|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
![]() |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 12:37 AM Original message |
Why not call it, 'CHRISTINA'S LAW'? (restoring the ban on high-capacity magazines |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nye Bevan
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 12:40 AM Response to Original message |
1. I hate laws being named after people |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 12:45 AM Response to Reply #1 |
3. Deleted message |
Name removed
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 12:47 AM Response to Reply #3 |
5. Deleted message |
Upton
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 12:58 AM Response to Reply #3 |
11. I unrecced it.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cherokeeprogressive
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 01:34 AM Response to Reply #11 |
20. As did I. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 01:51 AM Response to Reply #20 |
23. Why not simply post a cogent argument against my idea, which you still have not done? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cherokeeprogressive
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:53 AM Response to Reply #23 |
38. I'll do my best. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cid_B
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 08:40 AM Response to Reply #23 |
56. Few things... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GSLevel9
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 04:23 PM Response to Reply #11 |
84. too bad the software doesn't show total negative rec tally. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
petronius
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 01:06 AM Response to Reply #3 |
14. Perhaps what's being unrecced is the callous use of a tragesy - and one specific victim |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 01:45 AM Response to Reply #14 |
22. Isn't it just sophistry to try to justify the NRA position on ANY firearm restrictions |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
petronius
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 02:04 AM Original message |
No - in any call for a restriction, no matter in what context (whether it's hi-cap |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
appal_jack
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 02:13 AM Response to Original message |
25. +1 to this response. un-rec to the OP |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:14 AM Response to Reply #25 |
31. 'Further erode our Constitutional liberties'? You mean, the right to be killed in an instant |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
appal_jack
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 04:25 PM Response to Reply #31 |
85. My copy of the Constitution lacks those words |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:25 AM Response to Original message |
33. Even more pro-status-quo sophistry? The FBI has access to some security videos |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
petronius
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:44 AM Response to Reply #33 |
36. You need to look up the words "sophistry" and "proved", because they don't mean what you think |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
crazyjoe
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 05:27 AM Response to Reply #33 |
129. but but, what if he had another gun? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pipoman
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 12:22 AM Response to Reply #129 |
144. He did, he bought both at the same time. He left it home |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:29 PM Response to Original message |
76. The restriction WAS there. It was allowed to expire. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
petronius
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:58 PM Response to Reply #76 |
79. Right, and can anyone point to any concrete evidence that the old ban |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 05:53 PM Response to Reply #79 |
90. 'can anyone point to any concrete evidence that the old ban |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
petronius
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 06:23 PM Response to Reply #90 |
94. You have not correctly understood my reasoning. Murder, rape, and a whole |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 07:56 PM Response to Reply #94 |
98. Well, I have not read where the Tucson example has been |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
petronius
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 09:09 PM Response to Reply #98 |
104. To say that fewer lives would have been lost in Tucson requires assuming that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 10:17 PM Response to Reply #90 |
110. Wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 10:17 PM Response to Reply #90 |
111. Dupe N/T |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
benEzra
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 04:32 PM Response to Reply #76 |
86. Actually, the 1994 law didn't affect magazine availability; it affected magazine *prices*. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 05:58 PM Response to Reply #86 |
92. Thank you for the information. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
benEzra
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 06:23 PM Response to Reply #92 |
93. Exceedingly unlikely. The Virginia Tech shooter used standard, non-extended magazines |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rocknrule
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 11:33 PM Response to Reply #93 |
142. Actually some of his clips were extended too |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 01:37 AM Response to Reply #142 |
149. No, they weren't. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
benEzra
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 12:43 PM Response to Reply #142 |
187. None of Cho's magazines were extended. Every single one was a standard flush-fit, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 09:48 AM Response to Reply #93 |
256. Thank you benEzra for that info. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
oldhippie
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 10:36 PM Response to Reply #92 |
116. Maybe if the law had restricted shooting people .... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 12:10 AM Response to Reply #116 |
118. Or maybe if we lived in a society where people didn't |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 02:36 AM Response to Reply #118 |
119. Thats quite an assumption. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 02:51 AM Response to Reply #119 |
122. Size does not always equal strength. And it's an assumption |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 03:04 AM Response to Reply #122 |
123. 99 times out of a hundred... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 03:29 AM Response to Reply #123 |
124. Well, I'm not advocating physical confrontation at all. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTyankee
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 04:06 PM Response to Reply #118 |
133. I wonder...are you safer in Tucson, AZ or say Copenhagen, Denmark? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
benEzra
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 01:22 PM Response to Reply #133 |
189. You do know that "assault weapons" are legal in Denmark, yes? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTyankee
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 01:36 PM Response to Reply #189 |
190. This website begs to differ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTyankee
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 07:49 PM Response to Reply #189 |
196. Since BenEzra failed to respond to my post here is the quote about Denmark's gun laws: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 10:37 PM Response to Reply #196 |
205. ehow is a definitive source, now? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTyankee
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 09:20 AM Response to Reply #205 |
209. Hi there! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTyankee
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 09:31 AM Response to Reply #205 |
211. So, I read some of the material from the U. of Australia. Looks to me like |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 10:04 AM Response to Reply #211 |
214. So you admit you were wrong about Denmark's gun laws, yes? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTyankee
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 02:23 PM Response to Reply #214 |
224. If you will remember, my original question was whether you would be safer |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
benEzra
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 09:14 AM Response to Reply #196 |
254. AR-15's are used in civilian target competition all over Europe. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTyankee
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 01:43 PM Response to Reply #254 |
257. I'm not one arguing for banning. Restricting and heavy regulation will do. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
benEzra
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 08:49 PM Response to Reply #257 |
262. I think the Czech Republic and Switzerland treat them most rationally... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 02:40 AM Response to Reply #118 |
161. The world before firearms? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
benEzra
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 01:14 PM Response to Reply #118 |
188. Humans have used standoff weapons ever since there have been humans. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PavePusher
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 12:03 PM Response to Reply #188 |
220. Is it just me, or has the level of ignorance in the last week... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PavePusher
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 12:01 PM Response to Reply #118 |
218. Your (lack of) knowledge of history disqualifies you from theorizing about it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 02:25 AM Response to Reply #22 |
27. Therein lies the problem. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
right2bfree
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 05:37 AM Response to Reply #22 |
49. Anyone with a history of mental health care and meds should be banned from EVER owning guns. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JonLP24
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 04:05 PM Response to Reply #49 |
132. Damn |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ScreamingMeemie
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 02:41 AM Response to Reply #22 |
121. ...and what about the others who lost their lives as well...? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Posteritatis
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 05:27 AM Response to Reply #14 |
45. Never mind the suggestion in the proposed bill's name that the other victims don't really matter. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kievan Rus
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 01:11 AM Response to Reply #1 |
16. I have to agree with you on that... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
N_E_1 for Tennis
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:09 PM Response to Reply #1 |
69. Amber Alert, nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
varkam
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 10:34 PM Response to Reply #1 |
115. +1 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Zoeisright
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 12:43 AM Response to Original message |
2. I think that's a great idea. And it's way, way overdue. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cowcommander
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 12:51 AM Response to Reply #2 |
7. Banning high-cap mags doesn't lessen the killing ability of any gun... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
right2bfree
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 02:24 AM Response to Reply #2 |
