Trump backs gun control

[willie]

I saw that Trump has endorsed gun control measures in a news conference and has the NRA in a nervous fit. One dumb thing that he said was that he believed in getting guns early and added a blurb about taking action first and worry about due process later. I interpreted this to apply to mentally ill or other suspected dangerous persons. So here it comes. Anybody surprised?

[LittleLebowski]

Show me the bill. Until then, not going to get hysterical.

[orionz06]

While I've never trusted him we do know that Trump says a lot of really dumb shit and then looks at the next shiny object and starts the cycle over. Let's see how this looks on Monday, after the weekend.

[MVS]

It would be ironic if he brought about something that 8 years of Obama didn't do.

[RevolverRob]

Show me the bill. Until then, not going to get hysterical.

I'm not sure "hysterical" is the right term...but I'm have difficulty not enjoying some schadenfreude from this - Why? Because Trump was a bullshit candidate shoved down the throats of true fiscal conservatives and centrists as a crap candidate but one who would oppose gun control measures. And those of us who were awake enough to see his life long love affair with himself, Hollywood, New York, and other shitholes of our country - recognized for what he and his tone were - hot air.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/us/politics/trump-gun-control.html

Our POTUS is now on record saying, "Worry about due process later."

Real defender of the Constitution there...

[Suvorov]

It would be ironic if he brought about something that 8 years of Obama didn't do.

Only Nixon can go to China.

[JAD]

His approach to the no fly list was similar, over a year ago. It’s not much to gloat over; there was no better choice. As GJM points out frequently, the lasting thing that presidents do, and the lasting effect of presidencies, is SCOTUS appointment. So far I’m pleased.

[Joe in PNG]

It could be that Trump heard that former President Obama was "Gun Salesman of the Century", and is determined that no one is a better salesman than he is!

[Sensei]

Show me the bill. Until then, not going to get hysterical.

It’s going to take a couple of month because he asked DiFi to write the bill and the batteries to her Speak & Spell are dead. ;)

All joking aside, this is very similar to the DACA debate - have a meeting, get people to suggest a bunch of stuff that nobody can agree to, watch it die a slow death in Congress, and then claim that Congress can’t get its act together. He seems to be playing to the Legislature’s dysfunction so that he can seem bipartisan.

I highly doubt that anything outside of bump stocks and background checks will hit his desk. So, I’m not too worried.

However, his mouth did some damage. First, he pretty much killed national reciprocity for concealed carry. Not that it really stood much of a chance, but now it’s a snowball in hell. Second, his comments about due process were...well...

[MGW]

Well, I don’t hear anyone talking about Russia or dreamers. He might be smarter than he sounds.

[Lex Luthier]

It could be that Trump heard that former President Obama was "Gun Salesman of the Century", and is determined that no one is a better salesman than he is!

I am noting the prices on quality self-loaders are responding to this on Gunbroker. Only up about 5 % right now...

[M2CattleCo]

It would be ironic if he brought about something that 8 years of Obama didn't do.

Not really. I've been saying our gun rights are in more jeopardy now than they were than when 0 was president.

[Sigfan26]

Peeks over sand bag barrier: Wolverines?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blues]

No worries. Putin's gonna flood the market with AK's once the dust settles.

[Ed L]

I saw that Trump has endorsed gun control measures in a news conference and has the NRA in a nervous fit. One dumb thing that he said was that he believed in getting guns early and added a blurb about taking action first and worry about due process later. I interpreted this to apply to mentally ill or other suspected dangerous persons. So here it comes. Anybody surprised?

Let's put some context. He was referring to the Florida school shooter when he said: "I like taking the guns early--like in this crazy man's case." This is someone who had the police come to his house 20+ times, was on record for wanting to be a school shooter, cut himself on video, had several people alert the FBI about him being a threat, etc.

Trump spouts off a great deal without thinking.

The thought of depriving people of their constitutional right to own firearms without due process certainly concerns me.

[pangloss]

Only Nixon can go to China.I think of Star Trek every time I hear that sentence. I have no idea why my mind picked that line to remember.

I think they'll pass the background check fix bill without reciprocity and that'll be it. That'll give Trump enough to trumpet about how he fixed some of the Obama mess and still not injure his relationship with the NRA.

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

[OlongJohnson]

I think of Star Trek every time I hear that sentence.

When are they gonna go to Boldlygo?

[Ed L]

In referring to Trump's comments, Republican Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska responded,"Strong leaders don't automatically agree with the last thing that was said to them. We have the Second Amendment and due process of law for a reason. We're not ditching any Constitutional protections simply because the last person the President talked to today doesn’t like them."

[Drang]

In referring to Trump's comments, Republican Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska responded,"Strong leaders don't automatically agree with the last thing that was said to them. We have the Second Amendment and due process of law for a reason. We're not ditching any Constitutional protections simply because the last person the President talked to today doesn’t like them."
Saw that.
Think it sells Trump short; he has established a pattern where he will lead the people he is talking to into believing he agrees with them, and then turns around and does the opposite.
"Strategery", as a predecessor called it.
I could be wrong, he never gave us reason to believe he was a strong Gun Rights kinda guy, but his sons are, and I suspect they brief him on things like this. ("Dad, this is what they're saying on The Snipers' Hide...")(I believe it was TSH one or both had confirmed memberships to.)
Of course, Sasse's statement could be strategery of his own.

[LittleLebowski]

I'm not sure "hysterical" is the right term..

You're clearly not checking any other forums :D As far as they're concerned, the sky has fallen already.

[RoyGBiv]

Maybe Trump is just trying to save Remington?

[Hambo]

We held the line through eight years of Obama, but with a Republican POTUS and majorities in both houses we're going to cave. My Republican governor didn't call for any new legislation after the Pulse shooting, but it's on the agenda now. My Republican congressman says that civilians shouldn't have the rifle he carried in Afghanistan. I'm not a genius, folks, but this is different than the last several times, and the only people who are going to eat a shit sandwich is us.

[BillSWPA]

This is why we need to think carefully about how and why we support the positions we support, and how we explain and argue for those positions.

Yes, there are dangerous people who need to have their guns taken away or not be able to get them in the first place. The last 2-3 mass shootings seem to give evidence of this.

However, we need to be very careful about how we define the standard for taking away 2nd amendment rights, as well as the due process for determining when that standard was met.

In NJ, having purchased harmless anti-anxiety drugs with a prescription disqualifies one from getting a firearms purchaser ID card in at least some locations. If you have a loud argument with your wife, you might find your guns disappearing before the police even ask if everyone is okay. We cannot get anywhere near that extreme.

We also cannot ignore the number of warnings we had about the recent Florida shooter.

Several of these Republican politicians, including Trump, can probably be persuaded not to do something stupid. That can be accomplished by explaining how we need to ensure that people can seek help without risk of losing their rights or their privacy, while putting in place steps that allow acting on warnings. We can craft and present a workable plan.

We cannot accomplish any of this by simply screaming second amendment at the mention of bump stocks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[txdpd]

With mid terms around the corner, he's also taking away a major issue from democrats in several races.

I don't think that people that solidly entrenched against Trump are going to change their minds, but they are not the 2-3% of the electorate that are expected to matter in some close races.

There might some strategery at work here. There might not be.

Man I could have sworn that during the last administration there was a lot finger pointing and people losing their minds over partisan ship and obstructionist politics. Now that the current president is acknowledging the other side's concerns and willing to sit down and talk, people are already pointing fingers and losing their minds.

[blues]

We held the line through eight years of Obama, but with a Republican POTUS and majorities in both houses we're going to cave. My Republican governor didn't call for any new legislation after the Pulse shooting, but it's on the agenda now. My Republican congressman says that civilians shouldn't have the rifle he carried in Afghanistan. I'm not a genius, folks, but this is different than the last several times, and the only people who are going to eat a shit sandwich is us.

I'm not ready to throw in the towel, (and I know you're not)...and I'm counting on the NRA and SAF to mount some strong legal challenges when and where necessary.

Seems a lot of the current administration's cheerleaders have left the sidelines (hopefully only for the locker room). It's gonna be rough sledding, so we're gonna need to tough it out.

[Peally]

It would be nice to have a president that isn't a dipshit for once.

