I would have agreed with you previously. I'm not sure I do anymore. Just because the debate is over doesn't mean there won't be any change. Take gay marriage. That shit was settled and it was settled in a bad direction. The "debate" was angry conservatives were louder and had more money to spend. Fuckin' Utah mormons spent $11m banning gay marriage in California for Prop 8 (one of many reasons I never visit). Then, almost as if by consensus, everyone else said "we're tired of your shit" and overturned all the hate. It was a lot quieter than all the bans - it was as if everyone silently agreed that the conservatives had had their say, they were wrong, and it was time to do the right thing. And the conservatives mostly grumbled and watched it happen. I feel we're there with gun control. The Tea Party has been herping and derping and walking around with AR15s slung across their backs and making a big stupid spectacle about gun rights but this is the first time I've seen the "NRA doesn't speak for me" rhetoric really catch on. Wayne LaPierre has overreached and I think everybody knows it. It's not much, but it's a start. If it took seven years between Utah mormons keeping Californians from getting married and the Supreme Court shutting the whole thing down, we're still 4-5 years before things start getting reasonable. Not a guarantee, not nearly soon enough, but from my perspective, not a reason to despair.
I think 4-5 years is ambitious because this isn't a social equality issue like gay marriage was, plus it's a constitutional protection. Buuuuut, we have had assault weapons bans, there are gunshow loopholes that can reasonably and pragmatically be closed, as well as a host of other minor legislation. With gay marriage, I got the sense even as it was getting shut down by state referendum momentum was actually building against that and the referendums were fueled by a desperate fear on the right while the tide was turning beneath their feet. I'm looking for that current here, but I have to say I'm coming up a bit short. That being said, I'm not going to stop being politically engaged on the issue...but it's true that I'm pretty pessimistic at the moment.
Well, 4-5 years before what? I don't think we're Australia but I think the tide is turning towards "common-sense gun laws." What's "common sense?" There's gonna be a debate there. I mean, you can't own .50 cal or assault rifles in California. That's an infringement on the 2nd amendment. Illinois requires showing a specific ID. That's infringement. Hawaii requires registration. That's infringement. New York City requires a permit. Massachusetts is its own thing. And that's how it starts. Local municipalities sick of the chaos do something that requires the NRA to strike it down, and the NRA doesn't. Before too long, you'll see something at the Supreme Court. - Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, Article 17"The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature, and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.”