DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Will Donald Trump Negotiate Away Our Gun Rights?

House Speaker Paul Ryan is withholding his support for presumptive Republican Party nominee Donald Trump. Representative Ryan wants assurances from Mr. Trump that he won’t throw Republican orthodoxy under the bus, what with Mr. Trump’s “everything’s negotiable” stance on, well, everything. “I have to stay true to my principles also,” Mr Trump pronounced on ABC. “And I’m a conservative,” he added, “but don’t forget this is called the Republican Party, not the Conservative Party.” As someone who values your Second Amendment protections, does that make you nervous?

desantis blue logo no back 4 small

comments

  1. avatar Swarf says:

    No one knows what the Orange Hairpie is going to do. It is capable of sinking to any conceivable level.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      But we know exactly what our mortal enemy the Hildabeast wants to do to us, she’s been constantly bragging about it for the past several years.

      1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        Forget executive orders!

        How many times do we have to ring the SCOTUS bell? Folks, there is one vacancy currently and the oldest serving member of the Court is the far left Ginsburg, with Kennedy and Bryer, another lefty right behind. With the average retirement age being right at 79, the next President could end up appointing four justices.

        Do you really want the Hildabeast appointing those four justices?

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Do you really want the Hildabeast appointing those four justices?


          Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding !!!!!

          Attention! Attention! Are you seeing this people?!?!?!?

          Unless Donald Trump is actuality a hardcore Progressive simply posing as a Republican, there is no way in the world that his nominations for U.S. Supreme Court will be as bad as Hillary’s appointments.

          Full disclosure: I am NOT a Trump fanboy.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          @uncommon

          That’s the only rational argument pro Trump I’ve ever encountered. It’s pretty sad that the only thing to say about him is his picks can’t be worse than Hitlary’s.

          As for me, the only thing I know I won’t do this fall is put a check mark next to the Hildabeest’s name. Haven’t decided re: Trump, and I think a lot of things can happen between now and November.

        3. avatar Ing says:

          If I’m able to overcome the nausea and force myself to vote in the presidential election, that will be the only reason. We cannot let that vile hag Clinton make four Marxist nominations to the Supreme Court.

      2. avatar Next Pres picks the Supreme Court says:

        ^^^THIS. If I have to choice between an enormous risk and certain death (of my rights), I’ll take the risk.

    2. avatar JSW says:

      First we must determine what “negotiate” means.

      Then we have to determine what “give away” means.

      Then we have to determine what “for the benefit of society” means.

      Then we have to determine what…

  2. avatar miforest says:

    hope not. his sons are avid hunters . real SCI types. At least he is a good negotiator. Although I wouldn’t support it, the worst I would expect would be something like universal background checks for 50 state ccw reciprocity and suppressors off the nfa list.

    If we got one of the “strong ” pro gunners from the GOP pack, they would stand firm on gun control and open borders . then next election when immigration for the south would turn Texas, Florida, and Ohio solid blue.
    then produce president Schumer. Who would pass the same gun prohibitions Mexico has .

    1. avatar Parnell says:

      How will there be 50 state reciprocity when you have states like NY & NJ where you can’t even get a CCW?

      1. avatar Alex says:

        don’t forget us out here in Kalifornia.

      2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        I don’t see reciprocity happening. More likely a national CC license which will put you in a Federal database, be “may issue,” or at the very least come with a bunch of new prohibited person categories to be determined by the AG. And, I’m sure, they will either let states opt out, or New Jersey, New York, etc. will still arrest you but treat a valid national permit as an “affirmative defense” in your trial. You cannot negotiate with the left. They will take what you give them and find a way to weasel out of their end of the bargain.

      3. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

        “How will there be 50 state reciprocity when you have states like NY & NJ where you can’t even get a CCW?”

        Well if there is national reciprocity and NY/NJ etc. have to recognize the permits from other states, it might make the voters realize they’re at a potential disadvantage to out-of-staters and they’ll vote in more gun friendly candidates….
        And of course, there’s a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, which end I can’t say…

      4. avatar LarryinTX says:

        NY and NJ do in fact issue carry licenses. Sure, it is a good ol boy type of issue, bribery and corruption, but it exists, and that is the beauty of national reciprocity, licenses from all other states would be effective, even it they’re not held by good ol boys.

    2. avatar CalGunsMD says:

      “his sons are avid hunters”

      Do they hunt with AKs, ARs, FALs, etc?

      1. avatar W says:

        The wealthy will always be able to do what they want. It’s a given that the laws don’t apply to them.

        1. avatar CalGunsMD says:

          Precisely. Which is why Trump could say that he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave without his supporters caring…… and not loose his CCW.

      2. avatar Marco says:

        http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/07/exclusive-donald-trump-jr-we-believe-in-the-right-to-carry-the-right-to-shoot-back/

        Yes, they know and like Ar-15s. He’s also a competition shooter, and believes in the right to carry, and even talks explicitly about the NY corrupt system that allows him to have a permit.

        If the sons are to be believed, they’re as solid as you can get in actual gun knowledge. Cruz may have litigated more about guns, but actual gun usage/knowledge goes to Donald Trump jr.

        1. avatar Rick says:

          Can we switch out a Trump kid for Trump Sr, Jr. Ivanka(sp?), and Eric are better choices. Or at least don’t seem to be as flakey.

          I 100% believe that The Donald believes 100% what he says when he says it. The problem is he may say something 100% the other way 5 minutes later. That’s a lot of 100%’s.

          I still like my Governor, Kasich, but he started a year too late. He would have been better to hold his powder till 2020, but who thought it would go this way.

