Why do you think gun owners never challenge - because as been proven in dozens of bills it is perfectly legal to put controls on gun ownership. (An assumption on your part. The last time there was a challenge to a gun control law the Supremes struck the law down)
I agree I think the current push is much closer to the federal assault weapons ban enacted during the Clinton years ( and supported by Ronald Reagan, ford and carter). As you know that law was in place for many years then left to expire. (Who says they supported it? Ford was middle of the road, Carter was a blithering idiot and second worst president behind Obozo, and I've never seen anywhere but in your words what Reagan supported it. However, what they did or did not support means nothing. Itb was in effect for ten years and did not good.)
Given that law was also completely constitutional, why would a similar to same law all of a sudden be considered unconstitutional? (Again, constituonallity was never proven becuase it was never challenged. It was a poorly crafted law that did no good. There can be no good ban becuase the idiots in DC have no idea what they are dealing with. One of them held up a round from an AK-47 and said with shock, "That is the largest bullet I've ever seen." Trust me, it is not that large. What does a Mafia hit man use? A single shot .22. All weapons are assault weapons if I attack you with one.)
I'm not saying it was or will be a "good" law or prevent any crime. But it would likely be completely constitution. (Again, up to the Supremes if and when it is passed and then challenged. I am sure that challenge would take years.)
No idea on the other question, you would have to ask a so called liberal. Seems to my that neither side is ever willing to compromise and that's been why our government can't get a damn thing done!! (Roger that. But I think it is time to leave the liberal ideal behind and work on important things such as the BUDGET! Most of the problems of this country could be solved if we got people back to work.)
To answer your switchblade point, ill pose another question. Laws (including capital punishment in some states) are in place to prevent murders. (Laws do not prevent anything. They dscuss punishment after the fact.) Yet bad people continue to commit murder without any care or thought of the law. (They do not believe the laws will be enforced.) Given murder laws are completely useless would we be better off if we did not have them since they will never stop the bad people from doing bad things? Interested in your answer thanks. (Capital punishment used to work when it was used. Many states have banned it and the ones that have it take ten to fifteen years to put it into effect. We need to go back to the system where a person was arrested, tried, convicted and then put to death. It works when it is in use. Ask criminals today and they will tell you they don't fear it. I say once a person is convicted and sentensed to death there is a review panel that looks at everything one good time. If they can find no problem with the conviction, carry it out in two weeks and be done with it. The current system costs way to much. The concept is called "Coventry". All I want is an absolute guarantee that the criminals will not be free again to rape, murder and cause general mayhem.
