Immigration reform does not mean punish immigrants.

NRA only has around 5 million members. For a presidential race or a Senate race in a purple state yeah they're an important voting block but for small house races or solid red senate races they're importance i much smaller. Their money is far more valuable because if Republicans were smart they'd push for reasonable gun control like background checks because the Democrats aren't going to change their platform to appease the NRA.

Well thats a dangerous way of thinking about it. Yeah to some extent lifes should be put over people's rights but if it means limiting someones rights that almost everyone else have then it's an issue.

Trump admin plans to crack down on parts of the internet that radicialize people and crack down on violent video games.https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gaming/trump-video-games-toledo-shooting-8chan-el-paso-press-conference-today-a9040066.html
Smh, Video games dont cause people to be viokent.

It seems that “Make America Great Again” only applies to white people in the US. Apparently when it comes to non-whites it is “Love it or leave it.”

Somehow the hypocrisy flies right over the head of his culty followers.

Its called a "scapegoat".

Republicans point at all this other nonsense as an excuse to not do anything to improve gun control.

This is the reason Republicans often get criticized for being anti-science. Video Game violence became a partisan issue right around the time when the science concluded that video games aren't to blame. Democrats largely moved on while Republicans decided that they can still fearmonger for a few more years.

Theres a few of those I have issues with.

4) I'm not sure how effective psych evaluations would actually be. I'd have to see data on that. Generally, mental health concerns are more of a scapegoat and many methods of addressing it actually make the problem worse. Further, I think every three years is too burdensome. I would say with the original licensing and leave it at that.

6) I'm not sure if this would actually have any real benefit. You don't really need more than four guns to inflict maximum damage.

7) Through what means would this be enforced?

12) Under a reasonable belief of danger, sure.

Generally, I'll say that the efficacy of many of these suggestions is up in the air but I think most are fairly reasonable.

I'd also add a few things:

a) Increasing those restricted from ownership to include those who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors or substance abuse (with a set time period for restoration of rights)

b) Federalize the concealed carry system and include proficiency training and emergency training

c) Automatically remove guns when temporary restraining order is issued

There are a bunch of other smaller things, but this would be a solid start.

I think all the ones I didnt cross over would work well.

1. That's illegal.

4. If it's a free evaluation sure but if not then it's a bad idea because it just puts a burden on poor gun owners.

6. There's no need for this.

9. Depends on the crime. Criminals should not be treated like 2nd class citizens because of their past mistakes. They've served their time and should be allowed to fully integrate and that includes owning a gun if they want.

10/11. If someone illegally owns a guns or sold one but have shown no intention to harm someone or has not harmed someone with it they should be punished but to a lesser extent.

12. If the authorities are taking away a private belonging the person should be able to fight/question it. And this would probably be illegal and possibly unconstitutional.

The El Paso shooting is leading to a rise in gun sales in the area. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/05/el-paso-gun-sales-hispanic-americans-rush-to-buy-weapons

Since we are talking about changing laws and implementing new laws, that is kind of a moot point.

Well I don't think the government should keep tabs on what we buy anyway.