“Every law should be met with the question: how will this law stop the criminal misuse of guns”
That is not the goal of gun control, so it will be easy for them to lie about it.
wrong!
Every law should be met with the question what are the negative unintended consequences this will have on law abiding individuals?
That is not the goal of gun control, so it will be easy for them to lie about it.
wrong!
Every law should be met with the question what are the negative unintended consequences this will have on law abiding individuals?
Dear Grace,
Your last sentence is absolutely correct. However, that does not make DBrow's statement wrong. Your stance and his statement are not mutually exclusive.
Stopping the criminal misuse of guns may be the goal of the "useful idiots," but it is not the goal of the powers pulling the strings, and they will lie about anything if it suits their purpose.
Think of it as a form of liberal taqiyya.
Wrong. The correct question is “is this law Constitutional”.
“Any so-called negative consequences are irrelevant if we can save the life of just ONE child, gunned down by these deadly tools of death spraying destruction through our peaceful neighborhoods.”
How was that? Actually not too good- the progressive spin machine would have done it slicker.
The actual goal is civil disarmament, so that only a government will have the means to project force. We can pretend it has something to do with street crime, but you can see that the progressives really do not care about street crime or the “death toll from cheap handguns”. In fact if pressed the progressives will pretend to care greatly about street crime, while passing laws preventing you from getting a normal sized magazine, effective ammo, body armor, or a robust semiauto, all of which have more to do with equipping an effective fighting force than it does with a yoot with a Lorcin .32 auto knocking over convenience stores.