Kut's Trump Approval Thread #1 (Starts Out at 100%)

[HubertGummer]

@Kut-

What about rescinding the transgender bathroom rules?

I'm still giving him 100 days before judging, but I think this is an actual action that, if it happened about 70 days from now, I'd say was a good thing. This should be a state/local issue.

I was also wondering how Kut was going to score Trumps announcement on leaving this issue to the states. It's nice to have a guy in office that has at least an idea of what States Righats are.

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;HSDrQYfnWEc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSDrQYfnWEc[/video]

 

[Kutnupe14]

@Kut-

What about rescinding the transgender bathroom rules?

I'm still giving him 100 days before judging, but I think this is an actual action that, if it happened about 70 days from now, I'd say was a good thing. This should be a state/local issue.

Sorry, I haven't been on much lately. That is definitely a positive. I'll amend it later today.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Cross posting because I'm not sure the other thread will get as much notice. Would this be a "good Trump" or not?

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...ve-order-designating-rifles-militia-purposes/

My first reaction is that, if we're going to have this, the definition of a militia weapon ought to be "whatever the US Armed Forces and their allies carry and/or whatever is commercially available".

 

[T.Lex]

Cross posting because I'm not sure the other thread will get as much notice. Would this be a "good Trump" or not?

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...ve-order-designating-rifles-militia-purposes/

My first reaction is that, if we're going to have this, the definition of a militia weapon ought to be "whatever the US Armed Forces and their allies carry and/or whatever is commercially available".

Here's why its a bad idea: in 2021, Al Gore could use an EO to define "militia weapon" as a musket.

 

[indiucky]

Here's why its a bad idea: in 2021, Al Gore could use an EO to define "militia weapon" as a musket.

In 2021 Gore thinks we will all be underwater...

 

[jamil]

Cross posting because I'm not sure the other thread will get as much notice. Would this be a "good Trump" or not?

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...ve-order-designating-rifles-militia-purposes/

My first reaction is that, if we're going to have this, the definition of a militia weapon ought to be "whatever the US Armed Forces and their allies carry and/or whatever is commercially available".

I'm not going to make a judgement on whether this is good Trump/bad Trump. I don't really see it as either. But also I don't think this can be fixed via executive order. This WILL go to the supreme court. I've heard even liberal, anti-gun legal pundits say this ruling has very little chance of holding up. Even the leftists on the court would have a hard time justifying it. It's so absurd it's almost like the 4th circuit is posthumously trolling Scalia.

 

[T.Lex]

You know, as the notion of a "militia arms" EO settles in, there is one advantage: incrementalism. Lets say this dramatically changes the (perceived)* legal landscape for the next 3.5 years. I think INGO can all agree that there won't be a mass of shootings. Blood will continue to not run in the streets.

So, the country could settle in with the idea that there isn't any inherent danger in more guns, or even more EBRs specifically. The legal landscape itself won't change much, really. SCOTUS would still have the ultimate word on the scope of Heller. The EO would fundamentally change federal enforcement. The NFA enforcement would get tricky, if we're being intellectually honest.

Ideally, Trump could parlay the EO into actual legislation. You know.... the way it is supposed to work.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You know, as the notion of a "militia arms" EO settles in, there is one advantage: incrementalism. Lets say this dramatically changes the (perceived)* legal landscape for the next 3.5 years. I think INGO can all agree that there won't be a mass of shootings. Blood will continue to not run in the streets.

So, the country could settle in with the idea that there isn't any inherent danger in more guns, or even more EBRs specifically. The legal landscape itself won't change much, really. SCOTUS would still have the ultimate word on the scope of Heller. The EO would fundamentally change federal enforcement. The NFA enforcement would get tricky, if we're being intellectually honest.

Ideally, Trump could parlay the EO into actual legislation. You know.... the way it is supposed to work.

Which is why I said what I did about the definition of what a militia weapon is. This is equivalent to defining what an assault weapon is for the purpose of banning assault weapons. The definition ought to be as broad as possible. Of course the near universal acceptance that full auto weapons by probably 90-something % of folks out there (including way too many "gun" folks) are properly restricted will be problematic. But if one of the purposes of the EO is to create an environment where the "militia" is to be ready for defense of the state and country, inclusion of full auto weapons ought not be dismissed.