[WobblyPossum]

I'm hoping this really is part of some grand plan to make it look like he's open to bi-partisan proposals so he can just blame congress when it inevitably fails to pass legislation but I'm never sure what to think with how President Trump seems to just say whatever thought happens to cross his mind at the time. I'm greatly disappointed that he suggested the Senate pass Fix NICS without the national ccw reciprocity part and then try to pass reciprocity "later." I'm even more disappointed that he said we should worry about due process after we already infringe on someone's rights. That's not how a nation of laws should work.

[blues]

I'm hoping this really is part of some grand plan to make it look like he's open to bi-partisan proposals so he can just blame congress when it inevitably fails to pass legislation but I'm never sure what to think with how President Trump seems to just say whatever thought happens to cross his mind at the time. I'm greatly disappointed that he suggested the Senate pass Fix NICS without the national ccw reciprocity part and then try to pass reciprocity "later." I'm even more disappointed that he said we should worry about due process after we already infringe on someone's rights. That's not how a nation of laws should work.

If this is his grand plan, it's a pretty damn scary look into the abyss...

This guy constantly reminds me of that scene in "The Sopranos" when "Hesh" Rabkin says the following about Livia Soprano at her wake:


"In between brain and mouth there was no interlocutor."

Nothing could be truer when it comes to this president. The fact that he doesn't really care about "the law", (which is obvious from the way he conducted business and his personal affairs), is a cautionary tale.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Saw Kelly Ann try to explain Trump today. Her defense was that in a moral panic Donald had to do something!

Saw Manchin discuss why he supports Donald's call for raising the age to 18. Now that is a debatable idea but that's not caught my attention. He said that was because it was important to raise the age of buying a "weapon of mass destruction". Don't raise the age limit for shotguns and other rifles - I guess they are nice and not weapons?

Anyway, if - God Forbid - we have another - I can see Donald and Kelly in throws of moral panic saying to ban weapons of mass destruction and don't be scared of the NRA.

Anyone who thinks Donald's slam of the NRA is brilliant politics is deceiving themselves. I slam them for lack of performance in protecting gun rights. Donald slams them for not giving them away.

The secret plan view of Donald is a wonderful example of cognitive dissonance.

[PNWTO]

The secret plan view of Donald is a wonderful example of cognitive dissonance.

Amen. I think we have more than enough evidence from his life and the past year that he doesn't have the acumen for that kind of thing. He's easily manipulated in meetings and this whole circus is just another example.


It would be nice to have a president that isn't a dipshit for once.

I don't think you can have one without the other to an extent. I'm hoping the next one is somewhere in the neighborhood of an 80/20 blend but I'm not hopeful.

[WobblyPossum]

Double tap error

[Chemsoldier]

So, the NRA dared bigly in backing Trump with his previous record on guns and his threat to the establishment in congress that the NRA counts on to logjam potential gun laws in congress. With the Gorusch nomination it seemed like a masterstroke. You could almost pretend that it was a cunning move.

So, could the NRA re-establish its feared reputation by trying to sink Trump at this point? Pull all support and actively work against him. Encourage congress to sink his initiatives simply because its him? Its risky, lots of people have tried and sinking Trump means it risks a worse politician in office after him. But it might re-establish to Republicans that to cross the NRA is political death and perhaps even scare the dems a bit (though they couldn't admit it aloud). If they can keep their pressure on the Republicans they can log jam trump anti-gun laws in congress and perhaps Jerrymandering and NRA reputation will prevent laws from a Democratic successor to Trump. There would be risk in Trump judicial appointees and Trump making anti-gun statements that would be quoted by anti-gunners for generations...also that the dems really could use Republican gun law logjamming to get control of congress back.

Not sure what else a single issue group can do at this point.

[WobblyPossum]

I blame the DNC. If they ran anyone but Clinton, I wouldn’t have had to vote for Trump. I’m just hoping he can give us another Supreme Court Justice who thinks like Scalia did before his term is up.

I never expected President Trump to be a paragon of gun rights activism. He’s flip flopped his positions on the issue repeatedly over the years. I had hoped his sons, who seem to be all in with the shooting and hunting lifestyle, would push him away from gun control. Sadly, from what I’ve seen, the only thing that can push Trump is public opinion and, right now, that’s not on our side.

–————————————————
My posts only represent my opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of my employer. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

[Sensei]

Amen. I think we have more than enough evidence from his life and the past year that he doesn't have the acumen for that kind of thing. He's easily manipulated in meetings and this whole circus is just another example.



I don't think you can have one without the other to an extent. I'm hoping the next one is somewhere in the neighborhood of an 80/20 blend but I'm not hopeful.

I posted this sentiment in another thread but I think that it bears repeating here. The Republicans had 2 limited government, Constitutional Conservative candidates - Cruz and Paul. While they both had their quirks, neither is a dipshit.

However, the GOP wasn’t interested in a conservative candidate. They largely wanted the guy who would pick fights in the schoolyard, make fun of the competition, and in some cases, blow the proper racial identity politics dog whistles. In other words, they wanted to be entertained. Well, you generally have to pay for entertainment...

24147

[RoyGBiv]

So, the NRA dared bigly in backing Trump with his previous record on guns and his threat to the establishment in congress that the NRA counts on to logjam potential gun laws in congress. With the Gorusch nomination it seemed like a masterstroke. You could almost pretend that it was a cunning move.

So, could the NRA re-establish its feared reputation by trying to sink Trump at this point? Pull all support and actively work against him. Encourage congress to sink his initiatives simply because its him? Its risky, lots of people have tried and sinking Trump means it risks a worse politician in office after him. But it might re-establish to Republicans that to cross the NRA is political death and perhaps even scare the dems a bit (though they couldn't admit it aloud). If they can keep their pressure on the Republicans they can log jam trump anti-gun laws in congress and perhaps Jerrymandering and NRA reputation will prevent laws from a Democratic successor to Trump. There would be risk in Trump judicial appointees and Trump making anti-gun statements that would be quoted by anti-gunners for generations...also that the dems really could use Republican gun law logjamming to get control of congress back.

Not sure what else a single issue group can do at this point.
Isn't it premature to shoot your horse before he's actually thrown you?
Whinnying isn't the same as running you under a low branch intentionally.

Right now... this is all about managing the fallout, including retaining control at mid-terms.
Talk is cheap. Political talk is cheaper. Let's see what actually passes before we pass final judgement.

Look at DACA.... Trump was brilliant, IMO. Gave the other side twice what they asked for (numbers of immigrants affected) and let them fall on their sword saying no to the wall and ending the lottery and chain migration... How about we give the guy some credit and some room to run his play? Keep up the pressure against senseless laws that won't solve the problem and let's see where this goes... We're along for the ride for at least 3 more years, so, let's not shoot our horse just yet.

[StraitR]

We held the line through eight years of Obama, but with a Republican POTUS and majorities in both houses we're going to cave. My Republican governor didn't call for any new legislation after the Pulse shooting, but it's on the agenda now. My Republican congressman says that civilians shouldn't have the rifle he carried in Afghanistan. I'm not a genius, folks, but this is different than the last several times, and the only people who are going to eat a shit sandwich is us.

And Rubio is now on record saying he's reconsidering his stance on "magazine clip size"...

"I have traditionally not supported looking at magazine clip size and after this and some of the details I have learned about it, I am reconsidering that position," Rubio said during a recent town hall (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/marco-rubio-gun-debate-cnn-town-hall/index.html). "While it may not prevent an attack, it may save lives in an attack ... So we'll have to get into that debate, but that is something I believe that we can reach a compromise [on] in this country, and that I'm willing to reconsider."
The suspected gunman had to stop to reload his firearm during the massacre, which Rubio added was “evidence in this case that it saved the lives of some people.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/01/gun-control-measures-proposed-by-trump-lawmakers-after-florida-school-shooting.html

ETA: Lot's of unfriendly 2A states are taking the opportunity to cash in on the current emotional aftermath and are pushing though even more ridiculous legislation. Big box stores and random corporations are caving to social media outcry and changing store policies or dropping NRA endorsements. And now the Republicans, some of which have stood firm in the past, are starting to waffle, and it's just going to snowball. This is the most momentum the left has ever had, and it's because of our own stubbornness to do nothing but suggest more people carry guns as a counter to increased mass shootings.

[Guinnessman]

And Rubio is now on record saying he's reconsidering his stance on "magazine clip size"...

