As a UK citizen I have had to make a decision this week that could fundamentally change the economic path of my country for a generation. Now have voted I every election I could and sometimes (more often in recent years) I have found myself voting for the lesser of two evils knowing that by electing a particular party all the issues get rolled into one any I have to take the good with bad. A referendum levels the playing field and gives the individual citizen the chance to make their choice on an individual issue without having to rely on someone to do it for you; especially when that some is really only interested in their own opinion or just as likely the voice of their highest paying donor! So whereI'm getting to here is this one question. If the USA were to ask its people, not the Congressmen,Senators and "Party faithful" what should be done about the seemingly unstoppable proliferation of guns in their country which way would that vote go? Take away the money and focus on the lives lost every year (through intent or accident) and how different would the interpretation of the "right to bear arms" be?
It doesn't matter. There is no Constitutional basis for a federal referendum on any subject. We are a representative constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. That said, while I do think that possibly assault style weapons could be banned by such a referendum, firearms as a whole would not be.
Thankfully for the US, it's physically impossible for them to catch this referendum-fever Europe is having; but even if it weren't, gun ownership is in the culture there. It would take an incident of unimaginable magnitude and a very clear link to gun ownership to change that. The idea of the state (and criminals, presumably) having a monopoly on all or almost all firearms is just not in keeping with "American values" and all that, so to speak.
They would vote to keep firearms - that's how Americans vote every election. Its a myth promoted by the gun banners that support for firearms is solely due to the big money from the gun manufacturers and lobbyists. Gun rights cuts across party lines, both Republicans and Democrats support gun rights (but "progressives" want to ban guns). When gun control issues come up, most Congressmen are swamped by emails and phone calls and letters opposing gun control. That "unstoppable" proliferation of guns is because people are voluntarily buying them. And that proliferation of guns has not results in increased mass killings or homicides, just the opposite. The push for gun rights started in the 1980's with gun control regulations being repealed, concealed carry being made easier, and the number of firearms in the population going up tremendously, but starting in 1990 homicide and total violent crime dropped >50%. More guns, more gun rights, means less crime.
Realistically, since "citizens United" became the law of the land, it is more instrumental in determining gun laws then the second amendment. The 2A is totally immaterial; it's corporate influence and buying elections that is determine our laws. Everyone of the supporting measure could have gone the other way had the elections of the presidents who nominated the justices been turned around. Where the senate needs a 60 vote veto override, it isn't ' that difficult to buy swing state senators and Jerrymandering has become the law of the land for House elections. Our govt. is not representative of the people,, it is representative of corporate America and the military industrial complex, both of which have a vested interest in keeping guns available on our streets.
In a sense you can see referendum playing out the states. With the exception of the 10 states that have always had draconian gun law that are tightening restriction, the trend in the other 40 states is an increasing CWW population and more states moving to become Shall Issues states, and more states joining or considering becoming Constitution Carry states and in most an easing of restrictions. It is a reflection of the voters in this Republic. It is also, certainly, a reflection that a 3/4 majority of states required to modify or repeal the 2A doesn't, even at the point of the height of sentiment supporting gun controls, and never has existed. Then, there is the anecdotal evidence of the accelerating pace of gun sales where in 2013 there were, according to the ATF some 357 million guns in private hands followed by over 20 million more in 2014 and another 23+ million in 2015 and now with each month breaking historic sales records. Considering there were about 225 million guns when Obama took office and the numbers now out there, the last 8 years have seen the largest surge of gun sales in a compatible time frame in history. What what happen with all the building congressional hysteria...I predict it won't have a detrimental effect on gun sales, but will increase them. The increasing publicity about mass shootings and all the anti gun press is doing the opposite of the intention, instead of people thinking we need to reduce guns to lower risk, people are arming themselves against the risk of being shot in a malls, theaters, etc. because the government has failed to stop the mass murderers that the new media loves to exploit for profit.
Because that's what the polls seem to show. I agree it's silly, but I also think people are easily swayed. I think they could be persuaded to ban assault style weapons. I don't think they could be persuaded to ban handguns or conventional looking guns.
You can see how the media can effect opinion. MSM stories on gun control are 8 to 1 to gun rights stories.
Yes but we were talking about the alleged 'assault weapons' which are portrayed on TV and in movies as fully automatic. Some politicians don't even know the difference. Like my cleaning lady exclaimed when she saw my AR, "You have a machine gun?"
guns are like any other metal object,it does nothing unless some one initiates the use...so, dummies get a life...guns don't kill , people do...so, I think we should ban people...
It always depends on the question and how the issue is spun. Take the terror watch list for example. If you simply ask: “Do you think it’s a good idea for the government to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists?” Many people will say yes. This is the kind of soft poll gun control proponents push—a rosy goal oriented poll that has zero explanation of how the goal will be accomplished. And if someone votes yes then the gun control proponent will claim this vote is justification for any means necessary to accomplish the goal. But the real question should be asked this way: “To fight domestic terrorism, do you think the government should be allowed to keep a secret list of people, with an unknown government official deciding whether you will be on the list or not—with the consequence that if a person is placed on the secret list then he loses his constitutional right(s) with no notice, due process, or right to challenge the action before his rights are violated?” I think you would get a different answer if you ask a more truthful question. (By the way, this should have been the exact question asked when my government decided to round up American citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII….) And this is exactly what the recent democrat-led sit-in wanted—to empower the government to unilaterally and secretly decide who could and who could not exercise an individual constitutional right—with the “goal” being so important that the constitutional rights of notice and due process must be sacrificed on the altar of this false god named necessity. And are we not courting disaster when we say a majority of any poll (assuming one exists) is sufficient authority for the infringement on the individual rights of any minority of persons? Would a (very white) majority vote in favor of denying persons of color the right to vote have any legitimacy to overcome these Constitutional rights? There were just such majority votes in the past. Should they be sufficient to overcome Constitutional rights? Do you believe Constitutional rights should be subject to suspension at the whim of the vote of a transitory, simple majority of a poll? Fighting terrorism is important, but not at the expense of any one of our individual rights. An attack allowed on one right encourages an attack on all. The end cannot justify the means. --- “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."--Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (192 (Brandeis, dissenting).
Your question is far too broad; referendums ask a single specific question. Never mind there is no mechanism for a federal referendum.
People have a right to protect themselves. There are two types of people who want guns: a) Those who want to defend themselves from aggression b) Those who want to commit aggression Owning a gun for purpose A does not mean you would ever use it for purpose B. The violence in the US is predominately from gangs and the drug trade coming from our southern border, which is the most violent place on earth. Gun laws can no more keep guns out of the hands of category B than it can keep drugs out of their hands. The UK has seen this a lot recently with the murder of your politician and the large number of automatic weapons springing up in your country. Not to mention the problem with explosives and terrorism you're experiencing. Look at the London riots.....during those riots blunt object sales on Amazon went up 5000%. Coincidence? It's a shame the government treats adults like children in the UK, and doesn't think your right to self defense is good enough reason to own a weapon.
Frankly speaking, I don't care what Subjects of the Corny Crown have to Pontificate on gun control, I am against any form of gun control as it only serves to disarm law abiding people, not Criminals.
