Ted Cruz takes Alyssa Milano to Bible study — with an NRA edition of the Bible

[Syne]

The fantasy is that passing legislation can stop all crime. That no criminal deprived of a gun will resort to a knife, acid, a car, or a bomb. People are so afraid of inanimate objects that they completely fail to appreciate what other objects can be made equally as dangers in the wrong hands.

Of course.  No one thinks that laws against murder, manslaughter or even harming someone else will stop all instances of those things.  Still, we make it illegal to drive drunk to reduce (not eliminate) the people someone else can harm with their car.  It's not a fear of an inanimate object (a car) - it's merely a way to reduce the risk to innocent people on the road.

And drunk driving deaths are not planned and intentional, so faulty analogy. Hell, you even list murder and manslaughter separately, so you'd think you'd know that.

[Zinjanthropos]

What’s the difference between a drunk driving a car and a psycho holding a gun? Ans: it’s legal for a psycho to hold a gun. (Hey, I thought it was cute)

Anybody know if it’s legal for a drunk to carry a gun? Just checked....Not legal

I guess I have to ask myself whether I’d rather be near a drunk illegally in possession of a firearm than a psycho legally doing the same?

[Syne]

What’s the difference between a drunk driving a car and a psycho holding a gun? Ans: it’s legal for a psycho to hold a gun. (Hey, I thought it was cute)

Anybody know if it’s legal for a drunk to carry a gun? Just checked....Not legal

I guess I have to ask myself whether I’d rather be near a drunk illegally in possession of a firearm than a psycho legally doing the same?

The only time it would be legal for a "psycho" to have a gun would be when no one knows it's a psycho. Or do you have a foolproof way to predict who's going to go psycho? O_o

[C C]

UPDATE: ‘Gracious’ Ted Cruz Has ‘Positive, Civil & Substantive’ Meeting With Alyssa Milano
https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/10/ted-c...sa-milano/

EXCERPT: Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and actress Alyssa Milano had their much-anticipated meeting to discuss gun control Tuesday,  and Cruz called it “a positive, civil & substantive conversation.” The meeting came as a result of a Twitter exchange last weekend, when Milano asked where the Bible said gun ownership was a “god-given right.” Cruz interjected with a lengthy response that equated gun ownership with self-defense and hence subject to Scriptural instruction.

[...] The actress and liberal political activist told Cruz: “I wanted to look you in the eye and know that you have a heart beat.” After telling the senator that she believes he has become a “caricature” because of his views on Second Amendment rights, Milano allowed that Cruz is “a smart, smart man” who is capable of  “evolving” politically. ”I’m asking you and I’m begging you to have the courage to lead because I think you could be an instrument part of the solution.”

Cruz and Milano did manage to find some common ground when Cruz said, “I want background checks to be strong and more effective and [to] keep weapons out of the hand of violent felons and fugitives and people with dangerous mental problems.” (MORE - details)

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Y7zzILCHNU0

[Syne]

Cruz and Milano did manage to find some common ground when Cruz said, “I want background checks to be strong and more effective and [to] keep weapons out of the hand of violent felons and fugitives and people with dangerous mental problems.” (MORE - details)

Yep. How many illegal gun owners are due to faulty background check records?
Another thing bureaucracies are bad at.

[Zinjanthropos]

An armed drunk in a bar has mental problems simply by being intoxicated/impaired. So we are aware of or recognize a potential hazard. If you had knowledge that a gun owner has mental problems would you feel the same way?

 In a democracy, doesn’t the govt represent you, your voice? Is not one of the most important duties of a govt to protect its citizens? 

https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/r...s-and-guns

Tough call, the mentally unstable are also citizens. Then again, why go through all the trouble gathering data and not use it?

[Syne]

An armed drunk in a bar has mental problems simply by being intoxicated/impaired. So we are aware of or recognize a potential hazard. If you had knowledge that a gun owner has mental problems would you feel the same way?

Yep, so long as the citizen's right to due process is respected.

 In a democracy, doesn’t the govt represent you, your voice? Is not one of the most important duties of a govt to protect its citizens? 

Yep, and it also has the duty to protect the rights of its citizens, like the right to life and to defend oneself. Law enforcement simply cannot be everywhere all the time.

https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/r...s-and-guns

Tough call, the mentally unstable are also citizens. Then again, why go through all the trouble gathering data and not use it?

Democrats are not interested in policies that could actually prevent gun crimes. They are just intent on attacking guns.

[Zinjanthropos]

If law enforcement can’t be everywhere then does that suggest there are more criminal acts taking place than can be handled? IOW the govt cannot adequately protect its citizens. Would that be a right infringement? Can a govt say they’re upholding rights while they are not doing enough to prevent them being infringed upon ?

[Syne]

No, only a fascist police state would imagine it could prevent all crime.

[Zinjanthropos]

If no govt can adequately prevent crime then it is impossible to protect the citizenry 100%.

Hypothetically, let’s say there is only one law re firearm possession. The law says no private citizen can own a gun. Thus there’s only one possible crime for enforcement to deal with. If laws are passed that permit gun ownership with various stipulations then the number of potential crimes increases. Same goes for rights so the more rights to uphold, the more the workload for enforcement continues to rise. Protection becomes harder and harder to maintain.

Does it stand to reason that if citizens demand more laws/rights then they are risking losing protection?