History UsefulNotes / AmericanGunPolitics

18th Aug '16 8:49:49 AM Taskmaster123
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

Another criticism of gun control advocates is that ''many'' of the most vocal critics of the 2nd Amendment and strident supporters for strict gun control are wealthy businessmen, politicians, and celebrities...who never go anywhere without armed bodyguards.
12th Aug '16 5:00:16 PM LaptopGuy
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Following mass shootings at San Bernardino, CA and Newtown, CN, more Americans—conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat—are more likely to support stricter gun regulations. Opinions differ on what these regulations should cover. Suffice it to say, most Americans believe ''something'' should be done; however, the law of unintended consequences makes it difficult for them to agree on ''what.''

to:

Following mass shootings at San Bernardino, CA CA; Orlando, FL; and Newtown, CN, CT; more Americans—conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat—are more likely to support stricter gun regulations. Opinions differ on what these regulations should cover. Suffice it to say, most Americans believe ''something'' should be done; however, the law of unintended consequences makes it difficult for them to agree on ''what.''
3rd Aug '16 7:23:17 PM Miracle@StOlaf
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Note that the weapon's complete receiver (the frame that all other parts of the gun attach to) is the only portion legally defined as a "firearm," so one existing loophole of a sort for online sales is to purchase a partially-milled receiver (which does not require an FFL to ship because it's inoperable in that state), finish the machining work to make it functional, and assemble a complete weapon from aftermarket parts. However, the high expense and technical know-how needed for this workaround keeps it from being an especially tempting choice to the criminal element.


to:

Note that the weapon's complete completed receiver (the frame that all other parts of the gun attach to) is the only portion legally defined as a "firearm," so one existing loophole of a sort for online sales is to purchase a partially-milled receiver (which does not doesn't require an FFL to ship because it's inoperable not operable in that state), finish the machining work to make it functional, and assemble a complete weapon from aftermarket or original parts. However, the relatively high expense and technical know-how needed for this workaround keeps it from being an especially tempting choice to the criminal element.

3rd Aug '16 7:18:17 PM Miracle@StOlaf
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

Note that the weapon's complete receiver (the frame that all other parts of the gun attach to) is the only portion legally defined as a "firearm," so one existing loophole of a sort for online sales is to purchase a partially-milled receiver (which does not require an FFL to ship because it's inoperable in that state), finish the machining work to make it functional, and assemble a complete weapon from aftermarket parts. However, the high expense and technical know-how needed for this workaround keeps it from being an especially tempting choice to the criminal element.

1st Aug '16 10:55:54 PM Miracle@StOlaf
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Online retailers, meanwhile, conduct the sale and transaction online but, contrary to popular misconception, do not ship firearms directly to an unlicensed individual's doorstep. Direct, mail-order gun sales are not only illegal, but they have been since ''1968'', with the passage of the Gun Control Act. The firearm may only be delivered to a Federal Firearms License holder --most commonly a brick & mortar gun dealer-- who then must conduct a proper background check before the gun can be transferred to the buyer. The same laws apply to private sellers on auction sites such as Gun Broker, where the seller does not require an FFL to ship a firearm, but the recipient must still be an authorized FFL holder to accept it.


to:

Online retailers, meanwhile, conduct the sale and transaction online but, contrary to popular misconception, do not ship firearms directly to an unlicensed individual's doorstep. Direct, mail-order gun sales are not only illegal, but they have been since ''1968'', with the passage of the Gun Control Act. The firearm may only be delivered to a Federal Firearms License holder --most commonly a brick & mortar gun dealer-- who then must conduct a proper background check before the gun can be transferred to the buyer. The same laws apply to private sellers on auction sites such as Gun Broker, where the seller does not require an FFL to ship a firearm, but the recipient must still be an authorized FFL holder to accept it.

take delivery.

