Democrats Hopeful That Trump Will “Cut a Deal” on Background Checks


Joe Manchin is the Democrat behind the “Toomey-Manchin” background check proposal that failed in a spectacularly embarrassing manner, with Vice President Joe Biden personally presiding over the vote in the Senate. (He thought it would pass and he’d be present for a historic event, but instead he presided over the demise of his own agenda). That failed vote marked the last major push for federal gun control within the Obama Administration.

Less than 100 days into the Trump administration Manchin sounds at least somewhat hopeful that the President might be convinced into backing the previously failed background check bill. From WYFF4:

Asked Friday if he thinks the background check proposal will reemerge under a new president, Manchin said he thinks Trump can apply some “gun sense” to the measure. “I truly believe he can make a difference.”

He argued that many of his constituents said four years ago they were fine with the substance of the amendment but feared it would lead to a slippery slope for Obama to implement more gun control.

But people have different perceptions of Trump, he added.

“There’s no one who believes he’s going to take their guns away,” Manchin said.

Manchin said Trump could do this by saying he wants to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals. “He would be the person that could help us with that,” he said.

“There’s a reason that certain people shouldn’t be able to have access to guns. Every law-abiding gun owner understands that,” he said. “They read our bill and saw we had a good piece of legislation, but no one had the fortitude to do it. And he could do it.”

In The World According to Joe Manchin, his background check bill failed because voters didn’t trust President Obama. Not that the title sounded good but the content was terrible. Not because the bill would be a train wreck for gun owners and their constitutionally protected civil rights.

The probability that Donald Trump will sacrifice his NRA backing to support the Democrat’s gun control proposals is about as likely as Robert getting married again. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but no one involved really wants that, do they?


  1. avatar former water walker says:

    Gee I don’t trust the Donald completely either.Why cut any deal? If he did anything like this flaming sack of shite Manchin proposes he’d lose his razor thin electoral win…no retreat,no compromise and no kowtowing to dumbocrats.

    1. avatar JAlan says:

      Because then the democrats might help him pass something that will look good like ACA repeal. It’s the typical politics game.

    2. avatar Turd Ferguson says:

      how was it a “razor-thin electoral win” ??

      304 vs 227 isnt razor thin, its a rout. a landslide.

      If Trump played “mercy rule” he woulda given her Wisconsin as a consolation prize.

      1. avatar William says:

        “How was it a “razor-thin electoral win” ??

        304 vs 227 isn’t razor thin, it’s a rout. A landslide.”

        Exactly what I was going to say.

        1. avatar George S Young says:

          It was a landslide!!

        2. avatar ad-lib says:

          you know what an actual landslide looks like in a presidential election? 525-13. or 520-17. or maybe 489-49.

          Trump won. no reason to suddenly pretend the margin of victory was earth-shattering.
          …unless we’re suddenly arguing that Clinton and Obama won landslides as well.

        3. avatar barnbwt says:

          Right? Such a landslide he didn’t get a majority (thankfully this is not needed to win in this country because direct elections are moronically dangerous, but it’s pretty obvious that a “mandate” involves having a convincing majority of the public. Trump’s mandate was primarly within the GOP, in that he demonstrated the need for the leadership to adopt his more moderate social/fiscal policies and nationalism, as opposed to the hardliner stuff Cruz and the other third-stringers were pursuing. This is why he is being given the go-ahead to lead on policy fights like healthcare, but why the socialist party is so resistant to modifying anything about their stance despite losing the election)

        4. avatar Hannibal says:

          A landslide… oh my god you guys are in the koolaide. Or you have the memories of a fruit fly since you apparently don’t remember the last few election cycles.

        5. avatar neiowa says:

          Hannibal go eat your donuts

      2. avatar Shiny Potato says:

        When you only win the electoral college because of 100,000 actual votes split between four key swing states, that’s a RAZOR THIN margin of victory. That’s less than 0.1% of the voting public.

      3. avatar int19h says:

        EC votes don’t matter when determining whether it was “razor thin”, because a very small margin in one state can easily translate to a large number of EC votes going one way or another. To see how close it was, you need to look at it state by state, and pay attention to how many votes decided it in each state. In this case, tens of thousands of votes in three states. Yeah, that’s razor thin.

      4. avatar Roymond says:

        Landslide territory is considered to begin at 354 – 177, the two-to-one point.

    3. avatar Trailer Park Pageant says:

      Trust him. He is going to make your wife wet again, he promised it.