    3. avatar Hi Power Toter says:

      This would be a bad deal for us. Legalizing suppressors doesn’t put us in a position for future gains. 50 state CCW only does a little to position us for future gains, as it only really affects people traveling to the less free states. UBCs, done through 4473s, provide the data infrastructure for any future confiscations, and therefore put our adversaries in a position for major future gains.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I hear you, but there is room for conversation here. Some previous stupid ideas have been passed by states, only to be repealed a few years later because it cost too much and accomplished nothing. Like, approve UBC with a 5-year limit, after which the nation will look at all evidence of cost and effect, then decide whether to keep it. And we will adhere to the same; legalize suppressors for 5 years and then review the cost (which would be zero, since it just tells the government to butt out) versus the effects (how many people were beaten to death with suppressors, or something). 50-state reciprocity resulted in how many deaths? After 5 years, you know what the evidence would show. No 2-gun rigs, no gunfight at the OK corral, and no rivers of blood in the streets. As usual.

        1. avatar Stinkeye says:

          Sounds great in theory, but “looking at the evidence” and the legislative process seem to be fundamentally incompatible. Sure, the federal AWB was allowed to sunset, but that had nothing at all to do with actual facts and evidence, and only happened because we were lucky enough to not have the Democrats in charge of Congress when it expired.

  3. avatar Greg says:

    During his campaign Trump has made it clear that everything is negotiable – the border wall, amnesty for illegals, tax increases, etc.. Everything this man does makes me nervous because he appears to have no core values.

    1. avatar Publius says:

      So you’re saying he’s like any other politician?

      1. avatar Pond Avenue says:

        The man has much bigger fish to fry than tinkering with firearms legislation.

        Let’s blow some poltical $hit up.

        1. avatar RealityCheck says:

          >>> Let’s blow some poltical $hit up. <<<

          And that's it in a nutshell. A vote for Trump is a vote to burn the system to the ground. Sure sounds appealing (to the idiots), but how did that work out for the countries in the Arab Spring? They got rid of some bad dudes (like Kadhafi) but are they better off? How's Libya doing? How's Egypt doing?

      2. avatar RealityCheck says:

        >>>So you’re saying he’s like any other politician?<<<

        Well, he's a lying weasel like other politicians, yes – although Politifact rates him as a much more prodigious and prolific liar than other politicians.

        What's worse with Orange Julius Caesar is that he campaigned by specifically duping his supporters, claiming things like "I will self-fund my campaign, the big money people have no influence over me", and then flip-flopping and hiring Morgan Stanley bankers to raise funds for him. Trump is displaying a level of dishonesty that is literally breathtaking to behold.

        So yes, he's like other politicians, but without the predictability factor (except for those of us who study psychology and strongly suspected that this was coming). It's Trump University all over again – overblown fraudulent claims, followed by devastation for those who supported him.

        Cruz and Rubio should un-suspend their campaigns. It's not over yet, Trump doesn't have 1237 delegates yet, maybe a hail-mary could stop this insanity.

        1. avatar Publius says:

          I’m not a Trump fan, but you’re delusional if you think he won’t have the 1,237 delegates. He’s only 168 delegates way with 505 still on the table. He only needs 1/3 of the remaining delegates to hit the 1,237 goal, whereas Cruz couldn’t hit 1,237 if he won all remaining 505 votes.

          The only thing that makes me slightly like Trump is that all of the corrupt people – the media, the GOP establishment, and the DNC establishment – hate him, which means he’s got to be doing something right if the most vile people hate him and want to stop him so badly.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Publius, I agree. And when all the bigwigs in the smoke-filled-room contingent (also known as “they”, or “the RNC” but who have no actual names) are screeching like they’re being castrated over the idea of Trump not being “a true conservative”, without telling us what they mean (because it is a secret for only the elite to understand) it gives me a good giggle. I look forward to voting for him.

        3. avatar Timmy! says:

          Publius said, “The only thing that makes me slightly like Trump is that all of the corrupt people – the media, the GOP establishment, and the DNC establishment – hate him, which means he’s got to be doing something right if the most vile people hate him and want to stop him so badly.”

          I’d just like to point out that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Now, I don’t disagree with Publius on this, I just think it needed saying… for some reason.

        4. avatar Pond Avenue says:

          Reality Check:

          I see your are projecting your need for a reality check by using this as your Screen Name.

          I said, “Let’s blow some political $hit up”, not blow up our entire political system.

          We need fresh air and less career politicians, not an Arab Spring.

          Dude, you are hyperventilating. Those violently opposed to Trump seem either Democrats or those living off the present political system.

      3. avatar CalGunsMD says:

        He is EXACTLY like the insider, establishment cronies he riled up his supporters about.
        NOT. ONE. IOTA. OF DIFFERENCE.

        1. avatar Publius says:

          Except that, unlike them, Trump has had a real job his whole life instead of bleeding taxpayers dry. That’s a pretty huge difference.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          After he has singlehandedly proven that polls are useless? I doubt that.

          Durn. That was supposed to answer to Gabe, below.

  4. avatar Gabe says:

    Of course he will. Isn’t his book titled “The Art Of The Deal”?
    He’s also said that everything is negotiable, so don’t expect him to be tough. He flip-flops worse than Romney so whatever the polls say, expect him to cave to.

  5. avatar RealityCheck says:

    Trump has already conceded that his tax plan and other position papers are fantasy. He’s already said that they’re not policies, they’re “proposals”, they’re starting points. He’s conceded that no, he won’t get what he’s proposing. He’s already said that taxes are going up on the wealthiest, he’s already reversed himself multiple times on the minimum wage (even in the same interview). There is zero reason to believe he will not behave comparably regarding his 2nd amendment proposals, especially given his checkered past regarding support of the RKBA.

    So Robert’s warning about an impending reversal on the Assault Weapons Ban? Count on it. He will absolutely use that as a bargaining chip.

    Dump Trump. Now.

    1. avatar wright says:

      Too late.

      1. avatar RealityCheck says:

        Why is it “too late”?

        Trump hasn’t reached the majority of delegates yet. What if Cruz and Rubio teamed up and re-entered the race, and were able to hold him under 1237 by the time it’s all said and done? Remember, Perot quit the race, then re-entered, and garnered 19% of the vote as a third-party candidate. Cruz and Rubio, together, might be able to hold the Great Pumpkin below the # of necessary delegates.

