Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy View Post
This will never get answered directly. If he answers at all, he will simply allude to any number of possibilities or abstract ideologies. There will be no proof, only conjecture. He will do everything he can to make the points of a stance, without ever committing to it so when that stance is proven wrong he can claim he never took a particular stance.

We have been through this with him dozens of times, it never changes.


As far as the speech goes, it was good until he got to the part about stacking up at the door. He is not forced to do that job, he chose to do it so he has no right to complain about the duties and dangers that come with the job. Whether he agrees with the laws he is enforcing or not is irrelevant.


I will also argue that any right minded, responsible gun owner would give up their guns and fight this in the appropriate venue if it comes to that. Shooting it out with the police does absolutely nothing to help your cause and in all reality does further damage to it.
I think it's a fair question to ask. Are you willing to sign a law that is going to inevitably be met with resistance on both fronts. A lot of police are not going to want to enforce it and a lot of citizens are not going to submit to it. For democrats to be using the chant "if we can save one life, we have to try", how can they ignore that lives will be lost to enforce gun control? While some people will fight back "in the appropriate venue", that course of action is not going to be unanimous. If the government thought everyone in America would chose "the appropriate venue"..... they would be knocking on your door right now. Given that there's no logical benefit to gun control, i think it's safe to say that resistance is both the reason they want gun control and the reason they cant have it.