Trump testing the winds on gun control

[T.Lex]

I having consistently been willing to admit when Trump does things I like.

I wanted him to repeal (and replace, ideally) Obamacare. He said he wanted that, too. He didn't get it done. But that wasn't a betrayal. He just wasn't able to do what he said he wanted to do. He weathered all sorts of political hailstorms for that, but didn't budge.

I still want him to follow through on an immigration policy that balances the wall (which I'm fine with) and a path to citizenship for segments of illegal aliens (and I'm even open to how broad that should be). He has said that's what he wants. He hasn't gotten it done yet, but that's not a betrayal. He's weathered all sorts of political hailstorms for that, and hasn't budged.

I expected him to leave the 2A alone because he said he would. But now that people are being mean to him, he's actively helping them chip away at the 2A.

For a gun forum, this seems like an odd thing to not be upset about.

 

[BugI02]

I'm interested in this line of thinking. How is executively banning bumpstocks a good politician move for a president claiming to be pro-2A?

Pretty sure this is rhetorical - but, oh WTH

If Trump makes a muddled move on bump stocks that confuses that particular issue, results in court challenges and challenges to executive authority which ends up preventing anything at all from happening, and acts as a lightning rod for anti-gun fervor where Trump takes the heat and provides cover for Republican politicians - if it comes to pass in that manner, will you accept it might have been the intent all along or will you fall back on it was just Trump being Trump and he got lucky?

Does he need to publicly articulate that that might be the intent for it to count?

What are you willing to risk in this combat of ideas? I see opportunists jump in when Trump does wrong or something goes wrong; then when the sky doesn't fall - not a peep. Remember "Trump's going to appoint his daughter to the supreme court" or "A Trump tax plan will just benefit Trump and the 1%"

If the end result of all this turns out to be nothing happens except the emotionalism gets drained out of this debate, will you give it a rest? I don't even require public contrition, which seems to be so vital for some. I get that you are a greater fan than most of confession, but I do not consider supporting Trump to be a sin

 

[T.Lex]

Pretty sure this is rhetorical - but, oh WTH

If Trump makes a muddled move on bump stocks that confuses that particular issue, results in court challenges and challenges to executive authority which ends up preventing anything at all from happening, and acts as a lightning rod for anti-gun fervor where Trump takes the heat and provides cover for Republican politicians - if it comes to pass in that manner, will you accept it might have been the intent all along or will you fall back on it was just Trump being Trump and he got lucky?

Does he need to publicly articulate that that might be the intent for it to count?

What are you willing to risk in this combat of ideas? I see opportunists jump in when Trump does wrong or something goes wrong; then when the sky doesn't fall - not a peep. Remember "Trump's going to appoint his daughter to the supreme court" or "A Trump tax plan will just benefit Trump and the 1%"

If the end result of all this turns out to be nothing happens except the emotionalism gets drained out of this debate, will you give it a rest? I don't even require public contrition, which seems to be so vital for some. I get that you are a greater fan than most of confession, but I do not consider supporting Trump to be a sin

That whole post avoided the issue: Trump is actively chipping away at the 2A. Or do you not think an executive ban on bumpstocks is that?

If Obama had done this, you would've considered how brilliant a pro-2A move it was?

 

[BugI02]

Well. This is true. But you realize this puts you in the position of HOPING that your president, they guy you hold in such high esteem, is lying.

You continue to misunderstand the man's appeal. I live in an old house (built in '59) with old pipes with 60 years of hair and ... other stuff ... in them. If I need a plumber, the one I hold in "high esteem" is the one who can get the job done with minimal collateral damage. I don't care if he does it the way I think it should have been done (after all, that's why we hire people who presumably have greater knowledge in specific areas, it why people hire ME) or if he makes a mess while doing it (provided that mess can be cleaned up. I am results oriented.

George Will and I have not seen eye-to-eye in a very long time.

I will re-iterate. The more people spend their time pointing out Trump's many flaws, the less I feel any need to add my voice to the chorus - even if I agree

 

[T.Lex]

You continue to misunderstand the man's appeal. I live in an old house (built in '59) with old pipes with 60 years of hair and ... other stuff ... in them. If I need a plumber, the one I hold in "high esteem" is the one who can get the job done with minimal collateral damage. I don't care if he does it the way I think it should have been done (after all, that's why we hire people who presumably have greater knowledge in specific areas, it why people hire ME) or if he makes a mess while doing it (provided that mess can be cleaned up. I am results oriented.

George Will and I have not seen eye-to-eye in a very long time.

I will re-iterate. The more people spend their time pointing out Trump's many flaws, the less I feel any need to add my voice to the chorus - even if I agree

Have you ever agreed?

 

[BugI02]

That whole post avoided the issue: Trump is actively chipping away at the 2A. Or do you not think an executive ban on bumpstocks is that?

If Obama had done this, you would've considered how brilliant a pro-2A move it was?

Not so. Trump hasn't done anything but talk, which you must admit in other circumstances people would see as business as usual. I am setting the stage to consider giving you what you seem to so intensely desire if he follows through on this, but I want my pound of flesh if he does not, and things play out roughly in accordance with my rosier scenario.

