Look back since the 2016 election

The value of stock in firearms manufacturers has slumped alot since Jan 2016. If any sitting president made people feel so secure that they dropped the philosophy of "buying up before the big ban", those stocks would slump even more. I do believe there is much that goes on with legislation on firearms (or lack thereof) which is purely financially motivated. And of course you know, very many manufacturers are in Blue states.

The Big Picture is more complicated than just about violence and protection and freedom. Money has a whole lot to do with it and those other tbings become decoys...EXCELLENT decoys...because they are still based on some truths that make people emotional.

Where do you think we would be if there was a shift in the country on gun control. The anti's got traction. How many of these politicians would do a flip. Too bad we are so polarized that we are in a permanent stuck place. There is some propaganda that is more get me elected than pro-gun. Be alert for con jobs. Whores all.

The Las Vegas shooter didn't help the cause much. Neither do the seemingly never ending string of school shootings that get reported.

The threshold for mass shooting is very low as in four victims. You'll be hearing this more often. It's important, so far as I am concerned, that these shooting tend to be people who are isolates and not members of any shooting organization. Most legally should not have access to firearms. What really happens when one of these people goes wild that anti-gun people attack the visible honest legitimate firearms owner. The focus needs to be stopping these sociopaths. Also, it would help to name the name of the offenders of most gun violence in America.

IlikeSA said:

Why was there no pro-gun legislation of significance passed?

Click to expand...

Weak Knees.

IMHO Just because someone appears not to be anti gun does not make them pro gun.
It makes them mostly indifferent to what we want.

Maybe the political parties should read about this?
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/10/7384...mp-black-gun-group-considers-getting-politica

I think there was a mistake in which bills were put forward. I mean silencers and national carry are good BUT,

I think it would have been better, first, to go after laws in states were rights are infringed rather than expanding the rights of those in places that already have good laws.

What’s going on in CA is s disgrace. All gun models are banned by default unless they pay.

What’s going on in NYC is a disgrace, they pile on red tape and fees until it’s practically impossible for someone to legally own a gun.

Stomp that **** out before it spreads.

Forget laws and their difficulty, check out how many things that annoy us are administrative, regulatory alone. Importation restrictions, and 41F, among others could be eradicated with a memo, or an EO.

Guns banned by CA should have the gun manufacturers refusing to sell their wares to CA state and local agencies.

Mowgli Terry said:

Also, it would help to name the name of the offenders of most gun violence in America.

Click to expand...

If the desire for infamous "immortality" is a motivator for these shooters, you don't want to encourage them by giving them that.

LRDGCO said:

60 votes required for Cloture in the Senate

Click to expand...

Yes, but the 60-vote threshold is set by Senate rules. The rules can be changed by simple majority at the start of each session. The fact is, Senators aren't team players. They want to maintain their individual prerogatives, in this case being able to throw a monkey wrench into the works. This is why Bernie Sanders, for example, is against changing the filibuster rule -- even if it means that his team will never get anything passed.

Mowgli Terry said:

Also, it would help to name the name of the offenders of most gun violence in America.

Click to expand...

I could have done better. The demographics are not discussed. A majority of gun violence can be attributed to one racial group. That needs to be a focus with efforts made to reverse that trend. That would mean strong support for the communities where this violence happens.

While hammering the Democrats, it may be a good thing to look at the midterm elections. Did the Heller decision affect local government's ability to make laws concerning firearms.

They only act when they no longer hold the reigns of power. Then they can say, "See, we tried to do something, but those darn Democrats outnumbered us. Please vote for us at election time." Their perks, benefits, and insider trading info continue unimpeded.

It is disgusting.

Simple. Bills got through the House. Then died in the Senate. It's one thing to have a paper-thin majority of one or two votes...it takes three to five to have real control in the Senate. Not to mention the current rules allow for make-believe filibusters...which mean you really need 60 votes to pass anything.

What bugs me more is that there are regulatory issues that can be addressed...and have not been.

How many Southern Democrats are anti-gun?

Addendum: Did you notice Nancy pulling away from AOC. Did you notice how small that little group is?

