General Discussion

Straw Man

(6,624 posts)

42. Simple.

Tue Nov 7, 2017, 03:06 PM

Nov 2017

Why do you feel that enforcing existing laws, laws that could have prevented this tragedy, is less important than passing new laws?

If you don't answer that question, you are not "engaging ... directly."

Quite simply, if we had no guns, we would not have had this latest massacre.

So you're calling for a total ban on civilian ownership of firearms?

Go Australia!

Australia has no such ban.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

David Frum tweet: [View all] applegrove Nov 2017 OP

i think that would mean most who own guns would be legally banned from having them JI7 Nov 2017 #1

Probably more common in gun nuts but I would think it would be a applegrove Nov 2017 #2

Stay classy, Culture Warrior. Straw Man Nov 2017 #4

Culture warrior? Why not just go full on and say SJW so we can all know where we stand? Squinch Nov 2017 #14

Because I think that classist culture war has nothing to do with social justice. Straw Man Nov 2017 #19

It's already law. Straw Man Nov 2017 #3

But he bought his AR-### in 2016. After the assault of his wife and child. applegrove Nov 2017 #5

So who dropped the ball? Straw Man Nov 2017 #7

The Air Force dropped the ball Kaleva Nov 2017 #16

Yes, it's looking like that's what happened. Straw Man Nov 2017 #18

Looks like the Air Force failed to enter his name in the proper data base. Grammy23 Nov 2017 #23

The pertinent question is why WAR WEAPONS are legal Stinky The Clown Nov 2017 #29

Post removed Post removed Nov 2017 #31

Blame shifting and obfuscation, as I said. Stinky The Clown Nov 2017 #32

So that's a "yes"? Straw Man Nov 2017 #33

Stop being silly, provocative, and in defense of the indefensible Stinky The Clown Nov 2017 #40

Simple. Straw Man Nov 2017 #42

Yes Stinky The Clown Nov 2017 #43

And I will not support ... Straw Man Nov 2017 #44

Good. Now we're down to the essence of things. Stinky The Clown Nov 2017 #46

Welcome to DU. lagomorph777 Nov 2017 #34

I've been here longer than you. Straw Man Nov 2017 #35

That's disturbing. lagomorph777 Nov 2017 #36

Sorry if you feel disturbed ... Straw Man Nov 2017 #37

Oh, obviously. lagomorph777 Nov 2017 #38

Could you provide evidence ... Straw Man Nov 2017 #39

Wow, you've really mastered the art of the quote. Stinky The Clown Nov 2017 #41

Your "Straw Man" argument that proposing new laws implies opposing existing laws. lagomorph777 Nov 2017 #45

He lied on his 4473 form fallout87 Nov 2017 #24

It should not be so easy. applegrove Nov 2017 #25

The law only works fallout87 Nov 2017 #30

A law with absolutely no enforcement. Crunchy Frog Nov 2017 #6

Yes -- it's a truism. Straw Man Nov 2017 #8

Probably add an enforcement component to the law. Crunchy Frog Nov 2017 #9

An enforcement component? Straw Man Nov 2017 #10

Some kind of mechanism by which the law Crunchy Frog Nov 2017 #11

Mechanism? Straw Man Nov 2017 #17

Haha...keep your day job! quartz007 Nov 2017 #26

don't forget about the "boyfriend loophole" niyad Nov 2017 #12

works for me! niyad Nov 2017 #13

Could this mean that SOMEONE is noticing the one to one correspondence between Squinch Nov 2017 #15

"The Right To Bear Arms Shall Not Be Abridged" brooklynite Nov 2017 #20

Apparently the military court that convicted the shooter of assault on his wife applegrove Nov 2017 #21

Every right has limitations. First Amendment is hedged about with them Hekate Nov 2017 #22

Wow. Excellent point. n/t Beartracks Nov 2017 #27

The airforce really dropped the ball. He broke an infant's skull ffs! ecstatic Nov 2017 #28