So in reality land, the assault weapons ban doesn't have a prayer of passing. I have a better chance of winning the lottery when I didn't play and on a day when there are no drawings. The size of magazines might have the chance of winning the lottery on a day with a drawing if you bought a ticket.
But the universal gun checks and a registration, that actually has a chance. Can somoeone explain to me how LaPierre thought that this was a brilliant idea and had the NRA endorse it in '99, yet now he will fight as hard as possible to keep such a thing from happening?
I doubt any of it has a chance. Assault weapons ban is DOA in the Senate, much less the House. "High capacity" magazines have a slim chance in the Senate, none in the House. Private-sale background checks probably wouldn't pass the House, either -- though it likely has the best chance of any proposal. Gun registration has even less chance than a High-Cap magazine ban -- "registration" makes a lot of people justifiably nervous.
The legislation proposed has nothing to do with the school shooting anyway -- wouldn't have prevented anything. Political posturing by a bunch of blowhards.
I'm not so worried about it passing. My concern is that we have elected officials that think it is time to throw away portions of the Constitution. It is the attempt that is worrying. There is a reason that we have laws against attempted murder, attempted sexual assault and other things like that. Just because an attempt is not successful does not mean that it is harmless.
My concern is that we have elected officials that think it is time to throw away portions of the Constitution.
It happens from time to time, for a variety of reasons (see Civil Rights, Women's votes, Prohibition, Rescinding prohibition, etc.). Amendment would be the way to go about it, but it is always simpler to try legislation first.
Hold on, there. What part of the Constitution was thrown out by Prohibition? How about female suffrage? How about rights for blacks & Indians?
Changed, would be more accurate than thrown out.
Sorry, Liam, I did not mean to push you to say that changes to any part of the Constitution are changes to the Constitution...
Look, article 5 spells it out pretty clearly. Congress and the States have a built in method for making changes to the Constitution. Paul's comment made it sound like he was worried that suddenly we have politicians who feel that they need to do so. My point was just that it is a built in part of the document to allow for it, and having politicians who feel that way, is nothing new.
Yeah, that's the weird thing about the American Constitution, the Amendment process. Why they hell would people who knew their worth do that?
Are you saying that the idea of amendments is wrong? That the document should have originally been perfection and unchangable? And that because it isn't that it shows a flaw of the framers?
I'm pretty sure they said they would never do this.
Watch now all of a sudden liberals will be all in favor of states rights. Then we will have to remind them that states rights don't trump our rights granted to us in the constitution.
"Damn you constitution; you obstruct me yet again."
-shakes liberal fist at the constitution
Moral of the story is to never ever take a liberal at their word.
Man I hope that doesn't pass. Terrible law and will likely be found unconstitutional, but not before opening up more cans of worms than its worth.