France's Strict Gun Laws Did NOTHING to Stop Jihadist Terrorist Attacks

[idb]

One of our resident liberals here is saying that to combat terrorism they would institute universal background checks, limit magazine capacities, and ban assault weapons. Well, folks, we just had two horrible jihadist terrorist attacks with automatic weapons in a country where the gun laws are much tougher than that: France.

All automatic weapons are illegal in France, with no exceptions. Ownership of semi-auto weapons is heavily restricted, requiring, among other things, a background check and a license. Handguns are virtually impossible to own. Ammo is heavily regulated, and gun owners are only allowed to possess a small number of bullets. To buy a gun, you must apply for a permit and must provide a valid reason for wanting to own a gun. In fact, France has no personal right to own firearms in its constitution. (And, FYI, France has for years been run by politicians who would be viewed as liberal or very liberal by American standards.)

What are the liberal "solutions" for preventing jihadist terrorism? Let's see:

* Severely restrict (if not end) our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, even though such an approach just failed miserably in France. The jihadists' weapons included AK-47 rifles, which can fire in both semi-automatic and automatic mode--in other words, with one flick of the selector switch, the AK-47 becomes a machine gun.

* Allow into the country 10,000 more people from the one and only demographic group that has provided all the recruits for jihadist terrorism (that would be Muslims), even though it's now painfully obvious that our supposedly "extensive and comprehensive" vetting system is badly flawed, and even though several intelligence officials have now said that we cannot properly screen the Syrian refugees.

* Refuse to take any responsibility for the disastrous, tragically misguided decision of Farook's neighbors who had suspicions about him and his wife but who decided not to report their suspicions to authorities for fear of engaging in "racial profiling" or "discrimination."

You would think that after San Bernardino, liberals would say, "Obviously, from now on, if you see Muslims, or people who you think are Muslims, doing things that strike you as suspicious or that just seem odd for your neighborhood or area, err on the side of caution and say something to authorities."

* Oppose efforts to seal the border or to substantially improve border security (just look at the debates and votes in Congress on border security issues, or visit liberal websites that discuss immigration policy), even though we have had a rash of cases of Muslims trying to enter the country with fake passports.

* Support sanctuary cities, where officials purposely refuse to cooperate with law enforcement officials who are trying to enforce our immigration laws.

* Refuse to even support laws that say that you will be deported if you're in the country illegally and you commit a violent crime. (No kidding. Democrats recently blocked Kate's Law in the Senate, which would have required the deportation of any illegal alien who committed a violent crime.)

* Refuse to even call Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism and engage in ridiculous comparisons to nominally "Christian" lone-nut gunmen as a way to avoid admitting the self-evident fact that the more Muslims a country has, the greater its chances of being attacked. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no worldwide Christian terrorist movement that is trying to overthrow democratic governments, that is beheading people, that is using drug money to help fund its operations, that is imposing Sharia law, that is preventing girls from attending school, that blows up schools if girls don't stop attending them, that is engaging in the wide-scale trafficking of women, that denies the Holocaust, that vows to destroy Israel, and that has killed thousand of Americans.

Mon Dieu! A Review of French Gun Laws - The Truth About Guns

Paris attacks: How were Isis terrorists able to obtain Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles?

Guns in France — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Blog: American left demands strict gun control laws (like France!) in the wake of San Bernardino shootings

Did France's Strict Gun Control Contribute to the Paris Bloodbath?

I disagree...France's gun laws stopped 183 attacks.

And how was that exactly…..?

I don't know.
I got my figures from the same place as the OP.

 

[2aguy]

One of our resident liberals here is saying that to combat terrorism they would institute universal background checks, limit magazine capacities, and ban assault weapons. Well, folks, we just had two horrible jihadist terrorist attacks with automatic weapons in a country where the gun laws are much tougher than that: France.

All automatic weapons are illegal in France, with no exceptions. Ownership of semi-auto weapons is heavily restricted, requiring, among other things, a background check and a license. Handguns are virtually impossible to own. Ammo is heavily regulated, and gun owners are only allowed to possess a small number of bullets. To buy a gun, you must apply for a permit and must provide a valid reason for wanting to own a gun. In fact, France has no personal right to own firearms in its constitution. (And, FYI, France has for years been run by politicians who would be viewed as liberal or very liberal by American standards.)

