Evolution in Progress – Trump on Guns [VIDEO]

Donald Trump is the frontrunner in the Republican field of presidential contenders at this time. He says that he is for the Second Amendment. All candidates say that they are for the Second Amendment, but many of them are lying. President Obama, for example, seems to think that the Second Amendment is about hunting. John Lott has written that while at the University of Chicago, Barrack Obama told him that he believed that people should not be allowed to have guns. Back in 2000, Donald Trump wrote a book about his solutions to America’s problems. In it, he made his most controversial statements about gun control . . .

 He wrote in The America We Deserve, p. 102,

It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions.

And there’s this:

I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
To Second Amendment supporters, that’s not good. But that was 15 years ago. The assault weapon ban was the law at the time, so Trump was only supporting what already existed. Even George W. Bush said that he would sign an assault weapon ban if it came to his desk for renewal.
What has changed since then to educate Trump or change his views?

Fifteen years ago, Donald Trump’s two oldest sons were 22 and 16. Both of them are ardent hunters and Second Amendment supporters. Trump says that they have become his most trusted source for information on gun issues. It seems that they have educated him on some of the finer points of the gun debate.

In 2012, Donald defended their right to hunt, even though he is not a hunter.

Their father does not share the views of his sons, and the elder Donald told TMZ that ‘My sons love hunting. They’re hunters and they’ve become good at it. I am not a believer in hunting and I’m surprised they like it.’

‘I know that anything they did was 100% OK in terms of the hunting community,’ Mr Trump continued.

The star of “Celebrity Apprentice” said he owns a “H&K .45 and a .38 Smith & Wesson.”

Asked about the gun-control measures being pushed by people like New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Mr. Trump said that, “The way I view it, if nobody has guns, then only the bad guys have them. And they aren’t giving up their guns.”

I mentioned the dangers of gun-free zones like Washington, D.C. and, largely, Manhattan because of all the red tape it takes to exercise the right to bear arms.

Mr. Trump said an example of this was seen in the Aurora, Colo. shooting. “If some of the people in the movie theater had a gun, they’d have been shooting at him. Nobody had a gun so they were totally defenseless.”

The Donald is a true Second Amendment enthusiast.

In January of 2014, The Donald was considering a run for Governor of New York. He invited some Second Amendment supporters to his penthouse. From politicsny.net:

I was pleased to discover Mr. Trump is a strong defender of our Second Amendment rights – and his two boys are firearms enthusiasts.

Polls showed that New York gun owners hate the SAFE Act, but that most Empire State voters approved of it:

Although the law is wildly unpopular with gun enthusiasts, it is supported by a majority of New Yorkers, polls show. A recent Siena Poll found that 63% of state voters back the SAFE Act and 32% oppose it.

Trump didn’t follow the polls. He spoke at rallies and condemned the SAFE Act at every turn. The SAFE Act severely restricts so-called “assault weapons.”

Here is Trump on the SAFE Act in March of 2014:

“You have the SAFE Act, which is a total catastrophe. It’s hard to believe it even got passed. Look, you’re sitting at home and a bad guy walks in with a gun. At least you want to have a shot at it, right? You don’t want to be defenseless… But this SAFE Act is a disaster. Whoever ultimately is going to be the nominee for the Republicans, they better bring it up very loud and clear because that act is a catastrophe. I call it the unSAFE Act.”

From an April 2014 rally in Albany against the SAFE Act:

“You have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You have that right and they want to take it away,” Trump said. “And they are taking it away, slowly but surely, they are taking it away.”

Trump’s thinking seems to have changed. Fifteen years of exposure to two respected sons that are Second Amendment enthusiasts might have done that.

 

There are several themes that are clear from Donald Trump’s statements on the Second Amendment. First, he strongly associates the Second Amendment with self defense. That’s in opposition to nearly all anti-gunners. In the Heller decision of 2008, the Supreme Court Decision held that the Second Amendment applied to self defense. Anti-gunners dismiss Heller as nonsense.

Second, Trump has always said that gun control laws will only disarm the good guys. The bad guys will then be the only ones with guns.  Again, this is an enormous departure from the anti-gun position. They never concede that point, because it undermines their whole argument.

Third, Trump now appears to understand that the anti-gunners’ game is incremental degradation of the right to keep and bear arms.  This shows a much greater understanding of the topic than he had back in 2000. From the video, starting about 6:10:

What does the Second Amendment mean to you?

“Above all, Protection, and these people that want to chop it down, knock it down, decapitate it, it shouldn’t be allowed  should never be allowed.  Let me tell you, if I run, if I win it is protected.”

In this video from the NRA meeting, Trump introduces his sons and repeats the themes that he has since built on about the Second Amendment, the Iranian nuclear deal, ISIS, and Immigration.

AmmoLand interviewed Trump in July of 2015:

AmmoLand: The deceptive term “Assault Weapons” has proven to be a buzz word among the anti-gun media. Back in 2000 in your book “The America We Deserve” you wrote “The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse to even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.” Since that time the AR15 rifle, what the media calls an “assault weapons“, has become America’s most popular firearm with millions and millions of them owned by good people.

Do you still stand by this quote or has your thinking evolved over the 15 years since you wrote that line?

