Amazon.com Widgets
  • Bipartisanship In This Case Means No NRA

    The NRA has totally charted out unreasonable positions on gun control as of late. At the moment, its on members of the GOP to split away from that special interest group in the name of bipartisanship. However, I severely doubt that there will be GOP politicians who have the guts to actually do that.

    Posted by: rpr
  • Opportunity

    This is a great chance for somebody in the GOP to come out and show the country that while the party has more lunatics in it than ever before, there are still people that can carry an R next to their name and have some credibility. Both parties need to tell the NRA to take their "scores" and shove it and do something together for the country, for once.

  • Bipartisanship Needed in Gun Laws

    Yes, bipartisanship is needed in order to have any sort of lasting decisions / laws regarding gun ownership, gun usage, and gun safety. The two major parties seem to be getting farther and farther apart instead of attempting to meet on common ground. This can only result in one side voting in laws that the other side will immediately vote to change once they are "in power." Bipartisanship is certainly needed. Whether it will come about is doubtful in the extreme.

  • Yes, but I don't foresee that happening any time soon.

    Gun Laws, like any major political issue, will require bipartisanship to find long lasting solutions. However, there is an increasingly thick line being drawn in the sand when it comes to politics. Both political parties have been becoming very extreme and compromise seems highly unlikely. Unless it does happen though, the democrats will enact laws when they are in power that the republicans will remove when they are in power and vice versa. No real change will happen without it.

  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.