ThIS IS WHY YOU NEVER GIVE MONEY TO THE NRA--BUMPFIRE STOCK BAN SIGNED

[2A_Tom]

Jimb, it seems you have not been following the issues. Here are some citations. Google has burried a lot so these are not the best ones.

Ted Kennedy, no fly list, maybe not but it didn't keep him from having troubles. How do we know that TSA told the truth?

Sen. Kennedy Flagged by No-Fly List (washingtonpost.com)

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/ted-kennedy-and-the-no-fly-list-myth/

Children!
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/06...tem-that-added-a-baby-to-terrorist-watchlist/

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14watchlist.html

FBI alerted,

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...lerted-when-someone-no-fly-list-tries-buy-gun

No one is against the NICS system being fixed. Incentives and penalties for States that do or don't report everything to NICS is fine.

UBC's do not work without universal registration. Canada had it and threw it out because it did nothing and wasted millions.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...lerted-when-someone-no-fly-list-tries-buy-gun

 

[worddoer]

Both of those shooters did pass background checks yes....background checks that could be made much more comprehensive and functional. Would it have stopped the bad from happening...maybe not, but that's the thing about prevention; no way to track something that doesn't happen.....so then all your left with that's tangible are the failures or the nothing at all, which is then used to prop the waste of time and money argument. Indiana has this "red flag" thing, which I am skeptical of(because yes, I do see a problem with people getting screwed by someone that has the authority to manipulate the system), but this is the level at which nutbags could be identified and delt with...hopefully before spraying crowds of humans. I am leery of any program like this, but in reality our due process is determined in real time on a daily basis from a local law enforcement perspective....they are given that authority, and it is scary to think about the consequences when it is abused. But, the folks in the field, in the cop cars, hospitals, and schools are the ones in place to spot the jacktard....this is where the due process should start. It should be no less difficult for someone that is obviously threating or planning damage, after reasonable process of determination, to legally purchase one or another firearm, than it is for someone with a DUI to reinstate their drivers license. I understand the consequences involved, not naïve, just not sure doing nothing and hoping for the best is the answer.
As far as the watch list goes, I agree, it should solely focus on non-citizens. I'm not aware of any issues regarding US citizens and the watch list. So then, should there really be an issue with restricting non-citizens on the list from legally purchasing a weapon?
Agreed....maybe I am being too optimistic(naïve) in thinking that if concessions were made to make a program, currently in place, work better would prevent the desire for a ban. Of course it wouldn't for all. But, for the majority of common sense, independent minded folks that don't reside in the extreme partisan fringes.....that may or may not own guns....it would.

I appreciate your reasoned and logical approach. However, I want to add some information that you may not know about. I have found many gun owners don't know about the piles of gun control that we already have on the books in the last 80 years or so.

In 1934 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the National Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1938 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Federal Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1968 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Gun Control Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1986 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Firearms Owners Protection Act (protection by banning stuff???). But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1993 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1994 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (AKA assault weapons ban). Thankfully that was only in force from 1994-2004. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

Now we have a flurry of legislation in both our state governments as well as the federal government trying to take our rights away yet again.

As you can see above, we have tried this approach 6 times, and none of them worked. The only reason the 1994 ban is gone is because of the "sunset" or expiration date in the law. If it were not for that, it would still be on the books today, and the gun control folk would still be asking for more.

After loosing a BIG chunk of our rights and trying this approach 6 different times, we as firearm owners have had enough. The anti-gun crowd has proven that they will never, never, never be satiated. They hunger, thirst and dream of gun control. And although they might be a minority of the population, the 2/3 of americans in the middle are apathetic enough they will not spend time, money, resources or clout to defend something that they themselves do not care about.

We have tried 6 times to compromise and it only came to us losing more rights while the other side lost nothing. The other side has worn that card out. There is no compromise that will ever be enough.

That is why many gun owners, including myself, believe that the time for compromise is over. It is time to draw a line. And any politician who crosses that line will have a very, very hard time come the next election cycle. We will do everything we can to get pro gun people in office and these current anti-gun politicians voted out!

