In response to:

Angry Gun Control Debate Does Collateral Damage

Zircon Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 11:20 AM
Medved, you just don't get it. You've obviously never been associated with guns in any way shape or form. The anti-gun lobby will just continue to chip away. What may seem like a reasonable response is just step 1 of many continually eroding the Second Amendment. This has been going on for far too long. Those of us who support the 2nd say, "Enough!" We will not give another dam quarter of an inch!! To do so will only further erode our rights.
Texas Chris Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 12:20 PM
Please entertain my litmus test for true gun-rights advocates:

Do you support the 1938 Federal Firearms Ban, which made full-auto, suppressors, short barreled rifles, and short shotguns illegal?

Because it is a clear infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, and yet it never seems to come up in today's discussion...
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 1:24 PM
it's the 1934 National Firearms Act.
Plus the 1968 Gun Control Act and the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.
Each one cut away some of our right to keep and bear arms,MILITIA arms.

None of them had any significant effect on gun violence.
poorgrandchildren.com2 Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 1:57 PM
Those laws absolutely did have a significant effect on gun violence. They increased it.

The Great Gun Debate shows American political discourse at its irrational worst; with both left and right promoting panic and hysteria that distracts attention from the nation’s truly menacing problems. Instead of addressing crushing deficits, economic stagnation, political gridlock, and the erosion of middle-class security, politicians and pundits obsess over gun violence—one of the few challenges where the United States has made dramatic progress in recent years.

How can the president and his supporters work themselves into a self-righteous lather over minor regulatory adjustments that have been tried before with no measurable impact on the rate of firearms...