26. Hell ya. Lets get these things banned now!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 02:29 AM Response to Reply #2 |
28. Can we safely assume... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:23 AM Response to Reply #2 |
32. Nobody. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 12:38 PM Response to Reply #2 |
130. Thanks for your support in a sea of opposition from a tiny minority |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PavePusher
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 10:07 PM Response to Reply #130 |
228. "sea of opposition from a tiny minority" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Upton
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 12:46 AM Response to Original message |
4. Lipstick on a pig.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cherokeeprogressive
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 12:50 AM Response to Original message |
6. Yeah! Because criminals would NEVER have access to EXISTING high-capacity mags. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LisaL
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 12:52 AM Response to Reply #6 |
9. How would he have access to it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
aikoaiko
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 01:06 AM Response to Reply #9 |
13. There are already millions upon millions of high capacity magazines out there. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LisaL
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 01:12 AM Response to Reply #13 |
17. Loughner wasn't a professional criminal. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
aikoaiko
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 01:17 AM Response to Reply #17 |
18. Yes, I know, but buying illegal guns is only a smidgeon harder than buying illegal drugs. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RamboLiberal
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 08:38 PM Response to Reply #18 |
101. And Loughner certainly knew how to buy drugs illegally |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JonLP24
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 04:09 PM Response to Reply #101 |
134. So do I |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
krispos42
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 11:34 PM Response to Reply #134 |
208. Ask your source of drugs. If he doesn't know, he knows somebody that knows. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Countdown_3_2_1
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 10:09 PM Response to Reply #208 |
230. Not going to happen. We have a GOPuke congress. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:32 AM Response to Reply #17 |
34. Pro/Con |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:35 AM Response to Reply #13 |
35. Just because harm reduction can't be 100% effective is no reason to give up on |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cherokeeprogressive
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:47 AM Response to Reply #35 |
37. Did you say the same about Raygun's "Star Wars"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hippo_Tron
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:27 PM Response to Reply #37 |
75. A ban on high capacity magazines won't cost billions of dollars |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 02:38 AM Response to Reply #75 |
120. Would cost millions of votes though. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PavePusher
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 10:08 PM Response to Reply #75 |
229. Really? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 04:00 AM Response to Reply #35 |
40. Nobodys saying for anyone to give up on harm reduction. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 07:46 PM Response to Reply #40 |
135. Let me get this straight: Psychos are getting legal access to high-capacity magazines |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 08:07 PM Response to Reply #135 |
136. Yep. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 08:19 PM Response to Reply #135 |
139. What's the cost of the life of the person who is killed by the 3rd assailant.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 11:29 PM Response to Reply #139 |
141. 'Why is there an exception for police?' SWAT teams sometimes NEED to wound or |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 11:59 PM Response to Reply #141 |
143. The police are under no obligation to protect *you* or *me*.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 04:09 AM Response to Reply #141 |
163. Just so I can be sure I have this correct... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 02:14 AM Response to Reply #163 |
243. What is the actual number of home invasions a year? 500, in a country of 300 million, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
friendly_iconoclast
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 04:21 AM Response to Reply #243 |
249. "The Honorable Rachel Maddow has said.." And where did she come up with that figure? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 09:37 AM Response to Reply #243 |
255. In 2009, there were 450,000 burglaries of residences at night.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 11:33 AM Response to Reply #141 |
186. You seem to be confused ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 04:42 AM Response to Reply #135 |
167. Let me get this straight... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PavePusher
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 10:10 PM Response to Reply #135 |
231. How much would it cost to collect existing mags? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 04:01 AM Response to Reply #35 |
42. 100% Harm Reduction? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
aikoaiko
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 06:57 AM Response to Reply #35 |
50. I generally agree, but in this case I'm not sure if we are reducing harm enough to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 08:37 AM Response to Reply #35 |
55. But if there is no evidence that it reduced harm at all it would be a good reason to give up |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cherokeeprogressive
