I don't but most certainly far too many of your fellow countrymen do then go on to live out their fantasies Next mass school shooting in the near post, and still you won't care as long as your guns are safe
to be fair, if he is a police officer he is going to have a gun anyway. I think it is more a cultural thing regarding his obsession rather then a practical one.
Pray tell what is the basis for so much hyperbolic, emotional nonsense being presented in place of an actual, legitimate argument?
Which is a felony offense for both parties. And yet the ATF almost never pursues a prosecution for such, despite the evidence of the crime being documented on the form.
It can be done, but first it must be demonstrated just what evidence is being utilized as the rational basis for the argument being presented by yourself. What is the reasoning that leads yourself to assert what such absolute certainty, that those who legally own firearms in the united states do so out of supposedly liking that they have the ability to kill someone? What is the basis behind such a belief? That they do not readily restrict firearms access and use, when such is recognized and guaranteed by their constitution, and has long been used in the protection of innocent lives by those who have been subject to violent attack by criminal individuals? Such uses are documented in the news media, showing that they do indeed occur. It must be understood, what is the basis for the belief that the public of the united states truly wishes to engage in so-called "Dirty Harry" fantasies? What does such even mean in this particular case? If such can be explained by yourself, showing the methodology behind such beliefs, it will be able for the matter to be refuted on the part of myself through citations of relevant and pertinent facts. Is such acceptable? The give and take approach to doing business, devoid of political bluster or loyalty to ideology?
Incorrect. The ATF choosing not to prosecute individuals who commit straw purchases has been a longstanding problem for decades even before Donald Trump ever became president of the united states. Even when prosecutions do occur, the punishment for knowingly supplying firearms to criminals is meager. Such as the individual from the state of Illinois who was in possession of a valid firearm owner identification card, who knowingly trafficked four firearms to prohibited individuals, one of which was used in the murder of a law enforcement officer, and they received nothing more than a year of community service and probation for their part.
The absence of the aforementioned information referred to above. Such must be presented so that the individual, yourself in this matter, may be addressed, rather than the ideology itself being addressed. While some choose to identify by their ideology, this is an incorrect standard that leads to issues being clouded. In this matter what is believed by yourself is not as relevant as why it is believed. Once such is known, such can be adequately addressed. Consider it the intellectual equivalent of an olive branch being offered.
Donald Trump can change that today if he wants. He does not even need congressional approval. He must be soft on crime
Except for the simple fact that he cannot. Donald Trump may possess a significant degree of legal authority as president of the united states, but he cannot force individual ATF agents to refer straw purchasing cases for prosecution, nor can he force prosecutors to actually bring charges against the accused.
The claim is yours that Donald Trump is soft on crime for not forcing the ATF do pursue firearm-related restrictions for prosecution. You prove that he does indeed have such authority to order such be done.
No concession is being made. It is merely being stated that there is a need on the part of yourself to actually prove the claims being made by yourself.
the claim was made on the part of yourself, after it was pointed out that straw purchases not being prosecuted has been an existing problem for decades.
