No new gun laws, enforce existing ones!

[bozack]

Is that what this was? Really?

I apologize for wasting the OP's time trying to respond to his question.


.

No I meant the OP....

Clearly they just want more gun regulation and don't really care what folks mean when they say more useless legislation will accomplish nothing.

 

[Venix]

No, I still haven't heard a logical response.

You've been provided with multiple detailed lists of the federal laws that aren't enforced effectively. Yesterday, the Obama Administration announced the impending hire of 200 additional ATF agents precisely because the ATF is currently incapable of adequately enforcing existing laws. It seems that everyone but you agrees that federal firearms law enforcement is a mess. That some people want to fix that mess before adding more laws is perfectly rational.

 

[BoberFett]

As I stated (and with a video to prove it), smallish gun sellers at gun shows don't have to process background checks, so they just can be lied to and the criminal gets his gun, and now it's on the street. That's what Obama is trying to fix.

Thanks Obama!

What the hell is a "smallish gun seller"? Either you're an FFL dealer or you're not. If you're not, you're a private seller. And that private sale can happen in a garage just as easily as it can a gun show.

THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE YOU BRAINDEAD MORONS.

 

[BoberFett]

When I saw (in that thread with the link about looking up gun crimes near you) that there were nine shootings within a mile of me in the last year (others here saw many, many more), I was dumbfounded; I live in a pretty nice area.

You and your neighbors are just horrible people.

 

[Venix]

Do you support Obamas executive orders?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d539e8-b2fb-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html

I don't really care either way. Nor do I care about enforcing existing federal gun laws. I simply understand the rationale behind the view, and am defending it against bradly1101's absurd, baseless attacks.

Washington Post's analysis is pretty bad, though. "New federal guidance requiring some occasional gun sellers to get licenses from ATF and conduct background checks on potential buyers" is nonsense; all Obama did was direct the ATF to restate the existing rules and explain current judicial precedent. There has been no change to the criteria that determine whether a gun seller requires a Federal Firearms License.

 

[BoberFett]

So how can we increase background check reporting without funding? Who is making it impossible if not the NRA's choke-hold on congress?

LOL, choke-hold. Please, explain this choke-hold to us. Describe how the NRA is so powerful that it can do anything it wants. Please use facts and figures, not your usual baseless emotional bullshit.

 

[bradly1101]

Please edit thread title from.

No new gun laws, enforce existing ones!

to

I want a new gun law!


I am getting confused.

.

Your confusion will be allayed by reading the first sentence of the first post.

 

[OrByte]

LOL, choke-hold. Please, explain this choke-hold to us. Describe how the NRA is so powerful that it can do anything it wants. Please use facts and figures, not your usual baseless emotional bullshit.

I won't go into a long analysis to use "facts and figures" to explain what it is that everyone else sees, namely that the NRA has a strong influence on Washington and congress.

But here is an example from Fox News in 2009:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/30/nra-lobbyists-hold-strong-influence-policy-agenda.html

from the article:

the NRA quietly put out the word that it would score a procedural measure to set ground rules for the debate -- and determine whether the anti-gun control proposal could or could not be offered. That meant a vote to advance the bill without reversing the district's gun laws could cost a lawmaker the NRA's political support. It was enough to halt the measure in its tracks.

Members of congress are so afraid of the NRA's scoring system, that the NRA can influence and push around many policy and agenda items.

This is just one example, Let's not try to pretend that the influence of the NRA is a myth. No one is that stupid.

 

[bradly1101]

You've been provided with multiple detailed lists of the federal laws that aren't enforced effectively. Yesterday, the Obama Administration announced the impending hire of 200 additional ATF agents precisely because the ATF is currently incapable of adequately enforcing existing laws. It seems that everyone but you agrees that federal firearms law enforcement is a mess. That some people want to fix that mess before adding more laws is perfectly rational.

Then why is it so difficult, and requires executive action which from my observation is staunchly opposed by conservatives? I guess you are an exception.

 

[BoberFett]

I won't go into a long analysis to use "facts and figures" to explain what it is that everyone else sees, namely that the NRA has a strong influence on Washington and congress.

But here is an example from Fox News in 2009:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/30/nra-lobbyists-hold-strong-influence-policy-agenda.html

from the article:

the NRA quietly put out the word that it would score a procedural measure to set ground rules for the debate -- and determine whether the anti-gun control proposal could or could not be offered. That meant a vote to advance the bill without reversing the district's gun laws could cost a lawmaker the NRA's political support. It was enough to halt the measure in its tracks.