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 01:23 AM Response to Reply #9 |
19. They've already grown on trees, and fallen on the ground. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
right2bfree
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:55 AM Response to Reply #19 |
39. Naw, but if you get cuaght with one, you are UP THE CREEK!!, Ban these magazines !! nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cherokeeprogressive
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 04:01 AM Response to Reply #39 |
41. How big is a 31 round clip? Do you know? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
right2bfree
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 05:28 AM Response to Reply #41 |
46. Realistic as in 20 people getting shot in _seconds_ by a GUN-man? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GreenStormCloud
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:26 PM Response to Reply #46 |
74. The Luby's killer shot and killed lots more people, and he reloaded, repeatedly. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JustABozoOnThisBus
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 08:12 AM Response to Reply #41 |
53. Hey, big boy, is that a high-cap mag in your pocket? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTyankee
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 09:32 AM Response to Reply #53 |
212. well, it's the next best thing...evidently... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 04:02 AM Response to Reply #39 |
43. So turn millions of the law abiding into criminals... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
right2bfree
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 05:30 AM Response to Reply #43 |
47. We had ten years of the assualt-weapons ban and it worked. If you commit a crime you go to jail. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 08:43 AM Response to Reply #47 |
59. Um no it didn't work. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 11:16 AM Response to Reply #59 |
61. Is 'effect on violent crime' the right metric, or is it rather the incidence of lone gunmen |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 01:10 PM Response to Reply #61 |
62. Neither the ATF nor CDC or DOJ could find any evidence of any benefit from AWB. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 02:56 PM Response to Reply #62 |
66. 'By having a second weapon Cho was never vulnerable to counterattack'. How did that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OneTenthofOnePercent
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:24 PM Response to Reply #66 |
73. For the record... when reloading a semiautomatic the gun can still fire. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 04:04 PM Response to Reply #73 |
81. 'Takes me all of 1.5-2.0 seconds to reload'--IMO that's enough time for a big guy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OneTenthofOnePercent
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 04:19 PM Response to Reply #81 |
82. Smart money says that typical gunmen shoot those closest to them... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
fishbulb703
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 01:43 PM Response to Reply #81 |
191. Sorry, if a guy starts firing a gun into a crowd, the crowd will scatter away. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTyankee
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 09:33 AM Response to Reply #191 |
213. In a way, such thinking IS Hollywood...in fact it could be called "Dreamworks." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GreenStormCloud
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:30 PM Response to Reply #66 |
77. The Luby's killer shot and killed lots of people, and he reloaded, repeatedly. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RamboLiberal
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 08:41 PM Response to Reply #66 |
102. Cho was in a big ass building |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PavePusher
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 10:17 PM Response to Reply #66 |
232. If you are basing any of your assumptions off of fictional movies... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 04:02 PM Response to Reply #61 |
80. Metrics |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 12:46 AM Response to Reply #80 |
147. IMO you are exactly wrong. The instrumentality being investigated belongs solely on the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 04:27 AM Response to Reply #147 |
166. Perhaps you could explain in layman's terms... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PavePusher
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 10:04 PM Response to Reply #166 |
227. Didn't you see the "IMO"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 09:26 AM Response to Reply #47 |
60. "it worked"? Only if the intent of the law was to hand congress to the rethugs. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
benEzra
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 04:35 PM Response to Reply #47 |
87. It banned no guns and it banned no magazines. The only thing it worked at |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GreenStormCloud
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:22 PM Response to Reply #9 |
72. They can be homemade fairly easily. N/T |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 12:54 AM Response to Reply #6 |
10. I'm not afraid of professional criminals, who tend to kill other criminals because |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
aikoaiko
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 12:51 AM Response to Original message |
8. Apparently the proposed law will be worse -- no further transferring of existing magazines. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TRJuan
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 01:32 PM Response to Reply #8 |
63. It would be worth it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Codeine
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 06:27 PM Response to Reply #63 |
