Is there now justifiable hope of enacting sensible gun law?

There's no sense to be found in any of the gun control laws you want.

 

I would like to see how enforcing the existing gun laws would work. The left love to add regs to everything and then selectively enforce, watch it fail, create another gov group to fix, create more regs, rinse repeat.

 

Indeed.
The membership of the NRA is an order of magnitude greater than that of all the anti-gun groups, combined.
Given the liberal penchant for mobilization and activism, this should tell you something,

 

Oh, but...

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

So, mindful of the Constitution, what do you suggest?

 

When are you people going to realize that nobody in the US gives a damn about your view on guns?

 

The gun laws in CA obviously don't work -- once repealed, we can talk.

 

This is the current law in CA.
Doesn't work.
Thus, there's no reason whatsoever to enact a federal law to that effect.

 

The thing about this survey is most of it IS addressed already, so clearly it was targeted towards folks ignorant of current Federal and state gun laws.. In other words NONSENSE

 

Which is precisely why gun control doesn't work. The good and decent people in Chicago obey the law... they are not the ones shooting up the South Side. The thugs could care less about the law, hence they bring in guns from other places, buy them off the street or from the vast network of underground dealers, and then proceed to use the to 'put caps in dem *****z,' all of which are already illegal.

 

Just did.

 

Do you give yourself a ten minute head start just to be sporting?

 

The poll is easily debunked.
Q1: easily skewed depending upon which part of the country you are polling.
Q2: background checks are already required when purchasing from an FFL dealer...even at gun shows.
Q3: assault weapons are already banned without a special license...the AR15 is no an assault rifle.
Q4: already on the form FF4473.
Q5: again easily skewed.
Q6: already a law.
Q7: try enforcing the laws that are already on the books before making new ones.

Make any gun conviction have mandatory sentencing, no more plea bargaining. And no early release because the prisons are too full.

 

Any law that redresses the permissiveness that allows homicidal maniacs and criminals ready access to the firearms they use in mass killings elicits a knee-jerk response from those who oppose allowing Americans to enact the legislation they support to protect themselves and their loved ones.

 

No such legal access exists.

 

That's pretty stupid logic. What if, just what if, they couldn't get them from outside sources and bring them in? Also, indiana is literally a 20 minute drive away. It's not an "underground" source to buy from a gun shop in Indiana.

 

I see. You are the last word in debate logic, eh?

We can't keep drugs out of prisons - a 24/7 secured environment. How do you propose we could prevent "outside sources" providing illicit weapons to the criminal underground?

Very few Chicago thugs will meet the requirements and pass the background check. Basically, if you are able to pass a background check to buy a firearm, it means you're not a very good gangbanger. IL residents who purchase handguns out of state must have them shipped to a FFL within IL, where you are held to the same scrutiny as if you'd purchased the weapon in the state.

 

It's funny how many of the ant-gun left have no idea this is the case.
They happened to read ' they can just go to Indiana" on some list of talking points and parrot it w/o thought.

 

There were over 10,000 people killed by drunk drivers in 2015. It would seem rational to me to do a full background check on anyone buying alcohol, and have a waiting period.
Now that is rational to me in part, because I don't drink and such a law would not affect my life at all. It's easy to be in favor of something that impacts a large part of society when it doesn't impact you. That doesn't say much for your character, but it is human nature.

The drunk driver has his finger on the trigger just as much as a firearms killer. He usually isn't targeting anyone specific; he's willing to kill anybody- so no matter who you aare, you could be next. Same logic as that which you propose- Just try and sell it to the public that it would impose on. Do you drink now and then?

Since the legally obtained percentage of guns used in crimes is between 3 and 10 percent, varying on the source- any such law would at best affect 10% of gun crimes. The Texas church shooter had his rifle for 15 months in advance of the crime. A waiting period would at best only impact the portion of that 10% who for some reason felt the need to kill immediately.

While proposals like that sound useful, when you really look at the dynamics, a logical person can see that they would be nearly useless. Cosmetic solutions aren't the answer.

 

This is absolutely the case. I was asked some years ago, by an anonymous phone pollster if I had firearms in my house. I told him "no guns", because that is the only rational thing to tell some random yahoo that calls my house. No sane person would admit to having a gun to a random person who calls.

 

Yeah maybe we'll get constitutional carry. That would make some sense.

 

As has been stated numerous times, the answer to the question is that they cannot. No piece of legislation, none whatsoever, can physically prevent a crime from occurring. If it is believed otherwise, explain precisely how.

 

Whilst some still wring there hands an plead impotence in confronting the astronomical level of firearm slaughter in America, others are not so eager to surrender.

It's a start:

 

Indeed, the only way to prevent violent people from doing violent things is to lock them away before they do. Since the vast majority of violent crime committed against our peaceable people is committed by repeat violent offenders, we can never practically eliminate violent crime... but once we know that a given person has a propensity towards violence... particularly using a weapon... we should not give him the chance at recidivism, until it can be shown that he no longer possesses violent proclivities.

On the other hand, if we are to continue to return the violent, over and again, to our peaceable society, then we will be forced to do the opposite: lock OURSELVES away to try to be safe from the violent.

In any case, trying to child-proof the country by removing every thing that bad people can use to hurt others, is ridiculous. Thinking people know this.

 

What about persons under 18 who hunt? I started hunting with shotgun at 14 Unsupervised.

 

America has become a dictatorship ruled by liberal pollsters