What are the liberal "solutions" for preventing jihadist terrorism? Let's see:

* Severely restrict (if not end) our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, even though such an approach just failed miserably in France. The jihadists' weapons included AK-47 rifles, which can fire in both semi-automatic and automatic mode--in other words, with one flick of the selector switch, the AK-47 becomes a machine gun.

* Allow into the country 10,000 more people from the one and only demographic group that has provided all the recruits for jihadist terrorism (that would be Muslims), even though it's now painfully obvious that our supposedly "extensive and comprehensive" vetting system is badly flawed, and even though several intelligence officials have now said that we cannot properly screen the Syrian refugees.

* Refuse to take any responsibility for the disastrous, tragically misguided decision of Farook's neighbors who had suspicions about him and his wife but who decided not to report their suspicions to authorities for fear of engaging in "racial profiling" or "discrimination."

You would think that after San Bernardino, liberals would say, "Obviously, from now on, if you see Muslims, or people who you think are Muslims, doing things that strike you as suspicious or that just seem odd for your neighborhood or area, err on the side of caution and say something to authorities."

* Oppose efforts to seal the border or to substantially improve border security (just look at the debates and votes in Congress on border security issues, or visit liberal websites that discuss immigration policy), even though we have had a rash of cases of Muslims trying to enter the country with fake passports.
Look at ther
* Support sanctuary cities, where officials purposely refuse to cooperate with law enforcement officials who are trying to enforce our immigration laws.

* Refuse to even support laws that say that you will be deported if you're in the country illegally and you commit a violent crime. (No kidding. Democrats recently blocked Kate's Law in the Senate, which would have required the deportation of any illegal alien who committed a violent crime.)

* Refuse to even call Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism and engage in ridiculous comparisons to nominally "Christian" lone-nut gunmen as a way to avoid admitting the self-evident fact that the more Muslims a country has, the greater its chances of being attacked. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no worldwide Christian terrorist movement that is trying to overthrow democratic governments, that is beheading people, that is using drug money to help fund its operations, that is imposing Sharia law, that is preventing girls from attending school, that blows up schools if girls don't stop attending them, that is engaging in the wide-scale trafficking of women, that denies the Holocaust, that vows to destroy Israel, and that has killed thousand of Americans.

Mon Dieu! A Review of French Gun Laws - The Truth About Guns

Paris attacks: How were Isis terrorists able to obtain Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles?

Guns in France — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Blog: American left demands strict gun control laws (like France!) in the wake of San Bernardino shootings

Did France's Strict Gun Control Contribute to the Paris Bloodbath?

One of our resident liberals here is saying that to combat terrorism they would institute universal background checks, limit magazine capacities, and ban assault weapons. Well, folks, we just had two horrible jihadist terrorist attacks with automatic weapons in a country where the gun laws are much tougher than that: France.

All automatic weapons are illegal in France, with no exceptions. Ownership of semi-auto weapons is heavily restricted, requiring, among other things, a background check and a license. Handguns are virtually impossible to own. Ammo is heavily regulated, and gun owners are only allowed to possess a small number of bullets. To buy a gun, you must apply for a permit and must provide a valid reason for wanting to own a gun. In fact, France has no personal right to own firearms in its constitution. (And, FYI, France has for years been run by politicians who would be viewed as liberal or very liberal by American standards.)

What are the liberal "solutions" for preventing jihadist terrorism? Let's see:

* Severely restrict (if not end) our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, even though such an approach just failed miserably in France. The jihadists' weapons included AK-47 rifles, which can fire in both semi-automatic and automatic mode--in other words, with one flick of the selector switch, the AK-47 becomes a machine gun.

* Allow into the country 10,000 more people from the one and only demographic group that has provided all the recruits for jihadist terrorism (that would be Muslims), even though it's now painfully obvious that our supposedly "extensive and comprehensive" vetting system is badly flawed, and even though several intelligence officials have now said that we cannot properly screen the Syrian refugees.

* Refuse to take any responsibility for the disastrous, tragically misguided decision of Farook's neighbors who had suspicions about him and his wife but who decided not to report their suspicions to authorities for fear of engaging in "racial profiling" or "discrimination."

