Gun control???

[Revolvernut]

I'm just curious to see what everyone thinks about future gun control? Is anything currently in the works? Do you think anything will be coming down the pipe? With the latest shooting at Fort Hood I'm wondering if there will be another push for new gun control. Sorry but I don't get many chances to keep up with the news.

[TXAZ]

There is always a serious challenge in the pipeline nationally. Lots of attempts, some minor successful but overall I don't see major restricting changes nationally. Some states will loosen up. The gun lobby is strong and likely to remain that way.

[glh17]

Agree with TXAZ, maybe some proposals in Congress but nothing significant passing. Some states have tighter controls than others but less control today than there's been in my lifetime. Movement in my state, TN, has definitely been toward looser gun laws and several bills in legislature to loosen more.

[2123]

I recently saw on the news where pro-gun policies and laws are actually making some good progress.

The gun control advocates are scrambling to counter it.

I seriously doubt that the Ft. Hood incident will change anything at all.

[TXAZ]

I am assuming your "gun control" perspective and question is on legislative issues and not on precise and rapid target acquisition and hitting the target...

[Revolvernut]

It just seems like an ongoing pattern

1. A shooting occurs
2. The "we need stricter gun control" argument occurs
3. New laws get struck down
4. Quiet pause for a few months
5. Then another shooting

The few times I do get to keep up with this in the news I get so irritated I want to pull my hair out!!! Comments like "The majority of Americans agree that we need stricter gun legislation".

[Mike38]

1. A shooting occurs
2. The "we need stricter gun control" argument occurs
3. New laws get struck down
4. Quiet pause for a few months
5. Then another shooting

That’s the way it goes. If all that effort and money that goes into attempting to write new gun laws just to get shot down, was spent on why did the shooting happen in the first place, we would all be better off. If they want to save lives, spend some time looking into why people snap? How do people fall threw the cracks of the mental health system? What can be done to help people with Post Traumatic Stress problems? Why are mental health issues increasing in the USA? Or are they? But no, that takes effort. It’s so much easier to write a silly law.

[g.willikers]

The anti gunners are a very small minority, as compared to our side, but they are in positions of influence and never give it a rest.
That's why it's so important for every gun owner to, at least, be a contributing member to the gun rights groups.
Both the national, state and local ones.

[Spats McGee]

Of course there's something in the works. The anti-gun groups pounce on every tragedy involving a gun. MAIG and the Brady Bunch will jump up and down, rend their clothes, and scream for more gun control. It's what they do.

[TailGator]

There have always been folks pushing for gun control, and always will be. Right now the political climate is pretty good for those opposing gun control, but politics is cyclical and we need to stay on our guard.

[manta49]

There have being gun controls put in place in America for years i can't see that changing. If some got there way it would be the same as here in the UK. Its just more difficult to do in America because of the constitution.

[gyvel]

Your first mistake is assuming that it's "gun control." It's not; It's "people control." An unarmed population is easily controlled and make very good "consumers," with an elite plutocracy controlling the shots. You figure out the rest.

[manta49]

Your first mistake is assuming that it's "gun control." It's not; It's "people control." An unarmed population is easily controlled and make very good "consumers," with an elite plutocracy controlling the shots. You figure out the rest.

I understand what you are saying. What do you mean controlling the population. There are lots of countries with strict gun control that are no more controlling than the American government and probably less in some aspects.

[gyvel]

What do you mean controlling the population.

It's complicated.

What I mean is that certain factions are able to impose their will (i.e. shove it down throats) on populations to achieve their own ends. It doesn't necessarily mean a dictatorship per se, but through gradual attrition and acceptance by a population, the goals are achieved, usually the aggrandisement of wealth and power.

Once a population is unarmed, there is little or no possibilty of opposition to the wishes of the plutocracy.

[Skans]

By all the large cap pistols, +15 round magazines, "assault pistols", folding-stock semi-autos and 12-gauge "assault shotguns" you can.....if you want them.......NOW. That's all I've got to say on this.

[Pilot]

Our last line of defense is our RKBA, and the 2A. The politicians know this, and with their accomplices in the media, and education have duped some of the populace into believing that more gun control laws will reduce crime, and deaths by people using a gun.

That is not the reason they want more gun control. Criminals will always get weapons. It is purely to more easily manipulate, and control the law abiding populace.

[gyvel]

Criminals will always get weapons.

"Criminals" are just another excuse for tighter government controls and a greater police state. "Criminals" play into the hands of the government to help them achieve exactly what they want.

[gyvel]

And to the anti-gunners who say "The Founding Fathers never envisioned "assault weapons," nuclear devices or what-have-you," I say that the Founding Fathers also didn't envision a corrupt, over-bearing HUGE centralized self-serving government, either.

Or did they...?

[fuhr52]

I think the Founding Fathers did fear a corrupt over bearing centralized self-serving government, that's why we have the 2A. For those that make the claim the Founders didn't envision military grade weapons in private hands, at the time that's all people had. True they couldn't envision the improvements we have today. The Founders where smart people and if this had been a concern they would have written safe guards and ways to amend the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Oh wait, they did!

[gyvel]

For those that make the claim the Founders didn't envision military grade weapons in private hands, at the time that's all people had. True they couldn't envision the improvements we have today.

This is a very hackneyed, lame excuse used by the anti-gunners.

But think about this: At the time, the available firearms were certainly more technologically advanced than the snaphaunce, hand cannon, etc., and any person with any education and awareness knew good and well that advances had been made in firearms, and would continue to be made. (In fact, a number of them did live long enough to see the advent of the percussion system.)

That's an argument I would love to shove down some anti-gunner's throat.

[fuhr52]

Yea, it's as lame as anti gunners making the claim the 2A was written to protect hunters.

[Tom Servo]

It's going to be hard to use the Fort Hood shooting to justify new gun control. They only want soldiers to have guns while serving? Well, this was a soldier. This was a security-controlled military base.

There's really not much fuel for their rhetoric this time around, which explains their relative silence on the issue.

As far as legislation goes, Harry Reed has made recent statements that he doesn't see the votes or the interest for revisiting the Universal Background Check bill.

(This thread has been moved to Law & Civil Rights, so be sure to abide by the rules specific to this subforum.)

[ThesNazud]

If anything I can see Ft. Hood being used to argue FOR carry on military bases...

[guruatbol]

I used to have to go to military bases for training and meetings when on the narcotics team. When we got to the gate we had to check our weapons. What a PITA.

I understand why they want the security personnel to be the only ones with weapons. Heck in a prison when street cops have to go there they have to check their weapons.

It is so easy to hide one and get it in. The only people being disarmed are the honest ones.

Anyway, I doubt this latest shooting will get much traction as it will be rather embarrassing to some pretty high ranking officials. I am sure the base commander is standing tall in front of his superior. Somebody behind closed doors is getting a butt shewing.

Mel

[Buzzard Bait]

I think if you look farther you will see that nearly all of the mass shootings have ben performed by shooters under the influence of SSRI type drugs but that never seems to make the news
bb