96. What other rights should we give up to keep ourselves safe from |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 10:23 PM Response to Reply #63 |
112. The problem with that... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fla_Democrat
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 01:03 AM Response to Original message |
12. Who would DARE vote against "Christina's Law"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 01:09 AM Response to Reply #12 |
15. Or against curbing 'partial birth abortion', or for the 'death tax', or agianst 'tax relief'? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
krispos42
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 01:44 AM Response to Original message |
21. We're speculating quite heavily here |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 02:04 AM Response to Reply #21 |
24. The WTC devastation on 9/11 was a rare event too. We're talikng about TERROR, not crime |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hoopla Phil
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 02:48 AM Response to Original message |
29. What a great way to go down the defeat path of 1994. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 02:49 AM Response to Original message |
30. No. Why not call it nonsense. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
right2bfree
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 05:35 AM Response to Reply #30 |
48. I say that we vote in a 6 bullet magazine limit; thats plenty enough since six-shooters use them. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 08:41 AM Response to Reply #48 |
58. Which is why no Police use 6 shooters anymore. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cherokeeprogressive
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 01:48 PM Response to Reply #48 |
64. I don't think I've ever seen a six-shooter with a magazine |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Posteritatis
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 05:26 AM Response to Original message |
44. I automatically hate legislation named in an emotive, how-dare-you-vote-nay way. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jody
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 08:06 AM Response to Original message |
51. IMO the best name would be "Democrats Lose Again" as we did with the sunset Assault Weapons Ban. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
steve2470
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 08:08 AM Response to Reply #51 |
52. I agree with you 100% |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 08:40 AM Response to Reply #51 |
57. Bingo. Bill Clinton agrees. Many Democrats tried to warn him. He didn't listen. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 10:26 PM Response to Reply #51 |
113. Well said Jody... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 08:35 AM Response to Original message |
54. What is a high capacity magazine? Why is McCarthy banning 11 round magazines? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kingofalldems
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 02:49 PM Response to Original message |
65. K and R to counter the unreccers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 05:50 PM Response to Reply #65 |
89. Thank You! It's great to hear from somebody who's not part of the SPECIAL INTERESTS |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Codeine
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 06:29 PM Response to Reply #89 |
97. Yes, anybody who disagrees with you must be a "special interest." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Edweird
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 08:14 PM Response to Reply #89 |
137. Um, there's 90 guns for every 100 people. Gun owners aren't the 'special interest' here. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 07:24 AM Response to Reply #137 |
170. The basis of democracy is one person one vote, not "1 gun 1 vote". Colossal unevenness |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 07:25 AM Response to Reply #170 |
171. Among the 50 States, household gun ownership ranges from 12% in NJ to 60% in WY, and |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Edweird
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 09:46 AM Response to Reply #170 |
174. Again, gun owners aren't the 'special interest' here. Not even on DU. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
svsuman23
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 02:59 PM Response to Original message |
67. and only have a 10 ban? why not make it permanent? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
N_E_1 for Tennis
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:08 PM Response to Original message |
68. Let us ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OneTenthofOnePercent
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:13 PM Response to Original message |
70. Your explanation of why I need only 10 shots is as much conjecture as my argument that I need 30... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GreenStormCloud
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:17 PM Response to Original message |
71. Doesn't matter. It won't pass. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 05:57 PM Response to Reply #71 |
91. What if the NRA leadership recognizes the danger of going against public opinion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 09:20 PM Response to Reply #91 |
108. Public opinion is not supporting McCarthy. It won't even get out of committee |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
woo me with science
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 03:30 PM Response to Original message |
78. This child's death has been politicized enough. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GSLevel9
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 04:20 PM Response to Original message |
83. My vote is for "Democrats out of power for 10 years" bill. How's that? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
benEzra
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 04:46 PM Response to Original message |
88. How do you know her parents support such a limit? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RamboLiberal
