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

Dark n Stormy Knight

(10,484 posts)
1. We may need that to discuss this particular incident, but this is not
Tue Oct 3, 2017, 03:08 PM
Oct 2017

an isolated incident, so we can discuss the problem in general, which is certainly valuable.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a30024/mass-shooters-1014/

Recommendations

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

We may need that to discuss this particular incident, but this is not Dark n Stormy Knight Oct 2017 #1
The more incidents we can bring into discussion, the more effective legislation can be. JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #3
What does ANY of that have to do Brainstormy Oct 2017 #2
Super important, but that's not the only issue we Dark n Stormy Knight Oct 2017 #4
You are aware how laws work? JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #5
Because then you have people, maybe such as yourself, trying to ban automatic weapons when jmg257 Oct 2017 #11
If he didn't, the expression "automatic weapons" Brainstormy Oct 2017 #17
Sure it does. He did have a shitload of jmg257 Oct 2017 #21
You're literally validating my entire OP point for me. Thank You. JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #24
More info out on the weapons, and now pictures of at least numerous assault style long guns. jmg257 Oct 2017 #6
Thank you for info. Two things that jump out immedately are "Bump Fire Stock" and "72 Minutes"... JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #8
And luckily - apparently he did not fire the whole time. jmg257 Oct 2017 #10
I have enough information HopeAgain Oct 2017 #7
OK, define "assault weapon". What do you do about the (literally) tens-of-millions out there? JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #9
It is going to cost a lot to buy them all. nt hack89 Oct 2017 #13
It is not a constitutional taking. HopeAgain Oct 2017 #14
That simply means the law will be ignored to a large extent. hack89 Oct 2017 #18
Your right, why bother... maybe we can get little victories HopeAgain Oct 2017 #20
That's what it is going to take hack89 Oct 2017 #22
Drugs are not durable goods. You can't prove that your kush was in your possesion before the ban. JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #19
No, ex post facto prohibition would not apply HopeAgain Oct 2017 #23
Damn right! n/t Brainstormy Oct 2017 #16
Good God, man, the issue is SO much bigger than this massacre du jour Stinky The Clown Oct 2017 #12
The point is we NEED TO DO SOMETHING. JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #15
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Information at hand versu...»Reply #1