Forum Thread

Will gun control be different this time ?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 13 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "In his autobiography, Clinton admitted Democrats like Brooks and Foley paid a heavy price for supporting the assault weapons ban." Did Clinton lose both houses because of his assault weapon ban? It looks like all positive for midterm Democratic victories. Is the proposed assault weapon ban being buoyed by the same positive Democratic feeling? Will the ban effect the midterms now like it did Clinton? Will the ban effect 2020?

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Here is the reality. Most elected Republicans privately support some basic gun control, but are afraid of the NRA, so they want the Dems to be the bad guys to pass gun control laws so that Republicans can use new laws as a campaign weapon. In other words, Republicans want good gun control laws that protect people and eliminate mass shoots, but they will then use those same laws as campaigns attacks against Democrats.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Compare to prohibition when bootleggers and preachers worked hand in hand for totally different objectives . Preachers didn't want legal whisky and neither did the bootleggers .

  • Strongly Liberal
    Independent
    Ohio
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I have read that in like , 1932 the supreme Court ruled , you can't have military weapons.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Florida legislature just scrapped the ban on AR15's, so much for Rick Scott's efforts.

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    To answer the thread’s question: no.
  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    This issue is following standard protocol. Mass shooting-->Public Demands for something to be done--> National political debate-->National Deadlock-->Wait for next mass shooting.

    Progress has been made in the sense that fortune 500 companies are taking on the NRA, more-or-less saying "If the US government is not going to take a stand against gun violence, we will, and we do not support mass shooting due to the lack of action?

    The public wave is against the NRA, not for for it.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Maindawg Wrote:

    I have read that in like , 1932 the supreme Court ruled , you can't have military weapons.

    The NRA would argue that it was a bad SC decision in 1932. The NRA is a 2nd amendment purist, which means any and all limits put on owning weapons is violation of the 2nd amendment. If a person, or organization, wants to have any type of weapon, including nuclear weapons and biological weapons, it is protected by the 2nd amendment. If anyone does not like it, then they can go live in some other country that limits the the scope of who can own weapons and the type they can own. In most other countries its an earned privilege, not a right.

    The NRA perspective that in the US, a person has the protected right to commit mass shootings, at least as White American males have that right.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "The public wave is against the NRA, not for for it."

    The NRA won't budge on anything. The NRA is the focus of gun rights. What or who is the focus of gun laws? Nothing comes to my mind.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The polls were wrong at the end of the presidential campaign. Although public opinion is with gun control it is public opinion . When Clinton passed his assault weapon ban embedded crime bill he had support. He had public support. But that support is not guaranteed. And it changed. The political aftermath of Clinton's assault weapon ban shows that gun control costs Democrats votes. The mood now is against guns, for gun laws and the Bill proposed now is very comprehensive and detailed. The trouble is the bill does not address preventing school shootings now.

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Every right is subject to change and modification. Jefferson said that. Jefferson supported the right to bear arms also but even he in Virginia’s constitution limited ownership to a man’s property and tenements. Thus open carry and concealed carry have nothing to do with gun ownership.

    All of which means nothing as long as the NRA owns politicians and Supreme Court justices who are “conservative”. The claims of originalism are agitprop as Jefferson states plainly both his support for bearing arms and the limitations thereof.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018."

    There are by estimates 15 million assault weapons in private hands in the USA. So those 15 million guns would stay in public hands. Jn 2017 the FBI did 25,000,000 background checks for the purchase of firearms. The assault weapon will be in the hands of people forever but still nothing about protecting children in schools .

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    "(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018."

    There are by estimates 15 million assault weapons in private hands in the USA. So those 15 million guns would stay in public hands. Jn 2017 the FBI did 25,000,000 background checks for the purchase of firearms. The assault weapon will be in the hands of people forever but still nothing about protecting children in schools .

    Yes Chet; there are even more of these weapons than you think; lots of these weapons never had background checks because of our "wars", lots of military guns which were taken or either stolen or retrieved from the "enemy" were brought back by the military as "private" goods. Some people here have rooms full of such junk. Thus 25 million background checks compared to 350 million guns is laughable.