Hypothetical For Gun Rights Advocates

[rskovride]

Have we not already had a weapons ban? AWB The effects have been studied, weighed and found wanting.

[Whateverist]

I agree with former supreme court judge John Paul Stevens: overturn the 2nd amendment altogether for starters.  Just rip that cloak of entitlement right the hell off.  That would help tons.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...461672002/

Great if you want a civil war. I agree with the fact that it was never really needed in the first place, but I also am not about to chase a utopia either. I think the better option is to stress "WELL REGULATED". 

There is a long history in court cases that DO allow for stricter firearm laws. Even the late Scalia(sp) said that firearms could be regulated. 

It sounds nice in theory and yes it is an amendment and we have repealed amendments in the past. I just don't know how realistic it is without creating fundy terrorists or a civil war. 

Australia and Scotland and Japan do not have a 2nd Amendment and DO allow for firearm ownership. What they don't have that America does is a obsession with firearms. 

I think short term that may not be realistic. I think attitudes have to change to a great enough degree for what you say to work.

Trading roles.  Now look who's being an appeasement bitch.

[Anomalocaris]

If it takes civil war to emasculate the NRA, with all its twisted contribution to the political system that led to trump’s finger on the nuclear button,  then let it come.  It will decide many more issues than just guns.

Against opponents like the right wing in this country, one would never win if one backs away from the brink.

[The Grand Nudger]

Have we not already had a weapons ban? AWB The effects have been studied, weighed and found wanting.

Yeah, we banned the wrong guns, and even failed to ban guns we mentioned by name..somehow.  I don't know why anyone ever thought that was going to work in the first place.  It was a waste of political capital and law enforcement time that had the effect of discrediting gun control reform, castrating the ATF, and feeding the beast the NRA would transform itself into.

[brewer]

Have we not already had a weapons ban? AWB The effects have been studied, weighed and found wanting.

I actually have two from that ban period stamped "law enforcement use only". The government put them into circulation after the ban was lifted.

[The Grand Nudger]

Reverse buyback...they needed the money to buy IFV's...apparently, lol. 

[Jackalope]

Have we not already had a weapons ban? AWB The effects have been studied, weighed and found wanting.

Yeah, we banned the wrong guns, and even failed to ban guns we mentioned by name..somehow.  I don't know why anyone ever thought that was going to work in the first place.  It was a waste of political capital and law enforcement time that had the effect of discrediting gun control reform, castrating the ATF, and feeding the beast the NRA would transform itself into.

^^^ This ^^^

The assault weapons ban was easily circumvented by continuing to produce the exact same guns sans bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and in some cases pistol grips (which were replaced with thumbhold stocks which are almost functionally identical). Weapon banned by name? No problem, a name change and the removal of the previously mentioned features, and you're back in business. The high-cap mag ban was a direct contributor to the proliferation of smaller more easily concealed handgun. High-capacity magazines never became unavailable. Enough were produced in the time running up to the ban that there was enough supply to last a very, very long time. They were more expensive, but not prohibitively so.

That was an ill-considered, and ineffective piece of legislation, and I say that as both a former gun nut and a current gun control supporter. OTOH, the Brady Act actually does something useful, though it does need to be updated.

The AWB ban also was a significant contributor to the dems losing congress in the following election.

Political capital has to be focused where it will do the most good.

[rskovride]

Does any of this feel like the influence of the manufacturers? I'm not saying all out conspiracy.... But, at least with the AWB, the manufacturers benifitted quite a lot.

btw, did anyone else see that Remington has file bankruptcy.

@Khem - yeah, the local sheriff needing an IFV is just stupid.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not a conspiracy if it's done out in the open and fully within the limits of the law, lol.  

I mentioned this in another thread, but if I were negotiating this societal compromise on behalf of the interest of the gun..I would grant useless restritions and extract a heavy toll as payment, and then point out how useless those restrictions had always been going forward..which..conveniently, is what's happened.

-and yet here we are again...again.  I think that gun control advocates commonly have their hearts in exactly the right place but their heads up their asses.

[Anomalocaris]

Does any of this feel like the influence of the manufacturers?  I'm not saying all out conspiracy....  But, at least with the AWB, the manufacturers benifitted quite a lot.  

btw, did anyone else see that Remington has file bankruptcy.

@Khem - yeah, the local sheriff needing an IFV is just stupid.

Think about it. Guns by necessity are durable, and slow rate of technological progress means guns don't become obsoletely within a generation or two. If there isn't some disturbance that incentivize gun enthusiasts to go out and buy more guns, the business of gun manufacturers would slow to a trickle and many of them would go out of business.

The hysterical gun debate over the last 2 decades probably does more to generate gun sales than any other factor.