"Because the very large majority of Americans do not want the laws to change. Period..."

Etc.


thanks for your concern trolling!

The case can go to the Supreme Court, the new SCOTUS, with a couple of Obama appointments can overturn the current reading of the 2nd Amendment and say that banning private ownership is fine, and voila! you'll see a Constitutional Convention that will amend the Constitution to a no doubt, no question, right for individuals to bear arms.

The minds of the people have to be changed first, because ultimately, the people have the final say.

Really. It would. I would prefer to live in a gun-free society but it isn't going to happen.

Even now, the debate is starting to ease off. Americans know that the violence committed with firearms is not the honest, law abiding citizen for the most part, the problem lies with the criminals who won't obey laws in the first place.
Lets see, violent crime is at it's lowest point since the 60's yet gun sales are up. 80 million gun owners with 300 million guns in circulation.
I'm not claiming that more guns=less crime, the reasons are many and complex, but more guns certainly doesn't=more crime.

It always does.

still waiting for that backlash.

how else did we get the laws we have now??

What types of firearms can be owned, no assault weapons, etc., but strict limits on numbers of weapons one can own, individual right to own, etc., won't be possible in the near future due to the Heller ruling.

Not restrictive.

In CA they get more repressive, in other states more liberal

I wonder what it was that allowed that legislation to pass. Why cant that happen again?

spurred the GCA68

Because the very large majority of Americans hate filthy stinking hippies.

I think that it is a daunting task to try to ban guns overall but it does not make it impossible. In America, I do doubt however that we would ever fully ban them.

The NRA has the market on this and there are some gun regulation organizations that do a semi-fair job but they are not heard from enough.

We can look at Health Care models in other countries, why not gun control?

As it stands now, there is an individual right to keep and bear arms.

but will we?



This is not a current article but it gives you an overview;

From: http://news.change.org/stories/monday-map-gun-laws-around-the-world

“Today's map looks at gun laws and gun ownership around the world, another dubious statistic in which our country leads the world. The blue boxes represents the number of firearms in the country per 100 civilians.

…Clicking on the map at the link will take you to
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/03/map-us-gun-laws-vs-world

Our Constitution guarantees an individual right to bear arms. How does looking to other countries' gun laws, in countries that don't have that Constitutional right, help us shape our gun laws?

from looking at solutions. Why would we not look at other countries for statistics, resolutions, laws, restrictions, regulations, ideas, results, etc?

On Edit: Having a right does not mean we have the right to abuse it or not learn from it.
Other countries have gun rights but they have much less gun ownership, much less death by gun, much less gun culture.

But a Constitutional amendment prevents us from implementing anything like what European nations have with regards to gun laws.

When you live in a country that protects the right of individuals to bear arms, it does little to no good to look for solutions in places that prohibit individuals from bearing arms.

I'm not talking about countries that completely ban guns. I'm talking about those that do have gun rights but do not have the kind of gun culture we have here. It would be good to study the differences, to learn what changes could be applied here in the U.S.

I didn't see the edit until you pointed it out, thanks!

gun control regulations are mostly in the hands of the states. Maybe we can learn something from other nations that regulate gun ownership. The SC said every U.S. citizen has the right to bear arms. That decision does not stop states from enacting legislation to regulate guns and firearms. Congress can regulate, as well. Doesn't mean gun control laws won't continue to be challenged in the courts.

Not likely.

I'd say not in my lifetime.

But your lifetime is insignificant to the lifetime of the country.

Although right now, my lifetime comprises about 21% of the lifetime of the country.

Maybe about 12% of the lifetime of the country. And it will go on and on long past you're gone.

Jennifer Granholm.

yeah yeah.....

and will continue to do so... that you can count on.

I sure as fuck didn't come this far just to see the rug yanked out under from gun owners once again (assault weapons ban, magazine limits, one gun per month, waiting periods, etc).

How can buying 1 gun a month be referred to as rug being pulled out?

Evidence simply doesn't support that notion. Sorry.

Sorry, inconclusive is the best you can say.

because by doing so, you only give them the motivation and momentum to further their agenda.

What world do gun lovers live in?

Hey... if I got shot (and crippled), I'd be pretty pissed too, but I can guaran-fucking-tee you I wouldn't take my anger and frustration out on the Constitutional rights of others.

Gun restrictions - more of them - will come.

Until they do.

People change. Circumstances cause change. It happens.

You'll see...

As to the 7-10 Million dollars. I don't know how much that influences or not, but look at the Eric Holder's contempt of congress. I don't know if he is hiding something or not, but I don't think there is much doubt the NRA took total control of that. The NRA also is behind some of the "their coming to take our guns away" conspiracies.
I am not anti-gun, I am not pro-gun. I am in the middle. But, when I find someone who is willing to have a real discussion I find people are very misinformed. Both sides have done an excellent job misinforming the American people. Anti-gun has done an excellent job making people think the semi-auto and full-auto are the same thing, and that because a gun looks like a M-16 it is a full-auto weapon and some how those are much more dangerous that the 30-06 they may use for hunting. The pro-gun has done an excellent job making people think President Obama and all Democrats want to go door to door taking guns out of people's hands. I have yet to meet one person who knew there was a legal definition of Assault Weapons and most don't know what they are if I then ask them to guess.
Long story short after a 30 minute reasonable conversation, yes that is not possible with some, I have yet to meet anyone who wasn't willing to adjust their position at least in theory. By that it is similar to the ACA, do you want Obama care? NO! Well, if we had a law which did (insert the ACA point by point) People like much of it. On guns, I think every poll I have seen the questions, they are obviously bias. They are usually worded to lead the person taking the poll. This an a subject which the polls need to use words not in the normal gun vocabulary. This has been fashioned into an all or nothing debate, but it isn't.

I like guns. Their proliferation crazy.

Btw - no one is safe from the crazies who burst in and start shooting no matter what someone is wielding.

We'll make a note of that.