You would think that after San Bernardino, liberals would say, "Obviously, from now on, if you see Muslims, or people who you think are Muslims, doing things that strike you as suspicious or that just seem odd for your neighborhood or area, err on the side of caution and say something to authorities."

* Oppose efforts to seal the border or to substantially improve border security (just look at the debates and votes in Congress on border security issues, or visit liberal websites that discuss immigration policy), even though we have had a rash of cases of Muslims trying to enter the country with fake passports.

* Support sanctuary cities, where officials purposely refuse to cooperate with law enforcement officials who are trying to enforce our immigration laws.

* Refuse to even support laws that say that you will be deported if you're in the country illegally and you commit a violent crime. (No kidding. Democrats recently blocked Kate's Law in the Senate, which would have required the deportation of any illegal alien who committed a violent crime.)

* Refuse to even call Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism and engage in ridiculous comparisons to nominally "Christian" lone-nut gunmen as a way to avoid admitting the self-evident fact that the more Muslims a country has, the greater its chances of being attacked. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no worldwide Christian terrorist movement that is trying to overthrow democratic governments, that is beheading people, that is using drug money to help fund its operations, that is imposing Sharia law, that is preventing girls from attending school, that blows up schools if girls don't stop attending them, that is engaging in the wide-scale trafficking of women, that denies the Holocaust, that vows to destroy Israel, and that has killed thousand of Americans.

Mon Dieu! A Review of French Gun Laws - The Truth About Guns

Paris attacks: How were Isis terrorists able to obtain Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles?

Guns in France — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Blog: American left demands strict gun control laws (like France!) in the wake of San Bernardino shootings

Did France's Strict Gun Control Contribute to the Paris Bloodbath?

The death by guns per 100,000 people is 3.01 for France and 10.5 for USA.
Enough said

No….not enough said…..context is everything….France has always had a lower murder rate, including gun murder rate than the U.S. with or without extreme gun control…

Also…as we have seen, French criminals and French Terrorists, even terrorists on government terrorist watch lists, can and do easily get whatever guns and military equipment they want or need…….they just choose not to murder people as often as our criminals do….

Gun control in France is in no way responsible for their murder rate…….just as our guns are not responsible for our murder rate…our criminals choose to murder people more readily and more often than the criminals in Europe…but that too is changing….Europe is importing violent immigrants to commit the murder Europeans won't do….

 

[2aguy]

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

350 mass shootings in the US this year huh??

Funny. I never caught that on TV although a couple were well covered on the media. But 350?? Kinda sorta doubt that bullshit.


What I did catch was a couple of mass shootings in Paris where armed terrorists killed some unarmed authors and over one hundred unarmed civilians the at various venues in that city.

I also caught a mass shooting by Muslims in San Bernardino, CA.

Those scumbags also had over a dozen pipe bombs already made. Since both those pieces of shit are dead we will never know what those pipe bombs were going to be used for.

 

[2aguy]

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

350 mass shootings in the US this year huh??

Funny. I never caught that on TV although a couple were well covered on the media. But 350?? Kinda sorta doubt that bullshit.


What I did catch was a couple of mass shootings in Paris where armed terrorists killed some unarmed authors and over one hundred unarmed civilians the at various venues in that city.

I also caught a mass shooting by Muslims in San Bernardino, CA.

Those scumbags also had over a dozen pipe bombs already made. Since both those pieces of shit are dead we will never know what those pipe bombs were going to be used for.

If I were you I'd be way more worried about white guys with guns. Jus' sayin'.

Do you actually do any research into this before you post…….white guys aren't killing more people in the United States…look it up...

 

[2aguy]

Leave it to a LWNJ to just make up facts and figures out of thin air with no links or evidence, then smugly declare victory.

For what it's worth...

The difference lays between "mass" shootings and "multiple" shootings believe it or not. Talk about the devil's arithmetic!!! The FBI says mass murder is 4 or more victims so the standards for "mass shootings" is 4 or more persons shot. Multiple dead bodies or 2 or more shooting victims is multiple.

The stats are 29 "mass" murders in the US and upwards of 400 "multiple" shootings.

Actuallly,no. What people fear is the mass public shooting. The case where an individual or individuals go into a mall, a government building, a theater, or a school…and start shooting people.

