Regarding an AWB...

[xoom]

Should politicans vote for an AWB because they know it will help or should they vote against it because their constituents dont want or agree with it?

[pkdu]

1. Is that you Aunt Sally ? Nt

[xoom]

2. Nope. Just looking for your opinion.

[Scuba]

3. In which Congressional District do polls run against an AWB?

[xoom]

4. Just looking for your opinion.

[Scuba]

8. Well, if they're representing their constituents (and the rest of the majority) ...

... they should vote for a ban because it will help stop the killing and it's what their constituents want.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. The last AWB didn't help at all.

Lots of folks here at DU seem to think that the 1994 AWB accomplished something. It didn't accomplish anything. I did not ban a single gun. It only banned some cosmetic features of some guns. The gun manufacturers simply changed the cosmetic features to conform to the AWB and continued to sell the same guns. In some cases they had to change the name of the gun. The TEC-9 had the barrel shroud removed and was then sold as the AB-10. (AB=After Ban)

Why should a politician vote for a law that will accomplish nothing, except get energize the opposition. In November of 1994, the Republicans beat the socks off of us. Voter turnout in off-year elections is always small and a highly energized group can swing an election.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

9. So take what we've learned from that and improve the next law.

[GreenStormCloud]

11. Engineers ae smarter than lawyers.

Once you have the new law, engineers will get their turn, and will design around the law.

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. Times are a-changin'

1994 don't mean squat anymore.

The NRA has overplayed their hand.

[pinboy3niner]

6. If they don't vote for the AWB, throw the bums out...

[whatchamacallit]

10. Lol!

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. The answer is that politicians will probably vote with an urban/rural, blue/red split

and if 1994 is anything to go by NRA-endorsed Blue Dogs will be at risk in the next cycle thanks to perceived party support regardless of their own vote on the issue.

The big distinction in support and opposition to stricter gun regulations isn't necessarily partisan; it's urban/rural and cultural. Urban voters, for the most part? Don't see why anyone needs a gun. Rural voters? In much of rural America getting first an air rifle and then a .22 and then a .30-30 or .30-06 or Bushmaster is a rite of passage. Like having a bar mitzvah. The difference isn't political, it's cultural.

[madville]

13. I think it should be left up to the states

One size doesn't fit all, having the same restrictions in NYC as say Wyoming really doesn't make any sense. Let the states decide what they want to ban/allow.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. The only problem with that...

is that leaving it up to the states would necessitate a ban on in-state sales to non-residents, otherwise state-by-state regulation is ineffective.

[madville]

16. There are already such restrictions

I can't drive 20 miles north and buy a handgun from a dealer in Georgia because I am a Florida resident.

I can't sell a firearm to a non-Florida resident in a private sale.

These types of restrictions are nothing new.

[rrneck]

15. They're there to further the interests of their constituents.

If and when they actually start doing that we'll have a lot better country.

[krispos42]

17. Should politicians vote for an AWB because they know it will help them politically...

...while being functionally useless, or should they vote against it because it's functionally useless?

[xoom]

18. What ever gets them the votes they need..

[Glassunion]

19. What about the opposite option?

Should politicians not vote for an AWB because it wont work even though their constituents want or agree with it?