US Politics - Trump cancels summit having to do with North Korea

Tafdolphin wrote:Watch this be the catalyst to stricter gun laws...

Or, more likely, the GOP will find a left wing scapegoat to pin this on.

twitter.com/RandPaul/status/746022114042478592

Tafdolphin wrote:Watch this be the catalyst to stricter gun laws...

Or, more likely, the GOP will find a left wing scapegoat to pin this on.

captain red dog wrote:I honestly doubt an armed assault on the capitol building would change their views. Having said that, in reality what can be done. There are far too many guns in circulation for it to be rolled back enough to have effect surely?

captain red dog wrote:I honestly doubt an armed assault on the capitol building would change their views. Having said that, in reality what can be done. There are far too many guns in circulation for it to be rolled back enough to have effect surely?

Memento Mori wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I honestly doubt an armed assault on the capitol building would change their views. Having said that, in reality what can be done. There are far too many guns in circulation for it to be rolled back enough to have effect surely?

Australia managed it.

Corazon de Leon wrote:

Memento Mori wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I honestly doubt an armed assault on the capitol building would change their views. Having said that, in reality what can be done. There are far too many guns in circulation for it to be rolled back enough to have effect surely?

Australia managed it.

Only 25 million people live in Australia vs around 325 million in the U.S., and their attitude to gun control is/was nothing like the American one - the right to bear arms was never enshrined in their constitution for a start. The Australian model isn't workable in America.

captain red dog wrote:

Corazon de Leon wrote:

Memento Mori wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I honestly doubt an armed assault on the capitol building would change their views. Having said that, in reality what can be done. There are far too many guns in circulation for it to be rolled back enough to have effect surely?

Australia managed it.

Only 25 million people live in Australia vs around 325 million in the U.S., and their attitude to gun control is/was nothing like the American one - the right to bear arms was never enshrined in their constitution for a start. The Australian model isn't workable in America.

Yep I think it being in the US constitution really takes away all common sense in the US. In Australia after Port Arthur, and here after Dunblane, generally people felt it was fair enough to give up their guns as we didn't feel entitled to have them. You will never get that attitude in the US.

Memento Mori wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Corazon de Leon wrote:

Memento Mori wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I honestly doubt an armed assault on the capitol building would change their views. Having said that, in reality what can be done. There are far too many guns in circulation for it to be rolled back enough to have effect surely?

Australia managed it.

Only 25 million people live in Australia vs around 325 million in the U.S., and their attitude to gun control is/was nothing like the American one - the right to bear arms was never enshrined in their constitution for a start. The Australian model isn't workable in America.

Yep I think it being in the US constitution really takes away all common sense in the US. In Australia after Port Arthur, and here after Dunblane, generally people felt it was fair enough to give up their guns as we didn't feel entitled to have them. You will never get that attitude in the US.

It's an amendment to the constitution having been put in several years after the constitution was originally written. "You can't change the constitution" is a ridiculous argument that needs to be confronted.

captain red dog wrote:

Memento Mori wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Corazon de Leon wrote:

Memento Mori wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I honestly doubt an armed assault on the capitol building would change their views. Having said that, in reality what can be done. There are far too many guns in circulation for it to be rolled back enough to have effect surely?

Australia managed it.

Only 25 million people live in Australia vs around 325 million in the U.S., and their attitude to gun control is/was nothing like the American one - the right to bear arms was never enshrined in their constitution for a start. The Australian model isn't workable in America.

Yep I think it being in the US constitution really takes away all common sense in the US. In Australia after Port Arthur, and here after Dunblane, generally people felt it was fair enough to give up their guns as we didn't feel entitled to have them. You will never get that attitude in the US.

It's an amendment to the constitution having been put in several years after the constitution was originally written. "You can't change the constitution" is a ridiculous argument that needs to be confronted.

It's not going to happen. There is resistance to even the slightest form of gun control as it is. I genuinely don't think it would be physically possible now to row back on the amount of guns available. I also think it would be virtually impossible to clamp down on ammo across the entire nation. I genuinely don't see a solution.

Moggy wrote:It won't happen but that doesn't mean it would be impossible to enforce if they ever did come to their senses.

If you banned guns and ammunition then you would instantly cut vast numbers of guns as law abiding people handed them in. Lots wouldn't of course but naturally as time went on they would lose their arms as they ran out of bullets, the police confiscated them and the guns wear out.

There'll always be illegal guns and ammo around, but that's not a reason to keep them legal.

Rightey wrote:

Moggy wrote:It won't happen but that doesn't mean it would be impossible to enforce if they ever did come to their senses.

If you banned guns and ammunition then you would instantly cut vast numbers of guns as law abiding people handed them in. Lots wouldn't of course but naturally as time went on they would lose their arms as they ran out of bullets, the police confiscated them and the guns wear out.

There'll always be illegal guns and ammo around, but that's not a reason to keep them legal.

I very much doubt you would "cut vast numbers" of guns. You would instead make a huge black market for ammunition and guns, and totally destroy any chance of implementing gun control.

Why would anyone turn in their guns once the government makes it illegal? The criminals will keep them because they want to, and law abiding citizens will keep their guns because

1) Such a law is just draconian
2) They would be worried the only ones with guns will be the criminals.

In regards to guns and ammunition running out, people would just stockpile massive amounts of ammo in the lead up to a ban, and then because people wouldn't go to gun ranges, or the like that ammo would just sit around forever.

In the end the US problem I'd say is more a combination of bad gun laws and bad attitudes. The idea that everyone should just take the law into their own hands, and that there are lots of scary evil people out there so you should carry around a gun leads to a dangerous situation.

Coats (National Intelligence Director) was attending a briefing at the White House with officials from several other government agencies. When the briefing ended, as The Washington Post previously reported, Trump asked everyone to leave the room except for Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

Coats told associates that Trump had asked him whether Coats could intervene with Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in its Russia probe, according to officials. Coats later told lawmakers that he never felt pressured to intervene.

A day or two after the March 22 meeting, Trump telephoned Coats and Rogers to separately ask them to issue public statements denying the existence of any evidence of coordination between his campaign and the Russian government.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the president’s requests, officials said. It is unclear whether Ledgett had direct contact with Trump or other top officials about the Russia probe, but he wrote an internal NSA memo documenting the president’s phone call with Rogers, according to officials.