Skip to main content

View Diary: End the Flow of Illegal Guns (160 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well I can see a minimum or maximum standard (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but as long as the minimum standard of that right exists, I'm OK with certain restrictions being in place depending on locality.

    For instance, I do buy into the idea that perhaps folks in the plains and western states or communities have less onerous restrictions on caliber, ammunition, etc.

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:29:09 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  So western/plains children are less important? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If we need caliber and ammunition controls to prevent mass school shootings on the East coast, but don't need those same controls in the plains, then are you saying that children in a school in Kansas will be less dead then the kids back east?

      Also, given that the police don't stop and search people while they're driving from the plains to elsewhere, what keeps those high caliber weapons and high capacity magazines where you want them to stay?

      Look, Sandy Hook isn't in a large urban area.  That community probably wouldn't be a high restriction area anyway.  So what would you actually have accomplished with bans effective only in urban areas, except to discriminate against people based solely on where they live?

      Or to put it in terms you may understand, who is more likely to live in western / plains states, and who is more likely to live in large urban areas?  Congratulations, you just denied Constitutional rights to millions of minorities while granting them to whites.

      •  U mad Norm? (0+ / 0-)

        I said as long as a line that's established isn't crossed, different regulations are OK.

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:30:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So meaningless, feel good regulations then? (3+ / 0-)

          You seem to have balked at the idea of discriminating against urban minorities and walked back to equality.  Good.

          The line not to cross is telling one American that he has different rights than another American.  What if the rest of us are not OK with being granted only the "minimal" rights you think we should have.  And again, discriminated based only on where we live?

          If a gun or magaizne is too dangerous for one, it's too dangerous for all, including the police.  Why don't we just work from there?

          •  Because I don't think that's true. (0+ / 0-)
            If a gun or magaizne is too dangerous for one, it's too dangerous for all, including the police.
            As long as EVERYONE has a right to, say, hunting weapons and a 6-round revolver, are their rights being violated if someone else gains the privilege of owning an AR-15 in Wyoming?

            I see what you did there.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:20:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, I would say my rights are violated (2+ / 0-)

              First, what is the purpose of saying an AR-15 is legal in rural Wyoming but not rural Illinois?  We have coyotes and cougars too. If they need an AR-15, so do I. For that matter, if the police need an AR-15, so do I.
              If the purpose of banning the AR-15 outside of Wyoming is to prevent mass shootings, what will you say when the next mass shooting is in Wyoming?  Why don't they deserve the same safety measures?

              Second, show where in the Constitution it says that rights apply to residents of one state but not another. You know it doesn't work that way. A gun is not a structure or a huge live animal that is subject to zoning laws. There is no basis to discriminate based on place of residency. Simply put, if Wyoming residents need an AR-15 for self defense, then so do I.

              Third, if you want to ban the AR-15, you can. If you ban it from everyone, including the police. They don't need it to shoot unarmed civilians...  I mean for self defense either.  One nation, under one set of rights. That's the only way it can be.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (131)
  • Community (66)
  • Elections (25)
  • Environment (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (17)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Rescued (15)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site