I just remember this any time gun legislation comes up and I hear/read that someone says they don't care about that particular item -

"When they came for the bump-stocks, I didn't complain because I don't want to have one."
"When they came for the AR-style firearms, I didn't complain because I don't want to have one."
"When they came for the semi-auto handguns, I didn't complain because I don't want to have one."
"When they came for the handguns, I didn't complain because I don't want to have one."
"When they came for my guns, I couldn't complain because there was no one left to support me."

Paraphrased from a European that survived the Nazi occupation in WW2.

Then there is this from Benjamin Franklin: If we don't all hang together, we will surely hang separately.

Remember those two statements each time you read or hear of another gun law, whether it's in your state or somewhere else. Help support those that are having to fight for THEIR gun rights and you won't be alone when/ if they come for YOUR gun rights.

Next time there's a so-called, pro-gun majority in the house, senate and a so-called pro-gun President - write, call, email to support EVERY pro-GUN legislative idea that's out there. Cover up their phones and their in-box and their mail boxes. Let them HEAR FROM YOU!

How many southern Democrats are 'Fudd'?

Mowgli Terry said:

How many Southern Democrats are anti-gun?

Click to expand...

For one brief shining moment it looked like gun-rights advocates were going on the offensive. Then they quickly got thrown back on the defensive, with the failure of the Hearing Protection Act and national reciprocity, and then the bump stock ban. We are actually worse off now, under Trump, than we were at the end of the Obama administration.

P5 Guy said:

How many southern Democrats are 'Fudd'?

Click to expand...

Fudd, We got several definitions of Fudd. Don't know if I can give you an answer with any assurance of accuracy. How many of our politicians are transparent? Transparent means no secret agendas. We are bombarded from all sides with fake news and made up happy crap of all sort. I do not have an answer. How many gun rights people could care less what happens to the bump stocks and the rest?.

The problem with term limits is that the people that have to approve them are the same people negatively affected. Where's John Adams and T. Jefferson when you need them.....

Wonder why term limits were put in there in the first place? Didn't John Adams have something to with that?

AlexanderA said:

For one brief shining moment it looked like gun-rights advocates were going on the offensive. Then they quickly got thrown back on the defensive, with the failure of the Hearing Protection Act and national reciprocity, and then the bump stock ban. We are actually worse off now, under Trump, than we were at the end of the Obama administration.

Click to expand...

At the end of the Obama admin we had a 4-4 tie on SCOTUS between conservative and liberal justices, now we have a 5-4 majority.

At the end of the Obama admin they were talking about the US joining the UN small arms treaty, Trump prevented that.

The alternative to Trump would have been Hillary, how do you think that would have worked for us ?

.308 Norma said:

Yeppers, that's right. I kinda doubt the first name "Elmer" in the Bugs/ Elmer cartoons came from Elmer Keith though. Elmer Fudd first appeared in cartoons in 1940 - long before very many people had ever heard of Elmer Keith.
We've been in kind of a "drought" for a few years as far as the rabbit population around here goes. But back when our Cocker Spaniel (Ruger) was young, we often called him "Elmer Fudd" because those "wascally wabbits" drove him nuts. He never did catch one.

Click to expand...

You had the wrong Spaniel. I had two Springers and they successfully hunted rabbits using coordinated frontal attack and ambush. They killed dozens of rabbits.

I'll go with the lying politician senario. Because gun rights is about #5 down the list for most voters, politicians use it to get elected. Once a republican is elected it's 'how many voters will I lose if I vote for more gun control'. The answer is practically none. An example of that is Trump's decision to ban bump stocks and promote ERPO laws. A GOP politician gains votes when they campaign pro gun. People just think the GOP is pro gun because they say they are but the reality is they're no more pro gun than Democrats. The difference in Democrats and republics when it comes to gun issues is Democrats say they're anti-gun to get votes and republicans say they're pro gun to get votes but there is little difference once they get elected.

So there really are no pro gun politicians, just campaigns to get elected. Very few people actually know how their elected officials vote.