How Gun Control Ends: Not With A Bang, But A Whimper

Here’s a hard truth: all the emotion and outrage and sadness that followed the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting may make almost no difference in federal gun control laws.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Michelle McLoughlin / REUTERS

Lighted angels hang from a tree in Monroe, Conn., Jan. 14, 2013, on the one-month anniversary of the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown that killed 20 children and six staff members.

Here’s a hard truth: all the emotion and outrage and sadness that followed the Dec. 14 shooting of 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook elementary school may make almost no difference in federal gun control laws. How little is the Hill going to do on gun control? As things stand, Congress may not even pass two gun control measures that even some elements of the powerful gun lobby have suggested they could support. But if post-Sandy Hook gun control measures are badly wounded, they’re not finished yet. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle insist there’s still a chance to do a deal; here’s the state of play.

After months of negotiation, four bills came to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, reflecting President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden’s agenda for post-Sandy Hook action. The first makes straw purchasing and gun trafficking a felony and boosts the penalties for those crimes. Another would expand background checks to include private sales at gun shows and elsewhere. A third would boost spending on school safety programs. And lastly there’s a push to ban assault weapons and large ammunition magazines.

(MORE: The Next Gun Control Battle: A Right To Carry Firearms in Public?)

The gun trafficking measure passed out of committee last week with the backing of Democrats and one Republican, the ranking minority member Chuck Grassley. It is likely to pass the full Senate next week and should eventually pass the House and become law. But it has less to do with Sandy Hook than with Fast and Furious. Over the last two years Republicans alleged that the White House and Justice Department conspired in a botched gun running investigation in Arizona called Fast and Furious. It was a whacky theory and was debunked by a widely praised Inspector General’s report. But it’s now hard for Republicans to oppose a bill that makes gun running a felony and boosts penalties for the crime after they made such a big deal of the case.

The most extreme Fast and Furious conspiracy theorists said the administration allowed gun running on the U.S.-Mexican border to build support for federal gun control. So the bill’s passage would be a rare example of true irony (or if you’re a fact-free type, proof the conspiracy theorists were right all along). In any case, gun backers may not have much to worry about. The three other bills, which nominally are intended to address specific elements of the Sandy Hook massacre, were delayed in committee last week and face an uncertain future the Senate floor and in the House.

The assault weapons ban is already near death, and so is the ban on large capacity magazines. Even Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has declined to support a ban and voted against the 1994 bill that expired in 2004. Grassley and other Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans are already out against both the assault weapons ban and the prohibition on large capacity magazine clips.

(MORE: Gun Owners Trust the NRA but Agree with Obama)

The other two measures remain possible in part because at times gun lobbyists have said they could support versions of them in principle. But they are in trouble. The school safety bill, introduced by Barbara Boxer of California, was originally going to spend $800 million to increase surveillance and deploy National Guard troops in schools, among other measures. That price tab made it a near impossibility as Congress wages non-stop battles over the budget. The bill likely to emerge from committee this week will be cheaper, and privately Republicans say they expect it to pass the Senate. But ultimately it will require cuts in other programs to pay for it; the GOP has suggested cutting education programs like one on financial literacy to help offset the cost. Democrats are balking.

The most promising post-Sandy Hook measure is an effort to expand background checks. At the moment, only licensed sellers must run a check on a buyer to make sure he isn’t barred from owning a gun because of a criminal background, mental illness or other reasons. But many guns are sold privately at gun shows and elsewhere. Democrat Charles Schumer of New York and Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma have been negotiating a bill but broke last week over record keeping. Under current law, licensed sellers must keep a record of what guns they sell. No identifying information on the buyer is kept. Schumer wants the same rule for private sales.

(PHOTOS: Gun Nation Revisited: Zed Nelson’s Photographs of American Gun Culture)

Senate Republicans say any measure to expand record keeping, even sell-side information, will never pass the House. They argue getting background checks at gun shows even without record keeping is a big win and Democrats should settle for that. They also argue that the bill’s other major provision would be a win. Though all states are required to provide the federal government with sell-side information, only 13 do. The bill would provide grant money to incentivize the other 37 states to comply too.

A Schumer bill with the expanded record keeping will pass out of committee this week without Republican support. Republicans expect to substitute a bill on the floor of the Senate with the record keeping removed, but the expanded background check and the reporting incentives in place. That bill could pass the Senate with bipartisan support, giving it at least an eventual conference with whatever limited bill the House passes.

