One of the guns I bought for somebody who couldn't pass a background check is used in a crime.

The police come to me and ask where the gun is and how it came to be used in a crime. I say "Gee, officer, I don't know. I keep it in my closet. Let me check.....Wow! It doesn't seem to be here any more. I guess it was stolen."

Yeah, seems like a great solution.

... that adding more unenforceable laws won't end crime?!

Man! You're harshing my meme.

> Are you saying ... that adding more unenforceable laws won't end crime?!

Yeah, let's get rid of speed limits because they get broken all the time!



You get bonus points for parroting this particular NRA Talking Point for the 100 trillionth time on DU!

You really aren't very good at this

You get 3 for that one.

> He said "unenforceable laws"...speeding laws are obviously enforceable

That's his opinion. And yours.

You get 10 for your blatant claim to be logical - while being even more illogical.

you look at the sign, then you look at the number on the radar gun. If the second one is higher then you're speeding.

Now find a clear way to prove that someone was aware a gun was stolen from their property within the last 72 hours.

/no, I don't expect an answer other than smilies. I just wanted to point out the silliness of your comments for others.

Yours is one of those Deluxe Strawman "arguments" that the Delicate Flowers are so fond of.

Here is the post I responded to:

> Are you saying ...... that adding more unenforceable laws won't end crime?!

Obviously nothing about "a gun was stolen from their property within the last 72 hours"

You Delicate Flowers should spend more time taking classes in logic and common sense. You're wasting so much time on constructing elaborate Strawmen.



Edited to add: Obviously you "literal thinker" Delicate Flowers won't get it, but the other Delicate Flower said "adding more unenforceable laws won't end crime", making it a global statement about gun laws being unenforceable.

I hope my added explanation, which is something I would have to do for junior high and below students when illustrating argumentation, bodes well for your understanding. But I have this sneaking suspicion it won't.....

but I had thought you at least skimmed the articles.

You: Obviously nothing about "a gun was stolen from their property within the last 72 hours"

You Delicate Flowers should spend more time taking classes in logic and common sense. You're wasting so much time on constructing elaborate Strawmen.

OP: The so-called “lost or stolen” law would require gun owners to report a lost or stolen gun within 72 hours of noticing it is missing. It would help discourage “straw buyers” who purchase numerous guns legally in the suburbs and then sell them to felons in Chicago.

> always assumed you didn't really read any responses

WOW! You didn't read my post, and then posted yours, and accused me of doing what YOU JUST DID! You didn't read my point about how the original post that I responded to used verbiage that expanded the gist of the argument beyond the 72 hour law, and into the NRA Talking Point "criminals don't obey laws so why have them?"

Projection & Strawmen - the "profound arguments" of the Delicate Flowers. Mix in a lack of understanding of argumentation, logic, and rhetoric and you get the fevered, fear-filled brains that need guns, guns, GUNS!

just by stating it so.

You swept your hand and declared that other comment had nothing to do with the OP.

The person who wrote it never said that.

WOW! You didn't read my post, and then posted yours, and accused me of doing what YOU JUST DID! You didn't read my point about how the original post that I responded to used verbiage that expanded the gist of the argument beyond the 72 hour law, and into the NRA Talking Point "criminals don't obey laws so why have them?"

> Yeah, you don't get to change the meaning of other people's comments just by stating it so.

I know you're new to the English language, but I didn't. He did. Here is his post:

> Are you saying ... that adding more unenforceable laws won't end crime?!

"more unenforceable laws" means "laws that are unenforceable (like current ones)". That's what that word "more" means. It means something added to an existing item.

I typed that very slowly so you would understand it. You can also check out what "more" means at dictionary.com



> if your arguments against guns were so strong would you have to rely exclusively on strawmen, lies, and smilies?

With so much Precious worship, why can't you Delicate Flowers think of something other than NRA Talking Points (AKA Big Lies)?

unenforceable law.

"more unenforceable laws" means "laws that are unenforceable (like current ones)". That's what that word "more" means. It means something added to an existing item.

> In this case the 72 hour law. That would be a new law. Hence "more".

Wrong. In that case, he would've said "another unenforceable law". Key is "law" vs "laws".

Is English your native language?

Calling your argument weak would be an overstatement.

I'm glad the average grabber has your intellect. I feel much safer knowing that you will never be able to put together a coherent argument, meaning our gun rights are perfectly safe.

You've no doubt noticed that your side (using your same high level of reasoning) has lost every major battle and is losing public support in droves.

That is actually worth laughing over. You've done for gun rights what the WBC did for gay rights.

> Calling your argument weak would be an overstatement.

Yeah, I guess in your world the word "law" = "laws". Good luck with that.

What language is your native tongue?

to build your argument around a misunderstanding of the language on your part. Well, it's that kind of bold and original thinking that managed to win over the majority of the country to . . . the other side.