1st Aug '16 10:50:50 PM Miracle@StOlaf
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

Online retailers, meanwhile, conduct the sale and transaction online but, contrary to popular misconception, do not ship firearms directly to an unlicensed individual's doorstep. Direct, mail-order gun sales are not only illegal, but they have been since ''1968'', with the passage of the Gun Control Act. The firearm may only be delivered to a Federal Firearms License holder --most commonly a brick & mortar gun dealer-- who then must conduct a proper background check before the gun can be transferred to the buyer. The same laws apply to private sellers on auction sites such as Gun Broker, where the seller does not require an FFL to ship a firearm, but the recipient must still be an authorized FFL holder to accept it.

30th Jul '16 8:36:08 PM JamesAustin
Is there an issue? Send a Message


-->--'''The 1791 ''Second Amendment to the United States' Constitution''

to:

-->--'''The 1791 ''Second Second Amendment to the United States' Constitution''
States Constitution'''
26th Jul '16 5:41:02 AM PugBuddies
Is there an issue? Send a Message


'''National Rifle Association (NRA)''' and '''Assorted Gun Rights Advocates'''

to:

'''National Rifle Association (NRA)''' and '''Assorted '''Other Gun Rights Advocates'''



'''Joyce Foundation''' and '''Associated Gun Control Advocates'''

to:

'''Joyce Foundation''' and '''Associated '''Other Gun Control Advocates'''



Gun control advocates have garnered criticism-- beyond questions of constitutionality, critics often bring up the fact that anyone already willing to commit murder (one of if not the most severe class A felony on the books and with a max sentence of life imprisonment or death) is hardly likely to be deterred by a charge of unlawful firearms possession (a class C felony with a max sentence of 10 years), claim that the gun laws advocated by these groups punish the innocent without blocking the criminally inclined, and that the facts and terms used by gun control advocates are misleading at best and more likely entirely false. In short, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". These critics also point out that, unlike Australia [[note]] which many gun control advocates point to as a success story [[/note]], America is not sealocked; therefore, if a nationwide gun ban were implemented, those willing to break the law could obtain their guns illegally from Mexico or Central America.

to:

Gun control advocates have garnered criticism-- beyond questions of constitutionality, critics often bring up the fact that anyone already willing to commit murder (one of if not the most severe class A felony on the books and with a max sentence of life imprisonment or death) is hardly likely to be deterred by a charge of unlawful firearms possession (a class C felony with a max sentence of 10 years), claim that the gun laws advocated by these groups punish the innocent without blocking the criminally inclined, and that the facts and terms used by gun control advocates are misleading at best and more likely entirely false. In short, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". These critics also point out that, unlike Australia [[note]] which many gun control advocates point to as a success story [[/note]], America is not sealocked; therefore, if a nationwide gun ban were implemented, those willing to break the law could obtain their guns illegally from Mexico or Central America.
Mexico.
25th Jul '16 5:50:33 PM PugBuddies
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Following mass shootings at San Bernardino, CA and Newtown, CN, more Americans—conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat—are more likely to support stricter gun regulations. Opinions differ on what these regulations should cover. Suffice it to say, most Americans believe ''something'' should be done, but cannot quite agree on ''what.''

to:

Following mass shootings at San Bernardino, CA and Newtown, CN, more Americans—conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat—are more likely to support stricter gun regulations. Opinions differ on what these regulations should cover. Suffice it to say, most Americans believe ''something'' should be done, but cannot quite done; however, the law of unintended consequences makes it difficult for them to agree on ''what.''



** [[SawedOffShotgun Short Barreled Shotgun]]: Determined and taxed as Short Barreled Rifle. A modified (sawed-off) shotgun is considered illegal due to concealability concerns.

to:

** [[SawedOffShotgun Short Barreled Shotgun]]: Determined and taxed as Short Barreled Rifle. A modified (sawed-off) shotgun is considered illegal due to concealability concerns.



