Again, how is that relevant? Denial, as they say, is not just a river in Egypt. The Australian experience confirms a reality which can’t be denied… the Port Arthur massacre resulted in highly restrictive gun laws which weren’t justified by the murder rates which existed at the time. That’s the message you’re in denial about. Unless you can come up with a way to stop mass shooting killing sprees like Virgina Tech, or Sandy Hook, or Orlando, the same thing is going to happen in the US. It’s inevitable.
And if a Paris style coordinated terrorist shooting spree occurs? Using arms bought in US gun shops? You can kiss goodbye your 2A rights overnight because people will reach a conclusion that 2A is the problem, not the solution.
All of those shootings happened and yet, the 2nd Amendment is still hanging in there. What makes you think there’s a big change that’s going to occur after the next massacre (or the one after that, or after that, or after that) that didn’t occur after the last 10?
What does it matter? It’s a fact that on Monday the Supreme Court refused to hear two cases regarding Assault Weapons Bans. Connecticut’s laws still stand as a result.
You can belittle me as much as you want, it’s water off a ducks back. The real fight is right there in front of you. In the US, unconstitutional laws can and do stand when the Legislature fails to repeal said law or when the Supreme Court refuses to rule on it. There’s your mission creep, not me.
You’re all in denial about the simple reality that a right delayed is a right denied, regardless of whether it’s still on the statue books. So long as the Supreme Court continues to avoid getting embroiled in 2A issues, as it has done since Heller in 2008, the pattern will continue.
And? Them denying cert was the preferred outcome. With the court the way it is now I’d rather most 2nd amendment litigation stop for a bit. The state legislatures are overall still friendly, regardless of the few semi-fascist states like CA, NY, and NJ.
The thing is, you’re making some rather wide predictions with zero evidence to back it up. I’m not sure why you’d think that would be taken seriously. I’m trying to identify any criteria that would exist to either lend support to your predictions or disprove them. I suspect it’s some kind of advanced Xanatos gambit where whatever happens you’ll feel vindicated. A lot easier to do that with vague unsupported predictions.
Your protestations that you’re not a problem for pro-gun advocates is a bit like a person who says they are pro-gun rights while trying desperately to widdle them away at every opportunity. Might as well say, “I’m pro gun, but support all sorts of bans!” Right.
If you’re working from the assumption that the gun control side in Congress wants to ban all guns entirely, wouldn’t any proposal that falls short of a total ban be a compromise?
I am not working under the assumption that everyone in Congress wants to ban all guns entirely.
A proposal that falls short of a total ban wouldn’t necessarily be a compromise. That’s like saying if a person wants to kill you it’s a compromise if they only cut off your arms. Not a compromise.
A compromise would be like the Coburn amendment which would have provided for universal background checks that gun control folks say they want.
I think the shift you see is not obvious to everyone else. In the last ten years we have seen things move decisively in favor of gun rights. It is a continuation of a trend we have been seeing for decades.
What is the compromise being made by the gun control side?
How are they gerrymandering the senate?
I doubt it. If we gave them half the cake today, they will come back for the rest of it whenever they have the political power to take it. No need to make any concessions. And the gun control lobby has NEVER offered a compromise.
[QUOTE=asahi;19422802If the NRA and other gun rights advocates would accept some compromise in which the states can choose who gets to keep firearms and where they are kept, that would probably work and work well, provided that the federal government be granted the power to regulate their manufacturing, tracking, and distribution - and by regulate I don’t mean banishment outright. But mandatory registration is not an unreasonable request. The problem is that you have the NRA not only blocking common sense measures at the federal level; they’re also trying to use the highly politicized Supreme Court to impose gun virtues on citizens in states that clearly want to restrict firearms…[/QUOTE]
They backed the Coburn amendment. But anti-gun dudes wouldn’t have this compromise.
And registration is neither reasonable nor useful.
