https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gun-control-deal-group-of-senators-including-10-republicans-announce-breakthrough/ar-AAYnyhN

The threshold of acceptance has been lowered to get a least 10 Republican senators to support the bill. Too early to tell if egregious anti-gun provisions will be added to the legislation. Five talking points seem to be "socially correct":

a. Support for state crisis intervention
b. Investment in children and family mental health services
c. Protections for victims of domestic violence
d. Funding for school-based mental health and supportive services
e. Funding for school safety resources

FFL restrictions may or may not be acceptable. It is important that ideas be vetted across both all parties to the discussion.

we saw what they introduced under the guise of menyal health in schools...CRT...etc.

All in all I say not too bad. Just funding for programs and not banning firearms or magazines and such

All in all I say not too bad. Just funding for programs and not banning firearms or magazines and such

Yet, we are always an active shooting away from more laws like this. I'm glad that  you don't support mag limits.

All in all I say not too bad. Just funding for programs and not banning firearms or magazines and such

So, if this bill is supposed to reduce/stop mass shootings, are the members of Congress admitting now that it's a people problem and NOT a gun problem?

Or, will they lie and say it was the best they could do against big NRA-backed Republicans?

Either way, I think it does show the momentum is with gun rights and against gun control when it comes to keeping bad people from committing "murder-death-kill.".

So, if this bill is supposed to reduce/stop mass shootings, are the members of Congress admitting now that it's a people problem and NOT a gun problem?

Or, will they lie and say it was the best they could do against big NRA-backed Republicans?

Either way, I think it does show the momentum is with gun rights and against gun control when it comes to keeping bad people from committing "murder-death-kill.".

I'm still waiting for our tech to catch up and we can use the 3 seashells.

So, if this bill is supposed to reduce/stop mass shootings, are the members of Congress admitting now that it's a people problem and NOT a gun problem?

Or, will they lie and say it was the best they could do against big NRA-backed Republicans?

Either way, I think it does show the momentum is with gun rights and against gun control when it comes to keeping bad people from committing "murder-death-kill.".

I think it is just congress passing what they can. Democrats would probably pass more if they could but why not take what they can get for now

I think it is just congress passing what they can. Democrats would probably pass more if they could but why not take what they can get for now

They ask for the whole gun-rights pie, and are happy to "get what they can" when WE compromise by giving them a large slice, but smaller than they asked for.

Repeat enough times, and we're down to a sliver left for ourselves.

In the "compromise process," rarely, if ever, is anything offered FOR gun owners.

Seems we have to rely on SCOTUS to tip the balance in our favor once in a while by applying the Constitution to bad laws.

The media machine is manufacturing consent. George Soros has to pay his protestors to show up. Most people hate the Democrats and don't want more gun restrictions. You can clearly see that from the sales numbers.

The media machine is manufacturing consent. George Soros has to pay his protestors to show up. Most people hate the Democrats and don't want more gun restrictions. You can clearly see that from the sales numbers.

The number of protestors at the NRA convention was way less that I thought there would be.  And the March for our Lives nationwide event this past Saturday beginning at the Waikiki post office had very little as well.

The media machine is manufacturing consent. George Soros has to pay his protestors to show up. Most people hate the Democrats and don't want more gun restrictions. You can clearly see that from the sales numbers.

Oh, wait until "black people have guns"



:facepalm:

Where's the outrage?  Was it a comment for her token black friends?   

They ask for the whole gun-rights pie, and are happy to "get what they can" when WE compromise by giving them a large slice, but smaller than they asked for.

Repeat enough times, and we're down to a sliver left for ourselves.

In the "compromise process," rarely, if ever, is anything offered FOR gun owners.

Seems we have to rely on SCOTUS to tip the balance in our favor once in a while by applying the Constitution to bad laws.

There have been compromises, For example the law that prevents a national federal database on gun owners.

There have been compromises, For example the law that prevents a national federal database on gun owners.

Thats not a compromise. Thats they tell u what theyre gonna make u do if u dont give in a little.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

That's a straight up jack. Just like saying,"I'm not going to rob you if you just give me your wallet"