170. Those who are proud and open members for a start. If you give them money....

[6502]

177. Oh! Thank you!!! I had a real honest laugh on that!!!!

Sign me up!

[BlueCaliDem]

6. I'm game!

Since it's pretty darn clear that the NRA is a pro-GOP outfit and advocacy group disguised as a gun right's group, it has no place here on DU, a predominantly pro-Democratic Party community.

Therefore, any posts in defense of or support of the National Rifle Assoc., should not be tolerated here just as any posts in defense of or support of the Tea Party aren't.

, rec'd, and an enthusiastic

[JimDandy]

189. I'm in for all these reasons. n/t

[still_one]

9. The question is this, if the NRA is an anti- Democratic Party organization then it already is banned

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

13. You must not spend much time in the gungeon

The gungeon is largely right wing gun nuts who support the positions of and the organization that is the NRA.

[Berserker]

18. Bullshit flame bait.

[jpak]

86. It's true - they cheer any and all stupid NRA/ALEC "guns everywhere all the time" GOP gun laws

passed since 2010 in red states.

And applaud the GOP douchebags that sponsored these stupid laws.

They called for Eric Holder to be held in contempt.

They think Issa and Grassely are gods.

yup

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

279. No, a pretty accurate description

The gungeon would be greatly improved by either another host who balances out the existing one, or several new hosts all together.

Right now it is VERY skewed and pro-gun, right wing biased to such a degree that it seems disconnected from the rest of the DU.

[still_one]

59. No I don't, but just expressing my view

[DrDan]

74. absolutely!

as I posted earlier . . .

there are some there who

do not believe in ANY form of gun control - not based on age, mental competence, criminal record . . . NOTHING
who believe in shooting and killing someone based on the theft of an insignificant item
who believe guns should be allowed in bars and on school property
gun ownership is more important than the safety of citizens

absolutely RW gun nuts

[AtheistCrusader]

110. Cite some examples.

Not of the issues, of the alleges 'support of the organization that is the NRA'.

Please do.

[freshwest]

368. Do they talk about the NRA directly there? You need tell me, since I trashed that forum.

But the NRA is a GOP front. Anyone who is a proud member thereof should be asked to renounce the GOP. That's the real issue.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

423. Yes, both directly and indirectly.

It is virtually impossible to extract the NRA from most gun discussions.

[freshwest]

439. The NRA and GOA are extremists. They refuse any gun control at all; their fantasy is a civil war.

The talking points from the groups on the SPLC don't miss them by much. Some are trying to say they don't have an official list of talking points.

The dog whistles require realizing they believe all government regulation is illegitimate, like the Koch funded libetarians in the patriot and other movements. They cloak the destruction of civll society in conspiracy and hysteria.

Ted Nugent talked the points in reverse by lying about Democrats, Hillary, Obama, socialism and playing the victim, when he himself is a predator. It's no mistake that the most avid of these fly the flag of the Confederacy.

[Atypical Liberal]

108. The NRA is anti-anti-gun policitians.

In the second-to-last elections, every one of my Democratic candidates had high marks from the NRA except 1. 3 of them were the endorsed candidate.

In the last election none of my Democratic candidates answered position statements on the second amendment and so had no ratings.

[still_one]

147. If you look at who is on the leadership of the NRA one has to wonder if that is their only goal

http://meetthenra.org/board-list

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. I'm for it. They are truly a bad organization.

[Skittles]

12. they represent a sick, SICK culture

NOTHING progressive about those paranoid bastards

[forestpath]

14. K&R

[BlueJazz]

15. I wasn't sure when I first read your post...but Yeah, The NRA has deserved to be ignored.

What once was a tolerable organization has turned into a group of radical right-wing con-people.

As far as owning a gun because of the Government and how it might "take over the American people"

I've got news for you...it already has and the powers/Rich that be, are not going to shoot themselves in the foot.
They want an obedient work force that will go to work every day to keep them richer. Taking over your life with guns and force would upset their plans.

It ain't gonna' happen.

[lib2DaBone]

16. You are going at it wrong.. wasting precious energy....

.. you need to go after CONgress and Big Pharmaceutical Companies.

[baldguy]

17. The NRA is a RW fascist front group.

[Berserker]

19. I absolutly agree!

Nefarious Republican Agenda

[jsmirman]

23. I am forced, by reality, to agree.

[etherealtruth]

41. Reality has that effect

[axetogrind]

54. What you said.

What was once a good org. for safety and training has become a propaganda arm of the GOP.

[Honeycombe8]

325. I don't know much about the org., myself. Except they support rightwingers & hate gun control.

Same as cigarette companies hate tobacco control. Fascist...I don't know. What fascist things has the organization done?

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. The organization itself? No problem with that.

They've become a money-sponge that might as well just declare itself a branch of the RNC.

However, it should be made clear that pro-gun-rights advocacy isn't remotely the same thing as supporting the NRA.

[roody]

21. Knr

[Sienna86]

22. Freedom of speech?

And by the way, how can you address someone's support of an organization if they can't discuss it?

[jsmirman]

26. We don't discuss people's support of the Republican party, either

and Freedom of Speech is YOU in relation to the GOVERNMENT. You should know this. Sheesh.

[etherealtruth]

30. DU isn't a governmental entity

Should we allow the Tea Party a platform here? .... How can we discuss it if we don't

[fightthegoodfightnow]

445. Are They Democrats?

Obviously no.

[_ed_]

53. You don't understand the First Amendment

It prevents the government from restricting speech. DU is not the government.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

297. Progressive?

Why are so many in a progressive Democratic membership group so intent on using private ownership of a board they do not own as justification for not demonstrating support for the First Amendment?

I loathe the NRA. I'm more than happy to take them on on this board or any place else.

[Bjorn Against]

306. Wait a minute you are pretending this is a first amendment issue again?

You made it quite clear in this very thread you don't want Nazis posting on this site, that is good because I don't either. When you took that position however you also made it clear that you don't want DU to allow all forms of speech therefore you are not actually arguing that DU should use the first amendment standard.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

310. Yawn

You are now just making things up and bore me. I never took the position you attribute to me.

Nazies are not Democrats so they can't post here. I also said that if DU changed the rules to allow them to post, I would have no problem with them posting here. Bring it on.

So go back and read post 216 again.

I didn't write the rules for DU and disagree with some but I have agreed to subscribe to them when on this site.

If DU opened membership to all, including the groups you mentioned, I would not have a problem with it. Based on my experiences on DU, some current members are far more intolerant than I would have ever imagined.

[adigal]

394. I'm with you. Is DU a Democratic version of that other place?

Come on, we are better than this. We can deal with divergent opinions here, by arguing against them, or using the jury system.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

437. Thank you

I appreciate that.

[_ed_]

410. DU already restricts things like supporting Republicans

Do you really not understand that this has nothing to do with the First Amendment?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

436. Are you not reading?

What part of I KNOW THAT do you not understand.

Now, answer the question.

That's DU's explanation.

What's yours?

[_ed_]

440. Explanation of what?

DU restricts advocacy of certain views. Gun rights are a right wing cause. This is a left wing site. Take your NRA talking points to some gun nut forum somewhere.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

441. Huh?

I loathe guns and oppose everything they stand for.

Please do your Google search of my posts and find ONE where I support a NRA position. You won't find it. I bet the folks in gungeon land are laughing their butts off at your post. I stand up against the gun clutching crowd all the time. Vast majority of my posts. See profile.

I don't disagree with you that gun rights positions are often right wing positions. That's NOT going away by not addressing their ridiculous positions. Do the work.

[patrice]

385. Why do so FEW people know that's Freedom of Speech for the OWNERS of the means of that speech?

This board is a means of speech. We don't own it, so should the owners of this means of speech, this internet forum/board, those owners being Democratic Underground LLC, decide to say or not say anything, we can have no legal objection to that.

We as individuals also have our own means of speech that is guaranteed freedom by the Constitution, but that means of speech is not this board because we don't own this board.

[mckara]

24. We Do Not Need to Censor Opinions; This is Not a Totalitarian Forum

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:00 PM - Edit history (1)

Your arguments must carry the day without stifling other opinions. This is the Democratic Underground, not the Authoritarian Underground.

[Sherman A1]

28. Agreed

As anti gun as I am (and I am). I do not believe that this is a good idea.

[Eric the Reddish]

425. True That

Censorship only creates Martyrs, no matter who's being censored. The last thing we need is to give the NRA a reason to (for the millionth time!) portray itself as an oppressed victim.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

37. Absolutely. Loyalty oaths and purity tests are a BIG FAIL.

[Bjorn Against]

69. What loyalty oath or purity test is anyone asking you to take?

We are not asking for loyalty oaths, we are simply asking that advocacy for the NRA be treated the same way as advocacy of the GOP is treated on this site.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

119. Agreed. So is any form of McCarthyism and witch-hunting.

[DocMac]

168. Wouldn't you hunt real witches?

[lbrtbell]

247. Your religious intolerance is duly noted

There are many Wiccans, Pagans, and followers of other nature-based religions here who practice witchcraft as part of their religion. I happen to be one of them.

We don't deserve to be "hunted" for practicing peaceful religious ceremonies.

Since you're obviously extremely uninformed, here's a Cliff's Notes version of what you need to know:

* Contrary to what people like you think, we don't sacrifice any living things, because we value life. Anyone who claims to be a witch and does these things is just a psycho who knows nothing about real witchcraft.

* Our spells are the equivalent of prayers. In other words, we have no ability to turn you into a toad.

* We don't proselytize. We'll accept people into our religion if they are drawn to it, but we make no attempts to convert--only inform. In fact, most parents who practice witchcraft encourage their own children to explore a variety of religions and make their own choice.

Your religious ignorance aside, it is appalling to suggest "hunting" any human being, esp. at a time like this.

I would have alerted on your post, but I'd rather use this as a teaching moment.

[DocMac]

287. You don't need to tell me anything.

There are no "real witches". Just people who claim to be.

[stonecutter357]

413. Sad for you

It is appalling to suggest "hunting" any human being.

[DocMac]

453. I should have put the sarcasm thingy there.

I never knew that people believed in witches. Perhaps your idea of a witch and mine differ.

[MessiahRp]

335. Sorry but you're on a private forum.

Did you try to post anything anti-Obama during the election? That too was banned. If you want to post here, you realize that speech is limited in some ways and try to keep your posts within the framework of the restrictions.

