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

shadowrider

(4,941 posts)
38. The protection order usually will prohibit him from having one too.
Sat Dec 29, 2012, 05:26 PM
Dec 2012

Because we all know people always obey the law. There is no law, anywhere in the world, that will prohibit someone from obtaining an illegal item, unless there is a policeman with them 24/7.

A protection order can prohibit all it wants. It's a piece of paper that means nothing.

Rec because I agree with 50% of this post slackmaster Dec 2012 #1
not that the private sector does any better unblock Dec 2012 #2
Not necessarily. Tax data, for example, is pretty well confidential. DanTex Dec 2012 #4
And passport files.....oops yellowcanine Dec 2012 #47
I agree oddoneout Dec 2012 #3
I agree as well. JaneyVee Dec 2012 #5
I suggest a police type psych test for all before a gun purchase is allowed. L0oniX Dec 2012 #6
Is it a violation of privacy to release and publish ... GodlessBiker Dec 2012 #7
I don't know. Is that information publicly available? DanTex Dec 2012 #8
I couldn't agree with you more. tradecenter Dec 2012 #9
How come? treestar Dec 2012 #10
See WilliamPitt's post on that subject slackmaster Dec 2012 #11
So let the potential attacker know you have the gun treestar Dec 2012 #19
The gun is not the issue slackmaster Dec 2012 #21
One's address is not "unlisted" if one does something to create a public record. treestar Dec 2012 #22
That's a nice rationalization slackmaster Dec 2012 #24
Not a rationalization at all AceWheeler Dec 2012 #43
The protection order usually will prohibit him from having one too. shadowrider Dec 2012 #38
Because it's none of your business, that's why. MicaelS Dec 2012 #17
Why? You have possession of something you can use to kill me? treestar Dec 2012 #18
"We register cars publicly." - And Rebecca Schaeffer was killed because of available DMV records. PoliticAverse Dec 2012 #29
She was killed because a psycho had a gun treestar Dec 2012 #46
In Munnesota, cops and other Jenoch Dec 2012 #34
So you'd be ok with blanket publishing this info SpartanDem Dec 2012 #41
It's already public treestar Dec 2012 #45
It isn't the point... Coyote_Tan Dec 2012 #26
If a criminal knows you have Jenoch Dec 2012 #33
Concur. byronius Dec 2012 #12
Agree 100% n/t lynne Dec 2012 #13
Here is another self righteous anti gun position. You must keep your guns safely hidden and locked bluerum Dec 2012 #14
That's funny. I thought all responsible gun owners did that. You mean there are some madinmaryland Dec 2012 #39
Agree 100% California's DMV record are not public, guns should be the same. nationwide Dems to Win Dec 2012 #15
the lovely Rebecca Shaeffer Skittles Dec 2012 #16
Great idea! nt ecstatic Dec 2012 #20
We should have the right to know who is armed in our communities Hugabear Dec 2012 #23
There are lots of things I'd like to know about my neighbors... Coyote_Tan Dec 2012 #27
I'd certainly like to know which ones are closet Furries, or Abba fans slackmaster Dec 2012 #28
What's wrong with ABBA? sarisataka Dec 2012 #31
Have you just outed yourself here, sarisataka? Or should I call you "Bjorn?" slackmaster Dec 2012 #32
I choose to exercise my 5th Amendment rights... sarisataka Dec 2012 #36
I agree n/t RomneyLies Dec 2012 #25
It should be public bowens43 Dec 2012 #30
So how do we get criminals to register their guns? hack89 Dec 2012 #35
Exactly! Sadiedog Dec 2012 #42
Not only private, but it should require a warrant to access. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #37
Nonsense. I jumped thru MUCH tougher and many more hoops... 99Forever Dec 2012 #40
And I would support such a law. nt NutmegYankee Dec 2012 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Yes, there should be a gu...»Reply #38