Trump meeting with NRA to ban people on terror watch list from buying guns

[Goosey 3,017]

11 hours ago, LePetitMonstr said:

So wait. These people are STILL allowed to buy guns?

I thought this was already a law? You know, because its common sense?

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnn. I am living in a country full of morons. 

Um, it's not common sense.

Those lists have no oversight and no way to get off them. There are countless errors. Always you hear of some toddler placed on the list. Senator Ted Kennedy found himself on the list and it took him six months to get off it. What about a regular person?

And the right to bear arms is a constitutional right guaranteed to every citizen.

So what you're saying is that depriving people of their constitutional rights without due process, oversight or appeals is "common sense".

[Goosey 3,017]

10 hours ago, Larry Hill said:

What's so sad to me is that he's going to be meeting with the NRA instead of an elected official; the NRA obviously holds too much power over our lawmakers.

Too much power? The NRA is composed of 5,000,000 individual members. You're saying American citizens have "too much power over our lawmakers"?

What holds power over our lawmakers is the votes of those 5,000,000 and those who share their views...

[Adakam 2]

8 minutes ago, Goosey said:

Um, it's not common sense.

Those lists have no oversight and no way to get off them. There are countless errors. Always you hear of some toddler placed on the list. Senator Ted Kennedy found himself on the list and it took him six months to get off it. What about a regular person?

And the right to bear arms is a constitutional right guaranteed to every citizen.

So what you're saying is that depriving people of their constitutional rights without due process, oversight or appeals is "common sense".

Slavery was in the constitution or a while, that didnt mean it made sense or that it couldnt be challenged

[Goosey 3,017]

2 minutes ago, Adakam said:

Slavery was in the constitution or a while, that didnt mean it made sense or that it couldnt be challenged

Usually when there's a constitutional challenge it involves giving civil rights, not taking them away. Nice try though!

[Adakam 2]

12 minutes ago, Goosey said:

Usually when there's a constitutional challenge it involves giving civil rights, not taking them away. Nice try though!

That doesnt even make sense -_-, it was people's right to trade in people and stuff

 

Also, Usually doesnt mean always

[Zilla 13,451]

I heard the NRA doesn't want to support any kind of law that jeopardizes the second amendment, and they also stated that the lists we have now have innocent people that did nothing wrong on them so it hinders them from purchasing firearms. Again, hearsay. 

Trump's going to have to start reaching olive branches all over the place if he wants people on his side. They have to meet in the middle

[JevyDuty 2,961]

1 hour ago, Goosey said:

Too much power? The NRA is composed of 5,000,000 individual members. You're saying American citizens have "too much power over our lawmakers"?

What holds power over our lawmakers is the votes of those 5,000,000 and those who share their views...

The NRA, as an organization, represents itself and it's own best interest. If they really represented their 5,000,000 members, the NRA would have been for this ban already since the vast majority of gun owners believe this ban is logical anyways.

Regardless, a nation of 320,000,000 people should not have it's gun laws decided by 5,000,000. So yes, I stick by my initial statement. The NRA and it's members hold way too much power. Trump should be talking to lawmakers about changing the law not the NRA and if you can't understand that, then you don't understand or care about how Democracy works.

[Goosey 3,017]

2 minutes ago, Larry Hill said:

The NRA, as an organization, represents itself and it's own best interest. If they really represented their 5,000,000 members, the NRA would have been for this ban already since the vast majority of gun owners believe this ban is logical anyways.

Gun owners =/= NRA members. 

3 minutes ago, Larry Hill said:

Regardless, a nation of 320,000,000 people should not have it's gun laws decided by 5,000,000. So yes, I stick by my initial statement. The NRA and it's members hold way too much power. Trump should be talking to lawmakers about changing the law not the NRA and if you can't understand that, then you don't understand or care about how Democracy works.

So Obama shouldn't meet with women's groups and such?

[JevyDuty 2,961]

2 hours ago, Goosey said:

Gun owners =/= NRA members. 

