So what's it going to take to get the GOP to regulate weapons?

They might as a result of the wide spread of illegal 3d printing of guns. They are hard to control. It will be a criminal renaissance if not all hands on deck stopping the proliferation of hard to track guns.

Black, brown and muslim people open carrying ARs…

Minorities arming themselves en masse.
That is what happened when black people started arming themselves decades ago, and started patrolling their neighbourhoods to keep cops in check.
Conservatives got onboard gun control real quick.

Do you think the government should be able to enter my house, uninvited, and take away my firearms that were bought legally under the law?

I think assault weapons and magazines that carry more then 10 rounds are too much. Just because you can have weapons don’t mean you can have a rocket launcher or M1 Tank!

@Acrylic “Do you think the government should be able to enter my house, uninvited, and take away my firearms that were bought legally under the law?”

They can declare something illegal and expect you to turn them in for money. Afterwards, if you’re caught in possession of the thing, then you can be charged. It’s what they did when they banned all kinds of things.

Generally, “a well regulated militia” and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” are regarded as two separate things. There is the individual right, as established by the courts. Some of that is quite recent. So here is my honest opinion on why we have polarity on guns and why gun culture is off the rails a little bit. People have been trying to ban them for years. Some of it veiled, but it’s mostly right out in the open. Our gun nut culture is somewhat of a reaction to that. Many people, including me don’t want gun rights taken away but I’m not on board with some of the regulation coming from both sides of the isle.

Trouble is those “gun nuts” seem to think some regulation and instantly we are completely taking all their guns away and that is nowhere nearly true. I don’t believe we should totally disarm the citizens either, but we need to do something about these ultra powerful weapons of mass destruction. Do you believe the founders had these types of weapons in mind when they wrote this amendment? Of course not, they had one shot black powder muskets.

They’re not going to change it or do any gun regulation because that won’t get them any votes and they’ll lose the election. Being a politician is number one getting re-elected. No Republican is going to get re-elected by talking about gun control, so it’s never going to happen.

NRA and Putin’s cash input will not stop . . .

End NRA and money from foreign countries supporting gun sales !

@Tropical_Willie God if we only could?!

“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”
I hate to say it but truer words there never were.

@kritiper “When shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons.”

—Said by nobody, because the logic in the basic construction is moronic.

How does regulated translate into outlawed? See those buzz words are what the GOP runs on.

@Dig_Dug Many on the left openly want a total ban.

@Blackwater_Park A total band will never happen.

@Dig_Dug Tell that to those living down under

@Blackwater_Park Down under don’t have our Constitution.

Our constitution says the Federal government can’t take away guns from the state’s well-regulated slave militias. It’s a guarantee that the slave states would be able to maintain slavery and not have the northern states ban the armed slave militias thereby making slavery impossible to maintain. It also said Black people counted as 3/5ths of a person.

@Dig_Dug Let me put it another way. An effective total ban can be done by chipping away at it with regulations.

If 2% of the 150 plus mass shootings, so far in 2023, included the “rich and famous” or their families . . .there would be emails to every member of congress to control – - sale of guns ! ! !

So. True story.
I bought a shotgun, last week. Took me 23 minutes.
The other night, I did my occasional ammo purchases, online. No background check or anything for the ammo.

When I had to sell guns, part time (part of working at a sporting goods store,) I was so disappointed with the systems inplace to keep the wrong people from having so much capacity for mass destruction with so few obstacles.
In my state (as long as you pass a NICS background check, which is just verifying you are American and not a felon,) your only limitations are financial.
There are absolutely ZERO laws about ammunition purchasing.

They did an experiment in CA a few years back, where they tracked ammo purchases. Turns out LOTS of people who weren’t allowed to own firearms, were buying lots of bullets/shells…
Nothing came of that…

They don’t even look twice at mass purchases. You have to be 21 or older, to buy handguns, and/or handgun ammo. But. Otherwise, people 18 and up who haven’t been found guilty of a felony or worse, can buy AR-15’s, AK-47’s, the like, and thousands of rounds (if available of course,) in less than an hour. There are no regulations on such things, or even any system that makes note of such behavior. “Gunshows,” are crazy. The line going in, is long. The coming out, is long and disturbing. Hundreds of people walking out with one arm carrying weapons, and the other carrying ammo.

I don’t believe that people should not be allowed to acquire these arsenals. However. It should be WAAAAAYYYYYY more difficult and the system needs to have sweeping changes…

Total bans, would never work…
Outlawing weapons already in circulation, is not realistic. Many who want regulations, don’t have enough knowledge on the subject, to offer an opinion…

But things need to change…

@Blackwater_Park I really don’t see that possibly ever happening unless they would end up repealing the second amendment completely and that takes an act of congress. And T.W. makes an excellent point, if any of these mass shootings were against rich families you know darn well things would go a lot differently and there would be changes right away with gun laws!

