If such a large majority agrees with gun control, what's stopping us?

Listening to the news about the latest shooting in Maine, we saw Republican Senator Susan Collins calling for gun control legislation. Also Jared Golden, a Democrat House Rep who has always opposed all gun control legislation, apologizing for his past votes.

According to a Fox poll, 61% favor a complete Assault Weapon ban. 87% a national background check, 77% a 30-day wait period, 80% favor red flag laws and mental checks... and on and on.
https://www.foxnews.com/official-po...un-limits-arming-citizens-reduce-gun-violence

These are things that will certainly save lives. Clearly they won't stop ALL shootings, but they would be huge progress. So why is it taking us this long? I think the answer is The NRA. They finance the campaign of politicians who put their own political interest before people's lives and before the will of the people. They have only ONE objective: get themselves re-elected. Period!

So what does it take? Who many more mass killings?

BTW, if you are going to cling to the Heller legislation and Scalia's fabricated interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The place for that is http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/

What I want to know is if there is anybody here who believes that the will of ... sometimes over 80% of We The People, should not be followed. That's how a Democratic Republic would ideally work. Which is what the Constitution calls "a more perfect union".

MY proposals are in the following link
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-to-ban-guns-without-firing-a-single-shot.600040/

The things mentioned here are not going to be as effective. But it's most definitely a positive step forward.

 

If such a large majority agrees with gun control, what's stopping us?

Congressional Republicans who are under the thumb of the NRA.

 

What’s stopping you is that no one believes you’re out for common sense gun legislation. You’re out for the wholesale erosion of the right to bear arms

Well that and you know if you try you’d lose congressional power for the next three decades

 

So, let's put the record straight here. @Golem and @Lee Atwater are suggesting that because a poll says so, we should restrict constitutionally protected rights. So, literally, the definition of tyranny of the majority, but expressed through the most minuscule sampling produced by said polling. The premise being only government can have a gun. You cannot defend yourself. Only government, if it chooses to do so. And isn't that really the mess that folks like them have indicated is their preference? A world where everyone is a victim? A world where government isn't capable of protecting your because, well, policing is abusive, so, only crime can exist and everyone must be a victim of it?

Notice that you never see folks like Golem or LA asking for gun control where gang violence or racial hatred are being exhibited in minority communities. Nope. That's not gun violence, it's a drug policy problem. And that's about as dishonest as these folks can be given that they aren't interested in really making folks safe as much as exposing them to victimization. Why? Because only government can be your salvation. Only feckless uncaring unelected bureaucrats can send out the calvary. And god forbid you don't agree with government because then they send the guns against you as well.

Folks need to be able to protect themselves from crazy. Including folks like Golem and LA.

 

It's sad that somehow this deranged person decided to shoot the world up around him. Really. He should have found the benefit of mental health care, but somehow, he did not. How many times are we going to have to respond to incidents like this only to find out how sadly abused these folks were by the socialized medical community that kicked them out? Where is the accountability of those medical professionals who failed so miserably to address the mental health issues of this person?

 

See Golem doesn’t understand that the second amendment was created to stop people from taking our guns, even through the democratic process.

 

Good question. What’s stopping you? It isn’t the NRA. It’s a pathetically small organization that’s losing support amongst the grassroots.

You are telling me that all the anti gun groups with all the support of media, Soros, Bloomberg, Gates, Buffet, entertainment industry, educational system, etc. can’t take on the NRA and win with 80% public support? That’s an indictment of the pathetic abilities of the anti gun groups, not the NRA.

SMH.

 

What's stopping you, is the truth that there aren't as many people who "support gun control" as you think.

We already have national background checks. Maine has red flag laws. What good did they do?

 

None of his targets were carrying. They had no way to defend themselves.

 

You do know that there are other gun groups out there that defend the 2nd Amendment right? That the NRA isn't the only one?

And yes, the will of the majority of people should not always be followed. Especially when it comes to Rights.

A California judge just ruled that an "assault weapon ban" that California legislatures passed was unconstitutional. GL getting such done on a national level.

National background checks would be unconstitutional because the federal government only has the power to regulate interstate sales. Not intrastate. If you want background checks "nationally" then you're going to have to convince each state to implement such for their area.

