o.yes. back to the topic. being, we’re all purists on this forum.silentreader wrote:And it must be properly raptor it will be refused.Bootstrap wrote:That's why falcons don't use commercial airlines. They are only allowed two pieces of carrion.silentreader wrote:But we don't like when you try to bring in carrion.
- An Act to Protect & Save Your Children
We support the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms, as set forth in the United States Constitution.
But with that right comes responsibility.
We call on all the adults in Congress elected to represent us, to pass legislation that will protect and save children from gun violence.
Our elected officials MUST ACT by:
1. Passing a law to ban the sale of assault weapons like the ones used in Las Vegas, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, Aurora, Sandy Hook and, most recently, to kill 17 innocent people and injure more than a dozen others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
Of the 10 deadliest shootings over the last decade, seven involved the use of assault weapons.
No civilian should be able to access these weapons of war, which should be restricted for use by our military and law enforcement only. These guns have no other purpose than to fire as many bullets as possible and indiscriminately kill anything they are pointed at with terrifying speed.
2. Prohibiting the sale of high-capacity magazines such as the ones the shooter at our school—and so many other recent mass shootings used.
States that ban high-capacity magazines have half as many shootings involving three or more victims as states that allow them.
Limiting the number of bullets a gun can discharge at one time will at least force any shooter to stop and reload, giving children a chance to escape.
3. Closing the loophole in our background check law that allows dangerous people who shouldn’t be allowed to purchase firearms to slip through the cracks and buy guns online or at gun shows.
97 percent of Americans support closing the current loopholes in our background check system.
When Connecticut passed a law requiring background checks on all handgun sales, they saw a 40 percent reduction in gun homicides.
22 percent of gun sales in this country take place without a background check. That’s millions of guns that could be falling into dangerous hands.
A background check should be required on every gun sale, no exceptions.
The children of this country can no longer go to school in fear that each day could be their last.
It would be great to see this A-list of celebrities (many of whom have bodyguards who carry the very weapons they want to see banned and taken from private citizens) come out as strong against something much more heinous than guns, namely, abortion.Amal and George Clooney donated $500,000 to support the march and announced they would attend. Oprah Winfrey matched the Clooney donation of $500,000 to support the march.[8][9] Jeffrey Katzenberg and his wife Marilyn also contributed $500,000.[10] On February 23, Gucci announced they were also donating $500,000 towards the march.[11] The march has the support of Justin Bieber, who has already reached out to the campaign.[12] Other people and organizations offering support have included Gabby Giffords, Lauren Jauregui, Alyssa Milano, Moms Demand Action, Amy Schumer, St. Vincent and Hayley Williams.[13][14]
It's not all or nothing. This last weekend, none of the gun owners felt that all weapons should be available to civilians. You can ban some guns without banning all guns, and as far as I can tell, few people think that Americans need to have fully automatic weapons, not even gun owners or NRA members.Josh wrote:You should stop and consider that, according to the above text, many reasonable people own a "weapon of war" and a "high capacity magazine" and an "assault weapon", since they might have a semi-auto .22 with a 25-round magazine.
Do you think the police should come to Americans' homes and confiscate their .22 (like happened in Australia over the last decade)?
But let's remember where the real political money is on this issue ...Josh wrote:Amal and George Clooney donated $500,000 to support the march and announced they would attend. Oprah Winfrey matched the Clooney donation of $500,000 to support the march.[8][9] Jeffrey Katzenberg and his wife Marilyn also contributed $500,000.[10] On February 23, Gucci announced they were also donating $500,000 towards the march.[11] The march has the support of Justin Bieber, who has already reached out to the campaign.[12] Other people and organizations offering support have included Gabby Giffords, Lauren Jauregui, Alyssa Milano, Moms Demand Action, Amy Schumer, St. Vincent and Hayley Williams.[13][14]
So even if the NRA had spent nothing at all, gun control advocates were outspent by gun manufacturers.The NRA's annual lobbying expenditures come to millions of dollars a year: Gun rights advocacy groups, of which the NRA is the kingpin, spent more than $135 million on lobbying in 1998-2017, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Gun manufacturers spent an additional $21 million. Those figures swamped the spending of gun control advocacy groups, which mustered only about $19 million in that period.
I think the 1986 National Firearms Act, which banned private citizens from buying automatic weapons or assault rifles, is about the right mix. It also makes it much more difficult for private citizens to acquire or sell items like sawn-off shotguns and silencers, requiring extensive background checks, a signed approval letter from local law enforcement, and allows no "gun show loophole" type sales without a background check. It's been the law of the land for over 3 decades.Bootstrap wrote:Josh, where would you draw the line? Are there weapons you do not think civilians should have? If so, which ones, and why?
Anti-gun lobbying efforts are pretty intense. If you want to get into the money game, the anti-gun side is extremely well funded, and includes figures such as George Soros who seem to have an agenda to legalise marijuana but outlaw guns. The anti-gun movement is one funded by the elites of society, not by the common man.Bootstrap wrote:But let's remember where the real political money is on this issue ...
The NRA spends very little money on lobbying. Most of its influence comes because it is so good at mobilising its membership to call their elected representatives, and because voters trust its endorsements and letter grades:So even if the NRA had spent nothing at all, gun control advocates were outspent by gun manufacturers.The NRA's annual lobbying expenditures come to millions of dollars a year: Gun rights advocacy groups, of which the NRA is the kingpin, spent more than $135 million on lobbying in 1998-2017, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Gun manufacturers spent an additional $21 million. Those figures swamped the spending of gun control advocacy groups, which mustered only about $19 million in that period.
Compared with the towering sums of money donated to House and Senate candidates in the last cycle — $1.7 billion — the N.R.A.’s direct contributions were almost a rounding error.
The N.R.A. directly donated a total of just $1.1 million to candidates for federal office in 2016, with 99 percent of that money going to Republicans, while giving a total of only $309,000 in direct contributions to state legislative candidates in 2016 and 2017, according to tallies by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks federal donations, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, which tracks state-level donations.
“Its most precious resource is perhaps the passion and political engagement of its members and its fans,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.
it does become puzzling, trying to understand.Josh wrote: I think the 1986 National Firearms Act, which banned private citizens from buying automatic weapons or assault rifles, is about the right mix.
It also makes it much more difficult for private citizens to acquire or sell items like sawn-off shotguns and silencers, requiring extensive background checks, a signed approval letter from local law enforcement, and allows no "gun show loophole" type sales without a background check. It's been the law of the land for over 3 decades.
That's why I'm puzzled by the calls here from you and Dan Z to outlaw assault rifles or automatic weapons.
The 1986 law did not perform an absolute confiscation, but did require registration and fees to be paid. At this point, a registered assault rifle that can be legally owned costs in excess of $50,000 and, generally, needs the help of a lawyer to do the transfer & sale. It is extremely rare for any of them to show up at a crime scene.
i believe he’s correct.Michael Middleton wrote:
“Read the founding fathers' commentaries on the 2nd Amendment;
their purpose had NOTHING to do with hunting or sport shooting.
It had everything to do with a citizens right and responsibility to protect the security of their families, their communities, and their nation from enemies both foreign and domestic.
They specifically notated an armed citizenry as being an essential safeguard against an abusive and corrupt federal government, such as they had just fought a war against to abolish.”
Teacher Union Pensions Invest in Firearm .. Manufacturers
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/02/28/ ... mpaign=DMS
