BREAKING: Trump Vows to Veto Anti-Gun Bills

Trump veto gun control

Bigstock

If you had any doubt before, the White House made it clear today that President Trump will not sign any of the gun control measures promoted by Democrats in Congress. The White House says the two main bills under consideration remain “incompatible with the Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to keep arms.”

HR 8 would ban the private sale of firearms in America. HR 1112 would impose as much as a 20-day waiting period before picking up a new firearm. We’ve written about the potential of the ban on private sales (otherwise known as universal background checks) previously. Luis Valdes worried that it would pass into law.  I expressed skepticism that it would make it to Trump’s desk.

The White House made it clear today that President Donald Trump will veto the measure if it gets that far.

From The Hill:

The White House on Monday issued a statement warning that President Trump would veto proposed legislation to enhance background checks for gun purchases if it passes the House and Senate.

The legislation in question, H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112, would require universal background checks and close a so-called Charleston loophole that the shooter used in the 2015 massacre at a historic black church to buy a gun. One of the measures is a bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) and Pete King (R-N.Y.).

Both bills are expected to pass the House along party lines with limited support from Republicans when they vote on it this week. If the bills pass in the House, they would still need to be sent to the Republican-controlled Senate for approval before reaching Trump.

The White House announced it opposed the bills for violating Second Amendment rights.

“The extensive regulation required by H.R. 8 is incompatible with the Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to keep arms,” the statement reads. “By overly extending the minimum time that a licensed entity is required to wait for background check results, H.R. 1112 would unduly impose burdensome delays on individuals seeking to purchase a firearm.”

Even CNN, hardly a subsidiary of the National Rifle Association, admits that “Universal Background Checks” would not stop recent mass public shootings in America in their story “Would background checks have stopped recent mass shootings? Probably not.

In that story, former NRA President David Keene summed it up nicely:

“The tipping point for all this gun control talk about background checks is actually an example of how background checks don’t matter… [the] killer will find a way to get a gun even if he kills the owner.”

Not only that, but the Washington Post fact-checked Marco Rubio’s claim that banning private gun sales would not protect us from spree killers – and found that Rubio was spot on:

Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

“None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.”

— Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), interview on CBS’s “This Morning,” Dec. 4, 2015

A colleague pointed out this statement by Marco Rubio as a possible fact check, suggesting that it was almost certainly incorrect. It posed an interesting challenge, given the reams of data to examine….

The Pinocchio Test
This is certainly a depressing chronicle of death and tragedy. But Rubio’s statement stands up to scrutiny — at least for the recent past, as he framed it. Notably, three of the mass shootings took place in California, which already has strong gun laws including a ban on certain weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Gun-control advocates often point to the experience in other countries that have enacted gun laws that heavily restrict gun ownership; as we have shown, quantitative measures of cross-comparative crime statistics, especially where the crime is not consistently defined (i.e., “mass shooting”), usually end up being apples-to-oranges comparisons. It is possible that some gun-control proposals, such as a ban on large-capacity magazines, would reduce the number of dead in a future shooting, though the evidence for that is heavily disputed. But Rubio was speaking in the past, about specific incidents. He earns a rare Geppetto Checkmark.

When both CNN and the Washington Post agree with the NRA on the efficacy (or lack thereof) of a particular type of gun control, that’s saying something.

comments

  1. avatar Scott C says:

    Let’s see if either of these even make it that far. If they do, I hope Trumps keeps that word.

    1. avatar binder says:

      If the democrats thought that they would pass, they would never even bring them up for a vote, that KNOW that it will kill them come 2020. Kind of like CCW reciprocity would likely have hurt the Republicans.

      1. avatar Tim says:

        ^ Exactly.

      2. avatar No one of consequence says:

        How would ccw reciprocity possibly have hurt Republicans’ reelection chances?

        Democrats won’t vote for them anyway. Independents are rarely – in my experience – single issue voters and this would have been only one factor. And it likely wouldn’t have cost them a Republican voter’s vote.

        1. avatar Scott says:

          Look to the Schedulers of the House in the last Congress, Paul Ryan and the Senate, Mitch McConnell. Neither of these measures made it to the floor of either Chamber. They obviously were/are Squishy on Second Amendment issues. Ryan is, of course, gone. I’m not sure but McConnell might be up for re-election next cycle so that will be your chance to help remedy the situation with contributions to primary challengers if you don’t live in Kentucky.

      3. avatar NB says:

        If the democrats thought that they would pass, they would never even bring them up for a vote, that KNOW that it will kill them come 2020. Kind of like CCW reciprocity would likely have hurt the Republicans.

        100% nonsense post from a poster whose comments are consistently nonsense.

        No Republican has been hurt by reciprocity and virtually every singe republican is already on record supporting reciprocity legislation as are quite a few Democrats — both this time and least time around.

        Reciprocity has majority support in both the Senate and House and among the public
        The problem is getting 60 in the Senate. Democrat minority leader Schumer — who is on record against even a controlled individual right to own a gun at all — letting it get to 60.

      4. avatar Victoriaillinois says:

        When they had the chance to get DACA, they didn’t vote for it. Why? It’s they’re rallying cry during elections. They have the posters made already.

        1. avatar J says:

          The had Obama declare a national emergency for DACA. That was the only way they could get it.

  2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    The ONLY way to stop “mass shootings” and “gun violence” is to repeal the 2nd Amendment, AND confiscate ALL 400 million guns currently in civilian hands. IMO, Democrats have no choice but to zealously pursue this agenda, immediately, on the grounds it might save just one child. I’m begging them to begin in earnest. I’ll also remind law enforcement of the oath they toook to protect the Constitution, and that through the Internet, nothing is private, including where potential traitors live (with their families). Let’s not forget how successful the less armed and prepared insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan have been against the most powerful military in human history.

    1. avatar TheBruteSquad says:

      An attempt to confiscate the 400-600 million guns Americans have would result in a lot more mass shootings, not fewer…

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “An attempt to confiscate the 400-600 million guns Americans have would result in a lot more mass shootings, not fewer…”

        So easy to imagine, but what is the reality? It would be instructive, helpful and eye-opening to have a survey of gun owners (some means of identifying them would be necessary), asking if they would forcefully, with firearms and other weapons, resist government agents coming to the door and taking firearms because of a new law, or constitutional amendment. Perhaps, on a personal level, it would be revealing to ask all the gun owners you can find.

        My take, of course, is that the vast majority of gun owners have other priorities in light of which surrendering firearms would be of no concern. We of the entire gun blogesphere do not represent the majority of gun owners.

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          I’d suggest a tiny fraction, let’s say, 3% of all gun owners, would fight to the death to preserve our inalienable rights. Let’s do some quick math……yup, that’s about 3 million. More than the total combined of all levels (city, state and federal) of law enforcement in the US, and more our entire military (who the majority would side with the Constitution, by the way).
          “It is no longer enough to be willing to fight and die to preserve our Constitutional Republic, one must be willing to kill for it, too” IST

        2. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          I cringe at the thought of something so unnecessary taking place but I do agree. The unfortunate part is how far spread out are those 3 million and how effective would that number of resistance be if the spread is too far?

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The unfortunate part is how far spread out are those 3 million”

          The compactness of the original New England colonies was a critical factor for the Americans. The reaches of the Carolinas was a benefit, but stretched over 2800 miles things are likely to be quite different. Especially for gun owners in blue states. The internet system would be controlled by police and military. Back country travel would pose a huge problem for moving support and supplies to insurgents.

          If the attendance at pro-gun rallies is an indicator, rounding up protesters would seem pretty easy.

        4. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          Essentially if I’m understanding you right that would be my fear is it would be a one (gun owner) on many (government tyrants). Honestly a more effective method in my mind would be for those 3 million to march on Capital Hill in DC right into the Chamber of Congress. That would be a formidable force not to be lightly reckoned with.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          A million gun owners could impressively clog the city, maybe shutting down the government?

        6. avatar TheBruteSquad says:

          It wouldn’t take a million gun owners to shut down a city. A million rebels could shut down the power, gas, and highways to every city. It’s all a matter of how determined they are to cause trouble.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “A million rebels could shut down the power, gas, and highways to every city.”

          In these pages, it seems people believe that a disorganized, disconnected armed mob can perform tactical miracles. it would be relatively easy to overwhelm a single city (Wash DC) for a day or two of just being there. But coordinated rallies (or attacks) on several cities by random gun carriers is a whole ‘nuther country.

          Disorganized, random groups of angry gun owners intent on invading and controlling multiple cities is beyond a bridge too far. Yes, the US Army knows how to use LGOPs, but those are trained units, with sufficient logistics. The movements you are talking about cannot be sustained logistically without significant planning, and exquisite execution. When would this “support” function be created, exercised, and deployed. Not only would the lines of communications be tricky, the lines of supply would be, at best, haphazard.

        8. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Your wrong if you think the military is going to attempt to shut down an armed rebellion. There may be some confusion in the first few days, but ultimately, the majority will sooner turn their own weapons against the tyrants before firing on their own mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters and dons and daughters. There are many reasons why an insurgency would collapse the system in just a week or 2. But the primary reason is that small assault squads can attack the head of major police department, (assuming they’ve given an order to confiscate and attack) in his own home, in the middle of the night as he lays sleeping next to his wife and down the hall from his children. How many folks are going to be willing to step up and fill the shoes of the traitors who have been executed in the name of liberty? I’d imagine law enforcement will collapse, nationwide, after only a dozen or so anti-constitutionalists are liquidated. The biggest factor is that we share the same soil as them, 24/7, and all info is public and available. This includes the democrat voter registrations and voting records. These records will be useful in the future. I’d urge patriots to start compiling them now. You know, just for curiosity purposes.

        9. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          The supposed pro gun community have bigger problems than putting together a well orchestrated march. We would first need to agree on what shall not be infringed means. Some think it’s for sporting purposes. Some think it’s for self defense. Some think it’s to ultimately prevent tyranny. While others still think it is a couple of the previous three. Yet still again we have people like me that think it is all the above. The petty fighting of idiots that are dilutional enough to think their government won’t turn on them just because this is the 21st century are the most harmful. The continued strong support of the NRA given their sporting purposes support of the 2A and that certain types of firearms are not needed by just anyone certainly doesn’t help. A right does not mean giving money to lobbyists to give to politicians, that’s a privilege on par with how much money you want to spend to keep it. I refuse to pay for a right. I’d rather die fighting to keep it. I risked my life for in service of this country in two different conflicts. Fighting for my own rights isn’t much of a stretch for me.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” We would first need to agree on what shall not be infringed means.”

          Indeed. If people cannot agree on what the Second Amendment protects, what will cause them to suddenly, without leadership, join together in agreeing on what target to attack, with what weapons, at which time, etc.

          However, with an estimated 5 million people holding concealed carry permission slips, I can see one-fifth of those persons being energized to hold a peaceful rally in D.C.
          (Well, maybe, someday, one day)

        11. avatar Drop-in says:

          And in other news Bass Pro Shop has reported a massive spike in boat sales, with heavy sales emphasis on the less stable rowboats in Magpul’s new Kapcize line of watercraft.

        12. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…Kapcize line of watercraft.”

          That’s funny; nicely done.

        13. avatar Aaron Walker says:

          Comment sounds “wholesomely Un-American”. I bet if politicians came on “Fake News TV 📺” and told the entire American public that for THEIR safety the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights would be permanently suspended…I guratanee there would be a 2nd American Civil War unlike anything see before! It would make Egypt’s Civil War look like small beach party! There is NOT enough police in every town/city/state to restrain the Lawful U.S. Citizenry! Not including Miltia Groups…Because if this was so…S#!TCago would already be a utopia of “Urban Pacification…”

        14. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Proclaiming the public will rise up against government tyranny is belied by the facts on the ground. Look around you. Is this the America of the 1950s? The 1870s? If there was real danger of a wide-spread armed revolt, the curtailment of our rights would not be in the state it is.

          The fact that we are discussing the potential of government removing the means of resistance means that the overwhelming majority of voters are not represented on blogs like this one. Voters are long past caring whether elected representatives will uphold the constitution as established, and onto to how much of what they want can be imposed on others, or result in benefits paid for by someone else.

          It is interesting how people are full of bravado about how “the people” will prevail against government, but have no means of energizing “the people” to abandon their lives, and rush to join the rebels. How many of us actually know who in our neighborhood, or apartment complex are willing to join such a revolt? How many of the people are experienced and prepared in survival outside a well functioning town or city? Where are the future patriots, willing to war against government being produced? How do those numbers stand up against the long term and relentless manufacture of people indoctrinated in hate for this nation?

          The people you are counting on to resist armed government tyranny are becoming fewer by the year. Are the potential revolutionary forces you are expecting more or less numerous than in 1992/93? Don’t brush off the fact that the Texas national Guard provided helicopter support to the ATF in Waco. Point being, the government does have enforcement capability made up of Americans willing to shoot other Americans. But in the end, there was no armed uprising to protest/defend/ reverse/throw off tyrannical events at Ruby Ridge, Waco, Bundy 1 and 2.

          We are losing the demographic contest. We may be successful here and there, for now, but what about ten years from now? The militant left keeps producing anti-American school graduates. Our progeny is in decline. What do we do about that?

        15. avatar Gadsden says:

          “In these pages, it seems people believe that a disorganized, disconnected armed mob can perform tactical miracles.”

          Sam, that’s exactly what the insurgency in Iraq was. Contrary to popular belief due to the media’s worship of the “cunning, and courageous insurgents”, the Iraqi insurgency was downright piss poor. Groups were not unified and even fought eachother. There was poor communication between groups. There wasn’t one centralized command orchestrating these groups. Bin Laden himself, expressed in documents captured from him compound, complained of the absolute mess of the state of the insurgency and Al Queda there. Now, at the moment, it’s kinda hard to tell who exactly “won” Iraq, an argument could be made the US did, or Iran did, or that the jury is still out. But the fact of the matter remains that piss poor, untrained, groups of Iraqis held the full weight of the US military for about 8-10 years.

        16. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam, that’s exactly what the insurgency in Iraq was. ”

          It was actually quite different. The insurgency had leaders, had wide spread public support (in many of the rebellious localities). A mob did not just show up spontaneously, and start waging war. The insurgents were/are Mohamedans, and uniformly hated “invaders” into their territories. The insurgents knew their leaders, knew their neighbors, knew those who attended mosque together. They may not have had a formal T/O, but they had a form of organization completely unavailable to an insurgency in this country. The insurgents could also melt into the crowds with impunity, either through force, or sympathy. Where will all these new American revolutionaries hide? You think your neighbors will harbor you? Do you have the wherewithal to survive off the land indefinitely (there will be no supply chain to support the mob).

          Our “revolution” is in the ballot box, and we are woefully under staffed to prevail indefinitely. The birthrate is declining, requiring importation of ignorant, poor and fertile foreigners. Those replacement populations are instilled with a deep dependency on government largess. They may have “conservative” family values, but the concept of the Patrón is loud within them.