In 1994, the US Congress passed an assault weapons ban, a measure that limited the sale of larger capacity weapons and was somewhat of a porridge of a law. Valid for only 10 years, it lapsed in 2004. In addition to banning some weapons by name (including the TEC-9 pistol, which had come to be associated with street gangs) and [[{{Nerf}} restricting magazine capacities]] to just ten rounds, it introduced a list of features that a weapon could have only a certain number of, including heat shields, bayonet lugs, pistol grips and thumbhole stocks on rifles and magazines outside the grip on pistols. This law is generally considered a joke on both sides, largely for the same reason: it banned things that looked scary (like the heat shields, which are, in fact, safety features for the operator) [[AwesomeButImpractical regardless of actual lethality]]. In addition, most arms makers were able to {{retool}} their lines, trimming off enough listed features to stay in production (such as the deletion of the bayonet lug from Colt's post-'94 AR-15 rifles). This law only applied to semi-automatic weapons, even though the news networks often played footage from the North Hollywood Shootout[[note]]the shooters used fully-automatic AKM rifles smuggled from Mexico, so they were already violating existing gun laws[[/note]] while discussing it.

to:

In 1994, the US Congress passed an assault weapons ban, a measure that limited the sale of larger capacity weapons and was somewhat of a porridge of a law. weapons. Valid for only 10 years, it lapsed expired in 2004.2004 and was not renewed. In addition to banning some weapons by name (including the TEC-9 pistol, which had come to be associated with street gangs) and [[{{Nerf}} restricting magazine capacities]] to just ten rounds, it introduced a list of features that a weapon could have only a certain number of, including heat shields, bayonet lugs, pistol grips and thumbhole stocks on rifles and magazines outside the grip on pistols. This law is generally considered a joke on both sides, largely for the same reason: it banned things that looked scary (like the heat shields, which are, in fact, safety features for the operator) [[AwesomeButImpractical regardless of actual lethality]]. In addition, most arms makers were able to {{retool}} their lines, trimming off enough listed features to stay in production (such as the deletion of the bayonet lug from Colt's post-'94 AR-15 rifles). This law only applied to semi-automatic weapons, even though the news networks often played footage from the North Hollywood Shootout[[note]]the shooters used fully-automatic AKM rifles smuggled from Mexico, so they were already violating existing gun laws[[/note]] while discussing it.



All states have concealed-carry laws, allowing a person to carry a weapon in a concealed holster with a permit. The ease of obtaining these permits varies widely; Alaska, Arizona, Idaho (state residents only), Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming (state residents only) don't require permits ''at all'', but getting a permit does have benefits (can carry in more places, speeds up buying a firearm, and can carry in some other states), while in other states, multiple legal hurdles have to be jumped through to acquire a permit. Many states do not outlaw open-carry weapons, or require a permit for such activity, although even carrying a weapon openly and lawfully can result in negative political results and get you a ''lot'' of funny looks depending on where you are. Note that the instruction of law enforcement agencies ''can'' supersede the law: if the Secret Service says that you cannot carry a gun when the President is in the building, regardless of whether or not it's allowed in that particular state, you ''will'' be arrested for failing to comply. In California, unless you are rich, powerful, know the right people or live in a rural county, a concealed carry permit is out of the question, as they are issued at the discretion of politically-appointed municipal police chiefs or county sheriffs in unincorporated areas[[note]] Elected sheriffs mostly tend to be more fair than police chiefs, who toe the party line of the (usually liberal) city government that appointed them[[/note]]. This is the subject of an ongoing court battle, as the "May-Issue" policy essentially deprives you of a right without due process.

to:

All states have concealed-carry laws, allowing a person to carry a weapon in a concealed holster with a permit. The ease of obtaining these permits varies widely; Alaska, Arizona, Idaho (state residents only), Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming (state residents only) don't require permits ''at all'', but getting a permit does have benefits (can carry in more places, speeds up buying a firearm, expedites the purchase process, and can allows for carry in some other states), while in other states, multiple legal hurdles have to be jumped through to acquire a permit. Many states do not outlaw open-carry weapons, or require a permit for such activity, although even carrying a weapon openly and lawfully can result in negative political results and get you a ''lot'' of funny looks depending on where you are. Note that the instruction of law enforcement agencies ''can'' supersede the law: if the Secret Service says that you cannot carry a gun when the President is in the building, regardless of whether or not it's allowed in that particular state, you ''will'' be arrested for failing to comply. In California, unless you are rich, powerful, know the right people or live in a rural county, a concealed carry permit is out of the question, as they are issued at the discretion of politically-appointed municipal police chiefs or county sheriffs in unincorporated areas[[note]] Elected sheriffs mostly tend to be more fair than police chiefs, who toe the party line of the (usually liberal) city government that appointed them[[/note]]. This is the subject of an ongoing court battle, as the "May-Issue" policy essentially deprives you of a right without due process.



