David Frum Opinion Piece on CNN.com

[Rob's House]

 

 

So that's who has been following me recently in a gold covered Bentley?

Does he belittle you for being a pothead?

[IDBillzFan]

Here's what happens when, unlike Frum, you DO see the whole picture. A well-written piece that makes simple, but accurate points.

 

http://www.jsonline....-191484781.html

 

The KKK killed 3,446 blacks in 86 years, but black-on-black murders surpass that number in the United States every six months, according to the Tuskegee Institute. While black males account for only 6% of the total population, they accounted for more than 50% of the homicides in 2010, according to the Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention. In just one year, black-on-black homicides surpassed the combined causalities of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.

 

[snip]

 

"When a white man shoots an unarmed black man in this country, the black community yells and demands swift justice. But when a black man shoots an unarmed black man in many urban cities, the black community yells silence," King said.

 

Or when a Chicago honor student who performed at President Barack Obama's inauguration was killed a week later by gangbangers, the entire city of Chicago rallied around the family of the girl, Hadiya Pendleton. First lady Michelle Obama even attended Pendleton's funeral. There should have been a similar outcry when Chicago's homicide rate ballooned last year, but there wasn't. Most of those killed were deemed disposable. No one cared until the victim was someone deemed worthy enough to care about.

 

We need to show that same kind of care and love when any youths are murdered.

[We Come In Peace]

So that's who has been following me recently in a gold covered Bentley?

No.

 

Here's what happens when, unlike Frum, you DO see the whole picture. A well-written piece that makes simple, but accurate points.

 

http://www.jsonline....-191484781.html

I still don't understand why you continue to hold up the murder rate in Chicago (or other urban areas) as a means to make the point that a renewed debate on guns in this country isn't necessary. One would think the facts you keep pointing out, whether they're ignored by the MSM or not, paints an even more urgent need to sensibly address the topic.

 

There's also a fundamental error in the article you posted. Namely King's quote that: "But when a black man shoots an unarmed black man in many urban cities, the black community yells silence" -- that is just ignorant and untrue. There's a difference between apathy to the urban plight and silence.

[Magox]

 

 

 

I still don't understand why you continue to hold up the murder rate in Chicago (or other urban areas) as a means to make the point that a renewed debate on guns in this country isn't necessary. One would think the facts you keep pointing out, whether they're ignored by the MSM or not, paints an even more urgent need to sensibly address the topic.

 

 

You don't understand? I think it's fairly obvious, at least to me it is. Chicago has one of the strictest and restrictive gun laws in the U.S, yet the murder rate is one of the highest. In other words, restricting people's rights to bear arms don't usually produce the intended results.

 

What is difficult to understand about that?

[IDBillzFan]

I still don't understand why you continue to hold up the murder rate in Chicago (or other urban areas) as a means to make the point that a renewed debate on guns in this country isn't necessary. One would think the facts you keep pointing out, whether they're ignored by the MSM or not, paints an even more urgent need to sensibly address the topic

 

When someone has a renewed debate on guns that doesn't include all the same talking points (we need more laws and we need to ban guns), then let me know. My reasoning for bringing up Chicago is two-fold: first, up until the new NYS laws, Chicago has had the most stringent gun laws/bans in the entire country, and yet leads the way in murders. Why is that? Why are more people murdered in a city with tight gun laws than in all of Afghanistan last year? Does anyone really believe that MORE gun laws in Chicago will fix that? No. Because gun laws only affect those who obey the law, and oddly enough, murdering gang-bangers don't follow the law.

 

Second, how can anyone not look at the horrific statistics of black-on-black gun murders and not see what even President Obama spoke about last week: that young black children are lacking the support of family and adult role models that keep them from a life of thuggery and gunbanging. Start counting the number of black children born into families with, if they're lucky, one parent consistently present in their lives.

 

So I bring up Chicago because the gun problems we have in this country will not be addressed -- EVER -- by reducing the number of rounds in a magazine from 10 to seven. It will never be addressed by banning weapons because they LOOK bad.

 

You start with family, adult role models, and more importantly, mental health issues and the prescriptions angle, which I have only started reading about but am consistently stunned gets so little attention.

