This just in... the NRA is opposed to an outright ban on bump stocks, but is open to 'restrictions'.This is all about what WILL happen and the sucker's game that's being played. Machine guns are already banned. So a ban on bump stocks will be made and that's it. An opportunity to make real change may be missed because one side wants to take away something and the other side is playing them for suckers - because they are. Prediction: Bump stock ban, no other material changes and everybody fools themselves into believing something was achieved. And the NRA laugh because they've won another round of a game they've been playing for years against an opponent who ALWAYS USES THE SAME STRATEGY.
For an allegedly grass roots organization with that small a membership it is a pretty big budget.The NRA apparently spent 90 million dollars lobbying US politicians. That may seem a lot,....
Wow. First it was circumcision, then it was lack of dads, now it boys being drugged.
Despite your paranoia, most people just want reasonable changes like mandatory background checks and laws preventing mentally ill from owning guns.Gun grabbers won't compromise either,...
Yep, that's what happened with cars....
About licensing, it provides a database for the government and is the first step to the mass confiscation...
I know you worry that if the government knows who owns guns they will be bashing down your door but the current registration system of hand written receipts in mouldy boxes is an absolute joke.One of the major, valid concerns about "universal background checks" is with regards to how to implement one without a national registry or database....
LOL... sputnik news...More American Sociopathy
Authorities say they've thwarted a plot by a student to commit a mass shooting at a Southern California high school just two days after 17 people were gunned down at a Florida high school, according to The Associated Press.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said on Tuesday that a security guard at El Camino High School in Whittier overheard a "disgruntled student" threaten to open fire on the school on Friday. Sheriff's spokeswoman Nicole Nishida tells The Associated Press that the investigation resulted in finding "multiple guns and ammunition" after searching the student's home. The student is currently in custody.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201802211061872407-california-school-shooting-sabotaged/
attacking the source is not an argument local L.A media reported the same storyLOL... sputnik news...
Actually, the course is a very legitimate target.attacking the source is not an argument local L.A media reported the same story
The trade is that children will not be killed at schools and concert goers will not be gunned down from a hotel window.Then bring a horse to trade.
Again, I disagree with this whole negotiation thing. It is the duty of the government to ensure the safety of their people more than it is to protect a particular industry. A respectable, honest government would take the bull by the horns, tell the gun lobby that this is how it is going to be and then pass the legislation to lock it in.oh, I'm pessimistic too - but mainly because of the strategy of the anti-gun lobby to ask for concessions without offering anything. So the status quo reigns supreme. I'm just saying the only way to get any sort of progress is for both sides to give up something. I think the anti-gun should give up any talk of gun bans (useless anyway) and the pro-gun lobby should accept National minimum standards for licensing, background checks (with no exceptions) and where guns can be sold. But I'm not optimistic this will happen.
The trade is that children will not be killed at schools and concert goers will not be gunned down from a hotel window.
This is not a business deal. This is trying to ensure the safety and welfare of citizens. It is their right.
Did the government have to trade something to limit tobacco advertising and packaging? What did the government give pharmacies when they were told that they were no longer allowed to sell cigarettes?
Except for New England and California, the legislative cannot impose any restrictions that will annoy firearms owners. Otherwise, they will get turfed out of office. Democrats know this.Exactly, the NRA spends very little, compared to other special interests, but what they do have is politically active membership that's able to exert pressure on the Congressional districts and I don't see that changing anytime soon. The legislative can impose certain limits, but, because of the Constitutional considerations, any overreach is bound to be defeated in the Supreme Court and Congressional elections. Especially with the Republicans holding the White House, for the foreseeable future, the make up of the Court is unlikely to change.
And many point out that the CIA knowing all about its citizens is unconstitutional, and a presage to a police state.American security agencies from local police to the CIA already have and use such databases all the time. Without the kind of checks and balances you say are necessary. Have you heard of the No Fly List? Most Americans approve of them and their use.
Although many made objections on specific points, lots of them the same as yours, sensible people recognized there could be away to balance non-interference and public safety. The point is to solve those issues to get a needed job done, not use them as weapons to ensure nothing's done at all.
He is probably right.This guy is certifiable.
Trump says arming teachers with concealed weapons could prevent school massacres
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ould-prevent-school-massacres-video?CMP=fb_gu
This is a deal if you want to hope for any progress. If the pot isn't any sweeter than, "on the bright side, you get to keep what we haven't yet taken...for now" then don't be surprised if the response is no. Like it or not, you're the just the vocal minority; most Americans like, own and use their firearms responsibly.The trade is that children will not be killed at schools and concert goers will not be gunned down from a hotel window.
This is not a business deal. This is trying to ensure the safety and welfare of citizens. It is their right.
Did the government have to trade something to limit tobacco advertising and packaging? What did the government give pharmacies when they were told that they were no longer allowed to sell cigarettes?