    4. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

      President Trump DOESN’T need Manchin for shit thus there’s no reason to sell out his, Trump’s, base. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, on the other hand needs Trump desperately as Manchin is hanging on by a thread with West Virginia voters especially the coal miners who are starting to return to work mining the same coal that’s now being sent to China to make up for the North Korean loads that have been turned away. Manchin’s senate vote is now moot with the GOP invoking the Nuclear Option, Manchin has absolutely NO leverage. Lastly NEVER trust Liberal Media reports or Democrats on what they believe Trump is going to do and remember the President WILL be addressing the NRA something I doubt he agree to if he contemplated turning his back on us.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        I just came across this, it may mean exactly zero, or not.

        But it just *might* be a clue to how Trump is thinking.

        It’s from the Fascist Progressives at ‘Think Progress’:

        “Trump abruptly asks pro-gun control surgeon general to resign”

        1. avatar PAUL BASS says:

          he asked an obamma appointee to resign, should have a total house cleaning, pronto

    5. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

      On Friday President Trump demanded the resignation of Obama’s Anti-2nd Amendment Surgeon General Vivek Murthy (sounds like a virus). Despite what the “concern trolls” and anti-Trumpers say it doesn’t appear like Trump is about to double-cross us:

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Yep, the Progressive Fascists at ‘ThinkProgress’ are in a real snit over that news:

        “Trump abruptly asks pro-gun control surgeon general to resign”

        It warms the lower sub-cockle region of my cold, black, heart, it does…


      2. avatar neiowa says:

        He is 100days late on fire EVERY Obumer (and Billy Clinton) employed by the Fed gov’t. AND firing every GS6 and above hired since Nov 2008.

        1. avatar Timothy says:

          I’m a GS-9 hired since 2008. I quite value my job. I’d prefer to not get fired. Have to feed the family. What an ignorant statement you made.

    6. avatar Troy Bollocks says:

      He still gets 3.5 more years as President, whether you vote for him again or not. I can easily see the snakeoil salesman selling people of the gun out on background checks and giving them none else of what they want in return for dem support on health and taxes. If there’s a photo op mass shooting in the next 3.5 years, count on him standing with the victims and dems as he signs more gun laws. Oh but sob, we saw pictures of his entitled brats canned hunting big game in big, bad Africa. Anyone but Hillary sob. Launches irrelevant missile strike into Syrian desert. Supports Obamacare part deux. Twist in the wind piggies.

    7. avatar Mahatma Muhjesbude says:

      Three immutable Laws of the Totalitarian Gun Control Age;nda.

      1. Make the Sheeple believe one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American population.
      That gun prohibition for persons convicted of crimes, or who have mental/psychological issues, or are habitual substance users, or any of the other planned categories of ‘people who just simply should not be allowed to have a firearm, even though they can be allowed to have gasoline and a car which can be proven to kill and maim far more people in an act of violent usage than guns (recently)…when it can also be verifiably proven that gun prohibition of any kind will not, has never, and cannot ever stop a potential criminal from obtaining such weapons. This is difficult to do especially since the Second Amendment specified that guns in private hands ‘Shall NOT be Infringed.’ Period, without any qualifiers. But we can do it if we keep pounding them with the specious, but effective notion for gullible, fearful, Sheeple, that any and all gun control does some good, for public safety and crime prevention, even though statistics and common sense verify it absolutely does NOT. Especially in light of the lives lost from restricting people who desperately need to protect themselves with a firearm. AND the hard core reality that given the absolute invariable propensity that all powerful and progressively totalitarian governments become corrupt dictatorial and eventually establish a police state population disarmament agenda. History proves this beyond any doubt, excuses, or agenda manipulated lies.

      2. Try to pass continuous laws( SEE Battlefield America by John Whitehead) making virtually every potential human behavior illegal and especially integrated into the public health care system to where doctors and Federally subsidized social services can adjudicate who can own firearms based on universal mandatory substance tests under the new and improved War on Drugs, which also doesn’t solve and will only exacerbate the drug problem in this country to the tune of untold billions already wasted to no value except to further escalate police statism.

      3. Continue to obfuscate the true reality of gun control measures like Background checks, and other forms of screening for private gun ownership by exploiting the like that background checks somehow actually do more than barely postpone for a few days, a criminal intent to use a weapon. And that they are not really an unconstitutional intrusion on our 4th/A, and that any firearm purchase is nothing less than Unconstitutional registration of firearms owners for future confiscation if necessary. In fact, also use the necessity of background checks as a ‘bargaining tool’
      To get all the silly lemmings to give up their private liberties just to have high cap magazines, or silencers or some other ‘DEAL’ to satiate their immediate gratification. This way we can register even MORE persons associated with firearms when the final confiscation games begins.

      So that’s why there can never, ever be any equivocation, compromise, or any ‘deal making’ in any way whatsoever.
      ‘They’ will consider this a weakness. Liberty can never be pure and complete unless it can’t be shackled. Even the patent fall back to flawed emotional content…Well, but if gun control even saves just one life it’s worth it…’ Is invalid and less than moot in the presence of the issue of preserving liberty at all costs. Because one life or many, will never equate to the unbelievable millions lost when an out of control police state government takes the power from the people.

      If there is any compromise by Trump or Congress by ‘agreeing’ with background checks on the ‘Hearing protection act’ for sound suppressors, or background checks, or fingerprint/I.D to purchase ammo, then these efforts are in direct violation of the 2nd/A rises to the level of treason at some point in their implementation.

      “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S.230 F 2nd 486,489
      (The general misconception being that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the LAW of THE LAND. Tdshe U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the Land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement)

      The Second/A, did NOT Say ‘Shall not be infringed’…except for convicted criminals, mentally ill, socially unpleasant, particular medication useage, moral authoritativeness agenda, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

    8. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      This just more wishful thinking of the left.

      They think because we have power we are going to be like the Neo Cons/Cucks of old. We are not them.



      The era of the left running rough shot over us was only because of the preemptive surrender, “compromising” and cucking of the old guard who are more afraid of being hating by their enemies then losing what they claim to value.

  2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

    Repeal every single gun control reg in exchange for UBCs? Eh, even then… Nah. I’d rather keep up the good fight than piss away my right to private property, thanks.

  3. avatar No one of consequence says:

    Manchin needs a reality check. His last one bounced.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      What is WRONG with voters in West By GOD? Manchin, Byrd Rockefeller

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Union membership?

  4. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    i feel like the mental gymnastics required to argue Person A selling a firearm intrastate to person B falls under “interstate commerce” would make the “logic” behind Wickard v Filburn pale in comparison

    1. avatar Nick says:

      It would be done exactly as the gun free school zones law was, applying only to firearms that had been involved in interstate commerce (in other words, pretty much all of them)

      It would be unconstitutional to require such for a firearm that had no ties to interstate commerce, however these are few and far between.

      1. avatar Roger Johnson says:

        When I was in college in the early 70’s I took two years of Constitutional Law taught by a Prof. I really admired. I distinctly recall that ANYTHING the Federal government wanted to do was acceptable by way of the Commerce Clause. As I became more aware I realized this was the left wing 0bama garbage I so despise in the corruption of the Constitution today.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Then you need to re-read the case. It’s a case about a farmer growing wheat to feed his own livestock. He was fined for growing too much wheat.

      1. avatar Nick says:

        That’s not what’s important in that case. What was important was that SCOTUS said that non-commercial activity that didn’t occur interstate was able to be regulated under the interstate commerce clause since his actions reduced his need to buy grain (thereby effecting interstate commerce).

        It’s a sham of a decision, but one that’s shaped lawmaking for decades now.

      2. avatar barnbwt says:

        Wickard involved wheat subsidies, too; at least in that respect, it had some justification, in that accepting subsidies in a deal with the Devil meant you gave up control on your freedom to produce (pretty messed up to phrase it that way). Unfortunately, the portion of the case that has been subsequently referenced as precedent –even in gun cases– was the notion that indirect economic impact (the influence of your production on overall prices) across state lines was subject to congressional regulation.

        It’s one of the worst crimes ever committed by the Supreme Court; in short, they ruled that because there is a free market that by definition crosses state lines, Congress has full authority to control every aspect of the economy. Legally-sanctioned economic fascism, or “command economy.” In every way this is directly contrary to the principles of both limited government, and the actual purpose of the commerce clause, which was to prevent states shutting off each others’ commerce.

        Even if you mine the ore, smelt the iron with coal, forge the metal, and design, machine, and assemble the firearm all within state boundaries using local sources alone, and never make the firearm available to sale, SCOTUS has ruled that because you “would have” bought a firearm from the open market that crosses state lines and imperceptibly influenced market pricing, you have engaged in interstate commerce with your isolated endeavor that is subject to federal taxes & regulation. Brought to you by the people who would ban private ownership of gold and mint a trillion dollar coin to evade congressional oversight.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          That last paragraph is my understanding of the case, but not the clause.

