I was talking about federal, state, and municipal.

So if you think the federal government has "effective regulation" of firearms there isn't much to talk about. Maybe your idea of what "effective regulation" is different than my idea of "effective regulation". The key word here is "effective". We all know they have been able to pass some regulations (constitutional or not).

"BTW if you want people to be polite and welcoming you might want to be polite yourself and avoid insulting people who haven't mentioned you, your opinions or your stance on gun control."

Please quote where I haven't done this. I'd be very surprised if you could find anything. Please note: "newtboy" literally asked.

Edit: oh wait. You think my warning about making assumptions is an insult! I see. No, it isn't. If you weren't taught that making assumptions is dumb then the reminder may well seem like an insult. Rest assured, it is good advice.

I'm not interpreting "this" incorrectly.
I'm also not talking about state or municipal regulation.

I'm talking about federal regulation of arms that was enacted without having to change the constitution.

BTW if you want people to be polite and welcoming you might want to be polite yourself and avoid insulting people who haven't mentioned you, your opinions or your stance on gun control.

No, I don't talk as if there has never been an amendment. It doesn't even make sense to suggest that since I'm referring to the 2nd Amendment.

Changing the constitution is very difficult. It was made that way on purpose. Article 5:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

"Only inaction and unsupported, unpopular opposition has prevented the government from effectively regulating, not inability."

Whether you believe it is unsupported or unpopular has no bearing on anything. Just to be clear, I never wrote or implied they don't have the ability, only that the constitution prevents "government from effectively regulating arms."

The party in power may not fully represent your views, or the views of the people who directly support the party, no party ever does. But enough Americans wanted them in, and not the opposition who resoundingly lost, that they rule the roost. Considering how many Americans don't vote there is no such thing as a majority of Americans - there can only be a majority of those who vote. And this is not a measure for winning an election. The measure for winning is electoral college votes. The rules were set, one side played it better, the other side lost and whined about the rules.

"You just implied strongly that you're just a sock puppet for Vladimir....AKA @bobknight33....and @wtfcaniuse didn't assume your stance on gun control, he derided your (bob's) snarky but incorrect assessment of our popular opinion and shooting statistics.
Who's being dumb now?!"

I'll answer straight up. You. You are acting dumb. And paranoid. I don't know who those people are. Your "popular opinion" of what? I literally gave links to authoritative statistics for anything under contention. You need to see someone about your mental state.

Try to make people feel welcome. There is a reason this website is sinking into obscurity (look at the rankings).

Firstly I didn't quote you, I didn't assume anything about you, I didn't mention you or your previous comments at all.

Secondly the second amendment doesn't specify guns and doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use. It's funny how many gun rights advocates don't care if their knives, tasers, knuckle dusters and pepper sprays are regulated and controlled.

Thirdly Gun control doesn't equate to taking all your guns away.

Lastly constitutional amendments can be repealed and changed.

You talk as if there's never been an amendment, or you don't understand how they work. 98% support is far more than needed.

The founders foresaw this sort of issue, and created a constitution that can evolve with the culture. Only inaction and unsupported, unpopular opposition has prevented the government from effectively regulating, not inability.

That's the thing about having a party in control that doesn't represent the majority (edit: or even the vast majority of their own supporters), the will of the people is neutered.

Duh.
You just implied strongly that you're just a sock puppet for Vladimir....AKA @bobknight33....and @wtfcaniuse didn't assume your stance on gun control, he derided your (bob's) snarky but incorrect assessment of our popular opinion and shooting statistics.
Who's being dumb now?!

You talk like it matters if "an overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control and background checks right". It doesn't.

The founders of the USA foresaw this sort of issue and wrote an extremely strong constitution preventing government from effectively regulating arms.

That's the thing about being a republic, the tyranny of the majority is thankfully neutered.

BTW, don't be dumb and assume my stance on gun control.

You do realise that an overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control and background checks right? It's nothing to do with left vs right or political grandstanding.

Even within the NRA the majority of members oppose the official NRA stance on gun control.

Stop talking rubbish, it was sad years ago, it's pathetic now.

If the left didn't care about people getting shot and killed, why would they care about guns? Duh.

99% of shootings are by illegally obtained guns in democratic cities?!
Site your source.....I know you can't, you flushed already. The actual number is 40-<60% of those convicted of illegal shootings admit they used illegally obtained guns, the number varying by state, higher where laws deny violent convicts the right to own them, lower when they can. As to your ridiculous 99% Democratic city claim, you're just repeating a long ago debunked lie from a failed Republican candidate 5 years ago. Here's some data.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/12/deadliest-cities-gun-control-laws-congress-chicago
Note how many Republican led cities are worse than Chicago.

99% are non NRA members? Maybe, but >99.5% of Americans are non NRA members, most NRA members quit the organization decades ago like I did, but are still listed as "members". Since most americans aren't members, actually the NRA gave a pitch to prospective sponsors in which it said that about half of its then-4 million members were the “most active and interested.” (the other 2 million are often dead members, ex members, or those given free but unwanted memberships with a purchase) so there MAY be 2 million, but that's likely still a massive overestimate, meaning using their own numbers, active NRA members are far more likely than the average person to murder with a gun IF your 1% guess is right (and there's absolutely no way to know, those statistics aren't kept).

Yes. Mass terroristic attacks with or without guns get more attention than individual personal attacks. Odd, you think that's proper if it's not a right wing terroristic attack, like most today are.
Suicides account for >60% of shooting deaths but get zero coverage. Why not whine about that?

Odd, you seem to be saying you're afraid of the violent, gun toting democrats who are 99% more ready and better armed for violent political civil war than Republicans....but you also claim Republicans have all the guns and are better shots and ready to go.....which is it?

2017 had nearly 40000 gun deaths, the highest since 1968.

This happened 30 minutes from my place,
Notice no one has guns? I am surprised and happy that Canadian gun control works.

Congratulations! Your comment on Gun Control Explained by Mr Bean has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 32 Badge!

And this is exactly why gun owners hate the idea of "gun control." And why it is not possible to compromise in the US.

Your video, Gun Control Explained by Mr Bean, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Just like indoctrination of the Nazi youth .. brainwash the kids and you have them for life. They will grow up wanting to ban all guns.
Must be a
She might not be a Tool but she is being used as one.

Just worried about girls and woman. Kinda of sexist .

Just school shootings? What we don't care about inner city shootings of which represent some 95% of all shootings.


Considering its slew of liberal funders, it’s hard to see March for Our Lives as anything more than just another gun control group bought and paid for by the professional Left.

God I hate Republicans... anyone who still supported him up to a week ago...
He finally does something you don't like (meddle in Syria)... he finally becomes unpopular enough to threaten your whole party (buried in scandal, tax plan, no wall, trying and failing to take down ACA, punting on DACA, punting on gun control)...
And now, ONLY NOW, does all the rest of the shit he did look "impeachable" to you.
Fuck you., ya spineless suits and boot-lickers.

"it's the assault that makes it an assault weapon" LOL. Guess we should start banning assault hammers and assault knives then.

10 yr Assault weapon ban didn't affect gun violence at all.

AR-15s aren't weapons of war, they are used by police agencies across the country.

BTW, the parkland shooter used 10rnd low capacity magazines. Looks like banning 30rnds won't do much good at all, but that's just common sense.

This gun control hysteria is the Republicans' best shot of retaining control of the house and senate. Just look at '94 when they swept into power after the clinton assault weapon ban.


You can't really show any side when you limit each exchange to a 2-sentence sound byte. Pretty pointless.