Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Naxere]

So... you're against expanding background checks, but you want the administration to more aggressively enforce background checks?

That's quite a simplistic way of looking at it. What he's saying is there's no reason to add more laws onto the books until the current ones are being enforced.

[Thephayul]

So... you're against expanding background checks, but you want the administration to more aggressively enforce background checks?

I would like to see an actual effort on thier part to enforce the laws they passed already. Just for arguments sake, lets see what that does first. Maybe background checks are trash? Who knows? Without proper enforcement a law isnt worth the paper wasted writing it. Maybe theres another solution out there that works wonderfully, we probably will never know because people are so set on following this path right to the very end.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So... you're against expanding background checks, but you want the administration to more aggressively enforce background checks?

"We need to enforce our current laws before we think about adding new laws!" is right wing rhetoric for "Yeah we know the NRA is kneecapping the ATF, and we want things to stay that way rather than fixing it."

I find it amazing how effective Fox News is at spreading this rhetoric, even for people who claim to not watch Fox News then spout Fox News propaganda.

[Thephayul]

"We need to enforce our current laws before we think about adding new laws!" is right wing rhetoric for "Yeah we know the NRA is kneecapping the ATF, and we want things to stay that way rather than fixing it."

I find it amazing how effective Fox News is at spreading this rhetoric, even for people who claim to not watch Fox News then spout Fox News propaganda.

HHmm, did not see that coming........ I have no idea what the hell you are talking about with right wing fox... bla bla bla. Can you point out exactly where I am wrong expecting enforcement?

[belfpala]

"We need to enforce our current laws before we think about adding new laws!" is right wing rhetoric for "Yeah we know the NRA is kneecapping the ATF, and we want things to stay that way rather than fixing it."

I find it amazing how effective Fox News is at spreading this rhetoric, even for people who claim to not watch Fox News then spout Fox News propaganda.

Interesting.

The notion that all we need is better enforcement of our current federal laws has been a core argument of the gun lobby for years in its fight against sensible restrictions on guns in our communities. But that argument is a straw man. It masks the fact that many Americans don’t really know what gun laws are on the books and falsely construes that to mean they don’t want common-sense gun laws passed — when they clearly do. What Americans strongly believe, and what is at the core of the president’s reform agenda, is that with rights come responsibilities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/op...laws.html?_r=0

but lol nytimes op-ed must be biased and stuff rite!?

[Cthulhu 2020]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...n-gun-control/

It came from Fox News and various other right wing mouth pieces and has since been parroted ad infinitum by anyone who leans even slightly on the pro-gun circuit. For the most part, it isn't true, since most of the laws currently are enforced, but they could be more enforced with more funding and proper management of the ATF, while the right continues to advocate cutting spending and the ATF still needs an overhaul and is being held up. Meanwhile, that the current laws aren't fully enforced in no way means that we cannot expand background checks. Basically they have zero intention of wanting to better enforce current laws while saying we can't expand background checks until we do better enforce the current ones. Starting to see the hook here?

In other words, it's partisan rhetoric that holds no water.

[Thephayul]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...n-gun-control/

It came from Fox News and various other right wing mouth pieces and has since been parroted ad infinitum by anyone who leans even slightly on the pro-gun circuit. For the most part, it isn't true, since most of the laws currently are enforced, but they could be more enforced with more funding, while the right continues to advocate cutting spending. Meanwhile, that the current laws aren't fully enforced in no way means that we cannot expand background checks. Basically they have zero intention of wanting to better enforce current laws while saying we can't expand background checks until we do better enforce the current ones. Starting to see the hook here?

In other words, it's partisan rhetoric that holds no water.

Thanx for that, had no idea about the fox thing at all. I don't watch tv as a rule. Now funding:I could get behind funding wholeheartedly. Now if a bill came through that wasn't pushed by an obviously biased congress and whitehouse, that specifically addressed problems with guns and enforcement but also stopped there and wasn't a gateway to more bs, I would support it wholeheartedly. But that has not been the case.

[Deadvolcanoes]

I think the old saying" a lock only keeps an honest man honest" applies here. You guys seem to forget that there are piles of laws a regulations in place already THAT ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED.

The current background check laws, which, according to you, are not being enforced, result in 117 denial of purchases a day due to the existence of a criminal record.

Looks like we don't need to enforce laws heavily in order for them to be effective.

[belfpala]

...but also stopped there and wasn't a gateway to more bs, I would support it wholeheartedly. But that has not been the case.

I'm against traffic lights because they're a gateway to the government taking my car.

[Thephayul]

The current background check laws, which, according to you, are not being enforced, result in 117 denial of purchases a day due to the existence of a criminal record.

Looks like we don't need to enforce laws heavily in order for them to be effective.

Never said that. I was saying if control is such a critical issue perhaps we should be looking to enforce what we have, rather then add more to it.

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 07:20 PM ----------

I'm against traffic lights because they're a gateway to the government taking my car.

I would be too if the guy who was pushing traffic lights went on record on his plan to take your car.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Never said that. I was saying if control is such a critical issue perhaps we should be looking to enforce what we have, rather then add more to it.

Sure. Let's keep throwing millions at the enforcement of FFL's issuing background checks, meanwhile ignoring the fact that private individuals can sell guns to anyone without a background check. That doesn't really make sense.