  5. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    The definition of insanity: doing the same things over and over, expecting different results.

    And, of course, that’s the insanity of continuing to believe that terrorists and criminals actually would submit to a “background check,” or any other of their wild hair schemes to infringe…

    Which leads many of us to figure that isn’t their goal.

    1. avatar Don Land says:

      This is one of the first comments I have read taht makes sense!

  6. avatar NorincoJay says:

    We have laws. We have background check laws. We have laws prohibiting certain people from owning and purchasing guns. We don’t need more. Trump will not be pushing any additional gun owner control laws. The only bills will be the HPA and National Reciprocity. That be it. If you want to purchase a newly manufactured gun you have to have a universal background check. Only used second hand guns in some states can be purchased from none FFL individuals.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Newly built guns, built by people not in the business, can be sold without a background check in the right circumstances.

      If anyone decides to do this, make sure that you understand the law first.

      1. avatar Mahatma Muhjesbude says:

        TX- you can’t be talking about privately made guns on 80% receivers? Those are considerably ‘restricted’ AFTER you build them. They cannot be transferred or sold.

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          “TX- you can’t be talking about privately made guns on 80% receivers? Those are considerably ‘restricted’ AFTER you build them. They cannot be transferred or sold.”
          Actually, if they are serialized, and those numbers are “registered,” they can, indeed, be transferred.
          All any guns are, in reality, are 80% receivers that have been finished.
          OK, not literally 80%, but you get the idea.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Don won’t push for new laws? So soon we forget “No Fly No Buy” during the election year

      1. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

        Approximately 99% of those on the “No Fly List” are NON-Americans, mostly so-called “Europeans” they’re actually 3rd World transplants with “citizenship” in an EU nation which thanks to Obama allowed them to travel to the USA without applying for a visa. Somewhere around 1% are “Americans” if you could call them that, “refugees” and “immigrants” that have ties to terror organizations and should have their citizenship revoked like Emma Goldman and be deported. Less than a fraction of 1% are “native” Americans of “European” ancestry.

        1. avatar barmbwt says:

          Don’t care. It was 1) a new gun law, and 2) a really bad one that set a dangerous precedent for the prez or random bureaucrats to unilaterally block your gun purchases for no reason so you could pay to fight it after the fact. The evidence against you would remain classified, and they would claim the lack of charges means you don’t need a fair trial; just punishment without a court of law.

          I never got a good answer from the fools in favor of the law; if we shouldn’t let these people buy, why should we let then own any firearms, either?

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          Since the list is secret, how would you know that?
          The only way a person on the “no fly” list would know they were on it would be to be denied the ability to fly.
          Plus, the list contains precious little other than names, so anyone with even a similar sounding name is often denied boarding.
          The list itself is a travesty, with faceless bureaucrats deciding who goes on it, based on nothing other than someone “feeling” that someone belongs on it. It completely lacks due process, and attempting to apply it to a constitutionally protected right is so unconstitutional that any legislator seriously proposing it should be impeached for violating his oath of office.
          1%? A positively ridiculous figure with absolutely nothing to back it up.

        3. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

          Big Bill:

          “Since the list is secret, how would you know that?”

          I watched hours of numerous senate and house hearings and government official’s testimony on the CSPAN channels. They are quite informative especially when FBI/DHS/CIA heads resort to double-speak as directed by their boss at the time (Obama) but it IS clear an overwhelming majority of those on the “No Fly List” are “Non-Americans”. Remember under presiDUNCE Putz his agencies were NOT allowed to admit the greatest threat to the USA (and “the West”) was/is/are his own Moslem brothers particularly the so-called “refugees” here in the USA, the EU, and their offspring often born in their new homes.

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          “I watched hours of numerous senate and house hearings and government official’s testimony on the CSPAN channels. They are quite informative especially when FBI/DHS/CIA heads resort to double-speak as directed by their boss at the time (Obama) but it IS clear an overwhelming majority of those on the “No Fly List” are “Non-Americans”. Remember under presiDUNCE Putz his agencies were NOT allowed to admit the greatest threat to the USA (and “the West”) was/is/are his own Moslem brothers particularly the so-called “refugees” here in the USA, the EU, and their offspring often born in their new homes.”

          The list is secret.
          You may have watched as some talking heads dissembled, but they did not reveal the list’s contents (it’s a secret, still), and all you heard was what they want you to hear.
          The 1% figure is not supported.

  7. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    I other words…If this clowns “expanded universal background checks bill” gets passed…Everyone else in America will get to experience how it’s like to live in NJ, MD.,Massachusetts, Connecticut,NY, California,etc…Where a US citizens constitutional rights are subject to severe bureaucratic infringement…Where a lawful US citizen may NOT be able to exercise his, or hers 2nd amendment rights…Where Big government, or local/state law enforcement can deny you your civil rights for any reason without any form of recourse….Where your civil liberties are reasoned away through bureaucracy, and you are stonewalled….Or flat out denied…

    1. avatar NorincoJay says:

      Next up in California is restrictions on free speech. Hate speech will no longer be protected, but will be a jailable offense. Hate speech is anything a few liberals deem it to be.

  8. avatar T says:

    Id like to see, every time a Dem proposes a new “gun control” bill Trump reverses a E.O. pertaining to guns. Import bans , sporting purpose clause, anything that limits law abiding citizens from buying what they want. Eventually they will get the message.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      I’d like to see Donald mention a single meaningful policy initiative, EO or otherwise, at his upcoming appearance at the NRA convention. Sadly, I fully expect “respect for the 2nd” and “promises to protect our guns” and other worthless pablum for idiot members that don’t even know what pro-gun policy is.

      Trump could send a single tweet stating “all lawful purposes can be sporting purposes” and neutralize almost all our import laws & even some NFA restrictions, and many state-level restrictions that operate on federal interpretations. It would cost him nothing, require no other approval, and provide immediate benefits to millions of his loyal supporters. But obviously it is more useful for them to remain wanting.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “I’d like to see Donald mention a single meaningful policy initiative, EO or otherwise, at his upcoming appearance at the NRA convention.”

        *This* That I will be watching closely, and TTAG management as well, I’m sure.

        I’m convinced we will hear something good for the 2A in that speech…

  9. avatar George S Young says:

    Just say NO…. to any more restrictive gun laws

  10. avatar The Duke says:

    “I truly believe he can make a difference.”

    That right there is your first and biggest mistake, believing that a politician of any party can make a difference in controlling violence. Only we the people can make the difference there, be armed, be prepared and teach your children to be good people

    Oh and before I forget your bill sucks!

  11. avatar GS650G says:

    We know the end game. Big databases of serial numbers,model, caliber, name and address.
    It is needed for phase 2.

  12. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Even if this guy could get all his jerk Democrat buddies to agree to vote for a bill that dumped the entire NFA, and included national reciprocity including state residents to use non-resident carry license from another state to carry in their home state, the answer would be no. We will eventually get most all of that anyway, and we should never give any ground, ever. Rights, once infringed are tough to win back.

    1. avatar Nick says:

      You kidding? Dump NFA, 18 USC 922 (r) and 922 (o) and I’m on board.

      That’s a “yuge” win for us. We can fight the UBC later. That battleground would be a molehill compared to the mountain that NFA is.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      The real danger is that he would sell out the 2nd Amendment for an unrelated policy- like his wall.

  13. avatar strych9 says:

    Lefties are so strange to me.

    Why would you want to “cut a deal” with someone who’s “literally Hitler”?

    Oh, wait, I’m expecting these people to make a modicum of actual sense.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Lol, insert progressive Chamberlain joke here

  14. avatar FedUp says:

    Well, if Pat Toomey is still in office, we didn’t drive the point home well enough, did we?

    1. avatar William says:

      People here are waiting with bated breath for this tool to come up for reelection, believe you me.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        For another 5 1/2 years, in the fall of 2022?

        Or were you talking about Manchin in 2018?

  15. avatar MLee says:

    You want background checks, fine. Make national reciprocity a reality, make it possible to buy full-auto again without having to be richer than dog sh–, pass the HPA and you can have your stinkin background checks.

    1. avatar Illinois_Minion says:

      Sorry. I can’t agree with trade-offs. It still allows them one step forward.

    2. avatar Nick says:

      Sounds like a fair trade to me, with one caveat. The law must strengthen the ban on a registry, and make it a felony for anyone assisting in the creation of an illegal one or retaining records beyond the prescribed time frame.

      Oh, and axe 922r. It’s one of the most retarded gun laws on the books.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        “Uh, we’re the CIA, so technically nothing we do domestically to monitor Americans is legal”

        Maybe if the law was written to give immunity to any lynch mob that burns down the database group, it’d have some meaningful impact on policy…

  16. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    Repeal the NFA entirely with HPA language about it still counting as registered. Repeal the Hughes amendment. Pass the House national reciprocity bill. Make having a LTC/CHL count as a background check without any paperwork necessary for private transactions. No background check for family transactions (within two dergees of consanguinity or a spouse). Background checks only for transfers of ownership. Then and only then do we have a deal.

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    I’ll agree with Manchin’s UBCs when he resigns from office and marries Caitlyn Jenner.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Joke needs something involving McCain & Graham, too (not even those tools spearheaded an effort to keep surplus guns from being re-imported to my knowledge)

      1. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

        John McCain should’ve been subjected to a “Background Check” before being allowed to fly after all he killed 127 of his own shipmates with his A-4E Skyhawk aboard the USS Forrestal.

        1. avatar barmbwt says:

          Mccain being an incompetent drunkard doesn’t change the fact that maintenance & ammo handling mistakes caused that disaster. Plenty of other reasons (crashes) he should have had his wings clipped prior to shipping out.

  18. avatar Fred says:

    I dont trust Trump to ignore all negotiation on gun rights, but first I’d have to ask if the democrats have made any proper offers. So far They’ve stonewalled on the scotus and health care votes while saying every nasty thing in the book about Trump. What on earth have they, the minority party, based this “deal” on if they have not the votes or desire to deliver on anything Trump wants?

    That would be a losing deal for him, and he doesn’t seem to be the kind who likes bad deals. You can’t show up with nothing and expect the guy with everything to give you half.

    1. avatar barmbwt says:

      This; a gun deal may be impossible solely due to the Dem’s blind, rabid, irrational attitude when it comes to gun policy. That’s a pretty lousy strategy to rely on, though, and I’d feel better if Don cared one way or the other on the issue. At present, history shows all that needs happen is Ivanka saying “guns er bad” after a tragedy, and Trump will start beating that drum.

  19. avatar Marco says:

    No quarter. Ridiculous.

    West Virginia, you have CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY!!!

    How the heck do you have this clown representing you? Do the right thing in 2018. Do it for you, do it for gun nation.

    TTAG- get a campaign, a slogan, something for us to chant/demand of Trump ahead of his address at the NRA convention- a unified ask- for us to hammer him before hand, at the convention, during, etc. etc. to make a concrete goal instead of general “protect guns” “Protect second amendment” “best president for NRA” and other general non-specifics. Let us do this.

    I PROMISE there will ALWAYS be a bigger evil, whether we get CCW reciprocity, or NFA repealed- there will ALWAYS be violations for you to lobby against.

    Help us, don’t just report.

  20. avatar Big Bill says:

    You should notice that all of these anti-gun laws are put forward as “compromises.” As in, “We could have gone for much more, but we are compromising by only going for this much.”
    More people need to look up the meaning of the word “compromise.” It’s obvious the word is not covered in school anymore.
    When someone steals your car’s door, and says, “Well, it was a compromise the owner should be OK with, because I could have stolen the whole car” at his trial, who would take it seriously?

  21. avatar almostesq. says:

    I have numerous people say getting rid of the NFA would be a good trade. Its an interesting argument. What I find more interesting is that Democrats have any say in the agenda at all when they control nothing. We control congress and the presidency. Lets just nuke the filibuster and pass what we want. The Democrats are going to do it next time they are in charge, why don’t we do the same? Poof, the NFA will be gone and the ACA would be gone too. Everybody wins!

  22. avatar Benadick A. says:

    how do you say treason in Russian

  23. How about common sense senator control. I.e., electing one that respects the United States Constitution, West Virginia. I will be sending my hard earned Virginia dollars to support the pro-Second Amendment Republican challenger to Sen. Joe “I sold my soul to the devil(George Soros)himself. Sorry bastards!

  24. avatar Jim Macklin says:

    When “they” say common sense it raises red flagsa.
    Common sense to me is that all honest and responsible citizens should be armed at all times. Every robber or terrorist should be met with aimed fire. That’s my common sense.
    The laws “they” want are soft peddled as common sense but are intended to delay and prevent all lawful gun sales.
    Everybody should be taught the laws on use of force beginning in the fourth or fifth grade. In Junior high school gun safety classes would be required. All students would carry a blue or red training pistol and be required to demonstrate safe gun handling on demand from any teacher.
    That’s my idea of common sense.

  25. avatar Roymond says:

    The only deal Trump should cut that would involve passing universal background checks would be an agreement to add two more, very Jeffersonian justices to the Supreme Court and keep all data about who asked for or was asked about in the background checks from government.

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