"I have traditionally not supported looking at magazine clip size and after this and some of the details I have learned about it, I am reconsidering that position," Rubio said during a recent town hall (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/marco-rubio-gun-debate-cnn-town-hall/index.html). "While it may not prevent an attack, it may save lives in an attack ... So we'll have to get into that debate, but that is something I believe that we can reach a compromise [on] in this country, and that I'm willing to reconsider."
The suspected gunman had to stop to reload his firearm during the massacre, which Rubio added was “evidence in this case that it saved the lives of some people.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/01/gun-control-measures-proposed-by-trump-lawmakers-after-florida-school-shooting.html

Follow the money: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/us/prominent-republican-donor-issues-ultimatum-on-assault-weapons.html

[RoyGBiv]

And Rubio is now on record saying he's reconsidering his stance on "magazine clip size"...

"I have traditionally not supported looking at magazine clip size and after this and some of the details I have learned about it, I am reconsidering that position," Rubio said during a recent town hall (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/marco-rubio-gun-debate-cnn-town-hall/index.html). "While it may not prevent an attack, it may save lives in an attack ... So we'll have to get into that debate, but that is something I believe that we can reach a compromise [on] in this country, and that I'm willing to reconsider."
The suspected gunman had to stop to reload his firearm during the massacre, which Rubio added was “evidence in this case that it saved the lives of some people.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/01/gun-control-measures-proposed-by-trump-lawmakers-after-florida-school-shooting.html

Rubio is struggling not to drown in a very purple sea. Why is it bad strategy to lean in to your constituents to retain credibility with them? Is getting tossed out of office better? The Dems play this game very well... Look at Joe Manchin... He votes with his party when it's absolutely necessary, and can come out against the party line when there is room in the vote tally to do so. Not enough home-state voters see it as pandering and he keeps his job. Rubio is playing similar politics, it seems.

[ubervic]

It would be nice to have a president that isn't a dipshit for once.

Yes. It would be nice to have a president who conducts himself with honor and integrity, who demands same from all in his cabinet, and who expects that from all whom he interacts with. If a president, or any leader, lacks this core, what good is he?

[StraitR]

Follow the money: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/us/prominent-republican-donor-issues-ultimatum-on-assault-weapons.html

And this is a prime example of what I said HERE (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?29879-Parkland-Florida-School-Shooting&p=713711&viewfull=1#post713711) in the FL School Shooting thread, which is that people are getting tired of it, "our" people, and are going to throw their hands up and say, "I've had enough, I'm switching sides". Absolutism breads absolutism.

[JohnO]

Duane Liptak Magpul VP put this on his FaceBook page.

This is long. Apologies.

After discussions with the K Street folks and some of the NRA leadership, here's where I believe we are at:

Yes, Trump was being exceptionally histrionic. His tone in the meeting on Sunday was much different, apparently. My biggest takeaway after watching that meeting 3 or 4 times is that he has absolutely no idea what the hell is going on with some of the prior proposals. The few talking points about things he actually wants done were age and background checks (fix NICS) plus school security, (School security being the major talking point of the NRA meeting, along with resisting any of the other ineffective measures that hurt our rights) but he had no idea what was in the Toomey Manchin bill or that they introduced that bill in defiance of the NRA, he had no idea what Feinstein's bill was at all, he has no idea that he has no power to unilaterally ban bumpfire stocks through regulation without changing the statutory definition of machine gun (Adam Kraut, et. al. are standing ready to challenge and enjoinder anything like that), and he's throwing shit all over the place to shake things up. I believe his position will end up being short of a hardware ban of any kind, except for bumpfire stocks, unless someone can explain to him what they actually do and how dumb it is to bother banning them--and especially the second and third order effects potential on quality triggers, etc. Yes, it's not ideal, no Trump was not my first choice, but we'd probably have been dealing with this a year ago if his opponent won, and we'd be selling out the country for the benefit of the Clinton foundation. Don't blame the NRA for backing him, because that was done when it became obvious that if we didn't back him, we'd have Clinton in the WH and if Trump did squeak by without the NRA endorsement, we wouldn't have a seat at the table. Politics sucks. That's a fact.

If anything gets signed through EO, the aforementioned legal efforts will likely invalidate it in short order as long as the courts aren't slow.

Ryan, of all people, still seems solid on absolutely no hardware bans and being resistant to anything else except school security. If he can hold the House together, we will be OK...and the House has the most to lose in R districts going in to 2018 if they pass Gun Control...so I'm still cautiously optimistic that we will end up with school security and no hardware bans at all. I am worried about age and fix NICS. They know that November will be a bloodbath and they will likely lose the House to dem control if they cave--and then Katy bar the door, we're screwed. We just have to make sure that if Fix NICS slips through, it still only includes the mandatory reporting parts which don't essentially change anything--just adds penalties for people that don't do what they were supposed to be doing anyway, and it's at least still at least tied to reciprocity, or doesn't go at all, and we have to fight to keep long gun purchasing age at 18. We could ensure reciprocity remains relevant by tying it to teachers rights to carry, but we need to fight to avoid any changes to NICS that could have any potential for abuse. I hate to see any changes at all, but the buffoonery in the Texas shooter lack of Air Force reporting has this one being a hot issue with bipartisan support, so while I oppose...I'm just saying where I think it stands.

Senate is less certain, as the R majority is razor thin and Rubio et.al. are already flaking, plus enough others are milquetoast that it's a risk. They also have fewer seats up, and some of those guys are in purple states or have purple bases where they are trying to play the line. I haven't had confirmation on where McConnell's head is at. He was solid after Vegas. Not sure now.

I didn't speak with Wayne or Chris, but I did speak to Pete and other leadership at the NRA. They oppose the bumpfire stock ban, they oppose the age limit, they VEHEMENTLY oppose the whole skipping due process nonsense, VEHEMENTLY oppose ANY hardware restrictions, and are supporting only school security enhancements, mental health and LE responsibilities that also protect due process, and another point that I thought was a nice touch--which is civil liability for school administrations that neglect basic physical security or have policies to avoid referring dangerous youths to LE or mental health for evaluation and awareness.

GOA doesn't seem to have a seat at the table from what I've seen, but they need to keep getting the grass roots of their membership active and contacting congress critters, too. They also need to stop trying to demonize the NRA, that's not helping and it's not valid. Some help from them on the legal fight if an EO goes through would be good, and stand by for challenges to anything that violates due process.

Bigger threats on the state level...FL bill has some REALLY dangerous language about bumpfire stocks and triggers, mental health etc., and is 66 pages of intentionally vague bullshit. If you're in FL...You need to be writing and calling non-stop for school security, culpability for school administrators, etc., and to protect the rights of law abiding citizens. Kill that bill. It's dangerous because the title and supposed topics are portrayed as "common sense controls", but it's nefarious. IL bill is absolutely draconian. Same there. Anyone there needs to be in the 2 minute drill...that bill is bad, bad, bad. I fear that one has steam and includes all the hardware bogeymen. CO has a senate majority that is holding strong, but if the Rs lose the senate this fall and don't take the governor's mansion, expect CA style gun control in the spring. UT...someone from LDS needs to slap your governor. I'm looking at where we can help in those states.--Edited to add MN and MI...but I haven't been fully briefed on those, so I'm looking now. MN looks ugly.

Of course all of this is a snapshot and may change tomorrow. Biggest thing is that if you haven't written your congress critters and your governors at the state and federal level, do it. If you have, write them again. Call, too. Have your spouse write them. Make sure your extended family is writing them. The minute anything specific hits the floor, write and call again.

And don't shop at Dick's.

[critter]

An excellent op-ed by Judge Napolitano on the current situation vs U.S. Constitution:

In Defense of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (http://www.judgenap.com/post/in-defense-of-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms)



...
They didn't write the Second Amendment to protect the right to shoot deer; they wrote it to protect the right to self-defense — whether against bad guys, crazy people or a tyrannical government bent on destroying personal liberty.
...
Suppose we confiscated all guns; wouldn't that keep us safe? I replied that we'd need to start with the government's guns. Oh, no, he said. He just meant confiscation among the civilian population. I replied that then we wouldn't be a civilian population any longer. We'd be a nation of sheep.

[blues]

I posted this sentiment in another thread but I think that it bears repeating here. The Republicans had 2 limited government, Constitutional Conservative candidates - Cruz and Paul. While they both had their quirks, neither is a dipshit.

