Skip to main content

View Diary: Retaining assault weapons has no rational basis (80 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  ::: shrug::: So can a spoon...n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moderatemajority

    "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

    by EdMass on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:33:59 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  And it's possible to kill someone with your thumb. (4+ / 0-)

      But that's not the point. It's not about legislating against spoons, thumbs or rolled-up newspapers. It's about legislating against weapons designed to kill. There was no major national outcry when automatic knives were banned. Everyone agreed that their utility was solely based on rapid deployment of a deadly weapon. Semi-automatics are of a similar classification, unless you want to claim that Hunters need to be able to loose as many rounds as they can a quickly a they can squeeze the trigger, in which case I would suggest that said Hunters may need a little more range practice.

      Sunday Afternoon Composer: Like Monday Morning Quarterbacking, with music!

      by Freelance Escapologist on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 10:05:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

        Most weapons are designed to kill.  There's even a term for them.  "Lethal weapons."

        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

        by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 05:09:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But not all things that kill are weapons. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WakeUpNeo

          That's part of my point. The other part is what those things are designed to kill. That a 30-06 can kill a person as easily as it can a deer is irrelevant; that a semi-automatic is capable of doing the same job much faster is entirely relevant. There are very few circumstances where a hunter would need to squeeze off a few dozen rounds in a few seconds.

          I also don't find myself impressed by the firing range argument. At that point you've completely conceded the ”defence” argument, and it's now about keeping up with your hobby. If your hobby was, say, culturing antibiotic-resistant anthrax, would you object to someone telling you no?

          Sunday Afternoon Composer: Like Monday Morning Quarterbacking, with music!

          by Freelance Escapologist on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:25:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

            A .30-06 is not a weapon?

            My Imbel FAL is a .308.  I use it for big game hunting, but it's primary purpose is as my home defense rifle.  I'm not sure how this "firing range argument" relates to the "defense argument," or why I'd concede the right to defend my home in a manner I see fit, but I most certainly do not.  Also, what does anthrax have to do with anything?

            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

            by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:31:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  H2 n/t (0+ / 0-)

      P.S. Your sig line sucks.

      Especially since we're losing more soldiers to suicide than from combat.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (165)
  • Community (76)
  • 2016 (49)
  • Environment (48)
  • Elections (46)
  • Bernie Sanders (42)
  • Culture (41)
  • Republicans (40)
  • Hillary Clinton (34)
  • Climate Change (33)
  • Media (33)
  • Education (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (29)
  • Labor (28)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Law (25)
  • Congress (25)
  • Science (24)
  • Spam (24)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site