BREAKING: President Trump Hints At New Gun Control Laws

“President Donald Trump said Tuesday that the US will ‘be talking about gun laws as time goes by’ in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, the nation’s deadliest in modern history,” CNN reports. He had even less to say about the prospects of the SHARE Act, which would deregulate silencers . . .

The President was asked about a gun bill currently making its way through the House that would loosen restrictions on purchasing gun silencers. Trump said that he would talk about that later. reports that one of the President’s former advisors had a stern warning for his former boss, should the NRA-supported Commander-in-Chief decide to “pivot” towards federal gun control . . .

Former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon reportedly said it would be “impossible” for President Trump to move to the left on gun control following the deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas, adding that it would be the “end of everything.”

The president’s former top aide also told the news outlet that it would be “actually worse” for Trump among his base of supporters if he backed gun control legislation than if he backed an amnesty bill for undocumented immigrants.

Well, presidential support for a new federal gun control measure would certainly be the end of a great deal of the former reality TV star’s core support.


  1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    can we get rid of some old laws first?

    1. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

      Every Trump promise has an expiration date. This may be it.Ryan is a Rino, probably always was. MCconnell should have been defeated by Matt Bevin. Gee thanks Rand Paul. Congress has screwed us again by doing nothing to support the Constitution.

  2. avatar Nanashi says:

    Trump seems to have been replaced by a pod-clone a few months ago.

    1. avatar Asamuari says:

      How do you figure?

      If anything, Trump was replaced by a pro-gun Pod-person-clone in May 2016 so that he could win the election. Or worse, all along he has always been such a con man that he was just willing to say whatever is most popular to get elected. Get ready to get thrown under the bus.

  3. avatar Adam says:

    I’m glad I voted for Cruz………..

    1. avatar Dustin says:

      I’m glad I voted for Johnson.

      1. avatar Nanashi says:

        Why? Weld was pushing gun control day one and Johnson never indicated he disagreed.

      2. avatar CalGunsMD says:

        Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

      3. avatar txJM says:

        I’m glad that you’re glad, but you still wasted your vote. Enjoy not having a voice.

        1. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

          Enjoy having an irrational and unethical voice. You must be so proud of your man and all he hasn’t accomplished

        2. avatar When Bullets Collide says:


          I really don’t have a problem with Trump at this point.

          I also have perspective, which is what happens when Trump is compared to the likely alternative: Hillary. And this after 8 years of Obama.

          You don’t always get what you want.

      4. avatar Five says:

        We already know how Hillary would have reacted to this, the dead were still warm and she was calling for gun control. So, Trump is still better than Hillary.

      5. avatar Publius says:

        I voted for Johnson in 2012, but by 2016 he was just another anti-gun Democrat running as a Libertarian.

    2. avatar Phil LA says:

      Damn right on Ted Cruz. If only…

  4. avatar Timaeo Theos says:

    Say hello to impeachment.

    1. avatar Tim says:

      What grounds for impeachment? I keep telling you impeachment zombies, only to after Obama and Clinton have been raped over and again in prison can we even talk about impeaching President Trump

      1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

        Carbonated soft drinks kinda’ hurt when they come out your nose.

        Damn you 😉

      2. avatar CarlosT says:

        What do those two have to do with anything impeachment related? If Trump were impeached and removed Pence would assume office. If that happened now, he would have until November 2020 to establish his administration and make his bid for reelection.

        If anything, impeachment and removal could be a blessing in disguise for gun rights.

  5. avatar Rammerjammer says:

    Single issue voters finally waking up to getting duped by a con man?

    1. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

      Still mad your old hag didn’t win assjammer?

      1. avatar Swarf says:

        He’s still right.

        1. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

          In what way? Nothing has even been suggested by Trump yet regarding gun legislation. Read Chip’s comment below. I think he summed it up pretty well.

        2. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

          Sore Loser Syndrome…

  6. avatar Joatmon says:

    He’s going to get pressured for sure. Let’s see if he caves in.

  7. avatar LogicIsNotLiberalArt says:

    I heard we’re about to win the war on drugs. Let’s wait for the victory before we focus on guns.

    1. avatar million says:

      drugs won that war on day 1.

      Congrats, Drugs! i knew you could do it.

  8. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

    It’s simple…

    If Trump (and Republicans in general) want *any* chance of keeping their office through 2018 and 2020 elections, they can’t pivot anywhere.

  9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    To claim that such a statement, in that context, somehow “hints” at new gun control laws is utterly specious speculation – so much so that even the linked CNN article couldn’t even make that leap with a straight face. In fact, they even quoted Sarah Sanders:

    “There’s a time and place for a political debate, but now is the time to unite as a country,” Sanders said. “There’s currently an open and ongoing law enforcement investigation, a motive is yet to be determined and it would be premature for us to discuss policy when we don’t fully know all the facts or what took place last night.”

    Which, coincidentally, is exactly how I would have interpreted Trump’s original comment – at least, devoid of any attempt to project some secret intent on his part to enact gun control.

    1. avatar Don says:

      Exactly, it’s the equivalent of a police chief saying “We’re investigating all possible angles.” Means nothing but answers somebody’s meant to be a trap question.

    2. avatar Cory C says:

      I agree 100%. I don’t like Trump at all, but to say that he gave anything other than a non-answer is gilding the lily.

    3. avatar Connie says:

      Thank you. You beat me to the punch.

    4. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

      Yep. Given the 3-4 day news cycle, and the vagueness of the statement in any case, this means less than nothing at this point.

    5. avatar Troybilt says:

      Spot on. Just some fake headline to turn readers heads. I wish TTAG was above that.

  10. avatar cisco kid says:

    Just as T Tag itself predicted during the Presidential race that Trump being a New Yorker has a very different idea about what the Second Amendment actually means. His parading around in front of the NRA was simply to get elected and he has back tracked already on it just as he as backtracked on many other issues.

    When you couple this with the lower courts and the Supreme Court that since the death of Scalia has largely voted against the Second Amendment by simply ignoring it the unlimited rights to gun ownership now looks to be coming to a rapid and abrupt end. Getting rid of all of your assault rifles and high capacity magazines seems to be a good idea rather than wait and have them confiscated and melted down. But in todays down market on firearms you will not get much for them.

    1. avatar Somebody says:

      Do you get off on sowing discord? Theres really no other good reason for you to keep sticking around. I’d call you defeatist, except you actively work towards defeat. Go grab a beer with The_Resistance, wherever he has been these day.

    2. avatar joetast says:

      You mean the semi autos and hi cap mags that I lost when my boat sank?

      1. avatar BLoving says:

        That was such a nice boat too… at least we saved the beer. 🤠

    3. avatar Excedrine says:

      Just as TTAG actually predicted during this last Presidential race, that Shillary — being literally owned mind, body, and soul by Wall Street — has a very different and entirely negative idea about the Second Amendment and all of those who even claim to support it in any way. Her parading around in front of the NRA was simply to try (and rightly fail) to get elected and would have back-tracked on any and all promises not to come for anyone’s guns, as she would have back-tracked on literally everything else herself.

      When you couple this with the lower courts slowly being flushed out and even some slowly swinging the other way on this issue regardless, and the SCOTUS inevitably having a conservative majority again after Scalia’s unfortunate death, the “unlimited” rights to own guns (which never existed in the first place no matter how much proven liars like you desperately want them to) isn’t coming a rapid or abrupt end. No one is going to have to get rid of anything, and no one is going to jail for not doing so. Remember the 95% of people who refused to register or turn their modern sporting rifles and standard-capacity magazines in such deep blue slave states as ZOO York and DIS-connectedcut and L.A.? And also how NONE of them got into any trouble whatsoever in the years since? Of course not, since you don’t actually research into anything, at all, ever. But, I’m all too happy to remind your willfully pig ignorant ass again. So, really, the prices in today’s market are irrelevant and moot. As much as YOU desperately wish for it happen — and YES, yes you DO — it’s not going to if only for the logistically absurdity it presents to cops who have better things to do than chase people around that YOU deliberately and knowingly made into PAPERWORK FELONS.

      And for literally NO good reason whatsoever.

  11. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    reports that one of the President’s former advisors had a stern warning for his former boss, should the NRA-supported Commander-in-Chief decide to “pivot” towards federal gun control . . .

    Former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon reportedly said it would be “impossible” for President Trump to move to the left on gun control following the deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas, adding that it would be the “end of everything.”

    The president’s former top aide also told the news outlet that it would be “actually worse” for Trump among his base of supporters if he backed gun control legislation than if he backed an amnesty bill for undocumented immigrants.

    Well, presidential support for a new federal gun control measure would certainly be the end of a great deal of the former reality TV star’s core support.

    The President should heed the sound advise of his former advisers if he should care to be reelected in the future.

  12. avatar Somebody says:

    From what is printed here, I’m not detecting any gun control legislation. What am I missing. Seems like he is diverting questions, which is acceptable to me, as we don’t want to draw any more attention to guns than we must to get this behind us.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      You’re not missing anything. The headline is dishonest clickbait, and Trump’s statement is nothing more than a noncommittal “I want to talk about something else” deflection.

      But sites like TTAG get more hits when gun owners are ginned up about fears of gun control, so those flames must be fanned.

  13. avatar Joatmon says:

    I’m sure he’s getting a lot of pressure. Let’s see if he caves in.

  14. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    He said he will be talking about gun laws as time goes by and refused to comment on the SHARE act.

    On one hand it sounds like he is reconsidering his position, on the other it sounds like he is placating the hysterical media.

    Personally I think he is waiting it out to see what popular opinion will be in the coming weeks before doing anything.

    I wish he would just say the laws we have on the books are sufficient and need to be properly enforced, that new laws would not help prevent a situation like this and just hinder law abiding Americans. He won’t do that though. He wants to be as palatable as possible. I have faith he will eventually do the right thing, but I also believe he is wavering on that for the time being.

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      Which of all those “old laws” do you most enjoy having enforced against you? I can’t think of one…

  15. avatar Jamesfromlakegeneva says:

    The Republicans have been in control of the White House and Congress nine months now and are just getting around to propose changes in the law regarding the NFA and silencers?

    This should have been a slam dunk but now Hillary and the media are on the attack once again against lawful gun owners. I sincerely hope that the opportunity to allow hunters to protect their hearing and to minimize the noise associated with hunting is semi rural areas has not been lost.

  16. avatar DJ says:

    He will lose the only thing he has going for him…….his base.

  17. avatar Joe R. says:

    Two words Mr. President:

    C R I P P L E D _ A M E R I C A

    Supposedly you wrote that book.

    Read the MF !

    1. avatar Cundalini says:

      “A sad state of affairs. A crippled America. A pipe dream, Buttfucked!”

      -Pantera, 1994

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Rock bands are not the philosophers quoted by trump.

  18. avatar Old Region Fan says:

    It’s in the water folks, Softness is the new America Watch Jimmy Kimmel’s cry baby speech , Was he part of a show called the “Man Show” ?

    1. avatar Jay in Florida says:

      Kimmel is just another crybaby Hollywood POS. Talking about his kids issues was OK. The rest just dribbling horse hockey.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      My mom told me today that she hated all these “pretend criers” on t.v. telling us what to do.

  19. avatar Buzz Word says:

    Major gun control usually comes when there’s an incident like the one in Las Vegas and Republicans are pressured by looming elections to join with Democrats. Case-in-point: GHW Bush and the GFSZ Act. Trump will move toward another ‘assault weapons’ ban and much more, such as magazine capacity restrictions. Ryan and McConnell, same deal. It’s a done deal so buy your ARs and such now.

  20. avatar stateisevil says:

    Wow, I knew the HPA was toast but if he actually reverses on this like he did with Obungocare and foreign policy it would be throw me for a loop for sure. He would go down in the history books as one of the greatest villains ever.

    He doesn’t need to comment on SHARE because it’s not getting to his desk now. Why inflame the media more?

  21. avatar W says:

    Trump’s most loyal political ally has been the NRA, and he knows it.

  22. avatar cisco kid says:

    As I predicted yesterday the idiotic new silencer bill is now dead and gone forever even among die hard Republicans. Its politically an impossibility as people are now realizing how much worse the Las Vegas mass murders would have been if the nut case had had silencers on his guns. The crowd would have been even slower to realize they were being shot at and the direction of the fire would have been more confusing for the police who were trying to locate where the shots were coming from. Even broken windows could have easily been missed by eyesight from 400 yards away if it had not been for the sound of the gun fire coming from them. Again the new silencer bill was pure lunacy right from the beginning and it took just one more mass killing to wake people up as to its absurdity.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      This is a new level of absurd, even for you.

      …people are now realizing how much worse the Las Vegas mass murders would have been if the nut case had had silencers on his guns.

      Of course, he didn’t, but logic escapes those who want to twist every circumstance into an excuse for more restrictions on the law-abiding.

      The crowd would have been even slower to realize they were being shot at…

      Noise level of a rifle-discharged .223: 165 dB
      Noise level of a suppressed, rifle-discharged .223: 135 dB

      Speed of sound: 340 m/s
      Bullet speed of .223: 900 – 1,100 m/s

      …and the direction of the fire would have been more confusing for the police who were trying to locate where the shots were coming from.

      The police located the shooter based on the smoke detector alarm sounding in the room, as a result of the smoke discharged from the shooter’s weapons.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        As usual your wrong on all counts. The Military uses silencers to obscure the direction of fire that’s silencer 101. If the Nut case had used sub sonic ammo in conjunction with a silencer the death toll would have been far higher.

        No the cops did not locate the building from the smoke alarm only the exact room. The cops and the Band and the People all commented to the News Media that they looked in the directions of the sound and then saw flashing lights towards the top of the building.

        And by the way if you had ever bothered to read the warning labels even on the lowly .22 rim fire ammo it reads “be careful dangerous up to 1 mile”. So do not give me any of your bull crap that sub sonic ammo in a .308 or even a .223 would not kill people at a mere 400 yards it can and does. As a matter of fact in my home state plenty of people over the years have been killed with the .22 rimfire at ranges up to and including a mile away.

        1. avatar B says:

          Really? Lobbing subsonic .223 and .308 600 yards (stopping every few minutes to swap super heated silencers between rifles) would have caused more deaths compared to his hour of raining unimpeded supersonic rounds? That’s absolutely ridiculous and shows how little you know of sustained fire.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          As usual, you’re wrong on all counts. The military has only until very recently only issued silencers to SOCOM units, and that’s only to keep them being heard on the next ridge, not in the next room like you obviously seem to believe — and yes, yes you do. THAT is what’s actually Silencer 101. If the nut case had used a silencer and subsonic ammo the death toll would have actually been much lower, and given that you know less than absolutely nothing about ballistics or mass-casualty events in general you’re completely out of your depth whenever you decide to comment on anything. Anywhere. Ever. As you literally always ever are and forever shall be.

          No one was even talking about locating the building in general and you know it, so quit with the Straw Man fallacies already.

          And, by the way, if you had ever at any time taken any of the advice you had ever offered to anyone else and actually bothered to read the warning labels on even the lowly .22LR, you’d find that only a handful of boxes would ever have that label on it. And even if it were dangerous out to a mile, which you have zero empirical evidence to support (just like literally all other claims you’ve ever made anywhere ever), you’re playing the lottery at that distance. There is no expected accuracy with that cartridge at that distance. Not that you would know that, naturally. So, you need to stop giving us any of your bullshit — which IS in fact the only bullshit to be seen here, there, or anywhere about anything — about sub-sonic ammo causing a higher death toll. As a matter of fact, you still have zero data from any state of people being randomly killed by falling bullets — and even if you did, which you don’t, you could just about count those deaths on ONE HAND for any given state in any given year. Those incidents are freak accidents only and are completely inapplicable here, and you KNOW IT.

    2. avatar Frank Grimes says:

      Aww it’s cute that you try. Next time you’re at the clinic for your monthly blood test, have them add a Syphilis panel. I hear it causes irreparable damage to the cognitive thought portions of the brain.
      #California Secession 2017

    3. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      All it means is I still have to pay $200 for a tax stamp and wait some months. Nothing has really changed.

      Since you love to spout off about so-called ‘civilized countries’, what is needed to get a firearms muffler in those?

      See I think you have it backwards. The only ‘Civilized Country’ is the U.S. We have citizens and everyone else has subjects.

      So the question is why don’t the people elsewhere follow what we do in regards to guns?

      Because their leaders and governments control them.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        Your wrong on foreign countries some do allow silencers but like us they are heavily vetted. I was referring to the insane proposal of selling silencers over the counter and trashing the old silencer law. As I said before second hand sales would put silencers into the hands of any street punk or nut case that wanted one. I am afraid your reading comprehension has much to be desired.

        1. avatar Mike B in WI says:

          “Your wrong on foreign countries some do allow silencers but like us they are heavily vetted. I was referring to the insane proposal of selling silencers over the counter and trashing the old silencer law.”

          First, you CAN buy silencers over the counter in other (European) countries. Buyers are NOT “heavily vetted.”

          And second, IT’S “YOU’RE,” NOT “YOUR.”

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          @cisco kid — You’re wrong, as IS usual. Foreign countries are ostensibly mono-cultures that allow the over-the-counter purchase, sale, and even individual manufacture of silencers by 12-year-olds, which is a specific set of circumstances wholly unrelated and completely inapplicable to the U.S. in any way, shape, or form, on any conceivable level whatsoever. Period. You were actually referring to the insane proposal of not selling silencers over-the-counter and not trashing the old and demonstrably ineffective silencer law. As I’VE said before, second-hand sales cannot be stopped by any number or strict enforcement of any one or any combination of gun control laws YOU want to see passed, and you damn well KNOW that as well as I do — and YES, yes you DO. I have already long-since conclusively proven that YOUR reading comprehension does not now and has never at any point in the near or distant past, ever existed — and it never, ever will, either.

          Any street punk or nut case that wants a silencer CAN already get one, and in any flavor they wanted, if they actually desire one. They don’t use them because it makes their actual weapon of choice — the handgun, NOT the non-existent “assault weapon” — harder to conceal. THAT’S it.

    4. avatar Excedrine says:

      As you literally always only incorrectly predict, the new bill repealing idiot silencer regulations is not gone forever, and certainly not among die-hard “Republicans.” It’s political inconvenient only in the here and now while the memory of Las Vegas is still fresh, but even that would hardly move the needle on gun control — even though it shouldn’t move at all. Being that you have absolutely zero idea what you’re talking about to begin with, we can already dispense with your demonstrably unprovable and indefensible assumptions about how silencers would have somehow made it worse — when you have zero evidence, empirical or otherwise, to support that case. No, no you don’t, and you damn well know you don’t, too. The crowd wasn’t actually hearing the gun shots as it was being next to a full-on rock concert, coupled with an elevated shooting position that was 400+ yards away, with plenty of time and space for the report to bounce, reverberate, and echo everywhere. Again, not passing the new silencer bill is what’s actual lunacy right from the beginning, and it took just one more mass killing that would not have ever in ten thousand years been prevented by any one or combination of gun control laws you want to see passed — even unto the forcible and permanent, global uninevnting of the gun wholesale — to wake people up to your absurdities.

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    IF the Donald f##ks us say hello to one term OR LESS…President Pence has a nice ring!

  24. avatar Buzz Word says:

    Comment awaiting moderation? Huh? Must be some complainer who read something politically-sensitive into my past posts.

  25. avatar AgingDisgracefully says:

    If they go this route now as well, I increasingly question the point of having the Republican party.

  26. avatar Smitty says:

    If Trump caves in then kiss your gun rights goodbye.
    He’s just like any other person in politician, I don’t trust him.

  27. avatar Anon in CT says:

    We don’t know what he will do, but that statement was nothing but a fairly artful brush-off.

  28. avatar Sal Chichon says:

    I am SO GLAD I bought my AR when I did.

  29. avatar DoomGuy says:

    Like I commented in another article. The betrayal has begun. It’s over.

  30. avatar Adam says:

    Unfortunately I live in Portland, or. My vote for president will never matter here so I vote for exactly who I want.

  31. avatar cisco kid says:

    The wheels of gun confiscation often turn slowly but surely. The Democrats look like it will be a slam dunk in the 2018 elections due to the fact that the American people now know that the corrupt Republicans, especially Mitch McConnell got huge pay offs from the Drug and Insurance Companies to try and destroy Obama Care with its pre-existing condition bans and its rules against Insurance caps and denials. McConnell got almost a half million dollars in bribe money to remain their Prostitute along with a long list of other Republican criminals. They are also heavily invested in the Insurance and Drug Companies so that they make millions on the bankruptcies of Americas ill and dying people.

    All this of course makes gun bans under a Democratic controlled Congress and House a sure thing. They may have to wait till Herr Drumpf either gets impeached or defeated in the next election but eventually the gun ban legislation is going to be inevitable. In compensation for all this at least the American people will get improved health care that seems to be certain once the Democrats take over and for old people it cannot come soon enough. No, many do not want to lose their guns but when it comes to their health care guns do not even come in a distant second in importance but their lives do come first. If the Republicans had worked with the Democrats to correct the few deficiencies that Obama Care has they might have had a chance to hold on to power but their greed mongering and prostitution to the Drug and Insurance Companies showed the American people how dangerous they are to the health and welfare of the American people. No other civilized Industrial country reserves health care only for the rich and powerful and health care for greed and profit has been outlawed in civilized countries long ago as well it should have been here to. The Republicans had their chance and blew it and its no surprise they are going to get their dirty asses thrown out of power and for all the American people it cannot come soon enough guns or no guns. Its a shame we will lose so much of our gun rights but that’s life, you win some things and lose others and staying alive with adequate health care is paramount in all peoples lives, owning any type of guns we want is not. That’s cold hard reality like it or not no punch’s pulled no bullshit told.

    1. avatar Ironhead says:

      Here’s the thing crisco…. you are obviously either a troll being stupid, or are full retard for confiscation. Let me ask you a question. Are you going to door to door asking people to turn in their firearms, or are you going to hide in mommy’s basement like you are right now. Im thinking its the latter. Big and bad behind your keyboard aren’t you?
      Do yourself a favor. Get away from the keyboard and go outside.The world is a dangerous place. You might want remember this….. terrorists got rifles and slaughtered 136 people in Paris didn’ they? What did the terrorists do in London and Nice? Oh yeah. Used trucks, cars and knives. Amazingly guns have been used in attackes in England too. And someone was able to get a handgun and kill people in Germany right?
      You know what all those countries have in common? Strict gun control laws. Those laws only keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

      Oh and one more thing…. i put my handgun on my table today and told it to kill someone. Ou know what happened? Nothing. It didnt move.
      So any argument you have is invalid. Have a nice day.

    2. avatar Ad Astra says:

      I guess bloomburg and soros pay by the word. That or you just like the sound of typing.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        Actually I wish they would pay me I could use the money. As far as Soros look him up and not on a right wing propaganda hate site but from an accredited one. He is perhaps the greatest humanitarian who ever lived up to this point. I wish we had more rich people like him. He is one of the few that does not give rich people a bad name.

        1. avatar Frank Grimes says:

          Humanitarian? Like when he sold out his fellow Jews to the Nazis? Yeah seems like a well adjusted human being. How you can stand up for that human toilet is beyond me.

        2. avatar Mark says:

          Obviously you need the money. You clearly are an unemployed loser given you have unlimited time to argue on a site where 99.99% of the people here do not support a single thing you write. What an amazing waste of time. You are the definition of retarded.

