They are clearly after law abiding gun owners and I believe they don't prosecute these illegal attempted buyers because they really want killings to occur so they can advance their agenda. How else would you explain it? He keeps telling us that we need his new restrictions if it will only save a few lives. So why this glaring sin of omission King?
Keith, I'd suggest that "they really want killings to occur" puts you in the same tinfoil hat crowd as those who believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, or that our own govt did it, or that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance. I would explain "it"--the non-prosecution of those prohibited who attempt to buy guns and are stopped by the background check--as nothing all that unusual if you look at the legal system as a whole. Plea bargains. Back in Iowa, where I used to live, they just had a trial for a man who scammed investors out of 200 million plus. Guilty, maximum penalty: 50 years, no parole. It got a lot of publicity both because of the extent of the scam and because the perp got the max penalty. What that says is that others, who don't scam to the same degree, maybe get no prison time (plea bargain) or a significantly reduced sentence. Happens all the time in the legal world.
What can be done, in the case of further gun laws, is to point out--as is being pointed out in the suggested immigration reform--that enforcing existing laws needs to come first. Put pressure on prosecutors to place more emphasis on people trying to buy guns illegally than, say, on those who get busted for one marijuana joint. But I don't think we should assume that this administration wants to see more killings so they can promote an anti-gun agenda, any more than the left should have assumed that Bush was in on 9/11 so he could go invade Iraq.