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 08:06 PM Response to Reply #88 |
100. He doesn't |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Codeine
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 06:25 PM Response to Original message |
95. Yay! Let's emotionalize and infantalize everything! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cynatnite
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 08:01 PM Response to Original message |
99. If there was going to be a law named like this... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 09:02 PM Response to Original message |
103. As bad an idea as the war on drugs. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RamboLiberal
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 09:16 PM Response to Reply #103 |
106. And it might make the anti-gunners happy or unhappy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 09:20 PM Response to Reply #106 |
109. Those are carry weapon, and good for that purpose |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 03:54 PM Response to Reply #106 |
131. Well... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PavePusher
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 10:19 PM Response to Reply #131 |
233. Sporks. Please...? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
derby378
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 09:14 PM Response to Original message |
105. 10 rounds good, 11 rounds bad |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RamboLiberal
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 09:17 PM Response to Reply #105 |
107. No No No it's 12 rounds bad |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
badtoworse
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 10:28 PM Response to Original message |
114. Giving crappy legislation a heartwarming name doesn't make it any better |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BoWanZi
![]() |
Fri Jan-14-11 11:05 PM Response to Original message |
117. I am hopeful yet wary that none of these draconian gun bills ever go through. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 03:32 AM Response to Reply #117 |
125. Deleted message |
right2bfree
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 05:14 AM Response to Reply #125 |
126. Looks like they all came over here. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 05:22 AM Response to Original message |
127. I suggest the "Tackle-the-Shooter Law"... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 02:00 AM Response to Reply #127 |
152. 'Christina's Law' wd have "no demonstrable effect on public safety"--what's your rreasoning? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 02:33 AM Response to Reply #152 |
159. It's like this... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 09:51 AM Response to Reply #152 |
175. That would only work if you had to register them now.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 01:44 PM Response to Reply #175 |
192. If the gunman survives, police/FBI interrogation likely would include "where did you get" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 06:25 PM Response to Reply #192 |
194. Dream on, culture warrior, dream on. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
crazyjoe
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 05:24 AM Response to Original message |
128. Do you really belive the criminals will turn in their large capacity mags to comply with the ban ? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 01:11 AM Response to Reply #128 |
148. Criminals don't frighten me--psychotics do. Let criminals MONOPOLIZE high-capacity |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 02:04 AM Response to Reply #148 |
153. Criminals don't frighten you... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Junkdrawer
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 08:19 PM Response to Original message |
138. Good idea. And the gunner's howls are proof it's a good idea. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Sat Jan-15-11 09:17 PM Response to Reply #138 |
140. "gunner's howls"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 02:24 AM Response to Reply #138 |
156. Deleted message |
beevul
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 02:33 AM Response to Reply #156 |
158. Anyone that disagrees with the antis is a crybaby. Got it. N/T |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 02:35 AM Response to Reply #156 |
160. Thanks. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheKentuckian
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 12:29 AM Response to Original message |
145. Probably because you shouldn't use a murdered child as a political prop in an effort to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 02:08 AM Response to Reply #145 |
154. Actually, you have no constitutional right to own a high capacity magazine. None. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheKentuckian
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 10:18 AM Response to Reply #154 |
178. How is that? Does the Constitution GIVE the government authority to prohibit them? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
guitar man
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 12:42 AM Response to Original message |
146. I just wonder |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 01:43 AM Response to Reply #146 |
150. Her father said he didn't want to see her death used to limit rights. N/T |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 02:10 AM Response to Reply #150 |
155. Except there is no Constitutional right to own such a magazine. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 02:28 AM Response to Reply #155 |
157. Gun magazines don't constitute arms? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 03:29 AM Response to Reply #157 |
162. Actually, according to the dictionary, they do not. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 04:17 AM Response to Reply #162 |
164. How exactly would one define "high capacity? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 04:26 AM Response to Reply #164 |
