Why gun control push fizzled?

[ponderingturtle]

Cut to the chase: Democracy in action. MOST Americans like the idea of armed Americans.

Exactly only 90% of the populace wants background checks on all gun sales and that is not enough to get laws passed. You need pure consensus in our system and 10% is plenty to block consensus.

 

[Juniversal]

As a range safety officer at the local rifle ranges I can tell you that is unlikely to happen. Ten years ago I mostly saw middle aged white men at the range. Now I am finding many more women, younger adults and even a few more minorities. I think it is directly related to the efforts to restrict firearms. Many people are trying to find out what the big deal is about "banning" guns. Where I work they are for the most part learning that guns are fun, can be safe to use and are not the menace to society that certain politicians claim.

In one way guns are like books, nothing sells like something banned.

Ranb

I'm sorry but I don't buy this notion that anyone wants to deprive you of the ability to protect yourself or "ban guns" (i.e. effectively abolish the 2nd amendment). Not to mention a gun ban would be political suicide. It certainly sounds like a slippery slope argument to me.

 

[casebro]

I'm sorry but I don't buy this notion that anyone wants to..... "ban guns" .....

Pretty naive on the subject aren't you?

 

[newyorkguy]

Pretty naive on the subject aren't you?

Is he? Evidence?

Now you can always find someone who will support any given position. Do you have evidence that there is a serious movement in this country, supported by those in government, well-thought out, with significant public support, to ban all guns?

I admit I'm skeptical of these claims.

 

[Juniversal]

Pretty naive on the subject aren't you?

Not at all. Regardless of whether registration would lead to a slippery slope or not is irrelevant. As stated the legislation (imperfect or inadequate as it may be) would would not prevent you from purchasing a weapon. There's an irrational and dishonest component to "gun control" discourse. Gun control is not inherently bad. "Gun control" is a non-descriptive umbrella term that the NRA types would like to believe is bad in any form it takes. Under that umbrella banning guns would be a horrendous idea but certainly isn't what's being proposed. Universal background checks (for example) on the other hand is a sensible idea that shouldn't face substantial backlash.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If there is anyone else who clicked on this thread because they had a complete WTF moment after reading the title as: "Why gun control puzzled fish" I just want you to know you are not alone.

That is all. Carry on.

 

[WildCat]

I'm sorry but I don't buy this notion that anyone wants to deprive you of the ability to protect yourself or "ban guns" (i.e. effectively abolish the 2nd amendment).

So what was Helller v. DC about? MacDonald v. Chicago?

 

[triforcharity]

Exactly only 90% of the populace wants background checks on all gun sales and that is not enough to get laws passed. You need pure consensus in our system and 10% is plenty to block consensus.

That's not what the poll asked. False claim.

 

[triforcharity]

Is he? Evidence?

His post directly above. Here it is.

I'm sorry but I don't buy this notion that anyone wants to deprive you of the ability to protect yourself or "ban guns" (i.e. effectively abolish the 2nd amendment)....

My emphasis.

Now you can always find someone who will support any given position. Do you have evidence that there is a serious movement in this country, supported by those in government, well-thought out, with significant public support, to ban all guns?

I admit I'm skeptical of these claims.

Where'd those goalposts go???????

 

[Ranb]

I'm sorry but I don't buy this notion that anyone wants to deprive you of the ability to protect yourself or "ban guns" (i.e. effectively abolish the 2nd amendment). Not to mention a gun ban would be political suicide. It certainly sounds like a slippery slope argument to me.

When I wrote "banning guns" I was referring to the irresponsible attempts by some to introduce a new AWB. Feinstein has claimed that if she had the votes she would take away all assault weapons.

Surely you are aware that the new AWB would have prohibited the sale, transfer, importation or new manufacture of many semi-auto rifles. Unlike the AWB of 1994 where any assault weapon made prior to the ban could be freely sold or transferred, the AWB of 2013 as originally proposed would have required that existing assault weapons be taxed and registered in accordance with the NFA of 1934. This statute requires that the local chief law enforcement officer sign the application to register but does not require that the CLEO sign and some refuse to do so for any reason. This would deprive registration by some legal owners.