[We Come In Peace]

You don't understand? I think it's fairly obvious, at least to me it is. Chicago has one of the strictest and restrictive gun laws in the U.S, yet the murder rate is one of the highest. In other words, restricting people's rights to bear arms don't usually produce the intended results.

 

What is difficult to understand about that?

 

It's a facetious argument to make. Chicago has tough laws on the books yet lacks the means to enforce them properly, specifically when it comes to illegal sales. Having laws on the books and having the necessary means to enforce them are two different things. The NRA has gutted the ability to properly administer the laws and regulations currently on the books to say nothing of their attempts to stop any further action from taking place. Both Republicans and Democrats share the blame for our current gun-state mentality and it's arguments like this that do a disservice to the debate.

 

There are plenty of potholes in both sides of the argument and even more strawmen. The fact is that the majority of homicides in this country, especially in urban centers, are perpetrated by hand guns, not assault rifles. The cause of the violence is not just the easy access to weapons, but a plethora of causes ranging from apathy within the urban community and the MSM to the staggering levels of poverty in our cities to the prison industrial complex that operates largely unchecked in this country.

 

Not one serious person has suggested banning all guns. Not one. What they are suggesting is looking at the laws that are on the books and seeing if there is a way to write better laws. Laws that actually DO have the chance to staunch the unending epidemic facing our nation.

 

Will new laws and proper enforcement of them work? No one knows for sure. But being unwilling to even engage in the discussion based on arguments like this is just intellectually lazy.

 

When someone has a renewed debate on guns that doesn't include all the same talking points (we need more laws and we need to ban guns), then let me know. My reasoning for bringing up Chicago is two-fold: first, up until the new NYS laws, Chicago has had the most stringent gun laws/bans in the entire country, and yet leads the way in murders. Why is that? Why are more people murdered in a city with tight gun laws than in all of Afghanistan last year? Does anyone really believe that MORE gun laws in Chicago will fix that? No. Because gun laws only affect those who obey the law, and oddly enough, murdering gang-bangers don't follow the law.

I understand your point and thank you for making it more clear to me. But let me ask you, isn't there a difference between having laws on the books and having the means to enforce those laws? What good are strict gun laws if federal and state authorities lack the ability to see that they're properly enforced?

 

The majority of all illegal weapon sales in this country are perpetrated by less than 1% of gun brokers. Yet, despite the amount of laws on the books, no agency, state or federal, has the ability to shut these dealers down. Why is that? Why is the NRA working so hard to prevent the ATF from doing their job?

 

 

Second, how can anyone not look at the horrific statistics of black-on-black gun murders and not see what even President Obama spoke about last week: that young black children are lacking the support of family and adult role models that keep them from a life of thuggery and gunbanging. Start counting the number of black children born into families with, if they're lucky, one parent consistently present in their lives.

 

So I bring up Chicago because the gun problems we have in this country will not be addressed -- EVER -- by reducing the number of rounds in a magazine from 10 to seven. It will never be addressed by banning weapons because they LOOK bad.

 

You start with family, adult role models, and more importantly, mental health issues and the prescriptions angle, which I have only started reading about but am consistently stunned gets so little attention.

See, this is where your argument diverges into something else entirely. There's no question that the solution to this epidemic will not be found through legislation alone. There must be personal responsibility as well. But one doesn't preclude the other. To say that we need to look at every reason for gun violence BUT for guns themselves is as foolish as the people who say that gun legislation alone will accomplish the task.

 

It won't. Neither will pretending that unfettered access to lethal weapons of mass devastation has nothing to do with the matter.

[Fezmid]

The NRA has gutted the ability to properly administer the laws and regulations currently on the books to say nothing of their attempts to stop any further action from taking place.

What?! Care to explain what you mean by this?

 

And after reading the rest of your post, I seem to get the impression that you want not only more gun laws, but also more government agents to come out and enforce those laws...??

[Magox]

It's a facetious argument to make. Chicago has tough laws on the books yet lacks the means to enforce them properly, specifically when it comes to illegal sales. Having laws on the books and having the necessary means to enforce them are two different things. The NRA has gutted the ability to properly administer the laws and regulations currently on the books to say nothing of their attempts to stop any further action from taking place. Both Republicans and Democrats share the blame for our current gun-state mentality and it's arguments like this that do a disservice to the debate.

