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: Liberals Roar As Elizabeth Warren Vows To Mobilize Democrats To Defeat The NRA [View all]Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)104. I'll address your central points in turn --
because of the unique vulnerability, and the high societal value placed on the lives, of kindergartners
Yet, alcohol will kill more kindergartners than semi-automatic rifles. Continuously. Regularly. Whether from drunk driving, alcohol-fueled abusers, poisoning through access to a caregiver's personal. Yet, despite "high societal value" these episodes are punished on a by-case basis and we accept that as a societal norm.
suburbanites who face a near ZERO threat of ever becoming a victim of violent crime
When have demographics ever become a legitimate basis for law? Whatever law you propose I doubt it will permit a licensed dealer to query a potential purchaser to determine if their primary residence is urban, suburban or rural.
But, as you are interested in things that near zero probability: Consider for a moment that annually around 350 people are murdered by a rifle -- of any sort; lever-action, bolt-action, etc. Semi-automatic rifles are, therefore, a sub-group of that 350. That means a person's odds of becoming the victim of a semi-automatic rifle are less than 1 in a million. Moreover, of that less-than-350 number even fewer still are used in rampage killings; the presumed motivation for your effort.
Yet, those seeking an "assault weapon ban" want laws that will affect tens of millions of Americans. If minuscule odds are your argument than it is the ban on rifles, not the rifles themselves, that should be abandoned.
they face a LESS THAN ZERO threat at becoming the victim of a tyrannical government.
Unless the government demands their guns be confiscated, in which case their motivation will have been confirmed. And if the thought of the ensuing strife deters a demand for confiscation then their actions of purchasing a gun to ward off a tyrannical overreach will have been validated. I imagine it must be something of a Scylla-and-Charybdis moment for those who would ban the ownership of semi-automatic rifles.
"Does my imaginary/delusional belief that I face an imminent risk of death...
First, to call something imaginary or delusional is insulting. You assume you know better than each individual; and that is what we're talking about -- individuals. It only serve as fodder for complaints that gun control advocates are arrogant and condescending.
It is the gun control side that preaches fear of imminent death. Without that argument they have no argument. Thus far your argument has been to say little more than desiring a semi-automatic rifle leads to murdered kindergartners.
Yet, every time those seeking to reinstate the AWB start making noises towards a ban semi-automatic rifle sales surge. Surprising no one, those making the purchases are not killing kindergartners.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
129 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
Liberals Roar As Elizabeth Warren Vows To Mobilize Democrats To Defeat The NRA [View all]
kpete
Jan 2016
OP
He won't because there are none, he just likes to tell tall tales about firearm owning DU'ers. eom.
GGJohn
Jan 2016
#6
They are trolls or soon to be gone from DU. If I see them I will certainly alert.
The Wielding Truth
Jan 2016
#10
I think we are being hit hard with politcal trolls. This was alerted and voted to stay 2-5.
The Wielding Truth
Jan 2016
#15
Did Liz forget the 2014 mid-term results which were after Congress crushed gun control in 2013?
aikoaiko
Jan 2016
#16
And Sen. Feinstein introducing those 2 addendums to the main bill gave them all the ammo
GGJohn
Jan 2016
#52
I never said they weren't, but Sen. Feinstein was the icing on the cake to really rally
GGJohn
Jan 2016
#61
NRA started feeling the heat from the grassroots so they changed their position.
hollowdweller
Jan 2016
#79
One minor pre-Obama Admin. example almost nine years ago...truly pathetic on your part
BeyondGeography
Jan 2016
#77
And you might have noticed that the Right in this country is allergic to helping Obama on any level
BeyondGeography
Jan 2016
#85
I'm a Democrat. Just not who believes we've always done the right thing with gun control
aikoaiko
Jan 2016
#86
Your implicit defense of Wayne LaPierre's destructive tactics is duly noted
BeyondGeography
Jan 2016
#87
Obama is not pursuing UBC's at the expense of the White House next Nov.
BeyondGeography
Jan 2016
#82
I think most people would rather stay true to their own convictions than be scared off by prophecy.
LanternWaste
Jan 2016
#89
Agreed. I'll be sending her yet another check for her continued fight against the right.
onehandle
Jan 2016
#37
Why do you and poster #39 ask questions of other posters at exactly the same time?
blue neen
Jan 2016
#48
Actually, it would be even nicer if I actually understood what you're saying in your posts.
blue neen
Jan 2016
#66
But you won't accept reduction. You will only demand greater encroachments against those
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2016
#114
Making up a pseudotechnical term (Now it's "HPHCSAR") doesn't make the argument better.
dairydog91
Jan 2016
#112
And I gave you a clear definition if you actually wanted meaningful change.
dairydog91
Jan 2016
#119