As a gun owner, longtime hunter, and supporter of the Second Amendment, I feel it is time to ban the sale and ownership of assault-style rifles. However, it is too late to do so. Our society is riddled with military-style weapons, and stopping the flow now is too little, too late.
I’ve owned AR weapons in the past. Bought them on sale when a gun store was going out of business. Even then, it was a waste of money and I donated them to a museum, along with some other weapons that are more suited for military use.
When I served as chief of staff for a member of Congress in the 1980s, I knew and dealt with the lobbyists of the National Rifle Association. Over drinks at the Capitol Hill Club one night, NRA lobbyist Terri O’Grady told me that what she and others do were “a sham on Congress and America.”
“We serve the gun manufacturers, not the owners of firearms,” she said. “Our sole goal is to help them sell more firearms to more people and block any legislation that gets in the way of that goal.”
NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre padded his personal finances with NRA money, embezzling millions, yet remains on the job because the gun manufacturers feel he is “one of us.”
In other words, a crook. Over the weekend in Houston, at NRA’s annual meeting, the board re-elected LaPierre. As the New York Post reported: “Scandal-scarred Wayne LaPierre re-elected as NRA CEO.”
Reuters reports:
The National Rifle Association board reappointed Wayne LaPierre as executive vice president on Monday, turning back the latest leadership challenge amid corruption allegations and flat membership for the still-powerful gun lobby.
The board vote came as the NRA held its annual meeting in Houston, about 280 miles (450 km) east of the site of a mass shooting on Tuesday, when an 18-year-old armed with an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle killed 19 children and two teachers at a Texas elementary school.
New York Attorney General Letitia James sued the NRA in 2020, saying the organization paid for family trips to the Bahamas, private jets, and expensive meals and clothes that contributed to a $64 million reduction in the NRA’s balance sheet in three years, turning a surplus into a deficit.
The organization claims LaPierre is “reimbursing” them for his lavish spending and embezzlement.
“The N.R.A. is now mainly a media company, promoting a lifestyle built around loving guns and hating anyone who might take them away, ” writes Mike Spies in the New Yorker.
He adds:
Marc Owens, who served for ten years as the head of the Internal Revenue Service division that oversees tax-exempt enterprises, recently reviewed these records. “The litany of red flags is just extraordinary,” he said. “The materials reflect one of the broadest arrays of likely transgressions that I’ve ever seen. There is a tremendous range of what appears to be the misuse of assets for the benefit of certain vendors and people in control.” Owens added, “Those facts, if confirmed, could lead to the revocation of the N.R.A.’s tax-exempt status”—without which the organization could likely not survive.
But the NRA, and LaPierre, survive to fleece its members and America while promoting the sale of dangerous weapons that are used far too often to kill people, including the 19 fourth graders in Texas this month.
It is time for serious gun control and prosecution of those who facilitate the use of dangerous weapons to massacre children.
Doug, like you I’ve been a gun owner from a very early age. My dad gave me my first gun, a .410 when I was 12 or 13 and I have owned guns ever since. I remember riding my bike 8 miles into town to buy shells for it at the Western Auto. Too young to drive. Now I never owned any semi-automatic. I never had use for them. I had an M-14, then an M-16 and later a M-203 assigned to me while I was on active duty, the 203 is nothing more than an M-16 with a grenade launcher on the bottom, the old M-79.
I also never belonged to the NRA. I’ve always been turned off by them. Neither did my dad or grandpa. I never saw a reason for any civilian to own a semi-automatic rifle, pistol or whatever. I also carried a .45 while in the army. I loved the .45. But once I retired, I thought about getting one. But what would I use it for? I never did get one.
I look at gun control differently than most, regardless of which side of the issue one is on. We’ve been talking mass school shootings. A mass school shooting I would classify as 3 or more deaths. The first mass school shooting occurred in 1968, the UT Texas tower shooting. That one was followed up by 2 in the 1970’s, 2 in the 1980’s, 10 in the 1990’s, 7 in the 2000’s, 13 in the 2010’s and 2 so far counting Texas for the 2020’s.
