قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / US / Do stronger gun laws have a chance? It has been an uphill battle.

Do stronger gun laws have a chance? It has been an uphill battle.



Nothing is easy in America when weapons are the problem. It was not until 1993 that this bill became law – 12 years after John Hinckley Jr. shot Mr. Reagan and several others on a Washington sidewalk. Among the wounded, Mr. Brady was shot in the head. He survived, but was permanently disabled. As he later said, "I will never be what I was again." He died at the age of 73 in 2014, and his death was classified as a murder at the age of 33.

Long before, he and his wife, Sarah, who died at 73 in 201

5, were considered by many to be the "first family" of the Firearms Ordinance. Her intention was simply to limit the chaos. But they had to fight with N. R. A. Slippery mountaineers and their congressional allies insisting that Brady's true goal is to confiscate weapons are just a first step with measures such as background checks. The pro-gun side believed it was "better to avoid the first good move than to struggle over the last bad move," Richard Feldman, a former N.R.A. Lobbyist, said Retro Report.

This concern has always been fraudulent, said Gail Hoffman, a former Legislative Director of Handgun Control Inc., a group that developed into the Brady campaign to prevent gun violence. Confiscation, she said, was never on the agenda. "We were not a gun grabber," she said, only lawyers who were interested in "making sure the bad guys did not get them."

Any battle for weapons can be epic. Nevertheless, the pro-regulating forces could occasionally claim the victory. The "Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" of 1993, as the law was officially called, was such a moment. So 1994 was a ban on many assault weapons. They included the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, a weapon of choice for raging killers, including the young man accused of killing four people and injuring four others in a Waffle House restaurant in Nashville this month.

Despite these laws, the nation continues to roll from one mass shooting to another. Since the murder of Dr. King and Senator Kennedy in 1968, more Americans were killed by firearms (at least 1.6 million victims of suicides or homicides) than in all the country's wars together (about 1.4 million). [19659006] There was a time when the NRA, founded in 1871, was mainly focused on hunting, shooting and conservation and was prepared to compromise on weapons legislation. But in the late 1970s, his moderate leadership fell on a cadre of absolutists who opposed any suggestion of regulation. This tough line is now embodied by Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the organization, who described federal law enforcement officials as being charged with enforcing gun laws as "jackbooted government truckers."

The road has been steeply uphill in recent years for gun control advocates. The ban on offensive weapons included an integrated sunset clause that expired in 2004. In 2005, President George W. Bush signed a law protecting arms manufacturers, importers and traders from lawsuits by victims of firearms crimes. Three years later, in District of Columbia v. Chr. Heller, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a de facto Washington ban on handguns in the Home for Self Defense conflicts with the Second Amendment.

The power of NRA claims over five million members is unmistakable. In the presidential election in 2016, there were reportedly more than 11 million US dollars for the candidacy of Donald J. Trump and another 19.7 million US dollars for the attack on Hillary Clinton from. After each mass killing, it has gone to war's beginning and typically warns that its enemies are using the latest terror to pursue their supposed goal of completing all weapons. In response to this call, many people have rushed to arm themselves stronger than ever before. America has about as many weapons as Americans.

However, surveys show that people in this country are mostly in favor of measures such as universal background controls and stricter rules that keep weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable and criminally threatening people. And cracks show up in the N.R.A. Armor, supported by the broad support of Parkland students and the millions of others who have marched to demand that federal legislators finally do something about the violence.

How sustainable this burgeoning movement will be remains to be seen. The long road from the Brady shoot to the Brady Bill showed that any attempt at arms regulation is a marathon, not a sprint. But even in states politically red as a barn door, some Democratic congressional candidates feel comfortable in the approaching interim elections, openly against the N.R.A. and his call for loyalty by elected representatives.

Not every gun owner rejects any form of regulation. In Montana, Governor Steve Bullock, a Democrat, feels a shift of mood towards parkland. "We have met a moment in time," he said recently, "where the NRA slurping is a whole host of responsible gun owners, it is not surprising that people finally say," Enough is enough – they do not represent me, and they neither represent the mainstream of America nor the mainstream of firearm owners. "

Continue reading the main story


Source link