... and now trump appears to have walked back the idea of universal background check... The NRA lobbyist meeting must have scared him completely back. trump took the discipline from the NRA and/or promise of additional money and now its clear there will be nothing done to prevent more school shooting, more mass shootings.
your defense of trump is beyond irrational. its pathological. you got issues dude. do you agree with trumps proposal to confiscate peoples guns (private property) without due process? yes or no? also, trump is the one who sees everything in black and white ("islam hates us"). and of course everyone is allowed to change their minds and evolve on issues. the problem with trump is that he says totally different things day-to-day or even hour-to-hour. it all depends on his mood and who he is speaking infront of. one day he says nobody is as pro-NRA as he is then the next day he says he will fight the NRA and fellow republicans are scared of them. one day he says he is against changing gun laws then the next day he calls for gun confiscation. that is not how a rational, intelligent person thinks through issues. again, he has no real ideology or beliefs. he is a con-man who just says what he thinks people directly infront of him want to hear.
I appreciate your point-of-view coming from the conservative side to realize there is a problem and willing to compromise to find a solution. Obviously you know there are people refusing to compromise because they have too much fun shooting their guns. I don't profess to be a history buff on the past gun laws/attempts at legislation, but I do not believe we will ever have gun confiscation. I think framing it as "gun confiscation" often works against the goal of trying to find a middle ground. That's the buzzword the NRA uses to scare people into not compromising. What I would like to see is the sales of certain assault rifle types be illegal to purchase. Now of course you can't retroactively make purchases before this legislation illegal. I would instead try to incentivize people to turn in guns in exchange for tax credit/breaks. You aren't going to get rid of assault rifles, but you will curb the supply of them and make it more difficult for them to get into hands of wrongdoers. I don't think this legislation will necessarily make our country/schools safer in the next 5-10 years; but I think it can have a lasting positive effect for our country/schools in 20+ years, for example. Of course by then we'll probably have more technological advances and be dealing with a new type of threat.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tucker-carlson-turns-trump-apos-095039632.html Tucker Carlson Turns On Trump: 'Imagine If Barack Obama Had Said That' Fox News host Tucker Carlson doesn’t criticize Donald Trump very often, but he did so on Thursday night after the president suggested taking guns away from potentially dangerous people before due process. “Imagine if Barack Obama had said that,” Carlson said. “Just ignore due process and start confiscating guns.” Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com Carlson said Obama would’ve been “denounced as a dictator” for making such a comment. “We would have denounced him first, trust me,” Carlson said. “Congress would be talking impeachment right now. Some would be muttering about secession.” Carlson also had a warning for Trump about Constitutional rights: “Those rights are what makes us citizens and not mere subjects of the powerful, and the president needs to be reminded of that. Maybe we all do once in a while. If voters wanted that kind of government, they could have voted Democrat, and actually they still have a chance to vote Democrat in the midterms, which he should keep in mind.” It was the second time in recent months that Carlson had broken with the president. In January, Carlson called out Trump for indicating that he would be willing to protect young undocumented immigrants, who are also known as dreamers. Noting that Trump’s campaign platform was tough on immigration, Carlson asked: “So what was the point of running for president?”
I know the NRA gets demonized, but they are lobbying group that represents American voters. They have particularly impressive power because of their money, but really all they are is an effective lobbying group.
You are obviously right, but should money be the major decider of what we do as a country? AMA have a similar power in the medical sector, these self interest promoting groups (nothing wrong with that) have unmatched power because they have funds that are not matched or balanced out. What they promote are often not in the interests of the country as a whole. Would this be the down fall of this democracy? With AI and Robotics coming on strong, who will oppose them in the future when they will be more powerful than all the current lobbying groups combined(my assessment)?
1. I think the money gets overstated. They are effective in large part b/c they have created a rabidly voting single-issue block of followers/members. 2. I know I'm cynical, but they at least represent the gun manufacturing interests as much as a set of American voters.
Correct, we have never had gun confiscation and I probably shouldn't use that as a scare tactic. To note, making it illegal to possess is an indirect form of gun confiscation. However w/out gun confiscation, bans are pretty useless considering the massive amounts of weapons we have on the streets. This is why I feel a permit system that a few states currently use is the best approach. Also, I believe all semi-automatic weapons should have a limited production supply.
No you are correct. More than half of their funding comes from money outside of their membership contributions.
NRA champion trump is the one who brought up gun confiscation. i notice you ran away from me, but i really want to know your opinion here so ill ask you a 2nd time... do you agree with trumps proposal to confiscate peoples guns (private property) without due process? yes or no? from a strictly political perspective, do you think its smart for republican president trump to call for gun confiscation? is that a good political move? yes or no?
This is a gray question, naturally. I do not agree with a gun confiscation policy that leads to a short term or long term court battles. I would support a 24-72 hour confiscation policy that requires no court hearing to collect the weapon back provided the authorities did not obtain further legal action. In addition to this policy, I would want some measure that would discourage indiscriminate confiscation. The authorities can already hold you for 24 hours w/out filing charges. This would be a similar policy. This question bothers me. If I am a partisan hack who only cares about my team, then of course I think its a bad idea. This is exactly why politics suck. Politicians, and to a large extend of their constituents, only care about the 'my team' policy. This is why nothing gets done in politics. Its better to grand stand and tell everyone else how bad they are to ensure another 4 years in office instead of actually doing something about it. Trumps gun confiscation policy will likely not get passed in Congress. But it beats the alternative of grand standing and accusing the other party for doing nothing or pretending to support pointless rifle bans.
btw, over 90% of Americans support background checks, including 74% of nra members. trump is so far out of the mainstream on this...
And... again, another reason why getting the People's House back to the Democrat side was important... House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales https://www.politico.com/story/2019...versal-background-checks-on-gun-sales-1193043 Hopefully the senate chooses to the American people's wishes over the nra's...
