Good gun related fact checking at CNN

[blues]

The correct answer to that is to laugh in their face. It's the other team's pie-in-the-sky, fairy tales and unicorns answer to the people on our team who think a magic court case or House Bill is going to come down the pike that repeals GCA '68 and NFA '34 in one swell foop.

Our government doesn't work that way.

1) Mr. Hypothetical Gun Grabber, you don't have the votes. Sorry. That's facts. The best you can hope for is to muscle through another incremental federal ban and brace for midterm electoral backlash.
2) Even if your fairy tale law got passed, it won't stand judicial muster in a post Heller & MacDonald world.
3) Even if the Supremes suddenly overturned their own judicial precedent, you have no idea the scale of what you're asking. We have no idea how many guns are in this country. None. Any "estimate" is probably low by a ridiculous margin. Not only do we knot know how many there are, we don't know who has them, or where they are. And the home machine shops of America can make more any time they want. You think a back alley blacksmith in the Khyber can make neat stuff, Ms. Gun Grabber, imagine what he could do with a Master's in Mechanical Engineering and a CNC mill & lathe in his garage.

Both sides in this debate are stuck running Off Tackle Left on Three in the legislature while hoping to pick up an occasional twenty yards with a judicial screen pass.

It's like the perfect country song but you didn't add mama, prison, pickup trucks or trains!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The thing I worry about is state bans proliferating and I'm waiting to see such pass SCOTUS muster with the new justices. I agree I don't see a total federal ban coming down the pike unless some atrocity causes a moral panic and a total collapse of the pro-gun legislators and executive branch. That's what our entire bump stock discussion is about.

[Tamara]

I agree I don't see a total federal ban coming down the pike unless some atrocity causes a moral panic and a total collapse of the pro-gun legislators and executive branch.

If Vegas didn't do it, what do you suppose would?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If Vegas didn't do it, what do you suppose would?

I'll pass on atrocity plans on a readable place. See a PM

[Drang]

The thing I worry about is state bans proliferating and I'm waiting to see such pass SCOTUS muster with the new justices. I agree I don't see a total federal ban coming down the pike unless some atrocity causes a moral panic and a total collapse of the pro-gun legislators and executive branch. That's what our entire bump stock discussion is about.

If Vegas didn't do it, what do you suppose would?

Just because the crap happening in Olympia and Salem is currently confined to the Pacific Northwest, doesn't mean it isn't happening...

[GyroF-16]

It's like the perfect country song but you didn't add mama, prison, pickup trucks or trains!

Or gettin’ drunk

[VT1032]

If Vegas didn't do it, what do you suppose would?

A democrat controlled House, Senate and Presidency? That's all that stands between us and an assault weapons ban, I guarantee you that. If the hildebeast had won, I think we would already have one.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[AKDoug]

A democrat controlled House, Senate and Presidency? That's all that stands between us and an assault weapons ban, I guarantee you that. If the hildebeast had won, I think we would already have one.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Yet in 2008 to 2010 the Dems controlled all three and they couldn't even get Feinstein's attempt to reauthorize the Assault Weapon Ban out of committee.

I'm not saying I want the Dems to control anything, but it's amazing that when they had a chance they couldn't even get it off the ground.

[Tamara]

Just because the crap happening in Olympia and Salem is currently confined to the Pacific Northwest, doesn't mean it isn't happening...

I was speaking federally.

While you guys are losing ground, other states are steadily gaining it. The state level game is wildly see-sawing. We just passed more good pro-RKBA legislation here in Indiana this year.

[Stephanie B]

A democrat controlled House, Senate and Presidency? That's all that stands between us and an assault weapons ban, I guarantee you that. If the hildebeast had won, I think we would already have one.

That does not comport with political reality. Clinton's winning in `16 would not have changed a single seat in either the House or the Senate.

Control of the Senate was pretty unreachable for the Democrats in `18. The mid-term flip of the House was a counter-reaction to Trump. Most parties holding the White House lose ground in the House in mid-term elections.

I don't see the path that a President Clinton would have had to get an AWB ban enacted into law.