Which brings me to my point, I believe banning all semi-automatics would limit the damage done in each mass school shooting incidence. But not eliminate them. That the incidences of mass school shootings along with mass shootings in general will increase. Because we have left the cause, the root problem alone. We haven’t gone looking for it. We’re putting a bandaid on a sucking chest wound so to speak. I suggest while we ban semi-automatics, we also delve deep into our society. Compare our society to the society when there was no mass school shootings, pre-1968 to post 1968 when mass school shootings along with mass shootings in general have become a normal part of our lives. In other words, go looking for the cause, the reason that all of a sudden mass school shootings went from zero to many. Banning semi-automatics isn’t about to give us the cause or reason. It’s nothing more than a limiting factor. That cause and or reason remains alive and well. Even with no guns at all, mass killings will continue only by other means, bombs, arson, chemicals etc. because we have done nothing to find the cause, to eliminate it.
Most gun control folks think I’m nuts. I think they’re nuts in expecting banning AR-15’s or even all semi-automatics will stop the killings. Maybe we’re all nuts. My 2 cents.
Banning assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines would go a long way toward reducing the number of children killed in any given school shooting.
Even in video games, lower-level players are not allowed access to arms like these. You've got to earn the upgrades.
But just as Doug says above, there are too many of them already in circulation...you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
But you can make it much harder for an angry psychotic Mexican kid to get his hands on them. He'll be limited to deer rifles, shotguns, and some entry-level handguns.
Licenses, fees, and continuing education can earn him the right to own more potent weaponry.
If I was going into a building of relatively close quarters, no semi-automatics available. I’d opt for a pump shotgun. They can contain anywhere from 8 to 41 shells. Although the shotgun available for 41 shells holds the mini shotgun shell or 24 regular shotgun shells. No accurate aiming required. The spread of a 12- or 16-gauge shell can be huge. The difference between firing a civil war cannon with a solid iron ball or grapeshot or in more modern terms, the difference between an iron bomb or a cluster bomb.
Maybe we’re too interested in what a weapon looks like instead of the lethal aspects. Then again, we’re more interested in finding ways to limit the damage than searching for the root cause or reasons why these mass school shootings take place now whereas in the past, they didn’t. It seems to me, a possible cure which may lie in comparing our society of pre-1968 when the first mass school shooting occurred to the post 1968 society where these mass school shootings have become routine.
What I don’t understand in all of this, why is no one interested in finding out what went wrong so we can fix it? Or at least try. I guess I’ve said enough. It is what it is and if no one wants to find out the reasons, the cause, that’s life.
it seems to me that many of the mass shooting are being done by teens. I thought I would google "mental health for teens". I got about 301,000,000 replies. This is a LOT of replies. When I google for something and get a return like that I think that it probably indicates that the subject is being looked at by a LOT of people! It also seems that these kids can be helped if you can get to them they can be helped, I am assuming whoever gets to them are shrinks and also suspect that they are easily led by bad if given a chance. There are also literally millions of these kids in trouble and there is international concern about this as well.
I suspect what it all means that we are going to have to figure out a way to help these kids to actually save an entire generation.
Some food for thought: Just for the record: Memorial Day Weekend Numbers [prelim] From 5pm Friday until 5am Tuesday. Killed: 156 Injured: 412 Mass Shootings: 14 That was in the United States. Nowhere else.
There are approximately 400 million firearms in the United States. The military only controls 4.2 million of them, and law enforcement only 1.2 million. Of those, fewer than 5% are assault-style weapons. It is a manageable problem. Semi-auto handguns are another matter.
Over time, I've been all over the map regarding the Second Amendment and regulation. I've been persuaded one way, and then another. I'm neither a gun-nut nor a gun-hater, and mostly libertarian on the issue. I just want workable, legal solutions. We're in a very bad place, nationally, and much of the reason is bad faith actors.
The 1994 assault weapons ban was effective. I was a firm skeptic at the time (and an Army Captain), but data has overcome that skepticism. I was issued M-16s and M-4s, and I know how devastating they can be. The ban worked to reduce a particular kind of violence. But, the politics of 2004 killed the ban and all hell has broken loose.
Gun marketers/NRA pushed AR ownership as if it were sliced bread and Christ's return rolled into one. They've repeatedly made false claims about their versatility and popularity, and pushed paranoid fantasies about self-defense as a marketing ploy. This is not the NRA of my youth. That NRA promoted the 1968 Act, pushed the 1934 NFA, and was dedicated to gun safety and the public interest. Then Wayne Lapierre took the reins and it's been nutjob city, and the marketing arm of the gun industry, ever since.
