Replies

I find it advantages, when looking at legal questions, to not only look at the immediate problem in front of you that they propose to address, but to also look at the bigger picture of what they might be able to address in the future. Or, to put it another way, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

Indeed, that's one of my favorite quotes when it comes to gun control.

But the thing is, we've passed a hell of a lot of mile markers with the 20,000 gun laws on the books today. And though there are people who may have a philosophical problem with preventing criminals, wife-beaters, and dangerously insane people from legally buying guns, the state of affairs we're faced with today has been defined by the other side of that philosophical debate.

And this bill is just part and parcel of the victory that the other side of that philosophical debate won years ago with GCA '68, the Brady Bill, and the National Instant Check System.

"But the thing is, we've passed a hell of a lot of mile markers with the 20,000 gun laws on the books today. "

And I suppose that is where I am getting confused on the position that you are taking here.

It seems to me that we already have more than enough laws on the books covering gun control, too many in fact. Do we not just need to enforce the laws we currently have instead of spending time passing more?