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
 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
28. A question for you.
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 06:32 PM
Jul 2012
Wholly unresponsive. Which means, I suppose, that Atypical Liberal agrees with me. And the purposes of boats and campers is not "killing people", which is the sole purpose of automatic weapons.

It's quite responsive. You want to justify firearm ownership through need. In this country, we don't have to justify the things we choose to buy.

Yes, firearms are for killing, and yes, that is what the second amendment is about.

So what? We are speaking of civilians, not military.

Yes, but the whole point of the second amendment is to put military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians so that they can function as military forces and counter military force.

Civilians should not need to protect themselves. That's the job of the police.

OK, you are showing yourself to be woefully ignorant here. Police are almost never present during the commission of crimes. They show up after the fact to gather evidence, interview witnesses, and aid in the prosecution. Furthermore, the police are under absolutely zero legal obligation to protect anyone not directly in their custody.

The fact is, even if every firearm vanished tomorrow, there would still be violent crimes, and people would be victimized without a police officer there to protect them.

You can wish that there was no violence in the world, but there has been violence in the world for all of recorded history. Ultimately, it is your responsibility to protect yourself and your family. If you want to abdicate that responsibility to someone else, that is your choice and I respect that. But you won't be making that choice for me.

I don't know. I do not see any reason for concealed carry. If you can give me a better reason than "I need a penis substitute", then I'd be happy to hear it.

Right, because everyone who wishes to use a tool to protect themselves from violence really is looking for a penis substitute. How condescending.

A question for you:

Do you believe that women who carry concealed weapons are carrying them as "penis substitutes"?

Recommendations

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

well said DrDan Jul 2012 #1
I've poked around looking for early second amendment debate information. brewens Jul 2012 #2
I think Justice Stevens' Dissent in Heller is an excellent discussion of 2nd Amendment. Hoyt Jul 2012 #4
Let's hope, we need to win congress in Nov. that will help nt flamingdem Jul 2012 #5
Lots exists from the founders. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #8
I meant that there isn't all that much on specifically the second amendment. brewens Jul 2012 #12
Start with Wikipedia Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #15
within the context of a well-regulated state militia magical thyme Jul 2012 #30
But they have several erroneous points. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #32
their point is that the 2nd amendment is very specifically written to address magical thyme Jul 2012 #34
and the dissenters evaluation of the decision is also an interesting read magical thyme Jul 2012 #31
And Congress HAS regulated civilian uses of weapons. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #33
the 2nd amendment is about maintaining state militias magical thyme Jul 2012 #35
That is true. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #37
Fuck the NRA. I'll donate to any politician who publicly states russspeakeasy Jul 2012 #3
You realize the NRA supports Democrats, right? Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #7
Oh my, well in that case iamthebandfanman Jul 2012 #10
Yes, I realize that. That doesn't make the NRA any less despicable. russspeakeasy Jul 2012 #16
Good to know you think supporting Democrats is despicable. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #19
Hey, are you Ron Paul ? russspeakeasy Jul 2012 #20
I don't get it. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #22
K&R. Well said. Overseas Jul 2012 #6
Many errors in his video Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #9
Then the Assault Weapons Ban wasn't strong enough. Chorophyll Jul 2012 #11
+1000 gtar100 Jul 2012 #13
So how would you have changed it? Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #14
And the problem with that is? Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #17
The weapons shown are neither an AK-47 nor an M-1 carbine. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #18
OK, I don't know about those two specific weapons. Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #21
Ah the old "penis" canard. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #23
It's not a canard, it's a major reason why gun nuts collect guns. Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #24
Crock of shit. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #25
A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #27
A question for you. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #28
Latest Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #39
I notice you didn't answer my question: Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #40
Because it's a stupid question, which does not deserve answering Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #42
My question is no more stupid than your statement that prompted it. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #43
You are wrong, it is NOT the job of the Police... MicaelS Jul 2012 #41
well said. DCBob Jul 2012 #38
My guess meanit Jul 2012 #26
Exactly right. K&R! Rhiannon12866 Jul 2012 #29
remember how after 9/11 conservatives said the Constitution isn't a suicide pact? yurbud Jul 2012 #36
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Bill Moyers: "NRA tu...»Reply #28