If Congress ultimately produces a combined bill that turns gun trafficking into a felony, expands background checks to private sales and spends some money on school safety, perhaps the public outcry after Sandy Hook won’t have been entirely fruitless. But there are plenty in Washington who expect next to nothing to come of the massacre at Newtown, and believe that if compromise can barely survive the committee process it will certainly be doomed in the full Congress.

VIDEO: Illinois Representative Compares Gun Control to Castration

439 comments
epov111
epov111

ON GUN CONTROL

    Some people in this country as well as most in the United States of America believe that every man has a constitutional right to own a gun for self-defense. They even try to reason out that guns do not kill people;it is people who kill people. 
   This political logic may be traced back to some paranoia which is an effect of certain historical events and might be a  part of the birth pangs of a budding union of different contesting states then threatened by the imperialist British colonizers, such as in the case of the United States of America during its initial stage of existence.
   As to the argument that guns do not kill people and that it is people who kill people, that is  precisely the point - people can use guns, as many do, to kill other people or even themselves in some instances.
    Owning or possessing a gun, much less an armory of high powered guns and ammunition, is not an absolute right of every citizen even for self-defense. Even our laws provide essential conditions or requisites to use self-defense as a defense. The ownership and possession thereof must be strictly controlled and monitored for the safety of the general public and for the maintenance of peace and order in our society. That is why we have the police force. It needs only to be improved, strengthened, professionalized and justly compensated; and the laws strictly enforced.
    There is no doubt that a combination or mixture of gun powder, illegal drugs and alcohol is a most fatal prescription  and can untimely make human bodies no worthier than dusts.
   But what is worst is when people start going around outside the sacred premises of their homes and vehicles with their guns tucked in or hidden somewhere within their attires.
   This was the case during ancient times when most men in the streets or roads carried daggers or weapons and tucked them under their sleeves. When a Greek or a Roman would meet another man in the street or roadside, they would grasp the hand or forearm of each other and would hold it firmly until each one was certain that he was dealing with a true friend. The actual shaking of hands was for the purpose of dislodging any weapons that might be hidden under the sleeves. 
   Some historians  believe that, in fact, this practice is  the origin of a handshake - not as a gesture of welcome and goodwill, but as an act of suspicion and self-defense.  And this was the fatal mistake of Julius Caesar when he failed to shake the hands of the conspirators surrounding him and adulating him as his friends at the halls of the Senate. When Caesar saw the  treacherous dagger of his most beloved friend Brutus, it was too late and the  mighty Caesar could only murmur before he fell dead: "Et tu, Brute?" (And you, Brutus?).
   Today, we do it differently, especially at the malls and other public places. They frisk our waists and our bags. Imagine if all of us will insist on exercising our so-called individual right to own a gun or two and carry them out of the house and vehicle for self-defense! Shall we do what the Greeks and the Romans in ancient times  used to do - to constantly shake the hands of whoever we meet on the streets and other public places, nay, even in our own homes? Certainly, we would not wish that our last words in life or dying declaration be also: "Et tu, Brute?" And we should not forget our evolution from our brutish origin.
   Yes, indeed, guns on sight tend to draw men to fight or fire even without a fight.
    Amay P. Ong Vaño    Cebu City    epov111@yahoo.com

polybius
polybius

...there are plenty in Washington who expect next to nothing to come of the massacre at Newtown

It gives me no pleasure to say so, but this is what I have always believed.

There are too many legally-held guns in America to permit the decrease in gun crime experienced by countries like Australia when they introduced stringent gun control following mass shootings.

A higher level of gun crime, and mass shootings in particular, is something Americans will just have to live, and die, with. At least the chances of most Americans becoming the victims of a gun crime are still rather small.

 I look at some of the factual background to gun control in my posts at collinsm.com/blog.

DealBreaker
DealBreaker

The Bible records the first murder, when Cain kills his brother.  Whether it was a rock, a stick, or a sharp object.  The evil in Cain's heart or mind was the cause of the murder, not the availability of a weapon.  God did not ban or restrict whatever instrument was used to murder his brother, instead he banished Cain for his actions.  The evil in Cain heart or mind is what "We" as a nation have to address; Currently there is an abundance of laws for firearms in America that are failing to be enforced.  The solutions being drafted up and broadcasted are aimed at diluting our Second Amendment rights due to the lack of enforcement of the current laws; we have veered off the real problem, mental health in America. All these actions were put into motion in the early 1980's when funding stopped for mental facilities.  If Johnson, Golden, Barton, Cho, Hasan, Loughner, and Lanza were diagnosed early on, I firmly believe they would not have had the opportunity to complete their actions. 