        And all this talk of a third-party candidate, and the issues of getting them on the ballot and all, is unnecessary. Mount a real challenge, now, before it’s too late. California, DC, Montana, Nebraska, NJ, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington haven’t even voted yet. That’s 9 states that haven’t even weighed in yet.

        1. avatar Dr Brainwash says:

          What if! what if! what if! Cruz and Rubio lost. It’s over. It’s Trump or Hillary. There’s no amount of crying that’s going to change that.

        2. avatar Next Pres picks the Supreme Court says:

          Dude, time to get with the times. It’s factually over for Cruz. The only choice you have left is between Trump and Hillary. All other choices have been removed from the table.

          You can vote for anyone you want, but one of the above two options WILL be picked for you, so in reality you only have on choice: Trump or Hillary.

          You can “not chose”, and let the choice be made for you – which is really a choice to put your feelings ahead of having any positive impact (including damage control) on your country.

        3. avatar Xanthro says:

          Why is it “too late”?
          ————————
          You seriously need to change your name, because RealityCheck is not the way to describe your arguments as of late.
          It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop Trump from winning the required number of delegates. Not unlikely, IMPOSSIBLE.
          I’d have preferred Cruz as well, but he has just over HALF the delegates Trump has, and Cruz hasn’t one a State in forever, and Cruz was running 24% BEHIND Trump in California.
          You are still in the Denial stage of grief and loss. It’s time to get angry, move on to bargaining, then depression, then accept the reality that you have a choice between Clinton and Trump in November.

        4. avatar int19h says:

          Trump would need to lose the remaining states by massive margins for it to even get to the contested convention. Given that to date, the combined Cruz+Rubio vote still lost to Trump, it is impossible for all practical purposes.

          That ship has sailed. If you’re ideologically driven, at this point you will have to decide whether you’re conservative (and then vote third party, write in, or not vote at all), or an authoritarian nativist (and vote Trump).

          If you prefer a pragmatic approach, you will have to decide whether the risk of new gun laws enacted by Hillary is more important to you than the risk of Trump cracking down on freedom of speech, organizing internment camps for Muslims, and possibly starting WW3 to prove that he has a bigger dick than Putin.

    2. avatar YaDaddy says:

      My money is on early onset dementia to explain Trump’s erratic positions.

      He’s about to turn 70 isn’t he? Wouldn’t be unheard of if he had it.

    3. avatar Marco says:

      It doesn’t make sense for Trump to dump gun rights.

      There’s more support for gun rights than for gun control. If Trump truly twists towards what’s popular, then gun rights won’t be something he twists away from.

      The only benefit he’d get from gun control would be during the electoral cycle, to peel black voters towards the GOP. If he runs on a pro-2nd amendment platform, what does he gain by switching to gun control? The only benefits there are Clinton’s diehard voters, and billionaire disarmist funds, neither of which he needs.

      Trump might very well switch on other positions, and in fact will. But cui bono changing on gun rights? There’s not enough upside.

      And that’s ignoring the idea of his image, which is predicated on strength. Gun control is a weakling’s policy, and doesn’t fit with anything Trump wants to represent.

  6. avatar jwtaylor says:

    No one can negotiate away my rights. They are “endowed by my creator.” They are not subject to law, to treaty, it ordinance.
    Create any deal you want. I will not comply.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Bingo.

    2. avatar Joe says:

      Our ‘compliance’ isn’t necessary. We will be able to engage in as much non-compliance as we want, from behind a barred wall. Natural rights are a great idea, but ultimately they are just an idea when the gov decides to start taking the toys away.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        I think you have that backwards. Government’s are a fine idea, until the people start taking their jobs away.

  7. avatar Geoff PR says:

    We know what the HildaBeast will do to gun rights.

    The Donald gets my vote wholeheartedly.

    Make the Left *sweat*….

  8. avatar jack says:

    Trump didn’t come out in favor of an assault weapons ban but has come out in favor of concealed carry reciprocity. Meanwhile Paul Ryan is about as “conservative” as Hillary Clinton, he voted to fund the Affordable Care Act, Syrian refugees, countless pork barrel spending in the trillion dollar omnibus bill and Obama’s executive amnesty. That Omnibus Bill he helped push by the way was praised by Democrats like Pelosi. If there’s anyone we should be concerned about negotiating with Democrats, it should be cuckservative Paul Ryan.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/16/paul-ryan-betrays-america-1-1-trillion-2000-plus-page-omnibus-bill-funds-fundamental-transformation-america/

    1. avatar RealityCheck says:

      >>> Trump didn’t come out in favor of an assault weapons ban <<<

      Oh yes he most certainly did. "‘I generally oppose gun control but I support the ban on assault weapons." – Donald J. Trump, "The America We Deserve", 2000

      1. avatar Bill in IL says:

        Your quote is 16 years old, he has reconsidered. From your posts, you appear to be an ardent Hillary supporter since the unqualified immigrants are now out of the running.

        1. avatar RealityCheck says:

          Ah, right, I see. I’m supposed to believe him TODAY, but not what he said YESTERDAY. Or, in other words, I’m supposed to believe what he says when he’s running for office and will manipulate his views to whatever he thinks the voters want to hear, versus believing what he said when he wasn’t running for office (and thus was more likely to actually be saying what he really felt).

          Yeah, no thanks. You can’t believe what he says from one minute to the next. He changed his position on abortion three times – in the same DAY.

          Those who fall for Trump will receive exactly what they deserve. Reminds me quite appropriately of the story about the scorpion – “It’s in my nature. You knew exactly what I was when you picked me up.”

        2. avatar Xanthro says:

          Those who fall for Trump will receive exactly what they deserve. Reminds me quite appropriately of the story about the scorpion – “It’s in my nature. You knew exactly what I was when you picked me up.”

