Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I don't want to start a huge argument, but I want to hear the reasons why having better background checks and not allowing suspected terrorist from buying guns is such a bad thing. It doesn't sound to me that these laws would have taken guns away from people or prevent people who are 'good citizens' from buying a gun. Keep it civil.
Gun laws are completely meaningless when they're not enforced. Which most aren't. Just look at Chicago if you require proof of that. Along with the fact any and ALL of these new laws theses liberals are currently crying for..... "increased background checks", all of this "gun show loophole" nonsense, etc., would not have stopped any mass shooting to date. Because the shooters involved all would have passed. Ft. Hood, (An officer and a gentleman in the United States Army. If you can't trust that Muslim, how can you trust ANY of them?) The Newtown shooters mother. The San Bernardino shooters. All passed legitimate background checks under the Brady Law, that the Democrats said time and time again would cure everything. And even if they failed these so called, "increased background checks", you will NEVER eliminate "Straw Purchases". It's impossible.
The Brady Law was supposed to be the end all, cure all when it was passed in the early 90's. It included the setting up of an entire background check system, (Insta Check), that was supposed to do everything they're now crying about, over 20 years later since it was passed. Nothing is ever good enough for these people, except a total ban on guns. Which is exactly what they've wanted all along. They just know they'll never get that through. So they keep chipping away. Never to shut up.... Ever.
The FBI interviewed the Orlando shooter no less than 3 TIMES. And after all of that they let him walk. Why? Because of political pressure from Obama's gang not to single out, and or harass Muslims. So it would not have mattered if the liberal Democrats had every law on the books they ever dreamed of. Stacking up gun laws, and ENFORCING them are 2 completely different things.
And the liberal gun grabbing Democrats will NEVER be satisfied. Now they're all crying for "Sensible Gun Laws". Are they telling us the 20,000 already on the books, that they spearheaded passage of are not sensible? Then why did they want them in the first place? At some point, we as free men and gun owners have to simply say, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! We have reached that point decades ago.
So are you arguing for stricter gun laws, as its obvious the ones we have don't work? Or are you confirming that whenever the R neuters a gun control law, it no longer helps, and lets you easily point to it as faulty and blame the L?