 

There are plenty of potholes in both sides of the argument and even more strawmen. The fact is that the majority of homicides in this country, especially in urban centers, are perpetrated by hand guns, not assault rifles. The cause of the violence is not just the easy access to weapons, but a plethora of causes ranging from apathy within the urban community and the MSM to the staggering levels of poverty in our cities to the prison industrial complex that operates largely unchecked in this country.

 

Not one serious person has suggested banning all guns. Not one. What they are suggesting is looking at the laws that are on the books and seeing if there is a way to write better laws. Laws that actually DO have the chance to staunch the unending epidemic facing our nation.

 

Will new laws and proper enforcement of them work? No one knows for sure. But being unwilling to even engage in the discussion based on arguments like this is just intellectually lazy.

 

 

Let me begin by saying that your usage of "facetious" was not the best characterization that you could of made. There was nothing flippant or humorous that I said or suggested.

 

Secondly, I'm not a guns rights advocates, in all honesty, I don't relate or even "get" the fascination that people have with guns. Having said that, I understand that it is their right to own a gun, and I will respect that.

 

Thirdly, when you say Chicago lacks the ability to enforce their laws, well no ****. That's not the argument, the argument is that if you restrict law abiding peoples rights to bear arms, that somehow this will reduce gun violence. That simply doesn't make sense to me.

 

When you say

 

The NRA has gutted the ability to properly administer the laws and regulations currently on the books to say nothing of their attempts to stop any further action from taking place

 

So tell me how the NRA has "gutted the ability to properly administer the laws and regulations" in a city like Chicago where it would make a difference? I'm curious. (Now that could be characterized as facetious or flippant)

 

 

 

There are plenty of potholes in both sides of the argument and even more strawmen.

 

I agree, perfect example is the NRA quote from you up above.

 

 

Will new laws and proper enforcement of them work? No one knows for sure. But being unwilling to even engage in the discussion based on arguments like this is just intellectually lazy.

 

 

We are having a discussion, and there is plenty of data to support the argument that added regulations in many instances don't produce desired results. Just because you don't agree with the data or have an excuse to why these gun laws haven't worked doesn't mean that people are being "intellectually lazy". It just means that it doesn't fit your views so you reject them. That's all.

 

 

The fact that you gloss over the points that LA brought up just shows that you are equally as partisan as the people you like to mock for being partisan. You are no different, just that you are on the other team.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Magox

[3rdnlng]

I wonder why Chicago can't enforce the laws on the books?

[We Come In Peace]

Was away, now I am back. Apologies for the delayed response...

What?! Care to explain what you mean by this? ("The NRA has gutted the ability to properly administer the laws and regulations currently on the books to say nothing of their attempts to stop any further action from taking place.")

 

And after reading the rest of your post, I seem to get the impression that you want not only more gun laws, but also more government agents to come out and enforce those laws...??

The NRA has worked tirelessly since the 80s to at first save and then kneecap the ATF. Look at the '86 Firearms Ownership Protection act. In addition to a ban on (some) machine guns, the FOP also made it nearly impossible to prosecute corrupt gun dealers by preventing agents from conducting any more than ONE inspection per dealer per year. This was done in addition to denying the ATF the ability to create a national database of retail weapon sales while also reducing the crime of falsifying sales records from a felony to a misdemeanor.

 

But they were just getting warmed up. In the 27 years since FOP the NRA has also backed legislation that currently prevents the ATF from sharing information on weapon tracing with the public, including media. And if that weren't enough in 2003 the NRA and Congress passed legislation that split the ATF from the treasury and inserted language mandating Senate approval for the director of the ATF -- effectively giving the NRA veto power over who runs the ATF. And, for the past several years there has not been a full time director of the ATF because the Senate refuses to appoint anyone. Instead, a US attorney from Minnesota does his job AND runs the ATF on a provisional basis.

 

Conflict of interest much?

 

There are common sense things that can be done to help stop the gun violence in this country -- none of them involve people turning in their guns or surrendering their second amendment rights. Stop listening to the lunatics in the NRA or on this board who are trying to tell you otherwise and look at the reality of the situation.

 

The NRA cares about protecting it's primary beneficiaries -- the gun industry not the consumer. And it's hijacked our legislative process in order to get their minions what they want most... more money. Regardless of the body count.

