Okay, let's try again...gun laws and how they do and don't work, for anti gunners...

[2aguy]

Just saw this.....it explains laws and gun laws so even anti gunners should be able to understand....

The Gun Control Truth American Politicians and Media Largely Ignore

Perhaps that’s why there are so many people today who can’t see it.

Alan Korwin spoke passionately on TownHall about the subject, saying:

This is the great flaw with law. It doesn’t work. It gives you legal optionsafter the action, and it deters good people, sometimes, but it doesn’t do much other good. Gun control deters no one intent on evil acts. Only some of us understand this unfortunately. If laws against armed bank robbery worked, we’d have no armed bank robbers, right?

Laws’ failures are legendary, monumental, self evident, and yet missed. If laws against committing jihadi atrocities worked, there would be no San Bernardino, no Brussels, no Paris, none of the names that are going to happen in the not-too-distant future. If only gun control worked.

The constantly vilified supposedly evil gun lobby (the NRA) fervently wishes those laws worked. Every one of their five million members wishes gun-control laws—the 20,000 we hear are already on the books—worked as advertised.

There isn’t any criminal act you can commit with a firearm that isn’t already illegal. If only those laws did something to stop crime!

We’d be safer, and the left wouldn’t be out there, all alone you might have noticed, pressing for still more laws to do what those laws aren’t doing.

The worst part—new gun laws being proposed don’t even confront crime. They don’t have to, because the crimes are already outlawed.

But I repeat myself. The new laws make crimes out of things that aren’t crime—by banning legal activity Americans do every day. Look at gun-transfer laws, pitched as more background checks* for example, the current rallying cry of more-gun-law proponents.

It’s already illegal for criminals to transfer guns, buy guns, have guns, giveaway guns, get guns, anything. More background checks will increasingly burden the innocent, but it won’t disarm or stop criminals who are already armed.

Enhanced enforcement and arrests will have that desired effect, but these aren’t proposed.

Armed criminals are armed now despite all the laws banning it already. You do understand that, don’t you? Such questions are mysteriously not posed to gun-control advocates by the media. Instead, reporters virtually cheerlead and campaign for new laws that will incrementally disarm or subarm the public.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Okay, let's try again...gun laws and how they do and don't work, for anti gunners..."

Try as many times as you like, your premise will always fail as a ridiculous fallacy.

No one has presented any firearm regulatory measure as a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence.

The fact that criminals don’t obey firearm regulatory measures neither ‘undermines’ nor ‘mitigates’ the efficacy or justification of a given gun control measure.

Firearm regulatory measures are implemented to address a specific issue, not all problems related to gun crime and violence; to say a particular gun control measure ‘doesn’t work’ because it ‘failed’ to solve a problem it was never intended to solve in the first place is an idiotic lie.

Moreover, ‘gun control’ is not solely the regulation of actual firearms – it also refers to firearm education and training, mental health treatment and the prevention of mental illness, and addressing the propensity of Americans to perceive violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution.

Last, there are no ‘anti-gunners,’ the notion is ignorant idiocy.

No one want’s to ‘take’ anyone’s guns.

No one advocates for any firearm regulatory measure that does not comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

And to support necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory policy as authorized by the Second Amendment does not make someone ‘anti-gun’; indeed, as has been documented before on this very forum, more than 80 percent of gun owners support universal background checks.

 

[hunarcy]

"Okay, let's try again...gun laws and how they do and don't work, for anti gunners..."

Try as many times as you like, your premise will always fail as a ridiculous fallacy.

No one has presented any firearm regulatory measure as a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence.

The fact that criminals don’t obey firearm regulatory measures neither ‘undermines’ nor ‘mitigates’ the efficacy or justification of a given gun control measure.

Firearm regulatory measures are implemented to address a specific issue, not all problems related to gun crime and violence; to say a particular gun control measure ‘doesn’t work’ because it ‘failed’ to solve a problem it was never intended to solve in the first place is an idiotic lie.

Moreover, ‘gun control’ is not solely the regulation of actual firearms – it also refers to firearm education and training, mental health treatment and the prevention of mental illness, and addressing the propensity of Americans to perceive violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution.

Last, there are no ‘anti-gunners,’ the notion is ignorant idiocy.

No one want’s to ‘take’ anyone’s guns.

No one advocates for any firearm regulatory measure that does not comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

And to support necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory policy as authorized by the Second Amendment does not make someone ‘anti-gun’; indeed, as has been documented before on this very forum, more than 80 percent of gun owners support universal background checks.

..

Has anyone told Diane Feinstein that she doesn't want to "take" anyone's guns? Cause I don't think she knows that.



Sad that you have to tell outright lies to try to defend your anti-civil rights position.

 

[BULLDOG]

Of course, the crap you constantly spew is wrong, but go ahead and get it out of your system now as much as you can. The right is blocking a moderate Supreme Court Nominee who could go either way on gun control. You know that Hillary or Bernie will put someone on the court who will definitely allow reasonable gun control. Of course you will still be allowed to whine after that, but it will be even less useful then than it is now.

 

[hunarcy]

Of course, the crap you constantly spew is wrong, but go ahead and get it out of your system now as much as you can. The right is blocking a moderate Supreme Court Nominee who could go either way on gun control. You know that Hillary or Bernie will put someone on the court who will definitely allow reasonable gun control. Of course you will still be allowed to whine after that, but it will be even less useful then than it is now.

That supposes that Hillary will be elected. Bernie could win. I don't think Hillary can. So, I think the right is rolling the dice that the Democratic "fix" is in and they will defeat Hillary in November and someone who will definitely realize the right to keep and bear arms belongs to "the People" and should not be infringed by what you might consider reasonable gun control.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Laws such as background checks.