Donald Trump

[steve5424]

Not true, they have however used the systems afforded to all to ensure people's 2nd amendment rights are still protected.

Well that's false. They have certainly been paying of politicians and paying money to both parties to ensure their gun carrying rights are not limited or taken away. They have done everything they can to get in the way of any kind of new rules that may restrict or remove their gun carrying rights.

 

[plasmahal]

Well that's false. They have certainly been paying of politicians and paying money to both parties to ensure their gun carrying rights are not limited or taken away. They have done everything they can to get in the way of any kind of new rules that may restrict or remove their gun carrying rights.

So you think it's OK to illegally remove peoples human rights?

 

[doodah]

The NRA has strongly opposed legislation to prohibit the sale of guns to people on the federal government's terrorist watch list. Under current law, a suspected terrorist can be put on the no-fly list and be kept off a plane, but can't be prevented from buying a gun.

In 2004, a Republican congressman from Kansas, Todd Tiahrt, a long-time ally of the NRA, added an amendment to bill regarding the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives (ATF). Until that point, data had been kept on the history of guns used in murders and shootings, which allowed police and policymakers to trace them back to corrupt dealerships and other holes in the system. The rule change, known as the Tiahrt amendment, made this data much harder to acquire. It also forced the justice department to destroy within 24 hours the records of any gun buyer whose background check was approved. The overall impact of the amendments was to make it much harder for police to clamp down on illegally distributed guns.

Yep, all about protecting the 2nd amendment and not because they are funded by the gun lobby. Plus they have fought to have guns in bars/restaurants, the workplace, schools and universities. There's protecting your rights and there's been irresponsible.

 

[steve5424]

So you think it's OK to illegally remove peoples human rights?

When it comes to dangerous weapons that most people no longer actually need. The 2nd amendment was there to protect people back in the days of civil war and when there wereg of armed gangs around. That's so outdated now.

 

[plasmahal]

So that makes it okay?

Historically it has been okay for a long time, not me making it right/wrong.

 

[plasmahal]

When it comes to dangerous weapons that most people no longer actually need. The 2nd amendment was there to protect people back in the days of civil war and when there wereg of armed gangs around. That's so outdated now.

In your opinion, millions of actual Americans disagree with you.

 

[ZXSpectrum]

When it comes to dangerous weapons that most people no longer actually need. The 2nd amendment was there to protect people back in the days of civil war and when there wereg of armed gangs around. That's so outdated now.

That's not strictly true. America is a vast continent with tiny law enforcement in relation, especially out in the more remote locations. The 2nd amendment also covers people protecting themselves, their family and their property where law enforcement would not be able to.

 

[steve5424]

In your opinion, millions of actual Americans disagree with you.

They are probably now in a minority, versus those who want extra rules and regulations put in place.

 

[plasmahal]

They are probably now in a minority, versus those who want extra rules and regulations put in place.

It's their country and their democratic right to vote in people to make the changes the people want.

 

[steve5424]

So after every major gun incident it seems more and more people want something done to prevent it happening again but all you get is hopes and prayers, that ultimately mean nothing as all they care about is protecting the NRA and their 2md amendment rights. They will never have a president, who is willing to go against the grain and do something, due to the monies given by the NRA.

 

[plasmahal]

So after every major gun incident it seems more and more people want something done to prevent it happening again but all you get is hopes and prayers, that ultimately mean nothing as all they care about is protecting the NRA and their 2md amendment rights. They will never have a president, who is willing to go against the grain and do something, due to the monies given by the NRA.

Obesity kills more Americans that gun crimes/accidents, do you approve of forcing american citizens to eat healthy and remove their human right to decide for themselves?

 

[VincentHanna]

Obesity kills more Americans that gun crimes/accidents, do you approve of forcing american citizens to eat healthy and remove their human right to decide for themselves?

That's self inflicted...

Being shot by some maniac isn't a choice is it?

 

[doodah]

At least 80% of Americans want basic universal background checks (this figure rising to over 90% in some instances) - you would think this should correlate to some form of policy but Mitch McConnell and the GOP make sure there is not translation.

The likes of the NRA argue something like this would be an invasion of privacy - Patriot Act is fine but something as simple as this - THE END OF AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT. Alone it won't do much but it really shouldn't be much of a debate to do a simple check on whether someone is a clear risk when purchasing a gun.

 

[MadMossy]

So after every major gun incident it seems more and more people want something done to prevent it happening again but all you get is hopes and prayers, that ultimately mean nothing as all they care about is protecting the NRA and their 2md amendment rights. They will never have a president, who is willing to go against the grain and do something, due to the monies given by the NRA.

I think what you'll find is the "more and more" people that want something done are actually a minority of very vocal social justice keyboard warriors, when the reality is most people want the opposite.

 

[VincentHanna]

I think what you'll find is the "more and more" people that want something done are actually a minority of very vocal social justice keyboard warriors, when the reality is most people want the opposite.

You're suggesting most Americans want even more lax gun laws?

 

[MadMossy]

You're suggesting most Americans want even more lax gun laws?

Not at all I didn't say that, what I will say though is they don't want their current rights removed. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[plasmahal]

Being shot by some maniac isn't a choice is it?

so what your saying is BAN maniacs and not guns, right....

 

[VincentHanna]

so what your saying is BAN maniacs and not guns, right....

I'm not saying either, Cathy Newman.

Calling for stricter gun laws is not a "ban" on guns.

 

[plasmahal]

Not at all I didn't say that, what I will say though is they don't want their current rights removed. Nothing more nothing less.

While i cannot prove or disprove this, I'd say the majority of US citizens are not against reasonable gun controls as long as their rights are not infringed.

In many states they already have this but not all states are taking a reasonable approach.

The big issue being avoided by the leftists here, is stopping criminals getting hold of guns no matter how the reasonable the background checks are. Take guns away from the criminals first then the citizens.....

 

[plasmahal]

I'm not saying either, Cathy Newman.

Calling for stricter guns laws is not a "ban" on guns.

Who's Cathy Newman and what has she got to do with US gun laws?

What stricter laws do you believe in that won't infringe on US citizens human rights?

I agree on better background checks (which some states already have).