If kowtowing to a guy that insulted your own integrity, smeared your wife and father, and then after saying you'd never support the person but turned around and did so anyway, doesn't make one a dipshit, I don't know what does.

I sure as hell could never push the button for Cruz control.

[scjbash]

Look at Joe Manchin... He votes with his party when it's absolutely necessary, and can come out against the party line when there is room in the vote tally to do so. Not enough home-state voters see it as pandering and he keeps his job.

I think the asshole may have overplayed his hand the last six years. I'm not saying he's definitely going to lose this one but things aren't looking so rosy for him this time around.

[Hambo]

I'm not ready to throw in the towel, (and I know you're not)


I've been emailing all of them, but I have the feeling that they've left us hanging. Mast openly said he doesn't care about political fallout, and Rick Scott obviously wants the donor money for his senate run. Rubio is as RINO as it gets. I'm taking the advice upthread about state legislators because so far they have held.

On a local note the sheriff asked local FFLs to only sell to people 21 and over, and supposedly half have said they would honor the request.

[RevolverRob]

You're clearly not checking any other forums :D As far as they're concerned, the sky has fallen already.

Dude, reading other forums is like reading the comments on CNN.

RevolverRob's Five Pieces of Life Advice:

1) Don't eat the yellow snow.
2) Never invade Russia in late spring.
3) Don't shit where you eat.
4) Don't read the comments on news stories.
5) Don't read other gun forums besides P-F.com

[RevolverRob]

If kowtowing to a guy that insulted your own integrity, smeared your wife and father, and then after saying you'd never support the person but turned around and did so anyway, doesn't make one a dipshit, I don't know what does.

I sure as hell could never push the button for Cruz control.

Heck even a lot of Texans didn't want to push the button on Cruz control. - https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/primaries/texas

[Zincwarrior]

Duane Liptak Magpul VP put this on his FaceBook page.

This is long. Apologies.

After discussions with the K Street folks and some of the NRA leadership, here's where I believe we are at:

Yes, Trump was being exceptionally histrionic. His tone in the meeting on Sunday was much different, apparently. My biggest takeaway after watching that meeting 3 or 4 times is that he has absolutely no idea what the hell is going on with some of the prior proposals. The few talking points about things he actually wants done were age and background checks (fix NICS) plus school security, (School security being the major talking point of the NRA meeting, along with resisting any of the other ineffective measures that hurt our rights) but he had no idea what was in the Toomey Manchin bill or that they introduced that bill in defiance of the NRA, he had no idea what Feinstein's bill was at all, he has no idea that he has no power to unilaterally ban bumpfire stocks through regulation without changing the statutory definition of machine gun (Adam Kraut, et. al. are standing ready to challenge and enjoinder anything like that), and he's throwing shit all over the place to shake things up. I believe his position will end up being short of a hardware ban of any kind, except for bumpfire stocks, unless someone can explain to him what they actually do and how dumb it is to bother banning them--and especially the second and third order effects potential on quality triggers, etc. Yes, it's not ideal, no Trump was not my first choice, but we'd probably have been dealing with this a year ago if his opponent won, and we'd be selling out the country for the benefit of the Clinton foundation. Don't blame the NRA for backing him, because that was done when it became obvious that if we didn't back him, we'd have Clinton in the WH and if Trump did squeak by without the NRA endorsement, we wouldn't have a seat at the table. Politics sucks. That's a fact.

If anything gets signed through EO, the aforementioned legal efforts will likely invalidate it in short order as long as the courts aren't slow.

Ryan, of all people, still seems solid on absolutely no hardware bans and being resistant to anything else except school security. If he can hold the House together, we will be OK...and the House has the most to lose in R districts going in to 2018 if they pass Gun Control...so I'm still cautiously optimistic that we will end up with school security and no hardware bans at all. I am worried about age and fix NICS. They know that November will be a bloodbath and they will likely lose the House to dem control if they cave--and then Katy bar the door, we're screwed. We just have to make sure that if Fix NICS slips through, it still only includes the mandatory reporting parts which don't essentially change anything--just adds penalties for people that don't do what they were supposed to be doing anyway, and it's at least still at least tied to reciprocity, or doesn't go at all, and we have to fight to keep long gun purchasing age at 18. We could ensure reciprocity remains relevant by tying it to teachers rights to carry, but we need to fight to avoid any changes to NICS that could have any potential for abuse. I hate to see any changes at all, but the buffoonery in the Texas shooter lack of Air Force reporting has this one being a hot issue with bipartisan support, so while I oppose...I'm just saying where I think it stands.

Senate is less certain, as the R majority is razor thin and Rubio et.al. are already flaking, plus enough others are milquetoast that it's a risk. They also have fewer seats up, and some of those guys are in purple states or have purple bases where they are trying to play the line. I haven't had confirmation on where McConnell's head is at. He was solid after Vegas. Not sure now.

I didn't speak with Wayne or Chris, but I did speak to Pete and other leadership at the NRA. They oppose the bumpfire stock ban, they oppose the age limit, they VEHEMENTLY oppose the whole skipping due process nonsense, VEHEMENTLY oppose ANY hardware restrictions, and are supporting only school security enhancements, mental health and LE responsibilities that also protect due process, and another point that I thought was a nice touch--which is civil liability for school administrations that neglect basic physical security or have policies to avoid referring dangerous youths to LE or mental health for evaluation and awareness.

GOA doesn't seem to have a seat at the table from what I've seen, but they need to keep getting the grass roots of their membership active and contacting congress critters, too. They also need to stop trying to demonize the NRA, that's not helping and it's not valid. Some help from them on the legal fight if an EO goes through would be good, and stand by for challenges to anything that violates due process.

Bigger threats on the state level...FL bill has some REALLY dangerous language about bumpfire stocks and triggers, mental health etc., and is 66 pages of intentionally vague bullshit. If you're in FL...You need to be writing and calling non-stop for school security, culpability for school administrators, etc., and to protect the rights of law abiding citizens. Kill that bill. It's dangerous because the title and supposed topics are portrayed as "common sense controls", but it's nefarious. IL bill is absolutely draconian. Same there. Anyone there needs to be in the 2 minute drill...that bill is bad, bad, bad. I fear that one has steam and includes all the hardware bogeymen. CO has a senate majority that is holding strong, but if the Rs lose the senate this fall and don't take the governor's mansion, expect CA style gun control in the spring. UT...someone from LDS needs to slap your governor. I'm looking at where we can help in those states.--Edited to add MN and MI...but I haven't been fully briefed on those, so I'm looking now. MN looks ugly.

Of course all of this is a snapshot and may change tomorrow. Biggest thing is that if you haven't written your congress critters and your governors at the state and federal level, do it. If you have, write them again. Call, too. Have your spouse write them. Make sure your extended family is writing them. The minute anything specific hits the floor, write and call again.

And don't shop at Dick's.

Except Ryan won't hold the House together. It will go Democratic with the next election.
I'm stil 50/50 that Trump doesn't wake up one morning and just decide to quit.

[45dotACP]

Magpuls VP isn't wrong about the IL bill. Holy shit it's a bad one, and we're losing ground on witness slips.

I'm just waiting for Fred, Daphne and the gang to pull Trump's mask


"HILARY CLINTON???"

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Joe in PNG]

Dude, reading other forums is like reading the comments on CNN.

RevolverRob's Five Pieces of Life Advice:

1) Don't eat the yellow snow.
2) Never invade Russia in late spring.
3) Don't shit where you eat.
4) Don't read the comments on news stories.
5) Don't read other gun forums besides P-F.com

Where's "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line."?

[RevolverRob]

Magpuls VP isn't wrong about the IL bill. Holy shit it's a bad one, and we're losing ground on witness slips.

I'm just waiting for Fred, Daphne and the gang to pull Trump's mask


"HILARY CLINTON???"

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I highly recommend that you contact Rauner and urge him to veto all of the bills. It may be the last thing he does of value as governor. Given he is currently polling a two-digit deficit - he's got an uphill battle. Only thing that might help him is that JB Pritzker is a scumbag of epic proportions. But...he's a Chicago scumbag. And it's clear to me that Chicago is not happy about being effectively cut out of the state house since 2015.

I would do it, but I'm not a resident of this shithole state.

Looks like the magazine limit didn't pass?


Where's "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line."?

I dunno man, given a choice between a Sicilian or Hilary Clinton, I know which one I would go against.

