Why don't politicians roll back gun control?

[monotonous_iterancy]

It seems that politicians (even highly pro-gun ones) say that they support the 2A, but never seem to stir debate about rolling back gun control laws which infringe upon it. They always talk about holding the line, never accepting new gun laws, never taking one step back - and yet, they never seem to mention taking a step forward towards regaining some of the freedom we've lost.

Some examples from officials with "A" GOA ratings,

Rand Paul of Kentucky:

"I do not support any proposed gun control law which would limit the right to gun ownership by those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens."

Richard Shelby from Alabama:

"...we should not react in a manner that would unnecessarily and improperly infringe upon the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding American gun owners...one of the starting points is protecting the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend their homes and families in the manner contemplated by our nation's founders in the Second Amendment."

Mike Crapo of Idaho:

"We must protect and preserve our constitutional right to bear arms...I will continue to oppose all efforts to weaken Second Amendment rights. "

John Boozman of Arkansas:

"New laws are not the answer. Stricter enforcement of the laws on the books is where we need to start... If [a bill] that infringes on the Second Amendment rights of Americans—comes up for a vote in the Senate, I will uphold and support gun owner’s rights by voting against it."

Why is this? Surely it will never happen if no one talks about it.

 

[rcmodel]

Because they can't?

Politics is a chess game.

You make one move to appease the voters.
You make another move to appease your 'friends' in the other party.

Then, your next move is to say & do whatever it takes to get re-elected every two or four years.

But you don't introduce bills that stand no chance of passing a vote of your peers in the statehouse.

When you could be out stumping for votes, or taking payments under the table from some other faction 180 degrees opposed to what you just said last week.

Thats just the way it works!

rc

 

[Twiki357]

The only way I see any gun control legislation being removed is if an extremely pro-gun president were to be elected and forced some level of repeal of gun laws in exchange for his/her lack of veto of something else. But I figure that there’s as much chance of that as there is congress passing legislation making themselves subject to the same laws they shove down our throats.

 

[Tirod]

It's politics. You don't stay in office by reflecting "one small minority opinion" and being blatantly aggressive about it.

If anything, the current thinking among People of the Gun is to hold the line, and that is where they are putting their financial support. Drumming up interest in more than that, no.

Just start a thread on why the BATF should be disbanded and you will see many conflicting opinions from fellow shooters as to why they believe it's a fool's errand. Unfortunately, pushing to eliminate the NFA, BATF, and reopen the machine gun registery is pie in the sky thinking to them - they are convinced the anti gun apparatus is too strong to allow it.

They have already given up hope and surrendered. So, no support for forward thinking pro-gun policies from them, and if the pro gun people are divided and won't come out in full force to do something, then it undercuts support substantially.

It's not necessarily the politicians - its the shooters who are sandbagging our progress, and the politicians are where they are because they are savvy about reading our support. No sense them sticking their neck out when pro gun supporters are the ones that will be among the first to roll over on the issue.

For some, pro gun = tradition, and that means they are just happy as clams living in a restricted community where only they have guns. You will never see them participating in an Open Carry demonstration or building an AR pistol.

But, we don't talk about that on The High Road. So, we can't go further pointing fingers as to the real problem. It ain't necessarily the politicians, and if they are elected to represent us all, they have to represent others, too.

 

[kcofohio]

Public sentiment.

WWII: Though much of Europe and Asian had fallen to the Axis powers, our country wouldn't commit troops to the fighting. Until Pearl Harbor, the politicians saw that committing to the war would spell disaster for their career. Once 12-7-41 happened, they had a majority of pulbic support for the war.

Same with hot topics nowadays.

 

[clutch]

Government is like a ratcheting strap around your neck, it only gets tighter, never looser. Keep that in mind when someone calls a politician an 'obstructionist'.

 

[HexHead]

Because ALL politicians are just pandering, lying sacks of crap working only in their own self interest.

 

[AlexanderA]

Politicians respond to public opinion in their districts. As things currently stand, there's no groundswell of support for rolling back existing gun laws, even in areas that are staunchly pro-gun. If a politician gets out in front of public opinion on this issue, he will be labeled an "extremist" and will lose more votes than he gains.

Have you ever heard of a constituent, in a candidate's town hall forum, standing up and asking whether the candidate would vote to repeal the Hughes Amendment? Neither have I.

