Side-by-Side Comparison .... Gun Control

[Spare_change]

(Note: In a probably vain attempt to bring intellect and thought to the election process, I will be posting side-by-side comparisons of the Republican and Democrat positions on critical subjects in the upcoming election. The words posted are directly from the campaigns (though some portions have been removed for brevity. Added Note: In the case of the Republicans' policy, these were listed as paragraph headers. As such, most didn't have action verbs. I added those in [brackets])
REPUBLICANS

Enforce The Laws On The Books

Fix Our Broken Mental Health System

Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners

[End] GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS.

[Enforce, not change,] BACKGROUND CHECKS.

[Create] NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY.

[Remove open-carry bans on] MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS.


DEMOCRATS

Fight for comprehensive background checks.

Repeal the gun industry’s unique immunity protection.

Revoke the licenses of bad-actor dealers.

Support legislation to prohibit all domestic abusers from buying and possessing guns.

Make straw purchasing a federal crime.

Keep military-style weapons off our streets.

Hillary Clinton Believes It’s Time to Act on Gun Violence

 

[washamericom]

awesome.

 

[jon_berzerk]

and

 

[hazlnut]

REPUBLICANS

Enforce The Laws On The Books

Fix Our Broken Mental Health System

Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners

[End] GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS.

[Enforce, not change,] BACKGROUND CHECKS.

[Create] NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY.

[Remove open-carry bans on] MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS.

Enforce The Laws On The Books -- THEY CUT THE ATF BUDGET AND DIDN'T CONFIRM ATF DIRECTOR FOR YEARS -- THEY PASSED THE FUCKING TIAHRT AMENDMENTS THAT SEVERELY LIMITED THE ATF ABILITY TO ENFORCE THE LAW --

The Tiahrt Amendment is a provision of the U.S. Department of Justice appropriations bill that prohibits the National Tracing Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation.[1]This precludes gun trace data from being used in academic research of gun use in crime.[1] Additionally, the law blocks any data legally released from being admissible in civil lawsuits against gun sellers or manufacturers.


WHY?

WHY?


Fix Our Broken Mental Health System -- THEY'VE DONE NOTHING TO DO THIS -- WHAT FUCKING LAWS HAVE THE GOP JACKASSES PASSES TO DO THIS?????!!!!

Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners -- THIS MEANS NOTHNG -- SO DO THE DEMS -- THEY RESPECT THE DECISIONS OF SCOTUS -- GOP ONLY RESPECT THE SCOTUS RULES THEY AGREE WITH

[End] GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. -- WHY? EXPLAIN? IF A GUN IS USED ONLY FOR KILLING HUMANS, NOT HUNTING OR HOME DEFENSE -- JUST MASS MURDER, WHY IS IT LEGAL???

[Enforce, not change,] BACKGROUND CHECKS. -- THEY'VE LEFT A HUGE LOOPHOLE

[Create] NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. -- SO MUCH FOR RESPECTING STATE LAWS -- 10TH AMENDMENT

[Remove open-carry bans on] MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS. MP'S ON BASES DO OPEN CARRY, IDIOT

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The progressive body count after implementation of gun control is in the 9 figure column; that's the mass murder of over 100,000,000 of their fellow countrymen

 

[Spare_change]

REPUBLICANS

Enforce The Laws On The Books

Fix Our Broken Mental Health System

Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners

[End] GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS.

[Enforce, not change,] BACKGROUND CHECKS.

[Create] NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY.

[Remove open-carry bans on] MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS.

Enforce The Laws On The Books -- THEY CUT THE ATF BUDGET AND DIDN'T CONFIRM ATF DIRECTOR FOR YEARS -- THEY PASSED THE FUCKING TIAHRT AMENDMENTS THAT SEVERELY LIMITED THE ATF ABILITY TO ENFORCE THE LAW --

The Tiahrt Amendment is a provision of the U.S. Department of Justice appropriations bill that prohibits the National Tracing Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation.[1]This precludes gun trace data from being used in academic research of gun use in crime.[1] Additionally, the law blocks any data legally released from being admissible in civil lawsuits against gun sellers or manufacturers.


WHY?

WHY?


Fix Our Broken Mental Health System -- THEY'VE DONE NOTHING TO DO THIS -- WHAT FUCKING LAWS HAVE THE GOP JACKASSES PASSES TO DO THIS?????!!!!

Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners -- THIS MEANS NOTHNG -- SO DO THE DEMS -- THEY RESPECT THE DECISIONS OF SCOTUS -- GOP ONLY RESPECT THE SCOTUS RULES THEY AGREE WITH

[End] GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. -- WHY? EXPLAIN? IF A GUN IS USED ONLY FOR KILLING HUMANS, NOT HUNTING OR HOME DEFENSE -- JUST MASS MURDER, WHY IS IT LEGAL???