6) Never publicly air that you do or even may have dirt on Hilary Clinton

[RoyGBiv]

Where's "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line."?

Here... Site doesn't handle time embeds... Jump to 3:45...


https://youtu.be/U_eZmEiyTo0?t=3m47s

[45dotACP]

I highly recommend that you contact Rauner and urge him to veto all of the bills. It may be the last thing he does of value as governor. Given he is currently polling a two-digit deficit - he's got an uphill battle. Only thing that might help him is that JB Pritzker is a scumbag of epic proportions. But...he's a Chicago scumbag. And it's clear to me that Chicago is not happy about being effectively cut out of the state house since 2015.

I would do it, but I'm not a resident of this shithole state.

Looks like the magazine limit didn't pass?



I dunno man, given a choice between a Sicilian or Hilary Clinton, I know which one I would go against.

6) Never publicly air that you do or even may have dirt on Hilary ClintonI've been at work all day but if the AWB and the mag limit were killed I'm happy for now...

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Duces Tecum]

Show me the bill. Until then, not going to get hysterical.

I might be wrong, but I see a bit of chess. If in 2020 the Evil Party blames Trump for "Gunz", as they surely will, Trump has only to broadcast the film of him "standing up to the NRA".

[blues]

I might be wrong, but I see a bit of chess. If in 2020 the Evil Party blames Trump for "Gunz", as they surely will, Trump has only to broadcast the film of him "standing up to the NRA".

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2017/07/06/10/trump.jpg

"Wait a minute...you can't pin that on me. I have a video with me saying just the opposite."


I think his great chess strategy is to have a huge library of video bites with him taking an opposing stance on every issue so that he can just have a flunky load up a clip on demand: "See? What'd I tell ya?"


I guess you could call that a strategy...


Just not a good one.

[luckyman]

When are they gonna go to Boldlygo?

As soon as Jonly Bonly gets on the bandwagon.

[olstyn]

I am noting the prices on quality self-loaders are responding to this on Gunbroker. Only up about 5 % right now...

So far, I'm more concerned about the AWB the Democrats in the MN house are trying to put in place. I'd really rather not have to go to the Walther forum and beg for someone to exchange 10-round P99/PPQ M1 mags for my perfectly good 15-rounders in order to avoid becoming an overnight felon, and while I haven't been able to afford an AR so far, I'd like at least the option to own one at some point. My representative in the MN house is, just my luck, a democrat, and so will likely ignore the email I spent significant time writing to him on the subject, but hey, at least I tried, right? :(

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here's a piece on the scramble to understand the scrambled brain of Trump: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/01/florida-hearing-senate-judiciary-committee-432091

I note that there is not one positive in all the discussion, just various degrees of loss. I love Manchin as he says only the God King can do anything to move this along. He's the one who refers to ARs as weapons of mass destruction that should be kept away from some. Great support for the RKBA.

I was thinking about this and have another take on the Donald.

1. He has no real principles beyond his own position maintenance.
2. He values being dominant.
3. That's why he trashed the NRA and some of the GOP legislators. They were threats to him as they might control his behavior. Thus, he slapped them down to show who is boss. See you are scared of the NRA - I'm not. What display behavior!!

I like this better as an insight than he has a magic, secret, Machiavellian plan. Friend of mine is into that. Pure cognitive dissonance. I saw the same thing when the flaw of Heller and Scalia's language came out. Some guy said that was his brilliant plan such that more cases could be brought and more gun laws wiped out. Well, that didn't work out. I prefer that he just blew it by blathering.

[ralph]

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2017/07/06/10/trump.jpg

"Wait a minute...you can't pin that on me. I have a video with me saying just the opposite."


I think his great chess strategy is to have a huge library of video bites with him taking an opposing stance on every issue so that he can just have a flunky load up a clip on demand: "See? What'd I tell ya?"


I guess you could call that a strategy...


Just not a good one.

My take from yesterday's meeting is this;
A. I'm not afraid of the NRA
B. Now that I'm president, I don't need the NRA.
C.TAKE THE GUNS FIRST, DUE PROCESS,LATER.. IMO, the man just showed his true colors..
Never forget C...

[RevolverRob]

I've been at work all day but if the AWB and the mag limit were killed I'm happy for now...

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Looks like -

HB 1457 - adds new licensing requirements for firearm dealers and create a gun dealer licensing board.

HB 1467 - bans so-called "bump stocks." The devices, which came to national prominence after they were allegedly used by the perpetrator of last year's massacre at a Las Vegas concert, take semiautomatic guns that require a trigger pull for every shot to fire at rates closer to that of automatic weapons.

HB 1465 - changes the age requirement for the purchase and possession of high-capacity magazines and firearms it defines as assault weapons. Only people aged 21 or older can now buy the items. Current owners (under 21 years old) have 90 days to transfer ownership. It also bans .50 caliber rifles, although it exempts competitive shooters, transportation of weapons to legal events and possession of prop weapons for movies. (but ONLY for 24-hours by non-residents).

HB 1468 - adds a requirement for a 72-hour waiting period before buying assault-style weapons and .50 caliber rifles.

Finally, the Senate passed - "Lethal Violence Order of Protection Act, sponsored by 29th District Sen. Julie Morrison (D-Deerfield), allows law enforcement or family members to go to a judge and get someone's guns taken away temporarily." The house version HB772 hasn't come up for a vote yet.

[TheNewbie]

I have a serious question to the non leftist and non liberal anti-Trump crowd. Do you think it would have been better if Clinton (or any leftist as there is little to no difference) had been elected?

This is not meant as an attack or sarcastically, I am genuinely curious.

[blues]

I have a serious question to the non leftist and non liberal anti-Trump crowd. Do you think it would have been better if Clinton (or any leftist as there is little to no difference) had been elected?

This is not meant as an attack or sarcastically, I am genuinely curious.

Well, if Bernie won at least it would be like watching "Curb Your Enthusiasm" instead of "The Apprentice".

But this one...

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/UhwAAOSwD39acQKO/s-l225.jpg


...I don't think so. She's literally the only reason I was able to find it within myself to vote for a man that I otherwise loathe.

Are we the better for it? The jury is still out. But I'm not entirely sanguine about the verdict.

[PNWTO]

I have a serious question to the non leftist and non liberal anti-Trump crowd. Do you think it would have been better if Clinton (or any leftist as there is little to no difference) had been elected?

This is not meant as an attack or sarcastically, I am genuinely curious.

This may not be my pitch to hit and I will keep it brief to avoid a derail or the necessity of a new thread but my answer would an astounding "maybe". Life in general for those who hold conservative beliefs and many who hold very progressive beliefs would probably just as agravating. Clinton would have brought much more consistency and predicability than Donald and the same could probably have been said about the Clinton cabinet. So I guess it circles back to the same sentiment of two very awful candidates, one bringing a team of people and ideologies that go against what experience and history may have taught us... and one candidate and crew attempting to prove themselves as the King Hobo Court of the dumpster fire.

[NerdAlert]

From elsewhere:

“I know I’m probably in the minority here, but I fail to understand how the president can change the law. The NFA defines a machine gun. The NFA is law, codified and voted on by congress. The president can make EOs that change (or virtually eliminate) the enforcement of the law, or change the interpretation of the law. He can’t change the law. Machine gun = more than one round per trigger pull. He can’t change it to machine gun = black or machine gun = x rounds per second or less. If they can find a hoop to jump through to define a bump stock as a machine gun I don’t believe it would apply to “rate increasing devices”. I’m not a lawyer, and my opinion doesn’t count for much, but we have a good ratio of right thinking judges on the Supreme Court that would eventually overturn anything that tried to change the law.”

Am I wrong here?

Also, I do think not Clinton helped this situation, but more because her candidacy ensured high turnout for the republican base and eliminated any chance of a Democratically controlled congress. Clinton with this Congress probably would have been about the same as Trump but with more outright ban language and probably less results. Any D president and a D congress? We’d be looking at an outright ban. That’s my honest opinion.

[olstyn]

I have a serious question to the non leftist and non liberal anti-Trump crowd. Do you think it would have been better if Clinton (or any leftist as there is little to no difference) had been elected?

This is not meant as an attack or sarcastically, I am genuinely curious.