In general, where there is a requirement to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon (CC permit), the permit system generally devolves into one of two forms: "shall issue" and everything else. Under a "shall issue" system, you fill out a form, may have to provide some qualifications (like having had some firearms safety training), and pay a fee. You get fingerprinted and photographed, and unless you have a criminal record, the police ''shall issue'' you a permit; they cannot refuse. Under all other permit systems, they can impose additional requirements or refuse to issue you a permit altogether.

to:

In general, where there is a requirement to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon (CC permit), the permit system generally devolves into takes one of two forms: "shall issue" and everything else. Under a "shall issue" system, you fill out a form, may have to provide some qualifications (like having had some firearms safety training), and pay a fee. You get fingerprinted and photographed, and unless you have a criminal record, the police ''shall issue'' you a permit; they cannot refuse. Under all other permit systems, they can impose additional requirements or refuse to issue you a permit altogether.



One of the more contentious areas in the digital age arises from online and gun show sales, due to concerns over how weapons sold in such a way could be obtained by criminals, due to not requiring a background check[[note]]Vendors without a Federal Firearms License can still sell at these venues (thus skirting the background check required for those with an FFL) provided that the purchaser lives in the same state and shows valid ID.[[/note]] A few investigative reports have shown that existing standards are sometimes not enforced, as vendors sometimes take a buyer at their word rather than double-checking the license, or sell a gun to someone that doesn't live within the same state via online trading. In a few cases, this LoopholeAbuse [[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/seeking-gun-or-selling-one-web-is-a-land-of-few-rules.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 allowed those that were legally barred from gun ownership to get one from an unlicensed vendor]], with one investigation done by the City of New York [[http://www.nyc.gov/html/cjc/downloads/pdf/nyc_pointclickfire.pdf finding that 77 out of 125 vendors would sell to]] those that ''admitted'' that they probably couldn't pass a background check.


to:

One of the more contentious areas in the digital age arises from online and gun show sales, due to concerns over how weapons sold in such a way could be obtained by criminals, due to not requiring a background check[[note]]Vendors without a Federal Firearms License can still sell at these venues (thus skirting the background check required for those with an FFL) provided that the purchaser lives in the same state and shows valid ID.[[/note]] A few investigative reports have shown that existing standards are sometimes not enforced, as vendors sometimes take a buyer at their word rather than double-checking the license, or sell a gun to someone that doesn't live within the same state via online trading. In a few cases, this LoopholeAbuse [[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/seeking-gun-or-selling-one-web-is-a-land-of-few-rules.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 allowed those that were legally barred from gun ownership to get one from an unlicensed vendor]], with one investigation done by the City of New York [[http://www.nyc.gov/html/cjc/downloads/pdf/nyc_pointclickfire.pdf finding that 77 out of 125 vendors would sell to]] those that ''admitted'' that they who probably couldn't pass a background check.




Gun control advocates have garnered criticism-- beyond questions of constitutionality, critics often bring up the fact that anyone already willing to commit murder (one of if not the most severe class A felony on the books and with a max sentence of life imprisonment or death) is hardly likely to be deterred by a charge of unlawful firearms possession (a class C felony with a max sentence of 10 years), claim that the gun laws advocated by these groups punish the innocent without blocking the criminally inclined, and that the facts and terms used by gun control advocates are misleading at best and more likely entirely false. In short, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". These critics also point out that, unlike Australia, America is not sealocked; therefore, if a nationwide gun ban were implemented, those willing to break the law could obtain their guns illegally from Mexico or Central America.

to:

