(10-26-2016 03:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 03:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 03:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why do we have to have one before the other? Why can't we work to better enforce the laws that are in place now and at the same time create new laws that cover "loopholes" where people who shouldn't have them get them?

Why can't conservatives chew gum and walk at the same time?

Why can't liberals? Virtually NONE of them support stricter enforcement of current gun laws. They ALL support new gun laws.

I do support stricter enforcement of current gun laws. Why can't you support additional laws to cover the loop holes?

You see, I told you conservatives can't chew gum and walk at the same time.

YOU aren't LIBERALS.

I'd personally be fine with new laws... depending on what they are. I've yet to see one presented by liberals that is designed to stop criminals and not merely to make it harder to be a legal gun owner. Universal background check proposals I've seen are a perfect example. Criminals wouldn't pass a background check so they still wouldn't use them. They'd either use a straw purchaser, steal one, or purchase one of the millions of guns already in illegal possession.

I've thought about using drivers licenses and an instant check... simply take a scan of a license and use an app to verify a buyers right to buy.... and SOME conservatives are in favor of this... I think Owlnumbers is one of them... but what if they don't pass? It's easy to say, so you don't sell it to them', but here you are in a parking lot with a criminal telling him he can't buy a gun. I'd be willing to look at this, but I still don't see how unless it is fast and free and easy, this isn't a massive burden (and potential risk) on 100mm legal owners to stop the insignificant number of criminals who would stupidly submit to such a check. They SURE aren't going to a police station to buy your gun.

Don't try to talk sense to Johnny. He, um, he just isn't capable of it.

(and he says he's a lawyer, yeah, right)

This is always such a strange, stupid argument.

We're talking about criminals that are willing and DO shoot other people. Yet, the leftists maintain this belief that if we only had more laws, criminals would follow THOSE laws.

These are people that are willing and DO shoot people. Dead. But they're going to stop efforts to get a gun with one more law that they wouldn't follow and is rarely prosecuted at all?

Lacks ANY semblance of logic.

Kap #5,

It says "focusing on gun offenders very consistently, when done well, correlates with fewer people getting shot."

That means if you have the correct gun law, and enforce it correctly, there is a correlation with fewer people getting shot.


So I can't tell if you're just trying to play a semantics game or what. Put it this way: the number of gun laws is irrelevant, so long as you have one powerful, smartly worded law.

I'll take the latter, any day.

(10-26-2016 05:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Kap #5,

It says "focusing on gun offenders very consistently, when done well, correlates with fewer people getting shot."

That means if you have the correct gun law, and enforce it correctly, there is a correlation with fewer people getting shot.


So I can't tell if you're just trying to play a semantics game or what. Put it this way: the number of gun laws is irrelevant, so long as you have one powerful, smartly worded law.

I'll take the latter, any day.

The number of gun laws isn't irrelevant when it places an undue burden upon legal gun owners.

And how about we actually enforce the 20k plus we already have on the books and see if they are the "perfect" law before we add more.

So it is nothing but a semantics game.


Boil them all down to one law. The actual number of laws is a non-point. The point is: what should be the law, what should be enforced, and why.

No... the leftist argument is that if they make it so hard for regular people to own guns that they stop owning them, that eventually this will decrease the number of guns available for criminals.

How this isn't 'coming for your guns' I don't know, other than it is done through coercion rather than mandate.

(10-26-2016 05:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So it is nothing but a semantics game.

Only to you leftists. To most of us it is a rights issue.

Quote: The point is: what should be the law

Whatever is the most effective at dealing with the criminal element while is the least burdensome to the law abiding citizens. I shouldn't have to jump through any more hoops to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights as you do to exercise any of the others.

Quote:what should be enforced

The law, to the letter.

Quote:, and why.

Because without enforcement the law in meaningless, and when laws are meaningless so is the government.

(10-26-2016 06:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  No... the leftist argument is that if they make it so hard for regular people to own guns that they stop owning them, that eventually this will decrease the number of guns available for criminals.

How this isn't 'coming for your guns' I don't know, other than it is done through coercion rather than mandate.

This. The aristocratic little people can't be trusted with firearms crowd play the long game. They figure in a generation of taxing, lawsuits, legislation, limiting access, and badgering red tape, that the old white guys will all die off.

What they don't get is the fastest growing demographics of both gun owners and CCW holders are women and minorities. Good on em.

Ham #27,

Not sure if you were responding to me, but that's not my argument. I'm fine with people owning guns. Even pink AR-15's for your daughter's youth sport shooting league.

Then again, I'm not a "leftist".


Kap #28,

If you're more concerned with the actual tally of laws, than what good or bad comes from them ... then yes it is just a semantics game.

That said, I'd say we're mostly on the same page! Just make sure to update your rolodex, so that you note I'm not a "leftist".

no, Bison, didn't mean you. didn't mean anyone in particular... was merely trying to sum up the gist of the most popular/common themes presented by the left.