          ————————————-
          When the choice is between the scorpion that will almost certainly betray you, and a certain death, the former is by far the most logical choice.
          It’s not as if the choice is between crossing the river by a boat or riding on a scorpion, the choice is between riding on someone being portrayed as a scorpion that will carry you across the river, and a crocodile who has stated openly that you will be eaten the moment you come near, and yet, you want to pretend that the crocodile is the same method of transportation as the scorpion.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Hey, I thought and advocated for my 1971 Charger R/T as the finest example of a go-fast car in the world. Later, I liked my 2000 Camaro SS better. Now I think my 2012 BMW convertible is the only way to go. Ideas evolve. Plans change. Experiences affect you. If you want guaranteed stability, try Hillary! She has been constantly on about overturning 2A freedoms for the past 40 years, still is, and is becoming ever so much more shrill about it as the election approaches.

      2. avatar Next Pres picks the Supreme Court says:

        I don’t think you fully read that quote – it was dated year 2000. 16 years ago I still believed in Santa Clause and thought girls had cooties.

        1. avatar Stinkeye says:

          Some girls do have cooties, buddy. Wear a condom.

  9. avatar wright says:

    Trump may, but Hitlery definitely will.

  10. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    Yes he will. He will produce a national carry Bill that will at a minimum include universal background checks but could include magazine capacity ban and an “military style”assault weapons ban. Trump is Hillary with a penis.

    1. avatar Julio says:

      Thanks for that image. I desperately need some brain bleach now. *shudders

    2. avatar Bill in IL says:

      Trump is most certainly not the Hilldebeast with a penis. All of you Cruz supporters sound like a bunch of spoiled children.

      1. avatar Next Pres picks the Supreme Court says:

        As a die-hard Cruz supporter I have to agree. We lost. Our guy is not getting in – time to move on and do the most good with the options we have left, not throw a tantrum.

  11. avatar Harry says:

    Answer of the Day: Yes. Yes, he absolutely will.

  12. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    The Donald has been flip-flopping on all sorts of issues (including 2A issues) for decades, I don’t expect him to change now just because he currently says he’s pro-2A.

    1. avatar Next Pres picks the Supreme Court says:

      The last time he “flopped” on a 2A issue was in the year 2000. Think about how your personal beliefs have changed in the last 16 years. Learn some things that changed you perspective maybe?

    2. avatar Marco says:

      Trump was against assault weapons, and for concealed carry in 2000. Name me any politicians or popular NON-PARTISAN figures at that time that were pro-concealed and pro-assault weapon.

      Clinton was against Gay marriage at that time. So was Obama.

      Trump would have seemed like an utter wacko being into both concealed carry and assault weapons at that time. Remember, that was a long time back, and gun rights have come a LONG way in perception. Trump has always had idiosyncratic views, but that would have been a crazy gun-nut insurrectionist view at that time.

      Again, who was as radically pro-gun rights at that time? Would any of them had even this close a shot to the presidency then or now?

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        Your misplaced faith is disturbing. Trump was a populist politician even before he mulled running for any public office. Back in the 80’s when he was in the NY papers everyday he flip-flopped on issues constantly depending on what gave him the upper hand at the moment. He has flip-flopped on his political allegiances depending on who he could buy off. Most recently he flip flopped on the minimum wage and taxes. He had a GFZ policy at his properties until he was called out on it late last year and it was politically expedient to change his public view. That is the kind populist bullshit at which Trump excels and draws in the support of the historically challenged. What makes you think the 2A is immune?

        Now if you want to argue who is going to be worse between him and Clinton? Clinton is the obvious answer for Supreme Court appointees or any anti gun law that snakes it’s way through congress (or new administrative law changes)… but don’t expect Trump to live up to keeping his word on rolling back Obama’s executive power grabs or picking a proper Scalia replacement. I hope I’m wrong, but the only faith I have regarding politicians is their unending desire for bigger government and more control over the proletariat.

  13. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Part of Trump’s campaign is “I will protect firearm rights!” Part of Hillary’s campaign is “I will ignore and destroy firearm rights!” Let me see, now, how much analyzing does this take. A 3rd party candidate will give the election to Hillary, large numbers of 2A supporters staying home will hand the election to Hillary, how many other silly decisions will hand the election to Hillary? This ain’t rocket science, I’m listening right now to the same argument about coal in WV, they seem to have it straight. Why don’t POTG?

    1. avatar Next Pres picks the Supreme Court says:

      Mic drop.

      You don’t have to like the situation you’re in, but non-participation is not an issue – the choice will be made with or without you, so MAKE THE MOST OF THE OPTIONS YOU STILL HAVE.

  14. avatar Bake says:

    Who is Trump negotiating with? Is Ryan trying to pass a gun ban?

  15. avatar pod says:

    Trump’s a negotiator, if he sees the benefit in keeping 2A rights secure, he will. The people voting for him all prize the Second Amendment so he’s gonna support it. So, the issue needs to still be in the forefront.

    HRC has declared herself an enemy of gun rights supporters, so that is the less palatable option.

    At least with the Donald, one can negotiate. Sad, but it’s the lesser of two evils.

    1. avatar RealityCheck says:

      >>> Sad, but it’s the lesser of two evils. <<<

      And that right there is the insidiousness of the "two party" system. A vote for the "lesser of two evils" is still a vote for evil. You have a vote. Why would you choose to cast it for evil? When did that become an acceptable solution?

      And before you say "don't throw away your vote on a 3rd party candidate, they could never win" — er, isn't that pretty much exactly what everyone said about Trump, early on?

      Y'all can vote for evil if you want. Don't be surprised when evil wins, and when it does evil. The only way out of this mess is to vote for a candidate you actually can believe in, you actually support, you actually want. This twisted nonsense of "a vote for anyone else is a vote for Hillary" is a corrupted acquiescence to evil.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I think the news has addressed that. IIRC, it is either too late already, or will soon be, to get another name onto enough ballots for a new candidate to win election if every single vote in those states were for him. The primary campaign is over, it is too late for a 3rd party. Wake up and smell the roses.

  16. avatar JMike says:

    Who do we think Trump is going to negotiate with? I’ve yet to see an anti-gun person willing to actually negotiate anything, and I don’t see Trump giving away the 2A store for nothing. He is no pushover.