 

Let me begin by saying that your usage of "facetious" was not the best characterization that you could of made. There was nothing flippant or humorous that I said or suggested.

Agree to disagree. Perception is in the eye of the reader after all and based on your track record of being a rational and coherent thinker I just assumed you were being flippant.

 

But thanks for the vocab lesson.

 

Secondly, I'm not a guns rights advocates, in all honesty, I don't relate or even "get" the fascination that people have with guns. Having said that, I understand that it is their right to own a gun, and I will respect that.

Me too. No one, especially not anyone that I've referenced or mentioned has ever said a single thing about taking away people's guns. Rather, this is about being able to even CONSIDER the role that easy access to these weapons play in the debate. The NRA wants to make it about everything BUT guns. When in reality that's just flippant.

 

 

Thirdly, when you say Chicago lacks the ability to enforce their laws, well no ****. That's not the argument, the argument is that if you restrict law abiding peoples rights to bear arms, that somehow this will reduce gun violence. That simply doesn't make sense to me.

Who's making that argument? Not me.

 

The point I am making is that it's disingenuous to flout Chicago as the proof that gun laws don't work when the laws on the books aren't capable of being enforced. There is a very definite difference between those two extremes.

 

When you say :"The NRA has gutted the ability to properly administer the laws and regulations currently on the books to say nothing of their attempts to stop any further action from taking place"

 

 

So tell me how the NRA has "gutted the ability to properly administer the laws and regulations" in a city like Chicago where it would make a difference? I'm curious. (Now that could be characterized as facetious or flippant)

See the NRA stuff referenced in my response to Fez. It's very difficult to stop illegal arms sales on the streets of Chicago (or anywhere) when the NRA and all the senators in their pockets (on BOTH sides of the aisle) have systematically stripped away the legal abilities to track, monitor, and prosecute illegal arms sales.

 

I agree, perfect example is the NRA quote from you up above.

"There are plenty of potholes in both sides of the argument and even more strawmen."

Now you're just being ignorant.

 

We are having a discussion, and there is plenty of data to support the argument that added regulations in many instances don't produce desired results. Just because you don't agree with the data or have an excuse to why these gun laws haven't worked doesn't mean that people are being "intellectually lazy". It just means that it doesn't fit your views so you reject them. That's all.

Actually no. Let's take this apart one at a time:

 

1. "We are having a discussion, and there is plenty of data to support the argument that added regulations in many instances don't produce desired results."

 

Again, I do not disagree with this. In fact, I have said that I agree with this several times now. But it's an oversimplification and misses the meat of the discussion entirely.

 

2. "Just because you don't agree with the data or have an excuse to why these gun laws haven't worked doesn't mean that people are being "intellectually lazy".

 

It does when the people talking don't do their research and understand the realities of what the NRA has done to limit the ability of law enforcement agencies to prosecute illegal weapons sales in this country over the past 25+ years. That's actually the definition of intellectually lazy.

 

3. "It just means that it doesn't fit your views so you reject them. That's all."

 

Again, you're making deductions that aren't true. I haven't rejected any view other than the one that ignores reality. All I've said, time and time again, is that legislation alone won't solve the issue. But taking the topic completely off the table before the debate even begins, and using Chicago's track record as justification for doing so is bat **** crazy and demonstrates the reach of the NRA and the sickness that is the gun mentality in this nation.

 

The fact that you gloss over the points that LA brought up just shows that you are equally as partisan as the people you like to mock for being partisan. You are no different, just that you are on the other team.

You're smarter than that. I didn't gloss over LA's points or yours. And if you think guns are a partisan issue then you really aren't paying attention outside your own bubble. Dems and Republicans both are in the NRA's pockets.

 

I wonder why Chicago can't enforce the laws on the books?

See the above.

Edited February 22, 2013 by We Come In Peace

[Magox]

I'm too mentally exhausted to get into this subject again. So I'll defer this to a later date.