[Bjorn Against]

43. It is not Republican Underground either, support for Republicans is not allowed here

Why should we allow support for an organization who has a member of their Board of Directors that has advocated for the assassination of Obama on at least three seperate occasions? There is nothing authoritarian about banning advocacy of an organization that gives a platform to assassination proponents, if people want to praise the NRA they can get off this site and go register at Free Republic.

[_ed_]

56. The NRA is a right wing Republican organization

representing gun / ammo corporations. DU already censors advocates of other right wing groups.

[Atypical Liberal]

112. This just isn't so.

The NRA can and does endorse Democrats and give high marks to Democratic candidates.

It is also made up of over 4 million regular Americans.

[Bjorn Against]

131. The number of Democrats the NRA endorses is tiny and they are usually in noncompetetive races

Those "4 million regular Americans" you cite are mostly far-right Republicans.

[_ed_]

139. 4 million tools of gun and ammo corporations

Not regular Americans.

[dairydog91]

188. Another True Scotsman!

No doubt that the measure of a "true XYZ" will be determined, as it so often throughout all human history, by whether the person in question shares the particular beliefs you think everyone should have.

[_ed_]

411. Another NRA troll!

And this isn't an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. I was making a point that the four million selfish Republicans that make up the NRA are not representative of the other 350 million or so of us. Not saying they aren't "true Americans."

Take your time repeating the NRA talking points and make sure you're using the right one.

[stonecutter357]

464. K&R

Full Ignore on him

[Atypical Liberal]

421. I was a member for years.

And I'm a regular American.

[ieoeja]

433. I was a member for a year. I quit because "on other issues I am quite liberal and" ... they hung up.

The NRA called me numerous times to rejoin after I dropped out. Every conversation went the exact same way.

"We need your help to protect gun rights!"

"While I am a strong supporter of firearm rights, I am liberal on other issues and"

{Click}


They may have decided to ("suck up to you to get you" -or- "sucker you into&quot supporting them. But they are most definitely a rightwing organization. There are no shortages of rightwingers in the Democratic Party, so their support for a "Democrat" doesn't really mean much, does it?

The NRA invented the 3 Strikes Laws which is some of the most stupid and evil laws on the books today. And they have fuck all to do with RTKB. When you support the NRA you support a whole host of Rightist extremism that has nothing whatsoever to do with firearms.

Did you know the NRA successfully sued the state of California for not applying the 3 Strikes law during his first offense? You know how I know? I was a member at the time and Wayne LaPierre shouted it to the skies. The laws were never intended to go after recidivists. The NRA wrote California's law (again, the NRA said they wrote the damn thing for the congressman who introduced it) so it would apply to 1st time offenders. It is a monstrous organization which champions Black-Hole-of-Calcutta style of justice.

And it is no coincidence that the American Revoluntionary War was fought just shortly before the infamous Black Hole of Calcutta was created. Totalitarianism was the #1 reason we abandoned Britain at that time.


Does that crazy shit Neal Block still write for the NRA? Wayne LaPierre's "don't blame us" article appeared in NRA publications shortly after the OKC bombing. In it he specifically denies the NRA pushing "black helicopter" conspiracies. A Neal Block article in the very same issue spoke of the UN rounding up all citizens of a Chicago suburb using their UN black helicopters in the middle of the night.

How anyone could be a member of the NRA and not see the craziness around them is beyond me. Claiming the NRA is not a Far Right organization is like claiming the KKK may have some racist members, but is not in and of itself a racist organization.

[Atypical Liberal]

452. In the South, we take the Democrats we can get.

There are no shortages of rightwingers in the Democratic Party, so their support for a "Democrat" doesn't really mean much, does it?

Sorry our Democrats don't measure up for you. Would you rather me vote for the Republicans?

[ieoeja]

459. If you favor Republican policies, then I believe you should vote Republican.

This is a democracy. We will not always agree. I can respect that.

But spiking parties formed by those with whom I disagree I do find distasteful. If you have no local politicians who believe in Liberal or Progressive ideas, then they should not be running as Democrats.

Let the Republican primary settle the differences among Conservative or Regressive politicians. If noone runs in the Democratic primary at all, so be it.

Almost every race where I currently live is decided in the Democratic primary. Liberals and Progressives do not don the Republican mantle in an attempt to infiltrate the Republican caucus. Very rarely do we have a Republican candidate on our general election ballot for any local offices.

Where/when I grew up in the Bible Belt, our district was a swing district where Liberals and Conservatives argued their side of the issues. Sometimes events would swing the district one way, sometimes the other depending on what issues seemed most important at the time. Then the DLC geniuses came up with the idea of running Conservatives in the Democratic primary. Well organized and with lots of money, they came to dominate my old district. Today, the only choice in that district is between Conservative Republicans and Conservative Democrats.

Much of the district is still very Liberal in their outlook. Indiana University is in this district. Bloomington, IN, home of the university, is about 5x the population it was when the district was a swing district. And that ballooning population is reliably Liberal. The fact that both national parties have decided to only back Conservatives in this district is just fucking insane.

But, hey, running against all those evil Liberal Democrats in Congress got Bill Clinton elected President. So let's all do the same thing now and forever!

[Atypical Liberal]

460. I'll continue to vote for Democrats who support the second amendment. n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

418. No, it's made of of 4,000,000 teabagger piece of shit thugs

This is Democratic Underground. The NRA hates people like us. Who are you with?

[Chemisse]

96. We do censor opinions here, to some degree.

If people would like to present their right-wing opinions, they are shown the door. We come here to get away from that.

This is suggesting that the NRA is right-wing and contrary to reasonable Democratic positions. If the admins believe that is true, then pro-NRA posts should be deleted, and such posters should be banned.

[A Simple Game]

135. I agree, if we can not win the arguments, perhaps we are on the wrong side.

If you fear the argument you either know you aren't smart enough to win it or your position is not the correct one.

[cstanleytech]

156. +1 nt

[Warren Stupidity]

158. We censor all sorts of opinions.

Homophobic opinions
Misogynist opinions
Racist opinions
Republican advocacy opinions
- a subset of which would be gun nuttery NRA bullshit opinions.

[840high]

349. Thank you.

[NYC Liberal]

456. Good to know. So when do we stop banning right-wingers and Republicans

and stop "stifling other opinions"?

[Joey Liberal]

25. The NRA is Evil

But then, so is the GOP.....

[A Simple Game]

137. Do you mean the NRA and GOP or do

you mean their members? Or do you think they are one and the same?

[mainstreetonce]

29. No support for NRA

...

[villager]

31. We don't allow support of other far-right organizations

Why was there always an exception for this one?

[Atypical Liberal]

114. How many far-right organizations do you know that endorse Democratic canidates? The NRA does.

[JackBoik]

172. Given what we think we know about people predisposed towards gun violence and the easy of

access to guns, is the NRA's endorsement on this site worth it?

[morningfog]

179. I know of one that support blue dog dems, the one you are defending.

All Democrats should renounce the NRA. Fuck that terrorist org and its members.

[ieoeja]

434. DLC, Blue Dogs, and Third Way.

DLC was funded by far right ideologues and ended welfare. The "working poor" replaced middle class as America's largest economic class as a result.

Blue Dogs are funded by far right ideologues and champion far right social issues.

Third Way Democrats are funded by far right ideologues and were the first to privatize an interstate highway and metered parking on public streets.

These organizations are a far right wet dream. They don Democratic clothing and enough Democrats fail to see beyond the clothing to the rot underneath.

[California Expat]

32. sounds good, so endorsed!

[Squinch]

33. I'm in. nt.

[LiberalEsto]

34. K&R nt

[Mr.Bill]

35. I'm in. n/t

[Cobalt Violet]

36. Me!

I sick of these gun nuts. They don 't give a fuck about the women and children killed. They only care about their guns. I fucking hate them!

[arthritisR_US]

38. Rec to infinity!

[we can do it]

39. I'm in

[iandhr]

42. Though I abhor the NRA...

... and think there is a large circle in hell reserved for people like Wayne Lapierre

Forbidding support for an organization on a website that supposed to be about open discussion is not democratic.

[Bjorn Against]

48. Support for the Republican Party has always been forbidden here

This has never been an open discussion board, it has always been a board for Democrats and other progressives an Republicans are forbidden from posting here. If you want an open discussion board go to Yahoo, I warn you however it is completely overrun with racist trolls some of whom openly praise Hitler, that is the kind of people you get when there are no community standards in place.

[iandhr]

194. Fair point

[fightthegoodfightnow]

329. Why Don't We Talk More About Why The NRA policies are bad than talking about banning DU NRA ....

...supporters.

One deals with changing the real world.

The other just creates the safe space you want for surrounding yourself with people you think who agree with you.

One is exclusive.
The other is inclusive.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

45. So let me ask this.

I support gun control and mental health reform to be address at the same time. No secret in that at this point.
I have been accused of being a gun nut and a NRA member because I support the mental heath reform part.
Dos this mean that I can not argue for the equal look at getting both done at the same time?
Would I be punished for this view because the NRA support half of that argument and many DUer's only support the other half?

[Bjorn Against]

61. Absolutely not, I think most of us do support mental health reform

Some individual posters may have treated you unfairly, but I don't think the community as a whole would think you should be banned if you are advocating getting help for the mentally ill as most of us agree with that position. I don't support bans on people who advocate responsible gun ownership either, it is only when they specifically endorse the NRA that I think they should be banned. Gun control is a legitimate debate, but on a Democratic site we don't need to allow support for a far-right organization.

One correction to your post however, the NRA does not support getting help for the mentally ill. They may pay lip service to that idea when they need to distract from the gun issue, but I sure don't see too many gun nuts lobbying for help for the mentally ill, in fact most NRA members are opposed to providing them free access to medical services that they need to treat the mental health issues they are experiencing.

[MightyMopar]

68. The Republican answer to mental health?

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)

More guns, less regulation and more tax cuts for the rich.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

153. No.

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Real reform, on both.

But, for some reason, one says Gun control and mental health in the same post you get jumped on as if you said you do support what MightyMopar wrote above.

[lbrtbell]

257. +1,000,000

I get so tired of people acting as if taking guns away would stop people with severe mental illness from harming others.

Guns are easy to build. Bombs are even easier to make. Not facing this reality means that the killings will continue.

You have to go to the source of the murders, which is the murderer. If he can be treated, treat him. If not, he needs to be put away for everyone's safety.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

268. We need both to succeed. Mental Health Reform and Gun Control Reform!

As I said earlier in another post.

One without the other is like Batman going after the Joker without his utility belt.

But, right now, things are so...
I am worrid we will lose both Gund control and menel health.

I WANT BOTH! NOW!!!!

[MessiahRp]

337. I think support of any Republican Think Tanks or Lobbies of any sort should be banned here.

Seriously. Supporting them is supporting the enemy and if that's okay well then what's the point of shutting down anti-Obama discussion during the election? We're supposedly protecting our candidates, our policies, our beliefs here.

The NRA is an enemy to the people and in particular they have worked super hard against every Democrat they can. They are the enemy.

I think this should extend elsewhere as well. I saw one dude praising the Heritage Foundation earlier... yeah that nutjob think tank was getting praise on a DU board as a group that "does good work".

We have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise we might as well let the Freepers run wild here.

Example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1988339

[Warren Stupidity]

164. It's just that the official NRA talking point response to this event has been

"Change the conversation to mental health and the public health crisis in mental health services", which is quite ironic as these fuckers are completely opposed to all public health services.

So anyone talking up the same line is pretty much suspect at the moment.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

193. We need both to make a difference.

The other side seems to want us to choose one or the other. They know if we just go for one, they win. They can use the next nightmare against if we just go of gun control. "See they got the guns away and we are voluble!"
We go for just mental health, the guns are still there in play. Some other disaster can happen, may not be a mentally ill person, but someone that should still not have a gun.

That is why I am confuse on why the reaction when someone brings up the need to push both. I am not the only one to say something about needing both. And I watcher them get jumped to. If my count is right, 2 post were locked about it. But posts for gun rights have stayed unlocked and is still going.

I am really confuse due to the way things are going on the board right now.

[Crunchy Frog]

47. Rec.

[MrMickeysMom]

49. NO... Did I make that plain enough?

... and it's not because I like anything the NRA stands for... check my posts and you'll see.

It's because the conversation must be played out, and we have to have toleration to carry it out.

We are Deocratis...
We are herd of cats...
We do not always forgive or forget...
We are LEGEND for pissing each other off.

And sooner or later, one of us or the other learn from each other... not like the motherfucking tea baggers or fuck wads at Free Republic!

[barbtries]

50. signed

bargtries

[spin]

51. No. (n/t)

[union_maid]

52. It seems reasonable to me

Even if you don't think that total ban on guns is realistic or even if you don't think it's desirable, the NRA and the gun lobby has prevented any common sense legislation. They are just plain bad.

[vlyons]

55. Actually, my thought was we should all JOIN the NRA

and take the sucker over. Dump Wayne and the other assholes off the board, and let the war-monger-nut whacks go start another He-Man-Woman-Haters-Club.

[nadinbrzezinski]

463. The majority of NRA members want background checks

The leadership is all but responsive. If it sounds like congress.

[cantbeserious]

57. I Agree And We Should Extend This To Cover The NSSF As Well

eom

[oldbanjo]

58. What if the NRA supporters don't want non supporters on this site?

By the way I'm not renewing my NRA membership because of the lies that they wrote during the election.

[Atypical Liberal]

117. This is why I let my membership expire.

I thought they were over-the-top in their campaign rhetoric.

[Bjorn Against]

160. They can start their own petition, although I suspect they will be outnumbered.

[Warren Stupidity]

165. Go for it.

[frazzled]

60. How about just forbidding NRA talking points?

That's far easier to assess than support for the organization (which people can easily sidestep, moving on to more subtle statements that simply reflect the NRA's positions). So, for example, any post that uses the "guns don't kill, people do" would be automatically subject to censure (NOT censorship).

So no, this would not be censorship. There are plenty of things we don't allow to be said here. You can't say you support a non-Democratic candidate. You can't say something that is racist or homophobic with no consequences. Why should we allow NRA pro-gun talking points with abandon?

It doesn't mean people can't say something in favor of guns. They'll just have to be sure they're not using one of the arguments bandied about as NRA talking points.

[beevul]

248. The problem with that, is that to some, anything not completely anti-gun is an nra talking point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=334366

And its deliberate, a component of an agrnda.

[Peregrine]

62. Well, you now have given me a reason to join

Own guns, but have hated the NRA from day one. Now I have to rethink my position.

[Chemisse]

102. Seriously? You would join the NRA, which you say you hate,

because of what an anonymous person said on a discussion board?

[Politicub]

63. Easy to get behind this

[LeftInTX]

64. Gun lobby = GOP

[EmeraldCityGrl]

65. The NRA serves no purpose in a civil society.

[jillan]

66. Count me in.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

67. No

I have and will send a lifetime opposing them, but I support free speech. The guilty by association notion is wrong.

Fight them.....absolutely.

[Bjorn Against]

75. I support free speech too, but this is not a government run site

This site has always banned advocacy for the GOP and other right-wing organizations, we are simply saying the NRA should be treated the same way as other extreme right groups on this site. If people want to use their free speech to advocate for the NRA they can post on a different site like Free Republic.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

91. I Respect Your Opinion

...even if I disagree.

Why are so many in a progressive Democratic membership group so intent on using private ownership of a board they do not own as justification for not demonstrating support for the First Amendment?

I loathe the NRA. I'm more than happy to take them on on this board or any place else.

[Bjorn Against]

101. I have long been a huge advocate of the first amendment

I would never suggest taking away anybody's first amendment rights no matter what right-wing extremist organization they might be supporting. While they have free speech rights however the first amendment does not require DU to provide them with a microphone, if they want to promote the NRA they can get their own microphone they do not need to use ours.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

116. Again

I respect your opinion but disagree.

The easy thing is to ban them, not listen to them, or redirect them some place else.

Defending the First Amendment is not easy. You have to be able and willing to defend someone's right to say what you would spend a lifetime opposing.

I oppose the NRA.

[Bjorn Against]

126. I do defend people's right to say what I spend a lifetime opposing

I fully support the right of teabagging idiots to have a rally on the capitol lawn to advocate for more guns, I think their cause is idiotic but I fully support their right to express their opinion in public. This is not the public sphere however, this is a private web site and the first amendment has never applied here. The government can't stop anyone including the NRA from posting here, but the admins can limit this site to whatever group of people they want to limit it to and they always have had rules limiting who can and can't post here.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

140. If You Say So

...even if I disagree.

Why are so many in a progressive Democratic membership group so intent on using private ownership of a board they do not own as justification for not demonstrating support for the First Amendment?

I loathe the NRA. I'm more than happy to take them on on this board or any place else.

[Bjorn Against]

149. You clearly don't understand the first amendment

The first amendment protects your right to speak in the public sphere, something I fully support for people of all ideologies no matter how much I disagree. The first amendment has never protected our right to speak in private venues, it is the owner of those venues that gets to determine the rules for the venue. DU has always been a forum for Democrats and other progressives, Republicans have never been allowed to post here although they still have free speech because there are numerous other sites they can post on.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

166. What's Your Problem

I don't understand what?

We disagree. Reasonable people can.

What part of this do YOU not understand

Why are so many in a progressive Democratic membership group so intent on using private ownership of a board they do not own as justification for not demonstrating support for the First Amendment?

I loathe the NRA. I'm more than happy to take them on on this board or any place else.

Still waiting for an answer since you seem intent on picking a fight.

Of course this is a privately owned board allowed to say and publish on the web whatever they want!!! What's YOUR excuse?

[Bjorn Against]

185. I am not picking a fight, I am stating a fact

It is not my opinion that the first amendment does not prevent this site from setting rules on who can and cannot post here, that is fact based on years of legal precedent. The First Amendment covers public venues, it does not prevent private venues from setting their own rules.

I am not fighting with you I am just stating why I think you are wrong on this matter.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

191. I Have Stated I Agree That This Sight Has That Right

I disagree with the premise it should.

I also disagree with the arguments you have made on why it should consider doing so none of which persuade me and all of which are in conflict with my fundamental value that speech should be protected and championed no matter how bad or offensive not unlike the values espoused in the First Amendment.

[Bjorn Against]

197. So do you think Nazis should be able to make posts advocating genocide on this site?

If you think this site should be open to all opinions then I assume that in order to be consistent you are suggesting that straight up hate groups should be allowed to post here. If that is what you believe I won't condemn you for it, I support the right of all types of speech including the most repulsive speech imaginable to be expressed in the public square but I don't believe DU should have the same policies as the public square. If you believe the rules of the public square should be the rules of DU I can respect that argument even if I disagree, but you are suggesting a drastically different DU because this site has always limited what types of opinions are welcome here and if we allowed all opinions this site would be overrun with Republican trolls in no time at all.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

204. They Are Not Democrats

They are Nazis.

NRA members, as repugnant as they are, have lots of Democratic supporters and that is part of the problem. Agree completely...if that is your point. Banning them is not the solution. In fact, that's just the opposite of what needs to happen in my opinion.

As for Nazis and the KKK, I obviously disagree with them but support their right to assemble and speak. Can't say either would say the same thing to me and I doubt either subscribe to the majority of the Democratic Party's tenets so I suspect the juries will self police that.

NRA Democratic members are law abiding citizens and have every right to express their opinion here.

[Bjorn Against]

212. So you support restricting some opinions on this site just not the NRA's

If that is your opinion you are certainly entitled to it, but if you don't think Republicans or other hate groups should be allowed to post here then your argument is really not an argument for free speech on this site.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

216. No

I didn't write the rules for DU and disagree with some but I have agreed to subscribe to them when on this site.

If DU opened membership to all, including the groups you mentioned, I would not have a problem with it. Based on my experiences on DU, some current members are far more intolerant than I would have ever imagined.

What I believe was best expressed when I wrote

I also disagree with the arguments you have made on why it should consider doing so none of which persuade me and all of which are in conflict with my fundamental value that speech should be protected and championed no matter how bad or offensive not unlike the values espoused in the First Amendment.

First Amendment? No, it's a private site.
First Amendment value? You bet.
DU value? TBD

[fightthegoodfightnow]

220. PS

PS. It's offensive to compare NRA DU members to the KKK or Nazis and yes, that is exactly what you were doing.

[Bjorn Against]

232. No, I was not doing that.

What I was doing was determining whether you were truly making a free speech argument and were in favor of allowing all speech to be expressed on this site, if you were truly making a case for free speech on DU you would support the right of everyone to post here including Nazis. You can't both pick and choose which opinions you will allow here and claim to be fighting for free speech on the site.

I did not compare NRA members to Nazis, I do however think they are a tool of the Republican Party and anyone who supports them is propping up right-wing extremism.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

241. I do and I have as it relates to free speech

...but I didn't write the rules.

And I agree with what you said about the NRA.

[patrice]

380. That doesn't make sense. Progressives don't oppose private ownership of the means of free speech.

If, as a private owner of the means of speech, Democratic Underground LLC should choose to not speak in support of the NRA, that's still free speech, because we users don't own the board, Democratic Underground LLC owns this board so it's free to say or not to say, that is have the board say or not say, what it wishes.

DU users own their owns means of speech and to the extent that any given speech is a result of those means, they have a right to free speech produced by those means.

DU users do not own the particular means of speech that I am using right now, this board, we don't own it, so it doesn't have to "speak" what we want, nor, within the established parameters of legal precedent, do we have any right to object to what the Democratic Underground LLC's voice, this board, says or doesn't say.

Progressives oppose fascism and using public resources to make profits without paying for those resources. There is nothing about that which assumes the negation of the rights of others, including the rights to free speech guaranteed to the owners of the means of speech by our Constitution.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

390. Ok

...and so what part of that do you think I disagree with?

[patrice]

392. I'm not sure. As I said, the post didn't make sense to me. Apparently, we agree. nt

[Ter]

333. We don't have to support every single liberal or progressive issues

On some positions, I think we frankly suck. Doesn't mean I'm not a Democrat.

[ReRe]

121. Do you support hate speech?

...Just wondering...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

136. Hate Speech?

Hate speech is only hate speech from a legal perspective in this country when used in the commission or as evidence of bias in the commission of a crime.

Too many people throw around the word 'hate speech' without having a clue what the term refers to causing great harm to the legal premise of hate speech. Speech that is hateful should be answered with more speech, but it is not against the law regardless of how hateful or offensive. I support that person's right to say it, but not the speech itself.

I can call anyone anything I want in this country and thank goodness. That is not hate speech. It becomes hate speech when I act in violence against an individual based on a bias I have toward that group as evidenced by what I have said or written.

[union_maid]

175. Here's why

Because you can go to about a billion sites on the internet and argue with NRA supporters. The great thing about this site is that you can discuss issues with people who are essentially like-minded. Yes, we argue a great deal, but most of us want the same kind of world. But you can't normally discuss guns here like that. That subject has to be left to the Gungeon, where it's not different from anywhere else. I come to DU because I'm sick and tired of arguing with rightwingers, but I can't help being interested in politics and the issues that affect all of us. But to have people espousing views that are worth of FR kind of flies in the face of what makes it special here.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

187. Nonsense

Like minded?

Hardly. The vast majority of my posts are regarding guns and I disagree with all the gun clutching crowd in gungeon land.

And I believe that no matter how much you or others think we have in common we are still individuals whose life experiences and differences of opinion should be celebrated and embraced and yes challenged with speech when appropriate.

There is nothing special about PC speech. I've spent my whole life fighting for gay rights and yet I got blocked from posting on the GLBT board for making this post

Maybe I have a different take on speech and words. I think the solution to bad speech is more speech .....not less. If the response is 'so what'...tell them why.....educate the ignorant. I always attempt to be fair and objective when being on a jury....but i give people the benefit of the doubt. We will never be able to talk about racism, sexism or homophobia without even ignorant people being able to talk through their own insecurities. The language of oppression has often been turned against our oppressors......so some of us now neuter words like QUEER or HOMO.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1137&pid=9726

So, no, I will continue to fight for the right of anyone to offend me and to say what I would spend a lifetime opposing.

There is NOTHING progressive or special about excluding people because they don't subscribe to every party line on every issue. We are better than that and if not then we are no different than the Repugs.

[oneshooter]

229. Although you and I disagree with each other most of the time.

On this we are in agreement 100%.

"Sir, tho I disagree with you vehemently, I will defend unto my death your right to say it"

[fightthegoodfightnow]

234. Thank You

...and that is what makes this country great. Hope we never lose sight of that.

Thank you for your support ... on at least this issue!!!

[beevul]

266. Although you and I have had many an argument, I also agree with you on this 100 percent FTGFN.

I applaud your post.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

271. Thank you Beevul

I appreciate that.

[X_Digger]

295. I applaud your support of speech

We may not always agree on everything, but on this we agree.

edited: removed the 'first amendment' because it doesn't apply to DU, but I do support good speech to counter bad, regardless of venue.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

300. Thank You X_Digger

I appreciate that.

Hope you all (beevul, oneshooter and you) don't forget that next time one of you has that urge to alert a post of mine!

Seriously, I appreciate the support. The values of the First Amendment carry much weight with me as I'm sure the 2nd Amendment does for you.

[X_Digger]

305. You'll find I support the first, fourth, and fifth as vehemently as the second. n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

309. Agree

...but admit I had to look up the third to see why that was skipped (perhaps not intentionally) assuming you we're going in numerical order.....

[X_Digger]

312. If it were ever under siege, I'd be right there. ;)

And I left out the rest of the bill of rights, as well as the unenumerated rights protected by the ninth and those protected by the fourteenth, etc etc. But you get the picture.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

318. I Do

...and agree. thanks again.

[ReRe]

181. Thanks for your reply

I was a little fuzzy about the term. Yeah, I would have been kicked out of here long ago, Heck, I would probably be in prison!

[etherealtruth]

70. 72 RECs in less than an hour on a slow Sunday evening

[UnrepentantLiberal]

71. Aye

[etherealtruth]

72. 77 RECs ... still in under an hour

[99Forever]

73. Yes.

It's a good start.

[proud2BlibKansan]

76. sign me up.

[1620rock]

77. K&R

[etherealtruth]

81. Your post made me laugh out loud

I am sure you did it to be absurd ... that's the only explanation

[Bjorn Against]

83. Seriously? The OP would be banned from Free Republic if they made even a small criticism of the NRA

The Freepers love the NRA, which should be a big clue to us that they are a far-right organization that should not be welcomed on this site.

[avebury]

79. K&R nt

[world wide wally]

80. I'm all for free speech. So when those children who were shot get to speak again, I'll ask them what

they think.

FTNRA

[fightthegoodfightnow]

288. Who Said Supporting Free Speech Was Easy?

[world wide wally]

334. Certainly not 20 school children in Newtown

[fightthegoodfightnow]

338. Agree

Very sad.

Again, who said fighting for the First Amendment was easy?

[tosh]

82. K&R.

[etherealtruth]

84. 91 RECs on a lazy Sunday evening (within one hour)

not too shabby

[AtheistCrusader]

85. I don't really see anyone doing so.

Not beyond an acknowledgement of past bills they supported, of a gun control nature, and the eddie eagle (don't touch, leave the area, get an adult) kids training.

Beyond that, everyone I see in the gungeon deplores the NRA, particularly for it's political rhetoric, and overwhelming support for Republican candidates.

[busterbrown]

88. How is a petition handled around here? Thanks N/T

[etherealtruth]

93. Recommending the post is the way the OP framed it

[busterbrown]

134. how do you post a recommend. I’m so computer illiterate.... Thanks

[etherealtruth]

144. At the bottom left of the original post is a box labeled DU REC

If you want to recommend a post you click the bottom portion of that box; after you click the box it will then read "unrec" (you can click that if you inadvertently recommended something you did not want too.)

[busterbrown]

370. Thanks so much!

[Curmudgeoness]

89. Add my name to your petition.

I usually ignore all the support of the NRA during times like this, but I am fed up. I would like to come to DU and not have to wade through hundreds of posts that sound like right-wingnut scare tactics. That is not the kind of thing I expect to be subjected to here. In fact, normally, I get to a point where I will not even read threads about the shooting of the day when this happens because I can't stomach some of the attitudes.

[Alamuti Lotus]

90. I don't care for the NRA or the gun people in general, but absolutely not in support of this

to "forbid", censor and suppress is a move of cowardice--if your arguments are too weak that you must completely silence them to "win", then it is your own weakness that should be addressed first.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

124. Well said.

[etherealtruth]

132. I don't care for or support the Tea Party ...

.... should they be given a voice on DU?

[Alamuti Lotus]

209. there's plenty of sub-groups around I consider an enemy (or some less extreme facsimile of the idea)

however, I would (and do) happily wallop them (almost) every day of the week before I'd ever ask for them to be snuffed out.

I am a strong writer with carefully constructed viewpoints, I rather enjoy having my enemies within shouting distance so that I may (metaphorically speaking) knock them around whenever the subject comes up. If you are in fact right (whatever the subject), and you can't properly eviscerate the arguments presented, that's your fault. Resorting to adminstrative censorship is just weak bullshit in this context and I can never support that.

[etherealtruth]

214. Really, you don't think this site has a specific purpose

How or why are posters banned?

[JohnnyRingo]

381. Liberal Democrats own guns... A lot of them.

Especially here in Trumbull County Ohio, and we're 2 to 1 Democratic. What's more, my congressman here in the 17th district , Tim Ryan, is one of the best democratic representatives in office, and he's pro-gun and unapologetically pro-life.

If you propose a weapons ban here because it doesn't fit what you define as a democrat, find a new name that doesn't have the word "Democrat" in it and post a metal detector at the door. Your rule of exclusion would ban such liberals as Michael Moore, Ed Schultz, and Rachel Maddow from the site. Think about that.

[JohnnyRingo]

219. How adult of you.

Probably the most sensible and well thought out comment I've read in days.

I understand why everyone has been touched by this tragedy, but I haven't witnessed such a call for sweeping change and McCarthy style finger pointing since the days following 9/11.

[ReRe]

92. Thank you michigandem58 for this OP!

K&R

I am fed up to here with these SOBs on this site. I've been thinking about doing it myself. They are rude, immature, flippant, annoying, and neverendingly disgusting.

I vote Yea to forbidding NRA on DU!

[crazy homeless guy]

94. No. I don't support the NRA or defend them but this is the internet and it falls under free speech.

Like it or not.

....if you want to keep NRA trolls out then switch to a pay site.

[Iris]

106. This isn't "the internet." It's a community on the internet.

And we have other rules that are meant to ward of trolls or at least make this place unpalatable to them. This one deserves consideration.

[Chemisse]

111. This is a private web site. You are here at the pleasure of the admins.

You could be banned because you say you hate day-glow green hair, and they would be well within their rights as the owners of this site.

[Bjorn Against]

115. No it does not fall under free speech, this is a privately run site

If people were talking about creating laws to prohibit advocacy of the NRA that would be a violation of free speech rights, but that is not what anyone is suggesting. What people are suggesting is that if people want to endorse the NRA we should not use this site to give them a platform to do so, there are plenty of other message boards they can still express their free speech rights on.

[shenmue]

95. Fine with me

[aandegoons]

97. I keep trying to recommend this over and over again.

But I only get one vote. Giving them a voice here is not needed.

[musical_soul]

98. I'm not an NRA supporter.

I often think they take things too far.

But what is liberalism if it isn't about the right to think and live as you see fit? To me, conservative ideas are about being uptight and condemning anybody who is unlike yourself. I was actually surprised to meet conservatives who thought differently.

Why would we want a rule like this on here?

[kestrel91316]

99. signed, kestrel

[deacon_sephiroth]

100. came back just to K&R this

Been a long time since I actually LOGGED IN. I read every day, but can't stomach logging in because of the persecution that's allowed against the atheists in R/T... this... was worth it.

[rDigital]

103. No. nt

[Atypical Liberal]

104. Here's why liberals should be against this.

The NRA is an organization of 4 million gun owners. Most of these people are regular, ordinary people.

The NRA is about collective bargaining.

It is the same thing as being in a UNION.

People individually have no power to have their voices heard, either by employers or by our government. So people, individuals, can join together and pool their resources to have a greater influence than they would separately.

You might not like what the NRA works to achieve, but you should support collective bargaining.

Note: I have let my NRA membership expire but I was a member for many years as they are the biggest most powerful protector of my firearm rights.

[Bjorn Against]

122. Sorry, but the NRA is not the same thing as a labor union

Joining the NRA is not going to improve my working conditions, nor will getting a majority of the people I work with to join the NRA get me a seat at the table to negotiate for better health benefits. Most NRA members are very right-wing and anti-union, their PAC donates big money to politicians who want to end collective bargaining.

Your post is ridiculous.

[Atypical Liberal]

406. But it IS collective action.

Of course the NRA's cause is not labor. Their cause is second amendment rights.

But it is still a prime example of collective bargaining.

Like I said, you may not like what they work for, but you should respect collective action.

[Skittles]

123. I can see why you call yourself ATYPICAL

if you buy that bullshit about the NRA

[Atypical Liberal]

405. Like I said, you may not like what they work for, but you should respect collective action.

[secondvariety]

133. The NRA

is a union of nuts. Please don't use Union (capital U) and the NRA in the same sentence.

[Atypical Liberal]

404. Like I said, you may not like what they work for, but you should respect collective action.

[JimDandy]

178. Oh.... GAG.

Really can't bother with such a crass argument.

[union_maid]

184. Not impressed and not like a union

And there's no way I think your firearm rights trump the rights of a room full of children, which is what it amounts to. The NRA has obstructed every effort to get the proliferation of arms under some kind of control. I care about that. I don't really give a damn whether you get to have as many guns as you want.

[Atypical Liberal]

403. Like I said, you may not like what they work for, but you should respect collective action.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

286. The PC Thought Police Just Alerted Your Post

I completely disagree with ....gosh....what.....all of your posts, but I support your right to say whatever you want.

see post 236 and subsequent thread

[Bjorn Against]

298. The PC Thought Police?

Name calling does not make your argument stronger.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

301. No

I characterized what I think is happening when someone alerts someone's post for being in violation of TOS while also acknowledging they didn't think it violated TOS.

Does that make your argument stronger? No.

[southern_belle]

105. count me in n/t

[tblue]

109. Damn straight.

Screw the NRA.

[Rain Mcloud]

120. Yes!

Why any liberal would support a hard right wing lobby/organization is beyond my imagination.
I like kittens and butterflies too but i will not place their rights over yours or mine against our will.
Enough money is spent 24/7 on weapons and ammunition that the cost of it all could feed,clothe,house every man,woman,child on the planet several times over.
What we need more of is mental health so that no one ever feels intimidated by lunatics waving guns or conversely feels the need for a deadly companion to enforce their will upon others.
Lets hear it for mental well being!

[jsr]

125. RW organizations shouldn't be given a platform here to broadcast their lies

[DonCoquixote]

128. I agree

It is one thing to have the right to speak, it is another to be an agressive lobbyist against liberal causes and not be called on it. The NRA is a GOP lobbying group, period.

[mike_c]

129. piss on the NRA and its supporters....

Rec'd.

[WheelWalker]

130. Nyet. I don't see the problem this slippery slope seeks to overcome. Overt support

for the NRA is rare here, I think, and likely to be juried in any case, and on specific existing TOS grounds.

Or is the OP suggesting that support for gun ownership, 2d Amendment or RKBA should be banned as equivalent to "support for the NRA"? That, of course, would encompass a larger class of posts.

Perhaps I am cloistered from the truth?

If you could give me an example of an overt post that would draw the ban, I would be appreciative.

And an example of a suggestive post, as well?

Thank you. Blessings.

[Bjorn Against]

138. See post 104 in this thread as an example

It specifically endorses the NRA using talking points that are not even true. I have no problem with people advocating responsible gun ownership on this site, people who push propaganda for a far-right organzation however should not be welcome.

[WheelWalker]

159. Why don't you alert on that post, then. Let's see how, under existing TOS, a jury

would respond.

[Bjorn Against]

210. I just sent one...

No matter what the jury decides however my position will be the same as it is now, there should be an official rule put into place banning advocacy of the NRA.

[Bjorn Against]

236. For the record the jury voted 4-2 to let it stand

I can't say they were wrong to vote that way either because as it stands it is not against the rules to promote the NRA, that is why we need a rule in place.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

284. Oh Good Grief-You Alerted Post 104

Really?

You alerted that post? Post 104?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2003410

It was a stupid and ridiculous analogy but there was absolutely no TOS violation. I have disagreed with just about everything Atypical Liberal says but I'll defend his right to say it!!!

Jury gets it right!

Thank goodness.

[Bjorn Against]

292. I'll defend his right to say it too, as long as he does so at another site

I have been very consistent in this thread, I have said from the very beginning that it should be against the rules to promote the NRA. As it is already against the rules to promote right-wing causes it could be argued that it is already against the rules to promote the NRA which is a right-wing cause.

The jury did not agree with me and I respect their decision, I think a clear rule should be put in place to firmly state promoting the NRA is treated the same as promoting the Republican Party so in the future that post would be a clear TOS violation.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

293. You Alerted Someone Who By Your Own Words Did Not Violate TOS

Isn't THAT a VIOLATION of TOS?

You wrote this

I can't say they were wrong to vote that way either because as it stands it is not against the rules to promote the NRA, that is why we need a rule in place.

You violated TOS by being disruptive.

[Bjorn Against]

294. Read my last post again

I said it is against the rules to promote right-wing causes and the NRA is a right-wing cause, therefore it can be argued that it is already against the rules to promote the NRA.

The rules are not explicit however, two of the jurors thought it was against the rules the other four did not. The rules are not explicit so I can't say either side is wrong as it is all based on their interpretation of the rules, I want to make it explicit so no interpretation is needed.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

302. You Didn't Answer the Question

.

[Bjorn Against]

311. I did not violate the TOS, but you did

When you referred to me above as "The PC Thought Police" that was a clear violation of the TOS as it is a personal attack, I chose not to alert on you however.

As far as my alert goes, as I said the rules are not explicit and are open to interpretation. When I posted earlier that it was not against the rules I should have included the qualifier "explicitly", it is not explicitly against the rules. My mistake, but leaving out a qualifier is not a TOS violation. I still maintain that endorsement of the NRA can already be argued to be against the rules of this site as they currently stand, but when it is not explicit I can't blame people for disagreeing with that argument.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

316. intellectually Dishonest

Alerting someone for being in violation of terms of service while acknowledging they are not just makes you .......intellectually dishonest.

It's is also a violation of TOS for being disruptive in my opinion....but heh...I don't resort to alerting people merely and only because I disagree with them.

Bad speech should be countered with more speech.

[Bjorn Against]

326. Pretending everything is black and white is what is intellectually dishonest

I have made it very clear to you that I believe the post I alerted on may be a TOS violation, for you to keep pretending my position is black and white on this is what is intellectually dishonest.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

336. Pretending What?

You clearly stated you thought the jury was right. So, why did you alert other than to demonstrate how small, petty, dishonest and disruptive you can be?

Why Don't We Talk More About Why The NRA policies are bad than talking about banning DU NRA supporters.

One deals with changing the real world. The other just creates the safe space you want for surrounding yourself with people you think who agree with you all so you can feel good about what you post. Talk about pretend world.

One is exclusive.
The other is inclusive.

[Bjorn Against]

339. I did not say the jury was right, I said I can't say they are wrong. There is a difference.

You know what, I am done with you. If you are going to insist on misrepresenting my position you are not worth my time. I have explained my position multiple times yet you keep misrepresenting it. You are a waste of time, I am not here to explain the same thing to you over and over again.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

340. Oh ok

LOL.

Intellectually dishonest indeed.





EDIT- Still Wating for a response to post 310.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

343. What a Condescending Load of .....

You didn't explain jack to me.

Why don't we talk more about why NRA policies are bad rather than talking about banning DU NRA supporters?

I loathe the NRA as much as I loathe political correctness on what constitutes good and bad speech.

[RomneyLies]

141. Support fo rht NRA = support for the Right to Kill Babies and Adults

Signed.

[skepticscott]

143. If you're going to forbid support of the NRA

Then you'd also have to forbid support of the Catholic Church, an organization every bit as odious, and with a much longer history of being so. Institutionalized sexism, fundamentally homophobic, anti-choice, guilty of genocide and the enabling of widespread child abuse and rape. Doesn't get much more anti-progressive than that.

Is that what you really want? How many other organizations should be banned?

[RufusTFirefly]

163. Exactly

Where do we draw the line?

Aren't our views and ideals strong enough and noble enough to withstand the execrable NRA without banning support for it outright?

We can do better than this.

(Not that I don't honor and respect the viewpoint of longtime, prolific DU poster michigandem58. Perhaps there should be a petition that says posters with fewer than 500 posts should not be permitted to propose petitions? How about that? )

[pecwae]

399. ^This^

Good point in parentheses.

If Skinner wants it banned, so be it. If he doesn't, so be it. It's his board.

[Veruca Salt]

427. +1

[MassedPole]

145. Fuck the NRA

NRA is a bunch of idiots.

[robinlynne]

146. signed.

[RufusTFirefly]

151. No way

I've never owned a gun, and I loathe the NRA. But I definitely can't support something like this.

[Duppers]

154. I support this petition

The NRA supports Republican candidates anyway.

