This might cost Trump the re-election

[GilpinGuy'sDad]

I don't usually put much faith in info wars, but if this passes he loses.

https://www.infowars.com/trump-administration-considering-social-credit-score-system-to-determine-who-can-buy-a-gun/

[beast556]

Anything is a possibility, but I don't see this happening any time soon.

[davsel]

Never gonna happen

InfoWars [ROFL1]

[newracer]

No way it will happen.

[Ramsker]

I generally trust about .5% of anything I know came from Infowars.

[Justin]

Trump likes to A/B test things and throw out blue sky ideas.

Then the press takes those ideas and runs with them as if they're chiseled into stone.

I don't see this happening, especially if the NRA still has his ear.

[Great-Kazoo]

I generally trust about .5% of anything I know came from Infowars.

Agreed. now if IW was honest about the story (go figure) they would have credited it to the op-ed writer N. Sprout former something of the AZ republican party.
OP-ED originally ran in Azcentral.com on sept 1st
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2019/09/01/fico-score-gun-ownership-practical-solution-worth-debating/2133278001/?fbclid=IwAR2jx6NW_NyFIQ5c2lYDFutlc083-BZuLcX_cN0qvYg_fecuJzX0l7FJ4n8

[Martinjmpr]

I generally trust about .5% of anything I know came from Infowars.

That's about .6% more than me.

If InfoWars said the sun rises in the east I would wake up early the next day and double check it with a compass.

[drew890]

To me it looks like a possible fake news plant to erode gun rights voters support of Trump.
More and more disinformation warfare articles will be unleashed to splinter conservative voters as the next big election gets closer.

[hollohas]

Wording is everything. Follow the circle jerk links to the many iterations of the same story on the subject and you'll find..

"The White House has been briefed on a proposal to develop a way to identify early signs of changes in people with mental illness that could lead to violent behavior."

So, someone told someone else in the White House that someone, somewhere had an idea that they could use the web to spy on people and their behavior. And now all of the sudden it's "Trump is considering a plan". And my guess is "briefed" actually means "briefly mentioned while passing the the hallway".

Hogwash.

Like it was said by drew890 above, it's a media plant to hurt Trump with the pro-2A folks. Just like the B.S. plants that created the Russia email garbage targeting drunk low level staffers in bars.

[Gman]

Part of me thinks this is Trump's way of making it look like he's open to ideas, but he's not serious about it.

...then the other part of me remembers the bullshit with bump stocks.

[wctriumph]

I don't see this in my lifetime. After I'm dead, maybe in 30 years, it could be a possibility but I won't care at that point. Until then I will fight it by sending emails and leaving voicemails with my elected superiors.

[GilpinGuy'sDad]

I hope you are all wrong, but I will point to three things that the "experts" predicted.
1. Obama would lose his second term by a large margin.
2. Hillary would be the next president.
3. Trump would never be president

BTY, saddened by #1, elated that #2 didn't happen, glad of #3.

You never know😎

[OtterbatHellcat]

What's with the user name choice,....Dad?

[Irving]

What's with the user name choice,....Dad?

You get 10 guesses and only one of them counts.

Here's a hint. https://www.ar-15.co/threads/67195-Just-saying-hello!?p=670695#post670695

[OtterbatHellcat]

Yeah....I just found out.

That's cool, I just thought it unusual so I asked.

[izzy]

I generally trust about 0% of anything I know came from Infowars.

Fify

[glock74]

It won?t happen.

[eddiememphis]

Sproul is a PR guy. His career is built upon getting people to like his customers. When he sees the wind blowing left, he will tilt that way.

The article makes no sense. There is a poor basis for his point (private property ownership never killed anyone) and concludes with, "Ultimately, anything that demonstrates a difference of behavior should generate a warning sign and make it more difficult to purchase firearms."

Which means nothing.

Nonsense that he had published to attract more businesses to his consulting services as politics continue the leftward shift.

[Martinjmpr]

Sproul is a PR guy. His career is built upon getting people to like his customers. When he sees the wind blowing left, he will tilt that way.

The article makes no sense. There is a poor basis for his point (private property ownership never killed anyone) and concludes with, "Ultimately, anything that demonstrates a difference of behavior should generate a warning sign and make it more difficult to purchase firearms."

Which means nothing.

Nonsense that he had published to attract more businesses to his consulting services as politics continue the leftward shift.

Or maybe it's even simpler than that. Maybe he subscribes to the philosophy that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" and the purpose of publishing that was to draw attention, in which case

78845