THAT many guns have been purchased over the past year eh?
The United Nations has a map of the US which they took to the US Dept of State for some briefing and it had the US broken up into five “Administrative Areas” or separate units after we are broken up. If memory serves me correctly from Ohio to MS upwards were the boundaries for the area under Chicago.
It's on us (veterans in particular) to train the people we know on the basics of safe handling and employment of ARs and such - to keep everyone safe, to know the requisite laws, and to be able to aim and fire the weapons well when needed. If you have a neighbor or a friend who just started with weapons ownership, take them to the range and teach them.
The Democrats/Leftists are watching for more mass shooting or horrible accident stories to take our rights away. We have magnificent rights under the Second Amendment - but also enormous responsibility to ourselves and our fellow gun owners.
The calculus remains the same, WE outnumber YOU
He doesn’t need bipartisan support, but he’ll get a few Rinos anyway.
The assault weapons ban was retarded, it banned pistol grips and bayonets, like banning the fuzzy dice in your Grand Torino..
Separate.
“The filibuster is supposed to encourage bipartisanship - but given the new hyper-partisan reality, what it really encourages is gridlock.”
Good. The less Congress gets done, the better.
“The problem is: Straight partisan victories (as in gun-grabbing) will be nearly impossible in the Senate as long as the filibuster is in force for non-taxing-and-spending legislation - like new gun laws.”
That’s why the Democrats were so happy that 500,000 Republicans in Georgia followed Lin Wood (rather than Trump) and gave them the Senate...and at this point, all they need to do is flip Joe Manchin to support ending the filibuster, and they’ll have the numbers needed to start pulling in the guns.
Even those twisted fools in Congress know you don’t ban the #1 most popular sporting rifle. Not if you want to keep your house from burning to the ground with you in it. 😆
***like a new assault weapons ban***
They banned NOTHING. Manufacturers simply changed the nomenclature of the firearms, removed the flash suppressor, removed the bayonet lug (how many people in the US have been murdered by fixed bayonets since 1900?)and made the folding stock solid.
They also limited magazine rounds to 10 rounds but millions of higher capacity magazines were still in circulation. And if you know where to look you could get a magazine marked “For Police Use Only”.
Hidenbiden going after an EO means they didn’t have the votes.
The article looks like complete BS to me. A few examples from memory:
* The article claims gun owners are 'single issue voters'. If that were true, we would win more elections, like we did in 1994 (when USA Today stated that almost one out of every three voters was a gun owner voting Republican). In fact, too many gun owners are generally asleep at the switch, and don't get off their sorry @sses until the Dems are ready to pass yet ANOTHER ban.
* The polling numbers cited in support of gun control are probably from 'push polls'. Picture questions like, "Would you support a ban on semi-automatic military-style assault weapons, in order to save the lives of thousands of children every year?" Heck, I'll bet half of those supposedly favoring a semi-auto ban, couldn't even define "semi-automatic firearm".
* The article states that 'Mr. Trump radicalized the Republican Party'. In fact, D@mocrats following Alinsky's playbook radicalized politics in this country, and Mr. Trump's nomination was a result of Americans responding to that change, NOT the cause of it.
In all likelihood, the article is intended to keep gun owners sitting on their butts (by suggesting that gun control efforts aren't going anywhere), while simultaneously getting the left-wing coolaide-drinkers united behind the push to ditch the US Senate filibuster, and pass the biggest federal gun ban in US history...
“The problem is: Straight partisan victories will be nearly impossible in the Senate as long as the filibuster is in force for non-taxing-and-spending legislation - like new gun laws.
“The filibuster is supposed to encourage bipartisanship - but given the new hyper-partisan reality, what it really encourages is gridlock.”
There it is. Why would The Hill be horrified to print that?