I seriously dislike Trump, but no, I do not think Clinton would have been better. Rather than sprinkling in stupid statements, she'd have been gung-ho in support of any and all gun control bills. As I've said in other threads, I think the 2016 presidential election had no good choices once we got past the primary.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That's a legit and interesting question. Here are some thoughts:

1. Does control of the Congress stay in the GOP?
2. A less gun friendly appointee to the court gets on the bench? Would the GOP allow this to happen? Would a 5/4 undo Heller? The militia clause is what the antigunners want. In the past, some conservatives like Berger held that opinion anyway.
3. Hillary would be so despised that if something like today happened, the GOP would resist new proposals because they hate her. Today, some are flapping around to support Trump and might go for controls. They would have no reason to support her.
4. She might actively push gun bills in the legislatures. Now, Obama didn't but she might. Would the Senate block them? That's a what if.
5. I don't think if it was Bernie, that he would go after guns with such zeal. He was branded as a gun nut but had to go hard anti to pass the antigun litmus test. As an economic leftist populist, his energy would be in those issues.

All of these opinions are worth what you paid for it. I'm sure there is Marvel Alternate Universe where this is happening.

I would much rather take about technical gun issues - why do I get sucked into these? Need some therapy for gun control issue OCD responding!

[TheNewbie]

This may not be my pitch to hit and I will keep it brief to avoid a derail or the necessity of a new thread but my answer would an astounding "maybe". Life in general for those who hold conservative beliefs and many who hold very progressive beliefs would probably just as agravating. Clinton would have brought much more consistency and predicability than Donald and the same could probably have been said about the Clinton cabinet. So I guess it circles back to the same sentiment of two very awful candidates, one bringing a team of people and ideologies that go against what experience and history may have taught us... and one candidate and crew attempting to prove themselves as the King Hobo Court of the dumpster fire.

I appreciate all the responses to my question. This response would indicate we have very different views of the reality in front of us. You may well be right, but I can't imagine Trump be as destructive and foolish as the Left.

[OlongJohnson]

The fact that he doesn't really care about "the law", (which is obvious from the way he conducted business and his personal affairs), is a cautionary tale.

Unfortunately, the alternative clearly only cared about appearance of conformance to "the law."



C.TAKE THE GUNS FIRST, DUE PROCESS,LATER.. IMO, the man just showed his true colors..
Never forget C...

This does lend some credence to the noises regarding Trump's apparent affinity for autocrats, made by less-frantic, more-rational people who continue to identify as liberal.

[blues]

Unfortunately, the alternative clearly only cared about appearance of conformance to "the law."

I don't disagree but it's a moot point since she's no longer relevant to the current circumstances. The matter before us is Trump, how he conducts himself and how he might be managed in behalf of the best interests of the republic.

[PNWTO]

I appreciate all the responses to my question. This response would indicate we have very different views of the reality in front of us. You may well be right, but I can't imagine Trump be as destructive and foolish as the Left.

In the context of this discussion and other current threads, Trump is definitely less destructive but equally exploitable. Anything past that and some moral calculus needs to be had.

I sincerely hope my comment wasn't taken as pro-HRC.

[Lex Luthier]

So far, I'm more concerned about the AWB the Democrats in the MN house are trying to put in place. I'd really rather not have to go to the Walther forum and beg for someone to exchange 10-round P99/PPQ M1 mags for my perfectly good 15-rounders in order to avoid becoming an overnight felon, and while I haven't been able to afford an AR so far, I'd like at least the option to own one at some point. My representative in the MN house is, just my luck, a democrat, and so will likely ignore the email I spent significant time writing to him on the subject, but hey, at least I tried, right? :(

Me too, Olstyn. We Minnesotans dodged a bullet today. Some thanks to the R- representatives are in order. I did not expect it to go completely on party lines this time, but it did.

[BehindBlueI's]

I have a serious question to the non leftist and non liberal anti-Trump crowd. Do you think it would have been better if Clinton (or any leftist as there is little to no difference) had been elected?

This is not meant as an attack or sarcastically, I am genuinely curious.

The only thing that would be better is we would be more united against any gun control.

[Stephanie B]

If Obama was playing 3-D chess, Trump is chewing on the checker pieces.

Since the party that doesn't hold the presidency tend to do well in off year elections, with a Clinton presidency, the Republicans would've strengthen their hold on the Congress. On the other hand, Clinton would've had the self-discipline to get stuff done even with a Republican Congress.

Trump has all the self-discipline of a squirrel on meth. He seems to adopt the position of the last person to talk to him. This could end badly.


Sent from my NSA-approved tracking device via Tapatalk

[Clusterfrack]

I'm hoping for one more supreme court justice.

[Joe in PNG]

Also, the Republicans seen to like being the Opposition Party. When they actually get power, they choke.

[olstyn]

Me too, Olstyn. We Minnesotans dodged a bullet today. Some thanks to the R- representatives are in order. I did not expect it to go completely on party lines this time, but it did.

I don't think we're out of the woods yet - today, at least as I understand it, was just the expanded background checks and the "gun violence protective order" bills. Unless you've got some information beyond what I know (and I'd love it if you did), HF3022, the actual attempt at an absurdly restrictive AWB, is still on the table.

[Lex Luthier]

I don't think we're out of the woods yet - today, at least as I understand it, was just the expanded background checks and the "gun violence protective order" bills. Unless you've got some information beyond what I know (and I'd love it if you did), HF3022, the actual attempt at an absurdly restrictive AWB, is still on the table.

No, not out of the woods. But at least the first clash produced good results.

[TheNewbie]

In the context of this discussion and other current threads, Trump is definitely less destructive but equally exploitable. Anything past that and some moral calculus needs to be had.

I sincerely hope my comment wasn't taken as pro-HRC.


I understand better now. Sorry if I ascribed a position to you that was not accurate.

No one should look at Trump, or any pure human as a savior. I am thankful for Trump and think he's doing a great job overall, but that could change tomorrow and he could turn out to be the worst president ever. The last part is so unlikely that I don't worry about it. I understand others have a different take.

Of course I do worry about my desk because my partner just dumped some nasty ass marijuana pipe on it for me to log into evidence. Hopefully the Clorox wipes and Lysol killed the gross germs from it.

[Hambo]

I have a serious question to the non leftist and non liberal anti-Trump crowd. Do you think it would have been better if Clinton (or any leftist as there is little to no difference) had been elected?

This is not meant as an attack or sarcastically, I am genuinely curious.

It's a pointless question. Everybody, the POTUS included, needs to forget about HC and drive on. He won, he's the president, and I'll judge him on what he does, not what might have been different if someone else were in office.

[NerdAlert]

Here you go. (http://https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3999/all-info)
Show me the bill. Until then, not going to get hysterical.

[RoyGBiv]

Here you go. (http://https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3999/all-info)

Not sure why but that link didn't work for me...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3999

ETA: Here's the whole Bill as of this date.. Emphasis mine..


A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Prohibition on manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

(a) Prohibition.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person—

“(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun; or

“(2) to manufacture, possess, or transfer any such part or combination of parts that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”.

(b) Penalties.—Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by striking “or (q)” and inserting “(q), or (aa)”.

(c) Sentencing guidelines.—Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this subsection, the United States Sentencing Commission shall amend and review the Federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements to ensure that the guidelines provide for a penalty enhancement of not less than 2 offense levels for a violation of section 922(aa) of title 18 of such Code if the device described in such section 922(aa) has been—

(1) used, carried, or possessed during or in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (as such terms are defined in section 924(c)(3) of such title 18); or

(2) smuggled unlawfully into or from the United States.

(d) Effective date.—This section and the amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to conduct engaged in after the 90-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.

[Zincwarrior]

I'm hoping for one more supreme court justice.

He might nominate the butler. He wants his personal pilot to head the FAA now...

Edit: news reporting last person talking to him syndrome kicking in. NRA lobbyist met with him and he's supposedly pro guns again.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Edit: news reporting last person talking to him syndrome kicking in. NRA lobbyist met with him and he's supposedly pro guns again.

Wait till he meets with Bruce Jenner to discuss gender issues.

[Mitch]

I've been at work all day but if the AWB and the mag limit were killed I'm happy for now...

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

It’s honestly been hard to keep up with it all but I think those two are both in committee still. So not killed, but not voted on yet.

Again though, so much else got rammed through I’m not sure what was amended to anything. I don’t think the Senate has done anything on those yet either way, but if the house does pass them I’d expect them to get to the governor.