Gun control advocates have garnered criticism-- beyond questions of constitutionality, critics often bring up the fact that anyone already willing to commit murder (one of if not the most severe class A felony on the books and with a max sentence of life imprisonment or death) is hardly likely to be deterred by a charge of unlawful firearms possession (a class C felony with a max sentence of 10 years), claim that the gun laws advocated by these groups punish the innocent without blocking the criminally inclined, and that the facts and terms used by gun control advocates are misleading at best and more likely entirely false. In short, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". These critics also point out that, unlike Australia, Australia [[note]] which many gun control advocates point to as a success story [[/note]], America is not sealocked; therefore, if a nationwide gun ban were implemented, those willing to break the law could obtain their guns illegally from Mexico or Central America.
25th Jul '16 5:41:54 PM PugBuddies
Is there an issue? Send a Message


-->--'''The 1791 ''Second Amendment to the United States' Constitution''[[note]] The first ten ammendments to the USA's constitution constituted ''the bill of rights'' and they were part of an effort to forge a single unified nation out of the newly-independent former colonies. Although the destruction of their nation-states' national sovereignty through the formation of a much closer political union would be deeply unpopular, it was hoped that the bill would keep people from rebelling[[/note]].'''

to:

-->--'''The 1791 ''Second Amendment to the United States' Constitution''[[note]] The first ten ammendments to the USA's constitution constituted ''the bill of rights'' and they were part of an effort to forge a single unified nation out of the newly-independent former colonies. Although the destruction of their nation-states' national sovereignty through the formation of a much closer political union would be deeply unpopular, it was hoped that the bill would keep people from rebelling[[/note]].'''
Constitution''



A British-style militia is necessary for the USA's security, since she's too poor to have a European-style standing army and has no real need of one anyway? Sure. 'The People' can have weapons. Simple as it gets. But problems start when you try to put them together and interpret them in today's world: is the law about arming the militia in the name of 'the people' or arming 'the people' so they can form militia? One way of intepreting the USA's constitution is to conform to the intent of writers of the constitution and/or that particular change to it. The other is to go along with the general principles (freedom, prosperity, justice, democracy, etcetc) and the letter of the constitution's laws in their present form, but still actively work to have it changed and meanwhile exploit ambiguous wording to ensure the public's welfare. Do note that the USA's constitution can actually be changed, it's just very difficult because 2/3 of the people in their federal law-writing bodies have to agree on it, ''[[ButWaitTheresMore AND]]'' the law-writing bodies in 3/4 of the states have to sign off on it as well.

to:

A British-style militia is necessary for Short though it is, the USA's security, since she's too poor to have a European-style standing army and has no real need of Second Amendment may be one anyway? Sure. 'The People' can have weapons. Simple as it gets. But problems start when you try to put them together and interpret them in today's world: is the law about arming the militia in the name of 'the people' or arming 'the people' so they can form militia? One way of intepreting the USA's constitution is to conform to the intent of writers of the constitution and/or that particular change to it. The other is to go along with the general principles (freedom, prosperity, justice, democracy, etcetc) and the letter more contentious elements of the constitution's laws in their present form, but still actively work to United States Constitution, the reason for this being that societal changes since the American Revolution have it changed and meanwhile exploit ambiguous wording caused Americans to ensure wonder what, precisely, the public's welfare. Do note that the USA's constitution can actually be changed, it's just very difficult because 2/3 of the people in their federal law-writing bodies have to agree on it, ''[[ButWaitTheresMore AND]]'' the law-writing bodies in 3/4 of the states have to sign off on it as well.
Founding Fathers meant by "a well-regulated militia."



The ''individual-armament'' lobby emphasises, well, individual armament. While some supporters of this lobby do believe that private citizens should arm themselves in case of a second Civil War, the vast majority support individual armament for both protection from and as a deterrent to street-level crime. These people will point to stories and statistics of private citizens who thwarted robberies or other crimes by either shooting their assailant, or simply proving to the assailant that they were armed. They will also argue that not ''all'' gun owners use their weapons solely for defense; many use their guns for hunting or target shooting, popular pastimes in [[FlyoverCountry many states.]]