Normal people are not concerned when violent, career criminals start shooting each other at a party.

That is the difference.

I think that the normal people at the party would care if a gunfight breaks out between gangstas.

If they are at a gang banger party they are not normal people….

So now you walk into a party and you're not normal if you don't know everyone there? Ummm... no. Please try again.

Yeah…you pretty much know a gang banger party by the guys at the party……..when they do party games they aren't doing pin the tail on the democrat…...

 

[Theowl32]

Every time the pathetic socialist democrats say anything, it is never about what they claim. It is about ushering in socialism (actually communism under ONE WORLD rule.) It is global movement. It is that obvious to anyone that has not been utterly brainwashed in the ways of the world.

It is all manipulation. It is ALL they know. Whenever they talk about "safety" or doing something for the "environment" and manipulating millions that they can do nothing on their own and it is not their fault, it is all manipulation. I mean who is going to turn down a perceived free ride? No one.

It is about control. It is about ripping the power from we the people. It is what the world leaders and elites want. They despise the thought of poor people getting any opportunity to be in their class. Of course, they will never say that.

What is true is they seduce the weak minded, and weak minded cannot see that their situation never changes. Look at how well they lie to them. They have somehow convinced black people for example that they have never had it worse. The exact opposite is true. They have never had it better, at any time in history. Not at any time in history.

All billionaires and millionaires.

Looks like they have it real bad, don't they?

They have been convinced, regardless of the thousands of black millionaires that it is has never been worse. There is a black president, yet they are convinced they have never had it worse.

You have to really stand in awe of how well it has worked. In fact, I think the democrat socialists have actually been stunned over the 7 years just how much they have been able to get away with. I think they are even surprised at how stupid their constituency is.

Ask Grubber.

Every last fucking word from obama is a blatant lie or it is more subtle. Either way, he is being deceitful about everything he claims. I do not even know if he is capable of anything other than political angles and the agenda that he is been put in office to push.

I honestly think he may very well be fully possessed. Not kidding.

 

[Slyhunter]

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

HUH????????????????????????????????

Earth. We're talking about Earth. Not your parallel universe.

Sheesh. Who ARE you people?

Got no real comeback? Figures.

Leave it to a LWNJ to just make up facts and figures out of thin air with no links or evidence, then smugly declare victory.

For what it's worth...

The difference lays between "mass" shootings and "multiple" shootings believe it or not. Talk about the devil's arithmetic!!! The FBI says mass murder is 4 or more victims so the standards for "mass shootings" is 4 or more persons shot. Multiple dead bodies or 2 or more shooting victims is multiple.

The stats are 29 "mass" murders in the US and upwards of 400 "multiple" shootings.

Actuallly,no. What people fear is the mass public shooting. The case where an individual or individuals go into a mall, a government building, a theater, or a school…and start shooting people.

Normal people are not concerned when violent, career criminals start shooting each other at a party.

That is the difference.

I think that the normal people at the party would care if a gunfight breaks out between gangstas.

Normal people shouldn't go to gangsta parties.

 

[bripat9643]

One of our resident liberals here is saying that to combat terrorism they would institute universal background checks, limit magazine capacities, and ban assault weapons. Well, folks, we just had two horrible jihadist terrorist attacks with automatic weapons in a country where the gun laws are much tougher than that: France.

All automatic weapons are illegal in France, with no exceptions. Ownership of semi-auto weapons is heavily restricted, requiring, among other things, a background check and a license. Handguns are virtually impossible to own. Ammo is heavily regulated, and gun owners are only allowed to possess a small number of bullets. To buy a gun, you must apply for a permit and must provide a valid reason for wanting to own a gun. In fact, France has no personal right to own firearms in its constitution. (And, FYI, France has for years been run by politicians who would be viewed as liberal or very liberal by American standards.)

What are the liberal "solutions" for preventing jihadist terrorism? Let's see:

* Severely restrict (if not end) our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, even though such an approach just failed miserably in France. The jihadists' weapons included AK-47 rifles, which can fire in both semi-automatic and automatic mode--in other words, with one flick of the selector switch, the AK-47 becomes a machine gun.

