Or the many reasons that Biden will fall flat on that promise.
First off, been there done that with the original AWB which was a failure. It was intentionally a failure in that it was poorly written. Fixing that would require that the firearms that are banned would be simply defined as "any semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting, or has, a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds". The problem there is that the political will doesn't exist. It never has in the US. Making New York's gun laws the laws of the land might have worked when the NFA was first passed in the 1930s, but good luck getting them through now.
The Second Amendment isn't really a barrier to adopting strict gun laws. It never really has been. The Second Amendment is an obscure clause in the US Constitution which few people really understand, has been openly misinterpreted, and will be a barrier to action as long as it is considered a part of the Constitution. Heller and McDonald didn't change the landscape. Point it out once again: the Heller-McDonald language showing regulation is acceptable:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5
Which has as a footnote (26):
We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
Better yet:
But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Heller at 64
From McDonald:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40
The only thing off the table is anything that purports to be a ban. Which leads to my question: had Chicago theoretically allowed for registrations (as does New York City) since that is not an “absolute prohibition”– would the law have passed constitutional muster? After all, NYC’s law has been around for 99 years: doesn’t that count as a longstanding regulatory measure?
If that isn't good enough for you: show me the words "self-defence" or "Tyranny" in the US Constitution and we can have a discussion.
Next we come to the people who are running around talking about defunding the police. That goes to one of the talking points that the pro-gun crowd have working for them. Who is going to protect you if the cops can't? Like it or not, one of the objects to having a government is to keep order. No order=no society.
Or to paraphrase the 60s bumper sticker: "Don't like the police? call antfa!"
And Antifa are a set of bozos I can live without. They did fuck all to stop the rise of fascism the first go round. If anything, they helped it get powerful.
Anyway, we've had toddlers shot and a horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas. Nothing has happened yet.
If anything, the divide between the two sides has widened and become more entrenched. I see the animosity getting stronger.
So, if anything, the situation will get far worse.