Members of congress are so afraid of the NRA's scoring system, that the NRA can influence and push around many policy and agenda items.

This is just one example, Let's not try to pretend that the influence of the NRA is a myth. No one is that stupid.

So you're telling me that an organization who, according to OpenSecrets, ranks 290th as far as congressional donations has so much clout that it can bend the entire country to it's will and nothing can stop it?

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082&cycle=2014

Holy shit. What kind of power to do those other 289 organization have? You should probably fear them far more.

 

[werepossum]

I won't go into a long analysis to use "facts and figures" to explain what it is that everyone else sees, namely that the NRA has a strong influence on Washington and congress.

But here is an example from Fox News in 2009:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/30/nra-lobbyists-hold-strong-influence-policy-agenda.html

from the article:

the NRA quietly put out the word that it would score a procedural measure to set ground rules for the debate -- and determine whether the anti-gun control proposal could or could not be offered. That meant a vote to advance the bill without reversing the district's gun laws could cost a lawmaker the NRA's political support. It was enough to halt the measure in its tracks.

Members of congress are so afraid of the NRA's scoring system, that the NRA can influence and push around many policy and agenda items.

This is just one example, Let's not try to pretend that the influence of the NRA is a myth. No one is that stupid.

Actually, quite a few people are that stupid. Ooh, the NRA "scores legislation". Scary! NAMBLA can score legislation too. Why is the effect so different? Because the NRA is respected by many millions of American voters, in spite of continuous attacks by progressive social justice warriors and the media (but I repeat myself), precisely because they shine the light on progressives' machinations. If your heroes scurry away like cockroaches when struck by this light, that's a problem with their behavior, not with the NRA for allowing people to see it.

As BoberFett points out, the NRA is fairly low in political contributions, preferring to educate its members and the public about what is happening rather than attempting to buy Congresscritters. Turns out the left really wants those organizations that simply buy influence with contributions.

 

[Artdeco]

Well, I really don't mind the rules, but they'll have near 0 impact, except make more poor souls criminals because of the complicated rules.

I do think the NFA Trust thing needed to be changed.

 

[OrByte]

Actually, quite a few people are that stupid. Ooh, the NRA "scores legislation". Scary! NAMBLA can score legislation too. Why is the effect so different? Because the NRA is respected by many millions of American voters, in spite of continuous attacks by progressive social justice warriors and the media (but I repeat myself), precisely because they shine the light on progressives' machinations. If your heroes scurry away like cockroaches when struck by this light, that's a problem with their behavior, not with the NRA for allowing people to see it.

As BoberFett points out, the NRA is fairly low in political contributions, preferring to educate its members and the public about what is happening rather than attempting to buy Congresscritters. Turns out the left really wants those organizations that simply buy influence with contributions.

I never argued that the NRA was unpopular/disrespected.

The question was asked to support the position that the NRA is influential and I answered it.

Now the question of just how influential....well that is a different thread and I'm not chasing facts/figures down that rabbit hole.

I don't think the NRA is educating anyone about anything...otherwise their arguments would make sense. In this latest flare up over gun control, the NRA response to Obama makes no sense what so ever relative to Obama's EO. It is a horrible pavlovian reaction, makes me think they just dusted off an old press release from 2013.

On the one hand you have Jennifer Baker, NRA spokeswoman proclaiming, "“This is what they’ve been hyping for how long now? This is the proposal they’ve spent seven years putting together? They’re not really doing anything.”

On the other you have an official response from Chris Cox NRA President saying The proposed executive actions are "ripe for abuse by the Obama Administration."

come on guys... this stuff is too easy!! you can't be buying this BS?

 

[bradly1101]

It couldn't possibly be that people actually don't want it (excepting those who are convinced by high profile incidents and chicken littles that this will do anything but make legal guns more difficult to obtain).

Every poll I've seen says the opposite. If the people want expanded background checks, why doesn't congress if not because of influential donors. Look at what the Republican candidates are saying, "No new gun laws, enforce existing ones!"

 

[bradly1101]

What the hell is a "smallish gun seller"? Either you're an FFL dealer or you're not. If you're not, you're a private seller. And that private sale can happen in a garage just as easily as it can a gun show.

THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE YOU BRAINDEAD MORONS.

When the discussion descends into personal insults it's obvious that you're grasping at anything but logic.

