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
In reply to the discussion: "Guns Have Changed. Our Gun Laws Have Not Kept Pace." [View all]gcomeau
(5,764 posts)119. No, it isn't...
"We have thousands of regulations on the books when it comes to firearms, especially in terms of fully automatic firearms. "
None of which stop the average person from owning the one in the poster. Which was the freaking point of the poster. Get it?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
292 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It was the standard rate of fire for the British Army through the Napoleonic War
intaglio
Dec 2013
#142
Not to mention the Girandoni Rifle- 1780, 20 round tubular magazine, semi-auto
X_Digger
Dec 2013
#12
Which was an exotic and uncommon weapon that was pretty much unknown outside Europe
Spider Jerusalem
Dec 2013
#16
Even if I were to concede that point, the point of the poster is still an epic fail.
eqfan592
Dec 2013
#88
Attempting to frame the debate around gun control in such a narrow way is fallacious.
eqfan592
Dec 2013
#137
The OP is correct, but needs to add that gun fanciers' reasons for arming up have changed.
Hoyt
Dec 2013
#153
Were those guns readily available for everyone without universal background checks?
Agschmid
Dec 2013
#151
Remember, kids: if you use all-caps to give your hyperbole extra emphasis...
Lizzie Poppet
Dec 2013
#18
Free clue: parrot-like repetition of inane prattle doesn't make it any more valid.
Lizzie Poppet
Dec 2013
#25
When 20 children are slaughtered and the response is to go to a discussion board to defend guns
DisgustipatedinCA
Dec 2013
#46
Which comment is over the top, and why do you support death fetishists?
DisgustipatedinCA
Dec 2013
#52
If someone opposes women being armed for self-defense does that mean they are pro-rape fetishists?
Nuclear Unicorn
Dec 2013
#233
I have family members with mental illness and you assertion is an insult to those
Packerowner740
Dec 2013
#138
Voting to hide something for that sort of reasoning should get somebody banned.
eqfan592
Dec 2013
#120
Not a strawman at all. You're using a chauvinistic argument with the mentally ill as the hinge
HereSince1628
Dec 2013
#44
My, my, you've missed it entirely. Your bigoted chauvinism abuses the mentally ill.
HereSince1628
Dec 2013
#69
Name calling lacks eruditon...seemly, so does your understanding of "Straw man"
HereSince1628
Dec 2013
#127
Well there ya go, nothing promotes a reasonable discussion of the issues like calling...
eqfan592
Dec 2013
#49
And I'm sure you have a medical background that would qualify you to diagnose so many people...
eqfan592
Dec 2013
#57
Given the context you just used the word in, you clearly don't understand its meaning. nt
eqfan592
Dec 2013
#101
You seem to have each others back in marginalizing the plight of the mentally ill.
eqfan592
Dec 2013
#74
Really? Hearing about how dealing with poverty, poor education, inadequate mental health care...
eqfan592
Dec 2013
#112
Whoever made that silly poster has no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
Lizzie Poppet
Dec 2013
#14
When they can't aim and they miss their target then innocent bystanders will be killed
Bjorn Against
Dec 2013
#43
Are you suggesting that you have only heard of one instance in which a stray bullet killed somebody?
Bjorn Against
Dec 2013
#184
It was actually Duckhunter who brought up police shooting and missing their targets
Bjorn Against
Dec 2013
#193
Just Google "police shoot innocent bystander" and you will get all kinds of results
Bjorn Against
Dec 2013
#204
Do you think they could have imagined anything like the modern communication infrastructure?
Decaffeinated
Dec 2013
#39
This post is patently false. Gun laws obviously have changed since the days of muskets, like in 1934
Threedifferentones
Dec 2013
#42
Since you are repeating me I will assume you did not actually read my whole post.
Threedifferentones
Dec 2013
#72
Mass shootings are, statistically speaking, red herrings. A lot facts are hard to swallow,
Threedifferentones
Dec 2013
#103
Just as a note: priming and then loading a flintlock is a nice way to get shot in the face
NutmegYankee
Dec 2013
#71
I think your thread was largely ignored because of the odd note it struck
etherealtruth
Dec 2013
#160
Just hie thee off to any of the many rightwing gun forums and your fav terms are perfectly fine.
Warren Stupidity
Dec 2013
#176
There's nothing "progressive" about abject bigotry and pointlessly divisive language.
Lizzie Poppet
Dec 2013
#177
right. We should tolerate all sorts of rightwing nutjob whackery here.
Warren Stupidity
Dec 2013
#185
So do you consider people who use tems like "gun grabber" and "hoplophobe" to be bigots as well?
Bjorn Against
Dec 2013
#201
You much not pay much attention then, the pro-gun side is filled with bigots
Bjorn Against
Dec 2013
#208
If you paid any attention at all during the trial there were constant smears of Trayvon Martin
Bjorn Against
Dec 2013
#212
How can one post rationally to folks who need a gun or two to venture into public,
Hoyt
Dec 2013
#215
You just can't have a rational discussion regarding gun control here in America.
Oakenshield
Dec 2013
#253
An idea that I support in principal, but background checks against what?
HereSince1628
Dec 2013
#290