Trump: I certainly stand by my opposition to Gun Control when it comes to taking guns from law-abiding citizens. You mention that the media describes the AR-15 as an “assault rifle,” which is one example of the many distortions they use to sell their agenda. However, the AR-15 does not fall under this category. Gun-banners are unfortunately preoccupied with the AR-15, magazine capacity, grips, and other aesthetics, precisely because of its popularity.

To the Left every gun is an assault weapon.

Gun control does not reduce crime. It has consistently failed to stop violence. Americans are entitled to protect their families, their property and themselves. In fact, in right-to-carry states the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the United States and the murder rate is 28% lower. This should not be up for debate.

Trump has clearly changed his views on “assault weapons” and “waiting periods” Here is what he told Ammoland about “background checks”:

I do not support expanding background checks. The current background checks do not work.

They make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to acquire firearms while consistently failing to stop criminals from getting guns. We should re-examine our policy to make sure that these prohibitions do not impede law abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

The entire interview is well worth reading.

Has Donald Trump changed his views about the Second Amendment? It seems that his views have evolved through education. Fifteen years ago, he likely had a murkier understanding of what “assault weapons” were. He didn’t know how ineffective the current background check system is.

However he always believed that the Second Amendment applied to self defense, and that disarming good guys would leave the bad guys armed.

That makes him a bit different from most of the political pack.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Gun Watch

comments

  1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    Oh, boy. I’m thinking another fudd in a suit. It is a sad world when the leading presidential candidates are a traitor(Benghazi, unsecure classified documents “allegedly”) and a reality TV star.

    1. avatar Steve says:

      That’s right. Reality TV star. It’s not like he is one of the most successful real estate developers in the world.
      He also has written a couple of books.

      1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

        There are a lot of rich real estate developers, some have even written books. Trump maintained his place as a household name by staying in the spotlight. He has done this by “acting” and pissing other famous people off in the public. If the election was tomorrow and the vote was Hildabeast or him, the choice would be easy for me. I just hope for once we could separate the country from a 2 party system and elect a leader that follows the constitution.

        1. avatar WedelJ says:

          I agree with your points, but the 2 party system will never go away. Maybe we ould get it to retreat for a time, but it will always come back.

          Remember, great is the enemy of good. Just because something isn’t the best, doesn’t mean it’s not better than everything else.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          What we know of it so far, delineated above, what part of Trump’s proposals do you believe are unconstitutional? As far as I know, there is a question on the constitutionality of refusing citizenship to anchor babies, otherwise I see nothing,

      2. avatar Billy-bob says:

        So already more qualified than Muslim in Chief Barry Sotero was.

        1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

          Only if sucking even harder off of the Fed’s teat, is what “being qualified” is code for…..

          If Hairpiece and Hillary are the best America can do, I’ll stick with the Muslims. At least those guys have cool trucks with cool guns mounted on them. And, none of them have so far robbed me of one penny of my income.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          SM, who is it you believe is paying for both sides of those wars? Like, Trillions of your dollars.

    2. avatar BLAMMO says:

      Yeah, Mitt Romney only looked like a game show host. Donald Trump actually is a game show host.

      1. avatar Big E says:

        I laughed.

        Trump is a vain buffoon, but he isn’t evil like Hillary and her ilk.

    3. avatar Jim R says:

      You forgot about the self-avowed hardcore socialist.

    4. avatar BoB says:

      TRUMP!!!!!

    5. avatar Luke says:

      ” I’m thinking ….”

      Don’t hurt yourself there, Grizzle.

      1. avatar Wood says:

        Care to contribute to the discussion, or are you just here for hit and run personal attacks?

      2. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

        Unless Trump stands up in front of a crowd of supporters and says he is a 2Asupporter and says he is going to encourage Congress /Senate to decrease ATF funding, and support a change to the NFA, I will stand by what I said. All presidential hopefuls tell a majority of the people what they think they want to hear. All presidents do what they “feel” after being elected. Right now it is something cool to support 2A, if some unfortunate tragedy befallen this country before next November he may be singing a different tune.

        1. avatar SteveW says:

          Look, it’s not like I _want_ President Trump. But to give the Donald his due he, at the anti-SAFE Act rally in Albany pretty much did what you just asked of him.

    6. avatar Mark Lee says:

      That’s just a step sideways from what Reagan was when he ran, except that he had some experience running California. Having never lived there myself, I can’t figure how or why it turned itself into Kalifornia – especially having the Governator in office for awhile. There’s probably a good summary of that tragedy somewhere out there.

      But the POTUS theater continues. I’d like to see lots of 2A supporters in “town hall” meetings with all of the candidates forced to take a position on the ineffective assault on 2A rights.

      1. Could it be very high numbers of Illegal aliens and very lax voter registration laws?

      2. avatar John says:

        The modern police state of Kalifornia began after Reagan banned open carry of loaded firearms in “incorporated” areas of the state! Fuck that guy.

  2. avatar Rabbi says:

    I recently read something (perhaps here) that most of his properties do not permit firearms??

    1. avatar younggun21 says:

      Not defending the man, but many of his properties are casinos which by law prohibit firearms despite what the owner wants or thinks on the matter.

    2. avatar Removed_Californian says:

      Best I understood is that the facilities follow the local codes regarding guns. But I can be mistaken.

  3. avatar BDub says:

    Trump has clearly changed his views on “assault weapons” and “waiting periods”

    Has he….has he really? You’re Fired!