  17. avatar emfourty gasmask says:

    gun owners are their own worst enemies

    i’ve already accepted the fact that we’re pretty much going to lose our gun rights no matter what, so i’ll enjoy them while i can

  18. avatar Dollup15 says:

    It all likelihood, it doesn’t matter what Trump may or may not do. As much as it pains me to say it, unless something truly major happens to Hillary (indictment . . . ?) she will beat Trump in November, and probably beat him badly. This has 1964 written all over it.

    1. avatar RealityCheck says:

      >>> she will beat Trump in November, and probably beat him badly. <<<

      Agreed. This is exactly what's going to happen. Which is why continuing to support Trump is lunacy. He cannot win in November, so you might as well support a candidate that you actually, truly can support, rather than following the insane "lesser of two evils" policy.

      Trump has so incensed women that 78% of them will never vote for him. And 80% of Hispanics will never vote for him. Between those two groups alone, the election is over before it starts, no matter how many times he tweets taco bowls and says "I love hispanics".

      The Republican party should rebel. Trump refuses to play by their rules, so – they should rewrite the rules. It is their party, they can do whatever they want. They could nominate — hell, nominate Condoleeza Rice. Nominate Clarence Thomas. Nominate Paul Ryan. Just don't nominate Mitt Romney or any other northeastern liberal Rino, or Sarah Palin or any other certified lobotomized moron.

      1. avatar Bill in IL says:

        Apparently neither one of you can be bothered to keep up with the national news, events and polls. You would rather come on here and spout your fantasies. All the latest polls show Trump beating the snot out of the Hilldebeast.

        1. avatar RealityCheck says:

          Where are these polls you speak of? According to RealClearPolitics.com, the average of all national polls taken between 4/1 and 5/1 show Hillary beating Trump 47.3 to 40.8. Of course, that’s just the popular vote, which isn’t what matters; what matters is the electoral college split.

          The electoral math shows a much bigger Hildabeast landslide – look at http://www.270towin.com/maps/bMcf, they are predicting Hillary 300, Trump 93. Cooks Political’s forecast is Hillary 304, Trump 190. ElectionGraphs says that even in a very worst-case scenario for Hillary, she still wins 279 to 259. Larry Sabato predicts Hillary 347, Trump 191. ElectionProjection.com predicts Hillary 358, Trump 180. Another story about Cook’s projections, this one on PoliticsUSA, says that since Trump clinched the nomination, a full 11 states have shifted their support towards Hildabeast.

          Is there even one projection from a reliable, known, experienced organization, that shows Trump with even a chance of winning the Electoral College vote?

        2. avatar Dollup15 says:

          I’d be very interested in seeing the polls you are talking about. Here are the most recent polls I could find:

          May 9 Dartmouth poll shows Clinton over Trump by 5%
          May 9 Boston Globe poll shows Clinton over Trump by 24%
          May 7 WSB-TV poll shows Trump over Clinton by 1%
          May 4 CNN poll shows Clinton over Trump by 13%

          Trump is ahead in only one, and is hardly “beating the snot” out of Clinton. Let me know what polls you’re looking at though; I’d be happy to be wrong on this one.

        3. avatar Pond Avenue says:

          How much are you being paid per post, Disreality Check? Soros much?

  19. avatar ted says:

    I’ll take my chances with Trump. Trump is far more likely than Hillary to nominate pro-2A justices to the SCOTUS.

    President Hillary will absolutely be terrible for 2A rights.

  20. avatar Dr Brainwash says:

    I’ve been saying it since the last election. Long before the Trump, the Cruz, the Bush, and the Bern, long before the massive butthurt that’s sending everyone up the walls in an absolute panic. Anyone but Hillary. Anyone But Clinton.

  21. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    ACA is 98% funded by nonappropriated funds. There is no annual vote to find it.

  22. avatar dwb says:

    Problem is that Clinton has called for Australian-style confiscation and wants to appoint justices who will overturn Heller, or worse.

    So, while Trump *may* negotiate away some of the loaf, Clinton will take all of it guaranteed.

    And even then, with Senators like Jeff Sessions having the inside track in a Trump administration, it seems unlikely that Trump would negotiate much away. I highly doubt Sessions and other congress critters would stick their neck out for what would surely be a damning grade from the NRA. Trump might, but the Senators and Congress Critters that have to face the voters would not.

    1. avatar miforest says:

      I couldn’t agree more, Michael. It is amazing to see level of anger “my perfect guy lost” out there .

      1. avatar Pond Avenue says:

        All of the vanquished were professional politicians, save Carson. Fuk those guys and girl. Let’s blow some political $hit up.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        We have to be experiencing kids who have seen very few presidential elections. Like, how many of you guys have ever voted for a successful GOP presidential candidate? Cuz my first was Nixon, and I think the level of irrational comments is very high, here. You think Trump is going to lose? Then get off your dead ass and do something to help him win! Bitching about a candidate who was unable to beat Trump is ridiculous. He won! Get on board or blame yourself, later, not him.

  23. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    The gun grabbing statist or Pandora’s Box? I think I’ll take the box Monte.

  24. avatar Zog says:

    Of course it should make people nervous.

    Just as he outlined in “Art of the Deal”, what’s important to Mr. Trump is “doing the deal”. That’s how he notches his bedpost.

    He gets the deal done and if it goes wrong later, it’s the peons that came later that tried to implement a flawed deal that take the fall.

    The key is that he got the deal done because that’s how he measures his success.

    He’d be willing to negotiate almost anything because he has no core principles to stand on (unless you count watching out for #1 as a core principle which I guess it is).

    None of this should be a surprise because he laid it out very clearly.

    He considers himself a “dealmaker”. Not for you but for himself and that makes a difference.

    He wants to go down as the great deal maker President; making deals like no one else before could even imagine. Standing on a principle just means you’re a loser that couldn’t close the deal and Mr. Trump sure isn’t a “loser”.

  25. avatar Phil LA says:

    “Might take away guns” vs “will take away guns.”