Ranb

 

[newyorkguy]

So what was Helller v. DC about? MacDonald v. Chicago?

Guns in urban areas? Where they have a lot of gun violence? You can argue the logic behind it but I don't think you can call it a precursor to confiscating everyone's gun nationwide.

 

[triforcharity]

No, DC and Chicago just banned handguns, rifles, shotguns, and the like from their cities, and if caught with one inside their city, it was a felony crime, and you'd have your guns confiscated. ....Nah, completely different than an outright confiscation....

 

[Juniversal]

His post directly above. Here it is.
My emphasis.



Where'd those goalposts go???????

That's my fault. I should've clarified. Let me restate; no one in the political leadership responsible for the current gun control discourse/legislation wishes to abolish the 2nd amendment.

So what was Helller v. DC about? MacDonald v. Chicago?

See above.

 

[triforcharity]

Incorrect. Feinstein et al (I think Cuomo out of NY) wanted just that.

 

[newyorkguy]

That's my fault. I should've clarified. Let me restate; no one in the political leadership responsible for the current gun control discourse/legislation wishes to abolish the 2nd amendment.
...

Again, I agree. In fact, I've highlighted what I consider the relevant part of someone else's message that, I think without intending to, actually backs up what you're saying.

...I wrote "banning guns" I was referring to the irresponsible attempts by some to introduce a new AWB. Feinstein has claimed that if she had the votes she would take away all assault weapons.....

If she had the votes. But she doesn't now and she's not going to have them tomorrow or next month or next year. Just to ban AWBs, not all guns nationwide.

That's not going to happen, either. The Scalia Supreme Court has already decided by a 5-4 vote that the Second Amendment confers the right to possess a gun to the individual citizen. That's not going to change. I'm certain it can't be over ridden in Congress.

This whole line of conjecture -- the government wants to confiscate all guns -- seems totally without merit.

 

[triforcharity]

1- If congress were to get the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment, the SCOTUS couldn't do much about it. Congress makes the laws, SCOTUS interprets the law and their applications.

2- Feinstein was not referring to just "assault weapons". She was (IIRC) referring to every gun.

 

[Juniversal]

When I wrote "banning guns" I was referring to the irresponsible attempts by some to introduce a new AWB. Feinstein has claimed that if she had the votes she would take away all assault weapons.

Surely you are aware that the new AWB would have prohibited the sale, transfer, importation or new manufacture of many semi-auto rifles. Unlike the AWB of 1994 where any assault weapon made prior to the ban could be freely sold or transferred, the AWB of 2013 as originally proposed would have required that existing assault weapons be taxed and registered in accordance with the NFA of 1934. This statute requires that the local chief law enforcement officer sign the application to register but does not require that the CLEO sign and some refuse to do so for any reason. This would deprive registration by some legal owners.

Ranb

Got you.

1- If congress were to get the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment, the SCOTUS couldn't do much about it. Congress makes the laws, SCOTUS interprets the law and their applications.

2- Feinstein was not referring to just "assault weapons". She was (IIRC) referring to every gun.

Feinstein is foolish for creating such a large sweeping ban of specific weapons but it wasn't "every gun". And as newyorkguy says the chances that it would passe is pretty much nill.

 

[triforcharity]

Feinstein is foolish

You could've just stopped there...

for creating such a large sweeping ban of specific weapons but it wasn't "every gun". And as newyorkguy says the chances that it would passe is pretty much nill.

I've found the video, I think. I'm watching it now, so I can post the time and correct link, as well as look at the context. Like I said, I could be wrong. NYG may be correct. However, the erroneous claim that "nobody" wants to ban guns, has been shifted a few times.

 

[triforcharity]

Nope, you're right, it's talking about the 1994 AWB. And believe me, she said she wanted forced confiscation of the labeled assault weapons. But, she couldn't get the 51 votes. Good thing. I'd imagine a blood bath would have ensued.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

You don't have to register a car to own one.
You only need to register a car to drive it on the street.

Not true. We had to register a car that hasn't moved from where it was parked on the property nearly six years ago.