    1. avatar JSJ says:

      …and changed his position on abortion, single-payer healthcare, a millionaire tax.. all miraculously overnight. Trump is no more a Republican than I am the Pope.
      This guy is a lifelong democrat doing a favor for his buddy Bill Clinton and having a blast doing it. That whole Birther schtick was revenge for Barry beating his buddy’s wife.

  4. avatar tfunk says:

    My views have changed some during the last few years as well. From “well, I guess background checks are ok” to “…shall not be infringed”

    It happens.

    1. avatar whatever says:

      I’ve had associates change their 2A views after careful persuasion; so it’s not at all out of the equation. I also think all the conspiracy talk about Clinton is just silly. He’s also the only candidate that has placed H1 abuse front-and-center of the political debate. I’m very close to dumping the Democrats entirely and supporting Trump. It all depends on whether Bernie voices unequivocal support for 2A.

      1. avatar not whatever says:

        If you don’t know Bernie’s gun control beliefs, then you clearly haven’t been paying attention.

        He said, quite clearly, that guns not used for hunting should be banned.

        Why people want to vote for a dingbat socialist, I have no idea.

        1. avatar whatever says:

          Why should I listen to someone who’s first resort is stomping, pouting and name-calling?

        2. avatar whatever says:

          I want to see a Trump vs. Sanders presidential race. It would be the most no-bullshit presidential debate in 50 years.

        3. avatar Wood says:

          Good one. All campaigns are BS. Theater for those who lack the drive to research past performance. Hard to do with trump, of course.

        4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Why should I listen to someone who’s first resort is stomping, pouting and name-calling?”

          Well, good grief. Don’t listen to him then and do your own research.

          Sanders has said that. I’m sure you can find if you try just a little.

          Aw, what the heck. Here you go:

          https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Bernie+Sanders+on+Gun+Control&t=ffsb

          He’s a gun-grabber through and through. For example, he wants to ban gun ownership from people “who might hurt others.” Now, how the HELL can that be predicted? It’s awfully vague.

  5. avatar Stinkeye says:

    Fascinating analysis, but ultimately, it doesn’t matter. Even if Trump were a serious candidate and not an egomaniac just looking for attention (I believe he’s the latter), with all the right views on all the right topics, he still wouldn’t have a chance. He’s an outsider, and the last two centuries have been spent in a bipartisan effort to lock the system down and prevent exactly such candidates from getting very far in the electoral process.

    The last few decades have really accelerated this process, to the point where you can’t get anywhere if you don’t have the blessing of party leaders and the power elite who give them their marching orders. This is true on both sides, and it’s pretty easy to enforce nowadays. A rigged primary system gives party insiders a massive edge, and there are plenty of hurdles to make it difficult for a third-party or independent candidate to even get on the ballot. Electronic voting with no paper trail means there won’t be any unexpected upsets on election day.

    So, good for Trump for evolving his views on RKBA. But our next president is all but guaranteed to be “iffy” on the topic, at best, because that’s what the “elites” who appoint that office want. The absolute last thing they’re going to allow is an independently-wealthy “loose cannon” president they can’t control.

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      Arnold Schwarzenegger made governor, and stranger things have happened.

      1. avatar bob says:

        Perhaps he should practice “Get to da choppa!!”

        1. avatar Wood says:

          It’s notta tuma!

      2. avatar Stinkeye says:

        Schwarzenegger’s election sort of backs up my argument, though. He was asked to run by the Republican party. He had approval from all the movers and shakers in the California GOP, having met with guys like Karl Rove and Ken Lay (presumably to get their blessing) before jumping into the race. Quite a different story than Trump’s “screw you guys, I’m rich enough to do whatever I want” approach.

      3. avatar Stuki Moi says:

        Lots of good that did the world…….

        Self promoting hacks are just that. As in, really Just that.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Speaking as a Walker/Cruz fan: Trump may be the only Republican candidate who can defeat the Establishment GOP/Chamber of Commerce Chosen One, Jeb Bush, and their carefully constructed plan to win him the nomination by plurality.

      1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        Jeb Bush has now defeated Jeb Bush. He’s now on the record as making a speech (in Spanish) promising that if he’s elected, he’ll sign a bill granting amnesty.

        And he’s on the record as saying that the NSA needs more powers to eavesdrop on US citizens.

        The only advantage that Jeb Bush has left is the number of cronies giving him money. But he’s now done.

  6. avatar Grege says:

    What are good views on the Hughes Amendment and the NFA?

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      That they should be repealed and that such laws themselves be made highly illegal.

      End of.

  7. avatar Shire-man says:

    Cute people still thinks politics matters to us little people.
    These people believe in nothing but themselves.
    We’re ants to them. Our rights don’t matter. Our property doesnt matter. Our lives don’t matter. Some of us waste away in prison for choices the politicians made. Some of out bodies rot under dirt for the choices politicians made.

    Even dead a politician is no good for the corpse kills the soil as it decays.

    But we get the glorious luxury of begging and pleading with politicians to please permit us to retain some liberty in our worthless shit lives here in the greatest country on earth so by all means get out the vote.

    1. avatar Galtha58 says:

      Stop it Shire man. You are depressing me….;-) ! Take your Prozac and lighten up and enjoy life.

      1. avatar whatever says:

        People like Shire-man forget that these politicians very much effect our day-to-day lives, so completely dropping out is never a good option. It’s better to “throw-away” your vote on an outsider than stand around and wait to get run-over.