So Obama shouldn't meet with women's groups and such?

Apples and oranges.

Yes he should. Women rights don't affect anyone but women (others indirectly). Women know themselves better than anyone else. And even women's group don't make their own laws like the NRA does.

Gun rights affect us all; Owners and non owners are directly affected. So for Trump to meet with the NRA about something that is the responsibility of elected officials is mind-boggling. Public safety of 320,000,000 people should be left to the public and their representatives, not the NRA and their 5,000,000 members.

The NRA does not represent me or 315,000,000 other Americans, so why should they call the shots on our safety? (Edit: No pun intended AT ALL)

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

8 hours ago, Larry Hill said:

why should they call the shots on our safety? 

phrasing  

[Goosey 3,017]

15 hours ago, Larry Hill said:

Yes he should. Women rights don't affect anyone but women (others indirectly). Women know themselves better than anyone else. And even women's group don't make their own laws like the NRA does.

The NRA does not "make their own laws". 

The Myth of NRA Power: What the NRA Really Means in American Politics Today
The following memo, prepared by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC, seeks to prove, via an examination and analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data collected over the past several election cycles, along will research pulled from a number of sources, that the widely held assumption that the NRA is a strong determining force and factor in elections is, in fact, a serious overstatement of the extent of the group’s influence.
In short, the National Rifle Association’s reputation as an all-powerful, unstoppable force with deep pockets and near-unlimited spending power is one of the biggest misperceptions in American politics.
https://medium.com/@klerer/the-myth-of-nra-power-what-the-nra-really-means-in-american-politics-today-e4a786b4bdad#.fdvdez8p8

15 hours ago, Larry Hill said:

Gun rights affect us all; Owners and non owners are directly affected. So for Trump to meet with the NRA about something that is the responsibility of elected officials is mind-boggling. Public safety of 320,000,000 people should be left to the public and their representatives, not the NRA and their 5,000,000 members.

No, it's not "mind-boggling". Presidential candidates meet with countless civil rights and special interest groups. It would be "mind-boggling" to hide in an office and not meet anyone. 

15 hours ago, Larry Hill said:

The NRA does not represent me or 315,000,000 other Americans, so why should they call the shots on our safety? (Edit: No pun intended AT ALL)

The NRA doesn't "call the shots". Voters call the shots. The NRA spreads its message to voters and it seems a large number of them agree with what the NRA has to say. 

Generally speaking, at least half of the population is against stricter gun legislation.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

I'm confused as to why he needs permission from the NRA for this. If he becomes president will he get permission from the NRA for all his decisions?

[Goosey 3,017]

36 minutes ago, just4fun said:

I'm confused as to why he needs permission from the NRA for this. If he becomes president will he get permission from the NRA for all his decisions?

He doesn't. He's hearing what they have to say. 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

5 minutes ago, Goosey said:

He doesn't. He's hearing what they have to say. 

That's code for he needs permission anyway.  

 

[PartySick 172,545]

1 hour ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

That's code for he needs permission anyway.  

 

Well the NRA's in the pocket of nearly every Republican senator and congressman (and even a few Democrats). Here is a list of everyone that took money from the NRA in the last cycle. Why listen to the public when a group of gun fetishists are lining your pockets to make it as easy as possible for people to buy guns? They've rigged the system to bleed as much money as possible out of us no matter how many innocent lives are taken.

What's even worse is the public plays right into it. Every time Obama starts talking about gun control or a mass shooting happens, people flock to buy firearms by the dozen

Here in Florida, AR-15's (a.k.a. "America's Gun", the same gun used in the Pulse shooting) are flying off the shelves of local gun shops. There's no waiting period on them either and only a three day waiting period for handguns. It's absolutely insane. These people think they need a damn arsenal of assault rifles to protect themselves.

I do not feel safe with all these lunatics running around with weapons capable of mass homicide. I hope we're able to ban assault rifles soon...it's looking like at least something will happen this time.

Spoiler

God, how sick is that? "This time". It should've been dealt with the first time. Disgusting.