I come back to this thread because of the China Trade Deal news, and you fuckers are still arguing about porn?
Holy shit, how did you people survive before the Internet?
There's not a ton on it at the moment. Just that something was negotiated and that more will be revealed tomorrow.
There's some minor news about suppressors?
Sources Say Lobbyist Chris Cox & Rep Kustoff Pushing to Keep Suppressors on the NFA
This option is the best option for gun owners, yet he is pushing the latter and is against the elimination of suppressors from the NFA.
Rep Kustoff’s constituents include a substantial percentage of gun owners. His push to keep suppressors on the NFA does not make sense unless outside forces are putting pressure on his office to
lower the fee to $5 instead of completely removing them from the NFA. Anti-gun groups would be lobbying to keep the status quo, meaning the pressure is most likely coming from the pro-gun side. AmmoLand News has been provided with the name of the lobbyist pushing for a fee reduction instead of elimination from the NFA by our sources inside the House Ways and Means Committee.
At least to start with, but once that precedent is in place there's nothing stopping a future administration from expanding it and building upon it. That's why it's better to just not even tempt fate by going in that direction. It's the same reason why conservatives are against any form of 2A restrictions, no matter what they say the end goal is the complete and total eradication of the rights of citizens to own firearms so they can turn this country into a police state hellhole like the UK or New Zealand.
There is precedent for that position. It's very slow though. In the UK we added our first, what you'd call hate speech law, in the 1980s called the
"Public Order Act". Passed under a conservative government, it's main use was to prevent rioting and whatnot by making speech which would incite one an offence (this is due to a decade of unrest in the UK). This is the same law that continued to evolve and get amended, and nowadays is behind the several arrests due to fedposting on twitter and facebook you see come from the UK today.
The why and how of
firearm restrictions in the UK might be more applicable. Despite the country's reputation, we
did have the right to bear arms since 1689. The first major restriction came in 1920 after WW1, because everybody had guns, training with guns, and weren't very happy with the government. Now you needed a certificate, and could only own a set amount of ammo. '37, more restrictions, and 'self-defence' wasn't a valid cause to own a gun anymore. '68, shotguns also restricted. '88, magazine fed shotguns, semi-auto rifles, etcetera, now banned (following a mass shooting). '97 all handguns were now prohibited following another mass shooting (Should be noted, the mass shootings were done with illegally acquired weapons btw by the mentally ill.)
The main moral I take from this is that banning/restricting something is viewed as the
easy option to tackle what is arguably a more complex issue that people or the government aren't willing to tackle. Mentally ill criminals illegally acquired the weapon they carried out the mass killing with? Ban guns (Labour government in UK '97). Alcoholics are beating their wives and children? Ban alcohol (women pushed for temperance on this basis un America). Young men are killing children in unusually high numbers? Ban certain websites (this motivated online safety bill in the UK).