 

Maybe

[Fezmid]

The NRA has worked tirelessly since the 80s to at first save and then kneecap the ATF. Look at the '86 Firearms Ownership Protection act. In addition to a ban on (some) machine guns, the FOP also made it nearly impossible to prosecute corrupt gun dealers by preventing agents from conducting any more than ONE inspection per dealer per year. This was done in addition to denying the ATF the ability to create a national database of retail weapon sales while also reducing the crime of falsifying sales records from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Assuming your premise that the NRA are solely responsible for these changes... It prevents the ATF from harassing individual dealers by limiting inspections to only once a year, and prevents the federal government from getting too much power by knowing who has purchased what (separation of powers, have you heard of it?). Why does the Federal government need to know how many guns everyone buys? They don't track the number of cars everyone buys (as far as I know, that's at the state level, but correct me if I'm wrong).

 

But they were just getting warmed up. In the 27 years since FOP the NRA has also backed legislation that currently prevents the ATF from sharing information on weapon tracing with the public, including media.

So it protects civilian privacy, good to know.

 

And if that weren't enough in 2003 the NRA and Congress passed legislation that split the ATF from the treasury and inserted language mandating Senat[e approval for the director of the ATF -- effectively giving the NRA veto power over who runs the ATF. And, for the past several years there has not been a full time director of the ATF because the Senate refuses to appoint anyone. Instead, a US attorney from Minnesota does his job AND runs the ATF on a provisional basis.

I don't see how splitting the ATF from the treasury (why were they connected to begin with???) gives the NRA veto power over the ATF... Seems like a pretty big leap to me.

[We Come In Peace]

Assuming your premise that the NRA are solely responsible for these changes... It prevents the ATF from harassing individual dealers by limiting inspections to only once a year, and prevents the federal government from getting too much power by knowing who has purchased what (separation of powers, have you heard of it?). Why does the Federal government need to know how many guns everyone buys? They don't track the number of cars everyone buys (as far as I know, that's at the state level, but correct me if I'm wrong).

I'm not trying to be combative, Fez, so please don't take it that way. But this is an important point / counter you're making so allow me to respond.

 

This has nothing to do with tracking how many guns law abiding citizens buy but it has everything to do with the ability to police the crooked gun brokers who make up less than 1% of all gun dealers yet provide over 60% of all illegal weapon sales in this country (this number goes up to 90 depending on which "independent" study you use, for our discussion I'll use the lowest). By restricting the amount of inspections to one per year AND making it illegal to maintain a national database that can then be verified against the seller's stock means that the 1% of sellers who are skirting the law and responsible for over 60% of the gun related violence (at least in the sense of aiding and abetting) are able to predict and prepare for their yearly inspection while flouting the law the other 364 days of the year.

 

This was done intentionally by NRA backed congressmen on BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. Again, this is not a party issue, the reason the NRA is as powerful as they are is because they have their hands in everybody's pockets, not just the right.

 

What's the impact of this in terms of real world policing? A lot. It makes it easier for the 1% of crooked dealers to hide and makes it nearly impossible to prosecute. That keeps the gun manufacturers out of the cross hairs of any sort of civil litigation that might arise from someone attempting to sue in the wake of a violent crime. If they could trace it back to the dealer and then trace it back to the manufacturer you'd have the gun industry (which is HUGE business) facing an unending stream of class action lawsuits. The NRA won't tolerate this as they are just the flying monkeys, out to cause a scene and strike fear in the hearts of anyone who might grow a conscious on the Hill.

 

This has nothing to do with separation of powers. This isn't the executive or judicial branch trying to enact an edict -- this is special interests getting the better of the American public, convincing them that it's far better to let gun dealers do whatever they please, regardless of the body count in our cities, than it is to attempt to police the industry itself.

 

So it protects civilian privacy, good to know.

And eliminates inter-departmental information sharing that is crucial to stopping and/or solving violent crimes. It also provides a safety net for the gun manufacturers by building in a legal buffer that will prevent litigation against them.

 

This is not for the civilians -- it's for the gun makers. To keep the gravy train flowing.

 

I don't see how splitting the ATF from the treasury (why were they connected to begin with???) gives the NRA veto power over the ATF... Seems like a pretty big leap to me.

Perhaps I did a poor job of explaining how insane this is.

 

The ATF was folded into the Justice Department with the Homeland Security Bill of '03. While everyone was up in arms over the rise of terrorist attacks and how to stop them, the NRA inserted language into the bill that changed the way the Director of the ATF would be appointed. From 2003 on, the ATF director would need to be approved by the Senate -- meaning that the NRA could now veto anyone who didn't share their views. And they've done exactly that. Since the language was inserted into law there has not been a single nominee that's been approved. There has not been a director of the ATF since 2003. Even W's nominee got vetoed because he once attended a police convention where they talked about gun legislation.

