You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #53: Oh God no... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
Maine_Nurse Donating Member (688 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-11 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #33
53. Oh God no...
"What is needed is a well thought out, well crafted national standard that applies to all jurisdictions"

This I disagree with strongly. What NYC or Chicago might think they need for firearms laws are certainly not applicable to my state (although I subscribe to the thought that the only people that comply with their inner-city laws are the ones that you'd want to allow to own firearms anyway). There are some issues that are best dealt with nationally such as the NICS check database, however as heavily armed as Maine is and as little restrictions as we have on firearms, we are near the bottom of the list on firearms crimes and deaths, as are NH and Vermont, two other "local" states with very permissive firearms laws and very high rates of ownership, yet low rates of crime. What fits us probably doesn't fit you and vice versa.

You're portion about "police protection" is also laughable in many areas. I live about 45 minutes from a police response in an emergency (also 30-45 minutes from an EMT response in an emergency). There IS not police protection to be had, only after the fact investigation.

It really does come down to enforcement of current laws, especially in the larger metropolitan areas. As an example, you have criminals that commit felonies, yet because your courts are so over-burdened the prosecutors offices make it a matter of practice to offer misdemeanor convictions in exchange for guilty pleas to speed things along and avoid prolonged prosecution. This results in many people who would otherwise then be prohibited from firearms ownership getting off the hook in that aspect. I understand why this is done, but it essentially short circuits existing firearms laws. Somehow this needs to be changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -What do you consider "Sensible gun control"? (Read the post before responding) shadowrider  Jan-16-11 08:22 AM   #0 
  - IBTM..  Fumesucker   Jan-16-11 08:25 AM   #1 
  - LOL ... Well said ....  Trajan   Jan-16-11 08:48 AM   #11 
  - Ask a police officer who is outgunned on the street and get back to me.  mmonk   Jan-16-11 08:26 AM   #2 
  - Few police are out gunned here in CA  ProgressiveProfessor   Jan-16-11 08:33 AM   #5 
  - Police officers have access to firearms the public cannot buy...  OneTenthofOnePercent   Jan-16-11 08:35 AM   #7 
  - You can check.  mmonk   Jan-16-11 08:41 AM   #8 
     - I didn't see any axamples...  OneTenthofOnePercent   Jan-16-11 08:50 AM   #13 
     - A brief perusal showed no instances where criminals had access...  PavePusher   Jan-16-11 10:43 AM   #67 
  - Police Offices can buy NIB fully automatic weapons from the manufacturers  Taitertots   Jan-16-11 08:45 AM   #10 
  - The ability to buy them is different than every beat officer carrying one.  mmonk   Jan-16-11 09:17 AM   #36 
     - If police departments want officers carrying automatic rifles, departments would purchase them. nt  bluestate10   Jan-16-11 09:19 AM   #37 
     - And since no-one is carrying them in public...  PavePusher   Jan-16-11 10:39 AM   #65 
     - I haven't seen a police car without an AR-15 or similar in it  AtheistCrusader   Jan-16-11 12:14 PM   #91 
     - Yes, if they don't have them it is because they choose to make it that way  Taitertots   Jan-16-11 01:58 PM   #99 
  - There were fewer cops killed ITLOD last year than any year since 1956  Recursion   Jan-16-11 09:15 AM   #34 
  - Outgunned police?  notesdev   Jan-16-11 09:57 AM   #56 
  - I saw the Redmond PD tank getting new shoes at Les Schwab Tires one afternoon.  AtheistCrusader   Jan-16-11 12:07 PM   #88 
  - Look at you, falling for the media spin hook line and sinker.  AtheistCrusader   Jan-16-11 12:06 PM   #87 
  - What do you consider "reasonable regulations"?  TheCowsCameHome   Jan-16-11 08:29 AM   #3 
  - Gun crimes beng punished with full terms.  Tejas   Jan-16-11 08:59 AM   #22 
  - I meant in terms of what a person should be allowed to legally own.  TheCowsCameHome   Jan-16-11 09:55 AM   #55 
     - My bad, was trying to  Tejas   Jan-16-11 11:58 AM   #86 
     - This is something that interests me too.  NewMoonTherian   Jan-16-11 07:08 PM   #106 
