Money was spent both ways. Bloomberg and his organization spent 25 million dollars the past two years on advertising, PAC contributions, and lobbying for gun control. The NRA spent about 23 million on the same things the past two years.
As Clinton said the difference is not money it is voter motivation. The question is not whether someone will indicate support when a pollster calls them, but whether they will change their vote based on the issue. The number of people who will change their vote based on gun control is much more heavily tilted toward the pro-gun people than the anti-gun people.
I know Mr. Simon writes for an English newspaper but he should know that shooting children is already illegal in the US.
Even with a registry, if I sell you my gun and we don’t report it to the registry, the tracking breaks down.
But if you put the background check requirement in place, then most dealers will comply, and some number of people who shouldn’t get a gun will at least have a harder time of it.
And I imagine that those dealers that don’t comply will at least occasionally got caught (either in a sting or because someone is caught with a gun they sold that the dealer shouldn’t have sold them) - which will kick compliance up a notch.
It’s not a panacea, but it wouldn’t be worthless, either.
Here is a poll showing 66% in favor of a registry and 33% opposed:
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
From here: http://smartgunlaws.org/polling-on-registration-of-firearms/
we have this: (note: all studies are sourced on the webpage)
I don’t think Americans are as opposed to a registry as you think. I know I’m in favor of it.
Not trying to bust on your personally but the lack of knowledge in your reply is part of the problem. It is already Federal law that dealers perform a background (NICS) check on every gun that they sell. All dealers comply or they lose their license quite quickly. From their perspective, they have no reason not to.
Your statement is a clear example of why the “90% of Americans want expanded background checks” is a complete non-starter. 80% of those 90% have no clue what is in place today or what “expanded” means.
There is plenty of support for increased background checks. This bill did a lot more than that. And the Republicans wanted some things that didn’t get put it. It wasn’t a bill that was going to pass the House anyway.
I’ve stated several times that if the .gov really wants a national registry, all they need to do is offer a compromise to the gun owners and they wont have much of a fight. Remove all restrictions on NFA firearms at the Federal and State level and make them only match the same new registration requirements imposed on everything else and I would be the first in line to support it.
No, but then it was never supposed to be. It’s supposed to function on a check on the rabble in the lower house.
Why do you say “no”? The question was: Is the US senate democratic in any meaningful sense? Sure it is. There’s nothing magical about majority vote vs super-majority vote. The Senators are elected by we, the people, and we get to kick 1/3 of them out every 2 years if we want to.
Democracy is a bit more than just voting. One of the bedrock principles of representative democracy is that each vote carries equal weight. That clearly isn’t true for the Senate even post-17th Amendment.
Can you please give examples of the things in the bill that made it unsupportable?
And the things that would have made it supportable?
No more than any other part of government.
In that case, then the House and Senate must have an equal number of members. As it stands now, each Senator’s vote is worth roughly 5 times as much as a Representative’s vote–more if you take into account the fact that only the Senate votes on things like treaties.
Not one of the gloom-and-doom posters have reacted to HurricaneDitka’s quote of Charlie Cook. That is a reasonable reason for the Senate to vote the way it did without having been bought off.
Besides which, we have many gun owners, some of them on this very board, who have expressed the opinion that gun massacres are the price we pay for 2nd amendment freedom. If they can believe that, then of course they’re going to vote for officials who feel the same way — and quite passionately, at that.
I think it’s an assumption that may prove to be incorrect. Historically, gun rights voters voted the issue more often. Whether that holds true today, is anyone’s guess. People are pretty incensed over the issue this time.
This quote in particular “when it comes to regulating firearms, most Americans appear to err on the side of caution” seems in conflict with what all the polls show.
I’m in agreement with the tone of the editorial piece from the Guardian cited in the OP and I am for a national firearms registry.
That being said, I would ask why you say that each vote does not contain equal weight when it comes to the Senate? I would assume you’re referring to that whole complaint that (small state) Wyoming has two senators just like (big state) California does, and that this isn’t fair representation of the people.
If that is your point then I must disagree about it being unfair. The Senate is suppose to provide equal representation for each state–not for each citizen. Therefore every state gets the same number of senators. The senators are elected by the citizens of each state–not by the citizens of the USA as a whole. Every vote for a senator has precisely the same weight as every other vote because every qualified citizen of a given state has the right to vote for their senator.
The USA is federation of 50 equal states–none is more important than any other. Thus, it would be (very) unfair to allow some states to have more senators than others just because they have a larger population. That would be like China getting ten U.N. Security Council votes and the UK only getting one simply because they have a bigger population.
Yes but then I know you have illegally traficcked in guns by selling a gun without transferring the gun through an FFL.
As has been noted, this sort of ignorance (not a dig on you, you are merely a reflecting what the people on one side of the debate have led you to believe) hurts your argument. It is already the law that gun dealers conduct background checks on all gun sales.
Any infringement on the second amendment must serve some state purpose that justifies infringing on a constitutional right. We literally let criminals that we KNOW are guilty go free to preserve the sanctity of the bill or rights, lets set the bar a bit higher than, it wouldn’t be worthless.
I am in favor of a registry as well but the pro-gun side of the debate will switch their vote on this issue while the anti-gun side seems to be happy with shit like an AWB or background checks at gun shows.:rolleyes: Unless you can educate the anti-gun side about how important a registry is, they simply aren’t going to push for it. Hell, even the Newtown folks don’t seem to have much of a clue about how important a registry with licensing requirements are.
They should have national licensing and registrion. There ought to be several classes of licenses (at least one permitting the purchase of and concealed possession of all firearms including NFA firearms (except iThere ought to be several classes of license (everything from a learner’s permit to a national CCW including NFA).
Exercise primacy and negate all state laws that restrict firearms so a gun that is legal in Utah will be legal in Chicago or Berkeley.
Make improper disclosure of personally identifiable registry information a federal felony, impose HIPAA like rules for the registry, make it illegal for anyone to confiscate guns from anyone legally allowed to own the gun.
Start selling surplus M-16s to the public for $10K (keep the transfer tax (or even increase it to $1000) but get rid of the now redundant NFA registry. If that goes well, maybe open up the market to private manufacturers.
Are you saying that a pure democracy would be preferable to what we have in place. You realize that over-representation of the rural states is a form of minority rights protection right? Its just that in this case the minority is white.
I’f I’m registering my guns, that’s good enough. Feds know who I am and what I now own. I shouldn’t have to ask their permission unless background checks go out the window too…
10k is a bit high, I’d meet you halfway at $5k. As a tax payer I already paid for that rifle once. I’d rather not pay 15x more than what it cost brand new. Anything surplus will be quite worn out.
Just FYI, David Simon is an American, and quite a well-known one too:
^ the article wasn’t commissioned by The Guardian either, Simon first posted it on his website.