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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Murdoch calls for automatic weapons ban [View all]SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)70. Actually I'm very sincere
What makes you think I'm not? The gun laws are entirely too lax, it's harder to adopt a dog than it's to get a gun. But people cheering the return of the 1994 AWB are getting a far weaker law than they think they are. The gun use Newtown would've been legal under the AWB because it lacked the cosmetic features I posted. It wouldn't have made sure his mother never owned a large clip.
If you want to implement a good gun control policy these are thing you need to know.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
90 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
Automatic weapons were banned by law during Clinton Administration, but only until...
Left Coast2020
Dec 2012
#24
Murdoch, Romney and those of that ilk will still have weapons - this is a law for the common folk
DeschutesRiver
Dec 2012
#86
Automatics have been very, very strictly regulated in the US for something like 80 years, no? (nt)
Posteritatis
Dec 2012
#5
When they've lost Rupert Murdoch, I think the gun-nuts are in serious trouble.
backscatter712
Dec 2012
#7
This twits corporations promote the NRA and make money off of salacious stories of death.
Lint Head
Dec 2012
#8
Really who cares what this idiot says. He owns a company that encourages weapons. If he really
southernyankeebelle
Dec 2012
#9
Yeah, you wouldn't want to accidentally read the single biggest proponent of gun control in the
AtheistCrusader
Dec 2012
#50
I'll just take that as an admission that you cannot refute the facts I cited.
AtheistCrusader
Dec 2012
#55
That link shows Sugarmann acknowledging that confusion between semi and full auto is beneficial to
AtheistCrusader
Dec 2012
#89
He's about 80 years too late since automatic weapons have been illegal since 1934
tularetom
Dec 2012
#21
Your problem is that you don't know the simple industry standard terms but still want to use them.
ManiacJoe
Dec 2012
#62
The entire debate would actually be over already if the 2nd amendment itself was written to be
cstanleytech
Dec 2012
#34
That would be dangerous. It might lead to a clarification on "person" or "people"
valerief
Dec 2012
#36
Firearms are classified in the eyes of the court as very different from Destructive Devices.
AtheistCrusader
Dec 2012
#47
But there were no fully automatic weapons back in 1787 when the Constitution was written
cstanleytech
Dec 2012
#59
Problem with that is we are discussing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution
cstanleytech
Dec 2012
#75
You are using a line of logic that has been used to try and proscribe certain free speech
AtheistCrusader
Dec 2012
#76
I believe we are just going to have to agree that we disagree as I still believe
cstanleytech
Dec 2012
#79
"You're cluttering and obstructing discussion and impugning other people's right to free speech"
AtheistCrusader
Dec 2012
#87
=Sorry, it doesn't solve the problem. Reframe as Terror & deal with all OUTSIDE STREET guns.
graham4anything
Dec 2012
#52
He seems unaware that AUTOMATIC weapons have been illegal in the US since that whole Al Capone stuff
kestrel91316
Dec 2012
#78