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
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Foreign Policy by the NRA? The Prospect of Gingrich and Bolton. [View all]Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)63. What possible threat is a man with 200 guns?
1. I think it's going to be Newt and we all know how dirty he can get. I wish it was Romney and you're right he's a cakewalk. Newt is not a cakewalk - he's dangerous.
Newt has absolutely zero chance of the nomination and certainly not the presidency. This is a man who had an affair and divorced his wife while she was dying of cancer. The guy has been married three times. How can he possibly earn the votes of the "family values" crowd? This guy has no chance.
3. I don't want a hard limit. I want proper licensing of legitimate collectors and restrictions on those who are not. Can you please explain to me why it is imperative for someone to have 200 hundred guns, the vast majority of which are not collectors items, and why this should go largely untaxed and largely unregulated? I'm sorry, but if they've got the money to blow on guns, they've got the money to fund increased enforcement of existing regulations at the very least. I'd also like to see a hard and fast law on carrying weapons in government buildings and at political events.
What possible danger is a man with 200 guns? Do you think he's going to rent a cargo van and go on a shooting spree, trying out each firearm in his collection in turn?
A man with a 200-gun collection is probably pretty well off. So much so that it is very unlikely he is going to be involved in crime. He's going to be living a comfortable life. He's not going to be dealing with gangs or robbing the corner liquor store.
A man with one gun and nothing to lose is far more of a concern than a man with a 200-gun collection.
Newt has absolutely zero chance of the nomination and certainly not the presidency. This is a man who had an affair and divorced his wife while she was dying of cancer. The guy has been married three times. How can he possibly earn the votes of the "family values" crowd? This guy has no chance.
3. I don't want a hard limit. I want proper licensing of legitimate collectors and restrictions on those who are not. Can you please explain to me why it is imperative for someone to have 200 hundred guns, the vast majority of which are not collectors items, and why this should go largely untaxed and largely unregulated? I'm sorry, but if they've got the money to blow on guns, they've got the money to fund increased enforcement of existing regulations at the very least. I'd also like to see a hard and fast law on carrying weapons in government buildings and at political events.
What possible danger is a man with 200 guns? Do you think he's going to rent a cargo van and go on a shooting spree, trying out each firearm in his collection in turn?
A man with a 200-gun collection is probably pretty well off. So much so that it is very unlikely he is going to be involved in crime. He's going to be living a comfortable life. He's not going to be dealing with gangs or robbing the corner liquor store.
A man with one gun and nothing to lose is far more of a concern than a man with a 200-gun collection.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
209 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
Agreed. Have you read Kopel's outstanding scene-by scene takedown of Moore's garbage?
Simo 1939_1940
Dec 2011
#148
Not without compensation, it doesn't. How will you pay for them? And hypothetically..
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#72
You propose to tell 80 million people that you're going to take their property?
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#101
What "festering problems" would those be? Can't be the violent crime and murder rates...
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#129
Nice of you to highlight the 'status offense' part I already pointed out.
AtheistCrusader
Dec 2011
#119
Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, for another.
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#128
"we" will confiscate? Do you have a turd in your pocket? You are more than welcome to
Fair Witness
Dec 2011
#133
Not such inane ideas at all. Maybe some of you need to get your "head" out of your gun barrels.
Hoyt
Dec 2011
#19
Most folks don't know anything about bombs, poisons, etc., but we regulate them. Plenty of examples.
Hoyt
Dec 2011
#22
We are talking about private explosives, etc., not military. Besides, you want to arm populace.
Hoyt
Dec 2011
#28
Feel free. I said you were not the first person to preface a bigoted comment with a disclaimer.
Fair Witness
Dec 2011
#163
Sort of like your "long-range laser sniper sights", or whatever hoodooo you claimed? n/t
PavePusher
Dec 2011
#34
"I suspect that you favor the incremental approach to eventually banning all firearms."
ellisonz
Dec 2011
#15
He doesn't have to convince you- you need to persuade the Supreme Court of your stance.
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#79
How many far-right Republican judges did you need to get that Supreme Court case?
ellisonz
Dec 2011
#82
Of course it's the government limiting itself- see the anti-federalists' writings.
X_Digger
Dec 2011
#116
Mere exercise of a Constitutional Right within sight of a political figure....
PavePusher
Dec 2011
#49
I haven't asserted anything other than that the SS is there to do a particular job...
PavePusher
Dec 2011
#104
Well, your opinion of legal carriers is now well known. Nothing I can add to your vitriol and fear.
PavePusher
Dec 2011
#174
"How does this not violate the First Amendment right to peaceable assembly?"
PavePusher
Dec 2011
#67
What position? That the indeterminate proximity of a elected public servent...
PavePusher
Dec 2011
#107
Firstly, no-one claimed any legally armed person can guarantee anyones' safety...
PavePusher
Dec 2011
#109
You've moved all your goal-posts (yes, we saw that), and again accused me of making threats.
PavePusher
Dec 2011
#168
"this was the Democratic position in 2008" -- selective amnesia? Or just ignorance?
X_Digger
Dec 2011
#43
"Gun rights were not the prime issue driving the Tea Party in the midterm election."
ellisonz
Dec 2011
#147
Yet less than an hour before, it was "Damn right we'll confiscate".
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#60
I'm also not denying that I'm better looking than George Clooney and smarter than Stephen Hawking...
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#89
Money aside, why on Earth can't the Bradys get more members? They're outnumbered 80:1 by the NRA
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#100
I endorse electoral reality. Telling 80 million voters they need political and psychological tests..
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#127
IOW, he was watching Zoom when I was picketing Newt Gingrich's residence with ADAPT.
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#164
There's a job for you! Start the Department of Scientific Disarmament Instruction
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#176
No biggie- You're not the first "Billy Sunday of gun control" to show up here...
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#178
When where you appointed to speak for "the majority of DU"- or any other DUer, for that matter?
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#196
Hahaha look at you. 8 PAGES of data and naaaa nahananahahana I can't hear you
AtheistCrusader
Dec 2011
#94
Shall I start posting the names of victims of the NRA's promotion of gun violence...
ellisonz
Dec 2011
#142
"now they pretty much just stand for Republicans" -- you agree that you misspoke?
X_Digger
Dec 2011
#117