https://ballotpedia.org/State_and_federal_candidate_filing_deadlines_for_2018

Put another way...

Try raising the voting age to 21... See how well THAT goes.. :D

It's not really a cure at all.. The vast majority of shooters were over 21.. Of the few who weren't most stole their weapons..

It's a Placebo law. A WOULDN'T IT BE NICE law.. And, because it basically bans guns from 18-21 year olds, it would be unconstitutional...

CQB is generally considered 0-20ft...

In an open area, rifles definitely have an advantage.. Indoors or in an urban setting, give me a good glock with plenty of clips and I can take down a company.. :D

Although it's no substitute for the real thing (but imminently safer) you can try COD shooters in FFA mode.. :D

Michale - How close is your "close" quarters? In a classroom, your handgun probably wins. In the gymnasium, the AR wins.

Got ahead of myself there..

In the interests OF SAFETY, we can use the MILES system..

In CQB, the AR15 is at a distinct disadvantage to the handgun...

In the interests, we can use the MILES system..

Or live fire, if you prefer..

Makes me no never mind.. :D

This is exactly why ya'all's hysterical screams for a gun ban on 'assault' rifles is so laughably ridiculous....

If Trump wants to arm teachers, is he planning on making sure they have AR15’s or M16’s so that they have adequate firepower to take on a school shooter? Handguns are no match for high powered rifles.

I am throwing down a challenge....

We'll find an old abandoned school.. I'll have my trusty GLOCK 40, combat loaded @ 16 with a pair of extended clips.. You can have a street legal AR15 with 10 50-rnd mags...

We'll see who can take who out... We'll see who's weapon is outmatched by the other's.. :D

In CQB, the AR15 is at a distinct disadvantage to the handgun...

Once again, I met your criteria and you can't admit you were wrong...

But I encourage you to push your Dumbocrats to support this agenda to the hilt!!

I mean that.. Ya'all should really support this legislation and make sure any and all of your Dumbocrat...er.. "leaders" support it to...

Doing so would make 2014 and 2016 seem like a fun Dumbocrat picnic by comparison..

So, please.. REALLY push your Dumbocrats to support Cicilline's legislation..

Please... :D

How you can be married to a cop and make such a totally boneheaded statement is beyond me...

Unless there is a national gun registry, this would do nothing.

There already is a national registry..

You aren’t doing anything about the guns someone already owns, you’d only be preventing them from buying more guns (which isn’t a bad thing, it’s just not enough!).

If the legislation were in place it would have stopped 90% of the Crowd Based Mass Shootings in the last 20 years..

It is also easier to tie gun restrictions to a person’s actions than to try to get a doctor to say that they are not mentally stable enough to have access to a gun. If you are involved in a DV, your gun gets taken until a judge says you can have it back. Gotta history of physical violence, your guns go bye-bye! Involuntarily committed for a psychiatric evaluation.... your guns are held until a doctor clears you. There are just too many guns already owned in this country to think that gun control must only focus on keeping unstable people from being able to buy new guns!

OK, so because you can't confiscate everyone's guns that are already purchased, why bother preventing FUTURE psychos from getting guns...

Yep, yer a Democrat all right..

Just HAVE to protect yer social justice agenda, even at the expense of dead kids... :^/

Very old ones or very useless ones..

That legislation would effectively ban 90% of guns available..

Once again, I met your criteria and you can't admit you were wrong...

Of course Trump would have run in and stopped the shooter with his bare little hands, so maybe we should just have schools use overweight, orange-skinned, human comb-overs as security guards instead.

*LOL* I know, right!?

It's bad enough that Trump buys into his own con artistry self-aggrandizement bullshit, but anyone else who actually believes that Cadet Bone Spurs would run into a building with an active shooter to save the students most certainly needs to have their guns "taken away, whether they had the right or not. Take the guns first, go through due process second" in the manner that Trump is advocating. :)

Red meat for the left...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-deep-state-takes-out-the-white-houses-dark-clown-prince

Written by my favorite Republican. Any righties who'd like to learn some facts from an educated intelligent conservative who doesn't mince words and knows his spit should be following every word of @TheRickWilson.

