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

[STFU]

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.

Thank you, now I will be stuck trying to get that image out of my mind's eye for the rest of the day.

 

[KLB]

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?

Gorsuch. Kavanuagh is not such a certainty in my book

 

[BugI02]

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.

In my opinion, there were no better alternatives even at the start of the primaries. Even allowing for Trump's personality being responsible for half the heat and pressure he faced, if I had known then what I know now I would have concluded no one facing the last 2 1/2 years would survive it and accomplish anything useful

Personally, I think the only one of the fifteen who might have been able to stand where Trump stood and take what Trump took is Walker, but he lacked the widespread popularity. I think Paul had the balls but not the experience in the trench warfare that was to come and also lacked a national base

 

[bwframe]

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

I didn't either, but if our pick could have won the primary's, there is a strong possibility he could not have beat Hillary.

WWHD?

Trump is what we got and Trump is what we are stuck with.

Or the party with gun control as their platform, on top of being what they threaten every day...

 

[jamil]

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.

First, you assume that it was either the one or the other. That's not at all an obvious dichotomy. Second, I'd rather not support the president's action for such ****ed up reasons...so that we don't get legislation? Now that's some LaPierre logic right there.

 

[jamil]

I didn't either, but if our pick could have won the primary's, there is a strong possibility he could not have beat Hillary.

WWHD?

Trump is what we got and Trump is what we are stuck with.

Or the party with gun control as their platform, on top of being what they threaten every day...

I think all this depends on where one's loyalty is. With a man? Or with the constitution. I think it's fine to support the president when right, and not support him when wrong. So you might say there are a couple of ways you could look at it. Trump, right or wrong. Or, Trump only when right. Lashing out at people who are doing the latter kinda identifies you with the former.

Trump only when right doesn't mean you're going to go vote for a Democrat. Make it about the actions. Not about the man. He's wrong on this. People need to tell him he's wrong. You can say, I don't support him on this. And that doesn't make you not loyal.

 

[jamil]

In my opinion, there were no better alternatives even at the start of the primaries. Even allowing for Trump's personality being responsible for half the heat and pressure he faced, if I had known then what I know now I would have concluded no one facing the last 2 1/2 years would survive it and accomplish anything useful

Personally, I think the only one of the fifteen who might have been able to stand where Trump stood and take what Trump took is Walker, but he lacked the widespread popularity. I think Paul had the balls but not the experience in the trench warfare that was to come and also lacked a national base

I supported Paul during the primaries as long as he stood in. But there are some things I don't trust about him. Really there weren't any good choices, and I definitely include Trump in that. He's not a good choice. Compared to Hillary, he's a lesser evil. Compared with anyone in the Democratic race, yes, even the anti-2A Trump is a little less evil.

 

[BugI02]

The real world is a lot like a binary tree, you make what you feel is the best choices from what's actually available to you at the time and where you are now is not at the end of a straight path. So what are you suggesting are the choices on offer going forward, and what are you inclined to choose. Pissing and moaning doesn't count as a choice

 

[BugI02]

I supported Paul during the primaries as long as he stood in. But there are some things I don't trust about him. Really there weren't any good choices, and I definitely include Trump in that. He's not a good choice. Compared to Hillary, he's a lesser evil. Compared with anyone in the Democratic race, yes, even the anti-2A Trump is a little less evil.

I'd like to see some of Walker on a bigger stage. I'm hearing he might run for the WI senate seat of Johnson (if he follows through on his decision not to run in 2022)

Josh Hawley gives me the creeps the way Trump probably did you

 

[bwframe]

You can make the best attempt at educating the president and some republicans or you can whine.

Whining doesn't seem to be helping much?

 

[chipbennett]

First, you assume that it was either the one or the other. That's not at all an obvious dichotomy. Second, I'd rather not support the president's action for such ****ed up reasons...so that we don't get legislation? Now that's some LaPierre logic right there.

First: yes, it is one or the other. It cannot be both. Congress cannot pass EOs. The President cannot pass legislation.

Second: why do you assume that I support the President's actions in either case?

 

[Ziggidy]

You can make the best attempt at educating the president and some republicans or you can whine.

Whining doesn't seem to be helping much?

Exactly.....

 

[jamil]

First: yes, it is one or the other. It cannot be both. Congress cannot pass EOs. The President cannot pass legislation.

Second: why do you assume that I support the President's actions in either case?

Could be neither. You presented two cases as if a dichotomy: either Trump uses executive authority which can be overturned if the stars are aligned just right, or congress will legislate it. I'm saying: Or, maybe neither would have happened. The latter seemed more evident to me as reality.

It seemed that you were saying that you supported that because the other was worse.

 

[jamil]

You can make the best attempt at educating the president and some republicans or you can whine.

Whining doesn't seem to be helping much?

Similar with Chip, you seem to boil things down to this or that when it's not a conditional this or that. And you also seem to improperly define the circumstances. Saying you don't support something is not "whining". It seems like some of you think that when people say the truth about a matter, especially that which you don't like to hear--for example, what is going on with the NRA right now--you call it whining. If you see a problem is not typically the best course. Embrace the dissonance. Let it set you free.

So. What have you done to "educate" the president? Or was that just a talking point to give an alternative to admitting what's true about a matter?

Say it with me. You can do it. The president ****ed up. Again. The president ****ed up. Once more. The president ****ed up.

There. That wasn't so hard.

 

[T.Lex]

There. That wasn't so hard.

TWSS