Now…  If you use the same logic, to say that high capacity magazine are the reason why so many people get killed then I ask, Lets compare the amount of people that are killed due to alcohol vs amount of people killed with a firearm.  The standard capacity 30rd magazine vs the 30 pack beer box.  Lets add up the number of death per year, per method and although both are unacceptable, both have very real numbers.  There is no database or registration to regulate how much alcohol I can purchase or consume.  I do not scan my drivers license or get tracked if I purchase more than three drinks per day, three times a week.  I am more than sure this would label me as having a problem yet I can get into my vehicle and drive it onto the road; My weapon a 2 or 3 ton projectile.  Where is the outcry for regulation?  It kills more people than an assault weapon and firearms with high capacity magazines combined in the U.S. but it does it silently in the background without the media circus.

The CONSTITUTION draws the line for us.. which is why it was written, so those in government could not draw their own lines for us.

CerebralSmartie
CerebralSmartie

Just a question, are the people who defend the NRA's positions devoid of  sympathy for the families whose kids were murdered? Or are they addicted to some substance that makes them so paranoid where they think heavy weaponry is needed so people can form  vigilantes to defend themselves? Or have they been exposed to something in the environment that dulls an understanding of right and wrong?  How can anyone not see that  the current system is flawed? How can anyone not call for gun control and gun reform?

tomrkba
tomrkba

"I'm just going to jump in and ask a very typical question that I'm hoping will have some replies.. Why can't we find a happy medium? If its possible, we should put our political views aside and come up with something that works for everyone."

 This sounds reasonable, except that it results in the erosion of gun rights.  What is really being said is that the people should accept another few small laws that restrict the right to keep and bear arms.  "Only a little bit more" has resulted in massive inroads into the right at the Federal level since 1934. 

NO MORE RESTRICTIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE.  THERE WILL BE NO MORE COMPROMISE.

JakobStagg
JakobStagg

Gratuitous emotional appeals may stir people. Only understanding and thought can solve problems, if they exist. Politician create problems. They never solve any. It is about them, nothing else.

InterestedCollegeKid
InterestedCollegeKid

I'm just going to jump in and ask a very typical question that I'm hoping will have some replies.. Why can't we find a happy medium? If its possible, we should put our political views aside and come up with something that works for everyone. I'm pretty sure putting more restrictions on guns is not the same as banning them completely so I'm a little confused as to why these NRA members are freaking out. I will agree slightly with @akpat that it has a lot to do with the culture and area but the government should be able to control most of it. I am not saying that we need to completely restrict all guns but maybe there should be more indepth background checks or raise the prices of guns.

DealBreaker
DealBreaker

The common sense approach of gun control are words that are being doctored by lawyers and politicians to circumvent, what I believe is the most important document of this nation. To say the SECOND AMENDMENT deserves any less support than the other amendments is... a TRAGIC event.

  Clueless people with too much time on their hands; who know nothing of guns or gun laws, the causes of violence or complexities of mental illness--> They only know emotion! The audacity to state that only danger can result from law abiding citizens owning modern firearms is used to justify their flawed emotional-assumptions. What about District of Columbia vs Heller.  The Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from the time it was inked through the late 20th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Yet these people know more than these factual scholars? 

  These Anti-Second Amendment People (ASAP's) are completely wrong in all the assumptions they make, They dream up false talking points and love to say "little angels" over and over again as if firearms walk around and go off by themselves seeking out children. Although the recent events were tragic beyond words, they aren't worth sacrificing hard won freedoms. Americas Second Amendment rights should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals or the mentally unstable. You must understand that the ASAP's misguided actions will protect no-one, no-kids will be saved and ultimately every law abiding family will be less safe if they have their extreme agenda is enacted.They hate those bad, scary-looking, mean guns and love the kids yet offer no solutions that don't fit their ban. The have no ideas in the way of school safety or mental health problems.They are a one trick hobby horse zombie, with a limited & hazy view of the future impact it will have. 