  26. avatar Randy N says:

    I did not support Trump, and I still don’t like him. But in thinking about it, sure he is willing to negotiate everything, and he does not appear to have any core ideology, but that is really not different than the GOP leadership and most other politicians. He just is more open about it. Another thing, is GOP candidates have allowed the left to define who they are, and stick a brand on them….such as the Romney war on women etc….Trump is a master at sales and marketing and he knows facts do not really matter, it is perception and people go on emotion more often than not. He also was able to stick a brand on each candidate that posed a threat to him. With the undying media support that Hillarious will get, perhaps we need a Trump, a candidate that will not be afraid to point out the Clinton flaws, and can stick her with a brand to overcome her natural media defense.
    Trump is not a conservative, but is perceived to be by a lot of people, perhaps that will pull enough to the right that we keep control of both houses of congress where the laws are made and that will protect our 2A rights

  27. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    In a New freakin’ York minute, yes!

    From TR’s “Square Deal” to FDR’s “New Deal” to Truman’s “Fair Deal” and beyond, big government liberals and national greatness pseudo-populists have been trading away your rights for their own purposes.

    Expect nothing different from Trump’s “Let’s Make a Deal”, which history will rightly recast as the “Raw Deal.”

    Congrats, all you self-absorbed, starstruck simpleton Trumpkins.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Let me finish that rant for you; “HILLARY FOREVER!!!”

  28. avatar Xanthro says:

    This anti-Trump nonsense jumped the shark of rational thought long ago.
    On Friday, January 20, 2017 a new person will take the oath of office and become President of the United States.
    That person is either going to be Hillary Clinton, who is actively and LOUDLY gunning on an anti-gun platform, and she is openly taking about taking away your firearm rights. If she wins, it will be describe as the general public supporting an anti-gun position. The seats on the US Supreme Court will be filled with Justices who HATE the Second Amendment. There will be Executive Order after Executive Order, curtailing firearm rights under a Clinton Administration.
    That’s what we are facing.
    Yet, here we are, presenting ourselves as rational people, and actually arguing that the candidate who constantly proclaim he is for the Second Amendment is somehow worse on the matter that Clinton, who is proclaiming her hatred for the Second Amendment.
    Why this disconnect from reality? Because apparently, now one has to be BORN pure enough on the subject matter to count, that years ago, when Trump never dealt with firearms, nor cared about them in the least, made statements as a PRIVATE person that he supported an assault weapons ban, outweighs what he says now, that his two sons are heavily into firearms and providing perspective to Trump on firearms that he didn’t have living in the Gun Free Zone known as New York City.
    I’d bet half the poster on this board at one time held firearm positions close to what Trump held years ago, or held positions we’d call a Fudd today.
    Seriously, this anti-Trump argument has devolved into some bizarre position akin to someone at Treblinka, knowing they are going to be killed tomorrow and and their bodies thrown into an oven, debating whether they should trust someone who just dug into the barracks saying they can help them escape via the tunnel, because it might be a trick. Who gives a damn if it’s a trick or not, the alternative is 100% certain of being a victim of the Holocaust.
    Don’t vote for the Death Camp Guards, because you don’t trust the tunnel digger might be tricking you. The other side has already proclaimed they want you dead. Any alternative that offer even the slimmest of hope is better than that.

    1. avatar RealityCheck says:

      Let’s try this again – first of all, the choice is hardly set in stone that it will be Hillary or Trump. There are a full SIX MONTHS before election day. Hillary could get indicted. Trump could piss off the Republican Party so much that they might rebel and refuse to nominate him (remember, the convention’s a full two months away, and they are not bound by law to nominate him. They are not an extension of the US Government. They are a private organization that makes their own rules, and they can decide to change them. If they believe that the consequences of changing the rules are less disastrous than the consequences of nominating Trump, then they may very well change the rules.)

      Are these things likely to happen? No. But could they? Certainly, especially in such an unpredictable election season as we’ve had so far.

      So forgive some of us if we don’t want to crawl into bed with The Great Pumpkin. To hell with Cruz, Rubio, Romney, and everyone else who was rejected by the voters, they can’t win. But neither can Trump, and his “coattails” look primed to destroy the Republicans in the Senate and House. So you can go all-in on a choice that can’t possibly win, or you can look for alternatives. I’m hoping that some alternative will emerge.

      1. avatar Xanthro says:

        “Let’s try this again – first of all, the choice is hardly set in stone that it will be Hillary or Trump. ”
        It’s set in Stone, it’s forged in steel at this point. To believe otherwise is to deny reality.

        “There are a full SIX MONTHS before election day.”
        And that does nothing to change the fact that either Trump or Clinton is going to be the next President.

        “Hillary could get indicted. ”
        She will be indicted, so what, it doesn’t mean her campaign is going to fold. She will be indicted for misdemeanor 793(f) violation and have to pay a fine. It will be an issue in the campaign, but in and of itself won’t prevent Clinton from running.

        “Trump could piss off the Republican Party so much that they might rebel and refuse to nominate him (remember, the convention’s a full two months away, and they are not bound by law to nominate him. ”
        It’s obvious you don’t actually know how the law works. As delegates are actually bound by law to vote for their candidate the First Ballot, and often on the Second Ballot, sometimes on the Third Ballot, as that is STATE LAW where the elections are held. It’s why they are called BOUND delegates.
        The most Pro-Cruz delegate on the Planet actually has to cast his ballot for Trump on the First round if the person is a Trump Delegate.
        Nor, can the rules be changed in such a manner as to overturn reality.

        “They are not an extension of the US Government. ”
        Except they are, in the sense that by holding a PRIMARY ELECTION paid for by the STATE in which the primary is held, they are legally bound by that State’s laws.

        “They are a private organization that makes their own rules, and they can decide to change them.
        If they believe that the consequences of changing the rules are less disastrous than the consequences of nominating Trump, then they may very well change the rules.)”
        The only possible way to deny Trump the nomination with a rule change, would changing the rules to require more than 50% of delegates to win the nomination, which itself would be subject to legal challenge under State laws for the elections. Then, who exactly is going to win this hyper majority of delegates?

        “Are these things likely to happen? No. But could they? Certainly, especially in such an unpredictable election season as we’ve had so far.”
        It’s not unlikely, it’s like wishing for magic to solve your problems. It’s not going to happen.