        3. avatar Excedrine says:

          @cisco kid — Actually, I wish they would stop paying you because that can be the only motivation for you pushing your lies here. As far as Soros, you need to actually look him up for yourself and not a left-wing propaganda site, but from an actually credible one. He is perhaps the greatest war criminal who ever lived up to this point. I wish we had less rich Nazi sympathizers like him (for which he publicly stated several times he has no remorse for), because he does as a matter of fact give rich people a bad name.

          He most certainly gives gun-grabbing Marxist mongrels like you a bad name, too.

    3. avatar JPT says:

      Obama care is doing exactly what it’s supposed to do, and that’s fail. At a certain point everyone who wants it gone and everyone who wants it fixed will throw up their arms and say fvk it. In steps the govt to fix the problem it created and a complete govt takeover of healthcare is what we will have.

      1. avatar Frank Grimes says:

        Exactly: problem, reaction, solution. Rinse, wash repeat.

  32. avatar Phil Wilson says:

    Well, if he wants to pass a new federal law that it’s illegal to shoot innocent concert attendees from a hotel window, I guess I’m cool with that. Though, I think that’s illegal already. But if he wants to make it double special illegal…go for it.

  33. avatar Matty 9 says:

    Just exactly how does this show that Trump is pivoting???? Sounds to me like all he did was push the question off down the road.

  34. avatar Ed says:

    Do any of you actually believe you’d be in better shape the day after this crap if Hitlery the Horrible had gotten elected instead? The brownshirts would already be making confiscation calls! He have a non-answer, period. The H.P.A. is screwed now though.

  35. avatar Ralph says:

    “President Trump Hints At New Gun Control Laws”

    He did no such thing. “We will be talking about gun (whatever) as time goes by” is what I used say to my young daughter when she asked me for a pony.

    1. avatar aircooled says:

      Even my 7 year old knows that “We’ll talk about it later” means “No”.

  36. avatar joetast says:

    I don’t think Trump is going to run for a second term. So that’s out. Trump would fear impeachment, when our elected officials do not stand up for our Constitution, an oath they swore to uphold, does that not make them traitors? …

  37. avatar Roymond says:

    This is why I delete most notifications of new content from TTAG before reading: so much of the content has no content.

  38. avatar ragnarredbeard says:

    How is what you wrote “hinting” at new laws?

  39. avatar Vincent says:

    Pure BS and shame on you TTAG. People are already capitalizing on this tragic event to try and start another ‘Run on Guns.’ Come on everyone got to end that Trump Gun Slump, lets stoke those embers of fear again.

  40. avatar FedUp says:

    I’m hoping POTUS isn’t that stupid, although clearly much of the GOP leadership remains that stupid.

    If they embrace gun control, the voters who already hate them will still hate them, and the voters who put them in office will start hating them. What do they expect to gain from that?

  41. avatar D.O. from CO says:

    Who’s ready for panic buying and ammo shortages?

  42. avatar Patriot says:

    In 2021 we will be talking about your one term Presidency, brah.

  43. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Well the bright side of a damned if you do and damned if you don’t position is can focus on the audience.

    Do you want to go against:

    1) People that want autonomous freedom, are against tyranny, and favor logic over feelings

    2) People that want to subjugate and rule others and use feelings to push their tyrannical agendas for more power?

    The answer seems obvious.

  44. avatar Larry c says:

    The liberal retards that interviewed his press secretary were told time and time again that any discussion on GUN CONTROL NOW was NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! So any BS rumors, allegations and such are strictly the false creation of the media! Nothing is to be believed or taken with a grain of salt!

  45. avatar Chris Morton says:

    He knows that if Republicans pass new invidiously racist gun controls, the Republicans will lose the House, Senate and White House.

    I remember when Bush said he’d sign a renewed AWB if it crossed his desk… then made sure it didn’t cross his desk.