  If these are the measures being placed on the law abiding American, Please tell me the actions being made on criminals and the mentally unstable? I hope you target the criminals first because targeting the law-abiding citizen will result in  a colossal mistake that will keep repeating itself over and over. If your answer is more officers on the ground.. Why?? When danger is 30 sec from you and the police is 5min away; the police are only good for reporting an event after it has occurred. 

 "Disarming Enough Americans Legally by Tyrants With Insurance, Taxation and Handicaps". (DEALT WITH)" This should be the title of gun control instead of "The common sense approach to guns", These are words used by the government to disarm you without having to physically point a firearm at you, drop you to your knees and physically take from you what was inked so long ago. This, in my humble opinion, is what all the Bill of Rights are about. The Second Amendment provides a vital check and balance to ensure We, the People are always the masters of our government. 


ChrisDoherty
ChrisDoherty

@epov111 You are delusional. The police force is not there to protect us. Have you ever called the police for anything. I live not even one block from the police station and the response time is 10 minutes at best. More than enough time for someone to kill an unarmed person, and if there are several and I don't have what you call high powered guns or ammunition then I have no chance. If you in public and a gunman points his gun to you, you will be praying that someone's concealed weapon is on them and its not a "gun free" area, because the cops will only come to call the coroner, do their reports and then look for a suspect. Using and owning high powered guns and ammunition is a right of EVERY law abiding citizen. That is exactly why the Constitution states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is every person's God given right as an American Citizen. What is a well regulated militia? The U.S. Supreme Court states that the National Guard is an example of a well regulated militia. That means, anything that the National Guard uses to defend themselves and our country, SO CAN I.

DealBreaker
DealBreaker

Dilution is the Solution approach

That is what gun control advocates want and given enough time, emotion, and a no-understanding of the reason behind the Sec2nd Amendment they may succeed. By claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, These are the people that don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like; Yet it is the same document that has all the other rights and liberties that they enjoy as a citizen, on a daily basis. 

The Sec2nd Amendment is being fought out, in the open for everyone to see.. Imagine what is being done in the back-ground. Privacy, Budget, etc..  are being meddled with as we speak yet not a peep because it is in the back-ground clouded by the battle of standard capacity magazines, assault weapon features, bullet taxations proposals, firearm insurance, on and on..


RyanHartmann
RyanHartmann

@CerebralSmartie This "heavy weaponry" you speak of is responsible for a tiny fraction of firearm homicides.  Swimming pools are a greater threat to the general public.  

DealBreaker
DealBreaker

People rage about "the infringement on the lives of the victims?"  or in your case sympathy for the families.. What about the Service Members that have paid the ultimate price in defense of these freedoms you currently enjoy. You say people that are Pro Second Amendment and want no changes made "have blood on their hands", Well so do you. If you are an American and enjoy the freedoms granted you under the Constitution, you have blood on your hands.

Your support and use of freedom of speech, religion, the press etc. it was all bought and paid for in blood. People fought, killed and died to secure these rights for you. Every time you exercise these rights, be it voice or taps on a keyboard to convey your thought process-->  you are getting more blood on your hands. The tree of liberty was watered in blood. Although the recent events were tragic beyond words, they aren't worth sacrificing hard won freedoms; You would be a utter fool to give them up, based on an emotion and the belief that you can ban evil like you can ban certain firearms, or certain feature on a firearm. 

The founding fathers knew freedom wasn't easy, or without cost. Many have forgotten the lessons learned and want to throw away those inalienable rights based on heartbreaking emotions. These freedoms don't just belong to the Republicans or Democrats, they belong to the people.... and if you do not want to fight for them because you feel emotional...... I WILL.

Frawleyz
Frawleyz

@InterestedCollegeKid @akpat Its really simple there is no middle ground when you are arguing with crazy.  Why would anyone wish to compromise with some one who wishes to pass a law to solve a crime problem, but targets the law abiding and treats them like criminals?  Gun control is not crime control, it is people control; it has been proven multiple times that these laws have no affect on criminal behavior, and in fact they increase the amount of violent crime, if New York, Chicago, or DC are a good example of the affects of Gun Control.

damnyankee20
damnyankee20

@InterestedCollegeKid@akpat 

It's not a political view.  So the issue isn't Dem vs Republican.  It's about the Constitution.  

Facts Americans have forgotten regarding our first ten Amendments in our Bill of Rights: 

1. they were rolled over from our 1689 Bill of Rights

2. they are "natural rights endowed by our Creator" - as the Gov't did not grant these basic human rights, the Gov't cannot take them away.

