Skip to main content

View Diary: Stuck in ID (26 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't really understand your point. (0+ / 0-)

    These are all good things, yes, and would improve society.  But what do any of these things have to do with the need to address lax gun control laws? Why does anyone need an AK-47?  Why does anyone need 50 guns and a ton of ammo?  Why does anyone need to be able to buy a gun without a waiting period?  Why should we postpose working on a problem because we haven't yet solved all the other problems?  

    •  Responses: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, happy camper, Robobagpiper

      Lax gun controls aren't the issue.

      Rights aren't based on needs; furthermore, AK47s have been highly regulated since the 1930s, requiring a federal tax stamp, background check and registration.

      Rights aren't based on needs; a ton of ammo means I get o practice shooting more and enjoy myself at the range. I have over 20 firearms. I use all of them for different purposes.

      Waiting periods have been shown not to work. If I wanted to kill something, why wouldn't I just use one of my other 20+ firearms? Look at Loughner in AZ. He purchased his MONTHS ahead of time.

      I'm not saying postpone working on the violent crime problem. I'm saying my solutions will help fix the disease causing firearm related crime instead of just trying to fix one symptom (which it won't).

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:48:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Again, though, with the DO NOTHING approach (0+ / 0-)

        Even if it would yield SOME improvement, why is it still not worth it?  How much is one life worth?  Less than one gun?

        I disagree with you that our gun laws aren't any part of the issue.  Stand your ground?  Have you seen what has happened with homicide rates in places like Florida?  Do we really need guns in bars? Some of the things that we advocate to allow are just ridiculous and dangerous.  


        •  I've not said do nothing. (4+ / 0-)

          I put forward my proposals above.

          Are you a fan of the PATRIOT ACT? If your rights are being abridged, that's ok, because ONE person might be saved from terrorism, right?

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:05:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm a fan of rules that make sense (0+ / 0-)

            I think rights are all relative, and everyone's rights should be considered.  A gun owner who puts my life at risk is infringing MY rights.  Why doed your right to have guns trump my right to be protected from your right at the same time?  

            Your argument is oversimplified.

          •  But you've put forth proposals guaranteed to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            make a major impact, without restricting guns, which means that gun control advocates will dismiss them.

            Because of this, I've concluded that gun control is not about reducing real impacts from violent crime, but an end unto itself.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:14:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site