doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Do We Need More Gun Laws?

We have over 20,000 "Gun Laws" on the books in our Country at present. When queried awhile back regarding the lack of prosecution of those who lie on gun applications which is a Federal offense V P Joe Biden stated the following: "The Federal Government doesn't have the resources to go after all those who break the law"! That just about sums up everything one needs to know about more gun laws.
Jim

No, the US doesn't need 20,000 gun laws. Canada has, in effect, one under federal legislation, same from Atlantic to Pacific to Arctic oceans.

But what can you say for one of the highest US houses of governance voting down measures to deny possession of guns to officially suspected terrorists?

That just about sums up everything one needs to know about more gun laws.

No-we need fewer Muslims and ISIS camel humpers here in America. We have gun laws up the ass, but the enforcement of the infamous 1968 laws against the Muslims and other minorities here is lax- but in some wise, a moot point- if the came humper who killed 50 folks in Orlando wanted an assault style weapon, he can always steal one. Like they do in Chicago. What I want to know is- when wil the SHTF for the FBI office in FL, when the owner of the LOTUS gun store refused to sell this now dead (Allah be praised) idiot the full body armor and large quantities of ammo. FBI dropped the ball (again) on that one- they had this idiot on their terrorist watch, and guess what happened. We don't need more laws (like the idiotic magazine capacity concept-what a joke that is) we need ENFORCEMENT.

I recently saw the fizzling out of four measures aimed at the denying of possession for law abiding US citizens. Where did you get the information that it's currently okay for terrorists to illegally use firearms? The illegal use of firearms really should already be against the law. I think in fairness, wouldn't now be the appropriate time to ridicule dems who 'feel' that using the filibuster is childish? reid will get his little chunk of air time anyway. But hey, good news, didn't justice Thomas signal that he may retire after the general election?

Couple of quick observations:

I watched the voting process on C-Span yesterday. None of the four proposals were going to do much of anything to stop terrorists or future mass-shootings. What is sad is how our elected officials are so divided among party lines. It was classic "you didn't vote for ours, so we are not voting for yours." And the rhetoric coming from the left is shameful.

That old gas-bag Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren ranting and raving from her wigwam on Capitol Hill is almost comical yet sad.

I guess my question is, they want to keep people on the "no-fly" or "terrorist watch list" from being able to buy firearms. If you are on either list, why are you free to walk amongst us?

I would rather a greater effort be made vetting people coming in, preventing terrorists from getting here in the first place, and capturing and deporting the ones that are here. But that will never happen under the current administration.

During WWII, the FBI hunted down Nazi agents, spies, and operators with extreme prejudice. Nobody cared too much about "political correctness" or offending Germany then.

I hope you all get out and vote against Hillary in November.

Gun laws only work if they are enforced and reasonable. Drugs are regulated and outlawed but that has not worked out too well in the War on Drugs. The anti gun people's equivalent to banning all guns would be banning all drugs and prescription durgs. Not reasonable.

20,000 or 40,000 laws makes no difference because the people they are targeted to regulate or stop have zero intention of following any of them. We have lost control of too much. Borders are open, criminals do not fear arrest or conviction, politicians only job is to get reelected. PC is a disease. The Courts protect the fringe and ignore that they are to enforce the Constitution and those legal laws on the books.

We need term limits, ban from taking post government lobby jobs of any nature. We need a Constitution amendment that electoral college votes are to be by congressional districts with the two senators for each state to the state winner. This would restore the balance that large states have that throws almost every Presidental election to one party. We also need a shorter soap box for me to stand on.

Not quite - what the Senate did was not allow the government to deny a federally protected constitutional right without due process of law. Like it or not even suspected terrorists are considered innocent until proven guilty.

When a $500 3D printer can make a usable AR-type rifle from a set of plans anyone can download from the 'net, all the laws in the world won't stop a determined killer. I'm sure we can make it more difficult for criminals and terrorists to obtain firearms without infringing on the rights of the law-abiding. But it's a fool's errand to even think that someone who's set on murder, mass or otherwise, will be stopped because the clerk in a gunshop says "we can't sell you a gun today."

I think perhaps some of you overlooked the irony in Biden's statement I covered in my initial post. He's now proposing more gun laws to go along with the gun laws that are not enforced due to lack of resources today. I don't know how many laws and regulations we have in our Country but in the millions wouldn't surprise me in the least. Many are inane and some are so outdated that they're somewhat of a joke.

Hunters located in Alabama take note:

In Alabama, for example, it's a criminal "offense against public health and morals" to engage in a whole host of activities on Sunday, including playing cards. Shooting, hunting, gaming and racing are also prohibited and carry a fine of $10 to $100. Worse, you could be imprisoned or sentenced to hard labor for no more than three months for any of these "immoral" acts [source: Justia].

"Democracies make choices. Americans accept mass murder to defend an individual right to bear arms in the name of personal freedom."

Everyone who is concerned about a lack of gun law enforcement ought to be agitating in favor of adequate staffing and funding for the agencies tasked with enforcement. Many federal agencies fail to perform their missions better because they lack adequate funding. Hamstringing an agency with inadequate funding fulfills the far right's prophecy that government is a waste of time and money.