        1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

          Just vote for Rand. I’m 99% sure he won’t do anything useful either, but at least with him, there’s some chance of an upside surprise. He was raised well, after all. The rest of the rabble ranks well behind Mullah Omar in palatability. And with no potential whatsoever for an upside surprise.

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      But we get the glorious luxury of begging and pleading with politicians to please permit us to retain some liberty….well at least I would agree with that.

    3. I used to buy into some anarchist nonsense. Then I read a fair amount of history and research about societies that lacked effective governments. The death by violence rate in societies without governments is several times higher than even the Stalinist Soviet Union and NAZI Germany. From War Before Civilization:

      Average for 27 non-state societies: 524 per 100,000
      Germany (20th century): 144 per 100,000
      Soviet Union/Russia (20th century): 135 per 100,000
      Japan (20th century): 27 per 100,000
      United States (20th century): 3.7 per 100,000
      Entire world (20th century; state-based violence)*: 60 per 100,000

      * that is, war, genocide, purges, man-made famines (Pinker 2011: 53, Figure 2-3).

      So, we *need* government to keep down the small intergroup violence.

      The important thing is finding ways to limit government while keeping it effective enough.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Dean, he’s talking about politicians, not government.

        To paraphrase in the words a friend used say: “No one should be President that wants the job.”

        Public office is a duty, not a career.

  8. avatar NDS says:

    The world is a dramatically different place than it was in 2000. The Internet is a major part of daily life, and has done great things to further the gun culture today. How many women shoot recreationally today versus 15 years ago?

    As I read this on my iPhone I lul’d at the “with today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record” comment. NOTHING takes 72 hours in 2015.

    1. avatar Gunr says:

      “Nothing takes 72 hours in 2015”
      Wait till you get my age.
      Everything takes 72 hours!

      1. avatar AdamTA1 says:

        If it lasts for 72 hours you should go see a dr!

  9. avatar Sgt Frank says:

    GO TRUMP

  10. avatar AaronW says:

    Everyone’s bitchin’ about the SAFE Act. No candidate running for any office in NYS has mentioned dismantling the equally outrageous and unconstitutional Sullivan law.

    1. avatar Sammy^ says:

      For those who don’t know what the Sullivan Act is:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act

  11. avatar Sammy^ says:

    We could do worse………………much, much worse. And we have done worse in 2008 and again in ’12.

    1. avatar OneOfTheGoodGuys says:

      +1

    2. avatar Jim R says:

      And 2004. And 2000. And 1996, and ’92, and ’88…

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        And ’76, ’68, ’64 and ’32, ’46, ’40 and ’44. Maybe a few others, too.

        That’s, what…at least 14 elections just since The Great Depression?

        Two-party consolidation is strangling this country.

        1. avatar DisThunder says:

          But….but the Warren Commission said we’re NOT a banana republic, that’s elections could be overturned by assassins…
          Wonder what else they were wrong about….

  12. avatar CHLChris says:

    I must admit I am flummoxed by Trump. For me, the only 2 issues that matter are gun rights and the right to life of the unborn. On paper, if I only look at current positions, Trump is right by my book. However, his lack of a consistent record supporting my side makes me very wary about supporting him. Fudd? No, probably not. But will he be like Samuel Alito and remain stalwart…or like John Roberts and be swayed by the winds?

    1. avatar Matt in TX says:

      I hope I live long enough to learn with what they are blackmailing Justice Roberts.

      1. avatar matt says:

        Bingo Matt.

      2. avatar HotandEmpty says:

        You don’t have to wait that long brother. The answer you seek is power or comfort, which is the disease of all individuals that seek un-consented control over those who pay for them.

        The power to be able to transform a nation of concrete laws into judicial tyranny. The comfort to never have to build character, by answering for your actions. Plus benefits and tenure.

      3. avatar Rabbi says:

        Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner!

      4. avatar Adub says:

        A quick Google search tells you it was probably the adoption of his kids. Just the bad press associated with it if it hit the front page of the paper would be enough to ruin his career. As it is, only the “kook fringe” whispers the truth.

        The major media outlets knew John Edwards was having an affair and had a child with a staffer, but it took the National Enquirer cornering him in a hotel bathroom for it to finally get reported.

  13. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    So, can we really trust Trump? I’m not trying to sound coy here, but I’ve intentionally asked the wrong question. The real question many conservatives (ahem, frothing-at-the-mouth-right-wingers . . .) have been repeatedly asking ourselves is why can’t we trust the establishment republicans we’ve already voted into office? In many ways, the Trump candidacy is an answer to that question. We can’t trust those guys which explains why their campaigns are foundering. With the exception of Cruz are ANY of the other candidates so solid on gun-rights issues that they wouldn’t start cutting “common-sense” side-deals with gun-control interests for some visible political support? The problem with virtually the entire field of republican candidates is that, almost to a person, they give every impression of being just a bit too close to the justifiably reviled statist republican establishment to have the kind of integrity the base out here in red-neck/flyover country want to see. Simply put if we trusted them more, support for Trump might not be so great.

    But that just isn’t the case. Personally, I’ll trust Trump over most of those other folks.

    1. avatar CHLChris says:

      I agree! Cruz is like Trump with less in-your-face and a longer record we can all see.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        I trust Cruz more than Trump.

