OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

The "Militia Argument" has been considered and has been found to be descriptive preliminary language that does not restrict the right to bear arms in the language after the comma. The Founders had a greater command of the English language than most of our current citizens. Had they intended to limit gun ownership to militia membership they could have and would have specified that in plain language. The America of 1783 was spreading rapidly west, and settlers frequently encountered hostile native Americans (understandably hostile I might add). There were many Founders who did not favor a standing army. The westward pioneers were on their own unless they banded together with other western bound migrants. It would have been unthinkable in that era that each man would not have the right to own weapons for protection. The key to the whole Constitution is that we as human have certain rights that are endowed by our Creator...among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government doesn't confer these rights to us. They are innate to us from the moment of our birth. The Bill of Rights spells out particular areas where the government cannot negate our fundamental rights. If we have the right to life and liberty then we must as a consequence of this also have the right to protect our own life. Thus the Second Amendment. Our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. And if we did not have this fundamental right then many of our other rights provided for in the Bill of Rights would have also been in jeopardy over the 240 years since the Constitution was written by men much smarter than ourselves.

The kids murdered in Highland Park and Uvalde sure had the right to life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness. By your statement, you suggest that innate from birth they should all been trained to use weapons and all should've been armed to protect themselves, since they have the right to protect their own life. Sounds like a bizarre dystopia. A gun is a tool for killing or threatening to kill someone. Problem is most gun instances are crimes, not self-defense. 2018: 484,800 gun-crimes, 70,040 self-defense. I would classify it as a criminal tool more than a defense tool. That'd be akin to stats showing that people use their cars to commit crimes about 7x as often as driving to work. Tools have different purposes, but they ultimately have one primary purpose in reality, and citizens' guns don't serve the purpose that the NRA seems hell bent on arguing - all empirical evidence suggests as much.

Westward pioneers were traveling beyond US territory, fighting natives on in lawless country. USA wasn't even officially exploring the West until the 1800s. You know that the right to bear arms had everything to do with the revolutionary nature of the founding of America, and it was a particular sticking point to preventing monarch-style oppression in the new country. Made a lot of sense back then.

Still makes sense in some ways, but we all know that this gun debate is about "gun control" not a "gun ban" - common sense updates to laws that were made in a different time period, by smart men who wrote the constitution in a way that was intended to be flexible and updated to modern times by the majority of the population. Currently as I look at USA polling, a majority of the population wants gun control laws for mentally ill, harder permits and licensing, and restricting military grade weapons and assault rifles to the general public.

Keep in mind that the majority of gun violence is committed by African Americans against....African Americans. A high number of them are young men as well (adding to the "child" statistics which I would call young adult).

So STILL one of the biggest problems with gun violence is that it disproportionately impacts poor, black communities. The problem is not the gun, but rather the cycle of violence within these communities (Read Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun by Geoffery Canada).

As to the bolded statement, I believe you can win a lot of hearts and minds on these issues and I believe state legislatures are catching up to this by passing laws to do so.

But here's a point for consideration. A large majority of the total gun violence is committed in urban centers where they already have pretty high levels of gun control. Again, the issue being that the majority of these homicides are being committed with handguns and not higher capacity weapons.

Poverty and segregation amplify nearly every social ill we have. Gun violence, environmental decline, healthcare access, housing...

That doesn't mean society on the whole isn't harmed by guns, climate change, a broken healthcare system and the housing shortage.

So yeah, by all means -- let's put serious resources toward addressing inequality. But the Black on Black violence or "what about Chicago?" stuff is largely a diversion.

P.S. Geoffrey Canada is an opportunist first and foremost. He's not a serious thinker on education, community violence or anything else, really.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

The second amendment states the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. Which I believe meant a militia organized by the state you lived in. So that too was a governmental institution. Therefore the argument that it was intended as a means for citizens to violently overthrow the govt. doesn't seem legitimate or in line with what the framers intended.

I don't understand why the stipulation that you are only allowed to bear arms "as part of a well regulated militia" has been forgotten by the courts, and by people in general.

You are incorrect. SCOTUS has ruled on this numerous times and made it clear to protect the right of individuals to bear arms.

So this claim has been debunked previously. The only way to change it is through amendment. You won't get 3/4 of states to vote for it however.