The ''militia-armament'' lobby emphasizes, well, the armament of the USA's professional military organisations - at the expense of the average citizen, who is not expected to contribute to fighting a Civil War. They are not concerned with the possibility of Civil War or its outcome, but are focused on the day-to-day management of society. Accordingly they want to restrict the armament of normal people to reduce suicide and murder (particularly mass-murder). The ''militia-armament'' lobby believes that, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment should be interpreted as guaranteeing a ''collective'' right and therefore the armament of the USA's various law-enforcement and defense organisations (Police, National Guard, Military) but not private citizens.

The concept of a citizen militia dates back to 12th century English [[TheCommonLaw common law]], and its requirement that royal subjects keep and bear arms for military duty. King Henry II, in the ''Assize of Arms'', obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense. King Henry III required men between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land owning subjects) to bear arms. The reason was that ''in the absence of a regular army and police force'', it was the duty of citizen militias to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons.

to:

The ''individual-armament'' lobby emphasises, well, individual armament. While some supporters of this lobby do believe that private citizens should arm themselves in case of a second Civil War, the The vast majority support individual armament for both protection from and as a deterrent to street-level crime. These people will point to stories and statistics of private citizens who thwarted robberies or other crimes by either shooting their assailant, or simply proving to the assailant that they were armed. They will also argue that not ''all'' gun owners use their weapons solely for defense; many use their guns for hunting or target shooting, popular pastimes in [[FlyoverCountry many states.]] There ''is'' a minority supporting individual gun rights in case of a second Civil War or some other post-apocalyptic eventuality; however, these people [[YoureInsane are not often taken seriously by the majority of gun rights supporters.]]

The ''militia-armament'' lobby emphasizes, well, the armament of the USA's professional military organisations - at the expense organizations, while restricting that of the average citizen, who is not expected citizens. Those in this camp will point to contribute to fighting a Civil War. They are not concerned with the possibility of Civil War instances where legal firearms were used in murders or its outcome, but are focused on the day-to-day management of society. Accordingly they want to restrict the armament of normal people to reduce suicide and murder (particularly mass-murder).suicides, particularly mass-murder. The ''militia-armament'' lobby believes that, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment should be interpreted as guaranteeing a ''collective'' right and therefore the armament of the USA's various law-enforcement and defense organisations (Police, National Guard, Military) but not private citizens.

The concept of a citizen militia dates back to 12th century English [[TheCommonLaw common law]], and its requirement that royal subjects keep and bear arms for military duty. King Henry II, in the ''Assize of Arms'', obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense. King Henry III required men between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land owning subjects) to bear arms. The reason was that ''in that, in the absence of a regular army and police force'', force, it was the duty of citizen militias to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons.



This isn't as much of a party-line issue as most topics. From the 2008 Presidential Democratic and Republican nomination cycles, Bill Richardson was a Democrat and a gun-friendly candidate, while Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani were very much on the side of further gun control while being Republicans. That having been said, no remotely sane Republican candidate for President can risk grossly alienating the National Rifle Association voting bloc during the general election season, while at least one Democratic candidate has done so and still won.

to:

This isn't as much As of a party-line the 2012 election, the issue as most topics. From has been more or less split roughly down party lines, with gun rights advocates gravitating toward the 2008 Presidential Democratic Republicans and Republican nomination cycles, Bill Richardson was a Democrat and a gun-friendly candidate, while Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani were very much on the side of further gun control advocates gravitating toward the Democrats. However, within each party, differences in opinion remain—some Democrats support a nationwide gun ban, while being Republicans. That having been said, no remotely sane others merely support heavier restrictions on existing weapons; likewise, some Republicans are in favor of stricter gun control laws, while others believe those already in existence should be relaxed.

Following mass shootings at San Bernardino, CA and Newtown, CN, more Americans—conservative and liberal,
Republican candidate for President can risk grossly alienating the National Rifle Association voting bloc during the general election season, while at least one Democratic candidate has done so and still won.
Democrat—are more likely to support stricter gun regulations. Opinions differ on what these regulations should cover. Suffice it to say, most Americans believe ''something'' should be done, but cannot quite agree on ''what.''
This list shows the last 10 events of 150. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.AmericanGunPolitics