USA Shootings (3 Viewers)

[Sheriff Bart]

Congressman Steve King brags about red states with '8 trillion bullets'

Ha Ha we could kill a lot of Americans, ha ha, if there's a second Civil War, ha ha.  

 

[KCitons]

I really shouldn't even respond to this horrible analogy, but....

Guns are designed to kill.  Guns don't know who is guilty or innocent.   They don't know if the bullet fired out of them is going to hit a paper target or a 6 year old kid on a playground.   They just fulfill the design of their manufacture, which is to kill things (or in some cases, to simulate killing things).  Is your son's turkey shotgun for making friends with turkeys?   LAWS help prevent these deadly weapons from being misused, just like laws help prevent me from driving a Dodge Hellcat 160 miles an hour through a neighborhood full of kids.   And it has been proven--by facts, not anecdotes, lies or talking points--that stricter laws results in less gun violence.   

The major difference (obvious to any rational person) is that a car is used for transportation and for shipping which are necessary purposes in our society.   A car has a purpose that is fundamentally necessary.  So as flawed as they are, we heavily regulate their sale, registration and insurance.   We heavily regulate their operation, and we have strict penalties for misuse...including criminal penalties.

In all of your inane car analogies, you never argue that we shouldn't have laws in place involving cars.   Yet you continue to argue that we shouldn't have laws for guns.  You keep trying to rely on the second amendment, but you've shown time and time again that you don't actually understand how our laws work at all.   Your son has no right to his turkey gun.  You have no right to an AR 15.   None.  And that's an opinion from one of the most conservative justices in the history of the supreme court.  So yes, I hope your son's gun gets banned.  I hope your AR 15 gets banned.  I hope you lose the ability to carry, whether open or concealed.   Because you don't have a "right" to any of those things.   And everyone else has a right not to get shot by a gun toting idiot.

The bolded is true. What it does show is that the responsibility is not on the gun, but rather the person firing the gun. You can remove guns from society. We will still be left with a person that has bad intentions. I will look to each of you to solve that problem as well. 

The underlined proves my suspicion all along. You're not looking for compromise, you're looking to remove guns from society. I ask that people here remember those comments when they say "nobody wants to take away your guns".  

 

[KarmaPolice]

The bolded is true. What it does show is that the responsibility is not on the gun, but rather the person firing the gun. You can remove guns from society. We will still be left with a person that has bad intentions. I will look to each of you to solve that problem as well. 

The underlined proves my suspicion all along. You're not looking for compromise, you're looking to remove guns from society. I ask that people here remember those comments when they say "nobody wants to take away your guns".  

Most of us have talked about other solutions and are on board with that.  I cant think of any main poster in here that would say  guns only is a way to address problems, just that it's one of the few common denominators. 

 

[The Indestructible]

guns don't kill anyone - people choose to use them as weapons

define "a lot " ..... of all the guns in the US, how many are used every year with human death? Compare it to other things. Give me some percentages. Overall, when guns are looked at with everything else ............ is it REALLY " a lot " ?

or is that just what you see on CNN and fish's Brady Campaign rhetoric and talking points ? i've posted multiple times how guns are NOT highly likely to cause your death when compared to other things, especially AR15 and "assault rifles" ....... used in less deaths than knives and hammers.

guns are made to be tools - humans choose the purposes just like they do with drugs, knives, cars, hammers, bat's, poisons etc  Yes, I'll stand firm that guns are not designed and intended to be used to murder innocent people, no more so than cars are designed and intended to drive fast and break speeding laws/rules.

OK.  If you want to stick with your “intent” theory, I’ll go ahead and disagree with you on your own terms: I think guns are intended to kill innocent people.

 

[KCitons]

There have been quite a few new threads on the specifics of guns and gun control. I've stayed out of them mostly because there really isn't anything more that can be said. I've posted my suggestions/compromises on the current problem. Which seems to be mass shootings. Background checks, closing the gun show loophole, magazine restrictions (6 rounds instead of 10), all would have a positive impact on the situation. I am against any sort of gun registry due multiple reasons. I don't see it has having a proactive effect on mass shootings. The background checks would do more than a registry, unless you were wanting to confiscate a gun from someone. At that point, I don't trust that it would be used fairly. 

What I don't see is a lot of compromise from the anti-gun crowd. They've worked themselves into a frenzy and over the last year have gone from saying they don't want to confiscate guns, to calling for an outright ban. If the choice I'm left with is all guns or no guns, then I will be voting for all guns. I've showed willingness to compromise, others have not. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

There have been quite a few new threads on the specifics of guns and gun control. I've stayed out of them mostly because there really isn't anything more that can be said. I've posted my suggestions/compromises on the current problem. Which seems to be mass shootings. Background checks, closing the gun show loophole, magazine restrictions (6 rounds instead of 10), all would have a positive impact on the situation. I am against any sort of gun registry due multiple reasons. I don't see it has having a proactive effect on mass shootings. The background checks would do more than a registry, unless you were wanting to confiscate a gun from someone. At that point, I don't trust that it would be used fairly. 

What I don't see is a lot of compromise from the anti-gun crowd. They've worked themselves into a frenzy and over the last year have gone from saying they don't want to confiscate guns, to calling for an outright ban. If the choice I'm left with is all guns or no guns, then I will be voting for all guns. I've showed willingness to compromise, others have not. 

Who is posting or calling for and outright ban of all guns? I think most in here are pretty much on board with many of your ideas you posted besides SC.  

 

[-fish-]

OK.  If you want to stick with your “intent” theory, I’ll go ahead and disagree with you on your own terms: I think guns are intended to kill innocent people.

guns are intended to kill living things.   they have no regard for whether the target is a human or an animal, guilty or innocent.    that's one reason why they are inherently more dangerous than any other object that a regular citizen is able to own.

 

[KarmaPolice]

guns are intended to kill living things.   they have no regard for whether the target is a human or an animal, guilty or innocent.    that's one reason why they are inherently more dangerous than any other object that a regular citizen is able to own.

How do you know they weren't invented for sport shooting?

 

[-fish-]

How do you know they weren't invented for sport shooting?

Same way I know purple dildos weren't invented for juggling.

 

[KCitons]

Who is posting or calling for and outright ban of all guns? I think most in here are pretty much on board with many of your ideas you posted besides SC.  

I really shouldn't even respond to this horrible analogy, but....

Guns are designed to kill.  Guns don't know who is guilty or innocent.   They don't know if the bullet fired out of them is going to hit a paper target or a 6 year old kid on a playground.   They just fulfill the design of their manufacture, which is to kill things (or in some cases, to simulate killing things).  Is your son's turkey shotgun for making friends with turkeys?   LAWS help prevent these deadly weapons from being misused, just like laws help prevent me from driving a Dodge Hellcat 160 miles an hour through a neighborhood full of kids.   And it has been proven--by facts, not anecdotes, lies or talking points--that stricter laws results in less gun violence.   

The major difference (obvious to any rational person) is that a car is used for transportation and for shipping which are necessary purposes in our society.   A car has a purpose that is fundamentally necessary.  So as flawed as they are, we heavily regulate their sale, registration and insurance.   We heavily regulate their operation, and we have strict penalties for misuse...including criminal penalties.

In all of your inane car analogies, you never argue that we shouldn't have laws in place involving cars.   Yet you continue to argue that we shouldn't have laws for guns.  You keep trying to rely on the second amendment, but you've shown time and time again that you don't actually understand how our laws work at all.   Your son has no right to his turkey gun.  You have no right to an AR 15.   None.  And that's an opinion from one of the most conservative justices in the history of the supreme court.  So yes, I hope your son's gun gets banned.  I hope your AR 15 gets banned.  I hope you lose the ability to carry, whether open or concealed.   Because you don't have a "right" to any of those things.   And everyone else has a right not to get shot by a gun toting idiot.

 

[The Indestructible]

guns are intended to kill living things.   they have no regard for whether the target is a human or an animal, guilty or innocent.    that's one reason why they are inherently more dangerous than any other object that a regular citizen is able to own.

Yes, I agree.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I guess I shouldn't speak for fish, but my take on that exchange was that they were still discussing SC's objections to restrictions/bans what would change his son's shotgun.  As fish later said, his son would still have his gun, and that a ban <> confiscation.  

Maybe my thoughts and interpretations are getting blurred in here though too.   I guess I feel like what you are accusing people of saying is that we need to come for everybody's guns and do away with them.  

 

[Cowboysfan8]

 If he needs a semiauto shotgun to hunt turkey, he should find a new hobby.  

Needs got nothing to do with it

 

[-fish-]

Needs got nothing to do with it

Wants aren’t a very compelling argument when you’re discussing ways to prevent mass shootings.  

Its also not how the second amendment works.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Wants aren’t a very compelling argument when you’re discussing ways to prevent mass shootings.  

Its also not how the second amendment works.

I quoted you saying his kid shouldn't need a semi to hunt turkeys

 

[Stealthycat]

Mean that you bemoan people trying to force you into certain things here with your guns, but have no problem forcing women to do what you want them to.  

I've always said I'd be fine with abortion in the case of incest/rape/women's health ..... those choices the women didn't make, I get that ... however personal choice in creating a life and then intentionally having it killed isn't acceptable to me and that is 95% of abortions ..... if that's forcing someone in your opinion that's fine, I disagree.

Oddly enough, I would like to see every woman carrying some kind of means of self protection, and people like fish want them to be helpless and unarmed and victims. 

Pretty sure they have said they were designed to kill - you added the "innocent people" which was what people are having issue with.  

Using something for a different purpose doesn't ignore what they were invented to do.  Also, a vast majority of those guns weren't used for any purpose yesterday, but that also doesn't matter to the discussion or decrease their lethality.  

of course they have a problem with defining what a gun is for - if it doesn't support their view right ?

is lethality now a criteria on what we allow and not allow ? 

 

[Stealthycat]

but other posters have insisted lawn mowers are intended for and designed to mow lawns .......... that's their purpose and yet, yesterday in the USA, 500 million lawn mowers literally wasn't used for that at all

hmmmmm

what were they used for ?

 

[Stealthycat]

Sure.  I don’t care if your son’s turkey shotgun is banned.  For one, there has never been a ban with confiscation, so he’d keep it and it would never affect him.   You love to lie about this.

Even if we believed your lie, he can hunt turkey with something else, so his ability to hunt a turkey is unaffected.  If he needs a semiauto shotgun to hunt turkey, he should find a new hobby.  

there you go - anti-gunners start off with hey, they're assault weapons, nobody needs them ........... and when the laws are written and your son's turkey shogtun is impacts, you say " well he can use something else"

guess it wasn't AR15's that were being targeted after all was it ?

 

[parrot]

is lethality now a criteria on what we allow and not allow ? 

Simple question for you; should automatic and/or burst fire weapons be available for purchase over the counter?

 

[Stealthycat]

The major difference (obvious to any rational person) is that a car is used for transportation and for shipping which are necessary purposes in our society.   A car has a purpose that is fundamentally necessary.  So as flawed as they are, we heavily regulate their sale, registration and insurance.   We heavily regulate their operation, and we have strict penalties for misuse...including criminal penalties.

In all of your inane car analogies, you never argue that we shouldn't have laws in place involving cars.   Yet you continue to argue that we shouldn't have laws for guns.  You keep trying to rely on the second amendment, but you've shown time and time again that you don't actually understand how our laws work at all.   Your son has no right to his turkey gun.  You have no right to an AR 15.   None.  And that's an opinion from one of the most conservative justices in the history of the supreme court.  So yes, I hope your son's gun gets banned.  I hope your AR 15 gets banned.  I hope you lose the ability to carry, whether open or concealed.   Because you don't have a "right" to any of those things.   And everyone else has a right not to get shot by a gun toting idiot.

ok first kids at 14 can drive ... at 16 by themselves ........... that's not highly regulated and when 10-15% of people don't even have insurance or drivers licenses how are you going to hang your hat on the success of those numbers? justifying tens of thousands of dead people and literally hundreds of thousands of injuries and billions in costs so you get get from point A to point B at 70 mph is sick isn't it ?  

now, DUI actually IS something with strict penalties - and look .... 5 million still do it, 1 million still caught. Is that a success to you too ? 

in the bolded red at least you've come clean and are being honest - you don't recognize the Constitutional Right to have guns. You don't want anyone to have them. 500 million guns in the USA yesterday, exceptionally minute % used wrong. Guns are not the problem, never have been and if they truly were, you'd know it

you DO have a right to life and liberty - every law we have says that ...... nobody should try and take that with any weapon they choose to use. and that's the core issue you refuse to see. 

 

[Stealthycat]

Simple question for you; should automatic and/or burst fire weapons be available for purchase over the counter?

by OTC do you mean anyone can go into a WalGreens and by one with no age restrictions, background checks nothing and buying one in the rack next to the Bubble Gum ? ? no and nobody believes that and everyone understands that. they're illegal and have been for a very long time in the USA for most people

 

[Stealthycat]

I quoted you saying his kid shouldn't need a semi to hunt turkeys

let me say - the reason the shotgun would be banned according to some laws being passed is that its got an adjustable stock and pistol grip and red dot scope ... its got a top rail mount .... the accessories make it illegal, the looks of it. 

its still a mossberg 500 shotgun just like an AR15 is still a semi-auto .223 small caliber rifle .......... anti-gunners don't hunt, shoot etc, they have no idea about guns at all really :(  

 

[Radical Larry]

anti-gunners don't hunt, shoot etc, they have no idea about guns at all really 

Try me.

 

[Stealthycat]

And everyone else has a right not to get shot by a gun toting idiot.

does everyone have a right not to get hit on the highway by someone else's car ?

 

[Henry Ford]

that's the problem with antigunners

if it were AR15's ya'll came after, that's one thing ..... but the laws your zealots write and try to pass affects my rifles that I hunt with , my shotguns, the rifles I varmint hunt with, etc etc

I've proven this and the responses go so far as to say "oh well, you only need a single shot anyway"  all the way to "repeal the 2nd !"

its not AR15's your side wants to ban and eliminate - its all guns and you know it, I know, the Democrats know it and the NRA knows it

its not about stopping criminals or crimes, making women safer ......its about an agenda to ban, eliminate, highly restrict etc something you don't use, have or want but you want to force everyone else to do what you want them to

its bullying .... fish, you're bullying me !

Hey, how's it going. 

I'll put my gun knowledge up against yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays.  Kind of like when I proved to you that the term "Assault Rifle" was originally used by gun manufacturers to sell guns not by "antigunners" to stigmatize them.

I'm still in favor of banning semi-automatic centerfire rifles with the ability to accept magazines that hold more than ten rounds. I'll go fifteen, if that definition works better for you. 

 

[Sheriff Bart]

I know a lot about guns.  You point at what you want to die & pull the trigger. pew pew pew

 

[parrot]

by OTC do you mean anyone can go into a WalGreens and by one with no age restrictions, background checks nothing and buying one in the rack next to the Bubble Gum ? ? no and nobody believes that and everyone understands that. they're illegal and have been for a very long time in the USA for most people

So what you're saying is you completely accept that logic that there are certain classes of firearms and features that don't belong in the hands of the average Joe?  Awesome, we agree on that.  Evidently everyone does to hear you tell it.  So why all the teeth-gnashing over marginally moving a line that already exists to include other weapons that have many of the same features as those already illegal weapons?  If there's one thing that Las Vegas should have taught us it's that there ain't much difference between an illegal M-4 and a completely legal AR-15 outfitted with a $50 part.

 

[parrot]

Try me.

Same.  I think I'm technically considered a "super owner".  Own everything from a .338 Win Mag to a .17HMR.  Semi-autos, bolt actions, lever actions, pumps, single-shots.  I'm a little light on handguns right now with just a 10mm 1911, but I've owned and shot plenty of them too.  

 

[KCitons]

So what you're saying is you completely accept that logic that there are certain classes of firearms and features that don't belong in the hands of the average Joe?  Awesome, we agree on that.  Evidently everyone does to hear you tell it.  So why all the teeth-gnashing over marginally moving a line that already exists to include other weapons that have many of the same features as those already illegal weapons?  If there's one thing that Las Vegas should have taught us it's that there ain't much difference between an illegal M-4 and a completely legal AR-15 outfitted with a $50 part.

Are you talking about bump stocks? If so, time is running out. 

 

[Radical Larry]

anti-gunners don't hunt, shoot etc, they have no idea about guns at all really 

You do realize that this argument could be used by a pro-choice person as well, right?

 

[-fish-]

let me say - the reason the shotgun would be banned according to some laws being passed is that its got an adjustable stock and pistol grip and red dot scope ... its got a top rail mount .... the accessories make it illegal, the looks of it. 

its still a mossberg 500 shotgun just like an AR15 is still a semi-auto .223 small caliber rifle .......... anti-gunners don't hunt, shoot etc, they have no idea about guns at all really :(  

funny how you have to constantly make up facts to support your claims.   

 

[Sheriff Bart]

pew

pew

pew

 

[KCitons]

pew

pew

pew

troll

troll

troll

 

[Stealthycat]

Hey, how's it going. 

I'll put my gun knowledge up against yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays.  Kind of like when I proved to you that the term "Assault Rifle" was originally used by gun manufacturers to sell guns not by "antigunners" to stigmatize them.

I'm still in favor of banning semi-automatic centerfire rifles with the ability to accept magazines that hold more than ten rounds. I'll go fifteen, if that definition works better for you. 

you're not an anti-gunner, you own guns

ban guns with over 10 round magazines ... and you will not make a single difference in gun crimes. Congrats

 

[Stealthycat]

So what you're saying is you completely accept that logic that there are certain classes of firearms and features that don't belong in the hands of the average Joe?  Awesome, we agree on that.  Evidently everyone does to hear you tell it.  So why all the teeth-gnashing over marginally moving a line that already exists to include other weapons that have many of the same features as those already illegal weapons?  If there's one thing that Las Vegas should have taught us it's that there ain't much difference between an illegal M-4 and a completely legal AR-15 outfitted with a $50 part.

those marginal lines are what separates military from non-military guns and like I said and have pointed out - the laws being suggested and enacted don't just ban/target AR15 platform guns ... they go as far as impacting squirrel hunting guns, turkey hunting guns etc etc

parrot this all comes back to (A) targeting guns that are used in 1-2% of all gun crimes while ignoring the 98% of guns that are and (B) ignoring the core problems of the people doing these crimes

literally in a store I stop at every day and very close to where I work this happened

#1 illegal to have those guns

#2 illegal to rob a store

#3 illegal to kill someone

they broke so many laws ................. laws do NOT bind criminals parrot. I am so sad for the family of the man those thugs killed, I wish someone in that store had had a means of self protection, some way to fight off thugs with guns/superior force.

if it were me, death penalty next week for these thugs but they'll get light sentences, they'll be out committing crimes and robbery and more murders in 5-10 years thanks to our judicial system that liberals stroke. 

https://www.fox16.com/crime/no-bond-for-2-teens-charged-in-nlr-homicide/1860523194

 

[Sheriff Bart]

troll

troll

troll

I want laws put in place to reduce mass shootings.  You say that can't happen because of automobiles.  If that makes me a troll, so be it.

BTW,  I was in ROTC back in the day but know I couldn't possibly know anything about rifles like you and Stealthy.

 

[Stealthycat]

Are you talking about bump stocks? If so, time is running out. 

bump stocks will be banned

and it will make ZERO difference in gun crimes - like literally .... ZERO

 

[Stealthycat]

I want laws put in place to reduce mass shootings.  You say that can't happen because of automobiles.  If that makes me a troll, so be it.

BTW,  I was in ROTC back in the day but know I couldn't possibly know anything about rifles like you and Stealthy.

can we discuss this ? I mean without all the fish nonesense talk ?

we don't allow mass shootings, right now. we have laws against shooting anyone short of self defense, we have age laws to buy, background checks, no gun zones. we literally have hundreds of laws to do what you are asking - 

now what? you think 10 more laws will help ?

 

[KarmaPolice]

bump stocks will be banned

and it will make ZERO difference in gun crimes - like literally .... ZERO

How about a difference in casualties? 

 

[Stealthycat]

How about a difference in casualties? 

tell me -  in the last 50 years, how many times a bump stock has been used in a crime? once is the answer as far as I know ............. literally every other crime using guns were NOT bump stock

the difference in casualties? literally every other time in the last 50 years except that one time in Vegas

but hey .... lets pass a law that bans those and pat ourselves on the back on what a difference we've made  :(     

you honestly don't believe any difference was made made right? and I'm ok with bump stock bans - but they'll make zero difference. Obama's administration should have said no to those IMO to begin with

 

[-fish-]

SC back to “we shouldn’t adopt laws because criminals don’t obey laws.”

Except it is a proven, verifiable fact that stricter gun laws result in less gun violence, so this NRA talking point is completely wrong.   

You’ve run out of bogus arguments, so you just repeat the lies the NRA tells you.

 

[KarmaPolice]

tell me -  in the last 50 years, how many times a bump stock has been used in a crime? once is the answer as far as I know ............. literally every other crime using guns were NOT bump stock

the difference in casualties? literally every other time in the last 50 years except that one time in Vegas

but hey .... lets pass a law that bans those and pat ourselves on the back on what a difference we've made  :(     

you honestly don't believe any difference was made made right? and I'm ok with bump stock bans - but they'll make zero difference. Obama's administration should have said no to those IMO to begin with

So that's a "no" then. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

can we discuss this ? I mean without all the fish nonesense talk ?

we don't allow mass shootings, right now. we have laws against shooting anyone short of self defense, we have age laws to buy, background checks, no gun zones. we literally have hundreds of laws to do what you are asking - 

now what? you think 10 more laws will help ?

So you are saying you are good where we are at and are fine with the level of mass shootings and casualties? 

Or do your ideas not require any more laws and rules? 

 

[KCitons]

bump stocks will be banned

and it will make ZERO difference in gun crimes - like literally .... ZERO

Would it have made a difference in the Vegas shooting? Any difference?

 

[KCitons]

I want laws put in place to reduce mass shootings.  You say that can't happen because of automobiles.  If that makes me a troll, so be it.

BTW,  I was in ROTC back in the day but know I couldn't possibly know anything about rifles like you and Stealthy.

Have I made any suggestions on regulations that would effect mass shootings? Please show me where I said it can't happen because of automobiles? I said that we have an acceptable number of deaths because of other things. Nobody wants to put a number of acceptable number of mass shootings in exchange for the right to own guns. Why the difference?

Also, I never said you didn't know anything about guns. So, misplace your anger towards someone else. Stopping in to post pew, pew, pew, makes you a troll. Rarely do you have a post that adds anything constructive to this thread. That makes you a troll. 

 

[Stealthycat]

SC back to “we shouldn’t adopt laws because criminals don’t obey laws.”

I have NEVER said that

ever

and neither has anyone here nor gun owners nor the NRA -- are you smoking dope today ?

 

[Stealthycat]

So you are saying you are good where we are at and are fine with the level of mass shootings and casualties? 

Or do your ideas not require any more laws and rules? 

not fine at all ....  we need to stop airplanes flying into buildings but not by banning airplanes, we need to stop people using u-haul trucks as bombs but not by banning uhaul trucks .... we need to stop these people who do violent things, these criminals without negatively impacting law abiding people. 

how did we as a society reduce DUI's ? education in schools, harsh penalties ..... we didn't ban cars, we didn't ban alcohol.

what good are more laws and rules other than to just have criminals walk through them too ? 

we have common sense gun laws right now in the USA .......... we need way harsher penalties for crimes using guns, we need better stoppage when we know people have issues (Nikolas Cruz) We've seen many schools go to armed guards .... what's the impact been ? WAY less school shootings ! amazing ... Bidens gun free zone laws failed massively just like we knew it would.

those laws / changes would help ........ banning one of the least used guns and impacting people who hunt and shoot and collect? won't help a damned bit

 

[Stealthycat]

Would it have made a difference in the Vegas shooting? Any difference?

absolutely none no

did you listen to the recordings ? I can pull a trigger just as fast can't you ?

 

[KCitons]

absolutely none no

did you listen to the recordings ? I can pull a trigger just as fast can't you ?

You know, you and I are one of very few people on the pro gun side. But, you don't help the situation with comments like this. 

It's the reason I rarely engage you in conversation. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

I've always said I'd be fine with abortion in the case of incest/rape/women's health ..... those choices the women didn't make, I get that ... however personal choice in creating a life and then intentionally having it killed isn't acceptable to me and that is 95% of abortions ..... if that's forcing someone in your opinion that's fine, I disagree.

I am pretty sure that you are for laws that don't allow those women to make that choice either, which is forcing them to treat their bodies how you want them to.    Like I said, that feels weird to think that way (and a woman choosing to do that has absolutely 0 impact on you or your life in any way), but complain that people want to force you to hunt a certain way or with a lesser gun that you want to through proposed laws and rules.  Like I said, I just find that reasoning a little odd.  But alas, this isn't the abortion/gun crossover thread.