So the question is no longer litigation, but enforcement. Nice shift.

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1996/a339-95-opn.html

https://casetext.com/case/state-v-aitken-3

And that's the best case scenario, look up Vicki Weaver for something worse.

It is physically impossible to come for guns. There are 500 million in the US, mostly unregistered.

It would be like prohibition.

The first thing on the list is literally 1992.

What happened in the 1994 midterm election, and what happened in between?

What happened in 1990 in New Jersey and what happened in the 1992 state elections (and 93 for governor because NJ does gov elections the year after presidential cycle for some reason)

What happens basically only in blue states (lone exception being VT with a R governor but D legislature in 2018)

And various executive orders in between and weaponization of the ATF, etc

Based on your reporting experience, what is your opinion that the gun lobby is really so powerful that it does not allow for strict gun control rules?

No matter whether any party (Democratic or Republican) the president comes into power, why they avoid stricter rules for gun control?

What legislation has followed those platforms?

Here's some democratic platforms

>"It is time to shut down the weapons bazaars in our cities. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons controls to ban the possession, sale, importation and manufacture of the most deadly assault weapons."

-1992 Democratic Platform

>"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

-2004 Democratic Platform

>"We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals."

-2008 Democratic Platform

>"We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements - like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole - so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few."

-2012 Democratic Platform

>"To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets."

-2016 Democratic Platform

>"Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines"

-2020 Democratic Platform

Notice how every platform since 1992 has called for an assault weapons ban (1996 and 2000 omitted because the 1994 AWB was in place). Yes people are coming for our guns and some are very blunt about it

I'll give you my nuclear bomb when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

[removed]

What a laughably obsequious answer.

Did people say why they felt they needed home protection?

Edit: and if so have they experienced home invasion or robbery or another form of confrontation that a weapon would be useful?

Media ownership holds a lot of influence over what stories you cover and what you're allowed to say on those stories.

You aren't a journalist. As long as you stay under Bezos' thumb all you are is a complicit pawn.

From Alex Horton:

You are correct that AR-15s are not machine guns. They shoot as fast as any other semiautomatic firearm, since firing speed is as fast as you can pull the trigger. But the comparison has only so much value. Typical hunting rifles are bolt-action and require you to recycle the round manually with each shot. They also often have limited ammunition capacities, typically around 5 with one in the chamber. What also makes them different from AR-15 is their size, weight and length. Most modern ARs have collapsable buttstocks and shorter barrels, making them more compact than your typical hunting rifle. I think in most situations when you want to cause maximum harm, like a mass shooting, those are some of the reasons AR-15s and not hunting rifles are used.

I think one reason AR-15s are so central to this discussion is market saturation. About 1 in 20 U.S. adults own one, according to our polling. Of course there are other types of rifles that are similar, like Mini-14s, and other foreign alternatives, like the Steyr AUG. But those are far less common. I think some reasons are AR-15s are available everywhere, easy to shoot, customizable and fairly cheap for entry level models. AR-15s also have a long and recognizable history from Vietnam all the way to Iraq and Afghanistan because of the use of the rifle’s military cousins, the M16 and M4.

Not to mention that AR-15s are symbolic on both ends on the spectrum. Gun advocates say AR-15s are the pinnacle of the 2nd Amendment, and critics point to it as emblematic of all that is wrong with guns and access to them.

Why isn’t Assange on the front page every day?

Why did the Washington Post claim that Trump regulations regarding small-arms exports would put American guns in the hands of terrorists, dictators, and gangs?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/new-trump-rules-could-put-american-guns-in-the-hands-of-dictators-terrorists-and-gangs/2017/09/24/7daa4ffe-9fe2-11e7-9c8d-cf053ff30921_story.html?utm_term=.a157185852de

If you think that that is a good argument against gun control, do you similarly think that “Taking away nuclear weapons will only leave criminals with nuclear weapons” is a good argument against prohibiting individuals from owning nuclear weapons?

Edit: the amount of downvotes this has gotten compared to the complete lack of serious responses is quite telling.

> Now, however, they feel that they can promote these long held beliefs without paying a price politically.

It's easy to push an agenda as a minority because you can push anything and when the majority rejects it, you can claim you tried. Last time they put their balls on the table was 1994 and they....banned assault weapons

One of the things you touched on but didn’t explore a lot is the idea that a lot of this is really driven by marketing rather than politics. The smith and Wesson ad was mentioned and now the new Springfield saint victor ads.

A two pronged thought/ question then. Is there similarity in how the soda/junk food/ beer industries market to the biggest users and the way gun makers are marketing ARs? Is the imagery being used of the lone “operator” driving resolution of some problem driving mass shouting?

This post is about AR-15s

Not really. The Democrats have been consistently pro-gun control for decades but have often had to bury those positions since they weren't what the electorate wanted. Now, however, they feel that they can promote these long held beliefs without paying a price politically.

You're entire premise about the AWB being at the forefront of the discussion is bogus. There has been a tremendous push to strengthen background checks, enact red flag laws, limit magazine capacity, and so on.

From Ashley Parker:

It’s hard to imagine a credible push to overturn the 2nd Amendment. I always think back to when I covered Congress, in the wake of the Sandy Hook mass shooting. Then, it felt like the entire country was horrified and outraged by what happened, and there was real bipartisan political will on Capitol Hill to get something done. And even in that moment — when 20 six and seven-year-olds had been killed at school — Congress was unable to pass even a simple background checks bill.

And when a new assault weapons ban finally came up for a vote in a Democratic-led Senate, only 38 of the chamber’s 54 Democrats voted in favor of the bill — meaning that 16 Democrats did not vote for it.

In the aftermath, I remember talking to a bunch of Hill aides, both Democratic and Republican, who had worked on the issue, and their takeaway was basically: If we can’t do anything after nearly two dozen babies are slaughtered, we’ll never do anything.

Since then, we have seen modest fits and starts, both legislatively and through executive action. But overturning any amendment — let alone one so polarizing — is a huge lift, which makes your question feel like more of a fascinating hypothetical than anything else.

> he has become increasingly bullish on the idea that Democrats can now run on the issue of gun restrictions… and win.

This is all either party cares about. Pulling on your heart strings to secure and maintain power.

Massa Bezos is reading this AMA, they can't go against him

I mean I know the answer, I just wanna hear them say it. I would accept any of the following and maybe some others

1. Assault weapons ban is an easy 'win' for the Democrats because it will never get passed but it can make it look like they tried

2. People only care when affluent (especially white) kids get shot, no one cares about all the impoverished children killing each other with handguns

3. The media (WaPo included) over-covers school shootings, which increases the issue due to giving fame to shooters and promoting copy cats. Since most people in the US who live outside of cities don't see the coverage about the thousands of dead kids from handguns, they just don't care.

4. The average middle class American lives in an area where school shootings are more likely than handgun fueled gang violence and again, only care about issues that effect them and not their fellow Americans with the least support for their own success

5. The crime epidemic in the cities is directly related to the failed War on Drugs and it's policy of mass incarceration but no one wants to end either because the government on both sides profits from this. Also, no one wants to fund schools or after-school programs to give these kids in a role-model-vacuum a positive course for their lives because it's easier and cheaper to ban assault weapons and let everyone think the problem is solved

6. Elected officials think voters are stupid so they propose overly-generalized solutions to incredibly complex problems in order to pacify the masses