 

[actaeon277]

I appreciate your reasoned and logical approach. However, I want to add some information that you may not know about. I have found many gun owners don't know about the piles of gun control that we already have on the books in the last 80 years or so.

In 1934 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the National Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1938 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Federal Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1968 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Gun Control Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1986 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Firearms Owners Protection Act (protection by banning stuff???). But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1993 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1994 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (AKA assault weapons ban). Thankfully that was only in force from 1994-2004. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

Now we have a flurry of legislation in both our state governments as well as the federal government trying to take our rights away yet again.

As you can see above, we have tried this approach 6 times, and none of them worked. The only reason the 1994 ban is gone is because of the "sunset" or expiration date in the law. If it were not for that, it would still be on the books today, and the gun control folk would still be asking for more.

After loosing a BIG chunk of our rights and trying this approach 6 different times, we as firearm owners have had enough. The anti-gun crowd has proven that they will never, never, never be satiated. They hunger, thirst and dream of gun control. And although they might be a minority of the population, the 2/3 of americans in the middle are apathetic enough they will not spend time, money, resources or clout to defend something that they themselves do not care about.

We have tried 6 times to compromise and it only came to us losing more rights while the other side lost nothing. The other side has worn that card out. There is no compromise that will ever be enough.

That is why many gun owners, including myself, believe that the time for compromise is over. It is time to draw a line. And any politician who crosses that line will have a very, very hard time come the next election cycle. We will do everything we can to get pro gun people in office and these current anti-gun politicians voted out!

.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to worddoer again.

 

[2A_Tom]

I appreciate your reasoned and logical approach. However, I want to add some information that you may not know about. I have found many gun owners don't know about the piles of gun control that we already have on the books in the last 80 years or so.

In 1934 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the National Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1938 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Federal Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1968 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Gun Control Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1986 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Firearms Owners Protection Act (protection by banning stuff???). But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1993 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1994 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (AKA assault weapons ban). Thankfully that was only in force from 1994-2004. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

Now we have a flurry of legislation in both our state governments as well as the federal government trying to take our rights away yet again.

As you can see above, we have tried this approach 6 times, and none of them worked. The only reason the 1994 ban is gone is because of the "sunset" or expiration date in the law. If it were not for that, it would still be on the books today, and the gun control folk would still be asking for more.

After loosing a BIG chunk of our rights and trying this approach 6 different times, we as firearm owners have had enough. The anti-gun crowd has proven that they will never, never, never be satiated. They hunger, thirst and dream of gun control. And although they might be a minority of the population, the 2/3 of americans in the middle are apathetic enough they will not spend time, money, resources or clout to defend something that they themselves do not care about.

We have tried 6 times to compromise and it only came to us losing more rights while the other side lost nothing. The other side has worn that card out. There is no compromise that will ever be enough.

That is why many gun owners, including myself, believe that the time for compromise is over. It is time to draw a line. And any politician who crosses that line will have a very, very hard time come the next election cycle. We will do everything we can to get pro gun people in office and these current anti-gun politicians voted out!

...and in all of that can anyone explain what we got out of all of that "compromise"?

 

[2A_Tom]

Ammo Land article.


[h=1]ATF Discovers a New Meaning of ‘Automatic’ to Regulate Bump-Stocks[/h]https://www.ammoland.com/2018/04/atf-discovers-new-definition-automatic-regulate-bump-fire-stocks/

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;ddNM-yJXv0M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddNM-yJXv0M[/video]

 

[HoughMade]

...and in all of that can anyone explain what we got out of all of that "compromise"?

Well, that's the thing. How do you know what laws would have been passed without any compromise?

The answer to your query may very from "nothing" to "a whole heck of a lot"....but it would take a dissertation level research analysis to reach any conclusions. Assuming "nothing" in all circumstances is likely as incorrect as assuming "a whole heck of a lot" in all circumstances. In other words, you make the best judgment you can at the time and sometimes, that may involve compromise. Here? I actually kind of doubt that any more harsh restrictions would get through Congress, so we are looking at an immediate "nothing", while it is quite possible that the final effect of passing nothing may be electoral losses (who knows?) which could be very detrimental.