> to build your argument around a misunderstanding of the language on your part

No misunderstanding on my part. I know the difference between the two words "law" and "laws". Obviously you don't. Good luck with that!

if you ever have a gun stolen.

Among other things.

That's his solution.

at a central government location.

Oh wait, he doesn't have a Congresscritter does he?

It's a pointless law since no paperwork is required to give a gun away or a private sale. They'd just say, "oh I sold/gave it to so and so". I also think I'm getting tired of you spamming your blog.

I guess this is good-bye then?

My solution is a more comprehensive and effective one.

Get rid of those speed limits! Too many people break them!



Don't you Delicate Flowers get sick of parroting the same long-debunked NRA Talking Points over and over like, well, parrots?

Sounds reasonable to me.

Sure, the excuse, it must have been stolen and I didn't even know it might work once,but the fear of explaining it to the cops might put a little fear and thought into breaking the law.

That law, along with background checks on private sales of handgun could put a big dent in straw sales.

But, you should check it out. You might learn something if you slip out of your echo chamber of a moment.

No, you haven't.

You never do.

so if you want us to read your "my way is better" idea, then post it here and we'll read and debate it.

As the speaker of the Illinois House for 32 years, Madigan (D) does what he sees fit to do. If he wanted a new piece of legislation passed he does it.

John Cullerton (D) does the same in the Illinois Senate.

Governor Quinn (D) signs what Madigan tells him to sign.

Are you suggesting that all these senior level Dems are being pushed around by the NRA?

Or are you talking through your rear again about something you don't know jack about?

Yup.

to someone you met on craigslist, are you obligated to do a background check of their driving record, check for a current drivers license, and make sure they have insurance while giving them a breathalyzer before handing them the keys?

I gave in an gave him a click on his counter. Here is his way. Nothing new.

"Registration of newly bought firearms to individual licensed owners would largely put a stop to this. The new gun owner would have to renew that registration after three months and every year thereafter by presenting the documents and the gun itself to the police. "

And when this law failed to accomplish anything he would want another restriction on guns.

into police stations.

They love seeing citizens with firearms.

And I'm sure they are fully staffed and have the manpower to deal with Mikey's new bureaucratic paper pushing paradigm.

I'm sure your way would be wildly successful. Of course, when i say wildly successful i mean, adding one more incremental step toward complete civilian disarmament. That is your goal isn't it?

For reducing crime, on the other hand, it will have no effect.

how well has that worked out keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?
Admit it Mike, your ultimate goal is a total ban of guns, this is just a first step, C'mon, be honest and admit it.

Last time I had to take one for the team like that I was in high school.

Now go hit the showers.

As far as your idea, yeah, registration now, confiscation next.

Someone doesn't have a clue about how many guns are legally owned in the U.S., does he? Re-registering every year? I cannot imagine the record-keeping nightmare scenario that would create. It would cost untold millions of dollars in overtime and administrative work.

Even in a small town it would be chaos. And let's not even begin to discuss when Elmer Fudd shows up with his duck destroyer that he didn't bother to check for a shell and then blows a hole through someone or something while everyone is dutifully lined up to show their papers. Or the guy who has to bring fifty or even a hundred rifles to be checked in. Maybe the police should just go door to door to round up stragglers and search the homes for unregistered items? I can think of so much fail in this plan I'd better just stop while I'm ahead.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be anywhere near my station precinct if that were to happen. I would feel safer out on the street than there.

were dedicated to keeping tabs on law abiding gun owners rather than arresting criminals.

If you thought the war on drugs made us safe from harm and secured our rights just wait until this war on guns starts.

you could at least give people something worth reading when they get there.

... traffic has been cut in half.

Appears you don't know what it means when something is lost or stolen Mikey.

any time ANYTHING is stolen, it must be reported within 72 hours. You can't make it only for guns.

"That's good, but my way is better. "

What is your way? I'm not going to click on your blog, if you have a better way to present, present it without flogging your blog.

What's your way?

Thanks to the fellow up-thread who posted from your blog:

"Registration of newly bought firearms to individual licensed owners would largely put a stop to this. The new gun owner would have to renew that registration after three months and every year thereafter by presenting the documents and the gun itself to the police. "

Any gun control idea that includes registration of firearm owners is a non-starter.

The intent of the second amendment is to keep military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians so that they can engage in warfare if necessary, including against a tyrannical government.

Giving the government a list of firearm owners undermines that intent.

I don't mind universal licensing, so long as it is opt-out, and not opt-in. This preserves anonymous firearm ownership.

And of course, for compromising and giving in to licensing, I expect to be able to buy firearms through the mail again, since the only reason we have middle-men today is for background checks. A license negates that need.