3. the 1689 Bill of Rights included the right for colonists to "keep and bear arms for purposes of self defence"; our Founders wrote they expanded it to allow We the People to band together ("militia") and repel a government army.

  •  "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
    — George Mason, Co-Author of the 2nd Amendment, Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
  • "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword [force] because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
    Noah Webster, Founding Father, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia 1787

In 1920, the mood of "most Americans" was to ban alcohol as it was an evil in American society, killing people.  By 1932, Americans came to their census and realized it was human behavior - not alcohol - that was causing alcohol-related deaths.

Today, it's not Alcohol - but Guns - that ignorant Americans want to call an evil in American society.  Like Americans in 1920, they do not understand it is human behavior to blame for gun-related deaths.  

Consider this factoid from our own FBI UCR statistics:  more people in America are killed by baseball bats than firearms.  Where's the outrage with baseball bats?

I'll leave you with part of this speech Charlton Heston said before the January 2000 Arizona Legislature:

"Having portrayed dozens of historic men - some truly great men, and having lived a few years myself, I can tell you this: Popularity is history's pocket change. Courage is history's true currency. I know because I've watched hit happen...

"If you need a guidepost, please make it the bill of rights - those sacred, personal freedoms
granted to us NOT by government, but by God. They are not yours to take away, but yours to guarantee. That is YOUR JOB.

"One more thing about the Bill of Rights:  please keep faith in its purity. Those who say it needs editing have to admit Americans are no longer worthy of its blessings. Those who say its archaic must admit that this country can't live up to its Founders' dreams. Those who say they know better: let them go invent a country of their own. Meanwhile, demand that they leave the Bill of Rights alone.

"I wish for you the courage to defy political theater. We the People have become a willing audience to made-for-TV law making - watching national policy unfold like a scripted story line, because that's just what it is. You are the heirs of a governing machine that churns out poll-tested, packaged policy with politically correct labeling - and a media all to willing to market it for free.

"Whatever shade matches the national mood, it becomes the law of the land. Our Founding Fathers would hardly recognize this federal spectacle of posturing, scripting, and staging. I wish for you the courage to call it what it is: political correctness is just Tyranny with manners..."



mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@DealBreaker It is amusing the you keep shouting "We the People" without realizing what a joke that line has become. When even the WWE is laughing at you as it is with their Jack Swagger character its time to let go.

damnyankee20
damnyankee20

@DealBreaker  

As my grandfather (b. 1888) once said to me as a little boy:  The Second Amendment protects all the rest.

ChrisDoherty
ChrisDoherty

@epov111  Not to mention. Criminals do not obey laws, they never have, they never will.  they will get what they want from other ways. Educate yourself on firearms, and they wont be so scary.  Stop believing everything you hear from the media and Obama. Obama wants to control everything and put forth his own agenda!

CerebralSmartie
CerebralSmartie

@RyanHartmann@CerebralSmartieWhere is your "emotion and outrage and sadness" about  that the Dec. 14 shooting of 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook elementary school? It seems to be absent and this is strange.

At Sandy Hook elementary school, do you think that that it was good that the shooter's mom had  heavy weaponry in her home , while knowing her son had all sorts of mental issues and could access the artillery? Don't you think that we need to make sure that people like her have lots of hurdles before they can get heavy weaponry like that? The measures being considered right now are very good. Our society needs them. We need to make sure that  fewer dangerous people will be able to obtain guns. Period.
 

CerebralSmartie
CerebralSmartie

@DealBreaker What an odd response.  So you are okay with the status quo as far as gun regulation? It is hard to process such a stance.  What's more- is it your position that by asking for sensible gun laws that we will take away your weaponry?

InterestedCollegeKid
InterestedCollegeKid

@damnyankee20 @InterestedCollegeKid @akpat I get your point and I appreciate all the research you must have done but I'm still not fully understanding. Maybe that's because guns don't have a huge impact on my every day life but I do want to understand it all. I don't see the harm in putting a little more restriction on gun control...there has to be a happy medium with this

RyanHartmann
RyanHartmann

@CerebralSmartie @RyanHartmann I have plenty of negative emotions about the tragedy.  I'm more worried, however, about the 1000 dead children that drowned in swimming pools last year. At the same time, I realize that with anything comes risk, so I am not parading around shouting for pool-bans.  

damnyankee20
damnyankee20

@InterestedCollegeKid@damnyankee20@akpat 

Let's put it this way.  You know the Bill of Rights are natural rights endowed by our Creator.  You have a natural right to worship your Faith - or not worship - any way your Faith dictates.  You have a right to belong to associate with any organization - or not belong to any organization.  You have a right to own a firearm to defend yourself, your family, and your neighbors - or you can choose not own a firearm.  But the Gov't has NO say in these rights.

