The same old bullshyte answer. WHY do individuals really want SAW's? Using defence as an argument is not valid. I've seen many on here state that they want to defend themselves from too much government restrictions. If you all got SAW's to defend against that happening, WHAT will defend you against government snipers & mortar teams? Your SAW's?

As with everything in life either compromise has to be used or a line drawn. Where SAW's are concerned that line has already been crossed & too many are too dumb to realise it.

As Gary has proven, there was a ban in place without any change to your "glorious 2nd" so why can't it be re-applied is the question that could shut down all arguments regarding SAW's.

It is not 'bullshyte'. Using defense as an argument IS valid.

As to defend against too much government restrictions...

You DO realize that since independence, and NOT including the 'Civil War', there have been at least 20 rebellions over here against various Government policies? Some successful, some not... But at least 20 of them.

And Gary has proven no such thing. That Assault Weapon Ban (1994 to 2004) to which you refer to did NOT ban All semi-automatic weapons, was only temporary, and grandfathered in all currently legally owned ones also allowing the transfer to another person. It only banned a few semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns, on what were mostly cosmetic grounds.

Yes, it did survive a few court challenges, but NONE of those involved the 2nd Amendment. Time ran short after the first 5 Constitutional challenges (bill of attainder, vagueness, 9th amendment, commerce clause, and equal-protection clause), so my guess was they just decided to wait-it-out until expiration and concentrate their efforts on making sure it was not extended by Congress. Of course, in the US Supreme Court, several cases have changed things up a bit, especially the case District of Columbia vs. Heller(2008) which found that the right to keep and bear arms is NOT connected with militia or military service and is an INDIVIDUAL right, and the case McDonald vs. City of Chicago (2010) which found that the 2nd Amendment is INCORPORATED under the due process clause of the 14th amendment (the 2nd Amendment is ALSO binding against the States, not just the Federal Government).

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

That Sunset clause was kind of dumb. Very strange to me.

Perhaps that was the only way to politically pass that bill.

I think you're probably right.

Most likely at the time and I think the proponents thought they could remove the sunset before it expired.
It shall have to happen now. And if you want to keep your gross of SAW's you will have to get a tax stamp. I mean, you can pass a background check can't you? Or is that it? You know you shouldn't have a firearm but you snuck one because of loopholes?

Major as you posted there are many ways to have mass killings, you are arguing that not addressing all one specific one should not be addressed. That makes no sense to me.

---

The same old bullshyte answer. WHY do individuals really want SAW's? Using defence as an argument is not valid. I've seen many on here state that they want to defend themselves from too much government restrictions. If you all got SAW's to defend against that happening, WHAT will defend you against government snipers & mortar teams? Your SAW's?

As with everything in life either compromise has to be used or a line drawn. Where SAW's are concerned that line has already been crossed & too many are too dumb to realise it.

As Gary has proven, there was a ban in place without any change to your "glorious 2nd" so why can't it be re-applied is the question that could shut down all arguments regarding SAW's.

It is not 'bullshyte'. Using defense as an argument IS valid.

As to defend against too much government restrictions...

You DO realize that since independence, and NOT including the 'Civil War', there have been at least 20 rebellions over here against various Government policies? Some successful, some not... But at least 20 of them.

And Gary has proven no such thing. That Assault Weapon Ban (1994 to 2004) to which you refer to did NOT ban All semi-automatic weapons, was only temporary, and grandfathered in all currently legally owned ones also allowing the transfer to another person. It only banned a few semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns, on what were mostly cosmetic grounds.

Yes, it did survive a few court challenges, but NONE of those involved the 2nd Amendment. Time ran short after the first 5 Constitutional challenges (bill of attainder, vagueness, 9th amendment, commerce clause, and equal-protection clause), so my guess was they just decided to wait-it-out until expiration and concentrate their efforts on making sure it was not extended by Congress. Of course, in the US Supreme Court, several cases have changed things up a bit, especially the case District of Columbia vs. Heller(2008) which found that the right to keep and bear arms is NOT connected with militia or military service and is an INDIVIDUAL right, and the case McDonald vs. City of Chicago (2010) which found that the 2nd Amendment is INCORPORATED under the due process clause of the 14th amendment (the 2nd Amendment is ALSO binding against the States, not just the Federal Government).

MK, what part of "or get a tax stamp" aren't you understanding? We already know from Citizens United and Obama Care that the government has a total free hand in all matters related to tax.

Oh dear, another 1. :(

A 13-year-old girl in Mississippi has died after allegedly being shot by her nine-year-old brother over a video game.

