Why Do Liberals Want More Gun Laws? They Don't Enforce The Ones We Have..and Break Them...

[2aguy]

B'loney. The NRA didn't demand that the DOD not provide data on service members who should be ineligible to own a gun.

I agree

But the NRA has made it harder to share information. There should be a single database for those restricted from having guns. It should include those on the terrorist watch list

That is an absolute crock.

It was the NRA who blocked banning terrorists from the no buy list

/----/ And for good reason. Apparently the gun grabbers didn't consider all of the facts.
In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

"As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote.

In a letter supporting the measure, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said the bill would not automatically prevent a gun sale to a suspected terrorist. In some cases, federal agents may want to let a sale go forward to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation.

Same applies to the no fly list

If you are wrongly placed on the no fly list, you can legally challenge it
Same goes if you are placed on the can't buy guns list

No...you can't challenge it......the process is secret....

 

[2aguy]

B'loney. The NRA didn't demand that the DOD not provide data on service members who should be ineligible to own a gun.

I agree

But the NRA has made it harder to share information. There should be a single database for those restricted from having guns. It should include those on the terrorist watch list

That is an absolute crock.

It was the NRA who blocked banning terrorists from the no buy list

/----/ And for good reason. Apparently the gun grabbers didn't consider all of the facts.
In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

"As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote.

In a letter supporting the measure, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said the bill would not automatically prevent a gun sale to a suspected terrorist. In some cases, federal agents may want to let a sale go forward to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation.

I don't get you guys....

Your NRA dogma says to say....We don't enforce the gun laws we already have


Yet, when I discuss enforcing the laws we already have, you whine about how unfair they are

No.....you want a new law that doesn't do anything except take guns away from law abiding people....

There is no place in France where you can buy fully automatic military rifles....no gun shows, no gun stores...they are completeely illegal...but terrorists...on government terrorist watch lists got them easily..........but the regular French citizen...can't get them to save their lives...and 142 people lost their lives...

 

[2aguy]

I wouldn't need any guns if the bad guys were executed. Isnt that a fair trade?

Good guys wh guns become bad guys with guns as soon as the gun is used for bad .

Bad guys with cars run over people on a NYC bridge...Shall all cars be banned?

No . But we do license drivers , regulate cars, register cars , transfer titles to cars .

How about we do that with guns too?

You don't have a constitutional right to a car.

Well now you are making a completely different argument . What happened ?

Oh, you have a right to vote . But still have to register and ID and all that . And we know how righties LOVE ID laws !

No...you just have to show an I.D. that says you are the person who is voting. You pay no fee, you take no tests to vote...you don't even have to pay for your I.D....it is free.....

 

[rightwinger]

Good guys wh guns become bad guys with guns as soon as the gun is used for bad .

Bad guys with cars run over people on a NYC bridge...Shall all cars be banned?

No . But we do license drivers , regulate cars, register cars , transfer titles to cars .

How about we do that with guns too?

You don't have a constitutional right to a car.

Love it when you guys bring up the car analogy and then when we remind you about all the regulations about cars you whimper.......you don't have a constitutional right to a car

/----/ You don't. You have freedom of mobility but not to transportation. BTW Libtard Moonbats used the car analogy to justify the Obozocare mandate.

Irrelevant

We are talking about major causes of deaths
We take actions to make cars safer but we refuse to do anything about guns

 

[Cellblock2429]

Bad guys with cars run over people on a NYC bridge...Shall all cars be banned?

No . But we do license drivers , regulate cars, register cars , transfer titles to cars .

How about we do that with guns too?

You don't have a constitutional right to a car.

Love it when you guys bring up the car analogy and then when we remind you about all the regulations about cars you whimper.......you don't have a constitutional right to a car

/----/ You don't. You have freedom of mobility but not to transportation. BTW Libtard Moonbats used the car analogy to justify the Obozocare mandate.

Irrelevant

We are talking about major causes of deaths
We take actions to make cars safer but we refuse to do anything about guns

/——/ actually guns are quite safe as long as you buy quality, keep it clean and practice gun saftey.

 

[rightwinger]

Good guys wh guns become bad guys with guns as soon as the gun is used for bad .

Bad guys with cars run over people on a NYC bridge...Shall all cars be banned?

