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

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
7. threats of legal action
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:38 PM
Jan 2013

so he says.

So were you OK with the Des Moines Register Columnist Donald Kaul who advocated violence?

• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012312300033&gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

First off, the Communist Party of the USA is not a terrorist organization. Second, he is advocating violence, which the phone call did not.

and believing a politician. A couple of failures there.
WTF? The whole point of a buyback is to destroy guns. SunSeeker Jan 2013 #1
Gun makers make $$$ when old guns get destroyed. n/t krispos42 Jan 2013 #2
Not if people don't buy more guns. n/t ellisonz Jan 2013 #5
So, no effective response, then. krispos42 Jan 2013 #12
So you're supporting the NRA's position on this issue? ellisonz Jan 2013 #13
As opposed to the gun manufacturer's position on the matter? krispos42 Jan 2013 #15
"Where does it say the people turning them in wanted them destroyed?" ellisonz Jan 2013 #16
So, no answer. krispos42 Jan 2013 #19
I don't make a habit of answering ridiculous questions. ellisonz Jan 2013 #20
Are you unfamiliar with the more common forms of capitalist exchange? holdencaufield Jan 2013 #21
And that's why they need the NRA to rescue their guns for them, yes? ellisonz Jan 2013 #22
Collectors show up to try to get the better ones gejohnston Jan 2013 #23
The guns were destroyed. ellisonz Jan 2013 #28
Actually ... holdencaufield Jan 2013 #24
"people don't turn in guns because for noble reasons or hippie sentimentality" ellisonz Jan 2013 #27
You earned it buddy: ellisonz Jan 2013 #29
Those are some of the silliest replies to you that I ever heard... freshwest Jan 2013 #42
it's not a fu%ing puppy "move a gun from an unwanted home to a wanted home" who are ya, MichaelHarris Jan 2013 #31
So some other gun does instead? krispos42 Jan 2013 #37
wayno weeping jimmy the one Jan 2013 #3
They just can respect the free choices of other citizens... ellisonz Jan 2013 #4
...as long as you approve of those choices... friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #6
NRA has a gun fetish? rl6214 Jan 2013 #26
Yes. Come to think of it, "gun" is nowhere in the 2nd Am either. SunSeeker Jan 2013 #38
Your don't understand what "arms" means? rl6214 Jan 2013 #40
"Arms" are what "a well regulated Militia" uses. nt SunSeeker Jan 2013 #41
Obviously you don't know what "well regulated" means rl6214 Jan 2013 #43
Obviously you want it to mean something it doesn't. nt SunSeeker Jan 2013 #44
threats of legal action gejohnston Jan 2013 #7
Missing PavePusher already? ellisonz Jan 2013 #8
no, merely pointing out there is a difference gejohnston Jan 2013 #9
Don't hijack my thread, brah. ellisonz Jan 2013 #11
OK back to the thread gejohnston Jan 2013 #14
The NRA has no case. The property is not being seized. ellisonz Jan 2013 #17
Especially since most of them gejohnston Jan 2013 #18
Buy backs of fine firearms should set a goal to rehome those that are worthy. ileus Jan 2013 #10
I'd bet the collectibles and fine firearms are safe from destruction JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #34
How can it be a gun BUYBACK when they didn't own them in the first place and rl6214 Jan 2013 #25
You'd think they were destroying sperm instead of guns. Lil Missy Jan 2013 #30
CPUSA jimmy the one Jan 2013 #32
Wow. Really, NRA? DanTex Jan 2013 #33
NRA, um, reasoning jimmy the one Jan 2013 #36
Gun buybacks are stupid and ineffective iiibbb Jan 2013 #35
They are just hunks of metal, wood, and plastic. GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #39
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»NRA Vows To Stop Tucson F...»Reply #7