 

[bradly1101]

You and your neighbors are just horrible people.

Classic!

 

[adolfotx]

I agree with the title of this thread!

 

[BoberFett]

When the discussion descends into personal insults it's obvious that you're grasping at anything but logic.

Says the buffoon who doesn't understand how to do a Google search...

 

[bradly1101]

Says the buffoon who doesn't understand how to do a Google search...

Real men don't bring their emotions to the discussion.

Why instead of discussing things do we not just post Google results that appear to agree with our side? Because we can all find something:

From a Google search, "are gun laws really not being enforced?"

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8&q=are%20gun%20laws%20really%20not%20being%20enforced%3F&oq=are%20gun%20laws%20really%20not%20being%20enforced%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57.21163j0j7

 

[Venix]

Real men don't bring their emotions to the discussion.

Why instead of discussing things do we not just post Google results that appear to agree with our side? Because we can all find something:

From a Google search, "are gun laws really not being enforced?"

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8&q=are%20gun%20laws%20really%20not%20being%20enforced%3F&oq=are%20gun%20laws%20really%20not%20being%20enforced%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57.21163j0j7

Did you not look at the results of your search? The answer to your query ("are gun laws really not being enforced?") is an emphatic and unanimous "yes." Every single article on the first page of results agrees that federal firearm laws are poorly enforced. None assert that the laws are effectively enforced. None support your position that "enforce existing gun laws" is a political catchphrase without a clear definition.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I hear this from the right all the time, and I hear it parroted here as if all conservatives have read the same talking points memo from the NRA, or have drunk the same Kool-Aid, liberally poured by Fox News.

But what does it mean? Are they saying that the police aren't doing their job? I heard Carly Fiorina offer some explanation today on one of the CNN shows by repeating it and then saying, "We know who the criminals are, we know they have guns, but Obama won't go after them!"

But what the hell does that mean? Should we subject those who have committed a crime to random searches to remove their guns? Would that not violate privacy laws and result in double jeopardy? And I wonder how gun rights advocates would react if anyone was targeted for gun seizure.

There is also this false equivalency that states that strict gun laws produce more gun crime. Which is it? The existing gun laws are all we need, or that they are a hindrance to public safety?

WTF?

Like most 'arguments' parroted by idiots, it's a logical fallacy.

 

[thraashman]

For many years the NRA has actively worked to prevent enforcement of existing gun laws.

 

[bradly1101]

Did you not look at the results of your search? The answer to your query ("are gun laws really not being enforced?") is an emphatic and unanimous "yes." Every single article on the first page of results agrees that federal firearm laws are poorly enforced. None assert that the laws are effectively enforced. None support your position that "enforce existing gun laws" is a political catchphrase without a clear definition.

Then I'm guessing that the Google is giving us different results based on our interests.

This is the first link that comes up for me and is similar to all the rest:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/10/28/nra-falsely-claims-that-obama-refuses-to-enforc/206481

...LaPierre concluded with a false claim: "No organization has been louder, clearer or more consistent on the urgent need to enforce the federal gun laws than the NRA."

The NRA's lie is brazen given widespread reporting explaining how the gun group interferes with ATF operations. As USA Today reported in 2013, "lobbying records and interviews show the [NRA] has worked steadily to weaken existing gun laws and the federal agency charged with enforcing them."

According to The Washington Post, "the gun lobby has consistently outmaneuvered and hemmed in ATF, using political muscle to intimidate lawmakers and erect barriers to tougher gun laws. Over nearly four decades, the NRA has wielded remarkable influence over Congress, persuading lawmakers to curb ATF's budget and mission and to call agency officials to account at oversight hearings."...

Why don't we have a "Google war" thread so that we'll get it out of our systems, and we won't have to think too much.

 

[bradly1101]

Like most 'arguments' parroted by idiots, it's a logical fallacy.

How so?

 

[Venix]

Then I'm guessing that the Google is giving us different results based on our interests.

This is the first link that comes up for me and is similar to all the rest:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/10/28/nra-falsely-claims-that-obama-refuses-to-enforc/206481



Why don't we have a "Google war" thread so that we'll get it out of our systems, and we won't have to think too much.

That article agrees that federal gun laws are not being enforced.

It answers your query ("are gun laws really not being enforced?") with an emphatic "yes."

It flatly contracts your original post's premise that nobody knows what "enforce existing gun laws" means.

Everyone but you agrees that federal gun laws are poorly enforced. The only point of contention is over who to blame.