Gun control strategy that satisfies both sides

You say that is the way to low gun deaths. Where is that model currently working?

 

We can have a better system.....not a perfect one

 

Don't see that as a clear precedent any more than my saying there is a clear precedent in many states that a permit is not required to bear arms.

 

Don't believe I said that in the post in question. I think you are reading into what I said.

 

A precedent means a law that currently exists that has not been ruled unconstitutional

 

Perhaps I was

 

"Better" that is like "common sense" who is going to decide when we are enough "better"? If we reduced the number of gun deaths by 1% that is better in the fact that not as many people died. But is that enough "better"?

 

Did you really just do that to me?

 

I'm not trying to be rude rich. But a precedent is a law or previous legal decision that is brought up in court.

I mean no disrespect

 

In that post I was just mentioning to Wombat, as we had discussed before, that the US might better enforce the laws it has before creating new ones.

 

That is the question for everything. How many less illegals is better? How much of a tax cut is better?

 

My point is they cant be enforced better than they are now. If they could someone could show me a place they are doing that currently

 

No worries. I was just joking. I know how it is in these forums. Sometimes hard to know exactly what someone means or understands or doesn't understand. These conversations are always different when I have them face to face with people.

I knew what meant but find it interesting talking about precedent in regard to permits. People in my area have always carried guns without permits.

 

I suppose that could also be brought up in court as current common practice so you may be right.

 

Well, since you are asking.... Taxes: all. Illegals: all.

 

There's the rich I know.


No half measures for you. Lol

 

then the constitution is wrong and therefore cant be respected

 

Like it or not it is what it is.

Good luck changing it

 

Do you honestly believe that? What about Cruz, Lanza, Kelley, Hasan, Mateen, Cho.................? In every one of those shootings there were prior indications, warning signs that if heeded would have saved many lives.

 

Maybe not a legal precedent but been going on a lot longer that permits.

 

and that makes sense....hallalooyah. As a beginning. But it likely wont be the be all and end all so changes would need to be in proportion to everyones safety overall not some peoples desire just to own a gun because they like them.

 

Why do you think there is not better enforcement then? Some of those areas are owned by conservatives so you cant blame it on.liberals

 

Interesting comment. Would you please elaborate?

 

Why did the FBI not do something about Cruz? Why did Adam Lanza's mom leave him home alone with guns when she knew he psychological issues. While Lanza's mother was not law enforcement I think it is widely accepted that we don't give guns to crazy people. Just Common Sense.

 

Those are my questions. There will always be mistakes made. Always