America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

So I've been giving the whole "enforce the existing laws" idea a little thought... Because there is a rationale to this idea. If it's already illegal to own the gun, why add another law.

The problem is that I am not sure existing laws can be enforced any more than they are... Given that this is still America, and we still obey the 4th amendment, a police officer can't just go and check anyone for illegal guns. They have to wait until a crime is in process with said illegal gun, and by then if there was going to be a gun related homicide, odds are it has already occurred.

My point isn't that we need new laws. My point is that there isn't anything that could or should be done about it. Just suck it up and accept it. We're talking 10k gun deaths a year. Do we really care that much about that small a percentage of our population that we are going to go around and around about it?

Conservatives need to stop pretending "enforcement of existing laws" is a thing, and liberals need to stop pretending they care that much about reducing a 10k/year death rate by some small percentage.

I hear that all the time...

You're just jealous because he is doing such a good job despite the GOP stonewalling all progress.

I hope you see the transparency in that and change....

That is a problem because according to the FBI gun deaths have been dropping for years.

Interesting:

"Looking back 50 years, a Pew Research Center study found U.S. gun homicides rose in the 1960s, gained in the 1970s, peaked in the 1980s and the early 1990s, and then plunged and leveled out the past 20 years."

I keep hoping for change but with this damn economy my jar is as transparent (read empty) as its ever been.

As for one line platitudes?

Nuff said.

im just a fan of using appropriate legislative channels so that bills/issues can be debated by our elected officials. now that is more cumbersome but that is the give and take in representative republics vs dictatorships.

in all of this the people and the states become increasingly less important and that is contrary to the design of this great country.

The executive action President Obama announced on Tuesday reverses course on a key Clinton-era policy that sought to reduce the number of federal firearms licensees.

The Obama administration’s push to require more gun sellers to obtain a license from the ATF could under some circumstances define those who sell even a single firearm as “engaged in the business” of firearms sales. That represents a stark contrast from the Clinton administration’s approach in the 1990s, when the White House successfully slashed the number of licensees by raising fees on license applications and requiring applicants to submit both fingerprints and photographs to the ATF.

“The Clinton Administration ordered the bureau to tighten the process,” the New York Times reported at the time. “Since August, applicants have been fingerprinted and photographed as well, and the bureau now tells applicants that their names will be sent to the police, who may check on their compliance with the law.”

The actions taken by Bill Clinton, whose wife is currently seeking the Democratic nomination for President, resulted in the number of licensed dealers dropping from about 252,000 in 1993 to about 55,000 in 2014.

In 1994, ATF officials complained that many FFLs were not actually “engaged in the business” and oversight of the small sellers was cumbersome, if not impossible. “Probably 70 percent of the people holding licenses shouldn’t hold them,” one ATF spokesperson told the Times. “Most applicants declare that they intend to buy and sell guns as a primary livelihood, but in reality, the firearms bureau says, most people want to buy guns at wholesale prices for personal use,” the paper added.

Film at 11...

Conservatives IMHO are not necessarily pretending that enforcement will change Anything.....but adamantly DENY that more layering of existing laws does anything @ all...however the Dems insist on adding more wording to further infringe on existing laws. Everyone knows what they ultimately want....Registration and Confiscation

Brewha wrote:
"Looking back 50 years, a Pew Research Center study found U.S. gun homicides rose in the 1960s, gained in the 1970s, peaked in the 1980s and the early 1990s, and then plunged and leveled out the past 20 years."

don't blame the messenger, these two points just struck me as I was following the thread. But gun homicides "plunged" following Clinton's actions.

Perhaps this means changes work, or perhaps this means enough changes have been made, or perhaps these events are mutually exclusive...it's not easy to be a libtard who does not want your guns!

My feelings are that murders, in fact all serious crime, drop during years of improved economy. Jobs prevent desperation.

don't forget the gozintas...

seriously though, it isn't hard proof of cause and effect, but it jumped off the page as I read.

Seems fair I reckon.

So you take issue with the method the orders were enacted, but not the orders themselves.
Interesting.....

You want I should explain again how sheeps bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes?

I cited other posters' facts, just lined them up, and drew no conclusion.

what was my fear again? I'm so confused.

Homicides in the 90's decreased because of the war on drugs. More people were arrested and went to prison for longer periods of time. Also in the 90's Clinton poured a lot of money into Police Departments. More officers on the street, meant more officers for community policing. Police departments started a big push based upon the Broken Window theory. Take care of the small crimes, and the bigger crimes won't happen. People take pride in their neighborhood, when it looks nice and clean. Now the police are under attack for this, and neighborhoods are starting to look like **** again. Now they don't want the police to enforce small crimes, and bitch and moan when the big ones happen.

What do you disagree with?

were there boobs back in the card days..??

It's bad luck to be superstitious.

And please, don't be condescending.

(that means talking down to people)

You really need to look up the term sarcasm.

I guess us liberbulls must sound pretty crazy. Taking the position that guns themselves are an unappreciated risk, questioning why people would be allowed to have banana clip assault rifles, and in general questioning the proliferation of weapon in the population.

Yup, must look stupid crazy to some….

Why do you hate tomato-vegetable juice ?

Are these the same liberals that were responsible for fast and furious?
Arming drug runners in Mexico and responsible for 100s of Mexicans dying along with a U.S. border patrol agent.

Yes, thank you liberals for caring so much about gun control.

Guns are very risky, so why not arm some bad guys?

"Control" being the key word in the attempt to further control the law abiding populous.

An "assault" rifle is just a rifle. You pull the trigger and one bullet comes out. They may look like military style rifles, but they are not machine guns.

Hey - Tball is back ! Didn't miss you at all, and I don't think anyone did.

only crazy when you consider that the main focus of these laws is an object (scary "military guns") that is almost nonexistent as a contributor to the "gun murder epidemic"