Trump on Suppressors: “I don’t like them at all.”

[Ziggidy]

What's the next progression? I'd rather have a gun with a 10 round magazine than no gun at all?

Who knows what will be next. Guess we'll have to wait until the next round of groupthink happens. AT that point, when everyone is whining and complaining - blaming Trump and warning of taking their support away; whatever caused that groupthink topic - well, that will be next.

Instead of waiting, make your voices loud. Tell the NRA, GOA, and others (including reps) what y'all want; on a daily basis. While you do that, NEVER threaten using your vote. The opposition will use that same tactic to use your vote against you and your party.

DO it now.....not after the fact.

 

[T.Lex]

Who's MORE un-friendly to the 2nd Amendment? Perhaps some of you Trump Haters would rather see a Bernie Sanders or some other Communist in the White House in 2021?????

If Trump supporters could look earnestly at how bad Trump is for actual American rights and policy, then it would make sense to primary him.

Obviously, there is no better alternative at this point on the left.

But, just as obviously, that is not the only option.

Perhaps more importantly, look at what he's willing to sacrifice to re-draw the lines of his coalition. As he approaches the next election, he's basically moving leftward. Since the tax bill, he's banned bumpstocks, has nominated an anti-2A head of the ATF, and has now staked out a position of "not liking" suppressors. Just from a 2A perspective, he really sucks.

The good news is that there's always a chance he'll say he didn't say stuff he actually did say.

 

[rvb]

My main interest is keeping America a free country and not go under to socialism.
Silencer? Well, as important as we may think, it's not up high on the list at this time.

Maybe, but just look at Trump's opposition and tell me which one you'd rather have.

Yes, I voted for Trump over Hillary. Lesser of two evils and all that. Can't I say that I would like to see Trump do better, or someone do better than Trump w/o hearing "but Hillary!!!!" This is why we can't get anything done in IN, the statehouse is so comfortable that they have our vote they need to do absolutely nothing to support us. It's the same thing at the Federal level.

I frankly worry about Trump's second term and what he might support (ie AWB) when he doesn't need us any more. (This is why I'm against all forms of term limits). I do not believe him to be pro 2A.

-rvb

 

[Ggreen]

How is anyone still defending Trump as a better alternative? He is the most active gun rights destroyer we've seen in recent history. His pen strikes don't have expiration dates like Clinton's ban. He didn't even allow amnesty.. Trump is a scumbag. Period.

 

[Kutnupe14]

He said he didnt like suppressors. I haven't seen any effort so far to take them. I do see a lot of cry babies who cry all the time on the internet but probably never take any real action to stop anything. Who donated to GOA to stop the bumpstock ban in court? The fight isnt over on bumpstocks. Ill never use one but ill be damned if i surrender my right to own one without a damn fight . Best money (donation) ill ever spend.
Who has contacted their Congress critters AND the President?

The NRA gave bumpstocks away. Trump took their recommendation.

If people dont wanna vote for Trump you do what you want but when the Democrats get the white house back in 2020 and they start marching on our neighborhoods to collect guns, you will be partly to blame so you better be the first ones locked and loaded. It will be time to put your money where your loud mouths have been. Time to walk the walk

Here's the deal. If some sort of legislation passes over the president's desk that would allow Americans more freedom to buy suppressors (say like removal from being a NFA item), do you think the president, after making the aforementioned statement, would sign it? As I said earlier, the president doesn't like to admit mistakes. If had said nothing, then there might be a chance, but since he did pipe up, there's no way this administration would ever deregulate suppressors now.

Further, as much as I dislike the NRA, they didn't give bumpstocks away. The president did. If there's one thing I can give Trump credit for, its his "buck stops here" attitude. He owns the bumpstocks.

 

[HoughMade]

How is anyone still defending Trump as a better alternative? He is the most active gun rights destroyer we've seen in recent history. His pen strikes don't have expiration dates like Clinton's ban. He didn't even allow amnesty.. Trump is a scumbag. Period.

Your argument is that Hillary Clinton would not have pursued gun control as much.

Gotcha.

Look, as I've made clear, I don't particularly like Trump, but I have no illusions that Hillary would have been better for anything.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Your argument is that Hillary Clinton would not have pursued gun control as much.

Gotcha.

Look, as I've made clear, I don't particularly like Trump, but I have no illusions that Hillary would have been better for anything.

I think, in light of all the shootings, she absolutely would. The noteworthy difference, if she were in the WH, would being the Republican/conservative activist firewall to prevent her from doing what she wanted. So in that regard, she would have been better. It baffles me that the protection of gun rights depends on who is office.