I acknowledge that the courts HAVE ruled this way, I just don't understand WHY they did not take into consideration the stipulation that that right was only given "as part of a well regulated militia".

I'm not reading the "as part" part. What version is that in?

[WookieOnRitalin]

The idea of an organized militia is completely antiquated by the police. The idea of bearing arms is antiquated by the police. Also antiquated by nuclear, missile, drone and biological weapons technology.

So because the government can use "superior" force against it citizens, it invalidates the right to defense? No legal authority would agree with you and rightly so.

The Nazis also had police. They rounded up a lot of people and sent them to the chambers because they were "undesirable".

Power, like anything, can be misused and lead to more deaths than all the combined gun deaths in the last 50 years.

Alright, I will play fair. I know it is unlikely to happen in the US, which again makes me VERY sympathetic to the arguments for more gun control, but the arguments are not really valid.

The majority of people who own higher capacity weapons use them responsibly.

The argument I hear most is that it's more deadly. Sure, but similar amounts of people die in alcohol related accidents as do people who die of gun violence. Are you going to ban alcohol as a consequence of that? Unlikely. You focus on teaching people to not drink and drive, but as we've seen over the last 30 years, they still do. So that's not working. What will we try next?

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

What are the guns doing other than violent revolution? Providing silent threats that we may revolt? You think any politicians are considering that the populace is armed when making their votes on topics?

They would if there was not a great majority of our elected representative who did not gun rights.

Should rural votes be worth more or not? In this system they are. It's a mathematical formula. Either the rural population has more voting power per person or they don't. You seem to be explicitly saying that they should, but trying to pretend you are saying something else by describing the reasons they should. You can believe in those reasons, and that's fine. However, that still means you think rural votes should be worth more. I don't believe that.

You say "worth" more, I say "protected" from a totalitarian urban majority. It's a question of equalizing power which the founders were smart to do. I do believe in it for a large variety of reasons and it's not because I am some far right conservative. The foundation of the belief is to create a society where autonomy can exist and you cannot do that if you an oppressive power inhibiting a minority with their will.

This is why slavery needed to die. This is why several injustices have been corrected with constitutional amendments. The foundation of our constitution is to protect rights all the way down to the individual. This is why you have a right to do process and a right to face your accusers in court.

Your lack of belief needs to be supported with something superior that also protects the voices of those who do not live in large urban centers. I have not read anything as yet that is convincing on that front.

As noted, in our political system that isn't possible, because we aren't deadlocked on this issue. People of the country are overwhelmingly in favor of gun control and regulation, but we aren't all voting on that singular issue and our system doesn't count all votes equally and all people care about issues but we still generally have low voter turnout.

I fail to see your claim. As a resident of the state of Illinois, have you not had a say in various gun control policies in the state? Of course you do, as do I in the state of Tennessee. The point here is that gun control is a state issue and not a national issue unless you want to create a constitutional amendment of some form banning guns (which will never happen).

As to "sensible gun control" what specific policies do you want to put into place that would prevent certain shootings? Age limit? Sure sounds great. Does it violate the constitution? Might get challenged in court and it would be interested to see how that plays out because the 2nd amendment did not restrict the right to bear arms based on certain ages, but I would bet you would get a good majority of people to agree on 21. But then you realize, oh crap, the majority of mass shootings is committed by people over 21. Damn, that didn't work. What next?

I'm all for more sensible national gun laws, but gun laws that do not address the underlying problem of gun violence are absolutely, 100% bound to fail. Anyone who comes into the conversation who fails to acknowledge that is missing a huge component to the puzzle.

Yet gun laws have worked remarkably well in many other countries, so the argument that "well this law wouldn't have stopped this" just makes no sense. Gun laws do work, when they are comprehensive and strictly enforced. I would bet statistics show that drunk driving laws work, too, to decrease the number of drunk driving deaths, even though they don't prevent every single one.

It really depends on what the laws you are suggesting. The drunk driving laws make sense. If you are intoxicated to a certain level then you shouldn't drive because well it is dangerous. But what is the law or laws you are suggesting for firearms? Do they make as much sense? What are these regulations, I'm curious? I haven't researched other countries gun laws, sorry.

[WookieOnRitalin]

Poverty and segregation amplify nearly every social ill we have. Gun violence, environmental decline, healthcare access, housing...