Then the dishonest Heller and McDonald decisions gave gun nut world a veneer of legitimacy and it's been off to the races. After Sandy Hook, I thought reason might prevail. But, it became a culture-war political tool. It has been ever since, despite repeated incidents since.
The sophistry, dishonesty and bad faith behavior by so many has made me a gun control advocate. I still support gun ownership and even think the "reason" one wants to own a gun is immaterial. But, I think it is well past time to consider the public's interest in legislation, rather than personal interests and financial gain.
Yes...yes...knives kill people, obviously. But, not at 60 different incidences every, single, day in America. Mebbe once or twice a year at best? BIG difference and silly comparison.
I say have a cash for assault rifles program, and also a ban on future assault ammo purchases. For guns, cap them at levels we have now and only allow new ones to be sold when an equal amount of destroyed.
After they buy back all those AR-15s, let's send them to Ukraine.
On a more positive note, CNN had a story about Florida's Red Flag law, passed by Republicans before DeSantis became governor. People get to tell police about anybody who threatens with their gun. Often those are suicide gestures. The police investigate and can go take all their guns for a year. Then they get reevaluated to see if that ban should be extended. I think it said 31 states actually have such laws. The NRA is actively fighting them.
Yesterday, the House Judicial Committee advanced a Bill that includes measures to increase the purchase age limit for certain semiautomatic rifles to 21, limit magazine sizes and strengthen existing regulations of bump stocks and ghost guns.
Not one Republican voted to advance the Bill. Not one.
When I write that Republicans believe that school children who have sacrificed their lives is a small price pay for the liberty of ownership of any gun a Republican wishes to have - that's not hyperbolic, that is reality.
Yes...yes...knives kill people, obviously. But, not at 60 different incidences every, single, day in America. Mebbe once or twice a year at best? BIG difference and silly comparison.
I think the point was, a "mass stabbing" is not nearly as destructive as a mass shooting. None of the victims died in this instance.
What do you say to people that 18 is considered when one becomes an adult, becomes responsible for his actions? At 18 one is considered responsible enough to vote, responsible enough to join the military, to drive a car or fly a plane on their own. To get married, get a job, join a union, open a bank account, is legally in a court of law a responsible adult in all things.
If an 18-year-old is responsible enough for all the above, why not buying a gun or certain types of guns? Or should we make 21 as the age for all the above?
I’ve always had a problem with mandatory age limits. I’ve known 14 and 15 years more responsible that either you or I in things like owning a gun and have known 65-year old’s who are totally irresponsible in almost everything they do. Everyone is different and matures differently, some faster, some slower, I’d say some never mature. ALA Trump, the 75-year-old who acts and behaves like a four-year-old spoiled brat whose parents never taught him any manners.
I think that the solutions are pretty much known and utilized by the the rest of the world! The shame is that the Republicans are quite willing to sacrifice everything in an effort to convince everybody that they are right and the entire rest of the world is wrong! What stuns me is that people are willing to vote for people like that. It also means that the Dems are doing a REALLY poor job of selling themselves to the voting public. If this is right then we deserve to lose our democracy.
Turning 18 with sudden adult responsibilities being bestowed upon an individual is asinine. Brain development isn’t completed until 25 years of age. Making 25 years of age seems more fair and reasonable.
For me that would mean drinking, smoking, credit cards, legal agreements, having a gun.
Kill Bill was more than just gratuitous violence. It was gratuitous violence taken to extremes that only Tarantino can possibly achieve. The point was that only knives were used.
Katana fetishism. It's also a thing. Machete fetishism in some backwater African countries.
A church congregation was just massacred in Nigeria, guns not knives, Catholics, no one has taken credit for the killings yet but there is some conflict between farmers and herders which was likely the cause of it.
People are gratuitously violent. Always have been. Doesn't much matter whether you're into it or not. It happens every day.
If a state has a well regulated militia, necessary to defend said state, then the government can not infringe on the right to own arms. The problem is I believe only 23 states have militias, thus the rest can restrict gun ownership. Of the 23, none of them actually levy citizens into the militia for training. Thus they do not have a real militia, ergo those states can restrict gun ownership.
