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

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)

34. The requirement to demonstrate an actual need is a deal breaker

Reply to baldguy (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 18, 2013, 08:14 AM

Mar 2013

"Shall issue" means the onus is on the state, or in the case of my proposal, the demonstrate why you should be denied a permit.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm generally for gun rights but the Republicans make stupid arguments [View all] bossy22 Mar 2013 OP

Stupid arguments easily come from both sides. ManiacJoe Mar 2013 #1

I don't disagree with you bossy22 Mar 2013 #5

Why?? Angry Dragon Mar 2013 #7

thanks Duckhunter935 Mar 2013 #2

I'm not telling you what you require bossy22 Mar 2013 #9

If you need a 20 round magazine baldguy Mar 2013 #31

I'd give on the magazine limit and background checks... badtoworse Mar 2013 #3

I think such an compromise is fair bossy22 Mar 2013 #6

That's Alan Grayson's position Recursion Mar 2013 #25

Just as long as there's some actual standards, and the carrier demonstrates an actual need. baldguy Mar 2013 #32

The requirement to demonstrate an actual need is a deal breaker badtoworse Mar 2013 #34

I find unconvincing any argument that attempts to tell other people what they need and do not need slackmaster Mar 2013 #4

I'm not telling anyone what they need bossy22 Mar 2013 #8

I think a substantial majority of people don't actually need any kind of firearm at all, but... slackmaster Mar 2013 #10

to play devil's advocates- sometimes choices have to be limited bossy22 Mar 2013 #11

Choices already are limited, severely IMO, and have been since 1934 slackmaster Mar 2013 #12

Yes, but just because they are limited now doesn't mean they are limited enough bossy22 Mar 2013 #16

Speed limits? purchasing narcotics only with a prescription, must have a license rustydog Mar 2013 #17

Your phony needs-based argument doesn't move me, neither do your appeals to emotion and scorn. slackmaster Mar 2013 #24

When it comes to guns, society has an interest - not just those steeped in guns. Hoyt Mar 2013 #21

Back in the 70's my cousin's husband showed upaloopa Mar 2013 #13

I think that idea is held by the minority of gun owners bossy22 Mar 2013 #14

I don't believe that. But then I may be wrong upaloopa Mar 2013 #22

you probably have been hanging around the wrong crowd bossy22 Mar 2013 #23

I think your assessment of most people who keep firearms for self-defense is correct. slackmaster Mar 2013 #26

No, most gun owners are not afraid zombie hords of poor are going to attack them. Gravitycollapse Mar 2013 #18

Many argue that a snubnose .357 magnum is best for carrying. Gravitycollapse Mar 2013 #15

thats true bossy22 Mar 2013 #19

I would rather have an AR-15 for home protection. Gravitycollapse Mar 2013 #20

I am 100% AGAINST any gun and bullet having any right to exist at all. Period. End. Of. Story. graham4anything Mar 2013 #27

Even in the case of war? Gravitycollapse Mar 2013 #28

That's nice NickB79 Mar 2013 #29

Republicans make stupid arguments Buzz cook Mar 2013 #30

unspoken assumption? sigmasix Mar 2013 #33