Another Mass Shooting in the Good Ol' USA

[barbara]

Assault weapons were banned in the 90s. If we could regulate them back then we can do it now. And Freedoms and rights come with responsibility.

[Pio1980]

Interesting take on the topic;
https://stephenleesposts.quora.com/B...rget_type=post

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by barbara

Assault weapons were banned in the 90s. If we could regulate them back then we can do it now. And Freedoms and rights come with responsibility.

WHAT!! There was a ban on assault weapons and our society didn't devolve into lawless anarchy with criminals running loose in the streets as the only ones possessing illegal assault weapons??

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by barbara

Assault weapons were banned in the 90s. If we could regulate them back then we can do it now. And Freedoms and rights come with responsibility.

Perhaps tide is turning but not until recently. I do agree with you that until the GOP legislators are directly impacted, they will continue to pay lip service as in 'thoughts and prayers".

The politics of gun control have always been fraught, and Democrats dodged the issue for decades following their loss of the House in 1994, which many of them attributed to their passage of an assault weapons ban. The epidemic of mass shootings has prompted Democrats to change course, and now even Democrats from red states, such as Jon Tester of Montana, have embraced background checks.

Originally Posted by RickeyM

WHAT!! There was a ban on assault weapons and our society didn't devolve into lawless anarchy with criminals running loose in the streets as the only ones possessing illegal assault weapons??

I have heard that Republicans would rather cradle their AR-15's than their puppies.

Why Republicans Won’t Budge on Guns

Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans support some restrictions on firearms, but G.O.P. lawmakers fear they would pay a steep political price for embracing them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/u...n-control.html

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans support some restrictions on firearms, but G.O.P. lawmakers fear they would pay a steep political price for embracing them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/u...n-control.html

And this is the same reason that a lot of GOP lawmakers still publicly support Trump while privately hating him. The most important thing in a politician's life is his next election and they're deathly afraid of their Fox-addled base.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

They should only be allowed in a "well regulated militia", which the 2nd Amendment types today totally ignore. The 2nd says nothing about firearms outside of a "well regulated militia", as Chief Justice Warren Burger pointed out. But that's WAY too obvious for a simple-minded person like you.

What's obvious to me is that you don't know what you're babbling about.

The term "well-regulated militia" has nothing to do with the government regulating what the militia could or could not do, own, use, etc. The term well regulated militia simply means that the militia is in effective fighting condition:

"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was
in an effective shape to fight."

In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

The link goes on to describe the purpose of a militia and the meaning of security. Might help you to brush up on that.

Hope you learned something today.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Automatic weapons, weapons with silencers, and shotguns with barrels less than 18" in length have been heavily regulated since 1934 by the National Firearms Act and assault weapons were highly (and effectively regulated) in 2013.

In other words, there are plenty of ways to regulate firearms ....

You're arguing with yourself again, Finn. No one is stating the government can't regulate. The term that was used in the post above, the one that I'm responding to, uses the word "ban".

OK, please return to arguing with yourself....

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

And this is the same reason that a lot of GOP lawmakers still publicly support Trump while privately hating him. The most important thing in a politician's life is his next election and they're deathly afraid of their Fox-addled base.

Looking to the government to provide a "solution" to a problem - which does nothing to get to the root cause of the problem - is idiocy. But I guess it's your kind of idiocy.

[whell]

Originally Posted by barbara

Assault weapons were banned in the 90s. If we could regulate them back then we can do it now. And Freedoms and rights come with responsibility.

You're referring to the "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act". For better or worse, there's no conclusive evidence that it actually did anything to take guns out of the hands of criminals or reduce crimes in which a firearm was used.

[RickeyM]

Boy someone's on a roll this morning