No . But we do license drivers , regulate cars, register cars , transfer titles to cars .

How about we do that with guns too?

You don't have a constitutional right to a car.

Love it when you guys bring up the car analogy and then when we remind you about all the regulations about cars you whimper.......you don't have a constitutional right to a car

I didn't bring up the car analogy. Liberal Timmy used it as a comparison and I merely pointed out the apple and orange difference between the second amendment right to a gun and no right to a car. You guys need to find a valid analogy that will stand up to the constitutional test. Cars ain't it.

Even the Heller Decision, which gave the farm to gun holders acknowledged the Governments right to regulate guns

Your Constitutional right is not unlimited

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why aren’t the states prosecuting them?

At a guess: because the crimes are Federal.

 

[Timmy]

It's a feather in their cap and nothing more. It's as transparent and useless as they are. They call Trump a dictator but yet they want guns confiscated....weird.

Not just that, but they want police to have the guns while protesting the police for abuses. Talk about whack out libs..

Please . If it was up to the cons you wouldn’t even have these checks! Those 100,000 felons would be able to have their guns .

Nice of you to admit gun laws do work .

They don't work......criminals get guns using straw buyers......you have no idea what you are talking about.....

They why did 100,000 criminals bother trying to get guns the legit way . As in the OP.

 

[2aguy]

It's a feather in their cap and nothing more. It's as transparent and useless as they are. They call Trump a dictator but yet they want guns confiscated....weird.

Not just that, but they want police to have the guns while protesting the police for abuses. Talk about whack out libs..

Please . If it was up to the cons you wouldn’t even have these checks! Those 100,000 felons would be able to have their guns .

Nice of you to admit gun laws do work .

They don't work......criminals get guns using straw buyers......you have no idea what you are talking about.....

They why did 100,000 criminals bother trying to get guns the legit way . As in the OP.

They are the ones who are not affiliated with organized criminal gangs...like the Texas church shooter, or the South Carolina church shooter, both of whom had criminal records and both went to gun stores, filled out the background check information.....and passed the background check.......

Then you have the case of a man in his 80s, he wanted to get his wife a gun for self defense, he filled out the paperwork and when the background check came back, he was arrested..for lying on his form.....what was the lie? When he was in his 20s he had gotten into a fight with his brother, the police arrested them, and he got a misdemeanor conviction.....he forgot about this at the time he filled out the form since it happened 60 years ago..

That is the criminal who gets caught...the drug gangs aren't the 100,000 getting caught.....they use straw buyers or steal their guns...

 

[2aguy]

Bad guys with cars run over people on a NYC bridge...Shall all cars be banned?

No . But we do license drivers , regulate cars, register cars , transfer titles to cars .

How about we do that with guns too?

You don't have a constitutional right to a car.

Love it when you guys bring up the car analogy and then when we remind you about all the regulations about cars you whimper.......you don't have a constitutional right to a car

I didn't bring up the car analogy. Liberal Timmy used it as a comparison and I merely pointed out the apple and orange difference between the second amendment right to a gun and no right to a car. You guys need to find a valid analogy that will stand up to the constitutional test. Cars ain't it.

Even the Heller Decision, which gave the farm to gun holders acknowledged the Governments right to regulate guns

Your Constitutional right is not unlimited

Yes....Heller stated felons and the adjudicated, dangerously mentally ill can't own guns if we decide they can't, that is what Heller says.....they can also keep guns out of courthouses if they want.....that doesn't give you guys the right to take away every single gun except for single shot, bolt action pistols........

 

[2aguy]

Bad guys with cars run over people on a NYC bridge...Shall all cars be banned?

No . But we do license drivers , regulate cars, register cars , transfer titles to cars .

How about we do that with guns too?

You don't have a constitutional right to a car.

Love it when you guys bring up the car analogy and then when we remind you about all the regulations about cars you whimper.......you don't have a constitutional right to a car

/----/ You don't. You have freedom of mobility but not to transportation. BTW Libtard Moonbats used the car analogy to justify the Obozocare mandate.

Irrelevant

We are talking about major causes of deaths
We take actions to make cars safer but we refuse to do anything about guns

There were two mass shootings using AR-15 rifles.....total murdered 84.