  - If it's on theT O &E for an 11 Bravo I want one NT  RSillsbee   Jan-16-11 11:36 AM   #81 
  - Well can we start the discussion without injecting NRA propaganda ?  Vinnie From Indy   Jan-16-11 08:31 AM   #4 
  - False as to fact  ProgressiveProfessor   Jan-16-11 08:34 AM   #6 
  - And how exactly would the OP know that?  Vinnie From Indy   Jan-16-11 08:44 AM   #9 
  - The OP asked for a debate, not a flame.  bluestate10   Jan-16-11 09:26 AM   #44 
  - You are exactly correct. Discussion is required,  shadowrider   Jan-16-11 09:29 AM   #46 
  - Would that discussion also include the examination and explanation of facts  Vinnie From Indy   Jan-16-11 09:40 AM   #52 
  - The NRA helped write and pass the current federal laws  AtheistCrusader   Jan-16-11 12:10 PM   #89 
  - Any you complian about so called propoganda?  ProgressiveProfessor   Jan-16-11 12:30 PM   #92 
  - His post didn't state as fact that anyone wants to grant the mentally unbalanced access to firearms  Buzz Clik   Jan-16-11 08:54 AM   #16 
  - but they are utterly unwilling to put up with any inconvenience  dsc   Jan-16-11 09:21 AM   #40 
  - Yours is the definitive post on this thread. Nothing more needs to be said.  Buzz Clik   Jan-16-11 08:49 AM   #12 
  - Block people adjudicated mentally unfit from buying guns  Taitertots   Jan-16-11 08:51 AM   #14 
  - In this regard, the OP has a point.  Buzz Clik   Jan-16-11 08:55 AM   #18 
     - That is the problem with considering people innocent until proven guilty  Taitertots   Jan-16-11 08:59 AM   #21 
        - I, too, want a single payer health care system, but it won't solve the problem.  Buzz Clik   Jan-16-11 09:03 AM   #24 
           - What problem? The non-existent gun problem  Taitertots   Jan-16-11 09:07 AM   #26 
              - Oh. I thought we were having a conversation.  Buzz Clik   Jan-16-11 09:15 AM   #32 
                 - Rant? I'm just commenting on our focus being on two different problems  Taitertots   Jan-16-11 09:26 AM   #45 
  - sincere question: If all the existing laws were consistently enforced, what would happen ?  steve2470   Jan-16-11 08:52 AM   #15 
  - Hardcore advocates of the 2nd Amendment, when honest, will admit that they don't want them enforced.  Buzz Clik   Jan-16-11 08:57 AM   #19 
  - Your post contributes nothing to the discussion  shadowrider   Jan-16-11 09:31 AM   #47 
  - I disagree.  bluestate10   Jan-16-11 09:43 AM   #54 
  - The Second Amendment is not about hunting.  PavePusher   Jan-16-11 10:50 AM   #69 
  - registered firearms  RSillsbee   Jan-16-11 11:42 AM   #83 
  - Ok, then -- prove me wrong. Give me a piece of gun control legislation that you support.  Buzz Clik   Jan-16-11 11:04 AM   #74 
     - I support all gun legislation already on the books. There is no need for more  shadowrider   Jan-16-11 11:07 AM   #75 
        - You support it all, yet you still equate gun control to Mao and Pol Pot?  Buzz Clik   Jan-16-11 11:13 AM   #78 
           - Supporting gun legislation in the US has NOTHING to do with calling  shadowrider   Jan-16-11 11:16 AM   #79 
  - Cite to evidence? Or did you pull that from your colon? n/t  PavePusher   Jan-16-11 10:47 AM   #68 
  - From my colon to your ear?  Buzz Clik   Jan-16-11 01:29 PM   #96 
  - Most of us are convinced that if they were enforced no additional laws would be needed  ProgressiveProfessor   Jan-16-11 12:34 PM   #93 
  - The universe would implode  notesdev   Jan-16-11 09:59 AM   #57 
  - The ban on assault weapons and 30-round booster ammunition that was allowed to expire  Overseas   Jan-16-11 08:54 AM   #17 
  - "booster ammunition" - 2 or 3 stage? Can you hit sattellites with it?  Tejas   Jan-16-11 09:08 AM   #27 
  - There was no appreciable difference in the percentage of such magazines used in crime 94-04  X_Digger   Jan-16-11 09:11 AM   #28 
  - Hard to take a post serious when it contains only scare words and no facts  ProgressiveProfessor   Jan-16-11 12:40 PM   #95 
  - My 2 cents: I'd prefer to restrict the supply side rather than the demand side.  scarletwoman   Jan-16-11 08:59 AM   #20 
  - THAT is a thought out post. I don't agree it would ever work  shadowrider   Jan-16-11 09:04 AM   #25 
  - Thank you. As for foreign manufacturers, we do have the ability to restrict all sorts of imports.  scarletwoman   Jan-16-11 09:16 AM   #35 
     - Don't we also restrict the import of cocaine and heroin?  hack89   Jan-16-11 10:27 AM   #59 
