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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why is it that the main objection concerning gun control [View all]sarisataka
(18,483 posts)86. I should probably skip this
but I'll try
Frankly, i could give a whit. I want to see fewer guns in the hands of idiots and psychotics.
Excellent- I believe that is the goal of 99.9% of the population- maybe slightly less if all idiots are counted
Frankly, i could give a whit. I want to see fewer guns in the hands of idiots and psychotics and if that infringes on someone's ability to go plinking or shooting paper targets so be it.
Problem- would you say such about other rights? Example, government can regulate what churches preach and if it pisses off Westburough, so be it. We have to consider unintended consequences.
Back to the goal
centered about definitions and nomenclature regarding guns
When we choose to regulate something we must define how it is regulated in consistent, easy to understand fashion. Example, we have speed limits. We could say 'don't go too fast'. It is too vague and means too many things to too many people. We could say a vehicle with 15" tire must have an RPM no more than 2000. Way too technical and motor heads would tell you that would not have anything to do with speed for a variety of reasons. This was the old AWB.
We regulate speed in MPH. Simple to measure, easy to post roads, everyone can understand it. You need to know nothing about a car except how to read one gauge. This is why nomenclature becomes important. Not everyone needs to know every little detail about every model of gun, but it must be clear and understandable to those who use/sell guns and those who enforce the laws what is legal and what is not.
Then we must have a system of punishments, because as with speeding there will be those who choose to disobey. Depending on what restriction is violated, it could be fines, forfeiture or jail time.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
142 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
The "if it were up to you plan" would actually do something; I would support it if the party does
Recursion
Jan 2013
#60
So if I want to follow the 1st admendment, can I only do it with technology from the 1700's
Travis_0004
Jan 2013
#12
Why isn't it? While enshrining my "classic," could I keep a Remington M8 (1906)?
Eleanors38
Jan 2013
#94
Actually, I support the universal NICS and strengthening reporting requirements.
Eleanors38
Jan 2013
#137
Earliest SCOTUS case I know which treats RKBA as an individual right is from 1857.
dairydog91
Jan 2013
#82
Exactly-- and if you're willing to ignore the "militia" part, why should anyone else accept
Marr
Jan 2013
#123
But you're not advocating constructionism, you're advocating turbo-originalism.
dairydog91
Jan 2013
#25
How about making gun free zones around and in all public buildings like smoke free zones?
appleannie1
Jan 2013
#28
The last chef knife I bought said "Blade is sharp; avoid contact" on the package
Recursion
Jan 2013
#72
That is merely the NRA/RW talking point used to end discussions on a message board
Kolesar
Jan 2013
#4
I'm sorry, but statistics and real world occurrences are not "talking points".
OneTenthofOnePercent
Jan 2013
#13
"Games with statistics"? LOL, it's a numerical count of gun crime.
OneTenthofOnePercent
Jan 2013
#99
LOL wut? Gun deaths from semi-automatic mass shootings should somehow count more than
OneTenthofOnePercent
Jan 2013
#102
There are no raw numbers of assault weapon crime, just rifle crime.
OneTenthofOnePercent
Jan 2013
#111
Sounds like a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and a complete ban on all guns is what we need.
LonePirate
Jan 2013
#22
Once we start tacking on 5-20 year prison terms for gun possession, ownership rates will drop.
LonePirate
Jan 2013
#41
So what's worse, "NRA Talking Points" or "Logical Fallacies" (ie: emotional appeal)
OneTenthofOnePercent
Jan 2013
#100
Expect the gunboarders to act like you never posted that comprehensive summary...eom
Kolesar
Jan 2013
#11
Because our last major Federal gun control law was completely pointless, because of definitions
Recursion
Jan 2013
#16
The answer is that statutes must be reasonably related to their goals to be Constitutional.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2013
#26
It certainly didn't fail to do what they wanted it to do...ban hi capacity mags.
jmg257
Jan 2013
#53
In my neck of PA people sell guns at yard sales. It amazes me how easy it is in
appleannie1
Jan 2013
#30
There should be a multifaceted solution to the problem of mass shootings.
Thinkingabout
Jan 2013
#31
My objection is the potential for "control" leading to the unjust taking of property
slackmaster
Jan 2013
#36
I want to be able to go where I want in this town without the chance of being caught between
patrice
Jan 2013
#126
it's a common internet board trick to insert minutia instead of the big picture
graham4anything
Jan 2013
#129
There is no reason to believe draconian regulations on guns will decrease the levels of violence
Taitertots
Jan 2013
#141