Cho was not legally entitled to buy a gun since he (1) had been designated an imminent threat by a judge at one point in time and (2) had been under psychiatric care.
Is anyone surprised that a Dem can't enforce laws designed to protect innocent people?
2007-04-22 11:25:59 · 8 answers · asked by duck 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It has been said that Clinton ordered his federal prosecutors not to go after firearm violations so that the amount of gun related violence would go up to sway public opinion in favor of more gun laws
2007-04-22 11:30:39 · answer #1 · answered by Delphi 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
That would be because the laws passed by Republicans with the force of the NRA behind it were intentionally so riddled with loopholes as to make any provisions unenforceable, and any attempts to close the loopholes were met with smears like yours.
Nice try, but Cho's ability to buy the gun is EXACTLY what the right wing and the NRA has fought so hard to maintain.
They'd rather that he be able to get a gun and kill over 30 people than have to go through the inconvenience of a REAL background check, training/education requirements and waiting periods.
2007-04-22 11:34:46 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You make a good point.
It isn't more laws but the lack of enforcement.
If the would happen Cho would have been in the headlines.
2007-04-22 11:34:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, the governor personally oversaw and reviewed Cho's gun purchase transactions........
2007-04-23 20:12:31 · answer #4 · answered by fluffybunny 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh, you're FUNNY! Like Dumbya defended the country form terrorist attacks? Or reacted promptly in the wake of a hurricane destruction?
R O F L
2007-04-22 11:31:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why does Republican Schwartzennegar allow gang warfare to thrive in California?
Gang warfare includes murder, rape, larceny, robbery, drug dealing and other illegal crimes.
Is it any surprise that a Republican is so soft on crime in the state he governs, causing terrible harm to the innocent people?
2007-04-22 11:32:23 · answer #6 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I see your point but the dipshit who shot up VT didn't have anything on his background when it was checked. So there was no reason not to sell him the firearms.
2007-04-22 11:31:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are so many laws and red tape its no wonder.
2007-04-22 11:30:36 · answer #8 · answered by Walter 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