General Discussion

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)

109. I read your post before and it's disingenuous at best

Thu May 29, 2014, 01:13 PM

May 2014

Making gun ownership so onerous that no one would or could do it amounts to a ban. It's intellectually dishonest to call it people control.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

184 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gun Fanatics Express Their Support For a Mass Murderer�s Second Amendment Rights [View all] doxydad May 2014 OP

So what new gun law would have prevented the Santa Barbara shooting? badtoworse May 2014 #1

A ban on purchasing thousands of dollars of ammunition at once shenmue May 2014 #2

Thousand os dollars of ammo? He had 400 rounds of 9mm, about $125-150 worth, and fired far less Lee-Lee May 2014 #6

How the hell are you going to enforce that? Travis_0004 May 2014 #7

and how do you do that Duckhunter935 May 2014 #9

After reading your post and the one above about the cost of just shooting for the heck of it, Skidmore May 2014 #11

I don't get what a lot of people do for recreation Lee-Lee May 2014 #17

How many people are killed by skiers each year? thucythucy May 2014 #54

Your spending supports the gun lobby and right wing upaloopa May 2014 #64

My electricity bill supports a massive polluter Lee-Lee May 2014 #69

Me either ... oldhippie May 2014 #136

Nobody's been able to buy that much in years. sofa king May 2014 #21

One of the stores around here must have plenty of .22 still. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #29

Maybe they've caught up, now. sofa king May 2014 #41

Before Newtown you could buy 500 round "bricks" ... oldhippie May 2014 #138

he didn't have thousands of rounds. aikoaiko May 2014 #50

Then why don't you take that brave first step? daleanime May 2014 #3

I'd put UBC's and a 10 round mag limit on the table. badtoworse May 2014 #5

California already had those laws Duckhunter935 May 2014 #10

I was thinking on a national level. badtoworse May 2014 #14

Open NICS to private sellers and they will pass UBC easily Lee-Lee May 2014 #18

"I could even live with 20 round magazine limits." 3catwoman3 May 2014 #100

20 round or under is Duckhunter935 May 2014 #148

The belief that... daleanime May 2014 #104

Liability insurance would cover an accidental death or injury caused by me and I have that. badtoworse May 2014 #105

Guns should be banned treestar May 2014 #4

If thats your goal, you need to repeal the second admendment. Travis_0004 May 2014 #8

... leftyohiolib May 2014 #24

It can be done treestar May 2014 #96

If a UBC cannot be passed, Jenoch May 2014 #117

You can still have a musket if you want. savalez May 2014 #158

Okay blueridge3210 May 2014 #159

*crickets* (n/t) derby378 May 2014 #162

Lordy but those are loud crickets... Ballast_Point May 2014 #164

Seems so. blueridge3210 May 2014 #167

Don't let them know that high capacity magazines are older than the bill or rights Travis_0004 May 2014 #172

Bill of rights was ratified in 1791. First 20 round magazines was made in 1779. Travis_0004 May 2014 #171

Guns are not banned in Duckhunter935 May 2014 #13

As far as I know they didn't repeal their gun ban treestar May 2014 #97

And which well regulated militia do you belong to? paleotn May 2014 #12

not a requirement as Duckhunter935 May 2014 #15

The constitution says different, but 5 members of the USSC are bought & paid for by the RW baldguy May 2014 #23

The Democratic Party platform says it is an individual right. nt hack89 May 2014 #30

What part of "phoney shit storm from gun fanatics" do you not understand? baldguy May 2014 #32

Or perhaps gun controllers have less influence then they like to believe? hack89 May 2014 #37

Are all the dead children worth it for you? baldguy May 2014 #38

Now you are being stupid hack89 May 2014 #42

Post removed Post removed May 2014 #46

And you don't care to actually solve the problem hack89 May 2014 #48

He's got lot's of company around here. badtoworse May 2014 #58

There will be more. We don't have to ban guns. Society upaloopa May 2014 #66

"Just you wait" - the motto of gun control for 20 years and counting. nt hack89 May 2014 #70

Solving the problem begins with gun fanatics casting off their 17th century attitudes about firearms baldguy May 2014 #61

