The influential National Rifle Association (NRA) in the United States unites Second Amendment supporters, conservatives and libertarians. For decades it was considered to be virtually inviolable, mainly as the group has the support of many top politicians in Congress and several other powerful institutions. Now, however, the situation could get uncomfortable for the NRA as the state of New York has brought charges against the NRA for fraud. New York’s goal is simple: dissolving the NRA.

Mission: Dissolve the NRA

The NRA is the most influential voice in the gun lobby in the United States. Now, after 18 months of investigations, the Attorney General of the State of New York Letitia James has brought charges against the organization. “Fraud and abuse” has been ongoing in the NRA for years, according to James. According to her charges, NRA chief Wayne LaPierre and three other executives have embezzled association funds on a large scale. They have allegedly utilized the organization as a “personal piggy bank” and “plundered” it without being checked. As a result, the NRA lost more than $ 64 million in this way – in the previous three years alone, according to James. In fact, the corruption is “so broad” that James has stated that the total dissolution of the organisation is necessary.

What are the NRA Leaders Accused of Doing?

The four suspects are accused of – inter alia – stealing money for luxury trips and giving profitable contracts to family members and friends. LaPierre alone is accused of having spent $ 3.6 million on safari trips and private driving services in just three years. He is further accused of having flown eight times in a private jet to the Bahamas in order to vacation there on a yacht provided for by an NRA service partner. LaPierre is also charged with having obtained a $17 million pension package without the approval of the organization’s board of directors.

Charges were also brought against the NRA, and an adjacent foundation on Thursday. Washington DC Attorney General Karl Racine said the lobby organization misused millions of dollars in foundation funds in the district as well as its other alleged wrongdoing.

The NRA Denies All Wrongdoing

The NRA immediately denied all allegations and spoke of these developments as a political maneuver prior to the presidential and congressional elections on November 3. According to the organization’s president Carolyn Meadows, these legal charges are an “obvious attempt to score politically and to attack the leading voice of the opposition against the left-wing agenda.”

President Donald Trump called the lawsuit against the NRA a “terrible thing” and suggested that the lobby association registered in New York should move to Texas and live a “very good and beautiful life” there. Trump later wrote on Twitter that just as the “radical left New York” wanted to “destroy” the NRA, his challenger in the presidential election, Democrat and former VP Joe Biden, wanted to abolish the right to own guns, a position which is not contained in Biden’s platform.

Biden Doesn’t Want to End Gun Ownership

Trump repeatedly accuses the Democrats of wanting to abolish the right to bear arms, which is enshrined in the Second Amendment. Leading Democrats, however, only advocate for a tightening of gun laws, such as additional background checks.

The issue of firearms could well play an essential role in the election campaign before November 3. The NRA is one of the most influential lobby organizations in the United States and claims to have around five million members. For decades it has been resisting the tightening of gun laws, sometimes using highly controversial methods.

Spotlight on the NRA

The NRA has not-for-profit status and is therefore subject to special donation and charity requirements. It is traditionally conservative and has enormous political influence, especially in Congress, where many Republican Congressmen openly speak out for the NRA and receive endorsements and donations for election campaigns in return. The NRA also supports Trump. In 2016 the NRA supported Trump in the presidential election campaign with more than 30 million dollars, according to figures from the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

There have been discussions in the United States about the influence of the NRA for years. Recently, however, the debate seems to have intensified. In the midterm mid-term elections in 2018, for example, groups that advocated stricter gun laws spent more money. Republicans sponsored by the NRA even lost the majority in the House of Representatives.

Moreover, many individual US states have also tightened their gun regulations slightly in recent time. For Trump and his reelection efforts, however, gun owners remain an essential part of his base.

L'articolo New York vs the National Rifle Association proviene da InsideOver.

The growing and deadly tendency for American domestic terrorists to target members of various religions and their places of worship has reached a point where some parishioners are arming themselves before entering houses of God.

While God and guns may seem like an odd mix, two recent heinous crimes have spurred a growing call from religious institutions for better security and the right to carry weapons.

