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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Festivito

(13,522 posts)

16. Okay. First paragraph is enough.

Reply to SweepPicker (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:51 PM

Jan 2013

NRA and gun manufacturers make money by passing rumors that Democrats will take their rifles. Suddenly, guns and bullets fly off shelves making more money for suppliers and more ad money for gun magazines. All we need know about this that fools and their money are soon parted.

Everyone I ask about felons having guns say: no, felons should not have guns. I tell them that they just said they want gun control. That's everyone so far. Let's regulate our militia as the 2nd amendment tells us.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Please Help Me Craft A Response To A Tea Bagger [View all] SweepPicker Jan 2013 OP

Here's my response: Zoeisright Jan 2013 #1

lol SweepPicker Jan 2013 #3

It's a stupid argument Glitterati Jan 2013 #2

He's right. Recursion Jan 2013 #4

He's obfuscating. Cary Jan 2013 #6

Why not just focus on handguns? Seriously? Recursion Jan 2013 #8

As with any other problem you wish to solve, you need to focus on the goal. Cary Jan 2013 #12

Nearly every rifle sold today is a semi-automatic with a detachable magazine Recursion Jan 2013 #14

These are different issues. Cary Jan 2013 #21

Yes, that a weapon being "military style" means nothing Recursion Jan 2013 #22

That's another canard. Cary Jan 2013 #23

I'm not the one hung up on "military style" Recursion Jan 2013 #24

Is there a rule against stating my opinion as to your motivations? Cary Jan 2013 #25

Right brush Jan 2013 #26

Automatic weapons are essentially *never* used in crimes Recursion Jan 2013 #35

Oh Yeah? brush Jan 2013 #37

Yeah. Glad to know you agree with me Recursion Jan 2013 #38

You don't call those automatic weapons? brush Jan 2013 #39

Of course not. They aren't automatic Recursion Jan 2013 #40

I saw this one too Cary Jan 2013 #5

This: Iggo Jan 2013 #7

Evidence reteachinwi Jan 2013 #9

rational? pretty subjective and flat wrong. Terminal ballistics...oh never mind. educate yourself galileoreloaded Jan 2013 #17

John Allen Mohammed and William Spengler reteachinwi Jan 2013 #32

He cited the (very low) rate of murders with rifles. Recursion Jan 2013 #10

You can run away from clubs and bats (and knives). You cannot LeftinOH Jan 2013 #11

How many people can be fatally wounded in a matter of seconds Lex Jan 2013 #13

Shouldn't he just arm and protect himself with the more leathal Bat or Hammer?? JoePhilly Jan 2013 #15

Heh. Lex Jan 2013 #18

Okay. First paragraph is enough. Festivito Jan 2013 #16

Not since 2005. "Other than handguns" guns accounted for more murders than blunt objects. sinkingfeeling Jan 2013 #19

Adam Lanza did not kill 20 kids and 6 adults with a hammer or club mnmoderatedem Jan 2013 #20

Why are you arguing with idiots who will never change their minds? Waste of time. nt. OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #27

Ask the moran for a link RoccoR5955 Jan 2013 #28

You can't argue with stupid liberal N proud Jan 2013 #29

Baggers blow, why bother with that? lonestarnot Jan 2013 #30

Responding to a teabagger is like flushing your carefully crafted answer down the toilet. nt Speck Tater Jan 2013 #31

use simple words, maybe 2 or 3 letters each samsingh Jan 2013 #33

might agree with his thing about base ball bats--the chicago cubs have not been using them correctly dembotoz Jan 2013 #34

Did he/she go to that site? Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #36