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: Simple - and serious - question - why is anything other than a handgun, shotgun or rifle needed? [View all]sarisataka
(22,364 posts)3. That is the basic choices.
but there are so many versions based off of those three. The AR-15 is, in the loosest sense, just an offspring of the Civil War era Henry repeating rifle, a Glock from the Single Action Army.
The tools change over the years. The operator is what is constant. The west had Wes Hardin. We have our murders that I will not give the respect of posting their names.
Changing the operator is what will have a lasting effect. We need to find out why people do these things and see what can be done to correct them.
IMO removing the mystique of guns will help more than removing the guns.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
183 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
Simple - and serious - question - why is anything other than a handgun, shotgun or rifle needed? [View all]
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2012
OP
The original purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to defend the govt, not overthrow it.
baldguy
Jul 2012
#24
A RWer quotes a RW fascist, trying to foster a RW extremist myth in favor of a RW policy
baldguy
Jul 2012
#165
The Founders feared a standing army much more than the remote possibility of domestic tyranny.
baldguy
Jul 2012
#174
So again show me a majority of constitutional scholars that agrees with your position
permatex
Jul 2012
#175
Those appear to be disingenuous half truths expressed for the sake of defending an untenable
Zorra
Jul 2012
#154
anything multiple shot, automatic, rapid fire - anything other than really basic.
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2012
#6
I'm sure because if his AR-15 had been fully automatic it would have been huge news.
Johnny Rico
Jul 2012
#100
My solution? Same as two-time Republican Candidate for President Barry Goldwater's
panzerfaust
Jul 2012
#108
Sure I did. You don't want and "regular" citizen to be able to own semiautomatic weapons.
Johnny Rico
Jul 2012
#98
So you're speaking of banning anything the can fire more than a single shot without reloading?
Johnny Rico
Jul 2012
#72
I am serious - really feel I need to be better educated - all part of getting to root causes.
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2012
#7
Thanks - and I do realize that. I know far more good people than assholes.....
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2012
#34
Hey Man,If the Gubmint comes for my guns, If Obama keeps trying to take my guns
rustydog
Jul 2012
#15
it is touchy, and my attempt at this post (not going too badly) is simply to learn.
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2012
#21
I guess - but if they get used (which they seem to), it goes beyond hobbyists....
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2012
#19
No. And not even those without an extensive mental health examination. nt
Comrade_McKenzie
Jul 2012
#20
yes, that's fine - and I choose to not participate in any of those either.
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2012
#75
show me where I am trying to fit everyone into my box. I am listening and reading and
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2012
#129
Yes, I did say that - which is why I started the thread, so I could learn. I am not judging,
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2012
#148
Well, I respect the fact that you are really trying to understand the issue
OffWithTheirHeads
Jul 2012
#51
I am not passing judgement - and I don't need to go to a shooting range because
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2012
#73
I think people have the right to own and use firearms for sport, pleasure, and defense if necessary.
HooptieWagon
Jul 2012
#48
I defend myself by staying out of situations where I need to defend myself.
HooptieWagon
Jul 2012
#65
The response was not rude or mean. Just the facts. WTF is your issue? Calm down. n-t
Logical
Jul 2012
#92
Jesus Christ, another post discussing automatic weapons where none existed in the shooting. n-t
Logical
Jul 2012
#93
good food for thought (and many points for creativity and effort!). thanks...
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2012
#37
So no citizens of any country should ever go to war against their government?
RegieRocker
Jul 2012
#125
This has been a worthwhile/interesting exchange - thanks to all for taking it seriously,
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2012
#76
I hope it's okay to piggyback here with my own question re: military veterans & guns
OneGrassRoot
Jul 2012
#87
The NRA says we should have AR-15s because the gov't won't let the citizens have nuclear weapons.
leveymg
Jul 2012
#102
Unlike an AR-15, a bolt-action rifle can't be easily adapted for full auto fire.
leveymg
Jul 2012
#107
All (or nearly all) semi-auto pistols and rifles can be converted into assault rifles
leveymg
Jul 2012
#137
Sounds like the sort of "will destroy the Party" argument that sustained Jim Crow.
leveymg
Jul 2012
#143
You do realize James Holmes went into the theater with a handgun, shotgun, and rifle...
GarroHorus
Jul 2012
#119
While it would not have prevented this particular tragedy, I agree with you 100%.
Chemisse
Jul 2012
#163