One rental truck was used to murder 89 people..........yet you guys refuse to do anything about rental trucks.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Bad guys with cars run over people on a NYC bridge...Shall all cars be banned?

No . But we do license drivers , regulate cars, register cars , transfer titles to cars .

How about we do that with guns too?

You don't have a constitutional right to a car.

Love it when you guys bring up the car analogy and then when we remind you about all the regulations about cars you whimper.......you don't have a constitutional right to a car

/----/ You don't. You have freedom of mobility but not to transportation. BTW Libtard Moonbats used the car analogy to justify the Obozocare mandate.

Irrelevant

We are talking about major causes of deaths
We take actions to make cars safer but we refuse to do anything about guns

/-----/ Irrelevant because you can't refute my post. You use the car analogy when it suits your agenda. And guns are safe. Prove otherwise.

 

[kwc57]

I wouldn't need any guns if the bad guys were executed. Isnt that a fair trade?

Good guys wh guns become bad guys with guns as soon as the gun is used for bad .

Bad guys with cars run over people on a NYC bridge...Shall all cars be banned?

No . But we do license drivers , regulate cars, register cars , transfer titles to cars .

How about we do that with guns too?

You don't have a constitutional right to a car.

Well now you are making a completely different argument . What happened ?

Oh, you have a right to vote . But still have to register and ID and all that . And we know how righties LOVE ID laws !

Oh my. You think you have a right to vote. Can you show me in the constitution where this right is enumerated? There are amendments stating what can not be used to deny someone the ability to vote, but there is no right written. Voter registration is left to the states with the Presidential election being the only national election those voters can vote in. All other elections are local. States can indeed limit who can and can't vote as long as it does not run afoul of the constitutional amendments saying you can't limit someone for x, y or z. A, b an c may be perfectly legal for a state to deny you the right to vote. You need to bone up or your civics facts and quit emoting your beliefs.

 

[Timmy]

Good guys wh guns become bad guys with guns as soon as the gun is used for bad .

Bad guys with cars run over people on a NYC bridge...Shall all cars be banned?

No . But we do license drivers , regulate cars, register cars , transfer titles to cars .

How about we do that with guns too?

You don't have a constitutional right to a car.

Well now you are making a completely different argument . What happened ?

Oh, you have a right to vote . But still have to register and ID and all that . And we know how righties LOVE ID laws !

Oh my. You think you have a right to vote. Can you show me in the constitution where this right is enumerated? There are amendments stating what can not be used to deny someone the ability to vote, but there is no right written. Voter registration is left to the states with the Presidential election being the only national election those voters can vote in. All other elections are local. States can indeed limit who can and can't vote as long as it does not run afoul of the constitutional amendments saying you can't limit someone for x, y or z. A, b an c may be perfectly legal for a state to deny you the right to vote. You need to bone up or your civics facts and quit emoting your beliefs.

How about the 15th amendment . That litteraly says “right to vote “

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

 

[kwc57]

Bad guys with cars run over people on a NYC bridge...Shall all cars be banned?

No . But we do license drivers , regulate cars, register cars , transfer titles to cars .

How about we do that with guns too?

You don't have a constitutional right to a car.

Well now you are making a completely different argument . What happened ?

Oh, you have a right to vote . But still have to register and ID and all that . And we know how righties LOVE ID laws !

Oh my. You think you have a right to vote. Can you show me in the constitution where this right is enumerated? There are amendments stating what can not be used to deny someone the ability to vote, but there is no right written. Voter registration is left to the states with the Presidential election being the only national election those voters can vote in. All other elections are local. States can indeed limit who can and can't vote as long as it does not run afoul of the constitutional amendments saying you can't limit someone for x, y or z. A, b an c may be perfectly legal for a state to deny you the right to vote. You need to bone up or your civics facts and quit emoting your beliefs.

How about the 15th amendment . That litteraly says “right to vote “

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

What part of "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" do you not understand in that amendment? It says as do other voting amendments what a state can not use in denying someone the right to vote. Many states deny the right to vote to felons.......even to those of race, color or previous condition of servitude. That's because they aren't being denied based on what the amendment says, but something else. We also limit the vote based on age and whether you are registered or not. Again, as long as a state does not run afoul of the constitutional amendments regarding what can't be used to deny the right to vote, you can legally be denied by the state for other reasons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

EXCLUSIVE: Obama Rarely Prosecuted Criminals Who Sought To Buy Guns Illegally

"More than 100,000 convicted felons or other “prohibited persons” tried to buy guns each year during President Barack Obama’s administration by lying on their applications, but the Justice Department only considered prosecuting about 30 to 40 people each year.

