>>773941 (last bread)
Isn't a bumpstock much less accurate than a proper full-auto machine gun? The whole rifle is bouncing in and out on every round, on a spring that may impart some sideways or vertical movement to the stock. That's enough reason to ban it in my opinion. If you going to have a machine gun, at least do it right and have an accurate one. Why would I allow something highly likely to spray and hurt or kill innocent bystanders?
I know there's a difference because cars aren't in the Constitution, except maybe the commerce clause. But maybe it's a little bit like the "well regulated" idea – which is endlessly debated in the 2nd Amendment.
Not this member of his base. The more I look into this budget, the slightly less awful it seems.
Main problem is that it overspends. But fiscal stimulus usually creates good times, and with his Fed chairman withdrawing monetary stimulus, some fiscal could be nice.
So if one considers fiscal semi-years, would it be a budget for that? They'll re-vote in 6 months. And the crap could be cut then, but the military stuff could be cut then too, couldn't it?
Or does the bill say the military is more protected than the other stuff, in the revote in 6 months?
No he has no line-item veto. Reagan did that (seemed like a lot of chutzpah to do it even then, I remember it) and was slapped down explicitly by the courts.
He asked for Congress to give him a line-item veto power. That sounds extremely unlikely to happen.
>www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/23/president-trump-issues-order-to-ban-transgender-troops-from-service-except-in-limited-circumstances.html
I approve of Trump doing this. I wonder what the "limited circumstances" are. But while it may be possible to work around all the complications transgender bring, it is more efficient to make it a disqualifying condition like bone spurs.