It's long overdue.

.

have been increasingly vocal the last few months after each successive
rampage

Some equate liberalism with fascism and of course 'fear the government that
fears your guns'

So they are afraid of a backlash to reality from their gun sales

Australia fought guns and won, why can't we in the United States?

The 2nd amendment clearly was about raising a militia, minuteman style, from
citizens who owned muskets. The Framers undoubtedly knew of these problems,
and also knew, on the frontier and outside polite society, that force would hold
sway

They could never have envisioned modern firepower, or terrorism for that matter,
piracy was their milieu of lawlessness

If the question is "Close the gun show loophole", that gets something like 80% support.
If the question is "confiscate all guns", that doesn't get majority support.

Doesn't mean we should stop at the first one, nor does it mean we have to go all the way to the second one.

Same goes for someone taking a copy of Guns and Ammo to the bathroom for 20 minutes.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:55 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

To listen to the ammosexuals a huge majority of the public supports them.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1280474

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Ammosexual, really... this is the kind of insult that does not belong in a discussion forum

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:01 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh get over it.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Finally,this sex and guns shit is quite bizarre.What part of the gun am I to hump, as it wont fit in the barrel.

Grease up the stock?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Compare that to this exchange at FOX Nation:

the fence.

In just a few words, the editorial states the moral case for gun control, knocks down every counter argument, and infuses a sense of urgency.

with the counterarguments. Specifically, in response to "Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. ... They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did. But at least those countries are trying."

It's more than just not trying hard enough. Criminals break laws by definition. That is what being a criminal means. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws. There will always be people who run a red light, but we would never say we shouldn't have traffic laws and regulations because they will never unfailingly stop people from driving dangerously.

The argument that stricter gun laws won't stop criminals is entirely specious (and tautological). It's stupid. We need laws and regulations, and we need them to be Federal, not just state laws. (I live in a state that is a hop, skip, and jump from three contiguous states.)

Let us start by passing a federal law to ban the manufacture and sale of so-called assault weapons. And a serious buy-back program for existing weapons. It's a start. We can indeed, as the editorial states, at least try.

That cannot happen federally ever in your lifetime without a constitutional amendment. Or. You can work at the state level.

"Assault weapon" has never been defined. There were congressional hearings trying to find a definition. There were leaders in the law enforcement community from the directors of the fbi and batfe, the armorer of the Las Angeles police department and none could find a definition which would be unambiguous enough to enforce.....this is why the first federal assault weapons ban is no longer in effect, because it can't be defined was going to be overturned by SCOTUS if renewed.

Every challenge was put down by the Court:

this pre-dated Heller and McDonald so lower courts were ruling blind and politically and probably ruled to push cases to SCOTUS for precedent. The SCOTUS standard is very simple. If a weapon is "in common use for lawful purposes" it cannot be singled out and restricted...around 100 million in private hands with competitive shooting competitions every weekend from coast to coast satisfies that requirement.

Why do you suppose a Democratic Senate and Congress failed to renew the ban?

No, every term without exception in every law is unambiguously defined for the purposes of the law....there are few "common definitions" in law when it comes to terms as opposed to single words. There is no definition of "assault weapon" that isn't inclusive of common 1950's hunting rifles even if modern rifles were not already so prolific in society.

In 2004 there were cases getting close to SCOTUS which were going to set irreversible precedent. Those who supported the AWB did not renew the ban because of the almost certain loss. Which is also why GWShrub happily repeated that he would sign an assault weapons ban renewal and nary Washington repug objected to the newly elected president bush agreeing to sign the extension.

The reason Dems and gun control decided not to renew was to make another run at an AWB at a later date...maybe now...without prohibitive precedent could find a solution or at leaat another sunset law..

The issue remains exactly what we saw in CA just now. CA has the strongest assault weapons law in the US, yet the guns used in SB were CA legal. They are legal because a law which would make them illegal would also make illegal grandpa's 1940's hunting rifle...hundred millions....

"In common use for lawful purposes" is the standard set by SCOTUS as the line between guns which can be heavily restricted and those which are constitutionally protected.."sawn off shotgun" vs. Standard barrel shotgun USA v. Miller 1934 (iirc).

There was also the issue of restriction on enumerated civil rights must show demonstrable benefit to society and there were no supporting statistics for the 10 year ban indicating any impact on society good or bad.

The fact that this hasn't been done for 95 years only heightens its impact. Are you listening Congress? Are you listening Supreme Court justices? We need FEDERAL laws, and we need them now.

As for me, when my Times arrives tomorrow morning, I will cut out the editorial with my trusty scissors and save it. I hope I don't have to show it to my grandchildren to tell them how we tried back in 2015, but nothing was done.

Nothing is going to be done. Nothing. Just like the last time. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that...

Why would anyone give a single shit what some 1%er sold out newspaper man thinks?

to speak up.

Once in 95 years is a high hurdle!

1920 --- the Red Scare?

It appears the NeaYork Times had supported a New York politician candidate for the GOP nomination and thus was disappointed with Harding winning the GOP nominationin 1920.