I never said there was. Bozack made an assertion wrt to the NRA & i asked him to provide evidence in support. None has been provided.
I have not a seen compromise from either side. Have a link to some?
.
They really gave it away with this. I actually read the Republican amendment and aside from the three days and some legalese about being able to challenge it's identical.Dems want "suspected terrorists" to not have guns. Well that's the sales pitch. The Reps bill would have required an applicant be able to challenge their being included but there was no compromise. The reason is that there was only three days given to check the list for correctness and that's not enough. The Dems weren't interested in the list being right, they wanted to use it as a means to prevent ownership regardless of what apologists say I expect they'll use the Bush admin trick of "Why do you support terrorists"? or something similar if someone challenges it. People like me and Ted Kennedy for example. Kennedy had a heck of a good reason to be against it as he was on the naughty list himself.
Dems want "suspected terrorists" to not have guns. Well that's the sales pitch. The Reps bill would have required an applicant be able to challenge their being included but there was no compromise. The reason is that there was only three days given to check the list for correctness and that's not enough. The Dems weren't interested in the list being right, they wanted to use it as a means to prevent ownership regardless of what apologists say I expect they'll use the Bush admin trick of "Why do you support terrorists"? or something similar if someone challenges it. People like me and Ted Kennedy for example. Kennedy had a heck of a good reason to be against it as he was on the naughty list himself.
OK
Neither side willing to offer a compromise. Fair enough.
.
Dems want "suspected terrorists" to not have guns. Well that's the sales pitch. The Reps bill would have required an applicant be able to challenge their being included but there was no compromise. The reason is that there was only three days given to check the list for correctness and that's not enough. The Dems weren't interested in the list being right, they wanted to use it as a means to prevent ownership regardless of what apologists say I expect they'll use the Bush admin trick of "Why do you support terrorists"? or something similar if someone challenges it. People like me and Ted Kennedy for example. Kennedy had a heck of a good reason to be against it as he was on the naughty list himself.
OK
Neither side willing to offer a compromise. Fair enough.
.
Reflecting on what actually happened that's obviously not true. Presented with 11 gun bills, Jerry Brown signed 6 & vetoed 5. Looks like a compromise from any perspective.
That's not how compromise works you fucking retard.
If Brown didn't want to compromise he'd have signed all 11 bills.
What were the 11 bills that ended up on his desk?
What were the 11 bills that ended up on his desk?
If I suggested that you get kicked in the balls 11 times and you object and say you shouldn't be kicked in the balls at all, is it a "compromise" if you're only kicked in the balls 6 times?
Off the top of my head, the ones that got vetoed were:
- Make stealing a firearm a felony (CA voted in a proposition last election cycle to make stealing a firearm worth under $950 a misdemeanor, among other things)
- Expand the definition of firearm to include raw chunks of aluminum
- Limit long gun purchases to 1 in 30 days (handguns are already limited as such)
- Require reporting a stolen firearm within X days
- Expand "gun violence restraining order" program to allow your co-workers to have your guns taken away
Speaking of "compromise", the only bill that had bi-partisan support was the first one.
But that's what happens when you have one side trying to come up with solutions and another side coming up with non sensual slogans like, "only a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun".
You reap what you sow and you gun nutters will learn soon enough that an uncompromising position will lead to an uneducated public supporting their elected politicians and the policies they come up with to deal with issues they care about.
So the assertion that the NRA is willing to compromise is bullshit, right?
So which CA legislative district does the NRA represent? Hopefully not Bakersfield, that place is a shithole.
So which CA legislative district does the NRA represent? Hopefully not Bakersfield, that place is a shithole.
That's kind of the problem isn't it, the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. If they did they would be supporting legislation their members overwhelmingly support and they would be introducing legislation that made sense and protected their members rights and their hobby at the same time.
Please. It's likely that their lobbyists & influential friends have been all over this for a very long time. It would be foolish to think otherwise. They're big spenders, too-
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/guns/
That's kind of the problem isn't it, the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. If they did they would be supporting legislation their members overwhelmingly support and they would be introducing legislation that made sense and protected their members rights and their hobby at the same time.
The FBI said they'd like the current system left alone, so as to not tip off the person on the watch list. If they're tipped off, they'll just buy a gun through a straw purchase or on the black market.
Which is almost flat out saying that gun laws dont actually work.