So, why are guns necessary?

[rvg]

That's because she only does what Obama tells her and tells us she can't do anything if he collects our data. So yeah, how does it feel if people from other countries meddle in your internal and personal affairs?

Meddling implies action... we're just having a conversation.

[Husar]

Meddling implies action... we're just having a conversation.

Yes, and what was the issue again then? I didn't ask Obama to curb your gun rights, I just said that some restrictions may not hurt in my opinion and that I think some of the arguments brought forth to support the notions that everyone should have unlimited access to unregistered guns make no sense in my opinion.

And now that I was backtracking a bit I noticed yet another nice flaw in your argument:

Note that anti-gun arguments die a horrible death here, and congressmen who introduce them often pay with their careers for that. We do not want regulation. Period.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm



Basically a minority seems to be preventing laws that a majority is in favor of, your point that the majority of Americans want gun laws to be as they are now is thus null and void. Somewhere around 70% - 80% support background checks for gun sales, yet the laws are struck down by a lobbyist group...

[rvg]

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Basically a minority seems to be preventing laws that a majority is in favor of, your point that the majority of Americans want gun laws to be as they are now is thus null and void. Somewhere around 70% - 80% support background checks for gun sales, yet the laws are struck down by a lobbyist group...

According to your link around 50% want to keep the guns laws exactly as they are now or loosen them. Which is why anti-gun legislation dies.

[Husar]

According to your link around 50% want to keep the guns laws exactly as they are now or loosen them. Which is why anti-gun legislation dies.

Yes, when asked about gun laws in general.

When asked about a specific law that would've required background checks before gun purchases at gun shows and everywhere else, about 80% were in favor of it and the law still died. Does that mean 30% of Americans are schizophrenic or maybe they wouldn't mind background checks but oppose any further limitations?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, when asked about gun laws in general.

When asked about a specific law that would've required background checks before gun purchases at gun shows and everywhere else, about 80% were in favor of it and the law still died. Does that mean 30% of Americans are schizophrenic or maybe they wouldn't mind background checks but oppose any further limitations?

Americans are OK with background checks on all sales for the most part. They won't do much good, but I don't see them as a threat and they could help a bit. The Democratic Senate bill was a threat due to the likelihood of bad faith negotiation. They could not be trusted to put a law through that was not a poison pill for gun rights, creating databases, bureaucracy and attempting to discourage gun ownership and increase punishments for otherwise law abiding gun owners. With this legislation, only damage was done to the movement, and it is important that we never accept legislation from the opposition which moves their ball forward and ours back. We can both move our agenda forward simultaneously. Create background checks while increasing ease of concealed carry reciprocity. Require digital pre-screening keys to be coupled with all sales, but make it easy to do for the law abiding.

Lemur thinks that I don't mean this, but I do. We can tighten gun accessibility at the same time as we loosen it in other areas. It is called compromise. Many Republicans and Democrats don't know what that is, but it isn't purely the fault of the gun rights, crowd, but rather the hubris of the gun control crowd in rather having a bill fail than attempt to create a winnable coalition. They though New town would be kryptonite for us, and it was admittedly terrible, but it won't be stopped by any legislation and, of course, we have considered the likelihood of these things happening where people are completely disarmed - or even where they are armed as well. Senate Democrats wasted a good moment for something to get done. They lost Coburn and many others who were interested in drafting a good bill that could pass the house.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Just thought I would share one of the worst things I have ever read.

The Guardian seems determined to turn itself into some sort of liberal Daily Mail, if you want to be taken seriously this bile has to stop.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Any time Anti-gunners want to get extreme in the "take rights away from people" department, I welcome it. When we get extreme, it usually comes across as "most people are responsible, don't take away their rights and property". When they do it, it sounds like people who want to stop gay people from getting married because they don't understand it. I'm still against gay marriage, but I'm not unaware that it is an inherently unpopular argument.