We have to do a better job of educating the public as to the realities of gun control, and especially the fact that these laws don't do anything to further their stated purposes. They're emotionally-driven, "feel-good" exercises. But it's hard to make that case in this era of 30-second sound bites.

 

[vamo]

Cynicism aside, even if the above politicians wanted to strengthen gun rights its just not going to happen with this president and this senate. Honestly I am way more bothered when "our" guys go on pointless tirades or introduce bills that they know full well will never become law, it just strikes me as meaningless pandering.

You want action then vote and try to make it a political environment where action is actually possible.

 

[itsa pain]

It's politics. You don't stay in office by reflecting "one small minority opinion" and being blatantly aggressive about it.

If anything, the current thinking among People of the Gun is to hold the line, and that is where they are putting their financial support. Drumming up interest in more than that, no.

Just start a thread on why the BATF should be disbanded and you will see many conflicting opinions from fellow shooters as to why they believe it's a fool's errand. Unfortunately, pushing to eliminate the NFA, BATF, and reopen the machine gun registery is pie in the sky thinking to them - they are convinced the anti gun apparatus is too strong to allow it.

They have already given up hope and surrendered. So, no support for forward thinking pro-gun policies from them, and if the pro gun people are divided and won't come out in full force to do something, then it undercuts support substantially.

It's not necessarily the politicians - its the shooters who are sandbagging our progress, and the politicians are where they are because they are savvy about reading our support. No sense them sticking their neck out when pro gun supporters are the ones that will be among the first to roll over on the issue.

For some, pro gun = tradition, and that means they are just happy as clams living in a restricted community where only they have guns. You will never see them participating in an Open Carry demonstration or building an AR pistol.

But, we don't talk about that on The High Road. So, we can't go further pointing fingers as to the real problem. It ain't necessarily the politicians, and if they are elected to represent us all, they have to represent others, too.

How do you explain ALL politicians groveling before netanyahu giving him more more standing O's then in the history of the congress when jews are only 2% of US population

 

[geekWithA.45]

Why don't politicians roll back gun control?

Let's examine a simple example, that would require zero *new* legislature:

Most people convicted of many crimes punishable by > 1 year in jail find themselves defined to be a prohibited person when it comes to possessing guns. A part of that law, the Gun Control Act of the late 60's, included a bureau whose job it was to review applications for relief from that disability. Including this element of the thing was necessary for passage of the entire bill, and considered to be an important due process safeguard, to prevent permanent loss of constitutional rights by persons posing no extraordinary danger to the public.

In one or two cases, after a felon applied for, and received such a relief, he went off and committed a string of murderous crimes, which made the bureau politically toxic. It was defunded by congress, and has remained so for decades.

Perversely, the lack of funding and action has not been found in court to be a basis for a due process violation. The courts have found that since a process exists, the appellant has due process available, even if there is no one to receive or process the applications for relief. (Orwellian twisted bits like that are prime symptoms of our Republic's rot.)

In any event, there are no realistic circumstances in which the danger of voting to restore funding to a department that is all too easy to characterize as the "Bureau of re-arming violent criminals" by a political opponent outweighs any possible benefit to the politician in question. Consequently, it's never going to happen.

 

[RustyShackelford]

My remarks....

I posted remarks in this topic but I guess my input isn't the same as other forum members.

 

[barnbwt]

These guys may portray themselves as outside government, but they are still organs of that entity. Asking them to roll back laws is like asking a person to do their own bloodletting. They can't do this themselves, and if you look at the situation they are in, it is actually unfair to ask/expect them to. To do so would be to generate a ton of enemies inside the beast (antibodies, if you will) that will then stymie any further progress, or at worst doom their career.

I personally think the only solution is a fundamental change to the circumstances (yes, I said 'fundamental change'), that does this job for the critters so they don't have to. We saw it on brilliant display with the AWB; bad legislation that got passed due to a number of convergent circumstances, that managed to disappear despite no action on the part of reluctant (complicit) officials. If all legislation (and I mean all, especially including murder/theft laws at the Federal level) had a constitutionally-imposed sunset of ten years (or even 50 years) it would counteract the buildup of busy-work legislation that has been destroying us. Each congress would be so preoccupied protecting the most important and necessary laws about to expire, that there would be little time to focus on new language or regulatory reach requiring precious debate time to adopt. The job of legislator would be that of a tireless paper pusher, dis-incentivizing our most destructive and ambitious citizens from seeking the job. They'd instead remain at corporations, wasting their energy circumventing the few idiotic measures that would doubtless still make it onto the books, just as our system is supposed to work.