Fucking bullshit all around. This has been a rough week for freedom and liberty, at least in Illinois.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jc000]

What president in the last ummmm… 30 years would have invited the NRA over for dinner in the midst of a political gun crisis?

I would laugh my ass off at the histrionics, except I'm beginning to see it for what it really is.

[Clusterfrack]

I expected so little from the Trump presidency. He's been very ineffective, mostly that's been a good thing from my perspective. To me, change is mostly a bad thing--especially if it's rapid. But there are two things I care very strongly about, and it looks like he may be weak on at least one of those: 1. Build strength in the economy, 2. Protection of the 2nd Amendment.

[critter]

I posted this sentiment in another thread but I think that it bears repeating here. The Republicans had 2 limited government, Constitutional Conservative candidates - Cruz and Paul. While they both had their quirks, neither is a dipshit.

However, the GOP wasn’t interested in a conservative candidate. They largely wanted the guy who would pick fights in the schoolyard, make fun of the competition, and in some cases, blow the proper racial identity politics dog whistles. In other words, they wanted to be entertained. Well, you generally have to pay for entertainment...



Well, I agree. Paul was (all too briefly) my guy. Even so, I don't see either of those winning in November and of course we'll never know. The media circus surrounding the election was a galvanizing factor in turnout for each pet issue/promise - immigration, 'Lock Her Up!', anti gun control, repealing O-care, overturning "every Obama Executive order," killing political correctness, 'fake news.' While no scientific measure by any stretch, I'm surprised at how many 'one issue' voters I've spoken with -- whether immigration, or O-care repeal, whatever, who likely wouldn't have bothered showing up without the over the top media attention which (almost) surely would not have been present with any other 'normal' candidate.

At any rate, I'm still not worried over the gun control hoopla - yet. State leftists are going crazy trying to ride this emotional wave into asinine agenda legislation with the typical knee-jerk Republican pandering sprinkled in (rather than calling it the domestic threat to the U.S. Constitution is actually is and dealing with it accordingly). Trump's comments about due process are the most concerning to me but certainly will not be upheld should that become anything more than politispeech. We'll see.

[jc000]

For those of us that are less astute (for example, me :) ) what is it?

It's just psyops from rabid lefties and SAD #neverTrumpers (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=neverTrumpers) IMO. I don't know by what measure he's the worst gun president ever. Just the open communication channel between he and the NRA, on it's own, puts him at the top of the list for our recent "leadership".

To think about the tidal wave of negative attention that is blasted at him non-stop across the entire media and from the thoroughly corrupt government, and that he has accomplished so much so quickly (individual mandate GONE, Paris Accord OUT, sensible immigration discussion ON-THE-TABLE, etc.) really we are fortunate to have someone of his mettle in office now.

[NEPAKevin]

And let us not forget that Trump has brought open expression of Christian faith back into the White House. I bet every time he tweets or goes off script, you hear the name of the son of god called out loud and vigorously from all corners of 1600 Pennsylvania avenue.

[tanner]

Guys... He does this shit on purpose, and it works for him. Got him all the way to the Presidency!

http://www.businessinsider.com/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-explains-trumps-persuasion-style-2017-10

[tanner]

This one might be even more on point, he wrote this before the election.

https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/the-6-persuasion-secrets-of-donald-trump-according-to-dilbert-s-scott-adams.html

[jrm]

This one might be even more on point, he wrote this before the election.

https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/the-6-persuasion-secrets-of-donald-trump-according-to-dilbert-s-scott-adams.html

So people who voted for Trump are irrational and easily manipulated by emotional ploys. This makes him a genius and the people who are on the side of rational thought and facts dumb losers. Welcome to the new America.

[Sensei]

I expected so little from the Trump presidency. He's been very ineffective, mostly that's been a good thing from my perspective. To me, change is mostly a bad thing--especially if it's rapid. But there are two things I care very strongly about, and it looks like he may be weak on at least one of those: 1. Build strength in the economy, 2. Protection of the 2nd Amendment.

My priorities were fairly closely aligned with yours with the possible exception of our spending being the top economic concern for me; others may prefer growth and the two are not always compatible.

Having said that, the events of the week that impact those two issues highlight my concerns with Trump. His walking into a media circus on firearms with little mastery of the issues is absolutely related to his last minute announcement of tariffs on metals. Keep in mind that NONE of his staff was aware what he would say on guns, or of this plan that amounts to a trade war with Europe until 12 hours before he stood before a microphone. That is insane and a threat to our security.

We can point to his list of accomplishments that are real including regulatory reform, judicial appointments, tax reform, ISIS, etc. However, those accomplishments are just the most basic responsibility of a Republican President as they are the party’s most basic platform. Real leadership, maturity, and management ability is what is lacking when POTUS wanders off the reservation and the impact can be measured by what is not happening on topics like national reciprocity, real border security, spending reform, VA reform, healthcare reform, etc.

[NerdAlert]

So people who voted for Trump are irrational and easily manipulated by emotional ploys. This makes him a genius and the people who are on the side of rational thought and facts dumb losers. Welcome to the new America.
I think he was saying that everyone is irrational and easily manipulated by emotional ploys, Trump just used that to get elected. I don’t think I’d agree on an individual basis, but across the population? Yes, I think as a group people are largely emotional more than rational.

[RoyGBiv]

I spent half of yesterday calling my customers to give them a heads up about a possible 25% increase in their prices. You can imagine how much they enjoyed hearing from me.

He's still better than Clinton.

[Qaz98]

http://www.recoilweb.com/synopsis-of-this-weeks-firearms-politics-by-duane-liptak-135438.html#ixzz58dU50bCy

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[jc000]

We can point to his list of accomplishments that are real including regulatory reform, judicial appointments, tax reform, ISIS, etc. However, those accomplishments are just the most basic responsibility of a Republican President as they are the party’s most basic platform.

Sorry. I have yet to see that kind of Republican leadership in decades. The party has completely failed at most every attempted implementation of the platform. And now, piece by piece, chip by chip, it's getting done.

[BehindBlueI's]

So people who voted for Trump are irrational and easily manipulated by emotional ploys.

Yes, but only in the sense that all people are irrational and easily manipulated by emotional ploys.

Is it rational to eat too much sugar? We all know the dangers of diabetes, being overweight, etc. If you asked us "would like to eat cake today and lose your eyesight and have circulation issues later?" the only rational answer is no...but we all have our vices because we are inherently irrational. We're not stupid. Our brain is a committee, many members of which are from ages long past, and our forebrain rational self is often overruled by more primal urges deeper in the brain. That's just one example, but emotional ploys work. Especially if we're not educated about how they work, and why, and how to combat them. AND even if you're an expert, you'll STILL have blind spots, areas you are more vulnerable, etc.

A big part of my job is to convince people to confess to the, often heinous, crimes they have committed. Is it rational to admit to an act you know is going to send you to prison? Do you know the main method we illicit confessions? Emotional ploys. Trying different themes and seeing which the person responds to. If a theme doesn't work, abandon it and try a new one. Allowing them to confess in a way that lets them avoid personal responsibility (I did it because of the drug addition, that's not the "real me"), that let them blame the victim (he's stupid for having that much money out in the open, who WOULDN'T take it?), etc. Sound familiar? Marketing and interview/interrogation is the same thing spun different ways, and politics is a HUGE exercise in brand building and marketing.

So...yeah, Adams boils it down quite a bit, but he's not wrong.

[Kanye Wyoming]

I spent half of yesterday calling my customers to give them a heads up about a possible 25% increase in their prices. You can imagine how much they enjoyed hearing from me.

He's still better than Clinton.
This made me laugh. My wife and I are very conservative, and she works for a very conservative federal officeholder. Twice a day, minimum, we mutter to ourselves "not Hillary, not Hillary, not Hillary, not Hillary, not Hillary." Helps keep us moderately sane. :)

[Sensei]

So people who voted for Trump are irrational and easily manipulated by emotional ploys. This makes him a genius and the people who are on the side of rational thought and facts dumb losers. Welcome to the new America.

The people who voted for Trump are not an ideological or intellectual monolith. Lots of stupid and smart people voted for both him and Hillary. Lots of stupid and smart people voted for neither. Their reasons are as varied as the clouds in the sky.

[Trooper224]

The people who voted for Trump are not an ideological or intellectual monolith. Lots of stupid and smart people voted for both him and Hillary. Lots of stupid and smart people voted for neither. Their reasons are as varied as the clouds in the sky.