          Do you find it interesting that all those calling for armed revolt ignore the other population, the liberals, leftists, authoritarians? Are we imagining all those benefiting from government will take up arms and join us? We can discount the police and military to some extent, but is it wise to think the entire populace will support an attempt to return this country to its founding principles?

          There is not return to the glory days of the first civil war. Neither we, nor the natural opposition possess the intellectual prowess of the founders. Like many before us, a revolution without the brainpower behind it will devolve into just mindless chaos and disaster. Or worse, a tyrant will arise (like in all the other revolts) among us to rule over the revolutionaries, who will be declared counter-revolutionaries, with all that entails.

        17. avatar Scott says:

          As long as they don’t have a list provided by a system of universal background checks and a registry I have a few duds I could give up to make confiscators go away. For some guns they could only really confiscate serialized receivers and for some it is possible to make your own.

          In reality very few LEOs are interested in going door to door and finding out who will willingly surrender guns and many believe in the Second Amendment to the extent that they would ignore any confiscation law.

        18. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Imagine how a good wall and tight security on the southern border would hinder freedom fighters. They couldn’t smuggle needful things across and intel/meat assets back and forth.

    2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      Governments having a monopoly of force has killed more than “gun violence” ever did. Pass.

      1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        Agreed, Hitler comes to mind but there are others.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Agreed, Hitler comes to mind but there are others.”

          Hitler comes to mind so fast because we have the files and film. Stalin was a more prolific and effective killer, but we have very little record, and almost no film. Hitler was a weenie compared to Stalin.

        2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          And both were on the JV team compared to Mao and communist China, with regards to oppressing and killing their own people.

        3. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          How about the Khmer Rouge regime lead by Pol Pot or General Mohamed Farrah Hassan Aidid, both genocidal killers in their own right. Heretics making heretics out of sane people all in the name of money and power.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “How about the Khmer Rouge regime lead by Pol Pot or General Mohamed Farrah Hassan Aidid, both genocidal killers in their own right.”

          True, ‘dat.

          OTH, a commenter seemed to note Hitler as first coming to mind, which is why my comparison between Hitler and Stalin. Mao was a killer, but his, and lesser mass murder dictators don’t rapidly come to mind.

        5. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          I said Hitler for the reasons you pointed out. Stalin sticks out like a sore thumb he just didn’t get the press Hitler got. There should be no one that would make the mistake such atrocities can’t or won’t happen again regardless of geographical location. It only takes a a convincing maniac to sway the ever changing opinion of the majority masses, and just like that the body count begins. After the dust settles it gets chalked up to another bloody lesson in the pages of history that no one in particular cares about or will learn from.

    3. avatar Allen says:

      You do realize you are calling for the same thing that hitler stalin pot and others have done to their countries in turn killing millions. You speak of law enforcement and military holding to their constitutional oaths well an all out assault on the 2nd amendment is something these men and women swore not to do. Right now in baltimore Washington state and new Mexico we have law enforcement officials saying they will not comply on a state level you think they would change their minds on a fexeral level? Remember government has already trieed to take the firearms away from this countrys patriots and they had the worlds best trained military.shows what a group of rag tags can do when they are threate. I say its your idea you lead the first charge into a home to take their firearms. I will sing at your funeral.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Afraid you are responding to a lengthy rant of sarcasm.

      2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        You must be new here. My begging for the democrat terrorists to try to ban and confiscate our firearms is so the long overdue Restorative War, and the subsequent literal and justifiable genocide of those domestic enemies, can begin in earnest.

    4. avatar Mick Gaines says:

      Doesn’t matter what laws politicians pass. If it isn’t firearms being used, they’ll (criminals) will use another tool(s). You and your progressive, socialist leaning clones think criminals will stop being criminals because some law is passed. Quit being so naive.

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    It is an old saw that when government wants to talk to itself (its separate parts), significant personages make the rounds of Sunday morning talk shows.

    It seems that when Trump wants to talk to the Senate (McConnell), he chastises the House, telling them what he (Trump) will not tolerate.

    Given you can’t make deals when you refuse to entertain a proposal, and we have The deal maker, we shall see.

  4. avatar Jamie in North Dakota says:

    That’s fake news! I’ve saw countless posts on TTAG by “real” 2A supporters who say POTUS Trump is anti-gun and also the NRA has supported every anti-gun bill since the Civil war ended :O Thank goodness we have those hardcore folks around to keep it real for us Trump supporting, mouth breathing, NRA cap wearing Fudds. #KAG!!!

    1. avatar Biatec says:

      He is anti gun. I am either voting libertarian or Rand paul in the primary if he runs maybe. Trump is an anti gun anti constitution rino. Voting for him in the long wrong just expands government power and when someone even worse is in they will be able to do even more.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        So you’re okay with empowering democrats? You aren’t helping the situation at all.

        1. avatar Casey says:

          Well, another way to look at it is by yelling at anyone who doesn’t vote your way, YOU are the one empowering bother democrats AND republicans, both of which are way up there on the statist scale.

          It’s a crazy thought, but if we all ever got tired of the two-party bullshitathon, and all just decided to vote for some third party, that third party could actually win.

          But that’ll never happen. But I won’t vote for Trump any more than I’d vote for Clinton.

          Your choice is whether to accept that and work with us on protecting our right to bear arms, or to piss and moan and call us mean names so as to ensure we will never want to go out of our way to care about your opinions again.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It’s a crazy thought, but if we all ever got tired of the two-party bullshitathon, and all just decided to vote for some third party, that third party could actually win.”

          I don’t generally get into third-party fantasies, and that is because most 3rd party types are fanatics, and don’t look too deeply into their dreams. Contrary to past practice, I will engage about third-party fans. But, to start, you already have a third-party president; think about it. Since I am taking you seriously, it would be gracious if you would take the time to review a long read.

          First a disclaimer, I put 3rd party supporters and Convention of States people in the same category…shallow understanding of what is real, and what is hobby. Now, onto the subject.

          We do have the history of third-party attempts in this country; all of them failures. And not because the parties didn’t have serious candidates. Indeed, there was the Bull Moose Party instigated by a former US President. One would think such a personage would pretty much guarantee a formidable challenge to the two-party system. Then, there was the Reform Party, started by billionaire H. Ross Perot. He got nearly 20% of the vote, a record, and still failed. Of course, we cannot ignore Jesse Ventura, also of the Reform Party. Ventura did get elected Governor of Minnesota – for one term.

          Now, about Trump, the first third-party president…

          Many 3rd Party aficionados claim that they can’t win because of big money. T. Roosevelt was not hurting for money to run a campaign (he lost). Ross Perot, a billionaire, did not lack for campaign money (his own). Steve Forbes, a billionaire ran for president on the Republican ticket (he did not obtain even the nomination), and Donald Trump. It is popular for election losers (regardless of party) to proclaim that “big money” defeated the candidate. Well, Perot, Forbes and Trump represented their own “big money”, could “buy” an election out of their own party, and would be in the grip of no outside monied interests. Only Trump succeeded (yes, he ran as a Repbulican, but without party support then, and even now). Yet, Trump ran against the Republican establishment, as well as the established Democrats, making him essentially a party of his own.

          SInce 1998, we have had two third-party (“independents” in all respects) candidates win election: Ventura and Trump. On careful inspection we can discover a commonality: no down ticket support to speak of. That is, no “coattails”, no political allies of consequence. For Ventura, the result was a one term victory. For Trump, we shall see.

          With Ventura and Trump, “the people” sent a message that they wanted an end to politics as usual. The insiders put an end to Ventura’s career, quite quickly. As for Trump, there has been a two year, 24/7 campaign to tell both Trump and his supporters that no outsiders are allowed to waltz in and accomplish what the established politicians could not accomplish in decades. The upshot of it all? Third-party office holders, cannot radically change things, unless they have political allies where the power lies.