165. Actually, the Supreme Court specifically went out of its way to not declare strict scrutiny to be |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 05:09 AM Response to Reply #165 |
168. No, thats not actually what miller said. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 05:33 AM Response to Reply #168 |
169. If you want to talk legally binding, US vs. Miller is actually legally binding. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 08:19 AM Response to Reply #169 |
172. In part, it is. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 08:57 AM Response to Reply #172 |
173. I'm not quoting the Miller court -- I'm quoting the Heller court's interpretation of Miller. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 04:31 PM Response to Reply #173 |
193. Its a shame... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 09:57 AM Response to Reply #165 |
176. Rational basis was taken off the table in Heller, and McDonald's 'fundamental right' language.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 10:12 AM Response to Reply #176 |
177. The 'fundamental right' language in McDonald refers to whether it is a 'fundamental right' for |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 10:21 AM Response to Reply #177 |
179. If there were separate clauses of the second amendment, outlining different rights, yes.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 10:25 AM Response to Reply #179 |
180. The free speech clause is a single clause. Not multiple clauses. Yet they make distinctions in the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PavePusher
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 11:56 AM Response to Reply #177 |
217. Actually, those restrictions still stand... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 08:48 PM Response to Reply #217 |
226. Courts often decide issues well beyond the narrow scope of the case (whether or not they should). |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
guitar man
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 10:29 AM Response to Reply #150 |
181. Well there you go then |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kaleva
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 01:52 AM Response to Original message |
151. There never was an ban on the sale and ownership of high capacity magazines. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Imajika
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 10:36 AM Response to Original message |
182. Well, first off, it sounds like Christina's father would oppose such a thing... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 10:39 AM Response to Reply #182 |
183. Not to mention 72% of folks don't think stronger gun laws would have helped.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
brooklynite
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 10:54 AM Response to Original message |
184. How much time should we spend on symbolic failures? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 11:16 AM Response to Reply #184 |
185. Symbolic failure or pyrrhic victory at best |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 07:17 PM Response to Original message |
195. Are you a 'firepower addict'? Multiple weapon ownership seems to be the core of the gun industry's |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 07:53 PM Response to Reply #195 |
197. The VPC? Please... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 08:56 PM Response to Reply #197 |
201. 'haven't bought a gun in almost 10 yrs.' Thnx 4 sharing, but why that PARTICULAR personal detail? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 11:07 PM Response to Reply #201 |
206. Because of the implication of "gun addiction" by the vpc... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Junkdrawer
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 07:56 PM Response to Reply #195 |
198. +1000 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 08:09 PM Response to Reply #198 |
199. Thanks for your support. That post just sat there for 20 minutes with no repoly. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PavePusher
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 12:10 PM Response to Reply #195 |
221. So, you endorse a "report"... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 10:29 PM Response to Reply #221 |
234. "purely ... speculation and what-ifs' NO--the report is based on trends in CDC dta |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 10:51 PM Response to Reply #234 |
235. psst.. look up the gallup gun ownership figures.. it's dropped 10%-- since 1960 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 11:03 PM Response to Reply #235 |
237. CDC samples are hundreds of times the size of Gallup samples, and much better-designed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 11:18 PM Response to Reply #237 |
241. Would your average gun owner tell the guv'mint that they own guns? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 11:00 PM Response to Reply #234 |
236. I would sooner... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 02:40 AM Response to Reply #236 |
244. 'No new calibers have been introduced ...' Did you READ the snippets I posted |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
friendly_iconoclast
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 03:36 AM Response to Reply #244 |
246. Your much-touted report calls handgun ammunition "rifle ammo". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
friendly_iconoclast
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 04:06 AM Response to Reply #244 |
248. They're horseshit. The 5.7 round for civilians is *not* armor piercing, per the Feds: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 06:04 AM Response to Reply #248 |
250. So you're admitting that some models of both caliber ammo DO penetrate SOME |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 08:21 AM Response to Reply #250 |
252. Read his data again. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 09:05 AM Response to Reply #244 |
253. New calibers. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 05:51 PM Response to Reply #244 |
259. Not only did I read them, I refuted them. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
benEzra
