Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopMVP
Btw it is interesting that the "gun control" debate (and btw, congrats everyone, because we found a way to spin a gun control debate off into a completely new direction, discussing inherited wealth in the colonies, instead of rehashing the same talking points for once!  ) still gets talked about like it can only be solved nationally, but it's perfectly legal for states to ban AR-15's, high capacity magazines, etc, like Massachusetts and a couple other states do. (California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut iirc. Maybe Illinois?). The way the 4th Circuit defined them they don't fall under the 2nd Amendment, but >80% of states choose to allow them. If I was trying to effect change I think giving up on Congress and focusing on slowly pushing more states on the margins to adopt stricter gun laws would be my play.
|
The problem with attacking it at a local level is what you see in Chicago. People love to point to the gun violence numbers in Chicago, where guns are banned more or less, as a reason why controlling them won't work. But there aren't walls around any of these places.
Indiana and Wisconsin have some of the least restrictive gun laws in the US. Any state that would have lax laws would be a starting point for someone to get them. That almost makes the local ordinance completely useless because it can't control the 'spillover effect.'
True progress has to be attacked at all levels, any weakness is simply exploited for the opposition narrative.