I think the reason enacting gun control measures is next to impossible and politicians are scared of

[Tony_FLADEM]

the NRA is because some people have the belief that owning a gun is a check on the Federal Government. If the government turns against the American People, then owning a gun allows you to fight back. So if you support some gun control measures you are in favor of the Federal Government being able to dominate people and not allowing them to fight back.

The actual reality is the Federal Government controls the biggest military on earth. Owning a gun really can't do anything for you in the hypothetical event the Federal Government turns on the American People.

I'm not advocating for additional gun control measures, I'm just stating what the issue is.

[Lint Head]

1. The second amendment is apparently more important than voting rights.

[Democrats_win]

2. Political reality: the NRA HAS defeated pro-gun control politicians.

To politicians, the important thing is to be re-elected. So when the NRA has that much power, it is no surprise that politicians are too scared to touch gun control.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Its not just the NRA

That gun control is a losing issue for Dems has been shown time and time again.

We may blame the NRA for getting their message out, but they do not have that many members. However, it is clear that a significant portion of the electorate is sympathetic to their views.

Welcome to democracy.

[Hoyt]

3. If that's reason people own guns, they can leave them at home until revolution comes.

Instead most of the gun culture keep promoting relaxed laws, more toting, Stand Your Ground Laws where you can buy a gun and tell everyone to fuck off, etc. Lots of folks out there support the likes of Zimmerman.

Th other thing concerning is that the majority of gun owners are right wing and often bigoted and callous. Life is going to suck if they use their guns to "take over." Somehow we assume that if the citizenry stood up to the government, the new folks in charge will be fair. I think the new folks in charge would most likely be the American Taliban.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Why didn't you post this in the RKBA forum?

There has been a growing litany of complaints of firearms threads leaking into the rest of DU.

[flamingdem]

6. Exactly, bullshit peddled by the NRA

that plus the 6 billion industry and congressional payoffs

[ramikin]

7. It's a numbers game.

There are approx. 90 armed civilians per member of the US military. That's if every member of the armed forces would fire on US citizens (they wouldn't) It's a numbers game and a free people per the 2a win. FYI there are only 1,430,895 members in all branches of the military combined and 30% of them are office staff.

[kctim]

8. And geography

[shraby]

9. The armed forces of the United States have some pretty formidable weapons..the kind

that the best aka wouldn't hold a candle to.
Only a fool would try to take on the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines..not to mention the National Guard.

[ramikin]

11. Thats only if the members of the armed forces would fire on its citizens.

And other than full auto guns there isn't much difference in firepower. I cant imagine them carpet bombing Columbus Ohio.

[shraby]

12. You're dreaming. The members of the armed forces have already and will again fire on

the citizens if they are ordered to.

[HopeHoops]

10. Are you really going to take on a helicopter gun ship with an assault rifle?

[Edweird]

13. Right. Resistance against the US only works in Asia.