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
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: NRA has right to lobby, Longmeadow has right to ignore it [View all]beevul
(12,194 posts)11. This is oh so rich...
The word "reasonable" sticks in the craw of NRA members, some of whom haven't seen a gun control law yet that they'd consider reasonable. The organization's statement on the Longmeadow proposals declared them "unreasonable restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.''
This is oh so rich, considering it was posted by a poster who has never called a single gun law unreasonable, and presumably thinks they're ALL reasonable.
Gun owners would be required to provide the police department with descriptions (including the serial number, make, model, and caliber) of each firearm, rifle, or shotgun they own.
Gun haters loves them some registration.
Assault weapons would be banned in town, with a $300 per day fine on people who own them within the town.
I'm shocked.
Of the three articles, the proposal requiring the submission of descriptions to police might cause the most dispute. That doesn't mean it's not reasonable, though, and as for the others, why anyone sees the need to own assault weapons in Longmeadow - or in any private stockpile - is hard to fathom.
Doesn't mean its reasonable either. While the author may find it hard to fathom, people who know the facts aren't subject to that sort of cluelessness, and do not suffer from this deficit in understanding.
Assault weapons did not exist when the framers of the Bill of Rights penned the Second Amendment, which NRA spokesmen wave like a club whenever gun control comes up.
The hatred is strong with this one.
It's at least as daunting and disturbing when a powerfully financed national lobbying organization feels the need to sweep into any community in an attempt to influence local autonomy and local decisions.
I'll just bet this guy wouldn't say the same thing about Bloomberg or the brady bunch.
Whatever the town decides, the best path will be for the town to make its decisions on its own...
Until that isn't the best path. When its the authors ox getting gored by the town, I'd just bet the author changes the tune.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
28 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
I agree, not just one person. Especially when the NRA and its gun worshipping
justhanginon
Apr 2016
#2
Will you come back and discuss if this gets voted down at Town Meeting on 10 May?
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2016
#5
Not a dime will be donated, and 'activism' will once again mean 'more wear on keyboards'
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2016
#6
"Assault weapons did not exist when the framers of the Bill of Rights penned the 2nd Amendment"
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2016
#4
UPDATE: "Longmeadow residents defeat controversial gun control initiatives in Town Meeting"
friendly_iconoclast
May 2016
#13