          Just as Convention of States people do not understand that any proposed amendments must be subject to the same political system they COS believers are trying to correct through amendments; same legislatures and judicial system. Likewise, 3rd party believers ignore the fact that their message (even when they win) is not being accepted, not being honored for the change the candidates represent. And ultimately, both the COS people, and the third-party people end up blaming the voting public, which is a helluva sales technique.

          So, there it is: third-party movements do not “sell”. When you can’t make a sale, blaming the customer base is a bit silly. If third-parties cannot sell to both the voters and the donors, the fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in the third-party concept that serves only to ensure elections for the national party that is least aligned with the goals of the 3rd party.

        3. avatar J Gibbons says:

          Thank you, Sam I Am, for the well-reasoned disputation of the value of third-party candidates. While we can all bemoan the fact that we are in a 2-party system, the fact is that we ARE in a 2-party system. Any third-party candidate vote is a vote for the least aligned party.

          In the specific case of 2020, any vote against Trump is a vote for whichever socialist happens to win the Democrat nomination. If Trump fails to win the Republican nomination, then the Democrats will win the office of POTUS. I get that a lot of folks don’t like Trump. Current evidence clearly shows that Harris, Warren, Booker, Sanders and any other known candidate on the Democrat side is worse than Hillary. The precedent for unchecked socialist growth is real. The current House is doing all they can to move us toward the “utopia” of Venezuela. It will take that silent majority of citizens who are not falling off the left to see the idiocy of the national Democrat platform and vote against it, even if they don’t like Trump.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Thank you, Sam I Am, for the well-reasoned disputation of the value of third-party candidates.”

          Thank you for the kind words but, if I made any sense something is wrong. Need to look at upping my Singapore Sling intake.

      2. avatar Speculatores says:

        Well at least don’t vote for the actual Libertarian Party. They have embraced gun control almost as much as the democrat party. They’ve embraced open borders too. The libertarian party has become a true shadow of its former self by allowing itself to be bullied and nuetered by the left and the media. In their quest to come off as a third option, they’ve become a non option.

  5. avatar former water walker says:

    Ummm…OK. Pardon my skepticism but Donnie banned bump stocks. So there’s that. I’ll wait and see-like in ILLinois. Pandering to us gunfolk? Dunno’. I won’t annoint the Trumpster just yet.

    1. avatar NB says:

      Trumps bump stock move was genius. It short circuited a massively more egregious legislative effort.

      And just look at his judicial appointments — the guy is the best president on the 2A ever.

      1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        I would have to agree. I think Trump knew his bump stock ban would illicit a law suit that ultimately will most likely be overturned by the courts. The democrats don’t want to pick up that torch and the Republicans for the majority have no interest in it. By Trump making this move it will die a painful death and Trump will be able to sit back and say I tried but I told you so. I just hope this sort of streak for him holds out and if it does he is re-elected.

        1. avatar Zoldone says:

          “I think Trump knew his bump stock ban would illicit a law suit that ultimately will most likely be overturned by the courts.”

          Great, so break laws to get laws passed. Gee…that sounds suspiciously like…

          Back to your original point. How long ago was that executive order banning bump stocks signed? Where are the lawsuits or challenges to that executive order? It’s the law of the land now and won’t be overturned.

          But hey…go right ahead and believe a man who can’t properly spell his favorite food correctly as being some political genius mastermind.

      2. avatar Marcia Mason says:

        Don’t think so. This AG Barr appointment is worrisome. There’s evidence he is anti-gun and I don’t understand Trump liking him that much.

      3. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        NB, you’re right. Trump is more pro 2A than other republicans. Who else do we have? I like Ron & Rand Paul, but I don’t see them winning anything.

      4. avatar Dude says:

        Bingo! He recognized that was a fight he would have lost. It was best to reserve time and energy and political capital for a real fight.

        I wonder if democratic operatives are helping to push this idea that Trump is anti gun, or if people are just really that dumb.

        1. avatar Barnbwt says:

          When’s that “real fight” start?

          What a bunch of worthless Fudds.

        2. avatar Zoldone says:

          “I wonder if democratic operatives are helping to push this idea that Trump is anti gun, or if people are just really that dumb.”

          There’s this thing called Google, I suggest you use it. Trump also has a Twitter account, I suggest you read it.

          Or are you so dumb you can’t figure out how Google and Twitter works? Or you really believe that some guy in a bright red shiny cap must be some genius who has your best interests at heart?

          Get your head out of the sand. Trump is not pro 2A and never has been. He doesn’t care about us. He likes the attention and likes to stir the pot…that does not make him pro 2A. He’s made plenty of statements against the 2A before and after he got into office. It’s not some 4D chess game…the man can’t even spell hamburger, his most favorite food correctly.

      5. avatar Zoldone says:

        “Trumps bump stock move was genius. It short circuited a massively more egregious legislative effort.”

        What?

        Better to just have legislative fiat that becomes law of the land? As opposed to the legislative branch were it probably would not have passed?

        Yeah… genius…

        Just wow. Are a you Sanders operative? Or you just love Trump so much you’re blind?

        Trump can’t even spell hamburgers properly… you think what you think was actually what he was thinking?

  6. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    We’ll see.

  7. avatar A. T. Barr says:

    Can anyone tell me a gun control bill that a criminal will follow. Just one!

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Being locked in prison after they have committed the crime?

  8. avatar tmm says:

    This is supposed to be breaking news?

  9. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

    This is a breath of fresh air after Trump nominated that idiot waste of skin Barr as Attorney General. What’s worse is a Senator from my state vote in favor of Barr’s confirmation. The other Senator here fortunately didn’t. It’s sad that Trump has done pretty well up to that point. Hopefully he will make up for it if Ginsburg steps down from the bench and Trump is able to appoint another conservative judge to the bench. That would be a huge tipping point for years to come for conservative Americans and a huge slap in the face for freedom hating liberal democrats. Yes both deserve it.

  10. avatar Rv6driver says:

    He’ll veto the dems garbage and pass his own garbage through executive order after the next mass shooting. I stand by my belief that Trump’s idea of the second amendment is a jframe tucked away in a sock drawer. I’m not Trump bashin’, I’m agree with a lot of his policies but he’s not pro gun.

    They’re coming after semi-autos and the gop is gonna back it. I not saying it’s enforceable, but “something wicked this way comes…”

    1. avatar NB says:

      Just the most pro 2A president ever.

      1. avatar Marcia Mason says:

        Oh heavens, NOT! Teddy Roosevelt and JFK were VERY pro 2A. Historically, look at Washington, Madison, & Jefferson.

        1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

          Marcia, I think he meant recent presidents. The whole country was pro2A when Roosevelt and JFK, Washington, Madison, Jefferson were presidents. Actually, I don’t think many people thought much about it. It wasn’t politicized like it is now.

  11. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

    Sounds nice, but its probably hot air.

  12. avatar AlanInFL says:

    We need to do a trade. All anti-gunners that love other countries strict gun laws. We will ship them out for free. In return, have fun with them.

  13. avatar enuf says:

    If any of these bills do reach his desk and he keeps his word, then at least he was useful for that. It wouldn’t make him any less the incompetent, narcissistic, amoral lying sack of shit that he is, but he’d of been useful for that.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      His reformation of the Federal judiciary, along with his 2 Supreme Court nominations make him not only useful, but he’s EARNED the vote of every conservative in this nation for the 2020 election. Now consider that a vote FOR him in 2020 will also be a vote AGAINST whoever the filthy, subhuman, Liberal Terrorists™️ In the democrat party nominate is more than enough reason to not only vote for him, but to give full throated support.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        That Cheetos Faced Shit Gibbon in the Oval Office tends to follow the most recent and loudest voice in his ear. Judicial selections are largely the result of work by Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society. He is a White House adviser on judicial nominations.

