NY Times editorial:
Bit by bit, it began to seem possible, at long last, that lawmakers who say they do not want guns to wind up in the hands of criminals, the mentally ill and others who cannot be trusted with them will do the one thing that would be most effective at achieving that goal, and the one thing the gun lobby does not want: requiring background checks for all gun sales.A bit of history from Adam Winkler:
When Congress was considering the first significant federal gun law of the 20th century—the National Firearms Act of 1934, which imposed a steep tax and registration requirements on “gangster guns” like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns—the NRA endorsed the law. Karl Frederick and the NRA did not blindly support gun control; indeed, they successfully pushed to have similar prohibitive taxes on handguns stripped from the final bill, arguing that people needed such weapons to protect their homes. Yet the organization stood firmly behind what Frederick called “reasonable, sensible, and fair legislation.”Guardian editorial:
One thing conspicuously missing from Frederick’s comments about gun control was the Second Amendment. When asked during his testimony on the National Firearms Act whether the proposed law violated “any constitutional provision,” he responded, “I have not given it any study from that point of view.” In other words, the president of the NRA hadn’t even considered whether the most far-reaching federal gun-control legislation in history conflicted with the Second Amendment. Preserving the ability of law-abiding people to have guns, Frederick would write elsewhere, “lies in an enlightened public sentiment and in intelligent legislative action. It is not to be found in the Constitution.”
While its influence on Capitol Hill is considerable, the National Rifle Association may not be the political force it was in 1994NY Post editorial:
Has technology rendered the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution obsolete?Denver Post editorial:
That is, has the application of modern military design to civilian firearms produced a class of weapons too dangerous to be in general circulation?
We say: Yes.
Editorial: Gun rights and gun control aren't necessarily exclusiveChicago Sun-Times editorial:
While Coloradans continue to support the Second Amendment, that doesn't mean certain curbs on weapons aren't a good idea.
Last weekend, members of a Downstate pro-gun group made that point pretty well when they drove up to Chicago and turned in about 60 rusted-out and broken guns in exchange for $6,200 in gift cards. This was their supposedly amusing way of ridiculing a gun trade-in program run by the Chicago Police to get dangerous firearms off the city’s streets.LA Times editorial:
The group, Guns Save Life, based in Champaign County, said they’d use the gift cards to buy ammunition and firearms for a youth program that teaches gun safety and marksmanship.
While in town, though, we have to wonder if the pro-gun group happened to read about Heaven, the 7-year-old girl who was killed last Wednesday by goofs with guns who shot into a crowd outside her mother’s house. And we have to wonder if they happened to catch the news about the eight other people killed over the weekend, including a 3-year-old boy, and the 17 who were wounded — all shot by people with guns.
Let gun lovers lead the charge on gun controlUSA Today editorial:
Australia has much in common with the United States. It was initially settled by teeming masses — in its case, largely convicts — fleeing England. Its identity was forged in the populating of its vast, empty spaces. And today it retains a considerable frontier mentality, and a considerable amount of ranching and hunting..
But the similarities end when it comes to guns. While gun ownership has been a part of Australians' way of life, they have a much more utilitarian view of their purpose