If you'd bothered to read your own articles, you'd realize that despite your failed attempt to understand the headline, what it's really saying is that Iowa, like other states, is
continuing to grant gun permits to the blind, as doing otherwise would be illegal discrimination. This is not a change, it's the same as it's always been.
This article starts off by talking about firearm transportation and shipping firearms overseas. It only gets into an applicable territory when it talks about him rolling back the provision which converted many SSI recipients into a prohibited class. That rule, mind you, lasted exactly
forty days. So no, it wasn't really made easier, it was simply put back the way it was a few weeks earlier.
Oh, look, another article about the exact same thing. I'm
sooo glad you bother to read your own articles. I might add, also, that the ACLU as well as many other civil liberty and disability advocates strongly disagreed with the original ruling and cheered when it was was repealed.
Most of this article does the same as previous ones; it talks about transportation and location restrictions, not about obtaining a firearm. The only part of this article that touches on that is stating that Wisconsin did away with a 48-hour waiting period for handguns. How about I counter that with
Illinois extending their 3-day waiting period to cover all firearms,
Washington extending their 10-day waiting period to cover semi-automatic rifles, and
New York extending their 3-day waiting period for delayed transactions to 30 days.
And this article has nothing to do with anything becoming faster or easier. It just arbitrarily states that it's "easy" based on nothing more than opinion. But these are the same or even more rigorous background checks being performed than were done before. It may be a bit of a faster process due to advances in the system via electronic input and response, but that's about it.
So yeah, try again, champ.
- - - Updated - - -
His point wasn't that everyone should be able to have full-auto firearms made available at lemonade stands. His point was that any step to limit both option and availability should have to be eminently justifiable, and not just on a "we shouldn't have these" basis.
I think most of us feel that there's enough basis to warrant restricting access to full-auto firearms and for firearms to not be made available at lemonade stands.