Its what the Founders envisioned. The current conservative ideology, which is a modern bastardized concoction steeped in modern conservative paranoia and further "codified" by Heller, has nothing to do with the original document.
I’ve always had a problem with mandatory age limits.
There has to come a time when a child is no longer a child, 18 is as good a number as any. A certain amount of life experience and socialization needs to be achieved in this complex age before you're ready to jump in the deep end. Sexual maturity has been the traditional point at which childhood ends but we have become more than just self-aware livestock.
Making folks wait until they are 25 to drive a car or get a job or apartment seems a bit draconian, but Democrats generally have no problems making up all sorts of rules that others should have to follow.
Now, if you make taxpayer-funded education mandatory up to age 24 with internships, apprenticeships, and living wage stipends, military service optional but recommended for possible future firearm upgrades. And wrapped it in a package that included Medicare for ALL, I might get on the train.
It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet.
The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so.
In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part
Other brain development studies here, here, and here.
Insurance companies and car rental agencies recognize that drivers under 25 statistically get into more auto accidents than other age groups and discourage younger renters by charging them daily surcharges. Their preference is not to rent to under 25 at all.
Originally Posted by Greger
Now, you make taxpayer-funded education mandatory up to age 24 with internships, apprenticeships, and living wage stipends, military service optional but recommended for possible future firearm upgrades. And wrapped it in a package that included Medicare for ALL, I might get on the train.
I could go for that too.
It makes sense for young adults to learn as much as they can to prepare the to be productive adults. More education and/or training has probably not killed anyone, but impulsive under developed ideas have.
If a state has a well regulated militia, necessary to defend said state, then the government can not infringe on the right to own arms.
You might be an originalist but that's not what it says. You've added words to it that aren't there. Do I need to quote it here again so you know what it actually says?
I appear to be the only originalist here because I believe they said exactly what they meant.
Quote
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"well regulated militias" include police protection, fire brigades, ambulance services, state troopers, the national guard, the coast guard, and all the branches of the armed forces.
They are indeed necessary to the security of each free state and to the United States.
Back then it meant armed volunteers, basically it still does.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No ifs and or buts, it says what it says.
Because you never know when your gonna need a bunch of armed men, men must be allowed to have arms.
That's all it says. But it's the goddam Constitution where rights are laid out and that one is laid out pretty clearly.
And once again I ask you to focus on the well regulated part(which stubbornly has no hyphen in a hyphen-philiac spellchecker)
Just as the Constitution grants the people the right to keep arms, it claims the right to regulate the arms and the people.
Other brain development studies here, here, and here.
So do you have a path forward for keeping children at home and supporting them until they are 25? Otherwise you're just inventing fantasy worlds to suit your whims and the bottom line profits for insurance companies.
I try to figure out what can actually be done, if anything, in this political environment.
We're experiencing an unprecedented wave of criminal violence. Sales of any new assault weapons should stop along with the fancy mags. But that wouldn't change a thing, there are millions of them already out there. Everybody who owns guns has one. If I still owned guns I'd probably have one because they're pretty cool weps. Useless but cool...
We need action that works quickly. I'm a big fan of red flag laws.
Howzabout tracking the(19) states with red flag laws against states without for me, Pero? Seems as though a pattern might emerge after a while if they work. I'd say all firearm-related deaths including suicides need to be included.
I'm also wondering if Covid hasn't infected the brains of some people, turning them violently insane...
The 18 year old kid who shot his grandmother in the face and then went down to the grade school that he attended (when younger) and shot a bunch of kids obviously has problems . If we had a really good background test and mental problems get reported and there was somebody in his high school that would report kids with problems because that would be one of his/her jobs to spot troubled kids, that would never have happened.
Its also probably of interest that the governor of Texas cut mental health by several million dollars so no such thing was available in his school and, even if it was this stuff, we are told, is rarely reported anyway. I also believe that its the responsibility of the Democrats to get this kind of information out to the voters every chance they get.
I appear to be the only originalist here because I believe they said exactly what they meant.
Except as has been pointed out, even the SCOTUS for 219 years read it the way rporter314 read the 2A until Scalia bent himself into a pretzel in 2008.
I'm not sure what you mean, according to wiki Heller "also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated."
Could you give me some examples of the SCOTUS ruling against firearm ownership over the previous 219 years...there must be dozens of decisions you can cite...