The Obama administration may have publicly aligned itself with anti-gun activists, but it consistently turned a blind eye to prosecute known criminals who tried to buy guns."


That's understandable / obvious considering Barry ran / sold guns to The Muslim Brotherhood, the PLO, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Mexican Drug Cartels....

lol, since you don't believe there should even BE background checks, your objection to alleged lack of prosecution is ludicrous.

 

[BluesLegend]

Why Do Liberals Want More Gun Laws?

Because they are morons?

 

[Timmy]

No . But we do license drivers , regulate cars, register cars , transfer titles to cars .

How about we do that with guns too?

You don't have a constitutional right to a car.

Well now you are making a completely different argument . What happened ?

Oh, you have a right to vote . But still have to register and ID and all that . And we know how righties LOVE ID laws !

Oh my. You think you have a right to vote. Can you show me in the constitution where this right is enumerated? There are amendments stating what can not be used to deny someone the ability to vote, but there is no right written. Voter registration is left to the states with the Presidential election being the only national election those voters can vote in. All other elections are local. States can indeed limit who can and can't vote as long as it does not run afoul of the constitutional amendments saying you can't limit someone for x, y or z. A, b an c may be perfectly legal for a state to deny you the right to vote. You need to bone up or your civics facts and quit emoting your beliefs.

How about the 15th amendment . That litteraly says “right to vote “

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

What part of "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" do you not understand in that amendment? It says as do other voting amendments what a state can not use in denying someone the right to vote. Many states deny the right to vote to felons.......even to those of race, color or previous condition of servitude. That's because they aren't being denied based on what the amendment says, but something else. We also limit the vote based on age and whether you are registered or not. Again, as long as a state does not run afoul of the constitutional amendments regarding what can't be used to deny the right to vote, you can legally be denied by the state for other reasons.

Oh, so now you ain’t up for cherry Picking lines ? What part of “well regulated militia “ don’t you understand ?

 

[2aguy]

EXCLUSIVE: Obama Rarely Prosecuted Criminals Who Sought To Buy Guns Illegally

"More than 100,000 convicted felons or other “prohibited persons” tried to buy guns each year during President Barack Obama’s administration by lying on their applications, but the Justice Department only considered prosecuting about 30 to 40 people each year.

The Obama administration may have publicly aligned itself with anti-gun activists, but it consistently turned a blind eye to prosecute known criminals who tried to buy guns."


That's understandable / obvious considering Barry ran / sold guns to The Muslim Brotherhood, the PLO, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Mexican Drug Cartels....

lol, since you don't believe there should even BE background checks, your objection to alleged lack of prosecution is ludicrous.

No.....even if he doesn't believe in background checks because they don't stop criminals from getting guns....we still have them....the ones you guys wanted......and they are not stopping the criminals from getting guns, and they aren't stopping the mass public shooters from getting guns.....it is you who have to explain that, not him....

 

[NYcarbineer]

EXCLUSIVE: Obama Rarely Prosecuted Criminals Who Sought To Buy Guns Illegally

"More than 100,000 convicted felons or other “prohibited persons” tried to buy guns each year during President Barack Obama’s administration by lying on their applications, but the Justice Department only considered prosecuting about 30 to 40 people each year.

The Obama administration may have publicly aligned itself with anti-gun activists, but it consistently turned a blind eye to prosecute known criminals who tried to buy guns."


That's understandable / obvious considering Barry ran / sold guns to The Muslim Brotherhood, the PLO, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Mexican Drug Cartels....

lol, since you don't believe there should even BE background checks, your objection to alleged lack of prosecution is ludicrous.

No.....even if he doesn't believe in background checks because they don't stop criminals from getting guns....we still have them....the ones you guys wanted......and they are not stopping the criminals from getting guns, and they aren't stopping the mass public shooters from getting guns.....it is you who have to explain that, not him....

Laws against drunk driving don't keep all drunk drivers off the roads. should we simply make drunk driving legal?