Perhaps the most disturbing trend is that such publicized atrocities, actually lead to people buying more, and more weapons. In fear that regulations will eventually prevent/ban ownership of many weapons.

The sad truth of the whole phenomenon, is that most people acquire weapons for protection from a dystopian world that doesn’t exist. Yet. This may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The rich do get effected by these events, by the way. The recent shooting was in a private school. Indifference is just too prevalent, I suppose…

@Dig_Dug They’ll keep chipping away until people are only allowed to own a single shot 22 and use it when there is a solar eclipse on a leap year.

@Dig_Dug “I really don’t see that possibly ever happening unless they would end up repealing the second amendment completely”

You may not be aware, but for the VAST MAJORITY of US history, the 2nd amendment was applied only to militias. See United States v. Miller. It’s only under activist Republican Supreme Court justices that have decided to abandon the principles of stare decisis, where they’ve decided clauses they don’t like can be ignored.

I plead the 5th…

Vote the dirt bags out of office , sweep their butts into the dust bin of history . And the Dems should stop quaking in their boots and stop being so bloody ineffectual.

To start with, the question is either being purposely deceptive or the OP doesn’t know history. The entire stress on a REGULATED militia is the foolish part. A militia, when the 2nd amendment was written, was effectively a draft. Normal citizens could be called into military service in times of emergency and they didn’t have the facilities nor the time to suddenly start training them on guns.

Subsequent interpretations have shown that the 2nd Amendment actually applies to individuals owning guns for personal protection (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)). @gorillapaws cited United States v Miller from 1939 that ruled that the guns involved with the case were not required for a well regulated militia. Obviously this ruling has been overturned. Another interesting thing on the Miller case is that the SCOTUS only heard one side of the argument…the government’s side. Miller’s attorney never showed up as he had never been paid and couldn’t get paid because Miller had been murdered. So while it is indeed a SCOTUS ruling, it was suspect as there was no dissenting arguments to be heard.

@seawulf575 What does my question have to do with knowing history?
”Obviously this ruling has been overturned” from what I read, it wasn’t.

“Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court’s invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “contribute to the common defense”. Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.”

@Dig_Dug Maybe you need to read further. DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago both had the SCOTUS ruling that personal protection was at the heart of 2A. Not some bizarre tax burden that Miller enacted with a concern about militias. If you want to own a sawed off shotgun you can own it. There are still laws about how that can be done, but it can be. In fact, the NFA of 1934 never said you couldn’t own a sawed-off shotgun…just that you had to pay a tax for it. And the term “sawed-off” is somewhat nebulous. If you take a shotgun with a 26” barrel and cut it off to 18”, you don’t have a “sawed-off shotgun” even though you sawed the barrel off.

Nothing. Psychos who target children are not the GOP.

The GOP can help regulate weapons so the “psychos” may stop killing so many children. Tougher laws, background checks and bans on weapons of mass destruction would be a start.

They do not care about children. They will happily use them as a front to further their oppressive political goals, but children are never the reason for their politics.
They oppose paid parental leave to help parents raise children.
They oppose public healthcare to help keep children alive and healthy.
They oppose public education to educate children.
They oppose free school lunches so that poor children do not go hungry.
They oppose outlawing child marriages.
They talk about “groomers”, but they stay suspiciously silent about the actual groomers in their own party
They oppose gun regulation to prevent children being slain regularly at school.
They do not give a flying fuck.

@Dig_Dug Don’t drink the Kool-Aid, we aren’t that far apart.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/gun-control-polling-2022/

@ragingloli You bring up an EXCELLENT point and I really hate to say this because it is somewhat leading off topic, BUT it ties in perfectly with what you said. Republicans sure do act like care a whole lot about the fetus though! Strange how they seem to not care much after it’s born…

They have to endure it survived to grow up and be used as a target.

@KNOWITALL We’re not really that close except for the mental part of that link you provided, pretty much everything else we are light years apart.

@Dig_Dug Really? Many were pretty close. Just keep blaming Reps, that will definatel fix the problem. Shrug.

1) Banning assault weapons, a difference of 46 percentage points. R-37% D-83%
2) Arming K-12 teachers, a difference of 42 percentage points. D-24% R-66%
3) Stricter gun laws would reduce mass shootings, a difference of 53 percentage points. R-34% D-87%
4) They have a gun in their house, a difference of 20 percentage points. D-28% R-48%
5) They believe the right of people to own guns is more important than protecting people from gun violence, a difference of 30 percentage points. D-9% R-39%

Sorry @KNOWITALL but the numbers (that you supplied) don’t lie. Tell me how I’m blaming the republicans? These don’t look pretty close to me!

@Dig_Dug Most of your political conversations revolve around demonizing Republicans, I’ve noticed.

