JR>You say I'm proven wrong: so go for it, leave out the hating and just provide the evidence that this group is such a risk that they deserve to be singled out specially.

In response: no evidence, just the sort of list Mueller caught the Russians using to try to damage confidence in US democracy.

As I keep saying, needing assistance with your disability benefits because of mental impairment, does not make somebody mentally ill, or a danger to society. As an example, a dyslexic might need assistance with paper work for their disability benefits. According to your version, that person is so mentally ill and such a threat to society that they must be prevented from getting firearms. As I keep saying, the 4th Amendment is there to prevent that sort of discrimination in the absence of due process or evidence of danger.

If, on the other hand, it were shown that people on disability needing assistance because of mental impairment *are* the usual cause of mass shootings- then I doubt Congress could have scrapped it without more of a fight. Instead, seems to me the fury is because something Obama finally got around to in the twilight of his 8 years, didn't get enshrined so hymns could be sung over its glorious bravery that solved gun violence forever.

Finally, just a reminder re Trump did this, Trump did that: actually Trump is not Congress and while he could attempt to cut around Congress via executive order, we're seeing how fragile those are. Besides, Sessions is totally opposed to that sort of legal activism and is reformatting to end it on his watch. Because as every US school child is taught, that power is supposed to vest in Congress- apart from a few key areas where Congress delegates authority to POTUS for national safety reasons. If you think Congress should delegate control over firearm access to Trump, write to your representative and arrange a petition or hold a march.

>>...so this is what the Trump administration has done since he took office -- and you seem to think that oooh he 'advocated 'for something in 2000 ( more stuff that you left out - but the hell with it - you're going to leave stuff out cause that's what you do) so you were clearly saying that Trump has some record of being against guns - and I have thus called you out on that B.S.

What you left out, as usual, is what was actually said. Here's the entire message you're objecting to:

BF>>The above notwithstanding, the next step we choose to take will always be the most important step we'll ever take in our lifetimes- but what we just chose to do will affect us forever.
BF>>Magical paradox, isn't it?

JR>>What the US decides won't affect me more than maybe a month per year.... which leaves more time to grapple with the unacceptable suicide rate for young men in NZ.
JR>>Meanwhile, did you know that Trump advocated an assault rifle ban back in 2000?

You're piling a tower of anger and accusation on a simple question in a musing exchange with BF.

> . But THIS time you left out everything you said -- so again you've taken what I said out of context because there is no reference to what I was talking about since you deleted it. Move along John...Trump is not your anti-gun-violence savior - he is your bought off politician from the NRA to the tune of 30 MILLION dollars. Any suggestion otherwise is unfounded by the pattern of behavior and the facts.

I've never suggested that Trump is an anti gun savior- but it does look as if finally something might get done apart from hand wringing, rousing speeches and anti-constitutional targeting of the wrong cohort. As for the $30M buy off: you're relying on a hit piece from the Hill adding up advertising spending and attributing it to whoever the Hill says benefited. As an example, $16M of the $31M advertising the Hill says was pro Trump, was actually anti-HRC even before her primary. Characteristically, you convert that advertising spending into a payoff with focus only ever in one direction. It's as if somebody shrieked that Trump defecates several times a week- sometimes daily, or more than once a day! Disgusting! Yes, but only if you are so intellectually dishonest as to pretend he's the only person who defecates, or that he could voluntarily stop doing it without any consequence.