Most of the other 2/3rds have easy access to the 1/3rds guns though, because they are spouses or children of the gun owner. And if they don’t, they could easily go buy what they need today and start firing into crowds of people tomorrow. 100% of Americans have easy access to mass amounts of guns.
I can’t buy a gun in California- not that I want one. NY and California are pretty difficult places to buy guns
New Jersey has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, only behind California. Regulation can’t prevent everything from happening. Not in a nation where there are more guns than people.
The interstate boarders arent controlled, and I think they have constitutionally blocked controlling the boarders for arms. So New Jersey can't create a solution to a National problem.
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
The NRA is able to successfully lobby on the scale they do because of one thing, money. People who donate to the NRA are willing to put their money where their mouth is and not just talk about wanting to keep or expand their rights.
The gun control lobby has a problem translating talk and feelings to actual cash, which is what drives lobbying. You can talk all day long in front of a camera and have people agree with you, but if you can’t get those same people to open their wallets, you can’t do anything
Bloomberg gives money to the anti gun lobby.
The problem is the NRA’s political Victory Fund, and donating to Republicans.
Republicans don’t care about dead Americans, they’re in it for themselves.
At this point there is no political support in the US for effective gun control therefore the percentage of gun ownership is irrelevant.
There is moderate support in the US for some form of gun control that takes guns away from someone else but not the person actually being polled, once someone suggests taking guns away from the person being polled that support melts away like an ice cream in the desert.
Citation needed?
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
The NRA spends about 3 million a year on lobbying, that is nothing by US standards, probably less than big oil spends on lube for the hookers it provides for US politicians, its the votes the NRA can either give or take away that makes it powerful.
The NRA spends about 3 million a year on lobbying, that is nothing by US standards, probably less than big oil spends on lube for the hookers it provides for US politicians, its the votes the NRA can either give or take away that makes it powerful.
They spend a tonne on campaign ads etc. and they do this without coordinating with the candidates they are supporting, If a liberal is leading a poll you can bet on a few free billboards or commercials for the republican candidate the next day. I read somewhere they spend upwards of $15 million a year on political activities without actually having a paper trail to any candidate.
The NRA Political Victory Fund has spent $14 million total and represents the bulk of the NRA’s political spending. The PAC clearly prefers to run negative ads, spending $9 million in opposition compared to more than $4 million in support of candidates. Hillary Clinton and former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, who is running for the state’s U.S. Senate seat, top the list of opposed candidates — the targets of $6.6 million and $3 million in opposition spending, respectively. No one even breaks the seven-figure mark when it comes to supportive spending, except for Donald Trump. He’s benefited from $3.1 million in spending from the NRA Political Victory Fund. #
Big Oil spends 200 million a year, the annual amount spent on all lobbying in the US is around 3 billion.
14 million is still nothing, trust me it isn't the money that gives the NRA its power, its that its supporters reliably vote the way they are told
Is there anything stopping you from taking a weeks holiday across state line and buying one?
Just the law. Purchasing the gun in a different state is legal, so long as a licensed seller. Transfering the gun across the line is to be done by a FFL holder, and then the receiving FFL is to conduct the background check as outlined by state law. Buying from an individual and taking the gun across lines may be legal is some states, questionable in others, and then illegal in others. Personal transactions are a good way to find yourself in a world of hurt if you cross a state line with a weapon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by #-3
The interstate boarders arent controlled, and I think they have constitutionally blocked controlling the boarders for arms. So New Jersey can't create a solution to a National problem.
Thank you for taking that comment out of context. That was about New Jersey's gun laws and the process for acquiring and securing a weapon. The incident in question saw an individual gain access to weapon that was purchased and secured according to the laws of one of the most restrictive in the country.
To your point, interstate borders may not be considered controlled, but for controlled substances it is a crime to transport certain materials across those borders. There are laws in place that make transporting such goods across lines a controlled process. Failure to comply is a federal crime. Guns and ammunition are both controlled substances in the eyes of the feds.
When a gun crime is committed in the U.S., you might assume that police would simply enter the weapon’s serial number into a computing system and come out with the name of the perpetrator. But due to years of lobbying from the NRA, no such system exists. In fact, the data must be uncovered through archaic processes by the low-tech, underfunded National Tracing Center.
must show all Flames games nationally when they play on Saturdays, Mondays, and Wednesdays !!!
