In January 2016, Stephen Miller left Senator Jeff Session’s office to join the Trump campaign. In the following months Miller wrote most of Donald Trump’s speeches, working closely with Steve Bannon (Trump’s newly named Senior Advisor). He’s a Trump insider — and a Second Amendment fundamentalist.

A recent Politico article reveals that Mr. Miller’s solid pro-gun rights stance traces back (so to speak) to when he was 16 years old.

Miller was born into a family of lawyers and salesmen, two professions he never pursued but clearly has in him. His parents were Democrats, but Miller was pulled in a different direction early, converted to the conservative cause by a copy of National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre’s 1994 book, Guns, Crime, and Freedom, a blistering takedown of the arguments for gun control.

Stephen Miller was mocked on CNN for a fundamentalist Second Amendment viewpoint, on video here.

Mr. Miller supports a limited government, conservative vision of the United States. In June of 2016, he made this statement in a warm up speech for Donald Trump:

“Very rarely in history do people get the opportunity to vote for true, real, profound change,” he began, spinning the same themes he had used in our conversation. “I would venture to say this is an opportunity is not just a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. This is the kind of opportunity that comes once in many hundreds of years. And it’s important, it’s crucially important, that every morning we wake up, we’re cognizant of just how historic and how rare this opportunity is. ‘Cause folks, it’s not gonna come again.”

We don’t know what position Mr. Miller will occupy within the Trump administration. It will certainly be an influential one. Good news for anyone who supports Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

26 Responses to Trump Speech Writer Stephen Miller is a Second Amendment Fundamentalist

  1. Miller is good on some issues but he’s a bit nutty on others and doesn’t seem stable mentally. Don’t be shocked if he is gone in a year because he’s a loose cannon. He’s not alex jones but he has similar traits as jones at times.

    • And?

      We do not need to control him, just point him at our enemy. We do not need to control him, just unleash him.

      “On my command unleash hell”-Donald Trump.

    • Yeah, Miller is a bit nutty. Miller stood up for the Duke lacrosse team and claimed that the attacks against them were racist, accused poet Maya Angelou of racial paranoia, and accused Hollywood of being a LGBTXYZ conspiracy.

      All of which was and is true. Well, except the part about Maya Angelou being a poet.

  2. What exactly is this super-duper opportunity of which Mr. Miller speaks? Is it an opportunity to roll back nearly unconstitutional firearms laws?

    • Earlier today this site had an article about police learning to “de-escalate” situations and/or “talk down the bad guy”.

      Isn’t it about time, since we are not dealing with the Soviet Union anymore and modern Russia is many things, but NOT communist, that we had a president who was at least willing to open a dialogue with them rather than just keep building and pointing and threatening with more and more weapons?

    • Given that Russia is the only country apparently interested in destroying Islam, I’d say they should be our natural allies, not our opponents.

      • Exactly so.

        A lot of people forget that the Russians learned the hard way about muhammadian mass-murder long before Beslan, and have been fighting islam for a very long time.

        I met & befriended some Russian soldiers while we were all on leave in Kiev, not long after Beslan; for the younger ones, that was their 9/11 moment. But the two senior-NCOs had been in Chechnya, and were completely committed to killing jihadis since the 90s. They both told me that when our 9/11 happened, their belief was it had was perpetrated by Chechnyians, or had orignated from there. They were also unanimous about Iraq being a huge mistake.

        I keep in touch with one periodically, who is still enlisted. The last I heard he was quite relieved when Trump won, and that relief is shared by a lot of other Russians.

  3. Two things:
    1) The 2016 Presidential Election was a tipping point for the American Constitutional Republic and American Society as a whole, not just Second Amendment Rights. If the Democrats had won, another four/eight years of an “Obama Legacy” Presidency stewarded by the Clintons would have pretty much put an end to the America conceived and founded between 1785 and 1788.

    2)Vladimir Putin believes that the morning he woke-up to the news the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was dissolved, he claims he suddenly realized that millions of Russians had been stranded in other countries and resolved to rescue them all by re-uniting the old Soviet Republics in a new Russian State. He has worked towards that end for many years and will never give it up. Vladimir Putin is no one’s “friend” who is not a Russian in his mind and does not give a spoonful of borscht about anyone else. To wit, assisting Assad in leveling Aleppo and killing untold thousands in the past few months, annexing The Crimean Peninsula to protect Russians and surreptitiously invading the Ukraine. The Trump Administration will have to take Putin’s Russian Imperialist ambitions carefully into account as they deal with him, but I doubt an extended hand of friendship will work any better than HiLIARy’s stupid “Reset Button”.

    • That Putin may have had something to do with influencing the recent US election is no surprise at all:

      “Former U.S. officials who worked on Russia policy with Clinton say that Putin was personally stung by Clinton’s December 2011 condemnation of Russia’s parliamentary elections, and had his anger communicated directly to President Barack Obama. They say Putin and his advisers are also keenly aware that, even as she executed Obama’s “reset” policy with Russia, Clinton took a harder line toward Moscow than others in the administration. And they say Putin sees Clinton as a forceful proponent of “regime change” policies that the Russian leader considers a grave threat to his own survival.”

      http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-putin-226153

      If you hit Putin, he *will* hit you back.

      “2)Vladimir Putin believes that the morning he woke-up to the news the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was dissolved, he claims he suddenly realized that millions of Russians had been stranded in other countries and resolved to rescue them all by re-uniting the old Soviet Republics in a new Russian State. He has worked towards that end for many years and will never give it up.”

      1,000 percent.

      Putin considers it his sacred duty to restore the old USSR.

      That’s why admitting the Baltic states (Latvia, Estonia, etc) into NATO was as *stupid* as it gets.

      Look at the recent events in Russia – Annexing Crimea. Bitch-slapping Soviet Georgia. Making public statements nuclear war is a real possibility. *Massive* efforts to upgrade Russian fallout shelters. Posturing. Making threats. Massing troops near the border.

      NATO is *supposed* to be an ‘all-for-one, and one-for-all’ mutual defense treaty. You hit one of us, we will *all* hit you back. (*cough* Supposedly. *cough*)

      When Russia makes their move in the Baltic states (and you can bet your ass they will if they think they can pull it off), NATO will have to make a decision – Is it worth it for all-out war for Russia?

      If NATO decides it isn’t, that will result in the destruction of the NATO treaty.

      Once NATO is divided against itself, Russia will pick off the others one-by-one.

      That isn’t pie-in-the-sky speculation, people. It’s a *very* real possibility…

      • Great comments, Geoff PR. Putin has placed a lot of Russian Military very near the Baltic States purportedly to conduct “Military Games”, but they have been in place a few months now.

        While browsing around, however, I found this article from Western Journalism shortly after posting my comment about Putin:

        http://www.westernjournalism.com/putin-on-meeting-with-trump-we-are-ready-at-any-moment/

        I suspect these supposedly encouraging remarks from Putin cannot be taken at face value, but acted upon with caution. I am not sure how we can reconcile this overture with the wholesale slaughter reportedly committed in Aleppo by Assad’s troops heavily supported by Russian Air Forces.

        I think your conclusion about dividing NATO is spot on, which adds to suspicion about Putin’s strategy behind the “ready to meet at any moment” statement.

  4. Until Trump is sworn in and something regarding the 2nd is even mentioned aloud in public.
    Im holding my reservations as to whether we have someone on our side or not.
    Till then. I dont and wont believe anyone about much of anything 2nd related.
    Its politics after all. Trump or not.

  5. Meanwhile, in places like New York , Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, DC., California, etc…No changes…2nd Amendment is still a Privilege granted by an Authoritarian state government, or a Draconian paramilitarizied local/state police force…Or Both…Wake me up when all US Bill of Rights amendments that pertain to the People are reinforced and protected by an addendum that makes It a “Capital Crime” for any government agent, agencies, private organizations, private business, or police department to infringe upon in anyway…With penalties of not more than 250k in restitution, fines, and imprisonment.

    • “Wake me up when all US Bill of Rights amendments that pertain to the People are reinforced and protected by an addendum that …”

      First of all, such a reinforcing addendum exists: United States Code 18 Section 242 titled Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. That law includes penalties up to and including the death penalty for particularly egregious violations.

      Unfortunately, United States Attorney Generals will almost never apply that section of United States Code to the proverbial Good Ol’ Boys Network (politicians, fellow attorneys, and to a lesser extent their police enforcers). Even worse, attorneys will employ as much verbal and mental gymnastics as necessary to explain away our civil rights under various circumstances (which really means all circumstances) to “legitimize” actions which deprive us of our rights.

      For example, my state imposed a penalty on my small (tiny is a much more accurate description) business for filing a late report about a nominal tax of around $25. They imposed a penalty of over $2,800. You would think that a penalty which is over 100 times the insignificant tax of $25 should not be enforceable since it violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution “… nor excessive fines imposed …”. But, somehow, that does not apply in my particular circumstance according to the attorneys involved.

      In my very current and poignant example of a grossly excessive fine, the courts will side with the state because that is what the courts do. And no U.S. Attorney General will prosecute anyone involved because the fine (no matter how ridiculous) “is the will of the people as legally enacted through their duly elected representatives”. (And therein is the verbal gymnastics.)

      Realistically, the only way I can prevail is if I have several hundred thousand dollars to contribute to the right person’s political campaign fund which would result in key people suddenly realizing the injustice of such a fine and refusing to enforce it. Less realistically, I might prevail if I have several hundred thousand dollars to pay for the legal fight all the way, at a minimum, to my state’s Supreme Court.

  6. I look forward to hearing fire breathing speeches from President Trump. With speech writers like Mr Miller the smoke and fire will be intense.

Leave a Reply

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