Your pro gun Republican lawmakers will lose big time 2016

[Tero]

In November elections.
The country:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2454131

Republicans in Iowa:
“If you’re a Republican candidate these days and can’t handle a firearm, all you can run for is the border,” said Mark McKinnon, a veteran GOP media strategist.

[Tero]

But: How likely is it that the president and Congress will pass any laws that will bring significant changes to gun policy by the end of next year?
Somewhat 22%
Not very 39%
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/new ... ownership/

Californians are pissed off but can do nothing till election.

[Hermit]

In November elections.
The country:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2454131

Strictly speaking any gun control whatsoever is unconstitutional, including the two most widely accepted laws regarding people who have been convicted of a felony and those who have involuntarily spent time in a mental institution. Look at the text as ratified by congress: "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." That's it. There is not even a hint of a hook to which any restrictions via gun controls can be made constitutional. As the amendment stands, anybody who can bear a bazooka, rocket propelled grenade, a portable nuclear weapon once one is is developoed and manufactured, or whatever other weapon, has the constitutional right to do exactly that.

On the bright side, if the 80% of US citizens are currently in favour of gun control laws are determined enough to change this, the ratification of a 28th amendment that effectually rescinds the second hasa not unrealistic chance of being ratified. It would not be the first time a previous provision in the constitution would be neutered.

[JimC]

In November elections.
The country:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2454131

Strictly speaking any gun control whatsoever is unconstitutional, including the two most widely accepted laws regarding people who have been convicted of a felony and those who have involuntarily spent time in a mental institution. Look at the text as ratified by congress: "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." That's it. There is not even a hint of a hook to which any restrictions via gun controls can be made constitutional. As the amendment stands, anybody who can bear a bazooka, rocket propelled grenade, a portable nuclear weapon once one is is developoed and manufactured, or whatever other weapon, has the constitutional right to do exactly that.

On the bright side, if the 80% of US citizens are currently in favour of gun control laws are determined enough to change this, the ratification of a 28th amendment that effectually rescinds the second hasa not unrealistic chance of being ratified. It would not be the first time a previous provision in the constitution would be neutered.

From all I've seen of the American political scene, this is extremely unlikely. A majority still favours the right to own guns,; the best you could hope for is to have a more rigorous screening process...

[Hermit]

In November elections.
The country:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2454131

Strictly speaking any gun control whatsoever is unconstitutional, including the two most widely accepted laws regarding people who have been convicted of a felony and those who have involuntarily spent time in a mental institution. Look at the text as ratified by congress: "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." That's it. There is not even a hint of a hook to which any restrictions via gun controls can be made constitutional. As the amendment stands, anybody who can bear a bazooka, rocket propelled grenade, a portable nuclear weapon once one is is developoed and manufactured, or whatever other weapon, has the constitutional right to do exactly that.

On the bright side, if the 80% of US citizens are currently in favour of gun control laws are determined enough to change this, the ratification of a 28th amendment that effectually rescinds the second hasa not unrealistic chance of being ratified. It would not be the first time a previous provision in the constitution would be neutered.

From all I've seen of the American political scene, this is extremely unlikely. A majority still favours the right to own guns,; the best you could hope for is to have a more rigorous screening process...

Um, was anyone talking about gun bans?

[JimC]

In November elections.
The country:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2454131

Strictly speaking any gun control whatsoever is unconstitutional, including the two most widely accepted laws regarding people who have been convicted of a felony and those who have involuntarily spent time in a mental institution. Look at the text as ratified by congress: "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." That's it. There is not even a hint of a hook to which any restrictions via gun controls can be made constitutional. As the amendment stands, anybody who can bear a bazooka, rocket propelled grenade, a portable nuclear weapon once one is is developoed and manufactured, or whatever other weapon, has the constitutional right to do exactly that.

On the bright side, if the 80% of US citizens are currently in favour of gun control laws are determined enough to change this, the ratification of a 28th amendment that effectually rescinds the second hasa not unrealistic chance of being ratified. It would not be the first time a previous provision in the constitution would be neutered.

From all I've seen of the American political scene, this is extremely unlikely. A majority still favours the right to own guns,; the best you could hope for is to have a more rigorous screening process...

Um, was anyone talking about gun bans?

You were talking about rescinding the 2nd, which I think is fantasy land...

[Hermit]

You were talking about rescinding the 2nd, which I think is fantasy land...

Oh, I see what you mean. I said effectually rescind, though. This is because you cannot actually modify an amendment itself. You basically have to create a new one that overrides it. This does not mean the new one will need to abolish the right to bear arms unconditionally the way the second amendment affirms that right unconditionally.

[Tero]

I'm just saying the Republicans will lose seats in Congress. Laws is up to Congress and Hillary.

The 2nd Amendment had to do with militias. And muskets. You can have your muskets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opini ... egion&_r=0

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. 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. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.