Nothing will, it's statistically impossible. What's never talked about is how many victims "gun control" creates since it's the law abiding that are put at a disadvantage. **** these people and **** their idea that we can end "gun violence". It makes just as much sense as banning all cars...
I'd love to hear something other than conjecture out of you. Can you point to one clearly defined example of how the ATF intends to classify braces based on (XYZ) variables?
Really! Does this letter clearly define how those judgements will be made, or is it a manifesto of ignorant, ambiguous, anti-gun hog**** aimed at making innocent people felons while dong ZERO to curb crime?
It's that cuntbag Regina Lombardo, flexing on gun owners telling them how she intends...
Wrong. It will be a case by case basis in which the ATF uses ambiguous and dubious undefined parameters to decide whether or not you've broken the law. Braces won't be "illegal", you could put one on a rifle for instance, or on a handgun if you meet the ATF's secret design parameters. Sounds...
The political platforms have been as loosey goosey as a vegas prostitute in the last 10 years. The parties used to fight like the Red Coats, lined up and adhering to rules...now both sides have gone guerilla and will do whatever it takes to bs their way to power.
The problem isn't republicans or democrats, it's the specific individuals that are casting votes and creating legislation. Labeling a party good or bad glosses over the few gems or absolute turds that inhabit their respective political sphere. The generalizations are lazy, and exactly what...
Yes. It's not required by law to own or possess a firearm. One of the great strengths of the Second amendment is that the rights is for the people, and not granted by the government. A license is granted, and I don't recognize that as a requirement.