A 30 day wait period doesn't do squat for anyone that already owns a gun. And it hinders anyone needing a gun for self defense due to an abusive partner.

Red flag laws goes against the 14th Amendment.

God Democrats are hypocrites. We supposedly have a "gun violence crisis" where less than .01% of the population is killed and yet we do not have a border crisis in which over 100k people have been killed due to fentanyl use coming across that very border, human trafficking occurring daily across that border, and rape of around 80% of the women and children that come here through that border.

 

It doesn't have anything to do with saving lives. It's about disarming the populace.

The Democrats aren't being hypocritical, they're lying about their motive and their goal.

 

Wrong! Because it saves lives! Polls simply indicate that a majority of We The People AGREE with us.

Wrong again! Tyranny of the majority would exist if the majority wanted to commit tyrannical acts. Saving lives is not a tyrannical act. Things like LYNCHING would be.

Rarely does one get to see such a completely misguided post.

 

Makes no difference what I think. I'm just pointing out what polls say.

 

Well, you think the votes exist to pass gun bans...lol.

 

My post, as indicated in the OP, has nothing to do with the 2nd A (link to that topic is included, if that's what you want to discuss). You would have known this if you had read it. It also is not necessarily about the NRA. It's about politicians who place their personal political aspirations before the will of the people. Whether it's the NRA or any other group that buys and pays for these politicians is irrelevant to my point

 

How would banning assault rifles "save" lives? You are aware there are guns OTHER that "assault" rifles, right? Didn't the VT shooter use a 9mm semi-auto handgun with 10 round capacity mags to kill 32 and wound 17?

 

You don't have an assault weapon, you can't kill with an assault weapon. Too obvious to take the question more seriously than that.

The most effective mass killer don't USE other weapons. The reason for that is too obvious to warrant any further explanation as to why that is.

 

I never said it was about the 2nd Amendment. That is you spinning. My statement was to show you that the NRA is not the only gun group out there. Your post blamed the NRA exclusively pretending that politicians are beholden to them and them only.

And as usual you delete and refuse to address the points that YOU raised and were disputed. Why do I even bother with you? You clearly do not wish to discuss anything in an honest fashion. You just push BS propaganda. How much do you get paid for it?

 

Then, the murderer will choose another weapon to kill with.

The most effective mass killer in The United States used arson.

 

So you're NOT aware there are guns OTHER than "assault" weapons? Huh...I would have thought you were more up on this issue. Allow me to explain...there are semi-auto handguns that come in all sort of calibers. There are also revolvers, which also come in all sorts of calibers. There are also shotguns. I can post pics if you're not familiar with any of these types of guns.
Let me say it a different way so you can hopefully grasp it. People can just get another type of gun to shoot up schools, churches, bowling alleys, concerts, etc. Therefore banning "assault" rifles doesn't actually save lives.

 

You mean besides the VT shooter who killed 32 and wounded 17 with a 9mm handgun with 10 round capacity mags??? Hmmm

 

And the most effective mass killerS used planes.

 

Your post shows otherwise. The 2nd A is where many gun advocates believe gun ownership is addressed.

Well....that part WAS addressed in my response. I can't think of anything else to add to what I said there and you quoted (but didn't address)

If, as you say, the above was your point, it was addressed. I did read the rest (unlike you who obviously didn't read mine) but have no interest whatsoever to... even include in my post (much less discuss) what you think of democrats.

 

And they took over the aircraft armed with box cutters.

 

IMO, it's because both sides are so far apart on agreeing what is "sensible" gun control laws. You can't deny that less guns would lead to less gun shootings. But you also can't pretend that it's as easy as passing some legislation to make this happen. Problem in this country, IMO, is that so many guns are out on the streets and in American homes, that a ban of any sort would just limit legal gun owners. Most criminals with guns are already violating multiple laws by having said gun(s), but it doesn't really seem to serve as a deterrence. What additional laws would actually reduce or eliminate criminals from having firearms?

Additionally, you have a lot of uneducated people making claims on both sides of the extreme that simply just aren't true. This deters honest conversations about what we should decide as a country.

Finally, American culture is inherently a violent one. Our media glorifies violence, and it's only getting worse.