The almost certain knowledge that Robert Mueller isn’t done with Jared by a long stretch doesn’t make it any easier for Trump, even as the red flags thrown up by Rod Rosenstein over the president’s son-in-law and very special adviser were one more sign of the urgency of closing up the leakiest, riskiest White House in history. The best part of this trap is that Trump (R-Oppositional Defiant Disorder) will be tempted to do the one thing that will make his political situation more politically tenuous and legally risky by restoring Jared’s clearances. It’s within his rights as the president, but he would be dumber than a sack of hammers to do so. A smart president would have already told Jared to pack up and get the hell out, but... oh, who are we kidding?

This battle was only ever going to end one way, and in the war of the Deep State vs. Team Trump, the bad guys often make it easy by being greedy, sloppy, and stupid. Jared was all three.

Jared is all three... just like his daddy-in-law Don. While this "we won't take a salary" rhetoric might impress the poor right-wing gullible/easily conned, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that billionaires seeking the presidency aren't exactly doing it for the bi-weekly government payroll check, and unfortunately for them Mueller is following the money.

Unless there is a national gun registry, this would do nothing. You aren’t doing anything about the guns someone already owns, you’d only be preventing them from buying more guns (which isn’t a bad thing, it’s just not enough!).

It is also easier to tie gun restrictions to a person’s actions than to try to get a doctor to say that they are not mentally stable enough to have access to a gun. If you are involved in a DV, your gun gets taken until a judge says you can have it back. Gotta history of physical violence, your guns go bye-bye! Involuntarily committed for a psychiatric evaluation.... your guns are held until a doctor clears you. There are just too many guns already owned in this country to think that gun control must only focus on keeping unstable people from being able to buy new guns!

That's why I like and keep the gun. It's bolt action with a detachable magazine. Now that you mention it, it might very well be a two shot mag with one in the chamber. Not too many people know that bolt action shotguns exist. Looks like an elephant gun from the business end. Haven't stocked shells for it in at least a couple of decades. Though, I guess I could use it as a Michale style assault weapon and bash someone over the head with it...

I can;t see why it would. Most slide-action ('pump') and semi-auto shotguns have a 5 round tubular magazine which the Feds require to be restricted to 2 shells, for a 3 - shell total (one in the barrel, two in the tube) for migratory waterfowl. Surely those will remain legal under any gun laws.

My goose gun was an O/U 30 in. dbl brl Browning Citori bored full and full, so capacity was never a factor. I did own a Rem. Mod 870 Pump action for duck hunting, which had to have a tube plug.

Of course Trump would have run in and stopped the shooter with his bare little hands, so maybe we should just have schools use overweight, orange-skinned, human comb-overs as security guards instead.

Though it is sort of funny my goose gun would fall under this law as it has a 3 round mag. Which I am led to believe is the maximum round capacity legally alowed for duck/goose hunting whether internal or external, or at least was when I bought it a few decades ago...

Of the 17 firearms that I owned during my hunting/shooting years, only a single one - a Browning .22 cal semi-auto pistol- had a detachable clip/magazine. Legitimate hunting guns have no use for high-capacity magazines.

It's interesting that when talking about firearms, the colloquial is verboten but when the discussion turns to science you grasp on to the colloquial even when corrected. Why should we bother if you can't be?

OF any weapon...

Really? I haven't seen many swords, knives, battle axes, bows, crossbows, ect. with detachable magazines. Not to mention, were I to wander into just about any gun shop in America, I would find a wide selection of revolvers, break action shotguns, bolt action rifles as well as many variations of internal magazines under (and over) 10 rounds...

You'd think this was "The Onion" ... but no, these nuts "married" their AR15s and closed local schools because of the number of guns around.

