It doesn’t seem to make much difference whether or not they push gun control. Remember the 2008 elections? Did you ever hear Obama discussing gun control? No, and yet ammunition sales hit all time highs because “he was coming to take your guns”.
It doesn’t seem to make much difference whether or not they push gun control DURING an election.
Firearm registration/confiscation has a been a mainstay of the Democrat Party for decades. Not talking about it during a current campaign for office doesn’t mean the party has given up on the idea. Since you mentioned Obama, Obama admitted that he was involved in the gun-running Fast & Furious debacle when he issued Executive Privilege to hide the actions of everyone involved. (EP only applys to actions involving the President plus whomever else was involved.) The U.S. government illegally sold guns to drug cartels and then attempted to blame U.S. gun laws for being too weak. Firearm sales soared because of Obama’s actions, whether he’s willing to talk PUBLICALLY about his involvment or not.
I thought that proved my point; the perception that an gun control senator with a gun control party from a gun control state would be anti-gun. Yes, he got elected in spite of that, but how many Democratic candidates local and national have not?
Which is the exact opposite of gun control. Republicans turned it into a scandal, because they didn’t like the idea of people (other than them) having guns.
Yeah, Imma need a cite for this little gem.
The scandal is that Eric Holder’s just-us department chose to illegally sell firearms to drug cartels. The scandal is that the Obama’s Whitehouse chose to cover up the illegal actions.
It’s the Democrat Party that has a history of continually pushing the useless, feel-good assault weapons ban. What is an “assault weapon”? Any firearm that the Democrats identify as an “assault weapon”.
The same pro/anti firearm arguments have been taking place for decades. On one side is the 2nd Amendment and voters who believe they should be able to defend themselves. On the other side are Democrats who have tried to disarm Americans since the Civil War.
I guess the question is how the Democratic Party is supposed to rebut this perception.
No, they chose not to interdict private sales to cartels. And the DOJ’s inspector general issued a report detailing exactly what had been done. You can’t make stuff up in this forum.
No, on one side is the 2nd amendment, and on the other side is those who want to be able to defend ourselves. Defending ourselves would be a lot easier if the attackers didn’t have guns.
Like against these guys?
And how, exactly, would banning guns stop criminals from getting those guns?
Especially when you can printthem?
And do you really think Grandmahas a chance without a gun?
Slee
Seconded.
Because it’s really hard to get something that doesn’t exist. I kind of thought that would be covered in Philosophy 101.
Seems to work well enough in Japan and the UK.
Let’s look at UK. There was a partial ban in 1988 and nearly total ban in 1996. Look at the number of homicides in UK: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/61680000/gif/_61680099_homicides624x419.gif
And to compare the rates of change, look at the number of homicides in US: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VNXN0rifEEs/UNCAUwPHfCI/AAAAAAAACHM/h4ygedRbsJU/s1600/chart3.png
Comparing the charts: with nearly total ban on firearms, UK homicides dropped from around 610 in 1980 to around 550 in 2012.
The same timeframe, with no gun bans, US homicides dropped from around 26,000 in 1980 to around 19,000 in 2012. A much percentage drop. With no gun bans.
How exactly is that any kind of evidence that gun bans “work” in terms of reducing homicide?
Or, if you prefer to just look at gun crimes in the UK: www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf
In those statistics, can you see any significant positive influence of the 1996 nearly total ban on firearms? Or the 1988 partial ban?
The “people other than them” were Mexican Cartel members?
What’s wrong with not wanting gang-bangers getting ahold of guns?
Besides, how do you know the gang-members aren’t Republicans?
This and your prior post are disingenuous to the point of absurdity. The UK has a history of gun control legislation going back at least 100 years (the Pistols Act of 1903?).
Terr, I am a gun-owner (.357 wheel gun, 40mm automatic, 12 and 20 gauge shotguns, and an “AR-15”) and shit like this doesn’t help. We should be able to make our point without misrepresenting facts.
IMHO, gun deaths in the US are symptomatic of a generally laissez-faire attitude towards death in general. It’s a hold-over from our pioneer/frontier days. In other words, don’t blame the guns, blame the people.*
*This is not to say that gun laws couldn’t use a tweak here or there…
I can only presume you mean .40 caliber automatic, because a 40mm automatic would be one hell of a gun 
So does US (well less than 100 but close enough - National Firearms Act 1934). So what?
Each law in UK banned more and more firearms until 1996 where the ban became almost total. Yet, as I showed, neither the 1988 ban nor the 1996 almost total ban had any appreciable effect on either the homicides or on the gun crimes.
Do explain which fact I “misrepresented”.