Ivanka Trump quietly talking to lawmakers about gun reform

Commonly used?

By whom, and for what?

What does anyone need a civilianized weapon of war for?

 

Which effectively makes the case for an assault weapons ban revival!

 

I don’t know what the point is.

Ivanka is a minister without portfolio, as folks at the G-20 made very clear.

Trump has paid almost no attention to the issues she has tentatively got behind. He’s just as likely to undermine her work as he does everyone else in his orbit.

Trump is going to present the appearance of supporting tentative reform; but, in the end, he will do nothing.

He’s try and take all sides of the issue, though.

 

Yet the deer do not live in fear...

 

Easy to avoid?

Even if someone bothers to do the background check?

Is that like laughing if someone said all their opioids have been prescribed?

Ps. The no fly list is different, you realize that right?

I have no problem with either of them myself.

I also know that laws generally dont affect criminals, being criminals and all.

 

The one way to track private sales would mean they would have to create a registry. No es bueno!

 

What are the liberals going to do, cut off my fist ?

In the U.S. Army and Marine Corps the entrenching tool (shovel) has been effectively used as an assault weapon.

The phrase assault weapon is political and extreme left wing and made up to deceive the American people.

ASSAULT RIFLES VS. ASSAULT WEAPONS
The term assault rifle when used in its proper context, militarily or by its specific functionality, has a generally accepted definition with the firearm manufacturing community. In more casual usage, the term "assault weapon" is sometimes conflated or confused with the term assault rifle. The use of the term "assault weapon" is also highly controversial, as critics assert that the term is a media invention, or a term that is intended to cause confusion among the public by intentionally misleading the public to believe that assault weapons (as defined in legislation) are full automatic firearms when they are not...
http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Assault_rifle

 

Even the Clinton DOJ said the AWB had no impact on crime.

 

Commonly used by millions of people hunting, target shooting, and possibly as a defense against a tyranical government, as the Founders intended.

No different that what civilians had during our Revolution. If you don't feel you need one, don't have one.

 

For just about any legal thing a small caliber semi-automatic rifle can be used for.

 

Calm down guys Tommy is trolling again.
He may find this article interesting.
"Government Admits AR-15s Are Not Weapons of War"
In its settlement with Cody Wilson’s Defense Distributed the government admitted that semi-automatic firearms below .50 caliber are not weapons of war.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/07/23/government-admits-ar-15s-not-weapons-war/

 

This is quite true and shoots down one of the primary GCA claims.

 

You Aussies have no concept of scope and scale, a few protesters in Ohio or Texas is irrelevant, there were more protesters at Trump's inauguration, he didn't step down or refuse to go through with it. Perhaps you should keep your eyes on your failed country and leave ours alone...

 

I don’t need one. No one does.

But I am tired of having to spend my money to defend schools and public buildings from people who find it all to easy to wage mass destruction with an easily obtainable weapon.

 

Not interested in your parsing.

The guy who walked into the Wal Mart in El Paso, the guy who shot up a concert in Las Vegas, a movie theatre in Colorado and countless schools had little trouble obtaining a weapon capable of inflicting mass casualties quickly.

You can apply whatever label you want to the weapons in question don’t care. Indeed, no one cares except the gun crowd.

But the rest of us want them gone from our midst. They need to be difficult to obtain, registered, and the users should have to prove to the licensing authorities that they are competent to have and safely store such a weapon.

 

That pesky 2nd amendment is going to get in the way

 

No because they're in common use for lawful purposes, making them protected by the 2nd amendment

 

Then get a constitutional amendment. Best of luck with that

 

What is the difference between someone shooting 30 people in the head with .22 vs shooting 30 people in the head with .223? The answer is there isn't. Dead is dead.

 

That is the main intention of the Second Amendment, defense or picking up arms to bring down a tyrannical government.

That's why the founding fathers used the word "arms" and not guns or muskets.

"To bear arms."

The definition of "arms" when the Second Amendment was written.

Source:
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/arms

The All American Dictionary

• Webster's 1828 Dictionary contains the foundation of America's heritage and principal beliefs. It is contemporary with the American Constitution.
• It is an excellent reference for classical literature, Bible studies, history papers, and the ground work of explanation and reasoning for America's national documents... -> http://webstersdictionary1828.com/

 

There is no way 38 states are going to sign off on that.

 

You realize like the past 8 or so of these guys passed background checks or killed someone and stole their legal firearms or otherwise stole someone's legal firearms?

 

Well.... yeah. That's my point

 

But it was liberals who made the AR so popular that these individuals chose the AR or in a few cases the AK over more deadlier rifles that are available, some not even requiring a waiting period.

FYI:
California has made it so difficult to purchase a firearm that it's easier and cheaper to purchase a gun on the streets.
The black market gun trade on California's streets have quadrupled over the past decade.
The International gun traffickers have their lobbyist on the floor of state capitols and in Congress wanting more gun regulations so they can do even more business on the streets of America.

 

And neither part of that statement is true.