Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your argument is pointless. Speeders get punished when they get caught, there are police patrols and radar guns that are used specifically to catch speeders. Unlike you apparently, cops can't be everywhere at once.
You still miss the entire point of this thread, this woman GOT caught breaking numerous federal laws and received no punishment. Try to catch up here, we'll slow down a bit for you
She was sentenced but the judges decision was light, she could have gone away for 10 years. So because you don't like the decision you feel that there should be no background checks. I have seen speeders and more severe crimes get reduced, that doesn't mean the laws are not working. One anecdote does not make a case.
Meanwhile there is another thread indicating an owner should be able to sell a gun to pretty much anyone without a background check.
She was sentenced but the judges decision was light, she could have gone away for 10 years. So because you don't like the decision you feel that there should be no background checks.
If you can find where in this thread where I made any argument for or against background checks, then you're reading far too much into what people are saying, I never mentioned it once. You really should start paying attention.
I think I will propose a "New Law" to make it illegal to ignore a Law that covers an original Law that replaced a Law that wasn't working. Problem solved.
Well using that logic we shouldn't have speed limits.
Driving out here at speed limits, and getting passed by everyone else out there, is ample proof that Speeding Laws are just as effective as Gun Laws. No one pays any attention to them, and they are useless.
She was sentenced but the judges decision was light, she could have gone away for 10 years. So because you don't like the decision you feel that there should be no background checks. I have seen speeders and more severe crimes get reduced, that doesn't mean the laws are not working. One anecdote does not make a case.
Meanwhile there is another thread indicating an owner should be able to sell a gun to pretty much anyone without a background check.
A law that you can't enforce is a waste of time and energy. What are you going to do, assign everyone their own cop? I don't mind submitting myself to background checks, but it is a waste of resources that could be used elsewhere.
With so many racists to hunt down Obamas justice department just doesn't have time to prosecute every straw purchase or illegal purchase attempt.
So how Will making new/more laws than the already 36 help that problem? You said too many people committing crime against existing laws so we want to create more laws... You okay?
You can thank Obama and his administration for that. Regardless of what any other administration has done the people in charge today are not doing their duty.
Lying on the form is a felony. We don't need more gun laws when the government refuses to enforce existing laws.
What he did had not been against any law, for 220 years prior.........
Show me where in the US Constitution, that the federal, state, or local governments have any authority to place any restrictions on guns?? Show me! I can show you why they don't have any authority.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