    2. avatar BDub says:

      You trust Trump to NOT “cut side-deals”? HAHAHA! This is a self-made billionaire based almost entirely on cutting side-deals with politicians. Here’s you’re sign!

      1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        Well, call it a minor tactical difference perhaps, but he’s OUR junk-yard dog and not THEIR junk-yard dog. The Washington establishment hates Trump in pretty much the same way they hate us so, having burned their bridges, I seriously doubt he’ll be cutting many underhanded deals with them. One of the more uncomfortable moments in the debate was when he pointed out that he regularly bought-and-sold politicians, some of whom were on that stage. He did, after all, write “The Art Of The Deal” so of course he cuts side deals—he’s made that very clear. The question of course is who the deals will favor. Do you really think the RINOs have acted in the interests of the conservative base? I don’t.

    3. avatar B says:

      If Trump gets it, I honestly wouldn’t have to hold my noise to vote. Just the finger he gives to the GOP old guard is glorious. I can’t vote for Bush or Christie. Physically can’t and won’t. We have to man up and call Boehner, McCain, and Mitch’s bluff, its not their party anymore.

      1. avatar CHLChris says:

        It’s Cruz who uses the phrase “Washington Cartel” to describe Mitch McConnell and his RINO sycophants in the US Senate. Does that sort of middle finger to the GOP establishment rank as high as Trump’s? At least Cruz has been the same man for a loooooong time. Even if Trump’s conversion is genuine, it certainly is fresh.

        1. avatar B says:

          Cruz is class personified. I don’t think there is anyone running that could beat him in a debate. He and Gowdy are probably the smartest guys in DC. Cruz is my first choice, a tie with Rand. I’m really hoping one of them take off because I don’t like the rest of the candidates. I like Carson as a person, but I think the GOP would railroad him.

          No one can tell Trump what to do, him getting the nomination would finally break the GOP old guard.

  14. avatar Tom says:

    I would like to see how Siena did their polling on the SAFE Act. Looks like they surveyed NYC and Long Island residents. I dare say their polling numbers would be reversed if the poll was taken upstate. Upstate New Yorkers, maybe you should consider starting a secession movement and separate yourselves from the NYC communists and statists.

    1. avatar Chrispy says:

      Once again this idea is out there and there is a grassroots movement trying to see it through. But the problem as I understand it is that it would have to go up to a vote among the general population of the state, and if you paid attention to the last gubernatorial election you’ll see exactly the same kind of results. The whole state will be for the split, EXCEPT those who have the most to lose. Namely the ones who live in the city, who would see an immediate massive taxation spike to cover what they would no longer be getting from the rest of us.

      This isn’t the first time such a thing has been tried.

  15. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Well at least we’d have a better looking first gal than the one from 1993-2001. If I had 4 business bankruptcies no one would vote for me-or give me credit. STILL better than any dumbocrat…and no I don’t trust the donald at all…BTW his 2 kids caught HELL for their African safaris.

  16. avatar Bdk NH says:

    Trump is saying the things and taking positions that will get him votes from the silent majority (and I don’t mean white majority) that I consider myself part of. At first, I thought he was winging it but it seems obvious that he has worked out a strategy and employed tactics that have been very well thought out. Much like Reagan, the Iranians,Russians, and Chinese are scared $hitless of the guy because of his “let’s make America great” bluster. Along with building a wall and his 2A position that is enough for me and he just might get my vote.

    At least he and Bernie Sanders are making it interesting to the point that Jeb and Hilary can’t mail in their nominations. A scant two months ago, I had absolutely zero doubt that Hilary was going to be our next President.

    1. avatar Jim R says:

      The GOP is self-destructing and Trump is leading the way. Our next President is going to be Sanders or Clinton. The Republican Party is rapidly spinning into irrelevancy as each candidate tries and fails to prove they have what it takes to lead the country in the correct direction.

      1. avatar Bdk NH says:

        Clinton is going to be indicted. She is likely to get under charged and never convicted but indicted just the same which will end her run. Sanders is an America hating sideshow and will never get elected Nationally.

        My guess is that this time next year it will be Pocahontas, aka, Elizabeth Warren as the Dem candidate. She will enter late to avoid getting run through the mud and the enhance her as the Savior. Granted, she is one click right of Sanders but doesn’t have the National Socialist anti-American baggage that Sanders does.

        1. avatar Wood says:

          I hope they wait until after the inauguration to indict shrillery so her buddy Barry can’t pardon her. She needs to rot in jail. Gitmo would be perfect.

        2. avatar Chrispy says:

          “Clinton is going to be indicted”

          That might be the funniest thing I’ve heard all day!!! Sure, she deserves to be put into prison, but so does Andrew Cuomo, and I don’t even think he’s worried about it.

      2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        “they have what it takes to lead the country in the correct direction.”

        There’s the rub, though…and entirely what is wrong with the present state.

        The &*^% President is not supposed to “lead the country in the correct direction.” First of all, what does that even mean? You correct direction? Mine? The correct direction for the readers of Mother Jones?

        No. Here’s a better plan: The President is supposed to get the hell out of the way. Out of people’s lives, out of people’s affairs, out.

        1. avatar Stinkeye says:

          Nailed it.

