Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Kamala Harris owns a gun. Are you surprised or mad?"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I'm not surprised nor mad. Does she stockpile guns? Did she purchase them legally? Did she have proper training? Does she store them responsibly? Does she have crazy machine gun like weapons that no civilian ever needs? The details matter. She also supports reasonable, responsible gun legislation, so I'm not the least bit bothered as a non-gun owner. [/quote] “Stockpile.” WTF does that mean? More than one? More than three? How many kinds? “Machine gun like weapons.” There is no such thing. A firearm is a machine gun or it is not. “Civilian.” Kamala Harris is a civilian. The police are civilians. “Needs.” A good life is defined by fulfilling wants, not just needs. Who are you to decide what others need?[/quote] Kindergartners do a whole unit of differentiating wants and needs. Maybe stop by your nearest elementary school and ask for some info. Maybe I need to point out that you should be unarmed. A gun that is more than is required for hunting or protection is certainly a want not a need. As a society, we do get to decide that some wants do not get to be fulfilled. That’s usually how laws work. The opinions of the majority of Americans regarding whether anyone who wants an assault rifle should get one is fairly clear. Polls consistently show that most people support some degree of limitation. This might be stricter permit laws or not being able to purchase certain ammunition. Unfortunately, it is impossible to make the wishes of the majority law due to weak lawmakers dependent on NRA dollars. This isn’t something to be proud of. This is a sign that our government is broken. I grew up in a house with lots of guns. I learned to shoot when I was 12. I think all my relatives had (locked) display cases of old guns. My uncle made guns. All of these relatives support stricter gun laws. Most people who own guns are not rabid gun freaks. Those are just the people like this pp with the loudest voices saying the weirdest things. [/quote] What is sufficent for protection? The most capable and reliable firearm you can afford.[/quote] Normal people understand that this is ridiculous. What if I can afford a militia of trained snipers with AK-47s and SMAWs. And I really want a militia!! And this is Amurica, and it’s my right to have my militia! The limit of what is legal should not be determined by what someone wants or what they can afford. Anyone with reasonable ethical foundations knows this. Again, this is why we should have gun laws so people with common sense (not you) can make decisions for people who have none (you). Your parents should be ashamed for not loving you enough to teach you basic ethics. [/quote] I didn't ask about ethics, I asked about what is sufficent for protection. Your response has more to do with a militia, and since militias are allowed under both state and federal constitutions, and SCOTUS has decried that some guns can be banned specifically because they aren't useful for a militia (United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)), which arguably runs contrary to your point, coupled with the fact that in the USA you can own military aircraft, tanks, and artillary with very few restrictions, and have historically been able to do so (as in privateers, privately owned cannon etc) How many rounds is sufficent to carry for defense? 1? 6? 10? 30? 5000? You certainly can make arguments for each. Is a rifle better for defensive purposes than a pistol? How about a shotgun? It entirely depends on the circumstances. Each type of firearm is better for certain scenarios. [/quote] See, that’s the problem, normal people ARE talking about ethics. But thanks for being upfront about being amoral, I guess.[/quote] Moral principles !== what is sufficent for protection. If you are going to ban specific features, [i][b]then you need a technical discussion[/b][/i], or legal interpretation of proposed language to implement a restriction. [/quote] No we don't. The RWNJ's were FAMOUS for not being able to describe pornography, but banning books nonetheless. They would always boast [i]"I don't know what phonography is, but I know it when I see it.[/i]" . I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Put the same way: I don't know (or care) what an assault weapon is, but I know it when I see it.With that in mind, any ordinary person can look at a gun and decide if its an assault weapon or not. Perhaps another criteria would be better? How about "any weapon capable of killing a kindergartner in under 2 seconds is an assault weapon and therefore banned"? Does that work for you? It does for me. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