        That’s where the credit belongs, on the people doing the thankless and difficult work of steering Trump to keep promises and make good choices. Which on many issues, hasn’t worked out well at all. On judges, the Federalist Society membership has been successful.

        Credit also goes to the Koch boys and to the US Chamber of Commerce, who provide large donations to the Federalist Society.

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Make no mistake, I’m acutely aware of the Federalist society and their role in advising Trump on judicial nominees. But I’ll point out 2 things- first, Trump gets credit fornot only seeking out their assistance, but for following through on their advice, despite the certain pressure he was under not to. And finally, The Federalist Societyplayed no roll in Kavanaugh’s nomination. If you followed and understood what really happened, you’d know that Trump and Kennedy secretly struck a deal that Kennedy would retire if he got to name his replacement. Kavanaugh, you’ll remember wasn’t ever on the list of the Federalist society’s first list of 20 recommendations. That deal was all Trump.
          And I suppose given the current situation we find ourselves in as a nation, you’ll be fine with a democrat terrorist as president. Because that’s the choice. Trump or a filthy, subhuman Liberal Terrorist™️

        2. avatar J GIbbons says:

          Regardless of who did the real legwork and should get credit for a nomination, all nominations come from the office of POTUS. Therefore, he gets credit by default. In that he has taken those recommendations and helped push through a lot of nomination votes, he has been successful in helping future courts hold fast against the tyranny of socialism.

  14. avatar Red in CO says:

    Yeah, so he says. I like a lot of what Trump has done but his unilateral re-interpretation of VERY SPECIFIC existing law has me worried, as well as his support for confiscation. These bills the Dems are supporting in the house are nothing more than virtue signaling; they won’t make it through the Senate. But if you truly believe that Truml will veto any gun control than I have a bridge to sell you

  15. avatar Conrad says:

    The adults are running the show and it allows me to think about other things, like paying my bills and saving for retirement. Thank you Mr. T.

  16. avatar 22winmag says:

    “If you had any doubt before, the White House made it clear today that President Trump will not sign any of the gun control measures promoted by Democrats in Congress.”

    Who writes shit like this? Seriously?

    Arguably the most brazen power grab in the history of gun control is still going down as we speak- the bumpstock ban, under Trump, the Jewish reality-TV star turned swamp politician.

    Back to the author, who the hell would spout “If you had any doubts before…” prefacing something that is merely an announcement (3rd party no less- as if the White House has a mouth and vocal cords) regarding a purported stance on an issue?

    The sooner this Orange Charlatan resigns, gets impeached, or gets 25th’ed the better. Don’t even get me started on the hoaxed mass shootings.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Let me guess, you think the mass shooter of the synagogue in Pittsburgh did nothing wrong and his “grievances” were valid?

      1. avatar jwm says:

        ‘hoaxed mass shootings’, ‘jewish reality’, if it wasn’t for guys like .22 misfire we wouldn’t have to be fighting red flag laws.

        The left loves guys like this.

        1. avatar 22winmag says:

          Grow up, if possible.

          What’s wrong with saying Trump is a Jewish Reality TV Star?

          That much is public record and he has said as much himself many times.

      2. avatar 22winmag says:

        Nice try troll.

        The Pittsburgh crap was not a shooting because no shots where fired and nobody died.

        Hoax top to bottom.

    2. avatar J Gibbons says:

      Claiming that the bump stock ban is the largest power grab in history unfortunately demonstrates your lack of knowledge of civics and the history of governmental action in this country. I don’t agree with it, but it isn’t nearly as monumental as the New Deal or any number of other executive actions that are far worse.

  17. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

    So, the benevolent dictator has decided to be pro gun for the election cycle again. All hail the Dear Leader. LOL.

    Meanwhile, his administration is still backing the bump stock ban, the NRA isn’t fighting it, and actual pro gun organizations are fighting it. Meanwhile, red flag laws are being enacted in many states with his support and the NRA’s support through political double speak on the issue.

    Once again, the gun owners of this great nation are falling for it. Next up, President Trump will speak at the NRA Annual Meeting, again:

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Except for the assault that he himself ordered the DOJ to institute known as the bump stock ban,which in his own words “for violating Second Amendment rights.”

  18. avatar Cadeyrn says:

    Do NOT get overconfident. The Republicans have a long history of either waffling and collapsing at the last moment or getting out-maneuvered (some say overthinking) a situation. Remember your history: the Income Tax system (16th Amendment) was originally brought up in 1913 as a ploy to “soak the rich” with a 1% tax on everyone but a 7% rate on the richest Americans. The Republicans thought that people would see through the sham immediately and brought it for a vote primarily to embarrass the Democrats whereupon, to everyone’s surprise, it passed. By 1918 the tax rate was jacked to 77% to finance World War One and we all know where it is today on everyone. We’re taxed more now (25% or more – 1/4 of earnings) than peasants were in the dark ages when they had to give one day in seven or ten (10-15% to ) to their feudal lord.

    The lessons here are: 1) Doing anything to try to embarrass or shame a Democrat is futile. They want you to try because they are absolutely immune to embarrassment or shame. 2) Remember the Hughes Amendment brought in the early morning hours of April 10, 1986 which was ramrodded through by Democrat Charles Rangel (D-NY) to ban machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986 and close the NFA registry. This was done despite the fact that there had been almost no record of a legally owned civilian fully automatic firearm used to commit a crime and testimony from the BATF Director Stephen Higgins, who testified that the misuse of legally-owned fully-automatic firearms was “so minimal as not to be considered a law enforcement problem.”

    The Democrats DO NOT CARE. They will literally do anything to achieve their goals of disarming the peasants so the Democrats can do as they please.

    Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

  19. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    All these along with the bump stock ban that Trump ordered instituted by the DOJ to enact in Trumps own words,”for violating Second Amendment rights.”
    As are any and all guns laws now or in the future,that are written by petty tyrants,elected or appointed. I think at this point it would be more effective to instead ban petty tyrants,one either believes in the Constitution as written or not.

  20. avatar strych9 says:

    A cynic might say that Trump is only saying this because Democrats proposed it.

    That same cynic might also say that Democrats only proposed it because they know it will never pass the Senate.

    Such a cynic might well speculate that both sides are looking at an issue that gins up the base while not requiring anyone to put their money where their mouth is and as such is being used by both sides as a relatively risk-free campaign issue that never dies.

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Strych9, you nailed it. Everything is politics.

  21. avatar kikiallen says:

    ?? Why are people against background checks? If your a criminals or someone questionable that has issues sure prevent them from getting a gun. If your a regular joe blo, why do you need a gun in 5 minutes? A waiting period is fine if reasonable, limits on purchase, no. Private sales in my state always have to go through an ffl with BG check. I see nothing wrong with that. Having chuck and jim trade guns behind the piggly wiggly out of the back of a pickup for a case of cow jizz is not legit.

    1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

      You are without a doubt part of the problem with the so called pro gun collective. We have a background check already in place and the only reason it doesn’t work as it should is it is not reported to and updated properly. I personally don’t need a scared spineless simp telling how long I need to wait before I can have possession of an item I’ve paid for. Selling personal property regardless of what it is is my right because it’s mine and I paid for it. If I don’t want it anymore or want to upgrade that is my right and I’ll do as I damn well please. I’m not paying an FFL $20+ every time I want to sell a firearm either. As long as I don’t knowingly sell a firearm to a criminal which I wouldn’t, I’m well within my right. I’m talking rights, YOU’RE* talking privileges. Huge difference.

