Two Big Reasons Why New Gun Controls Aren't Going to Happen
A) The 2014 Mid-Term ElectionsAmong the states Democrats will be defending are Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and South Dakota. All of these states have very strong blocks of pro-gun voters. In Michigan, the issue could come into play if Sen. Carl Levin decides to retire.
Regardless of how the fiscal cliff negotiations end, the economy will remain weak through 2014. There is even a chance the economy slips back into recession. It is unlikely Harry Reid wants to add to the Democrats' challenge by making gun control an issue in the midterm. Midterm's have lower turnout than presidential elections, allowing an energized base of voters, like gun rights supporters, to have an out-sized impact on the results.
B) Biden Gun Violence Task Force
In Washington, blue-ribbon task forces are reserved for issues where you want the appearance of taking action, without having to actually do anything. There's a reason we've had so many task forces on government spending and the debt. Politicians want to look like they are doing something on an issue. By the time the task force completes its work, the national conversation will have moved on to a new issue.
Task forces are also effective ways to slow down a push for legislation. Legislators can defer taking action while the task force completes its "review" of the issue. Its a very convenient way to kick an issue down the road until after the immediate emotions have cooled.
Obama's press conference yesterday marked the zenith of the new push for gun control. Its momentum will fade as the raw emotions around the shooting recede. With it, the appetite for new gun control laws will fall away. Obama's task force is recognition of that.
---------------------------------
Did I leave anything out?
= new reply since forum marked as read
...as long as there's someone(s) to blame then that's fine. 
The marketing and some parts of the "gun culture" have bloody hands.
When a company markets a gun as a an empowering solution to solve all of your problems they cross the line.
A gun is an effective hunting and defense tool. There is nothing wrong with target shooting.
The gun manufacturers that fund the NRA don't want any restrictions on their marketing efforts. "More doctors smoke Camels"
Like the sun rising in the east, you are predictable at least 
hope you are having a good morning
and thank you! 
Then why do I pay such enormous taxes on cigarettes? Or my husband on his American Spirit loose tobacco? Technically - he's not buying cigarettes . . . He is rolling his own.
The idea is to shift the burden of monitoring it on the people who need to monitored.
I know the cost of that box of cartridges for a reason. . I have zero problem declaring to my fellow Americans via the Fed Government those 50 bullets in my possession. If my next door neighbor has 300 of those boxes - I would like to know why. Really - if you only need one. And the fact that I've had them for as long as I have tells me that I really only need one.
So if not a tax - limit the number they can be sold to in boxes of five? 12 for hunting rifles? Gun Ranges sell them/loan them by the bullet and you get back your deposit on any you don't use while learning/practicing?
I'm also not certain mass produced cartridges were indeed covered by the 2nd Amendment. Another poster pointed out to me on another thread that at the time of Revolution - the colonists made their own. So the product sold today didn't exist. It was not even conceived at the time.
Not giving you a hard time to give it. 
But firearms themselves may not be possible to regulate that I think they really need to be. So fine - you can buy an AK-47 - but each bullet on the magazine should be priced at $30 and you can only buy it from the Fed - or law enforcement. My husband's guns in our home in Italy he had to get through the Police. And he has to re-register every few years.
Was the right to purchase bullets/magazines/cartridges. I've combed through it several times and I can't see it. What am I missing?
Or was it implied? Like the right to pursue happiness included the acquisition of property - even if that being purchased was a living breathing human being. Here's how that played out -
2nd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution ratified. Reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But then this -
Uniform Militia Act of 1792 “called for the enrollment of every free, able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five” to be in the militia, and specified that every militia member was to “provide himself with a musket or firelock, a bayonet, and ammunition
If we are going to adhere to these very old ideas and take them at face value - what does that mean? Could this potentially mean my father's military benefits being paid to my mother could be revoked as the militias became our military - and he was never supposed to have been allowed to serve?
I think that's a silly idea. But Democratics tend to engage in progressive and forward thinking and don't have to do what a bunch of slave owners and slave owner supporters (by supporting te 2/3 Compromise I condemn them all) did - just because they did it.
Free Speech says I have the right to question everything. To include something written so long ago. Tey weren't perfect people and they are not infallible. If they were - they would have held themselves to higher moral standards.
