Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Complain to the families of the Pulse and Sandy Hook victims about your right to due process
I'm sure your due process for being on an FBI no fly list is foremost on their minds today.
Not getting a semi-assault rifle on demand is not exactly the same as losing ypur right to freedom, a fair trial, an education, housing, clean food air medicines and water. You actually need all of those things.
You don't NEED a semi-automatic assault rifle. If you think you need a semi-automatic assault rifle, then the authorities will want to know why.
Because you can't do anything with a semi-automatic assault rifle but kill alot of people very quickly. Why do you NEED to kill alot of people quickly????????????
164 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
... and reading through the thread, the thought I had was, "And look, here they all are."
I'm starting to like those fellas.
Response to linuxman (Reply #11)
Richard Jewell? Remember him?
Who in fact wasn't a terrorist?
Let's keep due process, thanks.
Representatives. And americans overwhelmingly want semi-automatics banned.
We all bear responsibility in a representative govt.
We all bear responsibility in a representative govt.
Wrong. The nation is about evenly split, with each position hovering around 50%:
According to a new CBS News poll conducted in the days following the Orlando shooting, 57 percent of Americans now say they support a nationwide ban on assault weapons. That's up 13 percentage points from the 44 percent support for a ban that the same poll showed in December.
The December poll showed the lowest level of support for an assault weapons ban in at least 20 years of polling. It was conducted in the aftermath of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, in which a man and woman used assault rifles to kill 14 people and wound 21 more.
-- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-orlando-shooting-assault-weapons-ban-20160615-story.html
The December poll showed the lowest level of support for an assault weapons ban in at least 20 years of polling. It was conducted in the aftermath of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, in which a man and woman used assault rifles to kill 14 people and wound 21 more.
-- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-orlando-shooting-assault-weapons-ban-20160615-story.html
And that's for an "assault weapons" ban, which is much lower-hanging fruit than a ban on all semi-autos. Such a ban would include most modern handguns, the best-selling .22 rifles, and even antiques like this:
Among European nations, only the UK comes close to an all-out semi-auto ban, but even they exempt .22 rimfire rifles, which leads to the ludicrous situation of UK citizens being able to buy rifles that residents of New York and California cannot.
Attempting such a ban would be political suicide for the Democratic party. We could kiss rural Democrats goodbye forever.
In our system, popular governance is constrained by the Constitution; that constraint is intentional.
could you be any more transparent? 
It is also known as "Think of the children":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
"Think of the children" (also "What about the children?" is a phrase which evolved into a rhetorical tactic.[1][2][3] Literally it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor).[4][5][6] In debate, however, as a plea for pity, used as an appeal to emotion, it is a logical fallacy.[1][2][3]
Art, Argument, and Advocacy (2002) argued that the appeal substitutes emotion for reason in debate.[1] Ethicist Jack Marshall wrote in 2005 that the phrase's popularity stems from its capacity to stunt rationality, particularly discourse on morals.[2] "Think of the children" has been invoked by censorship proponents to shield children from perceived danger.[7][8] Community, Space and Online Censorship (2009) noted that classifying children in an infantile manner, as innocents in need of protection, is a form of obsession over the concept of purity.[7] A 2011 article in the Journal for Cultural Research observed that the phrase grew out of a moral panic.[9]
It was an exhortation in the 1964 Walt Disney Pictures film Mary Poppins, when the character of Mrs. Banks pleaded with her departing nanny not to quit and to "think of the children!".[10] The phrase was popularized as a satiric reference on the animated television program The Simpsons in 1996,[11][12] when character Helen Lovejoy pleaded "Won't somebody please think of the children!"[13][14][15] during a contentious debate by citizens of the fictional town of Springfield.[13][16][17]
In the 2012 Georgia State University Law Review, Charles J. Ten Brink called Lovejoy's use of "Think of the children" a successful parody.[13] The appeal's subsequent use in society was often the subject of mockery.[8] After its popularization on The Simpsons, the phrase has been called "Lovejoy's Law",[15] the "Helen Lovejoy defence", the "Helen Lovejoy Syndrome",[18] and "think-of-the-children-ism".[19]
is a phrase which evolved into a rhetorical tactic.[1][2][3] Literally it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor).[4][5][6] In debate, however, as a plea for pity, used as an appeal to emotion, it is a logical fallacy.[1][2][3]
Art, Argument, and Advocacy (2002) argued that the appeal substitutes emotion for reason in debate.[1] Ethicist Jack Marshall wrote in 2005 that the phrase's popularity stems from its capacity to stunt rationality, particularly discourse on morals.[2] "Think of the children" has been invoked by censorship proponents to shield children from perceived danger.[7][8] Community, Space and Online Censorship (2009) noted that classifying children in an infantile manner, as innocents in need of protection, is a form of obsession over the concept of purity.[7] A 2011 article in the Journal for Cultural Research observed that the phrase grew out of a moral panic.[9]
It was an exhortation in the 1964 Walt Disney Pictures film Mary Poppins, when the character of Mrs. Banks pleaded with her departing nanny not to quit and to "think of the children!".[10] The phrase was popularized as a satiric reference on the animated television program The Simpsons in 1996,[11][12] when character Helen Lovejoy pleaded "Won't somebody please think of the children!"[13][14][15] during a contentious debate by citizens of the fictional town of Springfield.[13][16][17]
In the 2012 Georgia State University Law Review, Charles J. Ten Brink called Lovejoy's use of "Think of the children" a successful parody.[13] The appeal's subsequent use in society was often the subject of mockery.[8] After its popularization on The Simpsons, the phrase has been called "Lovejoy's Law",[15] the "Helen Lovejoy defence", the "Helen Lovejoy Syndrome",[18] and "think-of-the-children-ism".[19]
It has been employed by moral panic-mongers for decades, notably to promote
alcohol prohibition:
Why anyone would think a Prohibition 3.0 against guns would work when the one against
alcohol backfired spectacularly and the one against cannabis died of senility eludes me.
Why the same people are willing to grant such powers to the government
when there's a good chance of a right-wing government coming into power
in the future also eludes me.
