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: Can we agree to ban the weapon used by the mass murderer? [View all]yardwork
(69,126 posts)77. While you play word games, 49 people are dead.
Obviously this is just a game to you.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
138 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
You want to ban Glocks? Do you really think that's a realistic goal?
Just reading posts
Jun 2016
#58
It fires every bit as fast as the rifle he used, and can accept magazines holding over 30 rounds.
Just reading posts
Jun 2016
#76
I too grew up hunting - in rural NY. Semi auto rifles (742) and shotguns (1100, A5)
jmg257
Jun 2016
#103
Yes, but I have the 2nd Amendment with protects the liberty to own commonly used firearms
aikoaiko
Jun 2016
#32
It must be a game to you. Your rediculous argument gets mauled and handed back to you...
cleanhippie
Jun 2016
#102
Yet that's obviously NOT the purpose to which the extant tens of millions are actually used.
Lizzie Poppet
Jun 2016
#98
We shouldn't defeat this notion because of syntax, make it ANY device DESIGNED to kill humans ...
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#8
OK, so people are allowed to carry grenades? No.. they're not, so it will happen if we vote for
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#10
In that case I'll take common sense regulation, place the same barriers to owning a gun as there
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#47
How is "relatively efficiently" defined? Rifles with 5 round magazines did the job relatively...
Marengo
Jun 2016
#100
More efficiently than a musket for a start... we can move down from there... a rock or bow and
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#118
That sounds practical, I'm sure someone in congress has presented it but its been smacked down by
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#128
That's a way too, just change the SCOTUS laws and enact whats in the best interest of the electorate
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#50
No thanks, I have a career. Besides I do not think I was being smug, or snide at all.
jmg257
Jun 2016
#122
Make it harder to get any devices DESIGNED to kill a lot of people than it is to drive a car....
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#7
No, because it is pointless. We learned this from the 1994 AWB that banned some guns by name
aikoaiko
Jun 2016
#29
We could also just ban everything until "they" can come up with some workable definitions. nt
gollygee
Jun 2016
#17
Sigh. "Semi-automatic" is very easily defined and can be banned with a single signature
Recursion
Jun 2016
#19
I agree that your post was just basically a rant against our current society. ...
spin
Jun 2016
#120
Anything used for assault could be defined as an assault weapon, even a pool noodle
ileus
Jun 2016
#92
The same issue comes up with laws against "bath salts" and other synthetic marijuana substances.
Brickbat
Jun 2016
#38
Agreed. Such a broad ban on semi-autos woudl simply be ignored by the majority of owners.
Lizzie Poppet
Jun 2016
#97
I know, but we need A START before NEXT crazy hater tries to one-up the count score
Sunlei
Jun 2016
#110
Isn't the semi-automatic like porn? The courts don't define that. They say they just
valerief
Jun 2016
#107