[Thephayul]

Sure. Let's keep throwing millions at the enforcement of FFL's issuing background checks, meanwhile ignoring the fact that private individuals can sell guns to anyone without a background check. That doesn't really make sense.

And throwing millions at a new law is supposed to be better?

[Tinykong]

And throwing millions at a new law is supposed to be better?

If said law encompasses private sales, then arguably, yes. It all depends on what you think is "worth" spending money on.

[Deadvolcanoes]

And throwing millions at a new law is supposed to be better?

Yes. Absolutely. There's no reason to enforce background checks aggressively if they haven't been made universal.

It's kinda like the illegal immigration issue. First and foremost we have to seal off the border to prevent as many people from crossing as possible (make background checks universal). Then, and only then, should we talk about enforcement.

[belfpala]

It's kinda like the illegal immigration issue. First and foremost we have to seal off the border to prevent as many people from crossing as possible (make background checks universal). Then, and only then, should we talk about enforcement.

Going back to the other analogy...

Ok, I installed a stronger door and a better lock on my house (enforcement), but I left my window open.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I suddenly want to buy doors.

[The Riddler]

I'll break it down for you. It isn't complex.

(A) A bunch of angry gun-haters saw an opportunity to club their favorite baby seal.
(B) They brazenly and sickeningly exploit tragedy to try and bum-rush bad law through Congress.
(C) Oops... The Constitution is DESIGNED to prevent angry idiots from bum-rushing bad policy into law when it involves the Bill of Rights.
(D) With a simple, sensible, reasonable counter-argument that everyone can understand, the NRA masterfully recasts the whole discussion on their terms and shows the public that Obama's dumb plan never did have anything to do with saving lives or preventing dangerous people from getting guns.
(E) The public starts to ask, "Yeah, why AREN'T we enforcing gun laws?" and "Hey, guards in schools really IS a good idea! Why not do this?"
(F) Obama's dumb law gets slowly whittled away to nothing because they refuse to listen to common sense.
(G) Obama's dumb law even fails in the Senate because it is so bad they can't even get Democrats to vote for it. Also, Obama/Reid didn't want any amendment process to slow it down, so they refused to bring it to the floor for an up/down vote where they only needed a majority.
(H) The failure causes the funniest case of lefti-wing extremist blue-balls in decades. The anti-gun train (especially the media morons) goes off the rails and wrecks itself in a spectacular explosion of hubris and blatant hate and bitterness.
(I) The obviousness of the bias and anger further alienates the public, and the anti-gun haters now lose in the court of public opinion AND in the Senate.
(J) Now there are tons of bunch of angry, bitter gun-haters desperately casting about themselves for something - ANYTHING - that might explain just how they managed to fail so badly.
(K) It must be a vast right-wing conspiracy!

Yeah, keep reachin' for that rainbow...

Yes. Absolutely. There's no reason to enforce background checks aggressively if they haven't been made universal

Brilliant logic. By that reasoning, there was no reason for France to pass gay marriage until the whole planet allows it. Derp.

[Raidenx]

I'll break it down for you. It isn't complex.

(A) A bunch of angry gun-haters saw an opportunity to club their favorite baby seal.
(B) They brazenly and sickeningly exploit tragedy to try and bum-rush bad law through Congress.
(C) Oops... The Constitution is DESIGNED to prevent angry idiots from bum-rushing bad policy into law when it involves the Bill of Rights.
(D) With a simple, sensible, reasonable counter-argument that everyone can understand, the NRA masterfully recasts the whole discussion on their terms and shows the public that Obama's dumb plan never did have anything to do with saving lives or preventing dangerous people from getting guns.
(E) The public starts to ask, "Yeah, why AREN'T we enforcing gun laws?" and "Hey, guards in schools really IS a good idea! Why not do this?"
(F) Obama's dumb law gets slowly whittled away to nothing because they refuse to listen to common sense.
(G) Obama's dumb law even fails in the Senate because it is so bad they can't even get Democrats to vote for it. Also, Obama/Reid didn't want any amendment process to slow it down, so they refused to bring it to the floor for an up/down vote where they only needed a majority.
(H) The failure causes the funniest case of lefti-wing extremist blue-balls in decades. The anti-gun train (especially the media morons) goes off the rails and wrecks itself in a spectacular explosion of hubris and blatant hate and bitterness.
(I) The obviousness of the bias and anger further alienates the public, and the anti-gun haters now lose in the court of public opinion AND in the Senate.
(J) Now there are tons of bunch of angry, bitter gun-haters desperately casting about themselves for something - ANYTHING - that might explain just how they managed to fail so badly.
(K) It must be a vast right-wing conspiracy!

Yeah, keep reachin' for that rainbow...

This article almost seemed genuine

http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-won,32106/

[Cthulhu 2020]

(B) They brazenly and sickeningly exploit tragedy to try and bum-rush bad law through Congress.

Sounds awfully familiar to "Let's deport all immigrants and not allow immigration because two immigrants bombed a marathon."

Except that you know, not many immigrants bomb things, and gun control is a real problem.

Also Riddler, you're still referring to the gun ban, which has been dropped long ago.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Going back to the other analogy...

Ok, I installed a stronger door and a better lock on my house (enforcement), but I left my window open.

That's exactly right. Good call.

And I understand there are other Windows open (theft, straw purchases), but those are on the 2nd floor, and more difficult for the criminal to get to, while private purchases are garden level. Close that god damn window already.