General Discussion

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)

16. Why start with the military and police?

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 11:17 PM

Jul 2013

Why not start with the soft targets?

At #13, you mentioned airport security. Why not first compile a list consisting of a combination of (1) the names of those who own registered firearms and (2) the names of those who have willingly gone through airport security lines and gotten unwanted free feel-ups without objection?

Start with them first.

Then move on to the ones who didn't get free feel-ups but went to the airports anyway and were willing to take a chance on doing so.

They too, would be softer targets. Much softer than the military and the police. And of course, much softer than the career criminals who deliver violence to get what they want and use firearms in their chosen professions. IMO, it's unlikely that those who want to take firearms away from everyone would actually show up to start with them first.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Let's ban the word "gun" from DU [View all] MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 OP

K&R AllINeedIsCoffee Jul 2013 #1

Henceforth, "shit multipliers" will be used to refer to lead acceleration devices. Agnosticsherbet Jul 2013 #2

Meh. Lets ban all guns. Start with the military and police first (they are, after all, folks like us The Straight Story Jul 2013 #3

trust -- Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2013 #8

True. When my son was in Iraq we trusted him with a gun The Straight Story Jul 2013 #13

Why start with the military and police? AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #16

Probably because they use their weapons more to harm people The Straight Story Jul 2013 #18

More likely than not, those who would get behind such an idea would get far behind. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #23

+1000 felix_numinous Jul 2013 #38

It is decided. Iggo Jul 2013 #4

+100 billh58 Jul 2013 #5

Zimmerman would never have gotten out of his car without his precious shit-multiplier. Hoyt Jul 2013 #6

That's Racist! onehandle Jul 2013 #7

There are all kinds of shit multipliers BainsBane Jul 2013 #9

Ultimate shit multipliers? Fumesucker Jul 2013 #33

I agree with the sentiment BainsBane Jul 2013 #34

+1 Safetykitten Jul 2013 #10

K&R forestpath Jul 2013 #11

Taco bells n/m ceonupe Jul 2013 #12

Works for me! MotherPetrie Jul 2013 #14

I like it. nt awoke_in_2003 Jul 2013 #15

Truer Words Were Never Spoken otohara Jul 2013 #17

This OP is a gun. nt rrneck Jul 2013 #19

And Concealed Carry => Sneaky Shit Multipliers tblue Jul 2013 #20

Mandate? AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #21

Great post! nt Mojorabbit Jul 2013 #25

ah a voice of free-dumb DonCoquixote Jul 2013 #42

I wonder if Obama should ban the Secret Service from carrying guns? Skip Intro Jul 2013 #22

The Secret Service... Oldtimeralso Jul 2013 #27

It is part of our culture. Not mentioning it will not make it disappear. Mojorabbit Jul 2013 #24

Army ditty WovenGems Jul 2013 #26

"Shit multiplier" is a good term to use for some DUers. flvegan Jul 2013 #28

You forgot to add blue links Fumesucker Jul 2013 #35

A year ago today Peaceplace80 Jul 2013 #29

You used a combination of gun/guns NINE times in your OP ConcernedCanuk Jul 2013 #30

Cue the shit-sniffers in 5. . .4. . .3. . .2. . .1. . . Nanjing to Seoul Jul 2013 #31

Okay..... DeSwiss Jul 2013 #32

Big Jim's been drinkin' whiskey And playin' poker on a losin' night... Dragonfli Jul 2013 #36

Agree with the value of specifying the language but not that one ShawnRIN Jul 2013 #37

Let just ban free speech all together! S.A.M Jul 2013 #39

Satire impaired billh58 Jul 2013 #40

I have a better idea. Way better. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #41

The OP is a spoof, in keeping with most control/ban threads. Eleanors38 Dec 2013 #43