* Allow into the country 10,000 more people from the one and only demographic group that has provided all the recruits for jihadist terrorism (that would be Muslims), even though it's now painfully obvious that our supposedly "extensive and comprehensive" vetting system is badly flawed, and even though several intelligence officials have now said that we cannot properly screen the Syrian refugees.

* Refuse to take any responsibility for the disastrous, tragically misguided decision of Farook's neighbors who had suspicions about him and his wife but who decided not to report their suspicions to authorities for fear of engaging in "racial profiling" or "discrimination."

You would think that after San Bernardino, liberals would say, "Obviously, from now on, if you see Muslims, or people who you think are Muslims, doing things that strike you as suspicious or that just seem odd for your neighborhood or area, err on the side of caution and say something to authorities."

* Oppose efforts to seal the border or to substantially improve border security (just look at the debates and votes in Congress on border security issues, or visit liberal websites that discuss immigration policy), even though we have had a rash of cases of Muslims trying to enter the country with fake passports.

* Support sanctuary cities, where officials purposely refuse to cooperate with law enforcement officials who are trying to enforce our immigration laws.

* Refuse to even support laws that say that you will be deported if you're in the country illegally and you commit a violent crime. (No kidding. Democrats recently blocked Kate's Law in the Senate, which would have required the deportation of any illegal alien who committed a violent crime.)

* Refuse to even call Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism and engage in ridiculous comparisons to nominally "Christian" lone-nut gunmen as a way to avoid admitting the self-evident fact that the more Muslims a country has, the greater its chances of being attacked. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no worldwide Christian terrorist movement that is trying to overthrow democratic governments, that is beheading people, that is using drug money to help fund its operations, that is imposing Sharia law, that is preventing girls from attending school, that blows up schools if girls don't stop attending them, that is engaging in the wide-scale trafficking of women, that denies the Holocaust, that vows to destroy Israel, and that has killed thousand of Americans.

Mon Dieu! A Review of French Gun Laws - The Truth About Guns

Paris attacks: How were Isis terrorists able to obtain Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles?

Guns in France — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Blog: American left demands strict gun control laws (like France!) in the wake of San Bernardino shootings

Did France's Strict Gun Control Contribute to the Paris Bloodbath?

When did anyone express the opinion that laws prevent crime?

Because laws cannot prevent crime, should a civilized nation repeal all law?


IMO, the premise of this OP and its author is based on a closed mind, framed by partisanship and an echo of RW propaganda.

When did anyone express the opinion that laws prevent crime?

You guys express it all the time....

Every gun control law that you guys say you want is precisely built on the premise that gun control laws can prevent gun crime...every single one, from licensing gun owners, to registering all guns to universal background checks....and they do not do that...they do not prevent gun crimes and they don't even help solve gun crimes.

Gee, the right wing used to be all for "law and order". I guess we can chalk that up to another BIG LIE failure from a talking point used by the far right.

BTW, the law and its purpose has been explained to 2aguy numerous times, I used to think he was just stupid, now I'm convinced he's both stupid and mendacious.

How did anything I posted about the uselessness of licensing normal gun owners, registering the guns of normal gun owners or requiring universal background checks that do not stop one criminal or mass shooter from getting a gun, point to me being against law and order…..you are something of a twit aren't you…since the only "purpose" you give is "but it might, maybe, sort of, perhaps, if we hope really hard, might just stop one bad guy from getting a gun….." And which I then point out is not even accurate…...

If you oppose the police state, the administrators of the police state will always accuse you of being against law and order. How could anyone be against what they believe to be best for you? If you're against giving Dr Quacksalver's magic cancer cure to Uncle Julius, then you want him to die. If you are against organized religion, you are against god.

 

[bripat9643]

One of our resident liberals here is saying that to combat terrorism they would institute universal background checks, limit magazine capacities, and ban assault weapons. Well, folks, we just had two horrible jihadist terrorist attacks with automatic weapons in a country where the gun laws are much tougher than that: France.

All automatic weapons are illegal in France, with no exceptions. Ownership of semi-auto weapons is heavily restricted, requiring, among other things, a background check and a license. Handguns are virtually impossible to own. Ammo is heavily regulated, and gun owners are only allowed to possess a small number of bullets. To buy a gun, you must apply for a permit and must provide a valid reason for wanting to own a gun. In fact, France has no personal right to own firearms in its constitution. (And, FYI, France has for years been run by politicians who would be viewed as liberal or very liberal by American standards.)

