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]Chemisse
(31,301 posts)162. Was there really a need for name calling?
Why stoop to RW tactics to make your point?
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