Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Donít hold your breath for new gun laws (Study shows gun grabbing crowd will be very disappointed)
Hotair ^ | 07/23/2012 | Jazz Shaw

Posted on 07/23/2012 11:17:37 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

We've already seen the sadly inevitable rush to capitalize on the tragedy in Colorado as an excuse to start passing strict gun laws, ranging from Bloomberg to Rendell and more. But as we sort through the aftermath of the disaster and the victims begin to pick up the pieces, is this opportunism going to result in any new legislation along those lines? One study linked by the AP seems to indicate that the gun grabbing crowd may wind up being disappointed.

Once, every highly publicized outbreak of gun violence produced strong calls from Democrats and a few Republicans for tougher controls on firearms.

Now those pleas are muted, a political paradox that's grown more pronounced in an era scarred by Columbine, Virginia Tech, the wounding of a congresswoman and now the shooting in a suburban movie theater where carnage is expected on-screen only.

"We don't want sympathy. We want action," Dan Gross, president of the Brady campaign said Friday as President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney mourned the dead.

As this look at history lays out, there was a time in the nineties when gun control garnered a lot more public support. A ten year ban was placed on certain types of rifles while Bill Clinton was in office and the Brady Campaign obviously felt like they were winning the day. But then, slowly but surely, the tide began to shift.

By 2004, when the assault weapon ban lapsed, congressional Democrats made no serious attempt to pass an extension. President George W. Bush was content to let it fade into history.

Public sentiment had swung.

According to a Gallup poll in 1990, 78 percent of those surveyed said laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, while 19 percent said they should remain the same or be loosened.

By the fall of 2004 support for tougher laws had dropped to 54 percent. In last year’s sounding, 43 percent said they should be stricter, and 55 percent said they should stay the same or be made more lenient.

While many of the Democrats in this article bemoan the ascendency of the NRA in the modern era, the fact is that they have deftly handled a campaign of public awareness which has been winning support on both sides of the aisle. There are some cycles where their financial support to campaigns has been almost exclusively to the GOP. This year 12% of their donations went to Democrats. And the far Left side of the Hill hasn’t been able to swing anything close to a majority of their own members to take a big stand on this. Obama himself said we must protect our 2nd amendment rights after the tragedy. The issue is simply too politically toxic.

This isn’t to say that 2nd amendment supporters shouldn’t be vigilant in the weeks and months ahead. But I also don’t think it’s time to panic.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2012; banglist; gunlaws; guns; youwillnotdisarmus

1 posted on 07/23/2012 11:17:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Gun sales in Colo have gone through the roof since the shooting.

It is a different world than it was in the mid 1990s.


2 posted on 07/23/2012 11:24:29 AM PDT by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What goes unsaid in the Pravda outlets is: which law enabled the shooter to acquire his weapons legally? All you hear is vague references about “closing the loophole.” Which loophole?


3 posted on 07/23/2012 11:32:02 AM PDT by NRA1995 (I'll cling to my religion, cigars and guns till they're pried from my cold dead fingers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Go ahead, gun grabbers, hold your breath. Preferable at the bottom of the ocean. Ten minutes should do it.


4 posted on 07/23/2012 11:37:59 AM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRA1995

“Which loophole?”

In liberal speak the 2nd Amendment is a loophole. Without it we would already have been feeding the their ovens.


5 posted on 07/23/2012 11:39:35 AM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

People (including libtards), have finally discovered calling 911 usually results in a long wait.


6 posted on 07/23/2012 11:41:33 AM PDT by tickedoffnow (No more...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Holder and Obama demonstrated their lethal recklessness when, mere minutes after inheriting all the guns of the federal government, set about murdering about 43,000 innocent Mexicans. They didn’t have to actually pull the triggers, just as Charles Manson didn’t have to, but their actions and orders did it for them. Any first step in the march toward total gun confiscation should start at the White House and DOJ. Get the guns out of the hands of these two killers, and get some justice for 43,000 victims.


7 posted on 07/23/2012 11:43:31 AM PDT by DPMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"This isn’t to say that 2nd amendment supporters shouldn’t be vigilant in the weeks and months ahead. But I also don’t think it’s time to panic."

If the current chief executive is sufficiently deluded, enabled by a more than willing MSM, and sees it as assuring another term in office, we may wake to an executive order in the next few days standing the 2nd amendment on its head. Soon followed by a thumbing of the nose and a "see you in court." Remember that the 2nd amendment was kept alive in its most recent trip before the SCOTUS by one vote. Just one vote. You don't think that tempts the current occupant of the White House night and day? All he needs is to wave the bloody red shirt at just the right time, with just the right backdrop and lighting. Music. All provided by Hollywood's best, to generate another well-timed "thrill up the leg." He will do it. Rest assured he will.
8 posted on 07/23/2012 12:09:39 PM PDT by PowderMonkey (WILL WORK FOR AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffaloguy
It is a different world than it was in the mid 1990s.

It is and I believe that one particular event has resulted in Americans rethinking their position on "safety" what it mean and who's responsibility is it.

Blaming objects was easy & made people feel good. Lawn dart in the eye = ban lawn darts, smoking is bad = ban smoking, someone sh00ts up a school = ban gvns.

Then Americans got a dose of reality, people found out that banning something and sitting back is not enough to provide for your safety.

9 posted on 07/23/2012 12:33:32 PM PDT by NativeSon ( Grease the floor with Crisco when I dance the Disco)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I strongly suspect that AP is misrepresenting the poll question referenced in this line: According to a Gallup poll in 1990, 78 percent of those surveyed said laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, while 19 percent said they should remain the same or be loosened.

As I remember it the questions were more often: "Do you support reasonable gun laws?"

As reasonable was in the mind of those answering the question, this was not the support for Handgun Control Inc., that it was often characterized as.

10 posted on 07/23/2012 12:42:44 PM PDT by Fraxinus (My opinion, worth what you paid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The legal system is based on the concept of letting some guilty go free if it would cause one innocent man to be denied his liberty.

While the most leftist ACLU attorney would defend this, when it comes to 2nd Amendment freedoms they behave the opposite.

Better to deny the rights of the many innocent that allow those right to the guilty.


11 posted on 07/23/2012 1:44:33 PM PDT by School of Rational Thought (Fun for women ages 21 through 35)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Why do even the PRO gun articles not mention that the theater shooter’s AR-15 automatic jammed and he did most of the damage with other firearms?


12 posted on 07/23/2012 3:04:14 PM PDT by subterfuge (BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffaloguy

It is a different world and people have learned that when faced with a criminal using a firearm, it is absolutely imperative that law abiding citizens have their own weapons to protect themselves.

There were military people in that theater in Aurora. If any of them had been allowed to carry a firearm, I doubt that Holmes would be sitting in a jail cell now. Instead, his dead body would be lying in a morgue.


13 posted on 07/23/2012 3:12:01 PM PDT by Waryone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson