Skip to comments.Donít hold your breath for new gun laws (Study shows gun grabbing crowd will be very disappointed)
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.
Gun sales in Colo have gone through the roof since the shooting.
It is a different world than it was in the mid 1990s.
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?
Go ahead, gun grabbers, hold your breath. Preferable at the bottom of the ocean. Ten minutes should do it.
In liberal speak the 2nd Amendment is a loophole. Without it we would already have been feeding the their ovens.
People (including libtards), have finally discovered calling 911 usually results in a long wait.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.