 

[T.Lex]

Which is why I said what I did about the definition of what a militia weapon is. This is equivalent to defining what an assault weapon is for the purpose of banning assault weapons. The definition ought to be as broad as possible. Of course the near universal acceptance that full auto weapons by probably 90-something % of folks out there (including way too many "gun" folks) are properly restricted will be problematic. But if one of the purposes of the EO is to create an environment where the "militia" is to be ready for defense of the state and country, inclusion of full auto weapons ought not be dismissed.

Yeah. But that's probably why they're not getting that far, yet. Politically, there was probably a serious lack of consensus internally about how far to push. This would strike a balance of incrementalism.

My gut's still not thrilled with this as an EO. I'd prefer to see it as a legislative initiative. It borrows too much from Obama's pen-and-phone schtick.

My trigger finger, on the other hand, likes it.

 

[jamil]

You know, as the notion of a "militia arms" EO settles in, there is one advantage: incrementalism. Lets say this dramatically changes the (perceived)* legal landscape for the next 3.5 years. I think INGO can all agree that there won't be a mass of shootings. Blood will continue to not run in the streets.

So, the country could settle in with the idea that there isn't any inherent danger in more guns, or even more EBRs specifically. The legal landscape itself won't change much, really. SCOTUS would still have the ultimate word on the scope of Heller. The EO would fundamentally change federal enforcement. The NFA enforcement would get tricky, if we're being intellectually honest.

Ideally, Trump could parlay the EO into actual legislation. You know.... the way it is supposed to work.

One of the things that doesn't set well with me is mentioning specific rifles. Another is that I don't see how this would be enforcable.

But if it could be, I'd rather it be more broad, to the effect that it's none of your ****ing business what I own as long as I harm no one with it. I don't need to prove a need to exercise a right. You can arrest and charge me with a crime if I maliciously harm someone with it. Other than that, go **** yourself. ("you" means anti-gun legislating zealots)

 

[Fargo]

I'm curious, what is the current approval level from Kut?

 

[indiucky]

But if it could be, I'd rather it be more broad, to the effect that it's none of your ****ing business what I own as long as I harm no one with it. I don't need to prove a need to exercise a right. You can arrest and charge me with a crime if I maliciously harm someone with it. Other than that, go **** yourself. ("you" means anti-gun legislating zealots)

I wish you would open up more and tell us how you really feel about this subject jamil....I can't help but think you are holding back your thoughts on the matter...

 

[T.Lex]

I'm curious, what is the current approval level from Kut?

The first page pegs it at 95.2. I'm not sure he can still edit it, though.

 

[indiucky]

I'm curious, what is the current approval level from Kut?

Kut's been absent a bit...Lord I hope he didn't find a stash of Zima....

 

[jamil]

I'm curious, what is the current approval level from Kut?

check post #5. Kut said he's going to keep that up-to-date.

I wish you would open up more and tell us how you really feel about this subject jamil....I can't help but think you are holding back your thoughts on the matter...

Oh, no. I'm saying that's what language I want in the EO. I want F-bombs.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yeah. But that's probably why they're not getting that far, yet. Politically, there was probably a serious lack of consensus internally about how far to push. This would strike a balance of incrementalism.

My gut's still not thrilled with this as an EO. I'd prefer to see it as a legislative initiative. It borrows too much from Obama's pen-and-phone schtick.

My trigger finger, on the other hand, likes it.

 

[Indy-Mike]

The WhiteHouse staff should at least be on the same page.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump unloaded on the news media Friday for using anonymous sources — just hours after members of his own staff insisted on briefing reporters only on condition their names be concealed.

The president has chafed at a number of anonymously sourced stories, including numerous reports describing contacts between his campaign advisers and Russian intelligence agents, which the White House has sharply disputed.

However, members of his White House team regularly demand anonymity when talking to reporters. That was the case Friday morning when Trump officials briefed reporters on chief of staff Reince Priebus' contact with top FBI officials concerning the Russia reports.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Trump rescinds Transgender bathroom protects, and leaves it up to the states. I like this because it's an issue that should be left up to the states. However, is this going to be typical, or was this action taken because of the unpopularity of the group among conservatives. I think that weighs heavily into it.

anyways: +1

Current Total: 96.2

 

[Kutnupe14]

Trump's media issue, where it's being reported that several news outlets were prevented from attending, I'm watching with interest. If it proves to be true, then that will be a negative.