Should the 2nd amendment (Right to Bear Arms) be Abolished?

[mikekerrIII]

It's not cosmetic reasons. It's a functional feature of the gun. Why doesn't the military use thumbhole rifles? And how do you figure a pre-ban gun will not be transferable?

Some milatry weapons do use thumbhole stocks, the p90 is a good example

And if you read the proposal, weapons that are banned are not transferable

[mikekerrIII]

So why is there a thriving market for "bullet-tip magazines"?

For One weapon, Find one for a Glock, Browning or colt pistol, or any other pistol.

[mikekerrIII]

The point is moot onassualt weapons, it doesn't look like the Democrats can come up with a simple majority in the Senate, much less the house.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ss-senate.html

If they had tried for a bill without the silly cosmetic rules

Something like: No semi-automatic rifles with a magazine more than 10 rounds, and no extended magazines on pistols.

Most of the things that get a weapon banned under this law are seemingly on the list becasue they scare people, not for any rational reason

[dupont2005]

For One weapon, Find one for a Glock, Browning or colt pistol, or any other pistol.

Pistols had different qualifiers. A smaller mag would do fine.

[Nick Soapdish]

Yes it was hence the filibuster, the intentional slow process of the Senate and the idea that each district would be repented individually by someone who is supposed to reprsent the wants and desires of his/her individual distinct not the nation at large. The founders had real problems with the tyranny of the majority and built processes to buffer the system from the whims of the public

Except that Charles mistyped and it was 62%. And thanks to gerrymandering, you can easily be a loser on an issue even with 62% of the electorate on your side. And that doesn't even get to the filibuster.

The filibuster isn't written in as part of the Constitution. The Senate changed their rules in 1806 (and yes, it's when a lot of the founders were around) allowing for the possibility of a filibuster, but it's a stretch to say that the founders designed or planned for it. That was 20 years later and only done by the Senate.

Representative democracy does allow for it because people will often vote for people that disagree with them on one issue as long as they agree on lots of others. That has some strengths, but it also has weaknesses and one of those is that the lobbyists only have to buy the candidate instead of the voters (or the candidate can ignore their constituency for other reasons) as long as the candidate remains reasonably popular otherwise.

[Charles RB]

62% are the ones backing a ban on ban on semi-automatic assault rifles and high-capacity magazine clips - but on the same poll, 52% support either major restrictions or a ban on firearms.

[Nick Soapdish]

62% are the ones backing a ban on ban on semi-automatic assault rifles and high-capacity magazine clips - but on the same poll, 52% support either major restrictions or a ban on firearms.

Oops. Thanks for the clarification.

[Charles RB]

Which means there's a mandate for restrictions, and an even bigger one for a ban on semi-auto assault rifles and a type of clip. The NRA seem to be losing the argument.

[Nick Soapdish]

Which means there's a mandate for restrictions, and an even bigger one for a ban on semi-auto assault rifles and a type of clip. The NRA seem to be losing the argument.

Not as long as they have their supporters at Fox News and in Congress.

[Charles RB]

And there's that - they aren't convincing enough people but they're loud enough to make people think they have.

[Captain Clarkie]

Not as long as they have their supporters at Fox News and in Congress.

the system works! Hurray for Freedom!

[mikekerrIII]

Which means there's a mandate for restrictions, and an even bigger one for a ban on semi-auto assault rifles and a type of clip. The NRA seem to be losing the argument.

As ;long as every state has a equal voice in the Senate that mandate is meaningless. As long as the republicans have a huge lead in the House that mandate is laughable. Congress pays attention to the voter IN THEIR DISTRICT and in at least six districts held by Democrats the idea of gun control is poison. National; polls are and should be ignored by by people hird to represent a certain area. Shpould my Sentor worry about what people in Ca prefer instead of the People that elected him in DE?

the NRA is still more popular than Congress or the President

[mikekerrIII]

Not as long as they have their supporters at Fox News and in Congress.

And the majority of about 30 out of 50 states voters

[dupont2005]

As ;long as every state has a equal voice in the Senate that mandate is meaningless. As long as the republicans have a huge lead in the House that mandate is laughable. Congress pays attention to the voter IN THEIR DISTRICT and in at least six districts held by Democrats the idea of gun control is poison. National; polls are and should be ignored by by people hird to represent a certain area. Shpould my Sentor worry about what people in Ca prefer instead of the People that elected him in DE?

the NRA is still more popular than Congress or the President

Well good thing gerrymandering and corporate lobbying is saving the American people from getting what nearly all of them want. I'm sure this is exactly what the founders wanted.

[Captain Clarkie]

Well good thing gerrymandering and corporate lobbying is saving the American people from getting what nearly all of them want. I'm sure this is exactly what the founders wanted.

Probably was, considering they were all rich, white, male, landed gentry. But I am puzzled by your current line of arguement, Mike, something being electoral poison in certain areas doesn't neccesarily make it right or wrong.