Blackstone is correct.
After their bans, did Britain and Australia purge their political house like we did in 1994?
That jab aside, Daniel Hannan rules!
Blackstone is correct.
Purging the political house AFTER a ban will do little good.
They won't be so stupid as to include a sunset date in the next one. Count on it.
In the UK,
The purge in 1994 did a huge amount of good, it assured that there would be nothing placed on Bush's desk to sign in 2004. It also assured that there will not be any ban in the future.
t
What's Facebook? I hear a lot about this silly fad but have never felt compelled to join the Conga line.
I mentioned Daniel Hannan upthread, how is he viewed by you and your friends and what (if any) is his stance on gun ownership?
t
The National Rifle Association, the country’s most powerful pro-gun-rights lobby, has been silent since the Newtown shooting. A spokesman for the group declined to comment Monday, saying it was not granting interviews.
Ok, time to add my two cents.
I stated that the fight is not solely at the legislative level. There is also the matter of public opinion. Letting the other side have exclusive control of the message that is provided to the public is a bad strategy. Ultimately, legislators answer to the public, so if you lose the battle for public opinion, all the lobbying in the world won't make a difference.Is there a Bill on the House floor that we haven't heard about? Did the President make Sarah Brady a czar? Getting impatient and screaming at the NRA isn't the solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Yes. I probably wouldn't really care what the NRA does if I wasn't a member. As for what I'm doing I've contacted my local politicians and told them that new gun control laws are not the solution. Ok, I'll admit that I haven't contacted Senator Durbin but he is a lost cause and it would have been a waste of my time. But I've had to contact both state and federal politicians because Illinois is also involved in its own battle currently.Are you a member of the NRA Phatty? What are you doing right now besides criticizing the NRA?
The playbook has already been written. They're just reading off of a script right now. What really irks me is that I know there are people in this country that were gleeful when they heard the tragic news because they have been waiting for this golden opportunity a long time. They know they'll never get a more perfect set of circumstances than what they have going for them right now, which is why we've seen the absolute full-court press these last few days.This is looking alot like Australia in the media. If you go back on youtube and watch some clips of how hosts on news and morning shows and on radio began talking about guns its eerie similar.
Good post, Checkman.When the "assault weapons ban" was passed in 1994, all existing "assault weapons" were exempt.
There's a clause in the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, (Clause 3) which states, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." And this clause applies more specifically to criminal law.
Just a WAG, but whatever "assault weapons" are out there today, would have to remain legal. The Firearms Act of 1934, which created "Class III" weapons, could probably be amended, requiring registration, etc. And good luck with that. The Feds would never be able to confiscate the weapons, because no one knows where they all are, not even a fraction of them.
The down-side to any of this type legislation, is getting it through the House of Representatives. They're not in the mood, regardless the outcry from the left, to entertain any legislation. They also have two full years for things to cool down.
There's also the cost to implement. In 1934, there were relatively few fully automatic weapons. Today, there are millions of "assault weapons" out there, both in "A4", or similar configuration, and less "menacing-looking". There are also a lot out there being used in high power rifle competition, etc.
Things to think about. Things that right now are not being looked at in all the hysteria on both sides.