Skip to main content

View Diary: Yes conservatives, we want to take away your guns... (126 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Come on. (0+ / 0-)

    There have been numerous exposes of unscrupulous dealings with the gun show crowd. Not a majority, but there are individuals who abuse their privilege and guns go to criminals because of it.

    How often do women in fear for their lives shoot their extranged husband/boyfriend/stalker, etc. relative to how many people go out and get a gun and go berserk?

    You're right about high powered rifles. I'm talking about the "cop-killing" bullets for handguns.

    Background checks are not adequately enforced.

    I don't think liability insurance for gun ownership is unreasonable. There's a limit to your constitutional right.
    It does not literally say in the constitution that your freedom of speech does not include yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, but everyone uses that example as a limit of free speech.

    The fact is that gun "enthusiasts" (go ahead and hr me for that ) jump on any and all efforts to discuss what kinds of common sense solutions to our problem with gun violence can be employed. Except "more guns."

    I'd rather have a buntle afrota-me than a frottle a bunta-me.

    by David54 on Sat Mar 24, 2012 at 12:23:42 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Ps Cobstidution. (0+ / 0-)

      There, I misspelled a word for you to jump on and prove you're right.

      I'd rather have a buntle afrota-me than a frottle a bunta-me.

      by David54 on Sat Mar 24, 2012 at 12:30:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "cop killing bullets" (5+ / 0-)

      snort.  there's no such thing

      Do you know what is the most common cause of death of police?

      Cars.

      •  Exactly. Cars are dangerous. That's why we have (0+ / 0-)

        laws about their use. Not because the founding fathers didn't mention them in the Constitution.

        And yes, criminals can use cars in a bad way, etc., and driving is not a right, and all of that.

        However, cars are dangerous. So we have developed laws about their use. Our highways have evolved. Cars themselves have evolved to make them more safe.

        Guess what? The auto industry spent millions of dollars opposing new safety laws for cars.
        They spent millions of dollars to gin up popular support for the resistance of safety laws.

        Ditto cigarettes.

        Ditto firearms.

        I'd rather have a buntle afrota-me than a frottle a bunta-me.

        by David54 on Sat Mar 24, 2012 at 01:04:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I have no intention of hide-rating "enthusiast" (5+ / 0-)

      and typos (even intentional ones) don't prove you wrong. However...

      There have been numerous exposes of unscrupulous dealings with the gun show crowd. Not a majority, but there are individuals who abuse their privilege and guns go to criminals because of it.
      Those "exposés" have generally involved showing that individuals trying to sell a gun as a private party while at a gun show are sometimes willing to ignore a potential buyer saying things like, "You know, I wouldn't pass a background check..." The same thing would likely happen if you checked a large group of people selling their gun in a newspaper classified ad. If a dealer pretended to sell as a private party and didn't do the background check, he would be committing a criminal act.
      How often do women in fear for their lives shoot their extranged husband/boyfriend/stalker, etc. relative to how many people go out and get a gun and go berserk?
      How often should women have to fear for their lives without the means to protect themselves? The last two murders I've been involved with professionally were committed by estranged boyfriends. How many people go out, get a gun, and go berserk that day? I don't think either of us have numbers.
      You're right about high powered rifles. I'm talking about the "cop-killing" bullets for handguns.
      Urban legend/unfounded hype.
      Background checks are not adequately enforced.
      Link? Data? How would you suggest "adequately enforcing" what is already established law?
      I don't think liability insurance for gun ownership is unreasonable. There's a limit to your constitutional right. It does not literally say in the constitution that your freedom of speech does not include yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, but everyone uses that example as a limit of free speech.
      Once again, we are talking about placing an arbitrary monetary barrier on a Constitutional right. My prior example stands: requiring insurance against a judgement for libel before allowing a letter to the editor to be published. Or requiring insurance against a judgement for libel before allowing a new newspaper to begin publishing. Or, more timely and actually happening, requiring extensive insurance coverage and payment of a large bond before issuing a permit for a political  demonstration.

      -5.12, -5.23

      We are men of action; lies do not become us.

      by ER Doc on Sat Mar 24, 2012 at 02:39:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site