          People seem to have forgotten that the country’s founders only reluctantly included a chief executive office, and then only out of necessity. The president is supposed to execute the will of the people, as expressed through the laws that their elected representatives in Congress pass, not shape the direction of governmental policy. He’s not supposed to be the head honcho in charge of the whole game, like some kind of elected king. The amount of power that has been given to or usurped by the office of the president over the years is staggering, and one of the reasons that our current system is almost hopelessly broken. The “checks and balances” are no longer balanced, and the checkers ain’t checking.

  17. avatar don says:

    If he cared about the second amendment he should of used some of his billions to free us peasants in NYS from these oppressive gun laws. He could have single handely gotten rid of the Sullivan act, assault weapon ban, and now the SAFE act. But he didn’t.

    1. So, Donald Trump makes a fortune. He did not spend it the way *you* wanted.

      Now that he is willing to step up to the plate in a game changer way, putting at risk a considerable part of his fortune, you are castigating him.

      I do not see any other candidates making the three points about the Second Amendment, that he is, with the possible exception of Cruz.

      1. Defense of Self and Others is a prime purpose of the Second Amendment.

      2. Attempts to take away guns from law abiding citizens only leaves criminals with guns.

      3. The attacks on the Second Amendment are incremental in nature. This has to stop.

      Those are very solid positions. Politicians who wish to chip away at the Second Amendment simply do not say those things.

      1. avatar Wood says:

        I’d be more impressed if he understood that the Second Amendment recognizes the right and duty of we the People to overthrow the entire damn show when we the People decide it’s gone too far. That includes dragging him out of the White House by the combover if necessary.

  18. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    I have been watching the Trumps for a while. I have traded some msgs with his boy regards guns/NRA etc. All positive btw. DT jr shoots Service Rifle (ARs ) at Camp Perry and has done some ad work with Creedmoor along with Gunny R Lee Ermy. I believe that having adult children who are intimately involved with his business empire, pro gun and 2A supporters HAS rubbed off on the old man. Good for him and them.

    It always amazes me that while the POTG scream for the education of the anti’s and younger generations, when positive results are seen they then doubt it and castigate the new 2A supporter. We are such self-destructive numbnuts. Meanwhile guys like Glenn Beck are fawned over (even speaking several times at the NRA annual meetings) and then they stab the NRA in the back and denounce it.

    1. avatar anaxis says:

      Speaking of…. When I’ve listened to Beck, his on-air minions, and visited his echo-chamber at the Blaze lately, they have put much effort into railing against the RINOs and party bosses in Washington. But at the same time have been castigating Trump for essentially not being an establishment Republican, and often bring up his comments from over a decade ago as proof that he’s not “conservative” enough..

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Two Words: Rate Ings.

        Beck (like many in his field) survive on keeping their base audience stirred up and angry.

    2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “We are such self-destructive numbnuts.”

      Indeed. Well put.

      However, I would say this: I’m to the point that I don’t much care WHAT candidates say during a campaign. Pro Gun. Anti Gun. Pro This. Pro That.

      All words.

      All empty words.

      Actions speak. And, from what I’ve seen, they all say what they have to say to get elected, then don’t DO anything. Or, at least, anything GOOD.

      So, mistrust of Trump for me at least is less about Trump than it is about that fact that he’s just another in a long list of people running for office that says what he thinks we want to hear (based on market research and other political theater related stuff).

  19. avatar int19h says:

    Ah, Trump. The guy that tells the audience what it wants to hear, to make them do what he wants them to do. The audience changes over time, and the specific things that he says change, as does the manner in which they’re delivered, but you can be sure of one thing: there’s no shortage of suckers willing to listen.

    1. So, you are accusing him of doing what politicians do every day?

      I do not see him changing his positions much over time. I have not found examples of changing positions for different audiences.

      Yes, his position on Gun Control has changed, as shown in this article.

      His position on abortion has changed, a few years ago. Not uncommon, btw, as people get older.

      I would be interested to see examples of his position changing from audience to audience. Not just changing the message to fit the audience. Any good public speaker does that, but actual position changes.

      Examples would be worth looking at.

      1. avatar bob says:

        Trump’s not trying the fake accent gimmick the Hildebeast uses when talking down to the proles?

      2. avatar Michelle says:

        Trump has likely always had an armed security detail all of his life. I see no reason why he could relate to would likely form any deeply held opinions on self defense.

        Sure, a lot of people believe he’s sincere — I think that’s because of wishful thinking. A (current) front runner who’s saying all the right things (now) about gun control and gun laws.

        Do you really think he’ll work to roll back gun control such as the SAFE act if elected? (Yes, I realize that’s NY State, but precedents could be set on a federal level.) I don’t think he’s that motivated. He’s speaking to it and will say the answer people want to hear – but the only real talk he’s made to the issue of firearms before this election was what was detailed here about being for the AWB and increased waiting periods.

        He doesn’t have much history at all on guns, and what he has said hasn’t been too reassuring.

    2. avatar Michelle says:

      Exactly. So much this. And people aren’t seeing it.

      If the landscape favored a Democratic administration in 2016, Trump would be “evolving” into a Democrat and saying “all the right things” to that party.

      Trump is a showman, a marketer, and a salesman. And people are buying into his “pitch” — they’re being marketed to, and eating it up.

      Trump doesn’t give one good god damn about any of the issues he’s speaking to. He’s saying the right thing to convince people to give him the deal he wants, which is what he’s done all of his life.

