Trump banned bump stocks via Executive Order after the Vegas shooting. NRA and Republicans said nothing against him.
there's a huge difference between bump stocks (really just a gun part) and so-called "assault weapons" as a class of firearms
I agree. I also think it shows value inconsistency / hypocrisy among many supposed 2A repubicans. A dem president doing that would have been shredded imo. Only the true hardcores spoke up against Trump and they were ignored by the mainstream of the party. I think Trump could get away with a lot more rule changing limiting gun access than any democrat.
^ lol.. to that very misinformed lady, bump stocks are banned already.. talking heads throwing words without even knowing what they are talking about. Banning automatic weapons though should be done. You don’t need a AR to go hunting. In fact, you’re a idiot if you hunt with any automatic rifle. In any event though, guns don’t kill people by themselves, people kill people. Until any of these irrational political parties pull their heads out of each other’s asses, and stop yapping about a bump stock, nothing will change.
I mean, little is going to change no matter if all those measures are passed. We’re still going to see mass shootings regularly. Overall deaths might come down a certain degree. Make no mistake though, guns are the problem, take a look around the rest of the OECD, mass killings are extremely rare, not so much here, why? Because people have easy access to tools that make slaughter pretty easy. A man with an AR-15 is far more dangerous to a large body of people then a man with a knife.
Don’t disagree at all, hence why I said automatic weapons should be banned. When it comes to a society of people killing each other, I think we should really examine our society, schools, teachers, parents, alcohol and drug abuse, neglect and passion for life and it goes on and on. Guns are a tool that people use to kill. This country has dramatically changed the last 15-20 years it’s astonishing. If I had to take a guess, the internet and the ability to be anonymous and say whatever you want without any repercussion has given people this false reality of what mankind is.
Absolutely there are underlying issues regarding folks motivations that are leading to mass shootings but what is easier? Getting rid of guns or make them extremely difficult to acquire or solving all of those underlying issues? I’ll get right on solving poverty, hopelessness, loneliness, bullying, broken homes, social media/internet addiction and influence issues etc etc but getting rid of the guns sounds more reasonable to me. I think we will get there on guns eventually, if humanity survives long enough, society is going to get there, people will have had enough, unfortunately it’s going to take a lot more deaths and a lot of decades and possibly centuries of struggle.
Trump actually did support even more measures and did once say we should take guns away without due process. Trump after Parkland appeared willing to make a deal with the Democrats on further gun control measures but was opposed by the GOP Congress and dropped gun control as an issue.
Except that other countries have the Internet, have problems with alcoholism and depression but don't have the same amount of firearm violence.
Why are we concerned with other countries? Are they allowing every single person to cross their boarders uncontrollably? Do these same countries have have a political system that’s more concerned with internet clicks and votes than solving problems? It starts at the top and the US is a **** show when it comes to leadership at a local level. Our country was founded on a dream of growth and prosperity. Hence the wonderful diversify here. It still exist but humans as a whole are lazy and look for the easy way. That mindset came from government handouts over years and years along with the internet and everything I previously listed. Additionally. when a country is the “police of the world”, it’s going to have violence because it basically encourages it.
A lot of gun threads so not sure where to drop this story. Again this is why I want guns banned. “Responsible” gun owners carrying like its the Old West and shooting at a robber manage to hit innocents. Luckily they didn’t die. There is no such thing as a “responsible” gun owner. Police go through hundreds of hours of training to ensure in that moment they make the right decision and still they can fail. Your average “responsible” gun owner cannot be trusted to handle a situation and not hurt bystanders. https://news.yahoo.com/man-robbed-assault-rifle-gunpoint-023203116.html
if it won't fly in California it's unlikely to fly elsewhere California ban on semi-automatic weapons for those under 21 ruled unconstitutional The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...c-weapons-21-ruled-unconstitutional-rcna28437
looks like the 26th Amendment may cause some problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Just read an article that we are averaging 2 mass shootings a day since Uvalde. ****ing video games and rap music man. If only that guy who killed four people in the Tulsa hospital hadn’t been playing so much Mortal Kombat….
Yet the easy access to guns allows more people that shouldn't have them get them and commit mass murder. We need to remove Assault style weapons - with the exception of a yearly renewable Hog's license. And ANY gun sale requires a background check and you need a license for every firearm, renewable every year. DD
IIRC (I guess I should click the link, lol), this was a 2-1 panel decision and could be appealed en banc or up to Scotus.