If Americans allow the Gov't to put restrictions on our Bill of Rights, the precedent will have been set for the Gov't to put restrictions on our other rights found in the Bill of Rights - and if our paychecks are any indication, we'll lose half of our rights just has we've lost half of our income to some kind of tax. 

I hope that helps you understand the big picture.  I'll leave you with these two quotes from Democratic Party Co-Founder Thomas Jefferson:

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

"I own I am not a friend to an energetic government."

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.  Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

 

AW
AW

@mantisdragon91 50 million AR-15's would easily stop any Tyrant from even forming a thought of dictatorship.  

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@damnyankee20 @mantisdragon91 @JakobStagg @InterestedCollegeKid @akpat Yet again if a Tyrant does come in to power I can bet you money that you and your AR15 wielding com padres won't stop him. And if you want to patrol for undesirables feel free to do so, but you can do that just as easily with a hand gun. I don't think men walking the streets looking for trouble and carrying AR15s is what will put the average Americans mind at ease.

damnyankee20
damnyankee20

@mantisdragon91@JakobStagg@damnyankee20@InterestedCollegeKid@akpat

Incorrect.  If you knew the federal laws in 1792, you'd know the "militia" were "able-bodied men aged 16 to 45" who would patrol the neighborhoods of their villages/towns. We call them Block Watch groups today.  These were regular citizens who weren't part of the Continential army (or when we became a nation, part of the national volunteer army).

If you did know history, you would know Indians and other undesirables would come in to these villages/towns, drink, then begin to steal and get violent.  The Second Amendment was there to protect the townspeople from these idiots.  And, it was there for the future WHEN a tyrant comes to power in America.  Human beings are still human beings - regardless of the technology and times, and human beings will do as Human beings do.

I'll post this again:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

— George Mason, Co-Author of the Second Amendment
Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution
Elliot, Vol. 3
June 16, 1788

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@JakobStagg @mantisdragon91 @damnyankee20 @InterestedCollegeKid @akpat I actually know quite a bit about our history. Like the part about a well regulated militia being the equivalent of today's National Guard. And if you think that in this age of drones, jets and tanks and AR-15 will be enough to stop a government bent on taking your right you have a reality check coming your way.

JakobStagg
JakobStagg

@mantisdragon91 @damnyankee20 @InterestedCollegeKid @akpat 

You obviously know nothing of the history of our nation or it's Constitution. Semi autos are the present day muskets. Everybody outguns semi autos: military, police, criminals. 


The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about defense against criminals and tyrannical government.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@damnyankee20 @mantisdragon91 @InterestedCollegeKid @akpat You ancestors may not have owned slaves  but plenty of our founding fathers did. More importantly no one wants to take away your guns but merely have an adult conversation on what should and should not be in private hands and how do we keep that stuff out of the hands of the mentally ill. In this day and age if you want to overthrow a tyrannical government an AR-15 won't do the trick anyway, so to follow your logic we should get tanks, jets and portable nukes.

damnyankee20
damnyankee20

@mantisdragon91@damnyankee20@InterestedCollegeKid@akpat 

My ancestors never bought slaves from African Kings who were selling their own people nor did my ancestors own them.  We didn't believe in that.

And yes, times do change but our Constitution and Bill of Rights are timeless.

I know I've posted this already but you need to read this very carefully from the liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz:

“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. THEY'RE COURTING DISASTER BY ENCOURATING OTHERS TO USE THE SAME MEANS TO ELIMATE PORTSIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION THEY DON'T LIKE."

 And this is our argument why we want the Government to be hands off our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

damnyankee20
damnyankee20

@mantisdragon91 @damnyankee20 @InterestedCollegeKid @akpat  

A machine gun is legal, yes.  Thousands of gun collectors own them.  President Clinton outlawed them after 1986, so it has to be before 1986 and you have to pay a $200 federal tax when you purchase it.  And President Clinton's law has not been taken to the Supreme Court yet, and when it does, it'll be thrown out as unconstitutional.