  46. avatar cisco kid says:

    To B the bull crapper

    Quote———————-Really? Lobbing subsonic .223 and .308 600 yards (stopping every few minutes to swap super heated silencers between rifles) would have caused more deaths compared to his hour of raining unimpeded supersonic rounds? That’s absolutely ridiculous and shows how little you know of sustained fire.————————

    I have used silencers with real machine guns not bump fired guns. And yes they get hot as I have used them with full power rounds also. And I have fired them with high capacity magazines. The nut case had multiple weapons there and even if one did overheat he simply had to grab another one and keep on firing. He could have easily fired off a 60 rounds with a silencer even if he only would have had just one gun and considering the fact that the ammo he used was probably full metal jacketed those 60 rounds could have penetrated more than one person with each shot causing well over 100 casualties. There are a lot of other variables as well such as outside air temperature which if cooler would have enabled him to fire off even more than 60 rounds. With just two weapons we double the amount of ammo down range but remember the last report I heard he had something like 17 weapons in the room with him.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      You’ve never fired a gun. You haven’t been an NRA member for 50 years.

      You’re a liar. Period. Full stop.

    2. avatar Excedrine says:

      @cisco kid — To crisco kid, the only bullshitter here:

      You haven’t used silencers. You’ve never fired real machine guns. You’ve never fired guns chambered in full-power rifle rounds. You haven’t fire guns with standard-capacity magazines. The nut case did have multiple weapons, which moots the entirety of your (non)argument for gun confiscation — which is for a fact the only ultimate goal of gun-grabbers like you to begin with — from the outset. Him using a silencer would have changed exactly nothing, and you have not the mental faculties to come up with a reason why it would have.

      If you really are who you say you are, which you aren’t, you would have freely posted your bonafides (with critical information redacted of course) along with a way to verify that they’re really yours. You haven’t because they don’t exist. No one needs to pony up money for a lawyer held in escrow. No one needs to do anything here, but you displaying definitive proof that you are who you really say you are.

      And even if you did, your demonstrably uninformed opinions are moot and irrelevant, anyway, because they have absolutely no bearing on literally anything for anyone else on the entire planet except for you, and you alone. Your words carry absolutely no weight whatsoever and rightly fall largely on deaf and unsympathetic (only to you) ears. You’re categorically wrong about every single solitary little detail in everything you’ve ever discussed here and there’s no reprieve for someone like you who steadfastly refuses to take delivery of reality — reality that the rest of us ADULTS have already long-since comes to terms with, and long before you ever got involved here, too.

  47. avatar robby says:

    Why in the world would you believe, or trust any Politician?

  48. avatar cisco kid says:

    to mike the bullsh–er

    quote————————-First, you CAN buy silencers over the counter in other (European) countries. Buyers are NOT “heavily vetted.”————————-quote

    Your making a blanket statement in regards to many European countries. Laws not only vary between countries many times they even vary between provinces.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      To crisco kid, the only bullshitter here:

      If the blanket statements you say are bogus because of different laws between different countries and provinces, then why do you always think it’s okay for you to make equally irrelevant and incorrect comparisons between Europe and the U.S., which are in no way, shape, or form compatible in any aspect of any category under the sun? Don’t worry your empty little head, because I’ll go ahead and take the liberty of correctly answering that question you before you have a chance at a convoluted justification for your hilarious if entirely predictable double-standard.

      You think it’s okay because all you’ve ever done, or ever will be able to do, is to dispense with ideological consistency and do the mental gymnastics necessary to defend your double-standards — without which you’d have no standards at all, by the way — by falsely accusing everyone who even slightly disagrees with you on any point of order, no matter how minute and insignificant, of every nasty thing under the sun that you can possibly think of, knowing full well that you’re perfectly guilty of every little bit of yourself because you’ve repeatedly failed to point out even one single instance of any of it from us. All of this because you are either unwilling to or incapable of critically examining your most closely-held, preconceived notions.

      And even if you were able to do so, which you haven’t been because we’re not the ones doing it, you would even go so far as to paint us all with that same broad brush no matter how hard and fast we came down on them right along with you, anyway.

  49. There is no such thing as a gun law.
    There is only infringement.
    Therefore, there is no such thing as a gun control law. That is an infringement to gun rights by a tyrannical government.
    There are enough laws on the books to send people to prison for a long time without even mentioning the tool used to commit the crime.
    Leave my rights alone!

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      There are enough laws on the books to send someone to jail for a long time without them even having done anything wrong, at all.

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