today on MHP

[branford]

25. Nice strawman argument.

No one here has suggested ending background checks or that any law must be 100% effective. Nevertheless, any proposed law, firearm or otherwise, must at least demonstrate a minimum threshold of effectiveness for its intended purpose and not unduly punish or restrict other innocent, law-abiding citizens.

Discussions about firearm regulation require at least a modicum of good faith. If gun control advocates continually suggest certain proposals such as UBC's in response to mass shootings, it hardly surprising that people expect evidence that such proposals will actually reduce or mostly eliminate mass shootings, all before considerations such as constitutionality or practical concerns of how such policies will impact innocent people.

Simply, UBC's would not have prevented ANY mass (and most, if not all, other high profile) shootings in the last few decades. This fact has even been admitted by the White House. If you claim UBC's are justified by mass shootings, such a proposal need not be 100% effective, but it certainly must be better than 0% effective!

If any firearm event simply engenders the same old wish list of gun control advocates, many of whom would prefer an effective civilian ban and confiscation of firearms (such as Obama's and Clinton's praise of the Australian model), regardless of the facts and circumstances of events purportedly underlining the proposals, evidence that the ideas haven't or will not work, and ignoring the needs and interests of tens of millions of their fellow Americans, such ideas will be met in the spirit and seriousness that they were offered, and summarily rejected.

If you want to restrict the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, it is you who must demonstrate that your proposals are constitutional, broadly effective and actually address a specific problem, and don't unduly harm or restrict people who pose no thread. Ridiculous strawman arguments, attempts at emotional blackmail, and childish insults will not only lead to no further firearm regulations, but will serve to harden opposition to your ideas.