Wonder what the honeymoon was like ... looks like some of these guys might have shot their bolt during the "kissing the bride/groom" portion.

Or even:

Even Hope has abandoned here.

Welcome to Donald's Inferno.

Abandon Hope, all ye who enter here.

Because I have one.

OF any weapon...

Really. There are no firearms that don't have a detachable magazine or clip?

OF any weapon...

It's restricting sales to ANY weapon with a detachable magazine or clip..

That's pretty much ALL weapons, Neil...

Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree with Trump on this, but it isn't what the assault weapons ban you reference is saying.

It IS exactly what it is saying.. Banning all weapons with a detachable magazine or clip is banning pretty much ALL weapons..

You can sugar coat it all you want, but it's SERIOUS legislation to ban weapons from someone besides Trump...

I met your criteria and, as usual, you are trying to weasel out of it..

Now ya'all know why I never bother any more..

sorry, should read:

Steel is somewhere between #2 and #3 - and amazingly pointless industry for the U.S. to invest in or protect.

Smart trade is where we win.

Take an iPhone. Simplifying this down, there are three major costs to delivering a new iPhone:

1. Design
2. Components (screen, CPUs, etc.)
3. Assembly

#3 is human labor intense and China is battling other countries in a race to the bottom for how cheap they can provide hourly low skilled workers.

#2 is investment in high tech infrastructure which S. Korea and Taiwan are doing, and again these are commodity markets now (25 years ago these plants were in California and Arizona because they were new technologies).

#1 is why Apple and their employees are rich - this is where most of the money is spent.

Steel is somewhere between #1 and #2 - and amazingly pointless industry for the U.S. to invest in or protect.

And the thing is, this comes from a clown who wants us to believe that he is a great business brain.

And even if you do agree that it is worth it to try to save steel jobs (which we won't, let's face reality), China are going to retaliate and target Trump country (soy bean farmers watch out!).

This is asinine.

Turns out, most of the cheaper steel being produced in the world turns out to be from our allies, in particular South Korea.

This is more than a shot across the bow. The markets have been (remarkably) reticent to respond to Trump's outlandish statements, but this was apparently a (steel) bridge too far. Imagine what happens if he actually makes this law by executive order.

If your family think you are a nut, and the police agree, we can take away your guns and then figure out if you are a danger or not.

Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree with Trump on this, but it isn't what the assault weapons ban you reference is saying. And admit it, if Hillary had said the same words that Trump said, you'd be freaking out and predicting a police state with babies being thrown in open flames and the hounds of hell running loose.

I can't wait around for you to make up your mind.. :D

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2018 will prohibit the sale, transfer, production, and importation of:

· And 205 specifically-named and listed firearms.
https://cicilline.house.gov/press-release/cicilline-introduces-assault-weapons-ban-2018

I added the "clip" because Democrats have proven that, as far as they are concerned, 'clip' and 'magazine' are interchangable...

Regardless, this proves that a GUN BAN is a mainstream Democrat Party push.. Democrats want to ban every modern firearm, handgun or rifle...

I really hope that Democrats push this for all their worth...

Nothing would guarantee a GOP wave better...

Which would be great if I could actually hear it. :D

But, OK.. I'll take your word for it that it says what you say it says..

Not surprised that he is asking..

Of course it's not a surprise.. Ya'all have claimed SO MANY things that Trump said that turned out to be BS..

Regardless of all that..

I *AGREE* with Trump..

Getting guns out of the hands of psychos is paramount.. "due process" can come later...

Now, if only we could get the Democrat Party to get behind REAL Mental Health legislation that would converge mental health databases with gun own/carry applications..

Not surprised that he is asking...it was pointed out somewhere in one of the talking head shows this morning that foxiganda has yet to show the footage or talk about it. since, according to M, most of us live in an alternate universe maybe he will accept it from the you tube channel from WH.gov.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QI6gT7zxXg

Exchange begins at 46:34 to 47:08

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/politics/due-process-donald-trump-second-amendment/index.html

My sound on my pooter crapped out yesterday.. Is it an actual audio clip?? Or just CNN saying that Trump said it???

