Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro
The Brady group was more or less defeated when the AWB of 1994 ended (2004) as it was shown to not work. The mention of Columbine (1999), that happened while the AWB was in effect nation wide. Laws put in to place after Columbine have also proved ineffective (safety locks and ban on importation of high capacity magazines, plus making it a crime for criminals and minors to buy guns. Also K-mart stopped selling ammunition for handguns.)
|
Unfortunately it's not so simple as "we tried it, and it failed". That's like saying "we tried to regulate banks, but it didn't work". There are forces at play with agendas to make sure they don't work just as there was forces to put those regulations there in the first place. Gun control regulation shouldn't be as cut and dry as "if at first you don't succeed, fuck it". Regulations serve a purpose,
if they can be properly enforced.
Any serious look at the problem can tell you that no, our gun regulations are enforced pretty poorly. Yeah, we have a lot of laws, but we lack the regulatory power to do anything with them. Just look at the ATF: no director for six years, can't keep a gun registration database, background checks must be destroyed within 24 hours.....does this sound like a serious attempt, or a joke?
That's why I'm comfortable with saying that guns should be a right, while also saying that we need to do this better. Responsible owners shouldn't be punished, but the situation as it exists is inexcusable. You can pull out any statistic you like, but there are problems here regarding gun regulation and the mechanisms behind why regulation is so weak. And it's not just guns. Just look at HSBC - a bank that got caught laundering money for drug cartels, provided services for nations circumventing banking sanctions, etc. No one goes to jail, and the "fine" is basically profit for a few weeks. That's not even a slap on the wrist. It's an insult to the very concept of the rule of law.