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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Clinton calls for renewed assault weapons ban: they're a 'weapon of war' [View all]eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)80. Cannot be said enough. nt
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
147 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
Hillary Clinton calls for renewed assault weapons ban: they're a 'weapon of war' [View all]
kpete
Jun 2016
OP
A lot of people would disagree with your restrictive, narrow framing of the issue.
Igel
Jun 2016
#28
I live in Oregon, in the forest, and police found a pot grow less than a mile from my house
passiveporcupine
Jun 2016
#63
An unknown number of instances in which a handgunis used for self-defense are simply not reported.
Francis Booth
Jun 2016
#64
Because that's such a common event... also many who brandish guns don't know they ARE
MillennialDem
Jun 2016
#135
I had the same reaction. She was a disaster and the comparison does Clinton no favors. nt
Mojorabbit
Jun 2016
#91
Ya but I don't recall reading that she actually proposed a ban rather she called for reform. nt
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#11
The only way to solve it would be an outright ban on guns but that isnt likely to happen regardless
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#47
Include high capacity magazine eliminate gun show provision and stop straw man purchases.
gordianot
Jun 2016
#44
Given the wide range of guns that will still be allowed, this is a small but significant action. n/t
pnwmom
Jun 2016
#146
IMO what we need when it comes to licensing, permits and background checks is
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#9
The State Dept. doesn't sell them to civilians, it sells them to governments.
SunSeeker
Jun 2016
#57
I like that phrase. I call them Weapons of Mass Destruction, but that's good too. nt
onehandle
Jun 2016
#12
Yeah, but it'll take action from a repub controlled Congress to get anything done
groundloop
Jun 2016
#16
Almost all rifles are 'military styled'. A bolt-action US Model 1917 was, at one point
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2016
#45
That's actually the standard sized mag that comes with, and in common use.
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2016
#123
Huh. I bought a Colt Sporter H-bar back in the day and I could have sworn it came with
Francis Booth
Jun 2016
#129
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I, too feel that some compromise is necessary.
Francis Booth
Jun 2016
#145
The choice is simple: repeal & replace or deal with more massacres. Which do you want?
LonePirate
Jun 2016
#51
You are a distinct minority, and would likely get a 2nd that clearly affirms an individual right.
Marengo
Jun 2016
#119
That is how our Supreme Court works. Heller is just an opinion, not the Constitution.
SunSeeker
Jun 2016
#59
think we need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing reproductive freedom for individuals
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2016
#62
What other parts of the Bill of Rights do you want to abolish "to keep us safe"?
Odin2005
Jun 2016
#71
What other parts of the Bill of Rights enable people to murder dozens of others in a few minutes?
LonePirate
Jun 2016
#75
The 4th comes to mind. Imagine all of the crime law enforcement could prevent...
Marengo
Jun 2016
#120
Maybe the 3rd as well. Imagine how much safer we could be if the well-meaning...
Marengo
Jun 2016
#121
are you insane? you would start a conflict where probably over 100,000 people would die
AntiBank
Jun 2016
#130
Not what I was saying. If there was a civil war I'm saying private guns won't do shit
MillennialDem
Jun 2016
#131
well, of course, but the inference was that a civil war was "ok" because the military would win
AntiBank
Jun 2016
#132
I am calling for an absolute ban. The gun nuts try to claim they will engage in civil war, but
MillennialDem
Jun 2016
#133
I truly think you are profoundly wrong.You are literally talking about opening up a multiple century
AntiBank
Jun 2016
#137
Heller rewrote the 2nd Am and ignored precedent and history behind the 2nd Am.
SunSeeker
Jun 2016
#84
I don't think we want to start subjecting constitutional rights to the whims of a majority
TeddyR
Jun 2016
#111
Majority? Hell, it is already subjected to the whims of a handful of Supreme Court Justices.
SunSeeker
Jun 2016
#114