Trump tweeted "We must come together to get strong background checks"

[Kutnupe14]

Trump was the only pick for us to make in 2016. He will be the only one for us to make in 2020.

Some of you all can just keep fussing , but truth remains that we still need to get the president and "pro 2A" republicans educated on the why's and how's. They make the uneducated decisions because they don't know any better.

Nevertrump whining ain't getting anything done, other than maybe pushing the naive to vote for our true enemies.

You can ride that pony all the way to disarmament. I know other conservatives that won't.

 

[T.Lex]

Nevertrump whining ain't getting anything done, other than maybe pushing the naive to vote for our true enemies.

Wow. Not only "enemies" but "true enemies."

We all know what should happen to "true enemies" eh?

 

[KG1]

What's a 'strong' background check?

You have to get groped by Joe Biden.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Wow. Not only "enemies" but "true enemies."

We all know what should happen to "true enemies" eh?

They shouldn't be voted for?

 

[BugI02]

Wow. Not only "enemies" but "true enemies."

We all know what should happen to "true enemies" eh?

They should be treated to 4 more years of an unpresidential President?

 

[T.Lex]

They shouldn't be voted for?

When the nazis bombed Pearl Harbor, did Americans all just sit around not voting for them?

 

[Lex Concord]

Calling him out for crap he says/does isn't "routine never-trumping".

I believe that, for some, refusing to physically kiss his arse on national TV would be "routine never-trumping"

 

[Leadeye]

What's a 'strong' background check?

A really good question.

 

[PaulF]

No, no, beedub. Evan McMullin or Bill Weld will run the table in the primaries and be elected in the general. They'll stave off those horrible Democrats (and probably legalize weed, too ) and be presidential to boot (and that's important)

Our gun right are less secure under Trump than they were under Obama. All the Trumpologetics in the world won't change that.

Our gun rights would most likely have been less secure under Clinton than they were under Obama, too...so Republicans ****ed up big when they allowed Trump on their ballot. It was a mistake to run Trump as the Republican candidate, a mistake Republicans need to own and (hopefully) correct when picking their future candidates. Ranked order, same-day primary...something has to be done to prevent this type of nonsense in the future.

Trump destroyed our chance of gaining ground on the one issue important to everyone on this forum. The democrats have gun control literally written into their platform, gun-grabbing statists near and far smell blood in the water...and our Republican-Convert President (lol) wants to make a deal.

The best outcome for American gun rights at this point would be for the President to pass peacefully in his sleep. I'll gladly welcome religious whack-a-doo Mike Pence for the job.

 

[Twangbanger]

If Trump had not been the GOP candidate in 2016, WI / MI / PA would have stayed Blue, Merrick Garland would be on the Supreme Court, and the AW Ban would be rescheduled for a vote to-fricken-morrow.

...and furthermore: if he can get INGO's own Donald Trump of Atheism to support a fundamentalist wackjob for President...we are truly not worthy, he can turn lead into gold, and he now has my vote times three .

 

[Kdf101]

Gun owners, as a group, eat their own just as often as the far left does. I give as evidence several threads on this very forum. I’m not a Trump supporter, I voted for him because I felt there was no other realistic alternative. Had Hillary been elected, and that was the only other possible outcome, we would already have a new ban on semi autos and magazines. The one really good thing he has done is in his Supreme Court pick, maybe another one coming? This thing will eventually come down to that, the SCOTUS is going to have to eventually take on this subject of banning certain of firearms. Probably ur best bet is to keep the congressional elections going our way, maybe even gain the house back. That is a better and more dependable answer that a president who likes to make deals.

 

[Dead Duck]

Gun owners, as a group, eat their own just as often as the far left does. I give as evidence several threads on this very forum. I’m not a Trump supporter, I voted for him because I felt there was no other realistic alternative. Had Hillary been elected, and that was the only other possible outcome, we would already have a new ban on semi autos and magazines. The one really good thing he has done is in his Supreme Court pick, maybe another one coming? This thing will eventually come down to that, the SCOTUS is going to have to eventually take on this subject of banning certain of firearms. Probably ur best bet is to keep the congressional elections going our way, maybe even gain the house back. That is a better and more dependable answer that a president who likes to make deals.

Exactly.....

Before any election I lay my favorite guns out on my bed, smother them with Hoppe's 9 and roll around naked. The next day after bandaging myself up I vote for whoever my guns want me to.

 

[PaulF]

What's a 'strong' background check?

I've been thinking about this as well.

There's a lot that the executive might do in better maintaining the existing background system, like making sure prohibited persons are added to the appropriate databases and proper persons are removed or training users to better identify straw purchasers. He could start there, that would be "stronger". I think, best case, he could end there...but that won't appease the frightened masses.

If congress puts a bill in front of him that states all transfers must go through a FFL I think he'll sign it a declare it a win. If congress puts a bill in front of him that says all firearms must have been transferred legally by an FFL to their current owner I'm afraid he'd sign it. To me it looks like, in the best-case/most likely scenario, we will be visiting our local gun store when we want to sell our pistol to our trusted neighbor, or give grandad's rifle to our own child.

I'm still hopeful (perhaps foolishly) that he wouldn't sign an AWB, but I don't think it's necessarily a political third rail anymore. Here we are now watching his faithful servants working themselves into a lather trying to figure out how to forgive him for infringing.

Well...maybe just one more step.

 

[Kdf101]

That is a image I didn’t need........

The court angle is one reason I like and support the Second Amendment Foundation, they seem at least, to have a decent track record in the courts. I don’t discount the various other gun rights group, but SAF seems to me to be taking the track that this thing will be settled on.

 

[chipbennett]

Our gun right are less secure under Trump than they were under Obama. All the Trumpologetics in the world won't change that.

I'll see your bump stocks and random tweeting, and raise you Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (as well as hundreds of similar jurists now on the federal bench).

 

[BugI02]

I've been thinking about this as well.

There's a lot that the executive might do in better maintaining the existing background system, like making sure prohibited persons are added to the appropriate databases and proper persons are removed or training users to better identify straw purchasers. He could start there, that would be "stronger". I think, best case, he could end there...but that won't appease the frightened masses.

If congress puts a bill in front of him that states all transfers must go through a FFL I think he'll sign it a declare it a win. If congress puts a bill in front of him that says all firearms must have been transferred legally by an FFL to their current owner I'm afraid he'd sign it. To me it looks like, in the best-case/most likely scenario, we will be visiting our local gun store when we want to sell our pistol to our trusted neighbor, or give grandad's rifle to our own child.

I'm still hopeful (perhaps foolishly) that he wouldn't sign an AWB, but I don't think it's necessarily a political third rail anymore. Here we are now watching his faithful servants working themselves into a lather trying to figure out how to forgive him for infringing.

Well...maybe just one more step.

Well, I've been seeing ink the Libertarians are trying to get ¿Mitt? to run as one of theirs. Since you said in another thread you could tolerate a religious wack job over Trump, there you go. Get out there and get him on the ballot, promise all the smokers you'll legalize it and use your 2% to ensure the election of a Democrat

After all, as long as you can soothe your troubled soul, that's all the counts, yes? I'm sure the Justin Amash's of the world have the guts to prevent further erosion of our rights

 

[PaulF]

Well, I've been seeing ink the Libertarians are trying to get ¿Mitt? to run as one of theirs. Since you said in another thread you could tolerate a religious wack job over Trump, there you go. Get out there and get him on the ballot, promise all the smokers you'll legalize it and use your 2% to ensure the election of a Democrat

After all, as long as you can soothe your troubled soul, that's all the counts, yes? I'm sure the Justin Amash's of the world have the guts to prevent further erosion of our rights

That's the problem as I see it. There is no "better" alternative anymore. That ship has sailed. The best we can hope for now is five more years of the status quo, and hope Trump doesn't find traction in trading our rights for his short-term gains.

 

[jamil]

No, not really. (Assuming that SCOTUS does their job.)

So, your position is that it’s no big deal that we have to rely on SCOTUS to rein in the president that you support? And that doesn’t sound at all to you?

So which justices do you see realistically slapping this down?

 

[Expat]

Trump was the only pick for us to make in 2016. He will be the only one for us to make in 2020.

I certainly didn’t vote for him in the primary.

 

[chipbennett]

So, your position is that it’s no big deal that we have to rely on SCOTUS to rein in the president that you support? And that doesn’t sound at all to you?

So which justices do you see realistically slapping this down?

My position is that obviously unconstitutional actions are more easily remedied than duly enacted legislation.

Aside from the pure 2A argument that any and all restrictions are inherently unconstitutional, a view I personally hold, there is nothing constitutional whatsoever stopping the Congress from changing the statutory definition of "assault rifle", or removing the statutory prohibition against private BGCs. If those actions are taken, the only remedy will be legislative.

With unconstitutional executive action, whether through presidential EO or through administrative state action, other remedies exist.