Heh, true.
Why would you say that?
It is entirely possible that the Democrats will attain veto-proof majorities in the house and senate in the next election, AND gain the presidency with a wildly popular candidate who happens to have a strong anti-gun position himself.
Under those circumstances, where do you think the discipline to control their base is going to come from?
If anything, the Democratic attitude is going to be more like, “We’ve finally got our chance to enact all our programs. We need to strike while the iron is hot - in two years we could lose our majority and be back in gridlock.” You could see a veritable flood of liberal legislation in the next two years - including gun control.
There is, however, one group that may throw a wrench into these plans - the supreme court.
I’d buy that.
If the issue is important enough, opinion will be reflected by the constituents come the next election. Of course we have to worry about scenarios in which a majority party runs rampant, but thankfully they can only run rampant for so long.
For several reasons, one of which you already mentioned, which is a conservative-leaning SCOTUS. The others are that gun ownership is a very basic American tenet ingrained into the minds and hearts of many (as well as written into our Constitution).
Another is the strength of the pro-gun lobby (although I always feel a little slimy associating my opinions with the likes of the NRA, as some of their members are a little too out there for me).
And finally, even if more anti-gun legislation were enacted, the backlash would be sufficient that there would be another round of Congressional seats changing hands back towards the Republican side and any such legislation would be reversed.
Before I accept this sort of scare-ongering fantasy, I would like to see a genuine number of bills, with lists of cosponsors and actual progress in committees. If we have a dozen confirmed anti-gun legislators on the Hill, we could have three or four dozen bills without ever seeing gun ownership threatened.
I live in a switch district (the parties each exchange where I live depending on who won the last gerrymander) and (due to odd shapes of districts) I live very close to numerous other districts on the state and Federal level with many Democrats holding office or running and I cannot remember the issue of gun control coming up in the last 15 - 20 years at either the state or federal level except when pushed by conspiracy types that the NRA wishes would go away. There was not even any serious opposition when Ohio pushed through a concealed carry law a couple of years back. (There was scattered loud opposition, but it was scattered and it was not serous.)
I don’t think our heads are in the sand; I suspect that your sources have their heads in the clouds.
Well, there is HR 1022, sponsored by Carolyn McCarthy. It is basically an attempt to reauthorize the AWB of 1994. Obama has asserted that he would like to see the AWB reimplemented along with CCW limited to law enforcement only (Cite), so something like this has the (albeit small) potential to gain traction.
I disagree with Obama on everything he has to say about guns, but there is little to no chance that he will try to force laws through like HR 1022 because guns are a losing issue for the Democrats, and other than a cursory mention addressing it he hasn’t made it a priority.
Frankly, I’m not worried. And, really, why should I be? DC v. Heller is coming out of the SCOTUS this year, and with the anticipated decision (by me and others, including one of my professors, and attorney who hates guns) that the 2nd confers an individual right it will be much harder to push through a ban based on whatever the clause of the day is (probably the Interstate Commerce clause, knowing Congress) that will justify such an abrogation of rights.
The reason sane gun owners get so fed up with this shit is because it’s become a divisive pet issue with the Dems. As well as the fact that the right to bear arms is a Constitutionally protected right, as in inalienable.
I don’t understand why politicians get so worked up over how “scary looking” a gun is, or whatever.
I can even empathize with handgun bans in certain localized areas that experience a high level of crimes committed with them because they are so concealable (didn’t Wash DC ban them?).
But semi-auto rifles of ANY stripe? Really?
But conceal/carry laws make sense in certain areas too, like here in Cincinnati. You are a lot less likely to be intimidated or robbed if you’re packing heat and calmly know how to use it.
The rub in all this is represented by this recent spate of school shootings…so either the guns were too easily obtained by people with numerous red flags as to their mental instability, or everyone on campus needs to have one in their bookbag.
So which is it?
Me, I don’t own any weapons, I have little sons that are too curious for me to safely own them, but I plan on owning a shotgun once they are older.
Or, you could just take the middle ground on the matter, such that people are innocent, and thus eligible for ownership, until proven guilty. That is, of course, unless you are in favor of something akin to the PATRIOT Act or some other type of law that deems people to be criminals or otherwise unsuitable for ownership before they ever do anything wrong.
As long as we have the presumption of innocence in this country, murders, rapes, shootings, assaults, whatever, will occur, and all we can do is deal with the aftermath.
As far as everybody having a gun in their backpack, that is neither correct, wise, or legal. I have advocated that people be allowed to carry on campus, with a few conditions: They are over 21, they are residents of the state, they have a concealed weapons permit, and they live off campus. With those criteria, there is a very small number of eligible people, not all of whom will opt to avail themselves of the right to do so.
It’s far better to approach this subject rationally rather than turning it into a religious war with nothing but extremist opinions. There is middle ground.
There is also S. 2577 which is ridiculous because there are already regulations in place about how many firearms can be sold before one needs a dealers license. If the antis get their way just giving a firearm to a friend or relative would cost $50-$100 because they’d demand a licensed dealer to complete the transfer, Brady check, etc… I’m pretty positive my wife and kids anren’t convicted felons.:rolleyes:
Obama wants to usurp the rights of 48 states by outlawing all CCW for civilians. How the hell is that a federal concern? He wants to expand the scary looking gun law, limit sales to one per month, and so on. You really think they won’t at least try to get some of these things passed?
You’re naive, but I do hope to hell you’re correct.
I’m much more worried about John McCain pushing for new gun control legislation if he’s elected. He led the fight to ban certain sales at gun shows in 1999, after all.
On divisive issues like this, it’s easier for the party that is opposed to certain issues to actually enact those issues into law than the party that is supportive of those issues. Only Nixon could go to China and all that. For instance, there is no way that a Democratic President would have ever been able to enact a large federal expansion of Medicare or increase the federal role in education. Republicans in Congress would have stopped it cold. But with Bush pushing these issues, he was able to convince his fellow Republicans to forget their principles and support his issue. Ditto with Clinton and welfare reform.
I see the same sort of thing playing out with gun control if McCain is elected (especially if the Democrats retain one or both houses of Congress). There will be a school shooting or something, the media will call for gun control, McCain will say that in light of this tragedy the government needs to “do something,” and enough Congressional Republicans will be cowed into supporting new gun control that it will pass. If Obama (or Hillary) is President under those same circumstances Republican Senators would stage a filibuster and stop the legislation.
Wait, Airman, I have not advocated for any stance in particular, merely pointed out some options/scenarios.
And I certainly don’t think religion has one whit of involvement in an issue regarding gun ownership.
This scenario frightens me. But, what makes you think McCain of all people would kowtow to the pandering of the media on this issue?
There have been several school shootings starting at say, Columbine, in recent memory and none of those has really caused a rallying cry for anti-gun ownership, but moreso in favor of gun laws that make sense in terms of whom can purchase them and from where, which is an idea I am in favor of on paper, but fear that the government will muck up and affect those that need not be affected by the legislation.
Because John McCain is, in my mind, perhaps the biggest media whore in the Senate. His “courageous” stances on a variety of issues – from global warming to the Bush tax cuts to gun control – all seem designed to win him praise from the Washington Post editorial page. The guy loves to have the media singing his praise. His Senate career post-1998 (when the media began praising him for his work to impose FDA regulations on tobacco companies) illustrates that he will do pretty much anything to stay in the good graces of the media.
Bush has shown that he wasn’t going to sign any gun control legislation and the Democrats have no cover on this issue, so there really is no one out there to lead the charge. But if McCain is in the White House calling for gun control he’ll provide the Democrats with the cover they need to pass it. And he’ll bring along a few weak-willed Republicans to make sure it will sail through both houses.
Funny you mention Nixon and McCain in the same post. McCain is using something from right out of the Nixon playbook: run to the right, govern from the center. The way I’ve heard him talking lately he’d have you believe he’s the most conservative guy since Goldwater.
But over the years McCain has talked out of both sides of his mouth on gun control, a big reason I can’t support him and don’t trust him.
8 years ago I also said Bush was not the pro-gun guy the NRA was making him out to be. His campaign literature in 2000 proved me right about that! It was the Republican congress that kept most bad gun laws off W’s desk, not himself!
There’s a lot of truth to this. It comes from the “my side right or wrong” mentality of American politics. Everyone blindly supports and defends anything “their side” says or does, and demonizes everything the opposing side says or does, pretty much regardless of their own principles.
So when republicans push gun control legislation, gun owners say “well… uh… it’d be worse if it was a democrat” as if getting screwed by your own side somehow made things better. People, even on a fairly smart board like this one, think in such absurd degrees in terms of party lines that they don’t even think in terms of their own views on the issues, but spout party lines at each other.
It’s disgusting and it hurts us all. It’s what’s allowed, for instance, “conservative” republicans to expand the government at the greatest rate since FDR - conservative people realize that governmental expansion conflicts with their beliefs, but it’s what their party is doing, and their party is right no matter what, so they support it.
This way of thinking is so deeply entrenched that it allows parties to screw over their constituency without consequences. Republicans can expand the government and ban guns, and their constituents will accept it even though if the other side did it they’d fight tooth and nail.
Ultimately, both sides look to expand government size and power just in slightly different ways. People view democrats and republicans as diametric opposites when they’re really pretty similar. But it’s that blind loyalty/opposition mentality combined with vitriolic hostility that allows government to take and take and take from its citizenry and never give back.
And for that reason it might be more dangerous for gun rights for a republican to be in office - although either side controlling the presidency and the legislature is probably the most dangerous thing. Gridlock is the best we can hope for.
I’m not a Republican I’m a conservative so I’ll agree with this.
President Clinton said (in a State of the Union Address no less) that the reason his party lost congress was because of gun control.
Yet no Republican that voted for the "assault’ weapons ban got booted out of office at that time.
I’m a conservative in favor of smartly implemented, savvy gun control, and I don’t own a single gun.
And I also don’t trust either Party much, but I resent being conservative and thusly lumped into the Bush camp.
Bush is a conservative as Gore is a ________.
C’mon, Dopers, I’m new but finish the sentence!
Good luck finding someone in power who seriously advocates that. Gun control advocates like Sarah Brady want to see the complete elimination of private ownership of guns, and they know they’re not going to get it anytime soon, but they will try to divide and conquer and get every little slice they can. The issue I addressed earlier in this thread for example - the entire “assault weapons” thing is designed to deliberately mislead people into not understanding the issue and scaring them into supporting bans. That sort of thing is a very typical tactic of the gun control lobby.
If someone wants the elimination of your rights, and you compromise with them, you simply move closer to eliminating your rights. If the number 0 is unrestricted, absolute rights, and the number 100 is the total elimination of that right, and you start at 0, if someone who advocates 0 and someone who advocates 100 compromise equally, you end up with 50. If that person who wants 100 again wants to compromise, you end up at 75. And then 87.5. And so on, until you’ve “compromised” yourself out of everything.
It almost never goes the opposite way. Gun laws are very rarely repealed. Once you give government an inch, they take a mile and never give it back. And most of the political movers behind gun control in Washington aren’t seriously interested in a middle ground - they’re interested in near-complete prohibition even if they have to achieve it through decades of nickel and diming. Eventually, they’ll win, because once a government takes something it almost never gives it back.
Who did that?
Oh, nobody did, but I am kind of feeling my way around here and it seems a fairly liberal-leaning board in general, and on other websites I’ve been harangued whenever I say “I am conservative”, because in the minds of many, that must mean I’m pro-Bush.
I kinda just tossed that out there. You know, drinking last night and all… 