[Enforce, not change,] BACKGROUND CHECKS. -- THEY'VE LEFT A HUGE LOOPHOLE

[Create] NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. -- SO MUCH FOR RESPECTING STATE LAWS -- 10TH AMENDMENT

[Remove open-carry bans on] MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS. MP'S ON BASES DO OPEN CARRY, IDIOT

Fix Our Broken Mental Health System -- THEY'VE DONE NOTHING TO DO THIS -- WHAT FUCKING LAWS HAVE THE GOP JACKASSES PASSES TO DO THIS?????!!!!

Since 2013, the Republicans have introduced seven (7) bills designed to address the broken mental health system. All seven have been summarily blocked by Democrats, or failed because to threatened veto by Obama. Conversely, Democrats have introduced one (1) minor attempt at changing the system. So, I guess it's appropriate to ask "WHAT FUCKING LAWS HAVE DEMOCRATS PROPOSED TO DO THIS?"

(By the way, I find your use of vulgarity to be extremely childish and offensive. You might want to try an adult conversation next time.)

Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners -- THIS MEANS NOTHNG -- SO DO THE DEMS -- THEY RESPECT THE DECISIONS OF SCOTUS -- GOP ONLY RESPECT THE SCOTUS RULES THEY AGREE WITH

Of course, you fail to mention the constant and unmitigated attacks by Democrats on the 2nd Amendment. While they "respect" the decisions of SCOTUS (they have no choice, it's the law), they do everything they can to change them. How do you justify the Democrat attack on private gun ownership?

[End] GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. -- WHY? EXPLAIN? IF A GUN IS USED ONLY FOR KILLING HUMANS, NOT HUNTING OR HOME DEFENSE -- JUST MASS MURDER, WHY IS IT LEGAL???

Guns are not "ONLY USED FOR KILLING HUMANS". You have an indefensible position. If people use a gun, any gun, for target practice, your argument falls apart. If people use a gun, any gun, for hunting, your argument falls apart. (Your lack of information is showing - all guns, including so-called "assault weapons" are used in hunting.) As for the home defense argument - if you break into my house, and threaten my family, I'm not real picky about what gun I'm going to use to shoot you dead. So, every gun I own is used for home defense. See how silly your comment is?

[Enforce, not change,] BACKGROUND CHECKS. -- THEY'VE LEFT A HUGE LOOPHOLE

Why don't you educate us about this supposed loophole in background checks? Is it the one that says I don't have to run a background check on my son before I give him a rifle for Christmas? Is that the one?

[Create] NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. -- SO MUCH FOR RESPECTING STATE LAWS -- 10TH AMENDMENT

A ridiculous statement, almost not worthy of comment - but I can't force myself to stop. The 2nd Amendment is a NATIONAL application, and, as such, not only allows, but demands federal guidance. Further, it is entirely appropriate for the federal government to demand compliance. You fail to grasp the difference between application of federal law, and overreach by the federal government into the application of laws generated by the rights of the states.

[Remove open-carry bans on] MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS. MP'S ON BASES DO OPEN CARRY, IDIOT

A non-sequitur, at best .... the discussion is about ALL military personnel being allowed to carry a firearm on base, not about law enforcement personnel. As for the "idiot" comment, I must assume you ran out of things intelligent to say, but needed to increase your word count. Childish, at best .. insulting, as well ... but most of all, telling ... very telling ... about the poster.

 

[Spare_change]

The progressive body count after implementation of gun control is in the 9 figure column; that's the mass murder of over 100,000,000 of their fellow countrymen

Cute numbers ... now can you possibly present them in some coherent form? I will be happy to address them, IF you can tell me what you MEANT for them to illustrate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The progressive body count after implementation of gun control is in the 9 figure column; that's the mass murder of over 100,000,000 of their fellow countrymen

Cute numbers ... now can you possibly present them in some coherent form? I will be happy to address them, IF you can tell me what you MEANT for them to illustrate.

Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot alone gets you over 100MM

 

[Spare_change]

The progressive body count after implementation of gun control is in the 9 figure column; that's the mass murder of over 100,000,000 of their fellow countrymen

Cute numbers ... now can you possibly present them in some coherent form? I will be happy to address them, IF you can tell me what you MEANT for them to illustrate.

Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot alone gets you over 100MM

Yep --- so does influenza, plague, and yellow fever. But then, just like your comment, it doesn't have anything to do with the issue under discussion. But, I do think I see a glimmer of what you're trying to say ...

Are you claiming that implementation of gun control by Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Pol Pot contributed directly to the deaths of 100 million people? Is it your supposition that gun control is the first step to oppression of the masses?