That doesn't mean society on the whole isn't harmed by guns, climate change, a broken healthcare system and the housing shortage.

So yeah, by all means -- let's put serious resources toward addressing inequality. But the Black on Black violence or "what about Chicago?" stuff is largely a diversion.

P.S. Geoffrey Canada is an opportunist first and foremost. He's not a serious thinker on education, community violence or anything else, really.

It's not a diversion. It's addressing the reality of gun violence. It allows us to be surgical and precise with our policy decisions. That sounds enlightened to me.

As we've discussed in other threads, addressing black on black crime starts with changing the cultural values of black communities by committing more to marriage and keeping fathers in the home. Where there are more fathers, there is less violence and also more economic prosperity.

[AKfanatic]

That “well regulated militia” was literally the US military at the time of writing the constitution. Men of certain ages were required/expected to have their own rifle and a specific amount of ammunition for that weapon.

[WookieOnRitalin]

Also Geoffrey Canada is one of the most respected educators in the field of cultural violence.

How many awards has that many been given? Do you not like him because he also cites fatherless homes as a mechanism behind black on black violence?

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

Poverty and segregation amplify nearly every social ill we have. Gun violence, environmental decline, healthcare access, housing...

That doesn't mean society on the whole isn't harmed by guns, climate change, a broken healthcare system and the housing shortage.

So yeah, by all means -- let's put serious resources toward addressing inequality. But the Black on Black violence or "what about Chicago?" stuff is largely a diversion.

P.S. Geoffrey Canada is an opportunist first and foremost. He's not a serious thinker on education, community violence or anything else, really.

It's not a diversion. It's addressing the reality of gun violence. It allows us to be surgical and precise with our policy decisions. That sounds enlightened to me.

As we've discussed in other threads, addressing black on black crime starts with changing the cultural values of black communities by committing more to marriage and keeping fathers in the home. Where there are more fathers, there is less violence and also more economic prosperity.

Nope.

"More fathers" and "cultural values of black communities" are tired Reagan-era tropes used to nibble around the edges of gun violence without addressing guns themselves.

Mass shooting perpetrators are almost uniformly white men... there, the discussion becomes mental health instead of gun access.

Gun suicide rates (and suicide rates on the whole) are highest in states like Wyoming and Montana... there, the discussion turns to alcoholism and isolated living rather than gun access.

You can go down the list and parse every demographic and their unique cultural characteristics, but the elephant in the room is the guns.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

Also Geoffrey Canada is one of the most respected educators in the field of cultural violence.

How many awards has that many been given? Do you not like him because he also cites fatherless homes as a mechanism behind black on black violence?

No, he really isn't respected in education. He's made a very lucrative career of telling people who want to dismantle public education what they want to hear, and has been caught misrepresenting his Charter schools' stats more times than I can count.

[WookieOnRitalin]

Also Geoffrey Canada is one of the most respected educators in the field of cultural violence.

How many awards has that many been given? Do you not like him because he also cites fatherless homes as a mechanism behind black on black violence?

No, he really isn't respected in education. He's made a very lucrative career of telling people who want to dismantle public education what they want to hear, and has been caught misrepresenting his Charter schools' stats more times than I can count.

So some people deeply respect him (including Bloomberg and Obama specifically) and others do not. Sounds similar to how many feel about Thomas Sowell.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

Also Geoffrey Canada is one of the most respected educators in the field of cultural violence.

How many awards has that many been given? Do you not like him because he also cites fatherless homes as a mechanism behind black on black violence?

No, he really isn't respected in education. He's made a very lucrative career of telling people who want to dismantle public education what they want to hear, and has been caught misrepresenting his Charter schools' stats more times than I can count.

So some people deeply respect him (including Bloomberg and Obama specifically) and others do not. Sounds similar to how many feel about Thomas Sowell.

Obama was also a big fan of Michelle Rhee, who was disgraced for lying about her track record in education. Between Canada, Rhee, and Arnie Duncan, the Obama administration did public education a great disservice.

Bloomberg likes Canada? Yeah, that makes sense.

[WookieOnRitalin]

Poverty and segregation amplify nearly every social ill we have. Gun violence, environmental decline, healthcare access, housing...

That doesn't mean society on the whole isn't harmed by guns, climate change, a broken healthcare system and the housing shortage.

So yeah, by all means -- let's put serious resources toward addressing inequality. But the Black on Black violence or "what about Chicago?" stuff is largely a diversion.

P.S. Geoffrey Canada is an opportunist first and foremost. He's not a serious thinker on education, community violence or anything else, really.

It's not a diversion. It's addressing the reality of gun violence. It allows us to be surgical and precise with our policy decisions. That sounds enlightened to me.

As we've discussed in other threads, addressing black on black crime starts with changing the cultural values of black communities by committing more to marriage and keeping fathers in the home. Where there are more fathers, there is less violence and also more economic prosperity.

Nope.

"More fathers" and "cultural values of black communities" are tired Reagan-era tropes used to nibble around the edges of gun violence without addressing guns themselves.

Mass shooting perpetrators are almost uniformly white men... there, the discussion becomes mental health instead of gun access.

Gun suicide rates (and suicide rates on the whole) are highest in states like Wyoming and Montana... there, the discussion turns to alcoholism and isolated living rather than gun access.

You can go down the list and parse every demographic and their unique cultural characteristics, but the elephant in the room is the guns.

That's actually not true as shootings go hand in hand with the breakdown of racial populations.

And it's not a trope. It's a reality and based in statistical fact. So much so that these exact conversations are happening within the black community itself and why more African Americans are beginning to move conservative. The last election saw the largest decrease in black voting for Democrats. Why is that?

[WookieOnRitalin]

No, he really isn't respected in education. He's made a very lucrative career of telling people who want to dismantle public education what they want to hear, and has been caught misrepresenting his Charter schools' stats more times than I can count.

So some people deeply respect him (including Bloomberg and Obama specifically) and others do not. Sounds similar to how many feel about Thomas Sowell.

Obama was also a big fan of Michelle Rhee, who was disgraced for lying about her track record in education. Between Canada, Rhee, and Arnie Duncan, the Obama administration did public education a great disservice.

Bloomberg likes Canada? Yeah, that makes sense.

So your issue is about public education. How about this. We table that discussion (which I'm more than happy to have) and focus on the current issue at hand which is the underlying issues that lead to gun violence and gun deaths.

[Dresden]

They would if there was not a great majority of our elected representative who did not gun rights.





You say "worth" more, I say "protected" from a totalitarian urban majority. It's a question of equalizing power which the founders were smart to do. I do believe in it for a large variety of reasons and it's not because I am some far right conservative. The foundation of the belief is to create a society where autonomy can exist and you cannot do that if you an oppressive power inhibiting a minority with their will.

This is why slavery needed to die. This is why several injustices have been corrected with constitutional amendments. The foundation of our constitution is to protect rights all the way down to the individual. This is why you have a right to do process and a right to face your accusers in court.

Your lack of belief needs to be supported with something superior that also protects the voices of those who do not live in large urban centers. I have not read anything as yet that is convincing on that front.



I fail to see your claim. As a resident of the state of Illinois, have you not had a say in various gun control policies in the state? Of course you do, as do I in the state of Tennessee. The point here is that gun control is a state issue and not a national issue unless you want to create a constitutional amendment of some form banning guns (which will never happen).

As to "sensible gun control" what specific policies do you want to put into place that would prevent certain shootings? Age limit? Sure sounds great. Does it violate the constitution? Might get challenged in court and it would be interested to see how that plays out because the 2nd amendment did not restrict the right to bear arms based on certain ages, but I would bet you would get a good majority of people to agree on 21. But then you realize, oh crap, the majority of mass shootings is committed by people over 21. Damn, that didn't work. What next?

I'm all for more sensible national gun laws, but gun laws that do not address the underlying problem of gun violence are absolutely, 100% bound to fail. Anyone who comes into the conversation who fails to acknowledge that is missing a huge component to the puzzle.

Yet gun laws have worked remarkably well in many other countries, so the argument that "well this law wouldn't have stopped this" just makes no sense. Gun laws do work, when they are comprehensive and strictly enforced. I would bet statistics show that drunk driving laws work, too, to decrease the number of drunk driving deaths, even though they don't prevent every single one.