 

The NRA over 26 years -- from Reagan to H.W. to Clinton to W to Obama -- has worked tirelessly to at first save the ATF (from being absorbed by the Secret Service, the most effective and efficient law enforcement branch in the nation) and then to decapitate it. It's handcuffed the ATF's ability to prosecute gun dealers, limited the ability to cooperate with other agencies, cut the number of agents to less than the entire Phoenix police department, lowered the budget to near crippling levels, and finally ousted the Director's chair so that for the past 10 years the Director's chair is empty.

 

It was an organized and all out assault on the agency LaPierre called (more than once) "jack booted thugs".

 

So who does the NRA really care about? Certainly it's not about the average citizen and clearly not about the innocent victims of their product's performance. Nope. They only care about creating the most business friendly environment for their benefactors. The gun industry.

[OCinBuffalo]

Sounds like someone just watched Skyfall.

If somebody actually knows something about guns, that only means they are a wannabe who only learned what they know from movies?

 

I know what a firing pin retaining pin is, and I even know where it goes and what it does. Take a guess: did I learn that from a movie?

The NRA has gutted the ability to properly administer the laws and regulations currently on the books to say nothing of their attempts to stop any further action from taking place. Both Republicans and Democrats share the blame for our current gun-state mentality and it's arguments like this that do a disservice to the debate.

Right, because lord knows, the NRA has all kinds of polictical power in...Chicago. Yeah Republicans, and their NRA masters, run that town. Idiocy.

 

What is the ONLY difference between NYC and Chicago? NYC had Guliani come in and kick asses, put more police on the street, and empower them to literally lay down the law. Everybody cried "Racist"....until the murder rate spiraled downward, Times Square turned into Disneyland, and the rank and file democrats suddenly realized they were making more money. Then, suddenly, Guliani was a hero to all, long before 9/11. I should know, I saw that metamorphasis happen right in front of me, as I worked there every day while it was happening. However, I lived in Philadelphia, so, I also got to come home every day, and see the exact opposite policies in action.

 

You are the one doing a disservice to this debate, by insisting that lack of gun gontrol, and not idiot municipalities, with their idiot political leaders and idiot political policies, is Root Cause #1

There are plenty of potholes in both sides of the argument and even more strawmen. The fact is that the majority of homicides in this country, especially in urban centers, are perpetrated by hand guns, not assault rifles. The cause of the violence is not just the easy access to weapons, but a plethora of causes ranging from apathy within the urban community and the MSM to the staggering levels of poverty in our cities to the prison industrial complex that operates largely unchecked in this country.

Where is the strawman in what I wrote above? I saw the change...FIRSTHAND! I saw the opposite right in front of me in Philly. I don't need to study a damn thing. I saw the change in Penn Station, Grand Central, Times Square, everywhere. This is the history of this, the results are undeniable.

 

Sure Guliani pushed for control of certain guns, sure, but that accounts for less than 1% of WHY things in NYC changed. He pushed for it, but he didn't get anywhere. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that entire thing was a political ploy designed to give him some cover...while he enforced the law and cleaned up the streets, yeah, quite harshly in many cases. His policies, not gun control, are WHY things changed.

Not one serious person has suggested banning all guns. Not one. What they are suggesting is looking at the laws that are on the books and seeing if there is a way to write better laws. Laws that actually DO have the chance to staunch the unending epidemic facing our nation.

Oh horseshit. The simple fact is that the gun control people woudl take away every single gun if they could. This is because, right now, they have a little fear in the back of their minds every time the try to raise taxes, or some other form of oppression. That little fear is: "someday the people might tell me no, we will not consent to this, and I will not be able to simply order the police and guard to go after them...without the people fighting back, with their guns".

 

And I say: F them. That fear is perhaps the single most important regulator of the idiots in DC that there is. Sure a citzen militia would get wiped out by a US Army infantry battalion. But, not without minor casualties, and not without major psycological cost. You won't be able to send that battalion out again too many more times. Guns in the hands of citizens...means they will stand and fight, rather than just going along.

 

It is the psyhcology of that...that the people may rise, and have a literal, fighting chance...that scares these socliast/fascist scumbags the most. That people are unafraid to stand...isn't that an inconvenient thing for these scumbags?

 

Once again, it's not the personally-owned gun itself that matters. It's what it represents. It's the symbol that represents an idea. In order to kill the idea, they have to get the guns.

Will new laws and proper enforcement of them work? No one knows for sure. But being unwilling to even engage in the discussion based on arguments like this is just intellectually lazy.

As Gualian proved: all that we need to do is enforce the laws we already have. There's nothing lazy about pointing to an obvious object lesson and refusing to allow you to waste our time by demanding that we rehash the same old argument: when you have the obvious outcomes of that lesson right in front of your nose.

I understand your point and thank you for making it more clear to me. But let me ask you, isn't there a difference between having laws on the books and having the means to enforce those laws? What good are strict gun laws if federal and state authorities lack the ability to see that they're properly enforced?

 

The majority of all illegal weapon sales in this country are perpetrated by less than 1% of gun brokers. Yet, despite the amount of laws on the books, no agency, state or federal, has the ability to shut these dealers down. Why is that? Why is the NRA working so hard to prevent the ATF from doing their job?

Means to enforce laws....is nothing compared to the WILL to enforce laws.

 

Guliani had the will. Lesser people, and typically liberal lesser people, do not. It really is as simple as that.

 

If you want to look into things, the first place for you to start: make a list of the currently elected Democrats, in Chicago or anywhere, that have the complete will to enforce the laws we already have regarding guns, illegal immigrants, drugs, domestic violence, child abuse....anything other than school prayer.

 

Not a very long list, is it?

[DC Tom]

Guns fire when they're dropped?

 

Only the really bad ones, but yes - there was a Japanese pistol in WWII, used by tank crews, that would fire if it were bumped against the hatch as a crewman exited the tank, for example. And although that's a historical example, it wouldn't surprise me if there were a couple modern weapons being made to the same shoddy standard.

[We Come In Peace]

Right, because lord knows, the NRA has all kinds of polictical power in...Chicago. Yeah Republicans, and their NRA masters, run that town. Idiocy.

 

Idiocy is believing that the NRA only has it's hands in the Republican pockets or believing that gun control is an issue that the Democrats support. They don't.

 

Further idiocy is ignoring the plain and clear evidence of the NRA's lobbying efforts to kneecap the ATF and continue their disinformation campaign to protect the profits of the gun manufacturers who call the shots.

 

But thanks for playing.

[OCinBuffalo]

Idiocy is believing that the NRA only has it's hands in the Republican pockets or believing that gun control is an issue that the Democrats support. They don't.

 

Further idiocy is ignoring the plain and clear evidence of the NRA's lobbying efforts to kneecap the ATF and continue their disinformation campaign to protect the profits of the gun manufacturers who call the shots.

 

But thanks for playing.

Thanks for playing? You think you're "winning" with that pathetic response? How dumb are you?

 

Again, screw "the means". Where is your list of Democrats who have the WILL to enforce the laws in their cities as Guliani did in his? Where is your object lesson in increased gun control, and the results it obtained that are = to what Gualiani did in NYC? Newsflash: Chicago ALREADY has some extremely tough gun control laws...have they stopped the soaring murder rate?

 

You're an unmitiaged moron if you think that curbing the NRA's lobbying power will decrease the murder rate in Chicago. The NRA is practically irrelevant to that problem. Simply doing exactly what Guliani did will have 50x the effect.

 

Do you deny Guliani's success, or the methods he used to obtain it? What is your need to make this a political thing, and talk about lobbying, when positive, undeniable results are right in front of your nose?

 

It's sheer idiocy to think that more laws will have any effect on people who break the law for a job. Or, that more laws will have any effect on some nutjob, who has decided that killing a bunch of people is the answer.

 

You expect the irrational(Beavis, with intent to kill lots of people) to be persauded by the rational(you better not because we are going to send you to prison for an additional 10 years). The crazy/addict/sociopathic criminal has already decided that killing 5+ people is a good idea, and you think it's going to roll that back because of 10 more years in prison?

 

That's the definition of stupidity.