Those who oppose any kind of gun restriction all show up and vote as a bloc on that issue only if that separates the candidates. Those who support usually do not have it as a top priority and will vote based on other issues so that their votes are split.
just pass a law that says if you get a background check when you sell a gun, you are not liable for what the buyer does with that gun, if you decide you don't need a background check, you are liable. if you trust someone you know enough to accept liability when the victim's family sues you, go ahead and sell them that gun without a check.
I'm old enough to remember the Clinton administration, where the Republicans were honing the techniques they later used so well against Obama. The fact that Barry was black was just icing on the frosting; they would have been just as awful with any other Democrat, just without that frisson of racism.
The military has gun safety rules. If you break one, woe be to you. The NRA has gun safety rules. Why can't we use somebody's list of gun safety rules and make that into gun laws and if someone breaks one, then they get in trouble from the law? I don't understand why in civilian world gun safety is optional. I don't think it should be optional for anybody. I honestly believe that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner or "good guy with a gun" who disregards gun safety rules.
That Boulder psychopath wanted to put the 'mass casualty' in mass shooter. There was a full on ban on his military-style weapon, then the Colorado judge removes the ban, and five days later guess who buys one?
The push for these AK-47 style weapons by the NRA is profit driven. These high-calibre weapons go through a lot more ammunition, which punches up post-sales and the shock value. If you get a rifle for hunting, you might do some target practice, but you're not taking a lot of shots when your out hunting deer or people. People buy hand guns, go to the shooter range, but studies show they tend to lose interest and lock them up.
Owners of these rapid release military guns (even better with a bump stock) go through reams and reams of ammo, adding to the 'thrill' factor when firing. That, friendos, is the free market delivering up those sweet, sweet hooked in return profits.
Otherwise, they are A) pointless for hunting and self-defence B) preferred weapon of choice by psychos to kill maximum civilians, so they can win in the shooters' fame-negging sweepstakes.
I really feel like this guy in the commercial is nuts. He just looks crazy, and his commercial is gibberish. He's the Donald Trump of gun manufacturers.
Seems like you'd have to be a pretty sharp shooter to clip a murder hornet in flight.
Those who oppose any kind of gun restriction all show up and vote as a bloc on that issue only if that separates the candidates. Those who support usually do not have it as a top priority and will vote based on other issues so that their votes are split.
just pass a law that says if you get a background check when you sell a gun, you are not liable for what the buyer does with that gun, if you decide you don't need a background check, you are liable. if you trust someone you know enough to accept liability when the victim's family sues you, go ahead and sell them that gun without a check.
I'm old enough to remember the Clinton administration, where the Republicans were honing the techniques they later used so well against Obama. The fact that Barry was black was just icing on the frosting; they would have been just as awful with any other Democrat, just without that frisson of racism.
Also gerrymandered congressional districts.
So does a single grain of sand.
But a sand dune can bury a city.
THAT PART.
"Oh hell no," says Manchin. "Some guy I don't know did it."
I'm in DFW, and I don't think that at all. Colorado would be scary, though.
call rick scott and marc rubio? yeah, that will help.
The military has gun safety rules. If you break one, woe be to you. The NRA has gun safety rules. Why can't we use somebody's list of gun safety rules and make that into gun laws and if someone breaks one, then they get in trouble from the law? I don't understand why in civilian world gun safety is optional. I don't think it should be optional for anybody. I honestly believe that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner or "good guy with a gun" who disregards gun safety rules.
That Boulder psychopath wanted to put the 'mass casualty' in mass shooter. There was a full on ban on his military-style weapon, then the Colorado judge removes the ban, and five days later guess who buys one?
The push for these AK-47 style weapons by the NRA is profit driven. These high-calibre weapons go through a lot more ammunition, which punches up post-sales and the shock value. If you get a rifle for hunting, you might do some target practice, but you're not taking a lot of shots when your out hunting deer or people. People buy hand guns, go to the shooter range, but studies show they tend to lose interest and lock them up.
Owners of these rapid release military guns (even better with a bump stock) go through reams and reams of ammo, adding to the 'thrill' factor when firing. That, friendos, is the free market delivering up those sweet, sweet hooked in return profits.
Otherwise, they are A) pointless for hunting and self-defence B) preferred weapon of choice by psychos to kill maximum civilians, so they can win in the shooters' fame-negging sweepstakes.
Kyle Rottonhouse got his gun from a friend. Doesn't matter if he was 17 or 27, chances are it would have turned out the same.
He was looking for a gunfight on the streets of a town he didn't even live in.
I don't have to call my senators. They're Schumer and Gillibrand.
I really feel like this guy in the commercial is nuts. He just looks crazy, and his commercial is gibberish. He's the Donald Trump of gun manufacturers.
You don't think we could have a mass shooting in DFW? Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...