For most people, I think the last election wasn't so much about who you were voting for but rather who you were voting against.

[Totem Polar]

For most people, I think the last election wasn't so much about who you were voting for but rather who you were voting against.
No shit. Dan Carlin already got this one: "elections have typically been popularity contests. For the first time, this one was an unpopularity contest, and Hilary won..."
:D

[SiriusBlunder]

A big part of my job is to convince people to confess to the, often heinous, crimes they have committed.

I apologize if this is too far OT, but any insight as to why these people consent to being "interviewed" instead of lawyering up?

TIA

[blues]

I apologize if this is too far OT, but any insight as to why these people consent to being "interviewed" instead of lawyering up?

TIA

Speaking from my own experience, it seems to come from their finding themselves in a world of hurt in regard to charges they may be facing, knowing that they are guilty, and hoping to minimize the prison time and / or financial penalties they face via cooperating with the police or agents who promise to make their cooperation known to the prosecuting authority.

Add to that a certain level of fear and lack of sophistication among certain defendants and they will often reach out to the hand extended to them by someone who is willing to listen to their side of the story.

The true and worthy challenge is getting the tough nut...a sophisticated, experienced or hardened criminal to willingly bear witness against himself. That's a good day in the interview room and a reflection of the interrogator's ability and skill. (Many folks just can't resist the opportunity to engage because they believe they are either smarter than the interrogator, or their ego won't let them keep their mouths shut when they are played a certain way. Knowing how to exploit those traits is key.)

[BehindBlueI's]

I apologize if this is too far OT, but any insight as to why these people consent to being "interviewed" instead of lawyering up?

TIA

Because we're irrational and easily manipulated by emotional ploys. :)

It varies, and part of being good at interview/interrogation is figuring out what the motivation of a given person is. Some are so use to lying and getting out of trouble that they talk to try and talk their way out of it, so you play dumb and gullible. Some are concerned with how their actions will be perceived (almost everyone is, other than true sociopaths), so you play on that. Some are guilt-ridden and just want to confess to get it off their chest. They'd confess to a tree stump, just get out of their way and let them talk. Some, especially the career criminals, want the chance to gather intel. They want to know what you know and how deep in the shit they are. They want to interview you, and talking to you is the only way to get that chance.

You ever do something you know your spouse, parent, or boss would be pissed about and you think there's a chance they know? You know that tension and pressure you feel? That anticipation waiting for that shoe to drop, wondering if it will, wondering when you'll be exposed? Then you confessed and felt that relief, that no matter what the consequence is it's got to feel better than that tension riding in your skull?

That's why. :)

[SiriusBlunder]

Because we're irrational and easily manipulated by emotional ploys. :)

I almost choked on my soda laughing at that answer. :) Well played, sir!

Thanks to you, and anyone else, for taking the time to share your thoughts.

[jrm]

The people who voted for Trump are not an ideological or intellectual monolith. Lots of stupid and smart people voted for both him and Hillary. Lots of stupid and smart people voted for neither. Their reasons are as varied as the clouds in the sky.

I agree with this and the unpopularity contest statement as well. The comment was made to disagree with the sentiments in the article that Trump is a master of persuasion. If he was so good at persuasion and the tactics mentioned were so effective then why hasnÂ’t he achieved much of anything. He alegedly uses dreamers to get a wall yet neither issue is addressed. He is going to fix or repeal Obamacare care he does not. He is for gun control and banning bump stocks, he makes statements that he doesnÂ’t care about due process, he expressly rules out CC reciprocity. IÂ’m am just not buying this is some masterful tactic that is ultimately going to further the second ammendment. The man is dust in the wind whatever he thinks is best for him right now is what he is going to say and or try to do. If a few days goes by and it no longer benefits him he will simply lie and say he never held or supported the prior view. He may have some people fooled by using these shenanigans but he is not effective enough with them to carry through with any sort of agenda. As for would we be better off if Hillary had won maybe. I think it is pretty harmful to our democracy for the President to openly say screw due process grab the guns first. I also think itÂ’s harmful to call for the death penalty for drug dealers and singing the praises of strong men politicians who are openly assasinating thier citizens in the name of drug control. The pissing matches with alleged mad men who have access to nuclear weapon is at an increasing rate is probably not the best idea either. There are serious issues and they need to be addressed. Is it too much to ask that they be approached in a serious manner rather than everything being an unthought out, over the top knee jerk reaction. At least we would know where she stands and could address threats rather than having everything be a volitale mess that seems to be mainly inflicted by the last person to say nice things about the Comander in Chief.

Anyway this is probably just an exercise in proving how poor my skills of persuasion are. But I am wired to value honesty and reasonableness. We donÂ’t have to agree IÂ’m probably wrong on a lot of stuff but I would like to try to start with facts and honesty rather than emotions as we as a nation move forward trying to continue and improve our democracy.

The articles that started my comments strike me as warnings for our nation and society not as proof Trump is doing or has done anything right. If he has hoodwinked the nation using shallow emotional issues then we need to wake up and stop that crap as a whole. If you support him from an honest fact based opinion fine but I just canÂ’t see a claim that he can emotionally manipulate people as a good thing even if I donÂ’t believe it to be true (at least to the degree claimed).

[Joe in PNG]

While working the polls a few years back, I came to the conclusion that stupidity is non-partisan. I got to see the party registrations of the people asking dumb questions, and there was no clear victor from either party.

[Joe in PNG]

Now, in regards to the Trump "I meant to do that" speculation, a lot of the stuff getting proposed right now is very much a bridge too far- legislation is being proposed that is far beyond what most gun owning voters would accept. This does stimulate the "Oh HELL No!" impulse in gun owners, and will probably give that much more votes towards Republicans in the fall- should they not go squishy.
Had the Dems stuck to truly "reasonable" regulations, such as a bumpstock ban or raising the purchasing age to 21, they could probably get away with it. But trying to get mag limits, AWB's, and other nonsense will snatch their victory from the jaws of defeat.

[Kyle Reese]

Now, in regards to the Trump "I meant to do that" speculation, a lot of the stuff getting proposed right now is very much a bridge too far- legislation is being proposed that is far beyond what most gun owning voters would accept. This does stimulate the "Oh HELL No!" impulse in gun owners, and will probably give that much more votes towards Republicans in the fall- should they not go squishy.
Had the Dems stuck to truly "reasonable" regulations, such as a bumpstock ban or raising the purchasing age to 21, they could probably get away with it. But trying to get mag limits, AWB's, and other nonsense will snatch their victory from the jaws of defeat.

Much of the proposed legislation on the state level bans most semi-autos, and perish the thought of any type of grandfathering provisions. While (most) of these bills will die in committee, it does showcase the true intentions of the Democrats. Remember, until very recently, they've always trotted out the tired platitude of "we support the 2nd Amendment, BUT....." Now, many have openly called for sweeping bans and confiscations, with some openly call for the outright repeal of the 2nd Amendment. As I was discussing with my wife, this is going to get very interesting in the coming years, given the level of hyper-polarization occuring at all levels of society now.

[blues]

Much of the proposed legislation on the state level bans most semi-autos, and perish the thought of any type of grandfathering provisions. While (most) of these bills will die in committee, it does showcase the true intentions of the Democrats. Remember, until very recently, they've always trotted out the tired platitude of "we support the 2nd Amendment, BUT....." Now, many have openly called for sweeping bans and confiscations, with some openly call for the outright repeal of the 2nd Amendment. As I was discussing with my wife, this is going to get very interesting in the coming years, given the level of hyper-polarization occuring at all levels of society now.

I think that's one of the Dem's bills in the vehicle approaching the toll booth...yes, clearly it is. Stand by fellas...steady...


https://youtu.be/sJU2cz9ytPQ



It'll be agonizing for a while until it dies.

[Joe in PNG]

Much of the proposed legislation on the state level bans most semi-autos, and perish the thought of any type of grandfathering provisions. While (most) of these bills will die in committee, it does showcase the true intentions of the Democrats. Remember, until very recently, they've always trotted out the tired platitude of "we support the 2nd Amendment, BUT....." Now, many have openly called for sweeping bans and confiscations, with some openly call for the outright repeal of the 2nd Amendment. As I was discussing with my wife, this is going to get very interesting in the coming years, given the level of hyper-polarization occuring at all levels of society now.

A lot "went from preaching and right into meddling".