On Dec. 29, a gunman killed two parishioners in a church near Forth Worth Texas before armed worshippers, members of security at the West Freeway Church of Christ, shot the assailant to death.

On the seventh night of Hanukkah, the marking of the night Jews rose against their Greek-Syrian oppressors in 167 B.C., a man stabbed five people at a rabbi’s house in New York.

The Dec. 28 assault was the most violent of several anti-Semitic acts promulgated recently.

The assailant tried to enter a synagogue next door but those inside were able to stymie the attack by barricading the door.

Mass shootings, defined in the US as a crime where four or more people are killed, have entered the realm of routine in the United States.

According to database figures extracted by the Associated Press, USA Today media outlet and Northeastern University, there were 41 mass murdered recorded in 2019, taking a total of 211 lives. It is the most mass murders since records have been kept and 33 of the crimes involved firearms.

But even the record did not result in the largest death toll. That dubious honour belongs to 2017 when 224 people died in mass killings. It included the worst mass shooting in American history, with 59 shot to death and at least 500 injured at a music festival in Las Vegas.

Enough Americans have stood steadfast by their weapons, so much so that the majority who want stiffer gun control have a hapless task because politicians are afraid to rile the powerful gun lobby led by the National Rifle Association.

An illustration: Republican Party politicians – stiff proponents for guns – praised the armed security parishioner who gunned down the shooter at the West Freeway Church of Christ and said it was fortunate that Texas state laws allowed guns in houses of worship. Meanwhile the Democrats called for stricter guns laws that they claimed would help prevent such attacks.

And the gun proponents invariably cite the Second Amendment of the Constitution of United States, which states: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

That was written in 1791, before automatic and semi-automatic weapons, when a single-shot musket was the most common firearm. Guns were also essential to life back then when people had to hunt and shoot dinner and protect themselves from Indian attacks.

President Barack Obama said after the Sandy Hook school massacre where 20 children and six educators were shot to death on Dec. 14, 2012 that stricter gun control was on the way. He admitted defeat five months later when Congress refused to act – it was a “shameful day” in Washington, Obama said.

But leaving the pros and cons of guns restrictions, there is a question both sides of the argument ask: What drives a person to commit a mass shooting?

An analysis of the Violence Project Database shows that shootings committed through hate have taken a sharp increase in the last five years.

Portrait of a mass killer

Two distinct groups emerge – those who were motivated by hate of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, blaming the religions for disappointments in their lives.

The other group attacks the place of worship because they had a grudge against someone worshipping there, such as a family member or girlfriend.

Of the 11 who killed, all were men and the southern United States is a prime breeding ground.

The perpetrator is likely to be white and a resident of Texas, where a third of the crimes took place.

He is as young as his early 20s and as old as early 40s.

The man is single and recently lost his job, most likely fired. He has a criminal history of violence and was in some crisis before the shooting. He also has a documented past of mental illness and substance abuse.

He has been online researching past mass shootings and probably studied white supremacist conspiracy theories. The internet material often pushes them to act.

In short, they are unhappy and hold a grudge against a group the perpetrator blames for disappointments he has suffered.

How to stop it, short of stricter gun control?

Prevention consists of not necessarily arming security personnel, but having paid staff and volunteers greeting worshippers at the church door who are trained to recognize potential problems and on how to de-escalate violence.

And then there is the Internet that has validated the hate and violence. Confronting and challenging hate face-to-face or on the Internet is essential in stopping future mass killings.

(The portrait of a mass murderer who attacks worshippers is based on research by Jillian Peterson, a psychologist and professor of criminal justice at Hamline University in Minnesota and James Densley, a sociologist and professor of criminal justice at Metropolitan State University in Minnesota.)

L'articolo Guns and God: A Strange Mix for Mass Murder proviene da InsideOver.

As the world watches in fascinated horror at America’s repeated mass shootings, President Donald Trump makes noise about tougher gun controls, then subsides into silence, fearing the loss of financial and political support of the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA).