What are the liberal "solutions" for preventing jihadist terrorism? Let's see:

* Severely restrict (if not end) our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, even though such an approach just failed miserably in France. The jihadists' weapons included AK-47 rifles, which can fire in both semi-automatic and automatic mode--in other words, with one flick of the selector switch, the AK-47 becomes a machine gun.

* Allow into the country 10,000 more people from the one and only demographic group that has provided all the recruits for jihadist terrorism (that would be Muslims), even though it's now painfully obvious that our supposedly "extensive and comprehensive" vetting system is badly flawed, and even though several intelligence officials have now said that we cannot properly screen the Syrian refugees.

* Refuse to take any responsibility for the disastrous, tragically misguided decision of Farook's neighbors who had suspicions about him and his wife but who decided not to report their suspicions to authorities for fear of engaging in "racial profiling" or "discrimination."

You would think that after San Bernardino, liberals would say, "Obviously, from now on, if you see Muslims, or people who you think are Muslims, doing things that strike you as suspicious or that just seem odd for your neighborhood or area, err on the side of caution and say something to authorities."

* Oppose efforts to seal the border or to substantially improve border security (just look at the debates and votes in Congress on border security issues, or visit liberal websites that discuss immigration policy), even though we have had a rash of cases of Muslims trying to enter the country with fake passports.

* Support sanctuary cities, where officials purposely refuse to cooperate with law enforcement officials who are trying to enforce our immigration laws.

* Refuse to even support laws that say that you will be deported if you're in the country illegally and you commit a violent crime. (No kidding. Democrats recently blocked Kate's Law in the Senate, which would have required the deportation of any illegal alien who committed a violent crime.)

* Refuse to even call Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism and engage in ridiculous comparisons to nominally "Christian" lone-nut gunmen as a way to avoid admitting the self-evident fact that the more Muslims a country has, the greater its chances of being attacked. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no worldwide Christian terrorist movement that is trying to overthrow democratic governments, that is beheading people, that is using drug money to help fund its operations, that is imposing Sharia law, that is preventing girls from attending school, that blows up schools if girls don't stop attending them, that is engaging in the wide-scale trafficking of women, that denies the Holocaust, that vows to destroy Israel, and that has killed thousand of Americans.

Mon Dieu! A Review of French Gun Laws - The Truth About Guns

Paris attacks: How were Isis terrorists able to obtain Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles?

Guns in France — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Blog: American left demands strict gun control laws (like France!) in the wake of San Bernardino shootings

Did France's Strict Gun Control Contribute to the Paris Bloodbath?

When did anyone express the opinion that laws prevent crime?

Because laws cannot prevent crime, should a civilized nation repeal all law?


IMO, the premise of this OP and its author is based on a closed mind, framed by partisanship and an echo of RW propaganda.

When did anyone express the opinion that laws prevent crime?

You guys express it all the time....

Every gun control law that you guys say you want is precisely built on the premise that gun control laws can prevent gun crime...every single one, from licensing gun owners, to registering all guns to universal background checks....and they do not do that...they do not prevent gun crimes and they don't even help solve gun crimes.

Gee, the right wing used to be all for "law and order". I guess we can chalk that up to another BIG LIE failure from a talking point used by the far right.

BTW, the law and its purpose has been explained to 2aguy numerous times, I used to think he was just stupid, now I'm convinced he's both stupid and mendacious.

How did anything I posted about the uselessness of licensing normal gun owners, registering the guns of normal gun owners or requiring universal background checks that do not stop one criminal or mass shooter from getting a gun, point to me being against law and order…..you are something of a twit aren't you…since the only "purpose" you give is "but it might, maybe, sort of, perhaps, if we hope really hard, might just stop one bad guy from getting a gun….." And which I then point out is not even accurate…...

Define "twit". I've pointed out ad nausea that you're one of the dumbest of the dumb. That's pretty clear; I suppose you use the word twit even though you have no idea of its meaning - which is typical in your childish postings.

If you look it up in the dictionary, you'll see your picture there.