Source? (And I mean the full text of the bill, not a link to a gun nut blog.)

OK.. So, if I PROVE to you that it's an actual bill sponsored by a Democrat, you'll concede the point???

I wondered if Blotus flirting with real gun-control would be their redline or not.

Not clear to me yet if Blotus has commenced backpedaling - Kelly (Liar) Conway has been out doing some of her trademark history rewriting but leaks from the WH say the WH is in (yet again) turmoil with no one knowing what Blotus will do/say next.

Guess it depends on what gets sent to FOX. Blotus will follow FOX's lead. My bet is Blotus will soon be trumpeting the NRA's positions again.

Source? (And I mean the full text of the bill, not a link to a gun nut blog.)

You can hear him say it yourself.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/politics/due-process-donald-trump-second-amendment/index.html

The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine(clip), as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds.

That is proposed by Democrats and pretty much includes EVERY modern weapon...

ANY weapon that has a magazine/clip is banned..

So, remind me again how it's only President Trump who is for banning guns..

I seem to have forgotten what with all the FACTS to contrary...

Once again, I prove you wrong.. And, once again, you'll run away...

OK, since we're brassing some tacks here..

Where is your fact that Trump actually said that???

OK, but first, here is the verbatim quote from the meeting:

“A lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures. Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

Yea???

Want me to prove you wrong???

The only politician who has threatened to take anybody's guns (and without due process or via a buyback) is your orange dolt.

But since we know that he has no idea what he is talking about, he will be reprogrammed by the NRA and abnormal service will resume.

Hillary stealing your guns - what a fertile, conspiracy addled world you've immersed yourself in.

Of course their sales would have gone thru the roof if Hillary had been elected..,

For a time...

Then when Hillary actually tried to take people's guns??

Civil war...

And I don't think the gun manufacturers would want that.. Just as I don't think that the fetal tissue sellers would want a wholesale slaughter of babies...

And on Wall St - which is what they really care about.

If you don't think they are looking at their share price and wishing Hillary had won, you don't know business.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-deep-state-takes-out-the-white-houses-dark-clown-prince

Yea, because the FACTS prove beyond ANY doubt that, anytime the hysterical anti-gun nuts get a wild hare up their asses, gun sales sky rocket..

Yea.. Gun manufacturers are "desperate"... Only in your world...

Change Trump to Obama and you are still factually accurate..

Pointless, but factually accurate..

I mean, isn't it a bit unusual for a President to stage campaign rallies in his few months in office?

You mean, like Odumbo did??

I expect he will want to be on the ballot in 2020.

You guys really live in yer own little worlds, don't you....

Since the election the Russell 2000 Index (which includes the gun manufacturers below) has gone up 30%.

Without a scary black guy or a slandered woman in the White House, it seems that the fear of gun control has eased off, and with it, gun and ammo sales:

American Outdoor Brands — maker of Smith & Wesson guns — down 66 percent

Sturm Ruger & Co. - down 24 percent

Vista Outdoor (VSTO) - half its revenue comes from ammo sales - down 53 percent

Source: http://ritholtz.com/2018/03/piling-up-losses/

I mean, isn't it a bit unusual for a President to stage campaign rallies in his few months in office? Or pick his campaign manager before he even has security clearances for everybody on his staff?

This sad little man loves being in front of an adoring crowd who validate him - and given that he is immensely vain and has spend several decades being ridiculed in his home town by all the people he really wants to impress, is anybody surprised?

I expect he will want to be on the ballot in 2020.

"Less than half an hour into his meeting with lawmakers on Wednesday, President Trump urged the illegal confiscation of guns, told a Republican (to his face) that he was scared of the N.R.A. and threw a series of wrenches into Congress's legislative strategy on guns.

In other words, another meeting with Trump.

Of course, nothing like that actually happened..