      1. avatar kikiallen says:

        Yes, The BG check system needs to be overhauled. “As long as I don’t knowingly sell a firearm to a criminal which I wouldn’t, I’m well within my right.” Oh? Where does it say you have the right to sell without cause? Sure sell a case of grenades to Jack it’s ok. There has to be processes in selling a dangerous item in this time, a background check and going through an ffl to do it is worthwhile. Your saying that you don’t care about what can be prevented but your own incovienence and attitude which is the problem.

        and how do YOU know your buddy isn’t a psycho or a criminal? Many parents and coworkers out there always say jimmy is a nice kid or great guy but he shoots up the school or workplace. and say oh wells..?? pfft. Your the thick headed moron which is the issue. People like you need to be more responsible, more caring about society and need a change in attitude.

        I support gun rights, having Semi-auto rifles, high cap mags, ect. But as Whole we need more checks in the systems, that have to be run right. Peple don’t need to get guns out of a vending machine instantly, there is no reason why you can’t wait a few days, or be inconveniant a little to allow the systems to work to prevent people who can’t have guns out in society with them.

        1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          Right because you can predict what any one person is going to do before they do it? You want to feel good and feel safe. Well guess what no amount of laws or government is going to do that. That is your responsibility no one else’s. The only way to fight evil is with a stronger force of good. What you and other liberal idiots propose puts handicaps on that. I have no feelings whatsoever for anyone that is too spineless to take responsibility for their own safety. Except for maybe pity for a fool. There will always be criminals and criminals will always find a way to do what they do and that is be a criminal. If that means killing others than that’s what they do. What I said initially still stands and all I got from YOUR* response is more bullshit. I’m not buying it.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Ok. Piece by piece.

          “Oh? Where does it say you have the right to sell without cause?”

          What does this even mean? Sell without cause? I need money/want to sell my property. I need no “cause” to sell it. Now, you might argue someone should have a “cause” to buy it, but that argument falls flat too. It’s none of your business if someone chooses to buy a gun, sports car, house or much of anything else. Does Walmart need a cause to sell me some Listerine? Do I need to provide you a “good cause” to be allowed to buy it? It’s not dangerous? BS, it’s 20% alcohol and people DO drink it to get drunk. Some people then choose to drive and endanger others. This argument is just plain silly as it rapidly becomes an argument for showing cause to buy or sell anything that could be used to harm another person and that covers just about everything known to man.

          “and how do YOU know your buddy isn’t a psycho or a criminal?”

          Since you’re the one advancing an argument it’s incumbent on you to show that there is some way the government has a significant advantage in knowing these things. The real question is “How does the NICS system know someone is or isn’t a psycho or a criminal?”.

          The answer is that, unless the person in question has been adjudicated as mentally defective or caught, prosecuted and convicted/plead guilty to a crime which precludes them from legal ownership that system doesn’t know. Who’s in a better position to know if your neighbor of 10 years is a nut who maybe shouldn’t be trusted with a gun, you or some guy at the FBI looking at a computer screen 1000+ miles away? Quite obviously you are because you can interact with the guy and see that there’s something off.

          Then there’s the issue that without a national registry of guns and who owns them an UBC doesn’t work. If Person A buys an AR-15 and a few years later sells it to Person B how does the government know that Person B now owns it? Unless those people followed the rules, the government doesn’t know unless or until Person B does something that launches an investigation that turns up the unregistered possession. If what starts that investigation is a murder or mass shooting then the deed has already been done, the UBC did nothing. Now, if Person B is really hell bent on committing a mass shooting they’ll simply buy the gun off the black market where they are guaranteed NOT to have a UBC apply because the guy selling stolen guns isn’t going to fill out the paperwork to admit he’s selling stolen guns.

          Canada had such a system for years. They spent a ton of money on it and according to the RCMP, the registry never assisted in solving a single crime. It was such a boondoggle that Canada scrapped the system.

          The real issue here is that a UBC simply doesn’t work because the very people it’s meant to stop are exactly the people who will ignore it and break the law anyway. As such it’s nothing more than a PITA for the law abiding and a cost for the taxpayer.

          “…there is no reason why you can’t wait a few days, or be inconveniant[sic] a little to allow the systems to work to prevent people who can’t have guns out in society with them.”

          First of all, there is a reason. People who are under serious threat from a stalker, jealous ex, criminals who know they witnessed a crime etc, don’t necessarily have five days to wait to acquire a gun while someone is actively trying to kill them. This has actually happened in NJ where a woman was killed by her crazy ex while awaiting her approvals. She needed a gun because the system couldn’t “proactively” lock the guy up for a crime he might commit. Instead the system is reactive, arresting him and prosecuting him for a crime he has committed. By the time he had committed a crime that could get him taken off the street she was already dead.

          Secondly, as I pointed out above, the very people you want to target: “those who shouldn’t have a gun” are exactly the people who do not pay attention to the law. If they’re willing to commit a murder why would you think they’d follow all the bureaucratic rules, fill out the paperwork and wait for the tool to be legally available so that they can go kill someone with it?

          All laws are essentially the same in a free country. They punish people for actions they have already committed. The law doesn’t prevent action unless the person contemplating the action is the type to follow the rules in the first place which generally means they’re not the type of person who would go shoot someone without a damn good and legal reason to do so.

          Yes, there are people who will screw up and there are people who will act in ways that are for their own self-interest at the expense of others. However, they’re relatively rare when it comes to things like selling guns and there is no reason to treat everyone as a potential dangerous lunatic or criminal just because a few people are. That rapidly becomes a justification for just about any curtailment of freedom you can imagine. It especially isn’t a reason to pass such laws that are costly and freedom-reducing when we know that the exact people who are very likely to be a problem will simply ignore the law anyway.

        3. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          Finally someone with some common sense! A well explained rebuttal to lunacy and tyranny. Thank you!

        4. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

          “…sell a case of grenades to Jack…”? Now we know you’re an idiot. We don’t need more background checks. We know criminals don’t go to the store to buy guns. We don’t believe you’re really pro 2A either. No regular here has ever said anything so stupid.

        5. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          I’m a complete noob here but this wishy washy crap of I’m pro 2A followed by we need more infringement is the very crap I point out about the pro gun community all the time. An agreement of what shall not be infringed means and what the 2A is ultimately in place for can’t be reached within the community. I really wish people that don’t know what freedom is would just shut up because their stupidity is nothing less than detrimental to the rest of us. In short I agree and that’s what you would think but then we get comments that say otherwise.

        6. avatar jwtaylor says:

          That was a whole lot of immaturity in one post, but this part stands out:
          ” there is no reason why you can’t wait a few days, or be inconveniant a little to allow the systems to work to prevent people who can’t have guns out in society with them.”

          Really? No reason? Google Carol Bowne. She was stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend, who she had a restraining order against, WHILE SHE WAS WAITING ON A GUN PERMIT SPECIFICALLY TO PROTECT HERSELF FROM HIM!

          It is because of you, and people like you, that Ms. Bowne was left defenseless. Her blood is on your hands.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “That was a whole lot of immaturity in one post,…”

          Not to mention (but I will) that a background may, that is may, prevent one sale at one moment in time. BGCs stop no one from leaving a gun store, and just doing a personal sale/purchase with someone looking to get rid of a piece. As someone noted before, there is not on record a single admission that a person who failed a background check, or knew they would fail a background check, was deterred from committing a crime using a gun.

      2. avatar kikiallen says:

        Your sounding like a nutjob. Get real.

        1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          I’ve been called worse by better. You sound like a dirtbag jackass that wouldn’t know liberty if you were smacked across the face with it. YOUR* petty insults and poor grammar and spelling don’t bother me in the least. Calling me a nut job is just more bullshit because you don’t have a logical reply. Typical liberal response.

        2. avatar JD says:

          And you sound like a tyrant that the founders warned against. What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand? The government has exactly zero power to write and enforce gun laws. It’s a power they absolutely do not have, period. Oh sure the government has taken the liberty to write thousands of unconstitutional laws and enforced them. They have done so because we the people who are supposed to be the ones in control have sat on our collective asses and allowed it to happen.
          In the not all that distant past a person could order a fully automatic Thompson submachine gun from the Sears and Roebuck catalog and have it delivered to their home. We didn’t have a problem until the government nanny state decided to ban another product the majority of the people wanted which created a new criminal class of person. The results of this was the camel nose under the tent called the NFA. Now we have herds of camels trampling the damn tent in states like CA, NJ, CT, NY, IL, etc where they haven’t found an unconstitutional law they haven’t embraced.
          No proposed gun laws could have or would have stopped any of the mass shootings. What would have or at least had a possibility of stopping or limiting these horrible acts would have been multiple armed individuals that could have fought back.
          And yes even the supreme Court has said the second amendment doesn’t mean any gun anywhere at anytime. And they are wrong. Show me where in the relatively short wording of the second amendment it gives the government the power to control arms of any type. The fact of the matter is it doesn’t. When it was written people had the same weapons as any military did and it was meant that the people were to be armed exactly as they were.
          No this does not mean a single person should have nukes or nerve agents. It does mean that the average person can and should be able to own any weapon that the average grunt carries into battle in defense of his country.

        3. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Yup. To all of it.

    2. avatar John Locke says:

      @kikiallen
      A right delayed is a right denied. Since the 2nd Amendment covers more than just firearms, would you also apply your background check standard to other types of arms, if not why are you insisting on infringing upon a right because of one type of arm? Would you also apply background checks and or waiting periods on other enumerated rights? Using the excuse of illusionary safety is not a consistent standard when you are only willing to apply it to one enumerated right. The 2nd Amendment is a right, so to you is it a right or isn’t it? Pick one.

    3. avatar Burner says:

      Idiot, freedoms hard. Ill buy a gun when and how i want, i will sell MY property to whoever, whenever i want , if you dont like it, pound sand.

    4. avatar RA-15 says:

      KIKIALLEN , sounds to me you know more about ” cow jizz ” than you do about ” SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED “

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Just as a point of fact, cows don’t jizz.

    5. avatar JMR says:

      If a background check is about the person why do they need gun information?

    6. avatar balais says:

      Personally, Im not against background checks myself. Hell, I’ve always argued that citizens should be able to privately access NCIS for private sales to free themselves of liability when conducting a private sale.

      The problem I have is that it will not end with a UBC bill, should it pass. The ones pushing this bill will use it as a camel’s nose in the tent for magazine size limits, AWBs, and other bullshit gun control laws they are hellbent on passing.

      Well be lucky if we don’t get a AWB in the next decade.

  22. avatar Salty Bear says:

    Say it with me: Politicians are liars and thieves.

    You’d have to be a pinball wizard to believe that Trump cares one whit for our rights.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Arms only have but two enemies,rust and politicians.

  23. avatar Warlocc says:

    The dude has banned or stolen more of our personal property than Obama- a Democrat, the party known for that nonsense. Sure, he’s pro-gun just in time for the election. Gotta get those single issue low IQ voters to keep his bullshit in office.

  24. avatar Quest says:

    The only gun control measures that made some sense to me was increasing the FBI NICS window beyond 3 days, but I feel I might be ignorant on this issue.

    What I want to know, from someone who might know more about this than I is whether the extra time would ever actually bring up additional records. My experience with NICS has been an instantaneous; either you pass, fail, or apparently it lags out.

    Would extra time actually result in those lags producing background check failures? That is the critical question, but I’ve never heard it discussed by anyone…

    1. avatar Sian says:

      It’s been discussed plenty. I can’t recall a single instance where the entirety of 3 days was needed for a full investigation. Adding more onto it is simply a punitive delay against anyone legally purchasing a firearm.

  25. avatar enuf says:

    Federal judge upholds Trump administration’s ban on rapid-fire bump stocks
    People still in possession of the devices will be required to destroy or turn them over to a local office of the ATF.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-upholds-trump-administration-s-ban-rapid-fire-bump-n975991

    Federal judge sides with Trump administration on ‘bump stocks’ ban

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/federal-judge-sides-with-trump-administration-on-bump-stocks-ban

  26. avatar anarchyst says:

    Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned. You see, anti-gunners want them all. They will chip away a little at a time until their goal of civilian disarmament is complete. They have an excuse for banning every firearm. Scoped bolt-action rifles are defined by anti-gunners as “sniper rifles” because they are “too accurate”. Magazine-fed weapons are suspect because of high (actually normal) magazine capacity. Handguns are suspect because they are “easily concealable”. The gun grabbers want them all and have made (flimsy and suspect) excuses for banning every type of firearm. They don’t care how long it takes. and will use incrementalism to their advantage.
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…
    Even the NRA bears some responsibility for capitulation on matters concerning firearms. The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS “instant check” system, the “no new machine gun for civilians” ban in 1986, the so-called “assault weapons ban in 1994, and other infringements of the Second Amendment. Let’s face it. What better way to increase membership than to “allow” infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive. Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of “compromise” will only lead to one thing…confiscation.
    If the NRA is truly the premier “gun rights” organization, it must reject ALL compromise…

  27. avatar JMR says:

    Yea okay… sure…

  28. avatar Ark says:

    I don’t trust Donnie Take The Guns First any further than I can throw his bloated ass.

  29. avatar Goddia says:

    Unless there is a deal 4 the wall???? or its popular…or Bloomberg pays a million kids to go to DC and protest……the fact that the Dems are going all out tells u what will happen when they get in power and they will…look at the millions of brain washed indoctrinated kids that can vote now and next election in 2020/2024. Every day lots of kids turn 18… millions form 2016-2020 these indoctrinated brain washed kids will vote 4 AOC when she is old enuff and America will go HELL!!!! Deep Hell!

    The Dems have millions of illegals voting and don’t want a wall to block more illegal votes!

    ALL Dem States do not require a voter ID or lease agreement or a utility bill!

    Even though half of my family were here when Mammoths ran around this Land and the other where here in the 1400’s i still have to show 2 ID’s a lease and a utility bill to vote and i don’t mind they don’t copy it they just do a check that i am not scamming the system!

    Anyone who is against Voter ID is sketchy and a scammer illegal voter!

    Remember the blind 90yo grandma who never voted in kommifornia got a whole box of absentee ballots sent to her..and it was covered by the media and neighbors posted pics the label.

    Nobody Cares about this fraud! The reason the hated person in the world hitlary got votes were paid voters and illegals and fraudulent voting ballots! You don’t reach the levels of POTUS and First Lady without knowing all the scams u can get away with like Slick Willy and Killary!

  30. avatar Sian says:

    UBC are not meant to fix anything, as they have not in any state where they have been made policy. their failure to affect anything will be used as an excuse to pass even more infringements.

    Thy are there to facilitate registration and confiscation. Full stop.

  31. avatar Paul Hurst says:

    Reading comprehension, how does it work?

    >>>> If H.R. 8, or H.R. 1112, are presented to the President, his advisors would recommend he veto
    the bill. <<<<

    That is much different than, "Trump Vows to Veto Anti-Gun Bills".

  32. avatar grumpster says:

    All these democrat gun control laws are DOA. I would love President Trump to focus on the danger of gun free zones as that is the real problem with lunatic mass shootings as 97 percent happen in gun free zones where only violent criminals have guns.

    1. avatar Zoldone says:

      Yeah…that’s why this one passed.

      And how many have been made law in how many states?

      Just wishing and thinking won’t make things reality.

  33. avatar ColoradoKid says:

    Sorry, I don’t trust him. He’ll veto any bill….unless there’s a deal to be made. We are still the red-headed step children to him.

  34. avatar balais says:

    I hate that DJT will be the one credited with any hypothetical future veto of particularly onerous gun control laws to be honest.

    There’s no better brand to poison the well of standing up for gun rights with than DJT, a morally impaired, criminal, racist, NYFC sunshine patriot.

  35. avatar Biodsl says:

    He sure jumped on the bump stock ban quickly. He’s not a 2A supporter. He’s a populist.

  36. avatar Rich says:

    NRA Wants National Red Flag Laws – TheFireArmGuy

  37. avatar Rich says:

    Now It’s William Barr: When Will Christians And Conservatives Stop Making Excuses For Donald Trump?
    Secondly, his rhetoric notwithstanding, President Trump has NOT drawn down America’s involvement in endless foreign wars. Trump’s promise to bring U.S. forces home from Syria is so much hot air. Trump’s “immediate” withdrawal order is now mired in an indefinite time schedule. In other words, there is no time schedule. Our troops are still fighting endless wars in Afghanistan and Somalia. In fact, Trump has shoved record military spending through Congress and has done nothing to reduce America’s global military presence (U.S. troops are stationed in over 160 countries, which equates to 95% of the world’s foreign military bases).
    America is as much the global cop as it was when Trump was elected. No, that’s not quite true. We are MUCH MORE the global cop than when Trump was elected, as Trump has expanded our military presence in Eastern Europe to unprecedented levels—levels not even seen during the Cold War.
    Thirdly, All of Trump’s “pro-life” rhetoric hasn’t saved the life of a single unborn baby. Since Trump was elected, over 2 million unborn children have been mercilessly murdered in the wombs of their mothers—with the complete approbation of a Republican-led federal government.
    Fourthly, as to ending the federal government’s extravagant spending habits, what a crock! During 8 years of a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, the federal debt INCREASED $7.9 trillion.
    Fifthly, what about Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp”? This is one of Trump’s biggest lies of all. Trump never intended to drain the swamp. From the outset of his presidency, he began appointing mostly CFR globalists, neocons, warmongers, Zionists, corporate elitists and corrupt government insiders to his administration. And he hasn’t stopped.
    “Red flag” gun confiscation laws are the same kind of laws that were used to confiscate the weapons of undesirables (meaning anyone the state doesn’t like) in Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China—and in every despotic nation of the world.
    https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3833/Now-Its-William-Barr-When-Will-Christians-And-Conservatives-Stop-Making-Excuses-For-Donald-Trump.aspx

  38. avatar Lucy Goetz says:

    They should have longer Wait times, like 3 weeks to get guns during a complete background check and cooling off period. Also a Yearly safety class certificate to be taken and proof of safe storage. Too many people are getting guns that are lying around and not secured. People are too uptight about their gun rights thinking it’s set in stone. that they refuse to back down from it and see it more logical. The laws through the decades have been changed to refect the advances in tech and social structures that are continually changing to allow people protection and use but also protect the public from such dangerous items. Some commenters here are irrational and derailed.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “People are too uptight about their gun rights thinking it’s set in stone.”

      Sweetheart, that’s what unalienable rights are… Set in stone. The fact that one is a living human means that they were endowed with them.

      Nothing in human nature has evolved. Government is still the most dangerous gang in town. Tyranny never sleeps.

      “Some commenters here are irrational and derailed.”

      You are naive and dangerous to a free people.

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        She believes gun ownership is regulated by laws, and isn’t a natural right. In other words, it’s a privilege that should be subject to “feelings”. Her comment about being “set in stone” highlights why the future of our country is in such great peril, as we have people who vote that are entirely ignorant about our history, government and Founding traditions/principles and documents. There is only one remedy.

    2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Your comment should be used as evidence in a court of law to permanently remove your right to vote. And you should never be allowed to breed, as it’s a certainty that any of your offspring will become domestic terrorists like yourself. Ignorance, like yours, is exponentially more dangerous than an armed citizenry.

    3. avatar Riverwolf says:

      Get it in your head little girl. ALL FEDERAL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Neither the NFA, GCA, or the FOPA and all their children have been properly challenged in the Supreme Court. When presented with a case they either rule as narrowly as possible or refuse to hear it. It’s not in the Government’s best interest for them to do so. Remember that when they attack a right dear to you. All our civil rights are important. The Second Amendment guarantees the others. Any infringement on the 2nd is an infringement on all. The Second Amendment is to protect the citizens from the Government. It has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting, violence, or any other BS reason. Learn something today.

  39. avatar John in Ohio says:

    ‘“The extensive regulation required by H.R. 8 is incompatible with the Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to keep arms,” the statement reads. “By overly extending the minimum time that a licensed entity is required to wait for background check results, H.R. 1112 would unduly impose burdensome delays on individuals seeking to purchase a firearm.”’

    He apparently can’t read. Shall not be infringed doesn’t allow licenses or delays of any kind. He’s done enough damage already.

  40. avatar Helms Deep says:

    Trump bans bump stocks with help of corrupt , fraudulent ATF murderers … but says this time is different … just shut the fuck up.

    Here is how ATF came to exist …. not created by congress.
    http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/BATF-IRS%20Criminal%20Report.html#tgotm

  41. avatar Riverwolf says:

    Here is the part not many understand. Why the Left wants to start a war and Why the Conservatives refuse to give them one. If it actually happened, the gun owners would win, but most likely at least a third of the country would die, not to bullets, but to starvation. It would show a brutality few can imagine. The Left actually thinks once it starts, they can actually stop it with food and government control. They are very wrong. The Conservatives know if they won there would be no Country left. Nothing left to govern, just nomad groups with their own laws. No money, fuel, electricity or food. We would be plunged back two centuries. We have to beat the Socialists at the ballot box and the courts. This is the only way for our Country to survive. No one on the true Right will fire upon another person unless it is to protect themselves or their family, unless forced to do so. The Left is making the tactical mistake of seeing this as weakness, and believing gun owners will give up the right to defend themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. They will kill to protect that right if forced to do so. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. These guys make up the most benevolent army in the world. They have over 600 Million weapons and have amassed over 8 Trillion rounds of ammo during the Obama scare. Many of them practice regularly and are skilled marksmen. They have good woodsmanship skills and can live off the land if need be. They have accurate, long range weapons. They are a force the left takes way too lightly, and does not understand.

  42. avatar John in Ohio says:

    He’s delusional or a liar.

    http://www.fox19.com/2019/02/28/trump-i-dont-believe-kim-knew-warmbiers-mistreatment/

    “I don’t believe that he would have allowed that to happen, it just wasn’t to his advantage to allow that to happen,” Trump said. “Those prisons are rough. They are rough places and bad things happened. But I really he – I really don’t don’t believe he knew about it.

    “He felt badly about it. I did speak to him. He felt very badly about it. But he knew the case very well. But he knew it later,” Trump said.

    “And you know, you’ve got a lot of people, a big country, a lot of people and in those prisons and those camps you have a lot of people and some really bad things happened to Otto, some really, really bad things. He tells me he didn’t know about it and I will take him at his word.”

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