 

[Trigger Time]

Here's the deal. If some sort of legislation passes over the president's desk that would allow Americans more freedom to buy suppressors (say like removal from being a NFA item), do you think the president, after making the aforementioned statement, would sign it? As I said earlier, the president doesn't like to admit mistakes. If had said nothing, then there might be a chance, but since he did pipe up, there's no way this administration would ever deregulate suppressors now.

Further, as much as I dislike the NRA, they didn't give bumpstocks away. The president did. If there's one thing I can give Trump credit for, its his "buck stops here" attitude. He owns the bumpstocks.

Ive seen him change his mind after making other incorrect statements.
He comes from an anti-gun state. Most things there are illegal. Hell in some states its still illegal to own a suppressor.
Im not worried about the president supporting taking suppressors off the NFA, im worried about Congress even if it was controlled by the Republicans because they are a bunch of useless scaredy cats that never do whats right only what they believe will get them votes.
The democrats may be snakes and anti-american but at least they are all on one page and if one of them gets out of line they are quickly cut off.
The republicans are flopping in the wind with no strong party leadership and no respect for the president. Its sad.
And yes I do blame the NRA for bumpstocks but Trump too and I hope they get their ass beat in court

 

[T.Lex]

Comparisons between HRC and Obama are difficult - they are/were very different.

But the main 2 substantive things Obama did with regard to guns were to allow carry in parks and on Amtrak trains. His EOs didn't really do much. He tried, but failed, to get a new AWB.

Has Trump done any better than that with regard to the 2A?

Would HRC have been able to do any more harm to the 2A than what Trump has done?

HRC would've been really bad for non-2A reasons, but I don't know that she would've been worse in terms of 2A protections.

 

[HoughMade]

I think, in light of all the shootings, she absolutely would. The noteworthy difference, if she were in the WH, would being the Republican/conservative activist firewall to prevent her from doing what she wanted...

I think that you are right, to an extent, in that this is how it worked with President Obama. However, Trump's "gun control" measures, as far as I can see, have been exclusively through executive action, not through Congress. It is not 2008-2016 and President Obama is not in office. Whatever Trump has done that is detrimental to gun rights through executive action, I am convinced Hillary Clinton would have done much more. Conservatives in Congress did not stop Trump and they could not stop Hillary.

Of course, there's the idea that there would have been even more Republicans after 2018 without Trump and with Hillary and maybe they pass laws to limit executive power (which Congress can do)....which would have been immediately vetoed.

 

[Ggreen]

Your argument is that Hillary Clinton would not have pursued gun control as much.

Gotcha.

Look, as I've made clear, I don't particularly like Trump, but I have no illusions that Hillary would have been better for anything.

My argument is that she wouldn't have been any different. Trump hasn't been good at all for 2a. Worse and more effective than Obama

 

[Trigger Time]

Comparisons between HRC and Obama are difficult - they are/were very different.

But the main 2 substantive things Obama did with regard to guns were to allow carry in parks and on Amtrak trains. His EOs didn't really do much. He tried, but failed, to get a new AWB.

Has Trump done any better than that with regard to the 2A?

Would HRC have been able to do any more harm to the 2A than what Trump has done?

HRC would've been really bad for non-2A reasons, but I don't know that she would've been worse in terms of 2A protections.

If HRC would have been president I am almost certain we would be engaged in a civil war by now. If they try to remove President Trump from office it will be the same thing.
So yes, I really do believe she would have sent her shadow soldiers door to door to collect firearms. And future democrats will also. The coming storm is clear for me. All we can do is be ready

 

[Mongo59]

What I get from reading all this seems to be HRC would possibly be tolerable if on a very short leash with trained handlers and a dart gun...

Did I miss anything?

 

[bwframe]

I'd like for the president to be better educated on the 2A. There are smart political folks who he would listen to, if sent to council him. That is what we need to do (and keep doing, until it works.)

Nevertrumpers jumping on every Trump issue are not helpful.

We really don't have a choice, but to reelect Trump. The alternative, on top of being intolerable for the 2A and many other things, is just as likely to end us up in violent civil discourse as a 2016 Hillary win would have. Not to mention, judges appointed and to be appointed.

So we need to fix this issue, as opposed to fussing about it. What are we doing about this? The NRA? The GOA? Anybody?

 

[Punkinhead]

It's interesting that some people set the bar for a Republican President at "slightly better than Hillary". Not exactly aiming high...

 

[T.Lex]

It has been more than a century, but incumbent presidents are not guaranteed their re-nomination as the party candidate.

 

[BugI02]

If Trump supporters could look earnestly at how bad Trump is for actual American rights and policy, then it would make sense to primary him.

Obviously, there is no better alternative at this point on the left.

But, just as obviously, that is not the only option.

Perhaps more importantly, look at what he's willing to sacrifice to re-draw the lines of his coalition. As he approaches the next election, he's basically moving leftward. Since the tax bill, he's banned bumpstocks, has nominated an anti-2A head of the ATF, and has now staked out a position of "not liking" suppressors. Just from a 2A perspective, he really sucks.

The good news is that there's always a chance he'll say he didn't say stuff he actually did say.

Sigh! This is such a predictable and common viewpoint from you; and as usual, light on reality? Inquiring minds want to know, who do you see on the national stage or in the wings who should be primarying Trump, since I hope you would like him primaried from the right

And its always focused on what Trump has failed to do, regardless of if he has tried; or what he has done that you don't like. Now this is absolutely fine, although it would be nice if you would stipulate alternatives so that we can see that you're serious. But you really need to give the same maneuvering room you want to claim for yourself. [STRIKE]Some of us[/STRIKE] I truly want to shut down the flow of illegal immigration even though some people who perhaps don't deserve it might be inconvenienced in what amounts to their job search rather than their desire to become Americans. If I'm required to spend tax dollars on people struggling to make it in this country, I'd rather spend it on Americans first until they are essentially stabilized before I spend a dime on border jumpers. Militarily, I believe in the big stick. I believe the current Chinese regime is a lot like the Imperial Japanese in the 30s and we are definitely on a collision course with them. I believe tariffs are a blunt instrument but I believe that you cannot be a first world power without a broad based manufacturing economy and I'm willing to pay more for product manufactured in the US where I feel market forces that I can control can best influence home based companies to turn away from selling cheap flimsy junk and get back to making things that last. Most of us don't want to buy new cars every 3 to 4 or new appliances every 5. If my computer and phone do everything I wish at an acceptable speed, I don't want a new more G-wizzier device or operating system. I think immigration should be skills-based, but I think even then that should be tempered by employment of those already Americans and not used solely to hold down wages. I think the supreme court shouldn't be seen as just another political arena where the score on numbers of liberal or conservative leaning justices should be expected to sway the outcome - they should be chosen based on strict constructionist/constitutionalist grounds and expected to rule on whether and how well the question before them hews to the design and text of the Constitution. I acknowledge that America has not been perfect, but I also acknowledge that there has been no greater earthly version of a shining city on a hill and likely never will be. I am a nationalist and unlike Michael I have always been proud to be an American.

In all these areas Trump has delivered in the face of relentless adversity. As I've admitted in another 2A thread, I wasn't pleased with the bumpstock thing but I could only work up the most formulaic distress. I have always thought that they were stupid range toys and that aimed fire was always better than spray and pray. For me it elicited about the same level of anger that the government banning Pokemon Go would

Suppressors are more significant infringement, but: 1) He hasn't done anything but say he doesn't really like them. I realize this assertion could amount to whistling past the graveyard 2) We have allowed the things to be positioned in the public consciousness as scary devices used by nefarious people for nefarious purposes like assassination and terrorism. Outside of enthusiast publications (which are already preaching to the choir) I have never seen the case made for making the firearms we like to shoot for enjoyment more environmentally friendly to ourselves and those around us. We require mufflers on cars and motorcycles to civilize the level of noise, why isn't this argument out there for suppressors. Vis a vis the NRA rolling over for the bumpstock ban, what has our tolerating the same inbred leadership and board of directors contributed to that. IMO the same mistake has been made there that you are making with Trump. You don't want leadership that will rock the boat, and if they do you will expect perfection of outcomes or nit pick them to death. The financial flagrancy of LaPierre is a direct result of him being allowed to take his position for granted. He is just like a politician, thinking he just has to give a few firebrand speeches but is in no way responsible to deliver on anything but getting his expenses covered

So please, enlighten me as to who would be better than Trump to deliver on what I care about, or on what you care about that I don't. Who do you want to see primary Trump, and do you think they can accomplish anything other than weaken our whole portion of the political spectrum electorally in the face of a determined attack on our values.

 

[HoughMade]

It's interesting that some people set the bar for a Republican President at "slightly better than Hillary". Not exactly aiming high...

Who is your preferred candidate?

 

[BugI02]

It's interesting that some people set the bar for a Republican President at "slightly better than Hillary". Not exactly aiming high...

The conclusion that Trump is only 'slightly better' than Hillary makes me question your clarity of thought/vision

 

[T.Lex]

Who is your preferred candidate?

Bob Corker hasn't ruled out a primary challenge to Trump, I think.

Bill Weld, while not exactly a consistent 2A supporter, has at least only been as inconsistent as Trump himself, and brings a more libertarian mindset.