I think not. hack89 May 2014 #72

I'll knock on wood for you. AAO May 2014 #122

The drive to the range is much more dangerous hack89 May 2014 #124

I do, you seem to have none. n/t AAO May 2014 #125

Are you suggesting I stop driving? hack89 May 2014 #127

Yes, they are. The psychological imbedded with evil. AAO May 2014 #130

I do not own guns for self defense - I live in a very safe town hack89 May 2014 #131

I rest my case. Enjoy your firearms while you can. EOM AAO May 2014 #132

My kids will oneday go shooting with my grandkids - of that I have no doubts hack89 May 2014 #135

Nice chatting! AAO May 2014 #137

See you around. nt hack89 May 2014 #140

"21st century weapons technology"? badtoworse May 2014 #86

You are in deep denial. I feel sorry for you and those you supposedly love. n/t AAO May 2014 #123

hack89 Niceguy1 May 2014 #85

Oooh! Oooh! A purity test! derby378 May 2014 #99

If you support magazine limits, that's a backdoor AWB (n/t) derby378 May 2014 #102

My AR-15s all came with 15 round mags hack89 May 2014 #103

YES, but the 2nd Amendment has been greatly distorted by those who make billions drynberg May 2014 #36

+1000 baldguy May 2014 #39

so Duckhunter935 May 2014 #40

What does NICS stand for? nt tblue37 May 2014 #63

National Instant Check System Lee-Lee May 2014 #73

Thanks. nt tblue37 May 2014 #75

Unfortunately for you, the other four members agree with them friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #108

the gun fanatic heaven05 May 2014 #19

that's funny cause it's the gun-fetishists that have been doing all the taking leftyohiolib May 2014 #22

This message was self-deleted by its author Sancho May 2014 #25

This is the way to prevent such shootings.... Sancho May 2014 #26

You want "responsible gun owners" to act responsibly? baldguy May 2014 #34

99% already do Duckhunter935 May 2014 #43

And yet innocent children keep dying. baldguy May 2014 #45

a sad fact, but yes Duckhunter935 May 2014 #49

No they don't, or gun sales would be declining and gun owners Hoyt May 2014 #151

No...I want reasonable laws that would take time to phase in and prevent random violence. Sancho May 2014 #47

Still trying to float this turd? It's gotten old. badtoworse May 2014 #53

I've been around a long time and seen things change...so "old" doesn't mean much to me. Sancho May 2014 #106

I read your post before and it's disingenuous at best badtoworse May 2014 #109

Not disingenuous at all.... Sancho May 2014 #110

None of the things you mentioned are enumerated rights. That makes a big difference badtoworse May 2014 #114

You still don't have a way to keep unstable people away from guns. Sancho May 2014 #116

Let's deal with fundamentals first. badtoworse May 2014 #150

I'm talking about fundamentals... Sancho May 2014 #154

"I'm a gun owner with decades of experience. I know exactly what I'm saying." friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #156

If any gun owner has decades of experience, then they know what I'm talking about... Sancho May 2014 #168

Prior restraint on an enumerated civil right won't fly friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #170

You are wrong about my license suggestion. Sancho May 2014 #173

It's still prior restraint, therefore un-Constitutional without due process of law friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #174

Haha...I spend lots of time in Miami.... Sancho May 2014 #175

Dunning-Kruger detected. A fisking is in order friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #176

We've seen all the same arguments before...you are not answering the question! Sancho May 2014 #177

Start prosecuting straw buyers. Improve the mental health reporting system... friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #178

Those are steps in the right direction... Sancho May 2014 #180

You misunderstand me. I meant "Mandatory *for gun buyers and sellers*" friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #181

Haha.. Sancho May 2014 #182

Straw buyers can be tracked by finding the last registered owner friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #183

You can continue arguing if you want, but you are creating a monster. Sancho May 2014 #184

Regulate guns like cars. doxydad May 2014 #28

So I do not Duckhunter935 May 2014 #44

Typical gun nut smarmy answer that answers nothing groundloop May 2014 #52

The false consensus effect is strong amongst you lot friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #111

The NRA would love to have guns regulated like cars. hack89 May 2014 #80

Then why doesn't the NRA stepup and agree to ANY positive change? doxydad May 2014 #139

And right on schedule blueridge3210 May 2014 #141

I think Dems have to take certain things off the table first hack89 May 2014 #142

