General Discussion

MadHound

(34,179 posts)

10. And you're not going to get guns limited to one per family.

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:51 AM

Jan 2013

Nor are you going to get them all banned. This isn't a matter of the president's spine, this is a matter of political reality in this country.

Hell, I wouldn't support a ban, or even a limit of one per family. You know why, because you do indeed need different kinds of guns for different activities. For instance, if you are a hunter, you need something like a 30-06, single jacketed shell for hunting deer. If you are hunting geese or quail, you need a shotgun with birdshot.

Limiting guns to one per family simply isn't going to fly, not only will 'Pugs and NRA not support such a notion, but a lot of liberals and Democrats won't support it either, including myself.

Try and achieve what is actually doable, not waste time and energy going for the unachievable.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

89 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Some common sense gun control. [View all] MadHound Jan 2013 OP

If a goal for DU is to elect more Democrats, repeating the events leading to the 1994 losses is AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #1

1994 loses were due to the health care debate samsingh Jan 2013 #2

In Bill Clinton's autobiography, he attributes the 1994 losses to the AWB. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #4

i'll look that up samsingh Jan 2013 #7

Here's some of Clinton's words. For any anti-gunners, what is wrong with Bill Clinton's analysis? AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #9

I don't get it either Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #13

in light of this, we might need to reconsider samsingh Jan 2013 #17

People have been calling that an "NRA Talking Point" Xithras Jan 2013 #45

Yeah, but that was BEFORE 20 6-year-olds were massacred. BlueCaliDem Jan 2013 #76

Yeah, and if Clinton says that again we can just say that he's an NRA lobbyist repeating AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #79

Yeah, well, I don't do hyperbolic predictions. BlueCaliDem Jan 2013 #87

You say that you are opposed to hyperbole, yet you dishonor the memories of the children who were AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #88

Check your calendar. It is 2013. morningfog Jan 2013 #19

What's wrong with Bill Clinton's analysis? #9 AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #22

Check the calendar. morningfog Jan 2013 #23

GARRISON KEILLOR also expressed his views on more than one occasion. See, e.g., #47. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #48

You should be aware of what has happened since 1994. GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #59

The purchase of a gun does not necessarily mean a vote against anyone who morningfog Jan 2013 #60

Wedge politics don't need huge numbers. GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #62

A risk we must take. morningfog Jan 2013 #63

that was a generation ago. the NRA is not what it used to be, people dislike them now.... bettyellen Jan 2013 #27

Maybe most voters make decisions without relying upon the "NRA" boogeyman. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #30

Boogey boogey boo! The NRA fear tactics will not stop us this time. morningfog Jan 2013 #55

Really??? overthehillvet Jan 2013 #53

Really. Your fantasies are based on 20- 30 years ago, LOL. Grow up- it's not the 80's anymore! bettyellen Jan 2013 #64

Then why is NRA membership growing if people don't like them? N/T GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #71

You trust the NRA to give us real #s, and I do not, LOL. It's because of a lot of racist paranoia bettyellen Jan 2013 #75

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." TheMightyFavog Jan 2013 #77

So true. Next time it could be 40 babies killed. morningfog Jan 2013 #81

Nor will ignoring the massive national outcry for ending the gun violence. Scuba Jan 2013 #39

I know of no one who is ignoring violence. And if you are an expert on "NRA" strategy, then you AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #40

Oh, I know I won't persuade you. I just want to see you gone. You don't represent ... Scuba Jan 2013 #42

Ad hominem attacks are juvenile. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #44

Do you consider GARRISON KEILLOR to be someone who doesn't represent Democratic values? AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #47

I know nothing about Keillor's politics. I do know that if Democrats are afraid to stand up ... Scuba Jan 2013 #49

Garrison Keillor is a well-known liberal. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #50

"no TRUE Scotsman"... friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #70

Your position sucks, so you choose to hijack the thread Kolesar Jan 2013 #51

Your ad hominem attacks are juvenile. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #54

Common sense, no doubt. Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #3

What specific changes do you propose Congress make to 18 USC Chapter 44 and 26 USC Chapter 53 jody Jan 2013 #5

Making concessions before the... 99Forever Jan 2013 #6

They should be banned or limit one per family Dkc05 Jan 2013 #8

And you're not going to get guns limited to one per family. MadHound Jan 2013 #10

We have insanity by not banning all guns Dkc05 Jan 2013 #11

Wait, you're contradicting yourself. Which is it, ban all guns, MadHound Jan 2013 #12

Common sense gun control discussion in GD former-republican Jan 2013 #14

Prefer to ban all weapons. Dkc05 Jan 2013 #26

That's not going to happen, MadHound Jan 2013 #28

Post removed Post removed Jan 2013 #29

I'll do one better, and give another example you may not have thought about. c1kabar Jan 2013 #21

Closing the gun show loophole (I really hate that term) is easier than an AWB Recursion Jan 2013 #15

chest pounding former173rd Jan 2013 #16

You volunteering to have your blood spilled? nt jmg257 Jan 2013 #43

?? former173rd Jan 2013 #67

Shit no. I like my blood right where it is. nt jmg257 Jan 2013 #68

Marketing reteachinwi Jan 2013 #18

That's a perfect solution - c1kabar Jan 2013 #25

Limit federally-licensed firearms dealers Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #20

That's all good, except... c1kabar Jan 2013 #24

It won't limit the volume of legal transactions Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #32

Look at what happened with cigarettes. RC Jan 2013 #38

I just don't think it will work. rrneck Jan 2013 #31

Semi-automatic Definition Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #33

That's pretty much it. rrneck Jan 2013 #35

That's true... Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #37

Yes, that would do what you're trying to do Recursion Jan 2013 #52

I agree, and before going any further then your OP in gun control, I'd rather diminish the NRA first KittyWampus Jan 2013 #34

How, exactly, would you "diminish the NRA first". The NRA is a boogeyman needed by anti-gunners. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #41

Maybe we should focus on what could prevent another school shooting derby378 Jan 2013 #36

Michael Moore seems to think that Big Pharma and their pharmaceuticals should be investigated. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #46

Some common sense gun control. Rebelgeneral Jan 2013 #56

Umm, over two hundred years of various Supreme Court decisions and interpretations, MadHound Jan 2013 #58

In your short stay here, at least try to get your 'man card' jmg257 Jan 2013 #65

1994 AWB was determined to be useless BWC Jan 2013 #57

Aahhh..you're saying it needs to be greatly expanded to be effective? jmg257 Jan 2013 #66

Derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derby378 Jan 2013 #72

See that little thing at the end? ? That is a question mark. jmg257 Jan 2013 #74

You might want to take another look at that post derby378 Jan 2013 #83

Ha - Now THAT's a VERY good point! Hmm..now I may never know... jmg257 Jan 2013 #85

The 94 ban was ineffective and had tons of loopholes madville Jan 2013 #80

Agreed. Is there really that much of a resistance in the Congress jmg257 Jan 2013 #82

Congress will be thinking about the 2014 midterms madville Jan 2013 #86

I actually agree with MadHound. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #61

Mexico has an even stronger semi-auto ban derby378 Jan 2013 #73

Well of course they have plenty of guns theHandpuppet Jan 2013 #84

We need to determine a real and quantifiable problem, and then pass legislation against it. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #69

"We need to determine a real and quantifiable problem, and then ..." That will slow things down. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #89

Those proposed change are mostly ineffective and will be costly madville Jan 2013 #78