Do NOT give away any of your liberties in the Bill of Rights to the Government.  If we give away one, this will set the precedence for the Gov't to infringe on the rest of them.  Look no further than your paycheck.  In 1913, President Wilson (D) signed in to law the first 2% payroll tax deduction.  Now, half of the middle class is getting half their income ripped away with some sort of tax (payroll, property, state sales, gasoline, federal excise, etc).

And my ancestors (only 6 generations back; I'm an old man now) revolted against the King's government for far less offenses...

damnyankee20
damnyankee20

@mantisdragon91@damnyankee20@InterestedCollegeKid@akpat 

I am stunned at how ignorant Americans have become in American history and our Founding.  Don't they teach this stuff anymore in school?  The Founding Fathers did NOT want a standing army or any Gov't army.  Here's why:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword [colonial word for force] because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. "

- Noah Webster, Founding Father
An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

damnyankee20
damnyankee20

@mantisdragon91 @damnyankee20 @InterestedCollegeKid @akpat  

My ancestors gave life and limb in the Revolution and fought along side General Washington and General Wayne.  So no, you won't silence me.

And, I wouldn't be too sure of yourself what carryable firearms we can/cannot carry.  The issue is, nearly all of the Gov't's firearm laws have never been taken to the Supreme Court - and those that have, have been thrown out because they violate the Bill of Rights.

damnyankee20
damnyankee20

@mantisdragon91@damnyankee20@InterestedCollegeKid@akpat You are incorrect - and here's one of the Founding Fathers in his own words:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

- George Mason, Founding Father and Co-Author of the Second Amendment
Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution
Elliot, Vol. 3
June 16, 1788

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@damnyankee20 @mantisdragon91 @InterestedCollegeKid @akpat Stop with the We the People crap already. Unless you are Jack Swagger, I don't want to hear it. More importantly no one wants to take away your guns but it also don't mean that you can own any gun under the sun either. The ability to find common ground is key to our species success, I suggest you consider it as well.

damnyankee20
damnyankee20

@mantisdragon91 @damnyankee20 @InterestedCollegeKid @akpat  

Of course the NRA lobbied Congress to make We the People get concealed weapons permits (and part of the permit was to force Americans to take a firearm class - with training provided by NRA instructors).

But this is unconstitutional.  And herein exposes the ONLY flaw by our Founders in this otherwise perfect experiment in self-government:  The Founders should've ensured ALL laws passed by Congress go to the Supreme Court to ensure Constitutionality.

damnyankee20
damnyankee20

@mantisdragon91@damnyankee20@InterestedCollegeKid@akpat

You need to learn the reason why the Second Amendment is in place.

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.  We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.  Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

- Supreme Court of the United States opinion in D.C. vs Heller, 2008.

Even liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said this:

“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”



DealBreaker
DealBreaker

Dilution is the Solution approach

That is what gun control advocates want and given enough time, emotion, and a no-understanding of the reason behind the Sec2nd Amendment the may succeed. By claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, These are the people that don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like; Yet it is the same document that has all the other rights and liberties that they enjoy as a citizen, on a daily basis. 

The Sec2nd Amendment is being fought out, in the open for everyone to see.. Imagine what is being done in the back-ground. Privacy, Budget, etc..  are being meddled with as we speak yet not a peep because it is in the back-ground clouded by the battle of standard capacity magazines, assault weapon features, bullet taxations proposals, firearm insurance, on and on..


DealBreaker
DealBreaker

@mantisdragon91

I guess you would know more about Reality-Tv & gossip; You been taught, or conditioned, to listen passively to the warm verbal communications coming from the TV screen. You have a deep emotional appeal to the so-called TV personality, that you are often unable to respond to real persons.. or real issues. Please turn on your Narrator or other text reader and let it read this to you. Maybe this way it will sink in. BTW.. Feinstein and other like minded individuals goal is not to minimize gun violence, but instead remove guns completely from the hands of the regular American citizens. If outright BAN/prohibition isn't possible, The idea is to use an emotion to push politicians to dilute the right so much, that it loses all resemblance to the Second Amendment.  Also If the proposed legislation becomes law, why are government officials and others exempt. The others being elite or special interest people will be allowed to own and purchase banned firearms; Not the regular citizen. So.. Lets say you and a special interest individual go to a coffee shop and order a large coffee. Your coffee is half-water|half-coffee, while the special interest individual get a full cup of non-diluted rights… I mean coffee. Which cup of coffee would you like??