Gun Control

[BigRedBuster]

NEWS WEEK LINK

 

Despite these recent statements on the campaign trail, Americans might remember that Trump wasn’t always such a strong supporter of gun ownership. Before he was a presidential contender, he called out Republicans who “walk the NRA line” and “refuse even limited restrictions” on firearms laws, in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve.

“I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,” he wrote. At the time of his book’s publication, the real estate mogul was considering a bid for the presidency but hadn’t declared his intention to run.

In April 2015, 15 years later and two months before he entered the presidential race, Trump changed his tune, telling those gathered at the NRA’s forum, “I love the NRA. I love the Second Amendment.”

At that event, he forcefully declared his political support for the organization. “I promise you one thing, if I run for president and if I win, the Second Amendment will be totally protected, that I can tell you,” he said.

 

 

 

The guy is a fraud.

[Enhance]

NEWS WEEK LINK

 

Despite these recent statements on the campaign trail, Americans might remember that Trump wasn’t always such a strong supporter of gun ownership. Before he was a presidential contender, he called out Republicans who “walk the NRA line” and “refuse even limited restrictions” on firearms laws, in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve.

“I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,” he wrote. At the time of his book’s publication, the real estate mogul was considering a bid for the presidency but hadn’t declared his intention to run.

In April 2015, 15 years later and two months before he entered the presidential race, Trump changed his tune, telling those gathered at the NRA’s forum, “I love the NRA. I love the Second Amendment.”

At that event, he forcefully declared his political support for the organization. “I promise you one thing, if I run for president and if I win, the Second Amendment will be totally protected, that I can tell you,” he said.

 

 

 

The guy is a fraud.

Add it to the already extensive list.

[zoogs]

Is there some sort of "non-career politican virtue" in Trump's pining for the presidency that, despite lack of qualifications, has spanned almost two decades if not more?

[knapplc]

Is this just the first time we've noticed an enemy saying this, or the first time it's being reported to citizens?

Islamic State magazine steers followers to U.S. gun shows for ‘easy’ access to weapons

In August, a former Islamic State recruit caused a stir when he described how the terrorist organization sought to exploit America’s lax gun laws.

“They say the Americans are dumb — they have open gun policies” the recruit told the New York Times from a German prison. “They say we can radicalize them easily, and if they have no prior record, they can buy guns, so we don’t need to have a contact man who has to provide guns for them.”

It appeared to be the first time anyone from the Islamic State had spoken openly about the organization’s views on U.S. gun control, as The Washington Post reported at the time.

Now, the Islamic State has spelled out its position in writing.

In the most recent issue of Rumiyah, its glossy multilingual propaganda magazine, the Islamic State encouraged recruits in the United States to take advantage of laws that allow people to buy firearms without having to present identification or submit to background checks.

Recruits should seek out gun shows and online sales in particular, said the write-up in the magazine, which was released Thursday.

“The acquisition of firearms can be very simple depending on one’s geographical location,” the piece read. “In most U.S. states, anything from a single-shot shotgun all the way up to a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle can be purchased at showrooms or through online sales — by way of private dealers — with no background checks, and without requiring either an ID or a gun license.”

 

 

 

And the obvious follow-up question:

 

[Saunders]

My hope was that the current admin would roll the HPA + National Reciprocity together with some sort of national UBC ruling. I didn't actually expect it, but one can hope for lemons out of lemonade. It wouldn't be hard to strengthen and streamline the current system to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and dangerous people, while also making the laws infinitely less confusing. Instead, they're just f'ing up healthcare.

 

:/

[NM11046]

Figured I'd bump this since I needed to read through it myself ...

[knapplc]

I think guns are cool, I think we need less guns, and I think we should seriously examine the motives behind the 2nd Amendment.

 

But I also think this is a very reasonable response to this question:

 

[BigRedBuster]

In this particular situation, I would much rather the discussion be about easing tensions between the two sides and having our leaders actually lead us in that effort instead of fostering hatred between people who disagree. The President needs to be the leader in this....sadly, I think he is unable to do that.

[NM11046]

And ..... another work place mass shooting being reported in San Francisco.

[NM11046]

Based on data I've read this morning it seems like an easy first step would be to limit the sale of guns to those who have a history of domestic abuse.

[Enhance]

Based on data I've read this morning it seems like an easy first step would be to limit the sale of guns to those who have a history of domestic abuse.

For some time now, I've been a fan of investigating and potentially implementing some of the UK's approach to gun control. I believe I've posted about it in the thread before.

 

1) "Good reason" to own a firearm certificate

2) Declare all criminal convictions

3) Two (one in some places) references to support the application

 

Each of these requirements include several hurdles and legalities that must be met. Unfortunately, number one is the most substantial piece of the puzzle and also the least likely to happen in the U.S. because of the 2nd Amendment. But, numbers two and three could certainly be hashed out in further detail. Number three is of particular interest because there are a variety of limitations as to who can be a referee for you, which include that person being of "good character" and comes with its own list of qualifications.

[BigRedBuster]

No....sorry......that's where I would have to draw the line.

 

I am all for doing back ground checks to keep guns out of the hands of felons and mentally unstable people. But, I am not for having to convince the government why I want to buy a gun every time I choose to do so even though I have never committed a crime and am never showed any signs of violence or mental problems.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I don't know what we should be doing here to fix this problem that we have as a country, but: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." -Albert Einstein

[NM11046]

No....sorry......that's where I would have to draw the line.

 

I am all for doing back ground checks to keep guns out of the hands of felons and mentally unstable people. But, I am not for having to convince the government why I want to buy a gun every time I choose to do so even though I have never committed a crime and am never showed any signs of violence or mental problems.

What about a test (gun competency) before purchase - is that too much as well? (Note: no scarcasm or snideness intended )

[Kiyoat Husker]

Its a nice idea to think that we can implement some small level of reasonable change in gun control laws to make it harder for the "bad people" to get guns, but nothing is going to happen for three reasons:

 

1. Determining who the "good people" and "bad people" are is a fool's errand. Many future domestic terrorists have no criminal records, and many mentally ill people are not "officially" mentally ill. Further, we can't do racial profiling or other similar discriminatory practices.

 

If we let a 50-year-old white farmer in a small town (with no priors) own a semi-auto rifle for hunting raccoons and protecting his farm, we can't stop a 22-year-old muslim man in a bad Detroit neighborhood (with no priors) (that happens to have just been radicalized) from purchasing the same gun.

 

2. Any effective limitations are going to negatively affect all gun owners, and the NRA isn't going to let that happen.

 

3. The NRA is far to powerful a lobbying organization.