        “So forgive some of us if we don’t want to crawl into bed with The Great Pumpkin.”
        Your choices are getting in bed with Clinton or getting into bed with Trump. That you don’t like this reality doesn’t make it any less true.

        “To hell with Cruz, Rubio, Romney, and everyone else who was rejected by the voters, they can’t win. But neither can Trump, and his “coattails” look primed to destroy the Republicans in the Senate and House. So you can go all-in on a choice that can’t possibly win, or you can look for alternatives. I’m hoping that some alternative will emerge.”
        More magical thinking. As I have stated, you are still in the denial stage of grief and loss, though you are moving on to anger and bargaining.

        1. avatar RealityCheck says:

          You may be right, it may be too late for an alternative to emerge. If so, then again, the country will receive exactly what it deserves, as always.

          The comical thing is — none of what any of us says or does matters in the slightest. 43 of the states are set in stone and will not change. Texas will not go for Hillary over Trump, and NY and CA will not go for Trump over Hillary, so there’s 85 million Americans who don’t really have a choice.

          Basically the election will be decided by Florida and Ohio, again (with a few more states “in play”). As a Texan, my ranting really doesn’t matter. I guess I’ll get back to my “Plan C”, hoping Texas secedes.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “The most Pro-Cruz delegate on the Planet actually has to cast his ballot for Trump on the First round if the person is a Trump Delegate”

          Absolutely correct, and very poorly covered by the media. All the sneaky cheating “ground game” claims by Lyin’ Ted and Kasich, were simply plans to give themselves the nomination by having their friends in smoky backrooms already convinced (“bought”) to vote for them on the SECOND ballot, and having their pledged delegates installed when the voters chose Trump. Should be criminal, but I don’t think it is. If that had worked, probably 10-20 million GOP votes would have stayed home, millions more would have voted for Libertarian, etc. The Clinton landslide would have resounded for decades, she might have gotten herself declared president for life, as Osama has attempted to do. When he reaches 1237 in a few days, there is absolutely no way to deny him the GOP nomination. The RNC can deny him any assistance, any support, and sit in the corner and sulk, but we will still have Hillary next year, no matter how irrational and spoiled brats we are. Pitch in and change something other than the candidate, because that is beyond you. If you think not, demand the Dems nominate Ted Cruz, that will give him a second chance, and is just as likely as the GOP selecting him. He’s been talking about how ignorant Trump is about all the different ways to cheat, overcome the will of the voters, as though Trump was a new guy and he, himself, had been a lying, scheming politician scumbag for years. And he was/is BRAGGING about it! Oh, wait! That is precisely the situation. I have also heard that there are thousands of paid trolls out there determined to install Hillary. I wonder how many are right here? Huh?

  29. avatar Nanashi says:

    I trust Trump on the second amendment FAR more than Cruz.

    Cruz sat in congress for 3 years and didn’t do jack shit for gun rights. He could have co-sponsored the hearing Protection Act with zero effort, which he could have brought up on the campaign trail as an example of how he’s pro-second amendment. The one bill (Grassley-Cruz ) Cruz introduced regarding the second amendment was FULL of restrictions on gun ownership, with very few actual protections. Trump has actively mentioned several restorations of freedom he would work for as president. Trump may be all talk, but Cruz wasn’t even talk.

    Cruz was for TPP before the public was against it, then started claiming he was always against it. TPP was pork, competition blocking laws, and restrictions that would crash the economy in a generation with little to no actual “free trade” in it. Either Cruz never read it before supporting it (and is thus unfit to be president), or he was bought (and thus unfit to be president).

  30. avatar Old law Prof says:

    Learn before you speak. It makes you sound less foolish.
    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights

    1. avatar RealityCheck says:

      Watch the video before you point out Trump’s “position” papers (which he has now redefined as “proposals”, which he knows he will not get). It will help you to avoid looking very foolish indeed.

  31. avatar pg2 says:

    Trump is only candidate that appears to be pissing off both parties. Maybe he’s staged or controlled opposition, but as everyone here loves to opine, you have to pick the lesser of 2 evils. It’s somewhat disturbing that these TTAG articles, and many of the posts, appear to ignore what the other choice really is.

  32. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I dunno. Politicians lie when their lips move. Hitlery will most certainly steam roll all of your Constitutional Enumerated rights.

  33. avatar Jimmyjames says:

    Big surprise…Trump is already backsliding on campaign promises by saying he will have to negotiate (with congress) and that means compromising his plans, strategies, goals, schemes, etc. and that also means higher taxes. Spoken like a true politician which he vehemently claims not to be.

    1. avatar Xanthro says:

      “Trump is already backsliding on campaign promises by saying he will have to negotiate (with congress) and that means compromising his plans, strategies, goals, schemes, etc. and that also means higher taxes”
      ——————
      Please explain how negotiating that Trump may not get everything he wants, and that his proposal for lower taxes on upper incomes may not be able to stay as low as he wants equals higher taxes.
      The top tax rate is currently 39.6% and Trump is proposing that be 25%, if he can’t get 25% and instead it’s 30%, it’s still LOWER than 39.6%.
      Plus, simply getting rid of AMT is a huge bonus for people who work for a living but make over $350,000 per year.

  34. avatar Ralph says:

    As someone who values your Second Amendment protections, does that make you nervous?

    No.

  35. avatar Paul53 says:

    Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall……………..

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      I saw on a bumper sticker:

      “Humpty was pushed…”

  36. avatar Dr Brainwash says:

    I think some of you in the “hashtag never trump crowd” need to just quit beating around the bush and get to the point you’re eventually going to get to by August. You’re hard up for Hillary. Just admit it. Save us all the time and arguing. At some point, Trump will say or do something that will finnally give you the guts to say it out loud. That you’re #readyforhillary.

    1. avatar RealityCheck says:

      Let me see if I’m following you properly – the reason I’m against a loudmouth blowhard New York Democrat who lies, cheats, and steals, is because secretly I prefer a DIFFERENT loudmouth blowhard New York Democrat who lies, cheats and steals.