Think about it this way; imagine how much junk would build up in our bodies if all our cells did not die and require replacement periodically, and instead just divided themselves. Would we really have a tax code stretching to the moon? Our regulations have gotten so bloated they are basically their own political entity at this point, but unlike the other three branches, almost completely beyond accountability to the citizens because our careful court systems can't/won't fight them fast enough. That's why the line about getting one law struck down while two more of the same get passed rings so true.

 

[barnbwt]

"Just start a thread on why the BATF should be disbanded and you will see many conflicting opinions from fellow shooters as to why they believe it's a fool's errand. Unfortunately, pushing to eliminate the NFA, BATF, and reopen the machine gun registery is pie in the sky thinking to them - they are convinced the anti gun apparatus is too strong to allow it."
That's because the problem persists so long as someone is doing what the ATF was supposed to be) doing. If someone's only beef with the Bureau is their corruption/incompetence as shown in the news, then yes, rolling them into another agency could possibly improve the situation --or make it worse, or have no effect. If the problem is that the law itself is antiquated, idiotic, and borderline impossible to enforce equitably due to vague/inaccurate language, then dismantling the Bureau is the wrong approach. Lots of people think the laws themselves aren't that bad, but in my experience, this is mostly due to people not understanding just how ridiculous and conflicting they are, and even an hour's worth of study is enough to convince them the whole NFA should probably be repealed (or at least repealed and recrafted).

But the ATF has the faces, so it is easier for ignoramuses to direct their disdain on the people tasked with enforcing the impossible.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Why don't politicians roll back gun control? Because it is antithetical to the process of ever expanding government. When the people can arm themselves with impunity, government cannot act with impunity.

Woody

 

[McAngus]

Looking at those states, the majority of the population and wealth of this nation does not reside in those states.

 

[Jackal]

Why don't politicians roll back gun control?

Because they simply dont care about you or your rights. They are out to further their own interests and lining their own pockets. They. Dont. Care. About. You.

 

[mgkdrgn]

When was the last time you saw the government "roll back" ANY law or regulation they made?

 

[GBExpat]

Government is like a ratcheting strap around your neck, it only gets tighter, never looser.

Deep ... and so very true, unfortunately.

 

[Dframe]

Getting rid of a bad law is far more difficult than passing it in the first place. Politicians have an inherent distaste for repealing ANY law.

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

+1 on RC's comments. I saw a dealie one time that basically said "no government in history ever limited it's own power and scope willingly" and this seems to me to be true.

It only gets bigger and more controlling as it rolls....it may make little jiggles back and forth like 3 steps forward and 1 step back but generally it only seems to take more away from 90% and give it to a small select group of about 1% which, unfortunately, both parties in the US answer to at present.

VooDoo

 

[GBExpat]

Keep in mind that this is not a Republic, it is an ...

Ineptocracy - A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves and succeed are rewarded with goods and services that are paid for with the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

(shamelessly glommed from someone's forum signature somewhere )

 

[Nom de Forum]

Politics is the art and science of what is possible. Even the most delusional people elected to public office eventually figure that out. It is often shortly after they are voted out of office for being completely ineffective due to wasting time on the impossible at the expense of accomplishing the possible.

 

[P5 Guy]

I'm a fairly cynical person so take this with a lump of salt; there are no pro-gun politicians, some are just less anti-gun than others. If said 'Public Servant' is voted from office nearly all the perks of that office continue for the 'Public Servant'.
This is why I say an Amendment to the US Constitution is in order. That Amendment should require all Federally enacted legislation to sunset after ten years, no exceptions. If a law is all that needed then it would be a piece of cake to get it renewed, would it not?

 

[Sunray]

"...is to say & do whatever it takes to..." That's first and foremost in every politician's wee brain. I just want to know who pays for the lobotomy seemingly smart people get once elected.
The civil servants at the ATF, the Hollywood types who got King Obama elected and all the other assorted anti-firearm ownership zealots would scream and scream and scream if any politician even thought about it. To the point of descending on the guy's district or whatever it's called with tons of money to get him defeated in the next election.
In any case, gun control has nothing whatever to do with controlling firearms. It's about controlling you.