Willing to work with gun owners what a crock! upaloopa May 2014 #59

You're a great example of why nothing happens badtoworse May 2014 #67

How about background checks polmaven May 2014 #65

There are pros and cons with that approach. badtoworse May 2014 #76

Put a Ten dollar tax on EACH round purchased. Katashi_itto May 2014 #74

Such a tax would be ruled unconstitutional as it would effective prevent blueridge3210 May 2014 #78

Not if the FDA rule bullets were a health hazard like cigarettes Katashi_itto May 2014 #79

Where is the constitutional right to smoke cigarettes? blueridge3210 May 2014 #83

"keep and bear arms" Nothing about bullets. Katashi_itto May 2014 #90

No doubt said with a straight face. badtoworse May 2014 #91

Yep. Katashi_itto May 2014 #92

Freedom of the Press. blueridge3210 May 2014 #94

Look up poll tax and get back to us. badtoworse May 2014 #89

Apples to Oranges. I think I struck a nerve with the Ammosexuals. Katashi_itto May 2014 #93

I would guess that you are not a constitutional lawyer. badtoworse May 2014 #95

Or not Lurks Often May 2014 #101

*snort*...*giggle*...*guffaw*.... blueridge3210 May 2014 #107

maybe noiretextatique May 2014 #119

The article is not an invitation to debate the second amendment maindawg May 2014 #16

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #20

IN a well regulated militia.... mikeysnot May 2014 #31

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #33

bought and paid for by the military mikeysnot May 2014 #87

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #112

Typical... mikeysnot May 2014 #115

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #118

Wow, it didn't last long??? mikeysnot May 2014 #155

A murderes right to kill trumps a parents right to protect their children. Kablooie May 2014 #27

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #35

You may want to edit your post, it looks like you mis-typed ... ? etherealtruth May 2014 #51

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #55

Oh, you actually meant to defend the statements of "joe the plumber" (and his ilk) etherealtruth May 2014 #60

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #81

Again I have to assume you mis-typed .... ????? etherealtruth May 2014 #84

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #98

Seriously? I guess you don't spend much time reading gun threads on DU. badtoworse May 2014 #56

Actually, I do spend "some" time etherealtruth May 2014 #62

Joe's statement was crass and lacked empathy, but factually, he's correct. badtoworse May 2014 #77

'Joe's" staements are only correct if one views our enumerated "rights" as absolute etherealtruth May 2014 #82

Rights are subject to subject to limits and restrictions, that is different than taking them away. badtoworse May 2014 #88

OK let's give you a little challenge intaglio May 2014 #153

It isn't an insult. It is reality you just can't see the truth upaloopa May 2014 #68

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #71

You lot aren't very good at slacktivism, much less real-world politics friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #113

They only sound like insults to you. AAO May 2014 #126

Disingenuous article title. aikoaiko May 2014 #57

your dead kids don't trump my second amendment rights noiretextatique May 2014 #120

Post removed Post removed May 2014 #128

Guns don't kill people - people with guns kill people! AAO May 2014 #121

Of course they do -- just as their pathetic, blood-soaked apologetics were instantly available villager May 2014 #129

+100 billh58 May 2014 #133

But so absolutely, routinely, predicatable. villager May 2014 #134

If the RKBA folks had even a miniscule shred of integrity, they would wholeheartedly support efforts Maedhros May 2014 #143

What efforts would those be? blueridge3210 May 2014 #144

Effective ones, arrived after extensive study and discussion by knowlegeable participants. Maedhros May 2014 #146

So, if I understand your position blueridge3210 May 2014 #147

I'm just saying that the responsible thing to do is to recognize the need for changes Maedhros May 2014 #149

Perhaps because when they do recommend things Lee-Lee May 2014 #157

What makes anybody think crazy people without guns won't kill anybody? EX500rider May 2014 #145

A 10 or 20% reduction would be worth it. Jeeez. Hoyt May 2014 #152

"Without guns a lot of mass shootings would not occur." EX500rider May 2014 #160

OH, so we'll let em shoot people so we don't have a Boston bombing. Hoyt May 2014 #161

I see you skipping right over the whole cars as weapons part? EX500rider May 2014 #163

You just want/need to keep access to guns. The rest doesn't matter. Hoyt May 2014 #165

Such a mind reader!! Must be cool to have magic powers! EX500rider May 2014 #166

Less dead people. But it is obvious guns are easier to use or you'd see more Hoyt May 2014 #169

. geomon666 May 2014 #179