But while the president may have more to lose than most – his base is considered to be populated with gun owners – it is a common mantra for politicians to thunder about stricter firearms legislation after events like Sandy Hook Elementary School, where 20 children aged six and seven and six adults were gunned down in 2012.

Yet the fiery rhetoric about enacting tougher gun laws after the massacre was quietly extinguished. A few months after Sandy Hook, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013and a law that would require universal background checks, were both rejected by the US Senate.

There was some action at the state level, though, with background checks initiated in four states that did not have them before, and strengthened checks in seven others. That brought the total to 18 states out of 50 participating in background checks

But a stumbling block to enact tougher gun laws is the American Constitution, bestowing the right to bear arms upon Americans. The provision is used time and again as a shield to limit legislation.

One group has taken substantive action with the NRA dead in its sights.

Earlier this month, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors – an 11-member body that oversees the county government – was so disturbed by recent mass shootings that members voted unanimously to declare the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization.”

“The NRA exists to spread pro-gun propaganda and put weapons in the hands of those who would harm and terrorize us,” Supervisor Catherine Stefani said.

While the move has no force in law, “I firmly believe that words matter and I think this is a step in fighting the negative impact of the NRA,” she said.

The NRA response was to sue San Francisco, arguing that the city declaration violated its free speech rights. The matter is in the courts.

Those against stricter gun laws, including the NRA, often say the states that beefed-up gun laws have not deterred shootings.

For example, they point to the Gilroy Food Festival shooting in California this past July. California has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, but a 19-year-old armed with a semiautomatic assault rifle managed to kill three young people and wound 12 others. It was only thanks to quick action by the police who shot the assailant that prevented more deaths.

But the problem is that while California has strict firearms legislation, nearby Nevada’s laws are much less restrictive. In California, you must be 21 to purchase a rifle. The teen shooter at Gilroy bought the gun legally in Nevada, where the age to purchase a rifle is 19.

And that is a crucial factor, because guns can be legally bought in some states and the weapons can be transported to states that have stricter laws, circumventing those laws.

In other words, every state needs to get on the same page. Federally, stricter gun legislation is a non-starter, as Republicans and Trump line up with the NRA.

To say the gun culture is deeply embedded in America is an understatement.

In 2018 the Small Arms Survey found that with a population of 320 million, US citizens have about 393 million guns, almost half the world total. The AR-15 semiautomatic – the main weapon used at Sandy Hook – is the most popular gun in America. It can fire 45 rounds a minute, but modified it can dispense nine rounds per second, more than 500 bullets a minute.

Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke said during a candidate debate earlier in September, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15.”

A Republican lawmaker responded with, “My AR is ready for you….”

The stricter gun law proponents only fire verbal bullets and the NRA continues to financially support politicians with pro-gun attitudes.

Meanwhile, 40,000 Americans died by the gun in 2017, about 24,000 by suicide

The mayhem continues.

L'articolo Gun Crazy America – The Carnage Continues proviene da InsideOver.

It’s back to school time in the United States and many students are sporting a new accessory – bulletproof backpacks.

Sales of the newest armament in the fight against random killings soared by 200 percent after mass shootings in early August, CNN reported. The El Paso, Texas, Walmart shooting left 22 dead, while the next day nine were killed in Dayton, Ohio. While these were not targeted at schools, the random attacks can occur anywhere and have frightened parents into taking measures to protect their children.

Small wonder, considering that since 2009, there have been 180 school shootings that have claimed 356 lives. The number of mass shootings is increasing.

The backpacks are fitted with lightweight body armour to protect a child in the case of a random school attack. However, there is a caveat to the bulletproof backpacks. Testing demonstrated that the product offered by a Florida company, named Guard Dog, cannot protect against projectiles from rifles and assault weapons favoured by killers. Plus of course they do not protect children from a frontal assault.

But they are just one of the safety arsenals deployed by schools.

At an expo in Florida in 2018, vendors were exhibiting products that would provide more safety at schools.

Whiteboards– mobile panels that can be linked and used as a blackboard on one side for teachers, and that contain ballistic materials to protect against bullets, were offered at $2,900 (US).

