Yep, it worked for alcohol and drugs. Those were and are both SO hard to get.
Even better, as we all know, requiring a valid ID has eliminated underage drinking!
Last edited:
If criminals don't follow laws, then one could assume they won't be buying guns from anyone or person who requires a background check, right? Now if we require all "normal" avenues for gun purchases (including private sales), wouldn't that reduce the number of places where these criminals could buy guns? Sure they could get them on the black market but I'm sure you realize there isn't an actual black market one can go to, you would actually need to know people and that alone makes it more difficult and that's the point. Background checks make it harder for criminals to get guns, it doesn't make it harder (except for a tinie tiny amount of people) for law abiding citizens to get guns.
Yep, it worked for alcohol and drugs. Those were and are both SO hard to get.
Even better, as we all know, requiring a valid ID has eliminated underage drinking!
Nice! Another fantastic argument for not having any laws.
Lol
Who said we shouldn't have laws?
Lame strawman, as usual.
Are you going to claim that drug use is in any way lessened by the laws surrounding it?
You loony lefties love to compare our murder rate to Europe, citing guns as the reason for an increase. Let's compare our drug use rate to European countries where it's decriminalized/legalized. How do they compare?
Nice! Another fantastic argument for not having any laws.
And what if the person becomes mentally ill after they get their driver's license?
If someone is dangerously mentally ill, they should have their driver's license taken away. Or at least reissue a new driver's license reflecting their change in status.
Right now they usually do nothing if a person becomes mentally ill. Most of the mass shooters were known to be mentally ill, and nothing was done about them.
They're still going to drive if they want to.
Out of personal curiosity I wanted to check something. So I looked up who voted for or against and then checked against their state populations (2012 estimates based on 2010 census). If a state had its senator differ then each were given representation of half the state's population. And even though we all know Harry Reid only voted no as a procedural measure, his no vote was counted as such for purposes of population.
So by that measure, this bill was defeated despite 62.27% of the population being represented being for the passing of the bill to 37.73% being against it.
As I've said before, the people lost.
Maybe "the people" should vote more, and they'd "lose" less. Gun owners vote on background checks. NRA members vote on background checks. How many random citizens from that 90% poll would vote on background checks?
"The people" didn't lose on this, they forfeited.
Yes do the math. 75k/6 million equals what? .0125% that seems pretty fucking accurate doesn't it?
Yes do the math. 75k/6 million equals what? .0125% that seems pretty fucking accurate doesn't it?
Did you read the post I quoted that I responded to? Obviously you didn't because the poster made no comment about accurate denial rates.
But I wouldn't expect an idiot like you to understand that.
Don't you think that before you call anyone an idiot you should learn simple math?
My math skills are fine it's my writing skills that suck. I added a "%" when I shouldn't have, big fucking deal! Whether it's 1% or 2% or .0125 my point still remains.
My math skills are fine it's my writing skills that suck. I added a "%" when I shouldn't have, big fucking deal! Whether it's 1% or 2% or .0125 my point still remains.
If your laws create more lawbreakers without addressing the problem you're trying to alleviate then the laws are not worth considering.Nice! Another fantastic argument for not having any laws.
Lol
That's a mathematical error. But not a big deal.My math skills are fine it's my writing skills that suck. I added a "%" when I shouldn't have, big fucking deal! Whether it's 1% or 2% or .0125 my point still remains.
If your laws create more lawbreakers without addressing the problem you're trying to alleviate then the laws are not worth considering.
One reason I'm against drug prohibition, the laws create far worse results than just letting people choose whether they want to get stoned. People are still using drugs and there are plenty of laws that are passed in the hopes to keep drugs off the streets.
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) said:
"In the end it didn't pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it,"
Well that's what they were elected to do. Stop obama.
No, members of Congress are elected to represent the people in their district and/or state, period.
Someone like you who was so convinced Rick Perry would now be our president and that Obama was going to lose big should probably not make such authoritative statements. But please, keep inserting your foot in your mouth. It's amusing.
Republicans ran on a platform of stopping Obama. The People voted them in to accomplish that job. Happily that is what they are doing.