HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Updated: A poll for the m...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 05:27 PM

Updated: A poll for the modification of the SOP

Last edited Tue Oct 23, 2012, 01:43 PM - Edit history (2)

Proposed: Discuss the right to keep and bear arms relating to laws, the Second Amendment and the use of firearms for self-defense, committing crimes and violence.



ETA: As I read the current SOP, laws which are not gun control measures nor the actual second amendment can only be discussed in relation to a crime or an instance of self-defense or other violence. This would IMHO exclude the discussion of laws such as SYG as it is not a "gun control law".

Sorry for any confusion.
4 votes, 4 passes | Time left: Unlimited
In favor of this change
3 (75%)
Against this and favor the current SOP
1 (25%)
Against this and favor an SOP which I'll post below
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

24 replies, 2121 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply Updated: A poll for the modification of the SOP (Original post)
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 OP
Trunk Monkey Oct 2012 #1
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #6
Trunk Monkey Oct 2012 #10
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #11
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #2
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #5
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #7
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #8
holdencaufield Oct 2012 #3
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #4
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #9
ellisonz Oct 2012 #12
SecularMotion Oct 2012 #13
ellisonz Oct 2012 #16
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #18
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #14
ellisonz Oct 2012 #15
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #17
ellisonz Oct 2012 #19
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #20
ellisonz Oct 2012 #22
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #23
gejohnston Oct 2012 #21
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #24

Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 08:24 PM

1. It's already been made quite clear the SOP for this group isn't going to change NT

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 11:10 PM

6. re: "It's already been made quite clear..."

I only recall that an expansion to topics beyond laws, crime and rights being denied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #6)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 02:11 PM

10. After reading your edit I admit you have an interesting premise

 

I'm interested to see what happens

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #10)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 02:21 PM

11. me, too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 08:32 PM

2. I don't see the need for a change.

The proposed SOP and the current SOP are so close together, I don't see what difference it would really make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #2)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 11:08 PM

5. Mostly, I just wanted to make explicit...

...that laws relating to the RKBA whether gun control laws or laws like SYG were within the SOP. Many folks read things rather literally.

It was clear to me when I wrote the proposed SOP but now I see that it was not clear to others when they compared the OP to the SOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 11:15 PM

7. Ah, I see what you mean.

Now that you explained the reasoning, I've withdrawn my "no" vote. I don't think it's necessary, considering gun rights legislation is regularly covered here without issue, but it'd be a good thing to change if/when the SOP is committed to more substantial revision. Thanks for the clarification!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #7)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 11:54 PM

8. You're welcome

Best regards

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 10:18 PM

3. I'm confused ...

 

"Proposed: Discuss the right to keep and bear arms relating to laws, the Second Amendment and the use of firearms for self-defense, committing crimes and violence. "



Are we not doing that now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #3)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 10:59 PM

4. Responding to this post as it's most recent

As I read the current SOP, laws which are not gun control measures nor the actual second amendment can only be discussed in relation to a crime or an instance of self-defense or other violence. This would IMHO exclude the discussion of laws such as SYG as it is not a "gun control law". (All in the wording)



Probably best to forget it. I may be over thinking the whole thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 01:29 PM

9. OP updated n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 02:48 PM

12. lol

SYG is a self-defense law - did you miss the part of the SOP that says clearly you can discuss "the use of firearms for self-defense."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 02:59 PM

13. The gunners seem to have as much trouble interpreting the SOP

as they have interpreting the 2nd amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #13)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 03:21 PM

16. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 03:45 PM

18. It seems you pro-control folks...

...are at least consistent in your view of both the 2A and the group SOP in reading into both what isn't there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 03:05 PM

14. No...

...but there is no explicit inclusion of the discussion of laws regarding the use of firearms for self-defense.

I would think that there should also be a provision for the discussion of laws which would protect the RKBA. There is nothing in the current SOP addressing that area either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 03:21 PM

15. What part of "use of" don't you understand?

Do you think it's just talking about Ronald Reagan's Dirty Harry wet dreams?

Show me there has been a problem that requires a solution!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 03:43 PM

17. Please highlight for me...

...which of the boldface words below is the word law.

Discuss gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.


My reading of the SOP covers -
The discussion of:
  • gun control laws
  • the 2A
  • the use of firearms for self-defense
  • the use of firearms to commit crime
  • the use of firearms to commit violence


None of those five refers to a discussion of the laws underlying the use of firearms for self-defense.
You ad hominem comments are ill-considered.

BTW, where you been? IMHO, you're been scarce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #17)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 03:45 PM

19. Oy Vey

Laws governing the use of firearms for self-defense is discussion of the use of firearms for self-defense!!!

"BTW, where you been? IMHO, you're been scarce."

Not barking up a tree/also working and family.

"You ad hominem comments are ill-considered."

If I can't piss on Ronald Reagan's grave, whose grave can I piss on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #19)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 03:50 PM

20. In the current SOP...

...the "Laws governing the use of firearms for self-defense" is not there. It would be grammatically incorrect to form a conjunction of fourth word "laws" and the third clause "the use of firearms for self-defense" and then insert the word "governing" and claim that the current SOP explicitly says this.


>insert face palm here<

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #20)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 04:06 PM

22. I shudder to think how you would read the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution.

EAT YOUR BROCCOLI ! ! !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #22)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 04:12 PM

23. A topic on which...

...HW and I agree is that of broccoli.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #19)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 03:54 PM

21. If I can't piss on Ronald Reagan's grave, whose grave can I piss on?

Want the whole list? Jerry Falwell's comes to mind. Isn't Nixon's closer to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread