So then let's just get rid of all the stop signs.

[calimary]

19. Not at all.

It's degrees of "work" or "not work." If I understand your question, that is (and I'm not completely sure that I do).

I think we should do like the anti-choicers do. If we can't get rid of all the guns, why can't we at least slow down the easy access part?

With the stop signs - AT LEAST THEY SLOW DOWN!!!

One thing regarding the point you make - other laws ARE good. And they'd be helpful and a lot more effective, too. IF they're enforced. The problem is - those who insist on no laws at all, no impediments to full-on, wanton, anything-goes, anything-you-damn-well-feel-like access to guns - they also tend to be working in other directions: to weaken the laws, cut back the funding that allows for officers and agents and case workers and enforcement people to enforce the laws. How nice that we can't afford as many beat cops. That'll mean less of 'em out on the road catching speeders. You just watch. Those whose default is - "there are already enough laws/too many laws on the books and why don't we just enforce what there is?" You just watch. With one side of their mouths they're saying this like the law-and-order enthusiasts they portray themselves to be. On the other side of their mouths they're working nonstop to weaken those laws, choke off their funding, disable them, hamstring them with amendments and fine print, complicate them so they become unwieldly and unworkable, make them harder to enforce, or make them otherwise worthless. They don't want ANY restrictions. THAT'S what we're forced to deal with.