I can only provide analysis of where I got my opinion form. It is here as the "collective rights theory."
Quote
...Some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 478 F.3d 370.
In all those centuries there's not a single SCOTUS ruling taking away the rights of anyone to keep and bear arms? Just a theory? From 1939? And it stood for about as long as Roe v Wade.
Heller allowed firearms to be regulated. But Congress must create that legislation and it must be reviewed by the current SCOTUS who are reading the 2A just as it is written. Without adding any words to it. Firearms have always been regulated and the 2A has always been there. Sawed-off shotguns used to be a problem, they aren't anymore. Even though they are relatively easy to make. Assault-style weapons are a clear and present danger to American citizens.
Partisanship makes this legislation almost impossible. And that's why I find partisanship so useless and ineffective. From either side. It's the half-black/half-white episode of Star Trek playing out in real life like Groundhog Day...every day I wake up and it's the same stupid sh*t all over again.
Is it any wonder that a lot of folks are just cracking?
The 18 year old kid who shot his grandmother in the face and then went down to the grade school that he attended (when younger) and shot a bunch of kids obviously has problems . If we had a really good background test and mental problems get reported and there was somebody in his high school that would report kids with problems because that would be one of his/her jobs to spot troubled kids, that would never have happened.
Red Flag laws make all of that possible...something must have happened when he was ten that twisted him, possibly at that school. Shooters like this one fit a certain profile that educators could have seen. Schools don't need more cops, they need more psychologists and sociologists. Teachers don't need to be armed with weapons, they need to be armed with the education to spot these troubled kids and the resources to do something about it when they do.
In all those centuries there's not a single SCOTUS ruling taking away the rights of anyone to keep and bear arms?
There were no rights to take away because there were no individual rights until 2008. Until 2008, everyone agreed that the people had a right to a militia that could bear arms. 2008 changed that.
Originally Posted by Greger
Just a theory? From 1939?
The 1939 ruling codified that what people thought about the 2A - that is related to having a military that could possess guns.
Originally Posted by Greger
And it stood for about as long as Roe v Wade.
The right for individuals to have guns is only 12 years old. My proof, the 1939 SCOTUS ruling.
So individuals were NOT able to own and bear arms before 2008?
Unless they were supplied by the military? I think you might be wrong about that.
Quote
The 1939 ruling codified that what people thought about the 2A -
I don't care what people think about it. It says what it says. I know what a free state is, I know what security means.I know what well regulated means. I know what militia's are. I know who the people are. I know what rights are.
It's all very clearly stated with easily recognizable words. If they meant to say more than what they said, they woulda said it. They were fairly smart men and knew about words.
Trump made a run at privatizing schools. He failed but the woman in charge screwed it up as much as she could. All schools used to have nurses and councilors - not any more. Even if there is somebody that knows the kid needs help I suspect there is nobody there to do anything about it. Texas, incidentally, is the worst state in the nation for things mental health and their governor is making sure they will maintain that status.
All that being said I suspect that the Republicans will win all their elections down there - hope I am wrong...........
Trump made a run at privatizing schools...the woman in charge screwed it up as much as she could. All schools used to have nurses and councilors - not any more.
I read that elsewhere as well. No school nurses or guidance counselors, but they do have a cop with a gun! Aren't Republican policies grand?
It's called paraphrasing, and in this case there is no difference in meaning between what I typed and what was written in the Constitution.
Quote
"well regulated militias"
well ahhh ... I believe you have done exactly what you accused me of i.e. added words which are not intended. Militias were well understood in colonial times and at the time of the writing of the Constitution. It constituted a levied group of local citizens which ere called by state government for which each county would comply with their requisite number of soldiers. Usually it was a 3 month tour of duty, encompassing roll calls and marching in formation. County records detail the soldier lists, the elected officers, AWOLs etc. i.e. "well regulated".
Remember at the time of Washington's inauguration, the US had no standing army. It had a small professional officer corps which was used as the leaders of state militias when they were called on by the president. Also remember no state provided weapons to the levied citizens serving in the militia. It was assumed by the states each would provide their own weapon. Thus no government entity could infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, as should they do so, there would not be a cadre of armed soldiers.