      Pandering. Dealing. Marketing. Selling.

      And people are eating it up just like one of his bombastic ‘look at me’ TV productions.

      NFA? Hughes amendment? Please. He didn’t care about the AWB when he said he was for it, and he doesn’t care about the NFA when he says he’s against it.

      Once he wins, if he wins, he’ll do whatever the hell he wants, and it likely will not resemble his “pitch” at all; it’ll be whatever works best for Trump at the time.

      Not America.

      Trump.

      AT the very least, maybe this will make some of the other Republican candidates speak to the SAFE act and NFA / ATF issues. (Forget Hughes. I’d love it, but that cold day in hell isn’t on the calendar.)

      1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

        So why can’t the usual jello spined politicians pander this clearly?

        It’s all con men these days anyway, maybe we need a better class of con man.

        It is certainly frustrating that the only one making sense on my favorite side has no reason for me to trust him.

      2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        +1000

  20. avatar Wood says:

    I specifically like that he’s from outside the belt. I firmly believe that all candidates who can’t run a campaign on their own dime are owned by the establishment. These days there is precious little difference between the two parties. Just bread and circuses to distract the masses that the whole thing exists to perpetuate itself and consolidate power. We could use a little erratic outsider.

    However, if elected can Trump remember that his job is to serve the People as opposed to build his personal wealth? I’m skeptical. We know what shrillery will do.

    1. avatar Michelle says:

      Everything in your first paragraph is spot on.

      Unfortunately, so is your second.

      Can’t help but feel that this is all about personal enrichment for him.

  21. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    It sure sounds to me like Mr. Trump’s sons did a splendid job educating their father. It is funny how facts work, isn’t it?

  22. avatar Dean Carpenter says:

    So far, during this election run, Trump has stated clearly what his position is on several topics in a way that I understand. This makes it very easy for me to decide if I agree with his position and if I wish to support him. I don’t recall any other presidential candidate ever doing this.

    I would expect his positions to evolve over time and would be disappointed it they did but I do believe he is speaking the truth as he sees it rather than trying to win votes.

  23. avatar Michael Bane says:

    I was talking to Trump’s sons at the NRA Convention when The Donald Hisself came sailing down the aisle like a battleship..he looked at me, then tapped me in the center of my chest with his finger…

    “I know you,” he said. “You’re on television.”

    Cool.

    Michael B

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Cool story, bro.

  24. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    If you pander to the right people it’s the same as being right. Sincerity is a separate issue.

    I’m surprised he’s making the arguments he is. There may be hope. He oscillates wildly between sideshow and common sense.

    I honestly don’t know what to make of Trump. If nothing else I hope he’s the kick in the balls the GOP needs to get it’s shit together and a catalyst for the sincere to repopulate is ranks.

  25. avatar TwinReverb says:

    A candidate is allowed to change his mind.

    However, my problem still is that he’s a pompous jerk, and that he assumes he’s the only one to fix our economy. How many times has he almost declared bankruptcy? And where did he get his money? Dirty sources: strip clubs and casinos. He’s a businessman, sure, but not an economist, and any president who hires a top-notch economist to consult with will do just fine.

    Much less it’s still not the president’s job to manage the economy. It’s not in his job description in the Constitution.

    1. avatar Wood says:

      Trump & Lott 2016!

  26. avatar RickA says:

    It’s simple: Continued trashing of the Constitution and further managed decline into a 3rd-world hellhole – versus crony capitalism with a focus on American jobs. Take your pick.

    The mainstream Republican establishment has allowed itself to be infiltrated by power-hungry progressives who for whatever mis-guided personal reasons allow the lefties to run the show. The RNC is on their side and is not to be trusted. Trump is the only outside guy in this race with the money and name-recogniton to win the election with a safe margin without being beholden to anti-American monetary influences.

    Trump pulls votes from working dumbocrats that other Republican candidates don’t have the star-power to pull. He’s not perfect … but don’t stay home on election day – you’re not going to be offered the perfect candidate.

    The landslide winning ticket(s): Trump Cruz or Trump Fiorina

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      “It’s simple: Continued trashing of the Constitution and further managed decline into a 3rd-world hellhole – versus crony capitalism with a focus on American jobs. Take your pick.”

      Pretty sure we’re going to get both, no matter which front man gets put in the big chair. I’m fairly confident in this, because “Constitution-trashing crony capitalism” would be an excellent summary of nearly every presidential administration since at least the beginning of the 20th century.

      1. avatar RickA says:

        Yeah, I agree. Hoping at least the seemingly pro-American capitalist, Trump, will work hard to keep the crony network domestic … rather than continue the trend of paid-off politicians working overtime to export our industries and jobs to their foreign crony benefactors. While American based companies fire U.S workers and replace them with cheap foreign labor here with temporary work Visas. The American middle class is being squeezed out of existence from both practices and Trump is clearly against this.

        Regarding the Constitution … the less Democrats elected to political office, the better.

  27. To paraphrase, ‘the good enough is not the enemy of the perfect’.

    I’ve voted a straight repub ticket since the mid 70s. I ask myself now, Why? The only answer is they WERE marginally better than the dems.

    At this point the line separating the major parties is no longer a bright, highly visible one but mostly a thin smudge. They’re not that different when it comes right down to it. The repubs just talk a better game at election time.