As a progressive, whom has seen no evidence that the lawful ownership by firearms by citizens has a meaningful impact on the murder rate I do get sick of the claim of “common sense” by others whom claim to be “liberals”
There is a very real risk to requiring someone to register and be tracked to exercise a right and the implications are far broader than the 2nd amendment.
I realize that horrid rare events invoke fear in a way that will never be matched by the every day deaths and suffering that is far more common in this world.
I am quite disappointed that we do not learn from history. Banning an item never solves the core problem and it almost always causes even more problems.
Prohibition, the drug war and the original assault weapons bans did nothing to save lives or reduce crime and they caused a LOT of pain. The pain of the Republicans taking over the house after the 1994 AWB is very real.
Just imagine the cost of trump wining the presidency.
Note that I am not trying to ignore the very painful events that have happened recently, there is no evidence to show that it would have been prevented even if we could make all firearms disappear tomorrow. The largest mass murder in US history and the 2nd largest targeted at the LGBTQ were both done with little more than a gas can.
That’s your version of what the future choice may be. Many elected Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate who have favored past anti-2nd bills have been replaced. That’s one of the reasons that the Democrats lost control of the U.S. House and Senate. Voting creates one heck of a referendum.
A coordinated terrorist attack in the U.S. would be more proof that We the Voters need to defend ourselves from terrorists. People will be glad that they still have a choice as to whether they can defend themselves.
Our current POTUS can’t even admit that there is such a thing a radical Islamic terrorism. He’s said that it doesn’t matter what it’s called, but he still refuses to ID radical Islamic terrorism as radical Islamic terrorism. Obama seems to be chock full of horseshit.
*President Barack Obama once again refused to label the fight against terrorism as a war on radical Islam or any kind of “religious war,” insisting that such labels hurt efforts to root out radical ideologies in Muslim communities.
Obama also cautioned against the risk of overplaying the threat of terror groups and said the U.S. should instead align itself with the overwhelming majority of Muslims who reject the radical ideology and tactics of terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda.
“I don’t quibble with labels. I think we all recognize that this is a particular problem that has roots in Muslim communities,” Obama said in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria. “But I think we do ourselves a disservice in this fight if we are not taking into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject this ideology.”*
If the ultimate goal is to ban all firearms, what would be the point of accepting a compromise? All of these “feel good” anti-firearm bills that seem to be aimed only at law abiding citizens could be classified as a camel’s-nose-under-the-tent tactic. Give us a little now, AND give us more at a later date. If you accept this compromise, we promise to ask for even more in the future, and will keep asking until all firearms have been banned.
No, not really. See, your “opponents” actually include people who probably couldn’t give a piss whether their next door neighbor, who is otherwise sane and gainfully employed, owns a firearm. What they’re worried about is the guy who has a history of mental instability, who exhibits aggressive behavior at work, or who posts vitriolic anti-American rhetoric on Facebook.
The Senate republicans and gun rights advocates have supported the right of ISIS sympathizers to obtain guns. They have supported the right of Al Qaida sympathizers to obtain guns. They have voted to support the right of another Timothy McVeigh or Branch Davidian Cultist to obtain weapons of mass murder. You can spin it all you want, but that is what has transpired. Do you really think you can call Obama and Democrats ISIS sympathizers while supporting laws which make it legal to allow them to buy, carry, and use weapons of mass destruction?
In 1996, the federal government enacted legislation that made it possible to track the purchase of ammonium nitrate. This was in response to the Oklahoma City bombing which killed 168. I guess some farmers would have benefited from an Ammonium Nitrate Association, or a Cow Shit Association to assert and protect their rights to keep and bear explosive arms under the 2nd Amendment. After all, it doesn’t refer to “guns” but “arms”.
Seriously, the idea that you can prevent a disgruntled war vet from purchasing processed animal shit and not regulate three or four radical Islamists from purchasing AKs or AR-15s is, well, a steaming pile of NRA shit. And you know it. So stifle it.