“What we want to do is just to give the kids, the teachers, a chance,” said a Whiteboard vendor. “So they can buy a few minutes.” Others offered tourniquets, pepper-ball guns and facial recognition software. Schools are upping security with metal detectors at entrances. Some schools are arming teachers while others are hiring security personnel to patrol schools.

The spate of school shootings has turned school security into a $2.7 billion market. Advocates for stricter gun control were optimistic that the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut, where 20 first-graders and six adults were gunned down, would finally result in political action to curb guns. What it did was frighten various school officials to heighten school security, but in reality little else. It was passive action, rather than prevention through tougher laws.

The gun lobby quotes the 2^ndAmendment in the American Constitution that guarantees a citizen’s right to guns. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

But the muskets of the 1770s when that right was enshrined are a far cry from weapons like today’s AR-15 that can fire 400 rounds per minute.

The powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) calls the AR-15 the “most popular rifle in America” and estimated that Americans own more than eight million of them. The NRA spends millions supporting politicians who resist more stringent gun controls and they fear the organisation’s power at the ballot box.

America requires strong leadership to take action on instigating more stringent background checks and prohibition of weapons like the AR-15. They are not going to get it from President Donald Trump, who is under the sway of the NRA.

Following three mass shootings in California, Texas and Ohio over three weeks, the mercurial president said on Aug. 20 he supported efforts to tighten gun laws. A few days later, after being reminded by the powerful gun lobby they helped propel him into the White House, he walked back his support.

“A lot of the people who put me where I am are strong believers in the 2^ndAmendment, and I am also,” Trump said.

It is often said by gun supporters that the perpetrators of these mass murders are mentally ill, conveniently leaving out that other countries have mentally ill people and they do not have the rampant mass killings like the United States. While states that do have more stringent gun controls, like California, suffer from the fact that guns can be brought in from other states who do not have those regulations.

So for the parents, trivial matters such as whether Johnny got an ‘A’ in Geography cease to exist – the real question is whether Johnny got home in one piece.

L'articolo Bulletproof Backpacks Make Up Back to School Uniform in US proviene da InsideOver.

The second amendment, ratified in December of 1792, to the United States Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

In the past nine days, there have been four incidents of mass murder in American cities. One in Brooklyn, New York that left one person dead and 12 injured and one at a festival in Gilroy, California that left four dead and 12 injured. In less than 24 hours this weekend, America experienced two mass shootings. One at a Wal-Mart in El Paso, Texas and another at a bar in Dayton, Ohio. Combined, 29 people were killed and 43 were injured. In 2019 alone, there have been 251 mass shootings resulting in 271 deaths and 1036 people injured within the United States.

Ever since the phrase “I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands” was popularized by the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the 1970’s, gun control conversation in America has grown increasingly combative. In fact, healthy dialogue is practically non-existent.

Gun control is more polarizing than universal health care, taxes, and free college – combined. And over the past few years, mass murder has become more associated with immigration and race than anything else. The race of victims of mass murder vary. However, according to Statista.com, between 1982 and May of 2019, roughly 56% of mass murders have been perpetrated by white shooters, totalling 62 out of the 111 shootings considered.

According to a 2018 report by the Rand Corporation, there is no definition of “mass murder.” Rand points out that, in the 80s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defined “mass murder” as someone who “kills four or more people (not including himself) in a single incident and location.” The government itself has never defined mass murder. There is also no universally accepted definition of it among the media or in academia.

This leaves a wide berth of interpretation among journalists, media outlets, academics, pro/anti-gun groups and law enforcement. As you might expect, this results in a wide range of emotional conversations, depending on your stance on gun control.

Mass murders are typically categorized as “active shooters” by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. An “active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area…” The FBI reports that mass murders, or “active shooter incidents” are on the rise.

Now you might think that even the most zealous of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters in America might find school shootings troublesome. Perhaps even prompt some kind of legislative action. In reality, the data suggests a different story.

Similar to the nebulous definition of mass murder, the definition, or interpretation, of “school shooting” can vary. However, it’s not uncommon for most media and agencies to treat any shooting on school property as a “school shooting.”

