Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Anti-Gun Control argument fail... [View all]discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,605 posts)37. Point by point
A: I have a problem with the "bake time" on your "recipe".
Remove handguns from the batter and wait 80 years.
B: All rights are to be respected? Can you narrow the focus of the question, please?
C: True, failing to follow a law is illegal. Should I infer that your answer to fighting crime is to create more criminals?
D: I conclude that, since the war on drugs is going so well, you propose starting a war on handguns.
E: Harder? Well in some ways but not others. Cops are harder to find than civilians because there are fewer of them. OTOH cops are easy to identify (uniform, car...) and they mostly all open carry. As a side note, look up the percentage of cops that favor handgun bans.
F: I infer you mean owning an armed AAM. Disarmed missiles are legal. The explosive portion is regulated by some complicated laws but can be had after enough time, money and background checks by local LE and the ATF. I drive a Chevy not a Grumman. A personal defense tool like a handgun is the topic. Crew served area and theater scale weapons are outside the topic.
"Godwin": absolutely but I like the picture. I think the police have attributes that make them different from civilians and some of them don't deal with those differences too well. I'm referring to the cops who kill civilians with insufficient justification. The infusion of military weapons, the ones the general public is mostly restricted from, isn't working all that well, but that's is a different problem.
Guns and heroin: Cutting off the supply of heroin (or alcohol or marijuana) is, in some ways, a different task than banning handguns. A bit of heroin is single use while a handgun may be used over a course of decades and its mere presence as a threat often serves the purpose of the holder, good or evil.
From inmates serving time for crimes such as robbery and burglary the number one concern wasn't police or alarms, it was encountering an armed victim. To paraphrase Will Smith, 'That's what I call a close encounter.'
A medium length answer about full-auto: I support removing the 1986 limit on full-auto guns. I don't see that full-autos will have the impact that handguns do on crime. When full-autos could be bought at a local hardware store, they were never popular. The gangsters who used them generally stole them from law enforcement or the military.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It is my belief that rights are innate in humans. They cannot be "taken away".
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Dec 2016
#27
re: "...the right to self-defense has nothing to do specifically with hand guns..."
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Dec 2016
#29
re: "...we already do not allow certain weapon systems...the right is not absolute."
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Dec 2016
#38
Since the #1 priority of the gun control lobby is outlawing the most popular *rifles*,
benEzra
Jan 2017
#43
I don't really care whether anyone wants to use the new Mass Shooting measure...
Eleanors38
Dec 2016
#41