So here's the problem with your argument about guns. Congress passed the Army Act of 1901 to reorganize the current status of the army and converted into the modern army we know today. The act effectively did away with "state militias" which relied on quarterly levies, and converted them into the voluntary reserve army. When it did so only a few states continued their militias, which then became voluntary, and mostly for ceremonial purposes. Now since the Act effectively did away with the need for "well regulated" militias, it essentially did away with the infringement phrase.
Because the US Army no longer relied on individuals providing their own weapons while in state militias, states could regulate as they deemed fit. Thus states could deem it necessary to allow citizens to own AR-15's or Thompson machine guns to kill prairie dogs, so long as the federal government did not see the same weapons as a danger to the general public to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
So my question is, since immigrants still desire to come to America despite the perk of having their children shot at by armed assailants in schools, why do we continue to issue loaded uzi's to every new born baby?
oh and BTW ... that was my argument about the 2nd. The reality is, it is more complex and includes changing values and thoughts following the civil war and culminating in Heller, in which J Scalia effectively rewrote the amendment by double lined marked through the first phrase of the 2nd.
The SC can not elect presidents nor can they rewrite the Constitution.
I think we all understand what "militias" were back in the day. And I think we all understand how they changed over time.
They evolved from a gaggle of conscripted boys and farmers, armed with rusty swords and squirrel guns, into the modern professional security forces we know today.
Do you know what didn't change? The Constitution.
From the inception of this nation, it has always been the case that men needed weapons for their very survival. It has been so since we climbed down from the trees.
There has never been a time in our history when anyone questioned a man's right to own weapons. And there has never been a time when they weren't well regulated.
And there has never been a time when enemies of the state didn't make themselves evident in some form, from within and from without. Making the need for some civilians to be armed and the right of all civilians to arm themselves if they felt the need.
It was deemed so important that the founders set it down in those 22 words.
A man who cannot arm himself can't fight back against anything.
Now, you wanna talk gun control? And taking away gun rights from individuals?
I'm all in favor of that and see no Constitutional barrier to it.
The cop in the school is another one. Last night somebody was on and said that only one cop actually killed a shooter. Not only that but cops in schools has also been a complete disaster. They just keep being cops. They have arrested little kids which means that they now have a criminal record (at the age of 10). There was a long list of things why cops in schools was a really bad idea and that nurses and councilors were a really good idea. The Republicans, obviously, are in favor of cops instead.
The really strange thing is that the Dems have been, pretty much, quiet about the whole thing which, I guess, is somehow their secret plan. If I had a little kid in school that had a cop in it I would raise all sorts of hell to put a stop to it.
The Republican solution is an armed cop in every school and every citizen conceal carry. Republicans make their Russian-funded NRA masters proud. “Money well spent.” - NRA.
I suspect that the gun manufacturers are rich enough to fund their NRA all by themselves. The started the NRA and it was a genius move which has kept them going for years. I think they are still making everybody who buys a new gun also a new member of the NRA. We are currently living in a society where greed rules. I think that the only industry more greedy than the gun manufacturers is the Pharmacy industry.
No one has ever claimed that ALL of America are stellar thinkers. Probably close to half of Americans let their emotions think for them. Probably the same amount cling to inanimate objects that facilitate murder and mayhem out of being frightened and scared because of their inability to process and understand why they are frightened and scared. Self analysis requires intelligence - ergo the problem. And now this post has come full-circle.
They have arrested little kids which means that they now have a criminal record (at the age of 10).
I wonder if EVERY state expunges that criminal record when the little juvie turns eighteen, or do some keep it going, or do some "forget to expunge" unless the juvie jumps through a bunch of increasingly complex hoops to get their rights restored.
Anyway, as long as it prevents them from voting for a little while, it's good for the Republicans!
I now have high hopes for gun control legislation, because apparently Black folks are rushing to buy guns for self-protection. Soon, White Supremacists setting out for mass murder are likely to be killed by "A Good Black Guy" who had a concealed carry permit. I think that's going to throw a monkey wrench into the thinking of many gun lovers.
Nine states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning large capacity ammunition magazines: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont. All of these jurisdictions except Colorado and Vermont also ban assault weapons. (Washington State's large capacity ban goes into effect July 1; RI Senate passed a limitation as well.) Roughly a third of the population will be covered by limitations soon. That will affect cross-border carriage, eventually affecting the market.