Using that rubric, to date in 2019, there have been 22 school shootings which have resulted in death or injury. According to a recent report by CNN, data indicates that school shootings, just like mass murder, are increasing. The school shooting data covers 2009-2018. There are many ways in which one can examine the data. However, any way you look at it, it’s alarming.

Whatever party resides in the White House loves comparing themselves to their predecessor. With that said, President Barack Obama took office in January of 2009, at the peak of the financial crisis and great strife in the country. President Donald Trump took office in January of 2017, as unemployment was at record lows and the economy was in fine condition.

In the first two years of the Obama administration, there were 21 school shootings. In the first two years of the Trump administration, there were 56 school shootings. This is a 141% increase.

Looking at school shootings in relation to region of the country is, like many gun discussions, inconclusive. The prevailing thought might be that school shootings would take place in the more perceived “gun popular” states of the south. However, the data shirks that. In fact, one of the more progressive states in America, California, is responsible for almost 11% of school shootings. Admittedly, California has the largest population in the United States.

Where the school is located appears to play a negligible role in school shootings. Between 2009 and 2018, about 44% of the shootings took place at an urban school, 40% at a suburban school and 14% at rural schools. At the same time, the educational facility targeted is not negligible; about 66% of the schools were high schools.

While race and religion play a role in mass murders, those are not motivating factors in school shootings. In other words, school shootings are not typically racially or religiously inspired. In fact, it’s mostly white schools who have the most school shootings. They’re also the most deadly, with an average of three people dying.

One repeated talking point from the gun control lobby is that the Second Amendment was written at a time when no one would have foreseen the types of guns we have today. The guns available to purchase for the majority of Americans, under the auspices of self-defense, are not dissimilar from those carried by active combat soldiers during wartime.

That seems unlikely to change. In 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie (at first sight), to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

Not to mention that, since 2000, the only laws that were enacted or expired were of benefit to the gun advocates. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994. The law “banned semi-automatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices (clips).” Unfortunately, after being enforced for ten years, the law expired in 2004.

That same year, 2004, saw the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act voted into law. This granted “current, and former, law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws.”

In 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act became law. This law “prevents firearms manufacturers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.”

On the contrary, in February of this year, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 passed the US House of Representatives. Despite its title, the bill squeaked by, mostly along party lines. If it becomes law, it would close the loophole that only made licensed gun dealers conduct a background check. The bill mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including private sales, like those at gun shows.

Advocates of the bill say that it’s a big step forward. The bill’s sponsor, Democratic Representative Mike Thompson, referred to the bill as “historic”, and that the expanded background checks would “help save lives”.

Opponents of the bill fear that it will prohibit law abiding citizens from getting a gun. Republican Representative Representative Steve Scalise, severely injured during a shooting at a congressional baseball practice in 2017, said the bill would “strongly infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens”.

While the House of Representatives approved the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, it now waits for Congress to approve it. Given the current party disparity there, the absolute inability of the legislative arm to unite behind anything, and the divisiveness of the topic, it faces an uphill battle for approval. However, even if approved, President Trump has signaled that he would veto it.

According to a poll from Quinnipiac University in January of 2019, 56% of Americans support stricter gun laws, 92% support background checks and 52% feel America would be less safe if more people carried guns. In short, it appears like Americans want, at the very least, to have a discussion about gun control.

Given the legislative malaise around gun control, it’s evident that the legislators don’t appear to want that. Even though those very legislators are supposed to represent their constituents.

Despite mass murders and school shootings increasing, the needle on gun legislation remains unmoved. Even in casual conversation, the mention of any gun dialogue will prove inflammatory, regardless of your political ideology. In all likelihood, even after this past nine days in El Paso and Dayton, and Brooklyn and Gilroy before that, gun discussion will further polarize, and likely paralyze, America. Historically, that’s been the case.

In the meantime, the month of August is the peak back to school season in the United States. In light of recent events, it will force school administrators to revisit their “active shooter” plans. This is a reality in American schools. These plans are routinely tested in American schools and treated the same as fire drills.

Without any discussion, at the very least, the data indicates that there won’t be a decrease in mass murders or school shootings this year.

In fact, all the data points to just the opposite.

L'articolo The US’ Unyielding Gun Problem proviene da InsideOver.

Following the El Paso and Ohio shootings last weekend, which cost a total of 29 lives altogether, US President Donald Trump admitted that “perhaps more has to be done” to prevent these attacks from becoming more frequent. Sky News produced an opinion piece claiming that nothing will change in the face of these incidents. But the more they occur, will politicians, US Republicans in particular, do anything about gun reform? And do America’s gun laws need changing?

It is easy for British journalists to approach this subject and claim that Congress must make it tougher for citizens to acquire firearms, but this attitude fails to appreciate America’s historical and constitutional attachments to the right to bear arms. Following the 1996 Dunblane massacre which led to the deaths of 16 five and six-year-olds, Britain brought in the toughest firearms legislation in the world. However, Economy states that there are 1.3 million licensed shotguns and 530,000 legally licensed firearms in the UK, proving that British law does not prohibit gun ownership altogether. Yet this country has never had a gun culture to the extent America has.

The right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. It guards citizens’ rights to defend themselves in case their home is invaded. Since the UK passed its own strict firearms legislation, that same right has been questioned in the UK, following farmer Tony Martin’s decision to shoot a burglar invading his Norfolk home dead in 1999. If someone burgles your house, you have a right to protect it, which is one argument for why no US government should ever rob individuals of their right to own firearms altogether.

Many Republicans disagree with background checks on individuals. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was lambasted on Twitter for failing to pass the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, which eight Republicans voted for in the House of Representatives before it was passed to the upper chamber. USA Today says that this legislation would prohibit most person-to-person firearm transfers unless a background check can be conducted, aiming to close a potential loophole that allows the transfer of firearms without a background check at gun shows or between individuals. Whilst this idea sounds good in principle, it could also paint the majority of sensible gun owners with the same brush as irresponsible ones.

That is not to say Republicans cannot support gun reform – they can. There is growing support among conservatives for legislation that does not rob citizens of their right to bear firearms. Following last year’s shooting in Parkland, The Washington Post discovered that 50 percent of Republican voters favour stricter gun laws. Some Republicans, such as Ivanka Trump and Senator Lindsey Graham, have proposed new ‘red-flag’ laws, which would allow family members or law enforcement to limit a person’s access to firearms if they are deemed a potential threat to the public. This suggestion would allow families and the police to prevent unstable individuals from using guns as freely.

However, many Republicans find themselves at the mercy of NRA attack ads if they support any change to the law. They have too much influence, and that is thanks to the US’ weak lobbying laws. The Honest and Open Government Act of 2007 was embraced by both parties as a historic breakthrough that would prevent lawmakers swapping over to top jobs in the lobbying sector. But since the law took effect in January 2008, POLITICO found that almost half of the 352 politicians who have left Congress have since joined the influence industry.

Following Sunday’s massacre, the New York Times suggests that although the gun lobbyists still outspend gun reformers considerably, Ohio and Texas have inspired politicians to try and change this violent culture. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut wants to discuss with his Republican colleagues how they can implement sensible firearms legislation. Republican Senator Marco Rubio is willing to work with Senator Graham to support extreme-risk protection orders. Perhaps Congress is closer to reaching a compromise.

The shootings that occurred in Texas and Ohio cannot afford to be repeated again. Both incidents happened in a short space of time. The Democrats and the Republicans must reach a settlement on gun reform soon. There is no reason why conservatives cannot support adequate gun control. But two questions remain: will anything change with Senator McConnell leading the Senate Republicans? And is this party willing to challenge the NRA that lobbies them so hard? Senators Rubio and Graham have produced some good ideas here, but until more conservatives are willing to accept something needs to change, it is unlikely anything substantial will emerge from last weekend’s massacres.

L'articolo Can US Republicans Ever Support Gun Reform? proviene da InsideOver.