Wow -- you tell me I'm wrong and then state that I wasn't.
Agreed, but because this will be a long time comming, why not just start seriously enforcing the gun laws already in place. If everybody up and down the food chain had done their job, the recent Texas assassin, would not have had the guns he used.
When you are right, Mr Goss, you are astoundingly right. Enforce the 10,000 or more existing gun laws effectively and no one will have or be able to purchase even a picture of a gun. The insanity of rules, decisions and practices related to gun suppression boggle the mind.
And the 2008 case of a three day student suspension for a ball point pen with GLOCK on the barrel.
Except for all the gun regulations that have been rescinded or weakened. And the numbers of people killed went up.
But then again, you guys want more people killed. The gun industry always makes huge profits every time there's a mass shooting, and now that the hated Obama is out of office, you need more mass shootings to keep those sales up.
G=G+1 out of context based on a dishonest misquote.
Not sure what you are talking of? Do you or do you not want existing laws fully enforced?
Objection your honor, in logic, and law, this is what is called a complicated question and should be rephrased.
Reason being that this is a binary question that can not be honestly answered with a simple yes no answer.
If I say "yes" it implies all laws, enacted wheneveer, and where ever irrespective a to whether they are unambiguously appropirate, logical, or not, should be enforced.
If I say "no" it implies that existing laws, whether good or bad, etc. should not be a enforced.
If there is something which I literally said, simply restated it, then ask your question in that context.
Either way, your post is a dishonest way of not dealing with my point.