[valerief]

155. K&R

[LaPera]

157. Get fucking real dude.

This is such bullshit simpleton garbage - capitalizing on peoples sentiments of this unbelievable tragedy....I've been a member (under a few different use-names since two month's after DU's inception in 2001 _ There's never been any substantial support here for the fucking NRA - This is so childish and the ones who disagree don't have a clue are obliviously gullible newbies susceptible to any sensationalism like this silly bullshit...the clueless who are helpless and pretend they are really doing their part and aren't they showing all that they are oh so concerned and tough without really doing absolutely nothing.....What kind of shit is this? I watched the guys (the Daves I call them) Skinner, Elad and can't recall right now the third EarlG that's right - I just looked it up on this edit) - Anyway, these dudes are as liberal & extremely progressive as I am and through the years I've mostly always agreed with them.....this is so incredibly misplaced, silly and infantile....If you really feel this helpless and care then get the fuck out there tomorrow and every day and work until there is an assault weapons ban....This little sign in 'me too" shit is a joke!!!

You're correct I don't give a fuck what you think because either you aren't thinking or your thinking is awfully shallow.

[Great Caesars Ghost]

169. NRA Endorses 14 House Democrats Over Republicans

NRA Endorses 14 House Democrats Over Republicans

by Frank James
October 06, 201011:32 PM

The NRA has earned a reputation over the decades as a pro-gun advocacy group that's solidly in the Republican camp.

But in what will no doubt come as a surprise to many, the organization is endorsing 14 House Democrats in close races because their Second Amendment views line up with the with those of the gun-rights group.

It's an unwelcome move as far as Republicans are concerned. They've come to take NRA endorsements of their candidates as a given.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/10/06/130393162/nra-endorses-14-house-democrats

[morningfog]

180. So? They should not be welcome on DU or in the Democratic Party.

[Great Caesars Ghost]

208. That's what the petitioner wants.

I'm not gonna give up something I busted my ass for 1 year to learned and fifteen fold to master.

[L0oniX]

192. So using talking points from those 14 Democrats could get you banned here if the crowd has its way.

I am sure that if the admins were to consider adding rules concerning NRA talking points that they most likely know that those Democrats will and or do have and use some NRA talking points. So if you use the Democratic talking points from those 14 House Democrats in office in our party it's the same as the NRA talking points. Yea that will work out just fine won't it.

[morningfog]

171. Yes. Let's make it so.

[Tiggeroshii]

173. YES PLEASE!

[graham4anything]

174. ON a regular day, anti-gun talk is only allowed on the home turf of the pro-gun section

if one looks at my record that is transparent above
it appears I am in the gun thread area which is not general discussion area
100% of all my gun posts are anti-NRA, anti-gun but it don't tell you I am against guns, only that I posted some in that section.
Most people I think (IMHO) don't know that a group is not a general forum. there are different rules and regs most are unaware of not reading the small print.


Using a sport analogy- the anti-gun or anti-NRA folk is always the away team and ventures onto the area that is home turf

That puts the away team always at a disadvantage. It is not a fair normal debate

I am undecided about the OP question and at this time withhold my vote.

My main idea though is to reframe the issue of guns and equate them with the war on terror

So if its reframed, then the question would be different meaning to me.

[ellisonz]

182. The gun scum has to go!

[L0oniX]

186. I don't believe the DU admins are going to allow an angry crowd to decide anything for them.

If anyone wishes to have changes about how DU is run and what rules should be created and enforced there are channels for doing so. This is not a member majority rule site. Setting up the admins for ridicule or condemnation because they won't decide for or against what the current heat of the moment crowd wants is not a good thing. Thankfully the admins are rational ...as I have seen over the years.

[Canuckistanian]

190. K&R

I'm in.

[SoapBox]

195. Agree...remove any gun groups. nt

[libdem4life]

198. The tacky issue that separates the crowd...Choice vs. Authority

Someone will always try to "herd the cats".

I have found personally and thus reinforcing my Liberalness, that I have learned a lot from those who do not agree with me and have sometimes altered my views...sometimes to the left, sometimes to the right. Everytime I go to The Google to back up or defend a position, I learn a little more and choose to expand my beliefs...and my respect for others.

[rurallib]

199. I'm in

[JohnnyRingo]

200. Purity Oath?

Good idea. Exiling members who don't fit a strict mold works so well with the Republican Party and Free Republic, so why should a place like Democratic Underground be any different when it comes to tolerance and free speech?

How about a purge of those who don't endorse gay marriage and unions? We could ban members who oppose abortion and support the death penalty while we're at it. What an exclusive site this will be.

<sarc>

[Warren DeMontague]

207. Why? Are you opposed to marriage equality for LGBT citizens?

[JohnnyRingo]

213. Did I say I am?

Did I say I'm against abortion, gay marriage, or the NRA? Did I endorse capital punishment?

Do you just see key words and lash out in pre-emptive defense of your cause?

[Warren DeMontague]

226. No, I'm curious, since you listed it as an example.

Not going to answer, huh.

[JohnnyRingo]

378. Why do I feel like I'm being pulled over by the purity police?

So you want to ask me a few questions before I'm free to go, huh? That's exactly the kind of case by case scrutiny that the original poster is advocating.

I swear that I am not averse to any union, including marriage, for people of the same sex. Furthermore, I am not, nor have I ever have been, a member of the NRA, Family Research Council, or the Communist Party... Will there be any more questions today Senator McCarthy?

I don't care one little bit if you're gay, but I can't say I care much for people who think they work the door at DU.

[Warren DeMontague]

393. Just so you know;

opposition to Marriage Equality WILL get you banned on DU. So your little rant about "ooh, are we going to ban everyone who is opposed to same sex marriage, too"? Uh, yeah. Actually, we are. The decision was made a while ago, from the very top.

So, it's not me working the door, it's the admins. Don't believe me? Give it a try.


PS. Not Gay. And, I'm taken. Sorry to disappoint.

[savannah43]

215. And, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

I smell censorship.

[RufusTFirefly]

201. Petition to forbid any DU support of predator drone strikes

Oh. Wait. Never mind...

Instead of doing something infantile, ham-handed, mob-driven and negative, how about something creative and positive that will actually make a difference instead: like pledging to contribute X number of dollars to the Brady Campaign for every pro-NRA post on DU?

[MichaelHarris]

202. not only that

but, well you know. Should have been gone long ago.

[Brigid]

203. Sign me up.

The NRA has devolved into a national security threat.

[Glassunion]

205. Only if we can do the same for the ACLU.

Censorship is good. It promotes free thought and is all double-plus good or something.

I say just let them see it for what it is. Let the individual make up their own mind. It worked for me. We are not stupid children.


http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-praises-cleveland-mayors-support-kkks-first-amendment-right-march

[Bjorn Against]

222. The ACLU is hardly the same thing as the NRA, but you knew that

I have not always agreed with the ACLU on every last issue but I do agree with them on most issues including the one you linked to. As much as I despise racist pricks the ACLU is correct in standing up for free speech rights for all no matter how horrible some of the speech is. The racists have every right to express themselves in the public square, but they do not have the right to post on a private site like DU, that is the way the first amendment works.

The ACLU is not promoting a far right agenda like the NRA is, I am sure I am in the majority who says ACLU supporters should be more than welcome here.

[Glassunion]

250. I agree to a point.

The ACLU has stood up for the klan quite a bit. So actually they also stand up for a right wing agenda.

The NRA has definitely taken a right hand turn.

Either way... ACLU supports the klan, or NRA supports Glen Beck, you want to support them, then do so... You then have to support your position, and deal with it.

Personally, I'd rather catch them with honey. You want to support the NRA, I'll tell you why I disagree and tell you my perspective. I think we'll catch more that way then just saying "NRA supporter! Shut them up!" And hiding their post.

DU has changed minds. I know this and feel it in my heart. How many trolls have been transformed? I can't say. But I know we have. We have spoken our side, time after time and this is what changes hearts. Censoring a person who may be ignorant may drive them elsewhere.

[Bjorn Against]

272. The ACLU has never stood up for the Klan's agenda

What they stood up for is the rights of all people to express themselves in the public square, they will stand with anyone whose free speech rights are being threatened no matter the group's beliefs. That is not even remotely the same as funding the far-right like the NRA does.

[JimDandy]

317. +a million. n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

352. Both Would Argue They Support The Constitution's Bill of Rights

.

[ieoeja]

438. How do 3 Strikes laws (invented by the NRA) support the Bill of Rights?

Don't they, in fact, undermine and challenge the Bill or Rights? I would argue putting a 1st time armed robber in jail for Life without Parole is cruel and unusual punishment.

The NRA wrote California's original 3 Strikes law and gave it to a friendly congressman to introduce. Shortly after it became law the NRA successfully sued the State for not applying the law against a 1st time armed robber as this first time robber violated 3 or more qualifying laws for his first and, since he will spend the rest of his life in jail, only conviction, e.g. armed robbery 1st degree, armed robbery 2nd degree, assault, assault with a dangerous weapon, etc.

[jimlup]

206. I'm onboard with the petition

James Lupton
Ann Arbor, MI

[crim son]

211. I doubt it will do any good but you've got my support. n/t

[Adsos Letter]

223. Does support of the 2nd Amendment as currently interpreted by The Court equal support of the NRA?

Just trying to focus what is being proscribed by this OP.

EDITS: trying to correctly format the question...

[glinda]

224. Signed

[jeff47]

225. No. If you don't think you can counter their arguments

banning them is not the answer. You getting better at talking is.

[Lex]

231. The NRA has no "argument." It's just an

offensive organization, like a holocaust deniers group or pray-away-the-gay group.

[jeff47]

277. And banning them from DU does nothing.

But being able to refute their bullshit in public does. And it takes practice to do so effectively.

I'd rather have DUers able to shut them down when they mouth off in the real world.

[Lex]

228. +1

[jody]

235. Do you forbid support for the Second Amendment? nt

[Lex]

245. The Second Amendment seems to be doing JUST FINE.

[jody]

249. But that's the main NRA talking point, something the OP wants to oppose. nt

[Lex]

254. Go support the NRA someplace else. It's a big internet. nt

[jody]

263. I support the Democratic Party platform that says "Firearms. We recognize that the individual right

to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms."

That's also an NRA talking point the OP wants to reject, .i.e. "The National Rifle Association is America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights."

I don't see how the OP's author can reject NRA talking points without rejecting our Party's Platform.

[Lex]

269. You definitely can support the party platform withOUT supporting the NRA.

The Second Amendment is twisted and politicized by the NRA.

[Bjorn Against]

246. No, I welcome multiple viewpoints on the gun issue

There are many Democrats who have a much broader reading of the Second Amendment than I do and I welcome opinions that are different than my own. I am not so welcoming of those who are promoting one of the most destructive arms of the Republican Party however, and that is exactly what the NRA is. I don't care that they endorseed a tiny number of Democrats, they have given far more to extreme right-wingers and they have Ted Nugent as a Board member who has advocated for the assassination of Obama on multiple occasions.

You can support gun ownership rights, but promoting the NRA should not be allowed.

[jody]

253. See #249 nt

[Bjorn Against]

261. There are supporters of gun rights who oppose the NRA, they are welcome here

Those who choose to promote a far-right group like the NRA should not be allowed here, gun owners who are not insane are welcome here though.

[Lex]

270. Exactly.

[jody]

273. I've been a DUer since Jan 2001 and understand but the OP advocated banning NRA talking points.

That's impossible since the Democratic Party Platform supports the Second Amendment and that's the main talking point of the NRA.

I see absolutely no reason to change the way Skinner et al run their site and allow us open, free wheeling discussion.

Toast to Skinner and his team.

[Bjorn Against]

274. Read the OP again, it does not advocate banning NRA talking points

It advocates banning support for the NRA, the words "talking points" do not appear anywhere in the post.

[jody]

280. Mea culpa you are correct. It was in the posts of the thread. My concern is still there. nt

[Kaleva]

315. How about support for the NRA's gun safety courses?

[Bjorn Against]

323. Nope, the NRA is not a legitimate gun safety organization

Get gun safety lessons from an organization that is actually credible on gun safety, not a group that has this guy sitting on their Board of Directors.

Can you honestly claim an organization that gives that guy a platform is serious about gun safety?

[Kaleva]

327. I could do that but their own instructors are trained by the NRA

Where I live, I don't have many choices as far as gun safety programs go. It's either the NRA itself or another one I found which states on its webite that their instructors are trained and certified by the NRA.

[Bjorn Against]

332. I know that at least here in MN we can get safety classes from the Department of Natural Resources

Don't try to pretend an organzation that works to make guns more dangerous is the only organization that promotes gun safety.

[Kaleva]

341. Who is trying to pretend?

Some police departments in Michigan provide training but they are all located in Lower Michigan. A heck of a long drive for me. The closest gun safety program I could attend is 96 miles from my home and that's provided by the NRA. There's another organization that plans in the future to offer classes in Rhinelander Wi. which is also 96 miles away. That company says its instructers are trained and certified by the NRA.

As Michigan is a "shall issue" state, I'm not required to attend any safety class prior to purchasing a handgun. I just have to go thru a background check and score at least 70% on a simple basic true or false safety test to get a permit to purchase a handgun. I then have 10 days after buying the gun to bring it back to the sheriff's office to have it inspected and registered.

[Bjorn Against]

345. Look, no one is doing background checks on you to know who you take gun safety courses from

If someone mentions that they took an NRA gun class in passing I would not hold that against them, there are plenty of ways to talk about the NRA without promoting them. If however you are making posts about NRA gun classes in a way that is clearly meant to promote the NRA that should not be allowed, it is all about context.

[Arctic Dave]

243. I'll sign.

I've been calling out that piece of garbage group for years.

[FreeState]

251. K&R

Enough is enough. The NRA is a part of the GOP.

[Walk away]

256. I doubt it will happen but I'm all for it!

If I could vote 1000 time yes I would.

[lupinella]

258. Signed n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

262. Howard Dean, you're not wanted here

Dean earned an "A" rating from the NRA and was endorsed by them numerous times when he was Vermont governor.
Whoops! Sorry Howie!

[Bjorn Against]

276. Is Howard Dean going to come to this site and make pro-NRA posts?

If not he would be fine posting here. Nobody is planning to do background checks on everyone to make sure they have no ties to the NRA, but don't come here and promote right-wing causes like the NRA.

[RufusTFirefly]

278. Nosiree! Not anymore. You've put the fear of God into him. Well done! n/t

[Purveyor]

264. I'm a 'lifer' with the NRA. Christmas gift from an uncle some 30 years ago. Thought many times

of renouncing my membership however.

They send me countless funding raising letters and I receive an 'American Hunter' mag once a month.

They haven't seen a dime from me in return so I'm costing those bastards money and it would be senseless to stop.

I so do love returning their 'postage paid' envelopes with ripped crap they send.

Just doing my 'small part'.

[Android3.14]

275. No

Oh, and totalitarianism is ugly and evil in any form. That folks would, looking at the make-up of our power structure, think disarming the populace is the way to end gun violence, shows just how effed up red and blue have actually become.
That's insane.

[defacto7]

282. Kicked and Recommended

[Odin2005]

283. The NRA is an arm of the GOP.

ANY supporter of the NRA is helping the Pukes and thus should be BANNED.

[Remmah2]

289. I sort of though that was a given?

nt

[Cobalt Violet]

290. Those NRA cowards who enabled this have yet to say anything about it.

Still trying to wash the blood off their hands.

[TheKentuckian]

291. Sure. Seems like a nothingburger though, a solution for nonexistent problem.

[humbled_opinion]

296. We need a Ribbon

and a bracelet, END GUN VIOLENCE NOW.

[OldDem2012]

299. Done. nt.

[awoke_in_2003]

303. Count me in...

the shit has to stop.

[Tumbulu]

307. Yes, signed wholeheartedly!

the sooner the better!

[Sedona]

308. K&R

[AlbertCat]

313. We don't need purity tests

When I was a kid, the NRA was a nerdy "Leave it to Beaver" organization that advocated gun safety and knowing and following gun laws.

They indeed are not that now. They are shills for the RW and a huge $$$$ making industry.... misinterpreting the Constitution and its amendments and fueling paranoia with RW taking points about how government can do nothing for you or is coming to get you...blah blah blah.

But we don't need to ban posts in favor of the NRA. If you don't like a post, comment as such, or ignore it, or put the poster on ignore...whatever... and let us deal with the post in our way. We don't need you looking after us. I simply am not so sensitive. I'll be fine even if someone comes in here and is all gung-ho about the NRA and guns. I'll be fine, thank you.

[RoccoR5955]

314. K&R

FUCK THE NRA!

[Oldenuff]

319. Oh and are we going to ban free speach while we are at it?

How about anyone who defends dissent?..When do we get to the point where we demonize everything we do not agree with?

Stupid idea in my opinion.



sorry.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

379. agreed

Thought police to see if I am pure enough to continue .....
This idea is completely unacceptable.

[47of74]

320. K and FUCKING R!

[Care Acutely]

321. Aye.

[Honeycombe8]

322. Nah. Slippery slope. You'll start getting people alerting all over the place, accusing others of

supporting the NRA by making certain statements. You KNOW that's what will happen.

Let's not go overboard with trying to ban this and that. The more free speech, the better.

[Agnosticsherbet]

331. Long overdue that support of a highly conservative right wing organization...

was given the same status as Free Republic.

But I suspect that will not happen.

[upi402]

342. no brainer

murder inc. has no place here


good people have been banned, gun nutters not required

[nadine_mn]

344. no

There is a bigger problem to address...and forbidding support of NRA does not address that issue.

[VPStoltz]

346. The NRA is a blip compared to the 60+MILLION who voted to PrezO.

These are the people who stand up to them - and do it now.

[Flatpicker]

347. No

I can't in good conscience support restricting someone's right to speak just because I don't agree with what they have to say.

[BainsBane]

348. Fully agree

I first thought we might be able to dialog with them about how to come up with sensible gun safety measures, but they refuse to consider any changes, even limiting high-death count magazines. The only purpose for such magazines is mass murder.
There is no reason a law-abiding citizen needs them, anymore than they need any other weapon of mass destruction. They refuse to accommodate any changes that could save the lives of children. I don't want them on this site, and I don't want them in this country.

[Shivering Jemmy]

351. I'm in

I want to shame NRA members whereever they are found.

I also want to shame people delivering NRA talking points.

[RetroLounge]

353. Proud to be rec 300

RL

[McCamy Taylor]

354. How is this even an issue? NRA is joined to the GOP by the hip. It has no place here.

[Major Nikon]

359. Seems worse to me than advocating for ALEC

[ellisonz]

360. +1000

[Daemonaquila]

361. Not now, not ever.

Hate the NRA, hate hysterical censorship even more.

[Paulie]

362. This site censors stuff all the time

Why not adding a right wing reactionary organization (either of its tentacle sub-orgs) to be pushed on this site in a positive light? We do the same to FOXnoise, why not the NRA?

[Firebrand Gary]

363. K&R

[Lost-in-FL]

364. Call me crazy but...

The NRA is the way it is right now because it lacks representation from the left. Having more liberals could neutralize the crazy of the organization. Me thinks more democrats should join in and crash the party to reform the NRA from within.

Like I said.... call me crazy...

[patrice]

391. Some material is showing up on Face Book that says a significant majority of NRA members are

interested in some kind of reform in gun-ownership laws. My guess is that that has to do with assault weapons.

[wakeoftheflood]

365. .

fuck the nra

[davidthegnome]

367. So who determines what is support of the NRA?

Is it admitting to being a member... to supporting gun rights, to liking the organization? All of the above? Will we use juries? Or just ban the poster who is/might be/is accused of supporting the NRA?

I'm not a member and can't see any circumstances under which I would become one. That said, I'm not even close to being on board for this level of McCarthyism - which is exactly what it would become. There's a number of democrats that support the NRA and are even members - while I may despise it personally, I have no right to tell other democrats what to think and what organizations they can and can't support.

No, before someone asks... I would not support someone coming here to babble about their support for Nazis, the KKK, or anything of the sort. Such a person would be quickly banned in any event. No, I would not support someone coming here to babble about how great the Republican party is... on top of being against the TOS, it's damnably annoying.

The NRA is a corrupt, greedy, awful fucking organization, I can't think of a word in the English language quite foul enough to describe it. That, however, is my personal opinion. If someone has one that is contrary to it, they have every right to talk about it here, even if that means supporting it. It's not just Republicans that support the NRA.

[Divine Discontent]

369. just for what 5 or 10 rounds had to have done to those kids that their families had to bury makes me

very leery of being around anyone who owns either assault rifles and handguns. Hunting rifles don't bother me, but I see no reason why people should be walking around with a license to carry a concealed handgun that then can be used to slaughter someone in the defense that you were protecting yourself because you felt threatened. This isn't the wild west, and the guns today rattle off ammo at a crazy rate of speed. The govt must take action to say a yr in prison for not keeping your handguns under combination lock, and all assault rifles need confiscated.

[jonesgirl]

372. Slow down and really think about solutions, NOT arguments...

There is no way we could ever get all the guns. It's impossible. However, this doesn't mean we can't come up with other ways to make it less attractive. Also, there are so many people that has mental illnesses that own guns or knows how to get them. For example, a friend of mine fell in love with a retired police detective. He passed all the her "test" and her 2 young sons trusted him too. Well, they married. Within 1 week, he started showing his true colors. Within 3 months, he forgot her 2 sons existed, he ignored her. After 7 months, she had a nervous breakdown due to his tactics against them, and her heart and soul crushed. Anyway, she believed he needed her to help him realize they were still in love. He had guns, and he had threatened to kill her. She couldn't call the cops because he was a retired law official, and he knew the right " words" to say to the police. Time went on, he started changing his ways, and he sold the guns. Now he wants to buy another gun...she is worried sick that he'll sneak to buy the gun because he is fixated on it. Oh, one last thing, I didn't tell you that this retired police detective has split personalities, he's tried committing suicide a few times, and he's a schizophrenia...all this WHILE serving as an officer of the law! So see, this issue goes deeper than getting rid of the NRA.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

384. Stay please, our strength is in our diversity.

Emotions are just running High this weekend, and with good reason.
Take a break if you must, but please do not leave.

[RandiFan1290]

396. Someone needs to do their dirty sock laundry

lol

[Skittles]

397. JUST LEAVE

that will be good enough

DU is supposed to be a SANCTUARY from rightwing nutjobs

[harun]

446. We are on DU BECAUSE it censors the GOP worldview. And thank God for that.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

382. If we still had the UNREC I would use it on this whole thread.

I cannot support a gag rule on free speech at this site, even if I disagreed with it.
I have the ability to not read a post that I do not agree with, and so does everyone else.

[ellisonz]

383. Did you read the Terms of Service you agreed to when you joined?

By registering a Democratic Underground account, you agree to abide by these terms. A single violation of any of these terms could result in your posting privileges being revoked without warning.

The Democratic Underground Administrators have a great deal of confidence in our system of citizen jurors and software tools, but we are well aware that trolls are constantly on the lookout for new ways to cause trouble and therefore on rare occasions it may necessary for us to revoke a member's posting privileges for reasons that are not covered by these Terms of Service. Because of this necessity, we retain the right to revoke any member's posting privileges at any time for any reason.

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

This isn't a Libertarian paradise.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

386. so now you threatening me

[ellisonz]

387. Wha?

Do you or don't you understand that there is already "a gag rule on free speech at this site" and that you've agreed to abide by this "gag rule" or potentially face having your account cancelled?

Put down the gun, lol.

[patrice]

389. It's not your board, so it's not your free speech. Constitutional law guarantees free speech to the

OWNERS of the means of speech. You and I are not the owners of this means of speech/this board, so speech by this means is what it's owners the Democratic Underground LLC says it is or isn't.

You own your own personal means of speech which has 1st Amendment rights and cannot be controlled by others, but none of us owns the means of speech we are using, this board, so what its owners, DU LLC, decides is said or not said, its their right to do that as owners. You may be using your words here, but you don't own the means by which those words are "spoken".

[AgingAmerican]

422. There IS a gag rule against pushing Republican positions

And thank god for that. This isn't freerepublic.

[RBInMaine]

388. There are people on DU who freely bash President Obama. If that can be allowed, gotta allow the rare

NRA supporter.

[aandegoons]

395. Neither should be allowed.

I have no clue why but there are a few posters that only spout right wing talking points in nearly every post. The gungeon is full of them.

Just look at what they support and what they will never shed a tear over. They don't need a voice here the NRA is a terrorist supporting organization and should be treated as such.

It is so sad when there are more tears for Zimmerman than there are for the thousands dead and the tens of thousands wouded from gun violence on a Democratic board.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

398. Let em speak...

The best way to defeat your opponent is to know them better than they know themselves.

[TheAmbivalante]

400. Ahem... WRONG.

Listen, MichiganDem58, this kind of witch hunt crap is as bad as the NRA itself. And DU doesn't support them. In fact, it feels good to rip their arguments apart whenever somebody has the ballz to bring 'em up BUT I'll be damned if I'm going to blacklist anybody or anything. Let the GOP do that. This is a place for Democrats.

You want to make it so we can't mention the NRA? Can we think about them? What's the criteria for "banning" the members who talk about the NRA? Is there any recourse for poor interpretation? What if it was a Pro/Con argument and you only want to ban the Pro part of the post? Do I have to strike those three letters from my keyboard? Shall we burn any books that mention the NRA? How about YouTube videos that show gun nuts in action?

Dude, you're overreacting.

As Democrats, we fight the hard fights. We don't do it with exclusionary tactics. We do it with patience and intelligence. So, while I appreciate your passion and anger and while, like you, I detest the NRA, I'm not going Joe McCarthy here. I will not look over my shoulder before OPENLY discussing how to build our communities up. That's the whole reason why I came here in the first place.

If the ban is accepted by all, we might as well take a page from Glen Beck and rename the TheBlueBlaze. So, mich, and all my DU bruthas and sistas, simmer the fuck down and focus your energy on something that matters, like supporting the the good guys in the battle that's about to take place.

[Stuckinthebush]

417. Amen

Let's lock this whole idiotic thread for its reactionary tone. Shall we get the pitchforks and torches ready?

Lord. DUers can be the biggest hair-on-fire reactionaries at times.

[shireen]

454. +1 nt

[geckosfeet]

402. For many reasons, no. I propose increasing moderation and jury removal of nra/gun posts outside

of the forums that were created specifically for them. I also propose clear language in the DU rules that encourage topic posts to go in the forums that exist for them. State that mods will move posts that are topical and should be localized in a specific forum. Outright lobbying and solicitation for the NRA and NRA membership earns an immediate removal and ban.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

424. if moderation is your solution, there needs to be either a new or different additioinal host added

I'm already a new host on the economics forum.

I volunteer to be the counterbalancing host on the gungeon.

[marble falls]

407. As much as I loathe the NRA, I vote against censorship.

[rdking647]

408. dont like the NRA

then dont read posts supporting them

[Brainstormy]

409. Ban? Forbid?

I loathe the NRA, but if DU "bans" or "forbids" ideas, or dialogue about anything that's carried out respectfully, it's not the forum I thought it was. It will be interesting to see what carries the day on this question.

[RufusTFirefly]

412. It's truly chilling to witness mob psychology in action

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Someone with less than 125 posts whom most of us don't even recognize, comes in, hysterically advocates a policy that would be difficult to define and, besides, can typically be addressed by the existing jury system, and yet (at the time of my posting) nearly 375 sign on in support.

Chilling.



Rather than doing something primitive, repressive, and negative, how about doing something positive instead? Like contributing $5 to the Brady Campaign (or another organization working to prevent gun violence) every time someone posts something that is perceived to be in support of the NRA (whatever the hell that means). I doubt that we would wind up contributing more than $100 a year, but if we did, it would actually make a difference instead of fomenting relatively pointless rabble rousing.

Here's a link to the Brady Campaign. And one to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

[workinclasszero]

414. Why the hell would any democrat support the NRA?

They are as reich wing as you can get! They friggen OWN the damn republican party!

I'm a vet and a gun owner and the last damn org on earth I would ever think about joining are those fucking nazi NRA bastards!

[Stuckinthebush]

416. Ugh...hell no. I won't support this silliness

I can't stand the NRA nor do I have any love of guns. Get them away from me.

However, to be reactionary and "forbid support of the NRA" is so over the top that I'd contend that THIS sentiment is more dangerous to DU than those of democrats who support the NRA.

Be very careful when you advocate limiting someone else's speech because you disagree with it.

[philly_bob]

419. Yeppers.

Some of the most unpleasant conversations I've had on DU have been when I stumbled into RKBA issues.

[JustAnotherGen]

420. Yep

Don't know if this was posted - pretty long thread -

http://www.politicolnews.com/nra-pac-money-88-goes-to-republicans/

The NRA by far, donates to the republican party, in 2012 the total percentage that went to the GOP is 88%. By far the NRA -National Rifle Association is giving more donations to the republican party and are winning the battle against gun control legislation.

Since they don't give to the Democratic Party in the volume they do the IIndieTeaPublicans - they can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. It's not about the gun rights - or 2nd Amendment. If you belong to the Democratic Party - then you oughta turn your nose up at this group that helped keep the House Republican's in charge.

If they helped John Boehner, Cantor, etc. etc. - they can go to hell.

[WillyT]

426. Agreed !!! - K & R !!!

[patrice]

428. I'm undecided & concerned about the board being swamped by trollish users in either case, so

I guess my decision point would have to do with which herd of trolls is going to be bigger.

I hate to see this board paralyzed by disingenuous users fucking with every group and forum and getting away with it.

I'm going to have to consider much more use of Ignore.

[HootieMcBoob]

429. NRA is a terrorist organization.

K/ R

[Erose999]

431. Signed. TO HELL WITH THE NRA!!

[Sparkly]

432. If it can be done, I'm for it.

[Auggie]

435. Count me in

[broadcaster75201]

442. I think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed and I don't agree with this

Our gun culture is insane. And, yes, this is a private site so "free speech" does not apply. But I would rather discuss and argue then ban positions on issues. It's way too gray an area, and sure moderators subjectively remove posts, but to outright ban a topic or position on an issue is so ... TeaBag.

[NICO9000]

443. Nope

Free speech is what we have and what we need to preserve, no matter how awful or stupid said speech is. There are plenty of people on DU that could easily shut down pro-NRA arguments here, so I say "bring 'em on!"

[LP2K12]

444. Agreed.

On that thought, I vote no.

[closeupready]

448. I'm not willing to chill free-wheeling speech here made in good faith.

[valerief]

449. Let's keep this kicked. nt

[oxymoron]

450. I'm in. nt

[rivegauche]

451. HELL YES.

I am so effign sick of gun nuts and their insistence on their right to be violent. Fuck them all, I am so frustrated I could scream.

[colorado_ufo]

455. Not your father's NRA anymore.

[DinahMoeHum]

458. Yeah, Wayne LaPierre has to go. He's perverted the NRA.

We have to get the NRA back to what it used to be: teaching people to handle firearms properly and safely.

[ElbarDee]

461. Yes. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

462. I will sign to this.

I am tired of the parrots.

[stonecutter357]

465. K&R

nra=Full Ignore...

[onehandle]

466. Anyone who openly supports the NRA, supports the GOP.

No matter how many Democrats they tolerate.

Support = Tombstoning.