They said the boy grabbed a gun on Saturday afternoon after his sister would not give up the controller.

He allegedly shot her from behind, and the bullet entered her brain.

A local sheriff announced on Sunday that the teen had died of her injuries in a Memphis hospital. It was unclear how the boy obtained the gun.

So many guns just left lying about.

:-(

Well what can one expect when one gets told this:

They were told to leave the serious stuff to the adults.
Florida State Representative Elizabeth Porter said: "Do we allow the children to tell us that we should pass a law that says 'No homework?'"

Many will be voting for the 1st time this year

:((

The only way to stop these school shootings is to have another Civil war. The last one was the North wanting to abolish slavery, the South wanting to keep it. This one will be about young people wanting guns banned, against the adults that don't.

I really don't think that would turn out too well.

States Most Dependent on the Gun Industry:

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-dependent-on-the-gun-industry/18719/

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Where does the NRA or any Pro Democrat or Pro Republican 'Political Action Committee' go?
The problem is not the NRA. But that most Americans believe in their Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The NRA is more powerful than you think.
For instance.
In the wake of revelations that the data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica harvested millions of Facebook users' personal information to help elect Donald Trump as president, a report that the National Rifle Association also teamed up with the firm to help block Hillary Clinton from the White House in 2016 has resurfaced.
http://www.newsweek.com/nra-cambridge-analytica-donald-trump-2016-election-campaign-857458
I wouldn't be surprised if NRA also could have campaigns with help from Cambridge Analytica to boost weapon sales in the US.

I wouldn't be surprised if NRA also could have campaigns with help from Cambridge Analytica to boost weapon sales in the US.

Or worse :-(
I really am surprised that that the NRA has not done any deals with weapon manufacturers along the lines of printer manufacturers.
Sell the weapons for a pittance & make trillions from the sale of ammunition.

If they did & the ammo cost too prohibitive for the average oik in the street, there would be less massacres.

Edit: Also if that occurred it would not interfere with the 2nd Amendment as there is NOTHING in it regarding the supply or cost of ammo :-)

Think of the NRA Leadership as leeches attaching themselves to the historical wishes of the majority of American people. Resulting in their personal economic profit and good life style. As is the real reason for many (most?) Political Action Committee's existence.

Yes. Lobbying it's called.
We have those organisations here as well in Europe. Surprised?
Even weapon organisations that are lobbying. Surprised?
But there is a huge difference.
Private weapon sales in Europe are minute comparing to the US'
Why? Let me think...
Ah You know the answer.

I believe the real money is in the sale of ammunition.

That's why bump stocks ...

If you go five miles from my house in either direction. There are six gun shops and four with gun ranges. Go into the gun shops with ranges all you hear are pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop...

Wanna buy an AK47, go to the Republic of San Marino the 3rd smallest country in the world.
San Marino has the most unrestricted gun laws in Europe, so the winding streets are full of shops selling sub machine guns and other light duty weapons.
Shop after shop, the plethora of weapons being sold in this tiny nation is astounding.
San Marino lies in Italy not far from Rimini.
I have actually been to San Marino but I dont remember any gun shops.
Now however!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhQSFbEhOFg
Ok most of them are replicas but it's very weird though.
And perhaps some handy man can fix them so they work as real guns.

Lets not forget that other parties could make gun ownership more difficult. It has just been announced that Citigroup have placed restrictions on gun shops,

Citi is now mandating that the bank’s new retail sector clients or partners restrict the sale of firearms for people younger than 21 and not sell “bump stocks,” which accelerate the firing of semiautomatic weapons, or high-capacity magazines. The policy also requires those clients not to sell firearms to someone who has not passed a background check, including those whose background checks have not returned after the federally mandated three-day waiting period.

And earlier Chubb withdrew underwriting for NRA gun insurance. In some states it is mandatory. Personally don't see why it isn't everywhere just like car insurance.

Hmm, wonder when will the backlash start to bite the NRA in the ass?

Reddit jumps on the bandwagon

Is suicidal regarding the protection of many present day freedoms.

Why? Didn't they have the freedom to attend school & return home alive? What happened to THAT right?

Why? Didn't they have the freedom to attend school & return home alive? What happened to THAT right?

Necessary collateral damage in order to bear arms is the way the NRA sees it.

---

Is suicidal regarding the protection of many present day freedoms.

Why? Didn't they have the freedom to attend school & return home alive? What happened to THAT right?

I think many Americans have forgot this.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Even I though I'm an outsider and not fluent in American English can understand this!