Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Clay Putnam, CGCS said: Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Clay Putnam, CGCS said: Come to modern day Chicago and ask all the gang members to check their guns before entering the city. Let us know how that works out for ya.
Maybe more police on the streets would be similar to the one sheriff in town back in those days, if the police would do that, do you think the NRA would stop them? (I suppose it depends on if they got their gun legally or not. If they did not I would like to know how they did get them, I suppose some stolen, but what about straw buyers, auctions, and gun shows that don't do background checks?) But of course in the past, late 90's the NRA was all about registering weapons. What has changed?
I have heard that back in the 60's when Gov. Reagan (yea the same one that became president) was worried about violence in LA during that time and wanted to have a ban on hand guns. Sounds somewhat similar to what you are proposing.
Mel
This is whole discussion is moot isn't it with the Supreme Court decisions? NRA or no NRA, the constitution rule still remains the same.
If it's moot than why do states keep introducing laws to prevent federal law from being enforced? MO introduced one last year that the governor vetoed, and some R's decided not to fight it because they knew the new law would be unconstitutional.
I guess I brought it up because since the current president has been if office, groups (including the NRA) have put a fear into people that their guns will be taken away and with some of the comments from people, yet history shows that guns were taken away from people in certain circumstances and yet it does not get recognized, I believe it invalidate their arguments. I thought the historical fact of the issues was interesting and discussable.
Mel
I think its difficult to compare the wild west days to today. Back then the idea of checking your gun was probably seen as a temporary disarming. You walk in, check your gun, walk out, pick up your gun. Like the coat check at the restaurant. Additionally, the NRA either did not exist or if they did, certainly wasn't as organized as it is today and do we think the people of that day had the need to take the issue before the supreme court. Most likely not.
Fast forward to today. Its a safe statement to say that if Barack Obama and his fellow democrats had their way, all guns would be illegal and confiscated, immediately. This makes legit gun owners nervous (gang members and illegal gun owners couldn't care less). Any attempt by the democrats to restrict guns in any way is seen as an attempt to take away their constitutional right. Remember, Obama comes from Chicago. Chicago has tried to eliminate all guns. Period. They have made gun ownership, possession, and distribution illegal. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and they continue to enact more laws in an attempt to stop guns from entering their city. However, Chicago still has the worst gun violence of any other large city. So obviously their gun laws don't work. Again, period. There is no disputing their gun laws don't work. The proof is as obvious as the sun in the sky. Yet the people running that city and state dig in their heels and keep creating ridiculous laws that only punish the law abiding gun owners. On top of enacting crazy laws, they do it in the face of supreme court rulings. The city officials enact laws worded in such a way to skirt the supreme court rulings. These new laws are then enforced by the city until a group, like the NRA, bring the new law to light and get the case before the supreme court to overturn the city's obvious attempt to bypass the constitution.
In the end, it's the democrats that is generally the group that try to outlaw guns. Hence the push back against anything the democrats bring to the gun control debate.