Skip to main content

View Diary: World's worst gun ban? (133 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have relatives (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerrilea, BlackSheep1

    who own farms and have use and utility for them.

    So it's not a "tiny fanatic minority" - it's regular working people.

    •  I grew up on a farm in Texas. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Johnson

      We had a couple of bolt action rifles and a breech-loading shotgun. Never felt a need for anything else.

      Can you give me an example of why you relatives need semiauto or a high-capacity clip?

      Just asking. I generally agree with the author on the effectiveness of an AWB.

      GOP: Bankers, billionaires, suckers, and dupes.

      by gzodik on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:48:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As a general matter of principle (5+ / 0-)
        Can you give me an example of why you relatives need semiauto or a high-capacity clip?
        I'm not sure that we should really open the door too wide on using my perception of your "need" (or vice versa) as a basis for commerce or consensual actions.

        Speaking only for myself, what I think other people "need" is not a basis for mandating what they should or should not be allowed. That sort of perception strikes me as very...conservative.

        •  Food, you need. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SwedishJewfish

          A video game, for example, is a toy.

          I'm not saying we should be able to ban video games. Just that there is a valid distinction between the two things. "Need" is not a meaningless word.

          If you ask someone why they need something, and they get all hostile and defensive at the question ... it's really just a toy.

          GOP: Bankers, billionaires, suckers, and dupes.

          by gzodik on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:31:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  We shouldn't open the door too wide on the concept (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BlackSheep1, andalusi, FrankRose

          of need, because the issue isn't based upon need.  The antis keep trying to make it into one.  They keep insisting that others demonstrate a need that they find suitable.  The idea that anyone must demonstrate or otherwise articulate a need is false.  The burden of proof lies with them, just as it lies with the prosecution, not the defense in a trial.  As with the trial analogy, this is one of the things that differentiates the US from places like Canada, the UK, and Australia.

      •  See above (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlackSheep1

        and see any number of other discussions.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site