      Yeah, sorry, that’s not working. I am as opposed to Hillary as one can get. I have zero interest in seeing her win, and think that it would be utterly cataclysmic for this country.

      I am opposed to Trump because he is a lying deadbeat con artist fraud who has been accused of rape by multiple women, who was granted a divorce because the judge found that Ivana’s claims of “cruel and inhuman treatment” were credible, because he’s a serial adulterer who cannot and will not keep a promise he’s made to anyone (ask his prior two wives), he is a religious fraud, he reneges on and refuses to pay legitimate bills for services he contracts for, he hires and abuses illegal aliens, he claims he’ll bring jobs back from China while he won’t even bring his own clothing/tie line manufacturing back from China(!) and he has utter contempt for the Constitution, the First amendment, the Fourth amendment, the Fifth amendment, and because Trump being in the race GUARANTEES that not only will Hillary win, but also that there will be carnage and devastation down the entire ballot as #NeverTrumps and #peoplewithactualselfrespect don’t even bother going to vote, so the Senate almost certainly goes democratic, and the House has a good chance of falling into democratic hands as well.

      Is there anything worse than Hillary as president? Yes – Hillary with a Democratic Senate and a Democratic Congress. And that is where we’re headed if a viable alternative to Trump doesn’t emerge. So keeping Trump in the race guarantees the worst possible outcome.

      1. avatar Dr Brainwash says:

        In other words, ReadyForHillary.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          “In other words,” you have no response to any of his points so you’ll just throw a snide comment out there.

          You’ve lost this argument.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Keep up this ridiculous horse manure, and in January you will discover who lost this discussion. Are you on Hillary’s payroll?

  37. avatar Stateisevil says:

    NFA will remain. Bush gun ban (import ban) will remain ( he could get rid of it himself, it was an EO), national reciprocity will most likely not happen.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You believe Bush can cancel his EO? Really? And we’re paying any attention to you? When you reach the 11th grade, maybe someone will teach you a bit about our government. If you reach the 11th grade.

  38. avatar JoshuaS says:

    The President is not a dictator, at least not if we do not let him be. Trump or Hillary can do nothing unless Congress acquiesces.

    From my view, I cannot support Trump. I don’t even think he is the lesser of two evils. In anycase, my State is not a battleground state and so I can vote my conscience and not affect the actual election (after all we vote for a slate of electors from our respective states, not the actual candidate)

    But regardless of views about Drumpf, what is essential is keeping Congress and strengthening holds on local governments. A good Congress can resist Hillary, and even her nominations. And a good one can bend Trump to play to their side.

    The Dems view Congress as winnable now, when before they did not. They believe that Trump will hurt the GOP across the board. Support, or not (as I will not), Trump— but for God’s sake still vote for the other offices which may matter more so, such as Congress and your local legislature.

    1. avatar RealityCheck says:

      Spot on.

      The presidency is lost already, regardless of which of these two get in. I am more concerned about the congress, and the effect Trump may have on driving the reliable Republican base into not even bothering to vote.

      A Republican Senate blocked Obama’s agenda (well, apart from the ACA of course). A strong, united Republican Senate and House can blunt any Trump lunacy, or Hillary’s agenda. But if people are disillusioned to the point of not bothering to vote, then Hillary wins and gets one or both houses of Congress, and that’s when the real trouble begins.

      A unified party goes out and votes. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Love or hate Orange Julius Caesar, one thing you cannot argue is that he has divided the republican house irreparably. Paul Ryan, once “the great hope” of the Republican party, is now saying he’ll step down as convention chairman if Trump demands it. Is this what we want?

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        A Republican Senate blocked Obama’s agenda (well, apart from the ACA of course).

        It wasn’t a Republican senate then (2009-2010). But that strengthens your argument,

      2. avatar miforest says:

        you need a reality check . The ” strong GOP congress” has not stopped ANYTHING Obama has wanted. TPP authority- check , complete budget authority- check , every year. Global warming regs from the EPA- check.
        open border to allow importation of millions of hard core democrat voters to turn Colorado blue for gun control laws- check. you couldn’t have a more inaccurate view of the GOP.

        the GOP party cavefest to Obama on ABOLUTELY EVERYTHING is the root of the Trump phenomenon .

        I have been a GOP supporter , contributor, and campaign volunteer since the late 70’s but I am done with all that. I have been completely betrayed by the party leaders. without trump , the GOP dead. those of us who have don the legwork for the party in the past have been completely betrayed by john bahnoer, mitch mcconnel , karl rove.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “the effect Trump may have on driving the reliable Republican base into not even bothering to vote.”

        Isn’t that what *YOU* are attempting to do?

  39. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    I trust Donald Trump because he has two out spoken civil rights sons.
    He is not a perfect candidate. And no one is.
    Cruz is not a ” gun guy”. He is a gun owner and that is great. But the civil rights movement need a fire breather. I have seen Donald Trumps sons in action. If all the republicans were as in your face about gun civil rights there would be 10 republicans still running.

    Besides Trump has a history of supporting homosexual marriage. To many people that is no important than gun civil rights. Doesn’t that make him a twofer?

  40. avatar Mad Max says:

    Unfortunately, I think The Donald would sell our gun rights to Michael Bloomberg for $1M in cash (or for free if Bloomberg winds up being Trump’s VP).

    But he might select Ted Cruz for SCOTUS, who will vote to reject anything Bloomberg does with the 2nd Amendment.

    I wouldn’t put it past Trump to do what is necessary to get the money from Bloomie but do it in a way that he is sure will be rejected by SCOTUS.

  41. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    We are soooo screwed…

  42. avatar Tyler from AR says:

    It makes me very nervous. He’s already switched several positions since being the only candidate left. It scares me to assume it’s a matter of time before firearm rights is simply a bargaining chip.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Will Donald Trump Negotiate Away Our Gun Rights? http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/05/robert-farago/desantis-gunhide-question-of-the-day-will-donald-trump-negotiate-away-our-gun-rights/" title="Email to a friend/colleague">
button to share via email