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
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Strike while the gun is still smoking. Insist on an assault weapons ban. NOW. [View all]OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)85. Putting the horrific tradgedy aside and simply analyzing the content of this OP...
More or less, this is what the OP says: We need a kneejuerk reaction... hurry before the dust settles. NOW! Facts don't matter when considering the enlistment of sound legislation (use your emotions, people!).
Right; because spur-of-the moment emotional decisions are always great ideas. The really ironic part about this post is that right after a paragraph of appealing readers/people to act on immediately emotion (not rational thought or facts or due process) he asks, "When are we going to wake up?" If you aren't encouraging ACTUAL thinking, what do you mean by "wake-up"?
If anyone ever wonders why most gun control efforts lack effectiveness... I give you the OP as "Exhibit A".
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
110 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
Strike while the gun is still smoking. Insist on an assault weapons ban. NOW. [View all]
pnwmom
Dec 2012
OP
Fuck the NRA and fuck the anti-sanity brigade/gun nutz that are enablers of the tragedy today.
Care Acutely
Dec 2012
#5
I'm curious what gun laws do you think are too loose and to easy to get around?
Trunk Monkey
Dec 2012
#40
why did they remove it in the first place? Members of legislatures who have been making weapons
still_one
Dec 2012
#2
The original assault weapon ban ( which Bill Clinton blames for the loss of the 94 mid terms)
Trunk Monkey
Dec 2012
#6
They have effectively had republican control since bush. How has that been working out for them?
still_one
Dec 2012
#8
It addresses weapons that taking a lot of people out. 100 thousand people per year are hurt by guns
still_one
Dec 2012
#92
no, but assault weapons are for one purpose only, to take out a lot of people
still_one
Dec 2012
#98
I've never understood the need for assault weapons. I've heard the logic that if THEY, the military
RKP5637
Dec 2012
#3
I've never understood why people with no idea of what "assault weapon" means...
Recursion
Dec 2012
#56
A DU gun nut just tried to tell me there is no such thing as "assault weapons".
kestrel91316
Dec 2012
#7
I keep seeing that kind of thing. As if it makes a bit of difference to a thinking person
pnwmom
Dec 2012
#14
While there's need for a discussion, next-day kneejerk legislation is the very worst kind. (nt)
Posteritatis
Dec 2012
#28
That's because of a major loophole involving private sales -- which can and should be closed.
pnwmom
Dec 2012
#64
No. It's because it banned a completely arbitrary and stupid set of features
Recursion
Dec 2012
#100
You're even admitting it doesn't matter if the AWB would be relevant to preventing this crime...
Recursion
Dec 2012
#60
Putting the horrific tradgedy aside and simply analyzing the content of this OP...
OneTenthofOnePercent
Dec 2012
#85
Handguns and shotguns have been used way, way more in crime, including homicide
derby378
Dec 2012
#101