Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumX-post from GD. "It is time to add social media to background checks for gun purchases. nt"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026876017Discuss.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)You mean we should hold people responsible for making threats? For instigating violence? For promoting domestic terrorism? What are you? Some kind of reckless radical?
Shamash
(597 posts)Maybe we can get these DU members hateful, violence-advocating morons locked up for the qualities you mention plus a side order of mental illness:
"we have a right to protect ourselves against gun toting idiots. he should have broken his damn arms."
"I've often been glad I don't own a gun as I think I'd have killed somebody."
"I say shoot them on sight , just to be safe. No sane person would carry a rifle around a grocery store. Only the insane and the criminally motivated. So, again, I say shoot them on sight, let their bodies rot in the streets as a message to other hell-bent gunners. Nothing but good could come of this."
Or does this sort of thing count as free speech and is thus not actionable by your standards?
edgineered
(2,101 posts)could post photos of all the wrecked cars on the owners wall. I just returned from pulling used parts at a junk yard. To think, they were all responsible owners until they weren't - some crashed, some neglected routine maintenance, some drove the piss out them, and some were just plain careless and reckless drivers.
Seeing that group of hundreds of cars has to make one wonder how to limit widespread ownership of these deadly devices by ordinary citizens. Licenses, insurance, driving tests, and continual ticketing by law enforcement has done nothing to stop these killing machines. Things have got to change.
beevul
(12,194 posts)edgineered
(2,101 posts)until very recently I was without a dog in the gun control fight - the senseless and unending attacks by the control crowd has changed that. Currently I do not have any firearms but I grew up using them. After serving three enlistments I chose to live in and near cities, and no longer have a need or desire to own, I instead stayed away for the debate believing that no harm would come from the anti's and their platform.
It is plain to see now (see here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026876578 ) that things have changed in my perception, but in reality nothing has changed - those who previously have said it is not about taking anything away are no longer keeping their motives hidden.
beevul
(12,194 posts)They have repeatedly assured us that "Most Americans" agree with them on their proposals.
They're winning the hearts and minds...or something.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)sarisataka
(18,220 posts)Who knew
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Like most of the delusional ideas to restrict firearms, the author of such an idea never seems to explain the following:
1. How they are going to get their idea passed in Congress
2. How they think their idea will hold up to judicial scrutiny
3. How they are going to get ALL 50 states to comply
4. What they are going to do when states refuse to comply
5. What they are going to do when the local police refuse to enforce the law*
6. What they are going to do when people refuse to comply**
* CO, NY and WA police departments have publicly stated they would not/will not enforce the recent laws passed in those states
**While it is, for obvious reasons, impossible to get hard numbers, the laws passed in NY and CT have resulted in widespread non compliance with gun owners refusing to register the firearms and/or magazines as required by law.
A ruling from the 3 judge hearing at the 2nd Circuit of Appeals is due any day now.