What are you willing to place on the betting line? The argument is that when things Trump does that were decried actually work to our advantage, there are few giving credit where it has come due. If you will not hazard the risk of having to admit Trump may have a method to his madness (which I gather you think is unlikely), why would you think it so important that I should admit the obverse?

 

[BugI02]

Have you ever agreed?

You don't know?

 

[bwframe]

Quick, somebody defend bumpstocks. To the general public, not anyone that might be reading this.

 

[BugI02]

Quick, somebody defend bumpstocks. To the general public, not anyone that might be reading this.

Bump stocks would be a pretty useless hill to die on, but it goes beyond that. T. Lex is right. In the climate of the last ten years, not one more inch is the right response and I have said so and say so now. We only have to wait and see what he actually does as opposed to what he says, but some do not comprehend spannungsbogen

 

[Fargo]

Quick, somebody defend bumpstocks. To the general public, not anyone that might be reading this.

They don't meet the definitional requirements of 26 USC 5845 and so the legislature must act if we wish to make them illegal.

 

[T.Lex]

Not so. Trump hasn't done anything but talk, which you must admit in other circumstances people would see as business as usual. I am setting the stage to consider giving you what you seem to so intensely desire if he follows through on this, but I want my pound of flesh if he does not, and things play out roughly in accordance with my rosier scenario.

What are you willing to place on the betting line? The argument is that when things Trump does that were decried actually work to our advantage, there are few giving credit where it has come due. If you will not hazard the risk of having to admit Trump may have a method to his madness (which I gather you think is unlikely), why would you think it so important that I should admit the obverse?

Nothing? He ordered his attorney general to make something illegal. I'll concede that he doesn't really mean "illegal" (I think). He means "NFA." But, that is much more than nothing.

I've consistently allowed that he's playing too smart by half. On this, though, I REALLY don't see it.

You don't know?

Not publicly. I am not familiar with a single instance of you publicly rebuking a Trump position with any language harsher than "he must have a plan."

 

[bwframe]

...In the climate of the last ten years, not one more inch is the right response...

You don't have to convince me. I'm already there.

What someone does have to do is make a solid argument to those who aren't of our similar mindset.

 

[Fargo]

You don't have to convince me. I'm already there.

What someone does have to do is make a solid argument to those who aren't of our similar mindset.

Like the guy who has publicly stated he is unilaterally ceding that inch?

 

[bwframe]

Yes, exactly.

 

[Fargo]

Yes, exactly.

Two come to mind.

The first is that banning bump stocks is catering to the idea that the second amendment is based upon perceived "need" and that it should be limited as such. This is the path that the antis have had the most success, and I am very skeptical that any politician who gets on that path is ever going to really defend our Second Amendment rights. Politicians should be reminded of who will no longer support them if they start on that path.

The second, is that the issues isn't actually before him at present because there's no legislation for him to execute. Banning bump stocks based on 5845 is creating a fake battle so that you can lose it. At least make the legislature act, even if you are going to rollover.

 

[bwframe]

Two come to mind.

The first is that banning bump stocks is catering to the idea that the second amendment is based upon perceived "need" and that it should be limited as such. This is the path that the antis have had the most success, and I am very skeptical that any politician who gets on that path is ever going to really defend our Second Amendment rights. Politicians should be reminded of who will no longer support them if they start on that path.

The second, is that the issues isn't actually before him at present because there's no legislation for him to execute. Banning bump stocks based on 5845 is creating a fake battle so that you can lose it. At least make the legislature act, even if you are going to rollover.

Sounds great. Now lets get the job done.

 

[Trigger Time]

Lololol.... I doubt you'll ever see much of that from the faithful. You'd sooner find people willing to say Jesus was wrong.

Jesus was wrong. He forgot to trim my bushes and also blew grass against my fence

 

[Trigger Time]

Me thinks that if an executive order had that much power to reclassify or make certain gun accessories illegal that Obama would have been doing that for 8 years.
Trump is dead wrong on the bumpstocks and the 21 years old issue and I'll be the first one to admit it and be more than pissed if it happens

 

[BugI02]

Two come to mind.

The first is that banning bump stocks is catering to the idea that the second amendment is based upon perceived "need" and that it should be limited as such. This is the path that the antis have had the most success, and I am very skeptical that any politician who gets on that path is ever going to really defend our Second Amendment rights. Politicians should be reminded of who will no longer support them if they start on that path.

The second, is that the issues isn't actually before him at present because there's no legislation for him to execute. Banning bump stocks based on 5845 is creating a fake battle so that you can lose it. At least make the legislature act, even if you are going to rollover.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. Creating a ban based on 5845 (which is a reclassification as NFA, not a ban correct?) as a battle you expect to lose, and might not even contest very hard would seem to be a viable delaying tactic. With respect to forcing the legislature to act; in a run up to midterm elections that will be closely contested, would it be a wise move to force the members of your party who might be standing for election to hold such a vote?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Quick, somebody defend bumpstocks. To the general public, not anyone that might be reading this.

I changed my partner's mind by pointing out how thin the line is between these and external magazines, how you can do the same thing without the stock, and the fact I didn't have to justify something to keep it, those who would ban it have the onus.