Gun free zone

[Nick]

That is one of the steps Dictators take ..

 

[Floorist]

Well Trump said he admired dictators.

 

[Nick]

We're in Scary times with Him ..

 

[Ernesto]

Meanwhile the army is setting up for war against mothers with children wanting asylum from the gangs and dictators in south America.
These troops, who's assets could be better used around the world are taken from their families - missing thanksgiving and the prolly christmas because of some idiot trying to get votes.

 

[Nick]

It is going to cost the tax payers twenty million dollars to send them .. Of course you know that is low balling it ..

 

[Floorist]

Sounds like it would only stop 3D printed guns..
But deep in the bill, it would reclassify ALL semi auto guns, even 22s as assault weapons.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/7115/text?r=1

 

[Floorist]

This would become the legal definition of "assault weapon", for the next gun grabber bill



4) the term “semiautomatic assault weapon” means—

(A) a semiautomatic rifle or semiautomatic shotgun that has the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device; or



(B) a semiautomatic pistol that has—
(i) the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device; and



(ii) any one of the features described in subsection (b);

 

[Ernesto]

It is going to cost the tax payers twenty million dollars to send them .. Of course you know that is low balling it ..

Try 200 mil, thats lowball

 

[Nick]

What a waste of money..

 

[highup]

Try 200 mil, thats lowball

Probably 900 million.

 

[Ernesto]

https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily...vious-border-troop-deployments-cost-taxpayers Bush spent 1.2 billion.

 

[havasu]

Just curious, but these military folks are either sitting in their barracks all across the country, playing cards, shining their guns and boots. What's the difference by placing them at our border locations? We still need to feed them, wherever they are, and they will continue to shine their guns and boots, so why the outcry?

 

[highup]

Just curious, but these military folks are either sitting in their barracks all across the country, playing cards, shining their guns and boots. What's the difference by placing them at our border locations? We still need to feed them, wherever they are, and they will continue to shine their guns and boots, so why the outcry?

And they are getting a different sort of on the job training. What's wrong with that?............maybe the $200 million is for fuel to move the troops there and barbed wire.

 

[Ernesto]

Well because it was a ploy to get votes and unnecessarily spend hundreds of millions of dollars.
Which BTW we borrow from china cus we are already broke from the Bush wars.

 

[Floorist]

The US ranks 31st in the World, not 1st, for gun-related deaths.

If you're talking solely about murders committed with guns, there are 82 countries worse than the US, and some of those countries ban guns.

Gun-control does not reduce crime or gun-related deaths, but Culture does.

Guns are smuggled across the border from Mexico, and smuggled by boat on the East and West Coasts, plus the Gulf Coast.

Many criminals commit crimes with guns they did not legally purchase, because they obtained the weapon on the Black Market, which would expand in size if guns were banned. They only thing you'd accomplish is leaving good people defenseless against criminals.

Liberals have strait-jacketed the rest of us, so that we cannot force the mentally ill homeless, or any mentally ill person to take medication, and we cannot force them to live in a group-home or other institution, and we cannot force them into treatment of any kind, so they're left to their own devices.

And then we have certain Conservatives who think disarming the mentally ill violates the 2nd Amendment, in spite of the fact that the Framers of the Constitution only intended for law-abiding citizens of sound mind to have weapons, and the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the State to prove that a mentally ill person should not be armed for the safety and peace of all.

 

[Floorist]

You can tell the election is over.
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell called for the confiscation of semi-automatic rifles in a USA Today oped on Friday.
Swalwell wants taxpayers to foot the bill using 15 billion of taxpayer dollars to do it.

Swalwell then says to prosecute those who resist.

 

[Nick]

What a Arse ..

 

[Floorist]

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms. In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.” Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.” In the past, Democrats and gun safety groups have carefully resisted proposals that could be interpreted as “gun confiscation,” a concept gun rights groups have often invoked as part of a slippery slope argument against more modest proposals like universal background checks. Swalwell addressed these arguments directly, saying he and other Democrats had been too deferential to Second Amendment activists and should follow the lead of teenage survivors of the Parkland shooting who have been more strident. “There's something new and different about the surviving Parkland high schoolers’ demands,” he wrote. “They dismiss the moral equivalence we’ve made for far too long regarding the Second Amendment. I've been guilty of it myself, telling constituents and reporters that 'we can protect the Second Amendment and protect lives.’” Instead, he writes, “the right to live is supreme over any other.” According to Swalwell, his policy is modeled on Australia’s mandatory gun buyback laws, which were instituted under a conservative government after a gunman killed 35 people at a popular tourist site in 1996. Supporters credit the campaign with a broad reduction in gun violence and the country hasn’t suffered a similar mass shooting in the years since. “Australia got it right,” Swalwell wrote. While politicians and activists, including President Barack Obama, have cited Australia’s success in curbing gun violence as an inspiration, almost no prominent figures have proposed instituting similar laws up to this point. Some gun safety groups, such as the Giffords Law Center, have suggested tougher background checks and reporting requirements on existing assault weapons after a new manufacturing ban — but they have not called for owners to sell or destroy them. Many policy experts supportive of stricter gun laws have warned a mass gun confiscation policy would be difficult to enforce given limited federal resources and the widespread popularity of the affected rifles. "I think it's pretty clear from the program we do support that it's about keeping guns out of dangerous hands and not about confiscating guns," Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign, which advocates against gun violence, told NBC News in March

 

[Nick]

The NRA has to much clout for any of this to happen ..

 

[Floorist]

It would be a bloodbath.