  28. avatar PeterK says:

    I still can’t believe anyone takes the guy seriously. At all. If it weren’t for his brashness he’d have long been dismissed. I think he’s an immoral jerk.

    Still, he’s not the worst candidate.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “I think he’s an immoral jerk.

      Still, he’s not the worst candidate.”

      America’s political system summarized in two simple sentences.

      Why do we stand for it?

  29. avatar Yellow Devil says:

    If Trump makes it all the way to the nomination, I would consider giving him my vote for at least one term.

    That term would be very highly scrutinized however.

  30. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Two things:

    1. Trump has shifted the Overton Window on immigration policy. Before Trump announced and started talking, everyone, in both parties, was talking of this idiotic “pathway to citizenship” for umpteen million illegals now in the US. In that case, you can kiss your RKBA goodbye. All those people from central and south America know nothing about our form of government, and the only experience they have with “people owning guns” are drug cartels and government thugs.

    Now, we see other GOP candidates starting to talk about immigration issues in a way that isn’t simply handing out the free goodies to illegals and their spawn. Except for Jeb Bush, he’s still in favor of giving away the store.

    2. Most of what people who are political junkies forget about Trump is this: Trump doesn’t come from a political background. He’s a businessman, and he negotiates like a businessman.

    I’ll give you some examples to show you how this works:

    When Trump says “I’m worth $10 billion,” he’s putting an anchor point into your head. Other people come along (eg, Forbes, etc) and say “No, he’s worth something like $4 billion.” But Trump a) said his number first, and b) he’ll keep repeating that, and c) even as Forbes or someone else is disputing it, they’ll mention the $10 billion number again. What gets stuck in your head? $10 billion. What don’t most people remember? All the other estimates.

    This is classic car salesman stuff, BTW.

    Another example is how he makes what was previously “unthinkable” now sound “reasonable:”

    Trump has said that he a) wants to build a wall on the southern border, and b) he wants Mexico to pay for it. Sounds outlandish, right?

    OK. Now we have public polling in the last week that says a reasonably large percentage of people agree with Trump: build a wall on the border.

    When a business negotiator flips out a proposal that’s out of the blue and seemingly absurd, and he knows that people want to do a deal, he’s moved the centerpoint of the discussion/negotiation. Trump has literally moved the reasonable middle ground of the debate on this from “oh, we have to put up with the border we have, and do enforcement inside the US” to “build a wall.” The part about the Mexicans paying for it? Well that might be dropped or reduced in negotiation. But how did Trump shift the negotiation assumption to “build a wall?” By proposing something seemingly even more outlandish than just “build a wall.” He said “I want to build a wall… and have the Mexicans pay for it.” A little bit more discussion and the “build a wall” part of the deal will be what everyone is talking about, and the payment part of it will be where people differentiate themselves from the middle.

    The political junkies watching Trump and dismissing him out of hand are mostly clueless dweebs, the sort of pencil-necked guys who got wedgies from the football QB in high school. Since the end of the Reagan presidency, when Reagan used to talk to the nation above the heads of all these clueless poindexters in DC and sniffing around think tanks, we’ve been overrun with these emasculated, prissy twerps, both in office and in the press/think tanks. And the results show for their efforts – we’re being taken to the cleaners by guys like Putin and the Iranians.

    I’ll give another example of how Trump knows how to get people to jump to his whim:

    He made an offhand comment about Heidi Klum, saying “She’s great, but she’s no longer a 10.” Klum responds with her “9.9” nonsense. Any guy who has been around very attractive women knows how that whole thing just worked. Trump played the classic game of guys who want to sleep with attractive women: give them a little compliment, then negate it in a way that causes her to become defensive, then shrug your shoulders. This is classic singles’ bar head game stuff, and Trump shows he knows how to play that game too.

    There’s only perhaps 20% of the population that gets caught up in the arcane world of national politics. The rest of it is just show business for ugly people. Trump, I think, has realized that he can grab hold of the population’s disaffection with DC and cause lots of people to get a world-class case of heartburn.

    Where does this go for RKBA issues? Well, that’ll be interesting when the subject comes up.

    My point is this: Trump is a highly disruptive figure in this election. You’d be very foolish to count him out. The man knows how to take on the media and he knows human psychology at a very mercenary level.

    1. And he has two sons that are hard core pro-2A and avid hunters who have been put through the fire by the old media types…

    2. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      D.G. you make some good points about the guy. Your last remark is critical. While in office is he going to be swayed by MDA or other types to change his mind on guns again? We have no track record of how Trump will vote, as he has not held an office and has not voted on these issues. Dean, my father is his own man, and I am not always able to sway him in terms of decisions, are you 100% sure his sons will “show him the light”?

      1. No. But I think it is the way to bet. Trump is not looking at the world through politically correct glasses.

        Support for the 2A is a winner for politicians. Even the political polls are saying that more people feel safer with guns in their neighborhood than without, now, and a majority think protecting the 2A is more important than more gun restrictions, now.

        Three items the Donald could easily push that would cement 2A supporters to his side, once in office, are:

        National Reciprocity. It is a no brainer.

        Reform of the NFA to do away with the stupid laws on gun mufflers (suppressors/silencers)

        An amnesty on NFA registrations, which can be don by executive action (to bring in the war trophies that put innocent veterans families at risk of jail time),

        Not perfect, not complete, but big incremental steps to restore the 2A.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email