        - Actually I do. Gun factories aren't underground and illegal, they operate in full view.  scarletwoman   Jan-16-11 11:10 AM   #76 
           - Let me respectfully correct your statement  shadowrider   Jan-16-11 11:13 AM   #77 
           - Absolutely correct  Maine_Nurse   Jan-16-11 11:38 AM   #82 
           - Corrupt countries like Russia can and will provide all the guns we would want  hack89   Jan-16-11 11:50 AM   #85 
  - Restrict the supply for US Mfgs, and others will fill the demand.  X_Digger   Jan-16-11 09:14 AM   #31 
  - The pernicious and diabolical Heller affirming Miller is its holding that  sharesunited   Jan-16-11 10:38 AM   #64 
  - Bet you say the same thing about other decisions affirming rights and liberties  ProgressiveProfessor   Jan-16-11 12:35 PM   #94 
     - Wrong. The 2A is playing with dynamite.  sharesunited   Jan-16-11 01:39 PM   #98 
  - Except for the fact that the Second Amendment is not about hunting.  PavePusher   Jan-16-11 10:53 AM   #70 
  - No way to work  Maine_Nurse   Jan-16-11 11:30 AM   #80 
  - For over a decade, I've participated in DU discussions on this topic. I have not read a single post  jody   Jan-16-11 09:03 AM   #23 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Jan-16-11 09:19 AM   #38 
  - And for the ostensible "purpose" of going to war with the government.  sharesunited   Jan-16-11 10:34 AM   #62 
  - So, you have historical fact and evidence to refute his presentation...  PavePusher   Jan-16-11 10:55 AM   #71 
  - Very interesting - thanks for the info.  grahamhgreen   Jan-16-11 10:32 AM   #60 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Jan-16-11 09:13 AM   #29 
  - Why the infamous right-wing graphic in your signature?  onehandle   Jan-16-11 09:14 AM   #30 
  - You make a number of salient points.  bluestate10   Jan-16-11 09:15 AM   #33 
  - And I truly appreciate the thoughtful response. n/t  shadowrider   Jan-16-11 09:22 AM   #41 
  - Oh God no...  Maine_Nurse   Jan-16-11 09:41 AM   #53 
  - Sorry, my self-defense requirements are not subject to...  PavePusher   Jan-16-11 11:01 AM   #73 
  - The only truly effective means of reducing gun crime would be to repeal the 2nd Amendment  cowcommander   Jan-16-11 09:20 AM   #39 
  - That response is an emotional rant devoid of any suggestions  shadowrider   Jan-16-11 09:25 AM   #42 
     - There isn't one, the best we can do is improve mental health care for Americans  cowcommander   Jan-16-11 09:38 AM   #51 
        - That is a much better answer than simply eradicating the 2nd which isn't going to happen  shadowrider   Jan-16-11 10:32 AM   #61 
        - Deleted message  Name removed   Jan-16-11 07:08 PM   #105 
  - One man's absolutes are not everyone's absolutes.  mmonk   Jan-16-11 09:26 AM   #43 
  - The problem, as I see it..  X_Digger   Jan-16-11 09:31 AM   #48 
  - Your third para is exactly what I'm asking  shadowrider   Jan-16-11 09:34 AM   #50 
  - I believe current regulations are sensible....  Uben   Jan-16-11 09:32 AM   #49 
  - Here's how you tell  notesdev   Jan-16-11 10:02 AM   #58 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Jan-16-11 07:17 PM   #107 
  - I am generally against gun control, however,  grahamhgreen   Jan-16-11 10:35 AM   #63 
  - Define those principLES please. Only then can I tell you whether or not  shadowrider   Jan-16-11 10:41 AM   #66 
     - I mean  grahamhgreen   Jan-16-11 04:44 PM   #102 
        - The Democrats had the White House, the Senate and the House  shadowrider   Jan-16-11 04:50 PM   #103 
  - Less  Katya Mullethov   Jan-16-11 10:57 AM   #72 
  - Jared Laughner is a gun owner, like you  Still a Democrat   Jan-16-11 11:49 AM   #84 
  - Not any more he isn't.  AtheistCrusader   Jan-16-11 12:13 PM   #90 
  - Jared Laughner cannot in any way, shape or form be described as sane  shadowrider   Jan-16-11 01:59 PM   #100 
     - You said 100% of gun owners agree - but "gun owner" is not synonymous with responsible or reasonable  Still a Democrat   Jan-16-11 06:51 PM   #104 
        - "gun owner" is not synonymous with responsible or reasonable  shadowrider   Jan-17-11 06:21 AM   #108 
  - One change I'd like to see  burrfoot   Jan-16-11 01:34 PM   #97 
     - A thoughtful response. Thank you for your reasoning and civility n/t  shadowrider   Jan-16-11 02:01 PM   #101 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC