Trump Keeps Them (and Us) Guessing on Gun Control

Donald Trump background checks gun control

President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before departing on Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House, Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2019, in Washington. Trump is headed to Kentucky. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Repeat after me…it’s not what he says, it’s what he does. This is from the AP . . .

By Jill Colvin and Laurie Kellman

President Donald Trump on Wednesday once again backed tighter background checks for gun purchases, but said he wants to be careful that closing what he calls “loopholes” doesn’t clear the way for more gun control.

Speaking to reporters as he departed the White House for Kentucky, the president said he considers gun violence a public health issue and is considering ways to make background checks more strict. But he also said, “You’re on that slope and all of a sudden nobody has any legal protection,” adding, “Our Second Amendment will remain strong.”

Told the “slippery slope” argument is a National Rifle Association talking point, Trump said, “It’s a Trump talking point.”

The rhetorical whiplash came after gunmen opened fire in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, leaving more than 30 people dead. In the days following the mass shootings early this month, Trump said he was eager to implement “very meaningful background checks” and told reporters there was “tremendous support” for action. He dismissed that very same “slippery slope” thinking, which he attributed to the NRA, saying, “I don’t agree with that.”

But he also has acknowledged that his core supporters support gun rights, highlighting the challenge of balancing the politics of gun control ahead of the 2020 elections.

On Tuesday, Trump signaled he was backing away from supporting changes to the system. Speaking to reporters, he noted that “a lot of the people that put me where I am are strong believers in the Second Amendment,” and he suggested he worries about blurring the contrast between Republicans and Democrats on the issue.

“We have to be very careful about that,” he said.

It was a change in tone. He said Tuesday that while the current system has “sort of missing areas and areas that don’t complete the whole circle,” it is overall “very, very strong” — even though federal law only requires background checks for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers.

The waffling drew anger from Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who said if Trump is serious about action he should call on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to put a House-passed bill on background checks up for a vote.

“These retreats are heartbreaking, particularly for the families of the victims of gun violence,” Schumer tweeted.

Republicans have refused to take up several Democratic-backed gun control bills that passed the House, and historically they have opposed many efforts to strengthen the nation’s gun laws.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who spoke with Trump last week, said the president expressed support then for working across the aisle “to come up with a background checks bill that can pass the Senate and save lives.” While he said he would wait to hear from Trump again directly, he compared the episode to Trump’s flip-flop on background checks following the Parkland, Florida, school shooting after intervention from the NRA.

“It’s time for Republicans and President Trump to decide whose side they’re on,” Murphy said in a statement. “Are they going to stand with the 90% of Americans who want universal background checks, or are they going to once again kowtow to the desires of the gun lobby?”

Trump, who has reversed course on gun issues throughout his adult life, had insisted when pressed by skeptical reporters earlier this month that this time would be different because the composition of the House and Senate had changed.

But a senior White House official pushed back on the notion that Trump was backing away from support for legislative changes, noting that Trump has repeatedly voiced a desire to get something done.

The person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the White House’s policy and legislative affairs teams have been discussing potential options, in addition to ongoing conversations with members of Congress led by Eric Ueland, the director of legislative affairs.

They also said “meaningful background checks” remain on the table, even after Trump spoke again by phone Tuesday with NRA chief executiveWayne LaPierre.

LaPierre tweeted the two had discussed “the best ways to prevent these types of tragedies,” and called Trump “a strong #2A President.”

While two Democrats on the Hill described talks with the White House as largely stalled, others said White House officials have been engaged in continued conversations with Democratic and Republican lawmakers. That includes staff-level conversations with Murphy’s office since he spoke with Trump last Sunday, according to one Senate staffer.

“The White House has been very responsive to our office,” said Steve Kelly, a spokesman for Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who has long pushed a bipartisan expanded background check bill with Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. “We’ve had ongoing conversations, at the staff level, with the White House regarding background checks both last week and this week.”

Republicans have been trying to build support for more modest measures, including so-called red-flag bills from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., that would allow friends and family to petition authorities to keep guns away from some people. But those efforts are also running into trouble from conservatives, who worry about due process and infringing on gun owners’ rights.

Meanwhile, NRA spokeswoman Amy Hunter said the group “has always supported efforts to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill” and “appreciates the president’s desire to find logical ways of accomplishing that goal.”

“However, even the most ardent anti-gun advocates would concede expanded background checks would not have stopped any of the recent high-profile shootings,” she said. “In order to reduce gun deaths, we must address the root causes of crime.”

comments

  1. avatar GunnyGene says:

    I am sick to death of politicians trying to find “acceptable” ways to screw us over, in order to salvage their political careers. My State Senator is on this idiotic “working group” to “solve the issue of gun violence”.

    I sent him an email imploring him to not compromise on the BoR (including the 2A) or Constitution, that I and my ancestors fought and sometimes died for, along with millions of other men and women. That said, he may or may not pay any attention.

    Many are very good at enjoying Freedom, but few are good at defending it.

    We are getting very, very close to invoking our Right & Duty as expressed in the Preamble to Declaration of Independence.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      ^^ This ^^

      “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, IT IS THEIR DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      Those ignorant of the founding documents don’t understand that the Declaration not only tells us we may act to stop the government when it steps out of bounds, it mandates us to do so. That is the definition of duty.

      1. avatar I don't care if we have Police or not in Alaska says:

        I love that quote…

      2. avatar GunnyGene says:

        It should be noted that the Declaration is not a “legal” document” and has no standing in a court of law, simply because it preceded the fundamental law embodied in the Constitution.

        That said, the Constitution was based in large part on the Declaration, in particular the 2A, as the means to be employed if necessary, to ensure the continuing existence of the basic rights of the people of a Free Society and Nation.

        One cannot fully understand the Constitution without also understanding the Declaration. And of all our Founding Documents, the Declaration is the most hated by those who would enslave us.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Gunny, any incorporation entails a minimum of two core documents – a Mission Statement (why) and Articles of Incorporation (how). They are always together and inseparable.

          The DOI is our nation’s “why” and the AOC was the original “how”, though as we all know it was superseded by the Constitution.

          We cannot state that one half of the founding duo has legal standing, but not the other.

        2. avatar Comrade X says:

          9th;

          “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

          Could that be referring to;

          “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

          Which is preceded by;

          “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…..

          IMHO the 9th is the tie between the Declaration and our Constitution.

    2. avatar DN says:

      All politicians do. Trump has upset the press upset because he does it a different way.
      BUT he actual endpoint of a Democrat president vs a Republican one are profoundly different.

      Trump has already altered the courts profoundly in relative support of the 2A especially. A Democrat president in 2020 will reverse that entirely.

    3. avatar tmm says:

      Thanks, Gunny.

      LET THEM HEAR YOU. They hear from a lot of cesspool residents, don’t let them forget that we are the ones that matter. Long live liberty. Let every one of them know, even the President, lest he forget.

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      trump’s being very cautious because of the upcoming election…but what happens if he wins and is no longer restrained?…..

  2. avatar Chief Censor says:

    Trump sounds like a politician trying to get reelected.

    1. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

      which brings up the question of what he would sound like if he got re-elected, would it be what he sounded like before he started running the first time?

  3. avatar former water walker says:

    How can you tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving…c’mon guy’s and gals Trump had 4 business bankruptcies. And sued a kajillian times. And a Democrat.And publicly cheated on his wives. Donnies best atribute is he’s a pragmatic realist. WE should demand a helluva lot more than status quo. And we probably won’t get that!!!

    1. avatar DN says:

      c’mon guy’s and gals Trump had 4 business bankruptcies. And sued a kajillian times.

      it is five not six out of 588 different corporation (he has a huge number of hotel and hosptiality businesses and real estate and most are their own corporations, whcih is common)
      His real estate development and hospitality businesses have HALF the bankruptcy rate of the average in those sectors.

      And his business have also been sued less than average. Youy “bazillion” because the figure quoted i the lying media was NOT for for successful suits against him — not even for all suits filed, but for threats of suits. Anyone with a SINGLE business, or even the head of a 50 uni HOA knows you get threaten with suits, or even sued often enough. We just had a roofer miss their time in our contract and we deducted 20%. They sent letters, they sued and they lost. Career politicians and the mass media that reports on them don’t actually conduct or participate in for profit business so when they hear some company got sued they think it meas something.

      Whole foods has been sued or threaten to be sued thousands of times. so to has GM (tens of thousands for them for sure).

    2. avatar HP says:

      “And publicly cheated on his wives”

      A billionaire real estate magnate, philandering about? Say it ain’t so!

      WHO CARES

      1. avatar Zzzz says:

        Unless their name is Clinton… Then you all go ape sh*t and demand justice and their head on a platter. Hell, y’all impeached the last one who had an affair. But yeah, since it’s Trump…who cares. Double standards and all that.

        What a bunch of hypocrites y’all are.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Well that just proves that biblical law has nothing to do with the right wing.

          They don’t care that Trump is a liar, ConMan, adulterer and narcissist, as long as he hates the same people as the right wing, he is the chosen one.

          Like all the Trump supporters say, “He says what I’m thinking!”

          Yes, that is the very definition of hypocrisy.

  4. avatar Arc says:

    I keep forgetting Trump is a politician and I shouldn’t take politicians at their word.

    Buying Greenland? Well, if Demark, which as no meaningful ability to stop the US from just taking it anyway, wants to sell, thats great, if they don’t, its just dog and pony shows to troll and distract the media.

    Lots of shootings? Hmm, lets play lip service to the antis and bullshit them around for a while until this all dies down, then back to business as usual.

    That said, don’t backstab gun voters, we will stay hope and let your ass lose.

    1. avatar LKB says:

      Well, on Greenland, Trump’s move actually looks pretty shrewd.

      The US has tried to buy Greenland many times over the years, and nobody thinks the Danes would seriously be interested now. So why the current Trumpian action?

      Denmark is having to shell out big bucks to hang onto Greenland, which it doesn’t really have. On top of that, it really needs to spend even bigger bucks update the infrastructure (such as it is) in the inhabited parts of Greenland.

      As it has in other parts of the world, China has popped up with offers to “help” with such infrastructure improvements. Of course, nothing is free, and in return China expects to get a foothold in the Arctic (not to mention close access to the US base at Thule).

      The controversy in Denmark, as I understand it, has been between those who are rightly concerned about China’s motives, and those who are tired of paying for Greenland in the first place and thus would be fine with China essentially taking over. Trump’s action now changes the calculus — “hey, if Greenland’s too big a burden, we’ll buy it from you.” Now the Danish forces that were angling to let China in are suddenly in the position of having to assert Denmark’s long-standing ties to Greenland, concerns about the autonomy of the local population, etc. — all of which cut a lot harder against letting China in than selling to a NATO ally.

      So, a couple of tweets, and PDT may well have cheaply kept the Chinese out of Greenland. Not bad if it works.

      Let’s just hope that there is a similar pro-2A strategy going on . . . .

      1. avatar Hank says:

        I’m surprised Britain, Canada, and even Germany aren’t more interested in Greenland. The natural resources alone would be a huge boon to any European power. Most of Europe is hugely dependent on Russia and the Middle East and you think they’d take the opportunity for any easy resource colony.

        1. avatar Huntmaster says:

          I don’t want to sound like a wise guy but if those resources offer such a great opportunity, why is Greenland a $700,000,000 a year drain on Denmark?

          And how can we be sure the won’t become an ice covered Puerto Rico for us.

        2. avatar Hank says:

          Denmark probably doesn’t have the capability to harvest hard to reach resources like that. For more industrious nations with large economies like Britain, Russia, America, China, Canada, ect… it’s worth the effort. The more powerful nations with larger economies can afford to invest the logistical and technological effort into a difficult project for eventual payoff. A nation like Denmark probably doesn’t have the ability to get a project like that off the ground.

        3. avatar Arc says:

          @huntmaster

          The US could build a nuclear power station there and melt all the ice they want.

        4. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “The US could build a nuclear power station there and melt all the ice they want.”

          Could? The US already has, in the 50s-or-60s.

          Denmark asked we remove it, and we did.

          McMurdo in Antarctica also had a Navy nuke plant of ours back then, as well…

      2. avatar arc says:

        Tbh, I would cut a deal with China and Russia, split greenland three ways. As I said before, Denmark doesn’t have the forces to say no and Europe wouldn’t want to get involved with it beyond harsh words

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Yeah, screw Denmark, would’ve ever done for us? Why bother with diplomacy with Denmark, this such a little country.

          “Denmark, after all, is a key partner in the North Atlantic alliance, and was among the first countries to pledge military support in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 40 Danish troops died in Helmand province, fighting alongside American and British soldiers.”

          How soon they forget…

        2. avatar Hank says:

          Giving China and Russia an actual foothold in North America would be an enormous strategic blunder on our part. This is what started the whole Greenland thing to begin with. Personally I think a joint Canadian/US or Canadian/Britain domain would be the most beneficial all around. The Greenlanders themselves probably don’t want to be American. Their society is socialist and at odds with many American ideals. They also don’t have the real desire to be independent as it were. I think Canada is a better outlet for them because like with Quebec, they could be a province with a certain amount of autonomy. Then you bolster the economy with American or British capital at extracting the resources, with everyone involved benefiting the payoff. I’m quite surprised Britain is isn’t more interested because a natural resource colony for them would of enormous benefit due to the split from Europe and rivalry with Russia. A stronger Britain would benefit America greatly allowing us to pull some military assets from the continent.

        3. avatar arc says:

          Wars based on lies and never should have been fought in the first place. The total dead are 43, not 40, ~9,500 personnel, but that is precisely my point, Denmark is statistically irrelevant and couldn’t defend Greenland if it tried.

      3. avatar frank speak says:

        there’s even talk of greenland seceeding…and cutting their own deals…it’s a fluid situation

  5. avatar Rocketman says:

    I don’t know why President Trump even bothers to make nice to the left. Virtually every thing that the man does gets him castigated by them. Remember “Worse than Hitler!”? Trump needs to realize that NOTHING that he does is going to make a damn bit of difference in their feelings for him and just go ahead with doing the right thing. Just ignore the Anti-American and Pro Communists traitors trying to destroy the USA . They are mosquitoes going after an elephant.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      The point is that Trump is not a right winger or a left winger. He is a Trump-winger. The only consideration he makes is “What’s it going to do for my brand?”.

      1. avatar SoCalJack says:

        Exactly.

  6. avatar MLee says:

    He’s blowing smoke up peoples asses is what he’s doing. Waiting for the inevitable *people forget* occurrence.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      He knows WE will not forget, so, I assume he is entertaining the gun-grabbing crowd, soothing their paranoia, leading them to think, finally, sharp-horned unicorns are gathering to gore the gun-toting ghouls that trigger them to run for their safe spaces and coloring books. As soon as someone yells ‘squirrel’, the lefties will be off chasing Russian spies, blood thirsty capitalists, and Trump’s tax returns. That is, in between attending drag queen story time at the local library. After all, they support diversity.

      Do I sound cynical?

      1. avatar Wheel Gun Guy says:

        You forgot the play-doh

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      Trump is a ConMan, and he has successfully conned the POTG, the evangelicals and many working folks. He is the father of all liars, and he is proud of it.

      “He answered his own question by running footage of Trump in 2011 confessing to an audience in Australia that he gives himself bogus awards “all the time.”
      “And then I announce ‘I’ve just received an award,’ and there’s nothing deceptive about it because I actually did, but I gave it to myself,” Trump explained in the old clip.”

  7. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

    What he did was go from being an anti-gun democrat to being a republican, then with the bumpstock ban he took one step over a line, one side being red, the other side where he stepped to being blue. If he does EO gun control, signs off on UBC or red flag or an a assault weapons ban, I consider that step two and then he is effectively an anti-gun democrat again. It’s not rocket science.

    1. avatar DN says:

      he is not going to sign an AWB ban. the Democrat who replaces him will, along with 10 round mags and appointing a SCOTUS that thinks Heller is wrong and that there is no individual right to firearms at all. OK?

      What Trump has done is appoint more pro 2A federal judges than any president in modern history. He rope-a-doped the Democrats on bump stock, resulting in a minuscule effect compared to the Feinstein bill. Red flag runs over 85% approval — no legislation at that approval rate doesn’t get passed. NONE.

      NRA is NOT in position to help him in his re-election. Just be glad he is there.

      1. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

        I hope you’re right about trump being as the alternatives are all national suicide, but if he takes that 2nd step before November of next year I can’t vote for him.

        1. avatar Mercury says:

          Then I hope you’re registered Republican, because voting in their primary is the only move you’ve got left. Unless you want to go full 1776, that is.

          To be clear, I myself am registered as such and will be voting (and personally involved in more than one campaign) thereof. But under no circumstances will I vote Trump for POTUS — whether he runs as Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or independent — because A: I’m not in a swing state and B: like you, I recognize that his politics, whatever they actually may be, do not align with mine. My point is, anyone saying “a vote for [L/G/I candidate] is a vote for [D/R candidate]” is either ignorant of the significance of the primary process to the entire political process of the United States government (though usually the ignorant in question only apply it to the office of the President) or an actual, literal shill working for a big money political campaign.

          If you desire a political, rather than violent, solution to our country’s ills, get involved in the primary process, at the very least through your vote and preferrably through your time and individual effort. If you won’t recognize the importance of it then don’t expect any change — one way or the other — without great violence.

      2. avatar LifeSavor says:

        Fully agree with you assessment, DN.

  8. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “Republicans have been trying to build support for more modest measures, including so-called red-flag bills from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.”

    I would not insult true republicans by refering to those two douches as such,as they are a Rino’s RINO and should just go a head and join the Commiecrats,No Loss.

  9. avatar Tom T says:

    Everyone getting excited over nothing. A couple of frivolous (and pointless) rules will change so they can boast that they “did something”, and life goes on.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      by “strengthening” background checks they probably mean acquiring more information from the states…

  10. avatar Shadow says:

    Who is to say that Trump will not back off of gun control until he gets re-elected in 2020? After that, it will not matter what he does to piss gun owners off after 2020. Trump is all over the map where gun control is concerned, and quite frankly, I do not believe for a minute that he will not stab gun owners (and the Second Amendment) in the back. “Keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill”? Hell, as far as the Demon-Rats are concerned, anyone who believes the Second Amendment is for the people is considered to be “mentally ill” in their minds, and such a line (also from the NRA) gives Demon-Rats all the ammunition they need. Trump may keep people guessing, but he just may guess himself out of the next election, as well, and then gun owners will really be screwed.

    1. avatar DN says:

      That is plain silly. trump is not all over the map. he is doing the smart thing, and it is driving the gun control advocates nuts. They get trivial meaningless things, in the meantime he appoints hundred of the most pro 2A federal judges. The bump stock rope a dope on Feinstein, who had an 85% approval issue, with MOST Republican Americans wanting bump stocks banned, and instead of her bill that would have outlawed anything that made a gun fire faster, she got chump change.

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        Uhh… I’m sorry, are you under the impression that an EO prevents congress from passing an arguably similar law? Because if you don’t somehow believe that then your insinuation that Trumps bumpstock ban somehow prevented Feinstein from getting additional gun control passed is… let’s be polite and say COMPLETELY BATSHIT CRAZY

      2. avatar Sho Rembo says:

        Yea, Trump isn’t all over the map, he knows where he is at. He wants to do gun control, but also wants to win in 2020. That’s why he has done the bump stock ban and said “…I like taking the guns first, due process later…”. And he has fallen for the media’s lies that there is a majority support for universal background checks. He was ready to go with that full bore. But then someone pointed out that that isn’t the case. He certainly wasn’t thinking “Whew, I was hoping I didn’t have to support UBC or red flag laws or any gun control.” No, what he was, and is thinking, “I must win 2020. It is bigly that I must. I can’t look like a loser. Everyone needs this huge brain I have. It’s so huge I was a Democrat most of my life, and my hugely big brain convinced Republicans I wasn’t in a matter of a few months. They’ll believe everything I say.”

        So, no, he isn’t all over the map. He is on his map and doing just what he planned. What it looks like is a bunch of Republicans are all over his…….

  11. avatar GunnyGene says:

    @ I Haz A Question says:
    August 21, 2019 at 18:25

    Yes, you’re correct. Yet that ( disregard of the DoI) is exactly what has been done, over the past 200+years. And the result of that disregard is the never ending arguments over the details of the Constitution, and malicious legal “interpretations” that obscure and defy the obvious intent of both the DoI and the Constitution/BoR.

    Leaning on my USMC career, part of that Mission Statement is the Commanders Intent, which must be clearly stated and understood by those tasked with carrying out the Mission. The DoI fulfills that requirement perfectly. The fault lies with us – we who were, and are, charged with carrying out the mission.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      Sorry GunnyGene but your living in a dream world. If the U.S. bans a certain category of guns or all guns the penalties would be so draconian (just like the machine gun law) that the average person wold not even think of not obeying such a law as he knows potty trained he would soon lose all his assets in the bank, his car, his home , be fined tens of thousands of dollars and go to prison and lose his job.

      The few nut cases that would keep their guns would soon become extinct when black shirted storm troopers grinning while wearing dark sunglasses used the nut case and his family for helicopter gun ship practice. In other words they would be “Waco’ed” as when the Branch Dividian’s did not have a church that was BATF approved.

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        Whatever helps you sleep at night Vlad.

        Turncoat motherfucker.

      2. avatar DN says:

        Just relax. 3d makes this all moot. as far as left wing jackboots, yes look at Europe where all rights are lower. Bu this isn’t europe.

      3. avatar Huntmaster says:

        Less than thirteen percent of the population actively supported the revolutionary war. We have that now.

      4. avatar James Campbell says:

        Hey Vlad, reality check!
        I’m in Texas, and no way in HELL would my neighbors and I sit idlely by and watch a group of jack booted thugs violate a neighbors God given natural rights because an unconstitutional law “needs” to be enforced. An action such as that would be a call to arms for most patriotic Americans.
        Remember, they came for “insert occupation/activity here”, I was not a “insert occupation/activity again”, so I did nothing.
        Well, when they come for the legal firearm owner, Patriots will hear HAVOC, and the dogs will slip from their restraints.
        The old guard left is well aware of this reality.
        The funny little gun grab post Katrina in New Orleans would NEVER work in Texas also. LEO and National Guard breaking doors down while yelling “is everyone inside ok?”. Hahaha, try that in Texas, you’ll take fire from inside the home AND from the neighboring houses.

      5. avatar James Campbell says:

        Also, in response to the “gun ship” comment.
        What Countries military will be providing the “gun ships” the personell for the operation, and the support ships off the US coast to re-fuel and re-arm these helicopters.
        You need to be checked for syphilis of the brain if you think the US military has enough enlisted “turncoats” to execute such an operation. If this operation were to utilize US bases/support ships/personell, the rampant sabotage would make it unlikely a heli would be capable to take off for a Starbucks run, much less an attack on fellow citizens.
        Like I stated prior, get a check-up, from the neck up!

      6. avatar frank speak says:

        consider what Waco led to…don’t think the govr. has forgotten….

  12. avatar LifeSavor says:

    When Trump was elected, his own Attorney General made the Muller farce possible. His Republican House of Representatives sabotaged him on healthcare reform, the wall, and the budget. The Senate backed his Judicial appointments but was not willing to fight for Trumps proposals on immigration and healthcare. The mainstream in his own party did not want him.

    It did not help that he showed up for the job without having pre-negotiated his cabinet and Chief-of-Staff. Worse, that some of his Cabinet choices did not share his vision or agenda. That was a major failing on his part.

    And we all know how the media treats him (and us gun folk).

    Given his broad, deep, and virulent opposition in Washington, the media, big tech, combined with his own blunders, it is amazing that he has accomplished as much as he has. I am hoping his noise about gun control is just noise and that he helps put the focus of actions that have a realistic chance of improving safety in our schools, places of worship, and public spaces. Given the clown show on the other side of the aisle, I will continue to support him when I think he is correct and tell like heck when I think he is going astray.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      …yell like heck…

    2. avatar Tom T says:

      Well said and an accurate description of the situation.

  13. avatar jbob says:

    Trump’s second term is going to be very bad for gun owners, unfortunately, he’s the best gamble.

    1. avatar DN says:

      ok, so reality doesn’t matter and you are deliberate ignorant as to what a Dem in the white house will do

      1. avatar Zzx says:

        Thanks to Trump they have the perfect playbook. Just do executive orders. Trump did and it never got challenged in the courts. The precedence is already set. To think the next anti gun president won’t follow in Trump’s footsteps is crazy. Soon their will be EOs for everything they wanted. Trump has shown they can bypass the legislative branch and nothing we can do but follow the new law…

  14. avatar FedUp says:

    Red Flag Laws, denying the civil rights of citizens who aren’t even suspected of committing crimes, are now considered ‘modest steps’????

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      “When authorities arrived Friday to arrest a 15-year-old in Florida after threats to commit a school shooting showed up on a video game platform, he told them he was joking, they said.
      “I Dalton Barnhart vow to bring my fathers m15 to school and kill 7 people at a minimum,” the boy wrote using a fake name, according to a Volusia County Sheriff’s Office report.“

    2. avatar Shadow says:

      Good grief, if eliminating half of the bill of rights (aka, Red Flag Laws) is a “modest step”, then shooting every last gun owner when we resist must be the next, “logical” option?

  15. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Trump is not the same compared to the Bump stock issue. He’s not speaking or using the same body language. I think his recently divorced son has explained to him the possibility of abuse of the Red Flag laws.
    And I think we need to continue to send letters to the White House. They are having an effect.

  16. avatar Political gristle says:

    Trump already made his mind up, he’s going to do SOMETHING……….
    Trump is another, I support the 2nd Amendment and gun rights BUUUUUUT……
    He IS GOING to tighten up BG checks, whatever that means…………. ( It means nothing has changed)
    1. Red flag laws
    Or
    2. Taps act
    Or
    3. Bye-bye HIPAA protections.
    One by one Or ALL 3 at once.

    But probably not, assault weapons bans or **magazine capacity bans **(probably, hopefully not)

  17. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

    You’re not looking at what he says or does – just the letter after his name.

  18. avatar former water walker says:

    Bump stock ban…how soon we forget. Shucking & jiving. It may be moot if we’re plunged into a recession/depression from drumph’s ill timed war on China.American’s want cheap Amazon wares. As we add trillions to our deficit. Oh well😫

  19. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “Repeat after me…it’s not what he says, it’s what he does.”

    Two points:

    1) If people hadn’t freaked out at his earlier comments, how would Trump have been able to realize just how damaging gun control would be to his support.

    2) What happens when he is in office a second term and not seeking re-election? What will stop him then?

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “2) What happens when he is in office a second term and not seeking re-election? What will stop him then?”

      A serious answer to that question –

      We had better pray the ‘NY Pistol’ SCOTUS decision goes heavy in our favor, because there will be *nothing* stopping him from fucking our gun rights big-time. His nature is a deal-maker, whatever gets him to the goal he wants, he is likely to do, no matter what it costs us.

      The real danger with our gun rights is that the Leftists will make proposals that are innocuous-sounding, but dangerous to our rights. Background checks sound so innocent, all they want to do is “keep guns out of the hands of (whoever)”.

      The reality will be a mandatory gun registration that makes it so easy for the cops to arrest you if you can’t produce the firearm the Leftists will have outlawed in the future.

      They are deadly serious about playing a multi-generation game to disarm the citizens…

    2. avatar tmm says:

      I just hope princess doesn’t just stop by to say “hi”

  20. avatar enuf says:

    Meanwhile, police have been going full tilt on arresting anyone making threats of mass killing. What they failed to do before the Parkland School attack and other attacks, they are vacuuming the internet looking for idiots to arrest. Here’s a news piece on it:

    At least 27 people have been arrested over threats to commit mass attacks since the El Paso and Dayton shootings
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/21/us/mass-shooting-threats-tuesday/index.html

    Some of those are very real threats, some are obvious stupid people from children to adults just mouthing off. What’s good about this is it is exactly how the Secret Service protects the President:

    Early Detection, Threat Assessment, Planned Intervention.

    It works when done well. Right now I wouldn’t say it is being done well, it’s more of a panic mode going on.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Good. There are plenty of existing laws to go after these idiots. The people in charge can’t admit they made mistakes by ignoring these people, so they pretend like they’re “doing something” by asking for new laws. It isn’t a law making problem, it’s a law enforcement problem. Stop protecting criminals, even if they’re kids.

    2. avatar frank speak... says:

      that early intervention sounds like the cops finally doing their jobs and actually preventing crime..it has the capacity to deter potential mass shooters and deny them the attention they crave far better than any of the other proposed “solutions”…

  21. avatar Johnny Bullets says:

    No problem here.

    Just an FYI: The day after Trump came down the escalator, I KNEW he was going to be the next president of the United States.

  22. avatar BusyBeef says:

    This guy has dementia and has no clue what he’s talking about at any given moment.

  23. avatar Geoff says:

    Graham is my Senator and I emailed him several time that he is a traitor to the Constitution and to the people of South Carolina for supporting these anti-gun proposals and meeting with the enemy, Mommies Demanding Attention. Response? Boilerplate letter from his office based on the subject. Never anything he actually wrote. I doubt he even reads any messages or email. His staff does and clicks a box on the computer for an appropriate response.
    I hope somebody runs against him next year so I don’t have to vote for Graham. No “straight party” ticket next year for me. Individual candidates instead.

    1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

      If he can disregard your mail and still get your vote, why wouldn’t he? Decades of this behavior have taught politicians that gun owners are their tools. You all blame the left for being themselves, like everybody owes you something. Really gun owners on the right did this to themselves.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      never…ever….vote a straight party ticket…it denotes mental laziness on your part…and offers smug assurances to them…..always keep ’em guessing…. and don’t allow them to get comfortable…

  24. avatar 1791 says:

    UBC’s are illegal! Even if it gets illegally passed lawsuits will result and the Supreme Court if they remember the 2nd Amendment exist will overturn that and set another precedent to further blow away gun control & background ck storage of records of name address and firearm data of every gun owner in America! Never mind its barred by US Code and FOPA of 1986 & Constitution!

    What property we own/trade/sell is no one’s business as the founders pointed out!

  25. avatar Miner49er says:

    Hankey, you say Greenland would be “an easy resource colony”.

    The people who live in Greenland beg to differ with you:

    “Denmark and Greenland have agreed to strengthen their cooperation on security and defense, with officials citing the growing strategic role of the Arctic region as thawing ice opens up new trade routes and improves access to the island’s natural resources.
    “The presence of Defense Command Denmark in the Arctic and north Atlantic will be even more important in the years to come as the geopolitical importance of the Arctic increases,” the Danish Ministry of Defense said in a statement.
    The statement follows a visit to Greenland by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and comes in the wake of a diplomatic tussle between the U.S. and Denmark over President Donald Trump’s failed bid to buy the world’s largest island.
    The agreement announced on Friday in Copenhagen envisages plans for joint military exercises and training sessions for the emergency services. Denmark sent 38 firefighters to Greenland last week to help put out a fire near Sisimiut, in the western part of the island, that started in early July.”

    You know, self-determination was the very foundation of the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the United States of America.

    It is interesting that those who quote the Declaration of Independence ignore the very core principles upon which it’s based.

    Fascinating.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      Denmark couldn’t defend their own mothers…that postage -stamp sized country is totally dependent on NATO for any credibility, at all…..be interesting to see what happens when big money gets involved….

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