Even before the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the Second Amendment in late June, we predicted that most law-abiding citizens would realize that the Court wouldn't let their guns be "taken away," regardless of who was victorious on Election Day. At the same time, we thought that voters now would be more likely cast their ballots for candidates willing to do something to reduce the 100,000 deaths and injuries from guns which occur every year in America, and make it harder for dangerous people to get guns.
The article goes on to describe the terrific trouncing the NRA supported candidates took. The winners of those races are described as "moderate candidates who favor common sense gun laws."
My question is, exactly what would those gun laws be and how would they "make it harder for dangerous people to get guns?" Also, I couldn't help but notice that 100,000 figure. Reading the comments on this blog, you might think the number would be much lower. The way some people talk you'd think the number would be negligible.
And what about that slippery slope? Do increases in gun laws, even "common sense" ones, mean that eventually guns will be "taken away" from people? The Brady Blog says the voters thought not. What do you think?