|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
The political calculus on the gun issue has changed
Submitted by:
jac
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Most gun control measures get broad public support, including requiring background checks for private and gun show sales (83 percent in a 2019 poll), a ban on the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines (61 percent) and a ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons (57 percent). But what matters politically is intensity of support. Getting gun laws through Congress has always been difficult because of single-issue voting by gun rights supporters.
The gun issue drives their votes; for most other voters, it doesn't.
Submitter's note: I'm a one issue voter. I figure that if someone is too dumb to understand gun rights, then they're likely to be just as stupid on other issues. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/6/2021)
|
"Getting gun laws through Congress has always been difficult because of single-issue voting by gun rights supporters."
Yeah, and that pesky Constitution and SCOTUS precedents keep getting in the way, too.
U.S. v. Miller: protects arms in common use that have militia utility.
D.C. v. Heller: The 2A protects and individual right to keep and bear arms unrelated to membership in a militia, and to use small arms for lawful purposes.
McDonald v. Chicago: The 14A binds the states to 2A protection.
But hey, that doesn't stop the statists from trying.
(Like files at a picnic...) |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