Red flag laws and a family member reporting someone are huge, exactly what’s needed.
There was also the Republican lead bill on banning bump stocks in the Trump era.

What I find interesting is that it’s incredibly simple to have opioid database, but not a mental health database. We all know what needs to happen yet no progress, exactly like healthcare reform and border issues. Neither of our glorious parties will take them on.

@KNOWITALL the GOPs are the Demons . . . . except in some people’s personal opinions . .

That opinion includes these rules:

Rule #1 the GOP can do no wrong !

Rule #2 when doubt look st Rule #1!

@KNOWITALL I did not list Red flag laws and a family member reporting because we are fairly close on those issues.

Banning bump stocks, opioid database, mental health database and healthcare reform nor border issues were NOT on the list you provided. So how was I to address those? These are “red herrings” you just threw at me!

I will add this: The so called border issue is much bigger than blame the Mexican jumping the southern border and you should know that! Why do you think he is jumping the border? It’s not for the cool water or to watch the sunsets. If you don’t know I’ll give you a hint:

It’s the $$money$$ your American business man is paying him to jump the border to come over and work for him! surprise

I’ll give one more for free. The same can be said for the drug problem too. If nobody here wanted drugs…well gee then nobody would be jumping the border to sell them, now would they?!

There, I just solved all our problems!

@Dig_Dug So you aren’t American, now your ideas make more sense. I’ll leave you to it then.

@KNOWITALL Okay I’ll bite…what does that mean?

@Dig_Dug I prefer not to engage in political conversations with non-Americans. I don’t believe foreigners can understand the Constitution properly due in part to media bias. Just my preference, no offense to you personally.

Okay @KNOWITALL But I do understand English and from what I read it is simple English and very easy to understand. I don’t “get” my Constitution translation from the media, I get it from the Constitution.

@Dig_Dug Sorry, I can tell you I don’t fully understand political things in other countries so generally I’m not going to take the opinion of someone disconnected with something so nuanced as politics in America seriously. Politics are regional here too, particularly with firearms. The anti-GOP sentiment here on Fluther is mostly foreigners and people living in deep blue areas. It’s so easy to tell that the loudest anti-republican voices here don’t know many actual republicans but get their information from the media or Russian trolls online.

@Blackwater_Park Exactly. I read about politics in other countries on the BBC but don’t feel qualified to comment due to the nuances and history.

@Dig_Dug Your English is fine, I certainly am not singling you out. I’ve told other non-Americans here the same thing. :)

Unfortunately. Everyone is right. And everyone is wrong. The US constitution, and it’s amendments, are not so precise as to not be open to some interpretation.
I think big issues can be evaluated fairly easily by outsiders.
If someone hasn’t had the pleasure of living in a country so full of violence, and a large part of the population owning firearms, it probably is difficult to understand our culture.

I know that Americans have great difficulty understanding middle eastern places. That’s caused maybe more problems, than it’s solved.

But. I also support Ukraine right now, and have my own ideas about how they should be handling their predicament with Russia. I don’t think I have to live there, to offer opinions about that.

Opinions are fine. As long as people allow for ideas to be expressed, heard, visited, and then moved on from. Otherwise the conversation becomes circular, and people want to start taking things personally because they are passionate about the subjects being discussed…

I don’t know where this notion came from that I’m a non-American? Just because I’m anti-republican? I’m sure there are many democrats that are anti-republican. Many others here have “demonized” republicans, but only I am the non-American of the group. I wonder why that is? Because I’m non-apologetic about my beliefs that republicans are pretty much what is all wrong about America? You have congressmen and governors that are practically Nazi’s with their fascist leanings wanting to oppress all the minorities and restrict what is taught and can be seen.

Because I see gun control as at least a start to protecting children from crazy people trying to murder them. As opposed to: “We aren’t fixing this!” So send your kids to school and hope for the best, shit! You republicans care so much about stopping abortion but don’t care about kids?! Ironic as hell. I don’t know how you sleep at night?!

Only massive protests will make an impression I’m afraid. I saw on the news about a week ago that thousands of people marched on the state capitol building in Tennessee chanting: What do we want, gun control. When do we want we want it, NOW! Hope that will get the concept thru their thick skulls that they can do the bidding of the people or continue with
kissing NRA ass and lose their cush jobs .

https://youtu.be/A5WED9j9ZnE here it is. “When a POTUS runs afoul of the law, it’s a handy place to be”.

@NoMore You would not say this if you realized just how many people in Tennessee are NRA members. There are probably more pro gun people there than not. Such things usually rally new NRA members.

And NRA rallies encourage pro gun control activists. And this protest was a mini Jan 6. The crowd forced their way into the Capitol building and were pushing Troopers out of the way. These people are fed up and they aren’t playing. And there were clergymen with them. But at least no one was hurt. Times are changing and people are tired of the do nothing bullshit.