It really depends on what the laws you are suggesting. The drunk driving laws make sense. If you are intoxicated to a certain level then you shouldn't drive because well it is dangerous. But what is the law or laws you are suggesting for firearms? Do they make as much sense? What are these regulations, I'm curious? I haven't researched other countries gun laws, sorry.

They vary from country to country- I'm no expert on them either, but my general sense is that they include things such as registration, you have to have a valid reason, such as being a farmer or hunter (self defense is not valid reason), you have to pass mental health screening, in some places the amount of ammo you can purchase each year is limited, and you have to account for where you used that ammo when inspected, only certain types of weapons are allowed- usually hunting rifles- handguns and semi-auto's are prohibited, yearly inspection of your firearm, it must be kept safely stored, etc.

[Dresden]

It's not a diversion. It's addressing the reality of gun violence. It allows us to be surgical and precise with our policy decisions. That sounds enlightened to me.

As we've discussed in other threads, addressing black on black crime starts with changing the cultural values of black communities by committing more to marriage and keeping fathers in the home. Where there are more fathers, there is less violence and also more economic prosperity.

Nope.

"More fathers" and "cultural values of black communities" are tired Reagan-era tropes used to nibble around the edges of gun violence without addressing guns themselves.

Mass shooting perpetrators are almost uniformly white men... there, the discussion becomes mental health instead of gun access.

Gun suicide rates (and suicide rates on the whole) are highest in states like Wyoming and Montana... there, the discussion turns to alcoholism and isolated living rather than gun access.

You can go down the list and parse every demographic and their unique cultural characteristics, but the elephant in the room is the guns.

That's actually not true as shootings go hand in hand with the breakdown of racial populations.

And it's not a trope. It's a reality and based in statistical fact. So much so that these exact conversations are happening within the black community itself and why more African Americans are beginning to move conservative. The last election saw the largest decrease in black voting for Democrats. Why is that?

Don't shootings also go hand in hand with poverty or income levels?

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

It's not a diversion. It's addressing the reality of gun violence. It allows us to be surgical and precise with our policy decisions. That sounds enlightened to me.

As we've discussed in other threads, addressing black on black crime starts with changing the cultural values of black communities by committing more to marriage and keeping fathers in the home. Where there are more fathers, there is less violence and also more economic prosperity.

Nope.

"More fathers" and "cultural values of black communities" are tired Reagan-era tropes used to nibble around the edges of gun violence without addressing guns themselves.

Mass shooting perpetrators are almost uniformly white men... there, the discussion becomes mental health instead of gun access.

Gun suicide rates (and suicide rates on the whole) are highest in states like Wyoming and Montana... there, the discussion turns to alcoholism and isolated living rather than gun access.

You can go down the list and parse every demographic and their unique cultural characteristics, but the elephant in the room is the guns.

That's actually not true as shootings go hand in hand with the breakdown of racial populations.

And it's not a trope. It's a reality and based in statistical fact. So much so that these exact conversations are happening within the black community itself and why more African Americans are beginning to move conservative. The last election saw the largest decrease in black voting for Democrats. Why is that?

You can go to virtually any city in the world with prevalent gun access and shootings will be concentrated among the poorest, most segregated members of the population. "African American values" aren't driving shootings abroad. There's lots of great work being done to address poverty, but this notion that it should happen instead of, rather than along with, gun control doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

And again, mass shooters have almost exclusively been young white men. Is there a conversation to be had about what's up with young white men? Maybe. But it's not nearly so urgent as access to AR-15s and the like.

[WookieOnRitalin]

They vary from country to country- I'm no expert on them either, but my general sense is that they include things such as registration, you have to have a valid reason, such as being a farmer or hunter (self defense is not valid reason), you have to pass mental health screening, in some places the amount of ammo you can purchase each year is limited, and you have to account for where you used that ammo when inspected, only certain types of weapons are allowed- usually hunting rifles- handguns and semi-auto's are prohibited, yearly inspection of your firearm, it must be kept safely stored, etc.

A lot of those cannot be executed due to being a violation of the 2nd amendment, so you are left with some of the others which some states already do. Remember, a lot of these countries we reference are the same size as some US states. They ability to regulate is just...different. Acknowledging that fact should be appreciated.

Again, I'm all for ideas that do not infringe on the 2nd amendment and lead to positive outcomes. The problem, as I see it, is that there is a systemic issue of mental health in this country which is magnifying the violence issue greatly. So, making statistically significant progress would hopefully improve violence outcomes. However, when you consider the fundamental issues of gun violence being a symptomatic of economic related issues, then you have a different component as well.

So the way I see it, you have two problems.

Gun violence as a result of economic causes.

Gun violence as a result of mental health cause.

Fighting gun violence means starting with those areas. Again, back to my thesis and claim that economic outcomes are significantly and statistically better with two parent households which is disproportionately impacts the black community.

As for mental health, we can populate many probable, plausible, and intelligent reasons that has led to the systemic decline in this area of health in this country (as with all health).

[WookieOnRitalin]

Nope.

"More fathers" and "cultural values of black communities" are tired Reagan-era tropes used to nibble around the edges of gun violence without addressing guns themselves.

Mass shooting perpetrators are almost uniformly white men... there, the discussion becomes mental health instead of gun access.

Gun suicide rates (and suicide rates on the whole) are highest in states like Wyoming and Montana... there, the discussion turns to alcoholism and isolated living rather than gun access.

You can go down the list and parse every demographic and their unique cultural characteristics, but the elephant in the room is the guns.

That's actually not true as shootings go hand in hand with the breakdown of racial populations.

And it's not a trope. It's a reality and based in statistical fact. So much so that these exact conversations are happening within the black community itself and why more African Americans are beginning to move conservative. The last election saw the largest decrease in black voting for Democrats. Why is that?

You can go to virtually any city in the world with prevalent gun access and shootings will be concentrated among the poorest, most segregated members of the population. "African American values" aren't driving shootings abroad. There's lots of great work being done to address poverty, but this notion that it should happen instead of, rather than along with, gun control doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

And again, mass shooters have almost exclusively been young white men. Is there a conversation to be had about what's up with young white men? Maybe. But it's not nearly so urgent as access to AR-15s and the like.

Yeah, but again statistically the majority of gun related deaths are black on black. Why is that part not of this conversation?

There is only ONE unifying statistical fact with regards to gun violence. It is disproportionately committed by MEN. Black. White. Doesn't matter.

So is the solution to ban men from owning guns? In your world view yes, but you will not get there unless you convince people that they do not have a right to self defense which a constitutionally guaranteed right in the United States.

How do you plan on solving that problem? Having a view is one thing, but being about to convince others of that view is another. How do you convince others you're right and they need to give up that autonomy?

[WookieOnRitalin]

Don't shootings also go hand in hand with poverty or income levels?

Exactly.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

That's actually not true as shootings go hand in hand with the breakdown of racial populations.

And it's not a trope. It's a reality and based in statistical fact. So much so that these exact conversations are happening within the black community itself and why more African Americans are beginning to move conservative. The last election saw the largest decrease in black voting for Democrats. Why is that?

You can go to virtually any city in the world with prevalent gun access and shootings will be concentrated among the poorest, most segregated members of the population. "African American values" aren't driving shootings abroad. There's lots of great work being done to address poverty, but this notion that it should happen instead of, rather than along with, gun control doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

And again, mass shooters have almost exclusively been young white men. Is there a conversation to be had about what's up with young white men? Maybe. But it's not nearly so urgent as access to AR-15s and the like.

Yeah, but again statistically the majority of gun related deaths are black on black. Why is that part not of this conversation?

There is only ONE unifying statistical fact with regards to gun violence. It is disproportionately committed by MEN. Black. White. Doesn't matter.

So is the solution to ban men from owning guns? In your world view yes, but you will not get there unless you convince people that they do not have a right to self defense which a constitutionally guaranteed right in the United States.

How do you plan on solving that problem? Having a view is one thing, but being about to convince others of that view is another. How do you convince others you're right and they need to give up that autonomy?

A majority of Americans already support much stricter gun laws. And most polls show that a majority supports a ban on assault-style weapons. This is less about convincing the population at-large than it is about neutralizing the party that accepts a crap-load of money from gun manufacturers.

Would there be resistance? Absolutely. But there was resistance to women's suffrage, labor laws, integration, interracial marriage, abortion, same sex marriage, and on and on. Something is part of the cultural fabric until it isn't.