Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Baloney. If guns are not available the crazies will use something else. For instance, any crazy person can buy materials at a garden center and make a pretty powerful bomb. Have you counted the bombings versus the shootings? All the biggest death tolls were gotten with bombs, not guns.

This applies to guns too

This one seems to have been the start of a chain of "2nd amendment" -like arguments.

It is important to be able to defend ourselves after all. We're not serfs like they are over in Europe.

Jan 3:
http://www.arcamax.com/thefunnies/pearlsbeforeswine/s-2160997

Jan 4:
http://www.arcamax.com/thefunnies/pearlsbeforeswine/s-2161148

I'm reading a really interesting book called 'The dictators handbook'. It comes up with a theory that covers all politics, from dictators, to democracies, to corporate governance, etc.

Their theory actually gives a sound reason why democratic governments pay attention to associations (so in this conversation, gun associations), unions, lobby groups, religious groups, corporations, etc.

As a side issue, it also gives a reason for western countries, around the world, current love of debt (if you ever wondered why we don't bring our budgets back under control).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46790540

House Democrats to unveil universal background check bill on anniversary of Gabby Giffords shooting

By BENJAMIN SIEGEL Jan 8, 2019, 4:07 AM ET

Eight years to the day that former Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot at a constituent meeting in Tuscon, Arizona, House Democrats said they're planning to unveil a universal background check bill they hope to pass within the first 100 days of the new Congress.

The measure, which will be introduced today at an event with Giffords and gun control advocates, would require background checks on the sale of any firearm and expand existing background checks to cover anyone attempting to buy firearms online, commercially or at gun shows, while providing exceptions for law enforcement and the transfer of guns between friends and family members.

"All the experts agree that this is the piece of legislation that will do the most good and do it most expeditiously," Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., chair of the Democrats' Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, which wrote the legislation, told ABC News.

The bill is the first move by the newly empowered House Democrats in their bid to change federal gun control laws after years of congressional gridlock between Republicans and Democrats.

Thompson has introduced similar proposals in previous sessions, but the bills were buried by GOP leaders and the Republican majority, who instead considered and advanced legislation to expand the rights of gun owners to carry concealed firearms across state lines, a top priority of the National Rifle Association.

The universal background check legislation is supported by Democrats and a handful of Republicans, including Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the lead GOP sponsor, and Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla. They are among those who will support this latest iteration, according to aides.

While Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., plans to introduce a companion bill in the Senate, Democrats don't expect Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to bring the measure to the floor, or anticipate seeing any endorsement from President Donald Trump on Twitter.

But with the help of outside advocacy groups, they hope to put pressure on Republicans to act, after a midterm election cycle where dozens of freshman House Democrats, including Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., and Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Ga., ran for office pledging to take action to address gun violence. McBath is a gun control activist whose 17-year-old son was shot and killed at a gas station seven years ago.

Pressley, a former Boston City councilwoman, brought up the subject in her first meetings with House Democratic leaders -- offering her support for Speaker Nancy Pelosi's leadership bid in exchange for her "express commitment" to bring a background check bill to the floor early in the new Congress.

"If this weren't bold and if this was some easy, low-hanging fruit than this would've happened before," Pressley said of the universal background check legislation in an interview with ABC News. "To me, it's progress. It's a step in the right direction. We don't stop pushing for and advocating for those comprehensive fixes that I think will get at this growing scourge."

Pressley and other Democrats hope to also put forth measures that have advanced in individual states to limit domestic abusers the ability to purchase firearms, advance "red flag" proposals allowing courts to disarm potentially dangerous gun owners and fund Center for Disease Control and Prevention research on gun violence.

"If the midterms showed us anything, it's that gun safety is no longer the third rail of American politics," John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, told ABC News.

Tie it to concealed carry reciprocity (or to the SHARE Act) and maybe we can work something out.

No.

Then no to your background checks.

The SHARE Act is crap....

Gun lobby co-opts sportsmen’s agenda with SHARE Act
BY BRETT HARTL, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 09/21/17 01:30 PM EDT

One of the oldest tricks in Washington is to slap a catchy label on terrible legislation in the hopes that no one will notice what is actually inside the bill. That dirty trick may have been perfected with the so-called Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act or SHARE Act.

The bill does almost nothing to actually enhance sportsmen’s access. But it does contain massive giveaways to the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby that would sweep aside common-sense measures to limit gun violence — not to mention continuing the assaults on the Endangered Species Act and environmental protections that have become the hallmark of the current Congress.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, has championed the SHARE Act, claiming in a recent op-ed that the legislation is needed because federal land management agencies “continue to restrict access to public lands for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting.”

That is a completely fraudulent assertion. Virtually all Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands — including wilderness areas — are already open to hunting and fishing, and the regulations for hunting are set by state law, not federal law. Most wildlife refuges are open to hunting and fishing. National Parks and National Monuments allow recreational fishing.

The notion that federal land managers are conspiring to close hunting and fishing access is as ridiculous as black-helicopter, Agenda 21 conspiracies that the United Nations is seeking to take over America.

Which SHARE Act provisions actually benefit hunters and fishermen?

Is it Title I, which prohibits the entire federal government from addressing lead poisoning caused by ammunition or fishing tackle? Even though waterfowl hunters switched to non-toxic ammunition decades ago, and even though lead poisons people and wildlife alike, and even though there are non-toxic alternatives, this legislation would forever preclude the government from taking action.

Is it Title II, which eliminates liability on any shooting range built or operated with federal funding in whole or in part — if for example a deranged person commits a mass shooting on that firing range? The shooting range is free of liability in all cases, even if it knew a dangerous person was using the firing range and did nothing to alert the authorities.

Or is it Title III, which allows any person to carry weapons at federal dams in any way they see fit? Why does a hunter need to carry a firearm on Hoover Dam or Lake Mead, which gets 7 million visitors a year? Are there really good hunting opportunities on a lake filled with thousands of recreational boaters?

And then there are the provisions eliminating all restrictions on the purchase of silencers, eliminating restrictions on armor-piercing bullets, and eliminating restrictions on carrying firearms across state lines.

Hearing loss is a serious issue, and hunters should protect their hearing. But given that silencers cost several hundred to over a thousand dollars, earplugs seem like a more efficient solution.

When I worked as a park ranger in Montana and Alaska, I had to become proficient with rifles, shotguns and handguns. I spent many hours on firing ranges, and ear muffs worked just fine. And it doesn’t seem particularly sporting to hunt an animal when that animal can’t even hear you if you miss.

In my travels I have yet to come across wildlife wearing body armor. Why would hunters need armor-piercing bullets to kill a deer?

Armor-piercing bullets can have unpredictable effects when they enter a body, but there is clear research on what happens when a lead bullet impacts a target like a deer or elk. The lead breaks apart into lots of tiny pieces so small that hunters often don’t even know they are eating them; poisoning themselves and their families.

The SHARE Act undermines the Endangered Species Act by legislatively delisting wolves in the Midwest despite two federal court decisions that wolves still need protections. It also would eliminate restrictions on killing bears and wolves in their dens on Alaska National Preserve lands. And it undermines the Marine Mammal Protection Act by opening a loophole on polar bear hunting.

But these anti-wildlife provisions are almost an afterthought to the SHARE Act’s extraordinary giveaways to the gun lobby.

The SHARE Act should really be titled the National Rifle Association Enhancement Act. Whatever legitimate grievances sportsmen’s groups have with access to hunting and fishing, this bill is a terrible way to address them. It is sad to see hunters give political cover to the gun lobby and fall for this cynical ploy, hook, line and sinker.

Brett Hartl is the government affairs policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity.

That is incorrect. The SHARE Act would reform a number of very bad gun laws. It is very important that we pass these reforms.

wrong again, as usual.

Over 90% of the country supports background checks. oralloy is anti-American.

That's because the MSM and DNC politicians have been lying to the public for years, making them think there are no background checks. Lets not forget the false and misproven "40%" line that Obama and the MSM ran with for months before it was proven to be BS study.

Ask the average person what the gun laws are in the area and they will likely feed the lies spoon fed to them by the lying media.

Here's a video that shows just how much this guy's opinion is really worth. He's obviously been taken in by Hollywood, and hopes you will be, too.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4yBgQmxhaipbGtyeVczck02RVk/view

Yoiu're lying when you say the msm EVER SAID THERE WERE No CHECKS. iT WAS ALWAYS FRAMED as closing loophoes. don'''t know what your 40% refers to. Multiple shpolls showed overwhelming support for fuller checks, ande that includes NRAAEMBERS< not the hierarchy, the actual members.

It was never framed as closing loopholes because the loopholes never existed in Federal Law, that's another lie told by the MSM and the leftist politicians. The Federal Govt left it to the states to decide what they wanted to do with background checks for private sales. At this point a majority of states, my state of CO included, have closed the "loopholes" and require background checks at gun shows.


It's easy to forget Obama lied when the MSM told the same lie for months on end. The lie was "40% of guns are sold without a background check". This lie was used to push for a "universal background check on gun sales.


I don't doubt what the polls say, I doubt that people have the full information when they give their answer. I'll say it again, there was no loophole in the Federal law, the federal law was only meant to include general sales, not private sales. It's a state issue, not a federal issue.

Doesnt matter if rhue feds apssed it to the states. A loophnole is a loophole is a loophole.

There is no loophole in the Federal Law. No provision for private sales in the Federal law, hence no loophole.



Since private sales were never mentioned in the Federal law, it isn't a loophole, it was done on purpose.