Another bullshit anonymous report from WaPoop..."

BULLSHIT Michale. IT'S ON TAPE. GOOGLE IT YOURSELF WHERE YOU CAN SEE AND HEAR TRUMP HIMSELF SAY IT< UNLESS YOU ARE TOO AFRAID.

"If he decides not to run for a second term,"

That's what you said...

Jesus, can't you admit you made a mistake???

Are you SO ate up with HHPTDS you can't even admit a mistake??

You are SOOO much like you accuse President Trump of being..

Except he's Trump, and could change his mind at the drop of a hat, so there's time. I'm not saying he won't, just that I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

I wouldn't for that matter, be surprised at anything he did. Bugs Bunny is more predictable.

Except he has already announced he IS running for a second term and has named his campaign manager for 2020...

Don'tcha just HATE it when facts and reality comes around and bites your bullshit hysterical Anti-Trump delusion on it's ass?? :D

Any facts to support that claim??

No?? Of course not...

In other words, another meeting with Trump.

Of course, nothing like that actually happened..

Another bullshit anonymous report from WaPoop...

So, when ya'all scream hysterically THE NRA IS CONTROLLING WASHINGTON!!!! what ya'all are REALLY saying is that AMERICAN VOTERS ARE CONTROLLING WASHINGTON..

Which is as it SHOULD be...

With no family around (oh, sure, Melania might jet down from NY for lunch once in awhile), and all of his most trusted advisors disappearing one by one, I wonder how long Trump will want to keep this job he clearly hates. If he decides not to run for a second term, I might actually not be surprised.

And another truthful analysis is that Trump just spews diarrhea of the mouth and flings whatever poo pops into his head, riddled with heaps of venal self-aggrandizement, claiming it's a good thing he's going to do something about guns because it's something that his predecessor(s) never even tried to do *cough* bullshit *cough*, particularly when everyone in the room knows he's full of it.

manurial

adjective

Of, relating to, or of the nature of manure.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/manurial

Alternatively it might mean they're willing to moderate their gundamentalism because they know perfectly well (though they won't admit it) their extreme positions are stupid and dangerous and self-defeating and Blotus would "give them permission" to move towards sanity.

Then there's the NRA - which is lobbyist for gun manufacturers pretending to be a group for gun enthusiasts. How would the NRA respond? How would the gun-nuts respond to the NRA if it turns against Blotus?

The deplorables have been willing to put up with every Blotus failing to date. Would this be a bridge too far for the gundamentalists among them?

As CW says, the NRA may just stay mum for now, waiting and hoping Blotus will revert to form and forget he made any of these statements, or deny them. A week from now we could easily be back to police-blaming and teacher-arming as though this meeting never happened. I think that's far more likely than Blotus making positive gun-control moves.

If so, will that penetrate the heads of Trumpers? Will it bother them at all? Will they realize how tenuous Blotus' positions actually are? Will it matter to them that Blotus will literally agree with whoever got to him last?

OTOH: what will I think of Blotus if he actually does follow through with real gun-control? I can't predict my response. It seems so unlikely. What do you do when the bad guy does a good thing? While continuing to do a bunch of other bad things? It would certainly help his eventual his legacy. He'll still go down in disgrace one way or another, but it would be better, I would think, to go down with at least one genuine achievement.

I expect we'll know pretty quickly how this is going to unwind.

Absolutely, especially since he doesn't seem to know a thing about how to actually get legislation passed that isn't being shepherded through congress by a party leader. Trump's mind might be a carnival funhouse, but Paul Ryan's works with the clockwork precision of a Disneyworld Ride. Nothing will get through the House or Senate without Ryan's or McConnell's say-so, and that's the end of it.

Trump could lambast them, but they've suffered that before already, and all Ryan's got to worry about politically is his cartoon opponent in the midterms.

So Trump might even be saying to lawmakers privately: "Hey, just doing a little PR here. Nothing to worry about."

Which they already know, but humoring Trump is a thing folks do these days.