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-11 08:21 PM Response to Reply #244 |
275. Ummm, a .22 caliber pistol is a "big boomer"? We have a conflation of memes here. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 02:12 AM Response to Reply #195 |
242. Howling. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 02:45 AM Response to Reply #242 |
245. Rifles are for bear hunters. Armor-piercing handguns are for Smokey-Bear-hunting criminals-- |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
friendly_iconoclast
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 04:01 AM Response to Reply #245 |
247. So give us some examples of cops killed or wounded with a S&W 500. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 08:03 AM Response to Reply #245 |
251. Rifles are for bear hunters... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 05:28 PM Response to Reply #251 |
258. Why not just search for "bear"? You can get Google hits from any pair of unrelated |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 06:10 PM Response to Reply #258 |
261. Scams? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 10:53 PM Response to Reply #261 |
265. Scams. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 11:04 PM Response to Reply #265 |
268. Would you care to elaborate... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 06:04 PM Response to Reply #245 |
260. Yet another example... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 10:59 PM Response to Reply #260 |
267. 'Piercing body armor is a function of the ammo, not the gun'. But the gun must |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-11 01:11 AM Response to Reply #267 |
269. Example after example you provide... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
benEzra
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-11 08:40 PM Response to Reply #267 |
276. You can shoot .38 armor piercing ammunition out of a .38 handgun. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Paka
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 08:38 PM Response to Original message |
200. No one, sane or otherwise, needs a 31 bullet magazine... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 11:04 PM Response to Reply #200 |
238. Spoken like someone that knows nothing about that which he speaks. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Paka
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-11 05:37 AM Response to Reply #238 |
272. Au Contraire, mon ami... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-11 07:04 AM Response to Reply #272 |
274. You said... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cbc5g
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 09:06 PM Response to Original message |
202. That doesn't stop high capacity clips |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 09:57 PM Response to Original message |
203. My opinion is that this thread needs another KICK!!! (n/t) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
defendandprotect
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 10:27 PM Response to Original message |
204. Disappointed the families aren't moving for gun control -- but it's Arizona! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 09:25 AM Response to Reply #204 |
210. super majority of entire country believed more gun control wouldn't have prevented this tragedy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
defendandprotect
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 06:35 PM Response to Reply #210 |
225. The majority of the nation wants gun control, however, looks like we're going to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 10:35 AM Response to Reply #204 |
215. Deleted message |
friendly_iconoclast
![]() |
Sun Jan-16-11 11:27 PM Response to Original message |
207. Because it would be better described as "The Helen Lovejoy Gun Control Act" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Iggo
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 11:14 AM Response to Original message |
216. Who would dare vote against The Patriot Act? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 12:03 PM Response to Reply #216 |
219. "non-patriots" of course. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PavePusher
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 12:42 PM Response to Original message |
222. Perhaps you should ask Mr. Green's opinion on your idea... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Iggo
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 01:27 PM Response to Reply #222 |
223. Yee-ouch! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 11:07 PM Response to Reply #222 |
239. Thats gonna leave a mark. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
-..__...
![]() |
Mon Jan-17-11 11:14 PM Response to Original message |
240. I'm more partial to calling it "Loughner's Law". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveEconomist
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 10:33 PM Response to Original message |
263. 'I blame the individual for the 1st 10 bullets; I blame the LAW for the next 21'-- |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straw Man
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 10:49 PM Response to Reply #263 |
264. Blame |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger
![]() |
Tue Jan-18-11 10:58 PM Response to Reply #264 |
266. +1!! n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-11 01:21 AM Response to Reply #264 |
270. I blame the individual for every single one, as well. N/T |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beevul
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-11 01:34 AM Response to Reply #263 |
271. If hi caps were illegal... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Richard Steele
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-11 05:57 AM Response to Original message |
273. Moran. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
minavasht
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-11 09:14 PM Response to Original message |
277. Yep, it will have great effect on the crime. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Sat Sep 07th 2024, 06:32 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC