National Trump Is Unlikely To Commit Political Suicide by Betraying Us On Guns

[DB is Here]

Trump Is Unlikely To Commit Political Suicide by Betraying Us On Guns

townhall.com

Read More

 

[DB is Here]

I really like Kurt Schlichter's articles.

 

[bbbass]

I really like Kurt Schlichter's articles.

First I've read.

He's right........... about the Weakly Standard!

 

[Zathras]

I like Kurt too, and have read a couple of his books. I hope he's right here... I really do. However, it all depends on what DJT and others think they can get away with (as Kurt mentions). The further to the extreme opposing candidates go, the more wiggle room for the ones in power. The overton window on gun rights I think has shifted (and not in our favor), and it remains to be seen how permanent that shift will become.

 

[MannyGlocks]

How and why did bill kristol go off the tracks?

Is he a not so stealthy leftist pretending to be Conservative?

 

[bbbass]

How and why did bill kristol go off the tracks?

Is he a not so stealthy leftist pretending to be Conservative?

I don't think so. He was always a bit weird. But what he is, is a passionate Trump hater. An eliteist thinker. Enough of a case of TDS to burn/bury his own publication.

Last Man Standing

Bill Kristol is the rare Republican still fighting to defend his party's principles from a rogue nominee. But what if his political miscalculations actually helped create Donald Trump?




By MICHAEL CROWLEY


July/August 2016

 

[Geardo]

Trump Is Unlikely To Commit Political Suicide by Betraying Us On Guns

townhall.com

He already did.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

He already did.

I agree. All the blather about how he hasn't and would never stab us in the back is BS. He already has (getting ATF to administratively ban bump stocks) and appears to be signaling that he's willing to do it again by making conciliatory remarks regarding red flag laws and background checks. Everyone appears to be forgetting his comment regarding confiscation first and due process later. I wouldn't, and don't, trust that he's actually going to support and defend our right to keep and bear arms beyond what is necessary for his political survival.

 

[Member 52301]

I agree. All the blather about how he hasn't and would never stab us in the back is BS. He already has (getting ATF to administratively ban bump stocks) and appears to be signaling that he's willing to do it again by making conciliatory remarks regarding red flag laws and background checks. Everyone appears to be forgetting his comment regarding confiscation first and due process later. I wouldn't, and don't, trust that he's actually going to support and defend our right to keep and bear arms beyond what is necessary for his political survival.

He stated this with HIS OWN comments 8 or 9 times (For sure 8 or 9 times alone!) about RED FLAG LAWS and other comments about guns in general at the one meeting alone that was RECORDED, filmed with sound, and it is on the TRANSCRIPT put out on the news and in an official WH document when he sat at the table with Dianne F. and other Ds and Rs.

You can't trust what he says and he has flip flopped so much during town hall meetings, before and after the primaries and elections about all kinds of issues not only in GUN issues.

He has NO sound understanding or BELIEF in the absolute meaning of the RKBA issue. NOT all NY people think like him and some of them in other parts of the state AND in the cities/small towns/rural areas KNOW what the RKBA issue really is.

Cate

 

[clearconscience]

I'm not going to waste anymore time crying about what might happen.

In the end it doesn't matter.

I won't give up my firearms or high cap mags for anyone or anything.

They can say whatever they please in front of whoever they want.

I'm still voting for Trump.
To not vote for him is to vote for the socialist Dems.

 

[The Heretic]

He stated this with HIS OWN comments 8 or 9 times (For sure 8 or 9 times alone!) about RED FLAG LAWS and other comments about guns in general at the one meeting alone that was RECORDED, filmed with sound, and it is on the TRANSCRIPT put out on the news and in an official WH document when he sat at the table with Dianne F. and other Ds and Rs.

You can't trust what he says and he has flip flopped so much during town hall meetings, before and after the primaries and elections about all kinds of issues not only in GUN issues.

He has NO sound understanding or BELIEF in the absolute meaning of the RKBA issue. NOT all NY people think like him and some of them in other parts of the state AND in the cities/small towns/rural areas KNOW what the RKBA issue really is.

Cate

Even his supporters will acknowledge he is unpredictable.

 

[cigars]

How and why did bill kristol go off the tracks?

Is he a not so stealthy leftist pretending to be Conservative?

Bill Kristol is the poster boy for the Never Trumper's crowd. Basically RINO's.

 

[2A2Dend]

Don't doubt for a nano second, that politicians (trump included) are not like used car salesmen.
They'll tell you anything they can to make a sale.

 

[cigars]

If Trump actually thows 2A under the bus I'll be a monkey's uncle. Don't forget how he plays political 4D chess with the Dems. I seriously doubt that he will sell out his base. He's in it for the long game. By long game, I'm referring to how he wants his legacy to reflect upon him long after he's gone. His playbook goes that far ahead down the road. He doesn't want to be remembered as a sellout. This guy wants a pyramid as his monument but he also wants to deserve it.

 

[bbbass]

In his speech to the NH crowd/rally, he made some very strong pro-2A statements. I think he is trying to avoid having to support new gun control measures. We'll see.

 

[leadcounsel]

I'm very pro-Trump. He's done an excellent job at POTUS in general, and I'd grade him a solid B+/A-.

My biggest complaints are that he says some dumb stuff, picks non-Presidential fights at times, and he's becoming more unpredictable on guns in total violation of his pro-gun promises of no more gun control. I was expecting major reeling back on gun control at the federal level. Instead it's been the opposite.

I'm annoyed at the Bump Stock situation. But I can live with it.

I wanted badly a repeal of suppressors and national reciprocity. The GOP squandered 2 years of total government control and did nothing. I'm really ticked off on that, but blame Paul Ryan more than anyone. However, Trump's statements about looking at silencers is vague but also worrisome.

I'm annoyed at Trump's comments on denial of due process but figured that was just a dumb thing he said.

I'm getting really ticked off at the ATF now going to look at pistols and re-evaluate and I fear that will go the way of bump stocks.

I'm actually getting somewhat concerned on his apparent support for red flag laws and more background checks which would seem to kill private sales and create de facto registration of course. This is very very alarming.

Like someone wrote above, the left is so far left that ironically it allows Trump to move left and still retain his base because the left is so unpalatable that even an Obama or Clinton seems attractive compared to the looney tunes on stage...

I really just hope the NRA and SAF and others talk sense into him and the GOP morons supporting Red Flag and other total infringements on our rights...

 

[44Brent]

I'm still voting for Trump.
To not vote for him is to vote for the socialist Dems.

It is this type of unconditional guaranteed support from a segment of gun owners that gives Republicans politicians the OK to go ahead and burn us. After all, why should they care about gun owners, if a significant subset of them don't care enough about their rights to force the politicians to keep their promises?

 

[GWS]

Hell, Mr. Trump needs to stay in the oval office. It's the only way he'll avoid the Dems wanting to indict him.
He cannot win if he alienates gun owners. The antis will NEVER vote for him even if he repealed the Second Amendment via martial law or whatever. He knows this so I have to wonder what his real play is.
Maybe he'll have McConnell drag things out till right before the election and then veto everything (My personal fantasy)

 

[leadcounsel]

I'm still voting for Trump.
To not vote for him is to vote for the socialist Dems.

It is this type of unconditional guaranteed support from a segment of gun owners that gives Republicans politicians the OK to go ahead and burn us. After all, why should they care about gun owners, if a significant subset of them don't care enough about their rights to force the politicians to keep their promises?

I've always been told to not gripe without offering a solution... so what is your solution in a binary race?

Is a better system 10 candidates where the winning candidate might get, say 11% of the popular vote and therefore a "majority" and yet not represent 89% of the people's interests?

Not far off. Bill Clinton won in 1992 in a 3-way race by winning only 43% of the popular vote. In that year, we actually had a really excellent President Bush. He was the most qualified man for the job in my lifetime: Navy war pilot hero, CIA director, 2-term Vice President under Reagan (excellent POTUS overall), was part of defeating the Nazis/Japanese and the Russians in the Cold war, and was the Commander in Chief to swiftly defeat Saddam and Iraq. Bush had the 3rd highest approval rating of any POTUS or darn near close to 61%.

Presidential Approval Ratings -- Gallup Historical Statistics and Trends

Do you approve or disapprove of the way ... is handling his job as president?

news.gallup.com

Yet because of a 3rd party spoiler we ended up with the virus known as the Clintons with Bill's 43% popular vote. In spite of his scandal free term and stellar credentials and experience, he lost because of dummies who voted for a spoiler. And we got the Clinton curse. {Yes I know how the EC works, let's not get sidetracked}

So, really, the binary system is the best. In theory and practice, ideally the candidates are powerfully vetted in various stages and the best will rise to the top much like a sports championship. You can't have a coherent game with 5 teams playing each other on the same field. It's just too many variables and too much going on and the "best" won't necessarily win.

What is the better system?

BTW, there really are only 2 coherent sides to most important issues.

Pick and issue. There's really just a "for" or "against" and then generally some middle ground where, in theory, the candidates should naturally gravitate because of the checks and balances built into the system to vet our extreme positions. There isn't 10 pragmatic positions to gun rights or gun control, or abortion, or assisted suicide, or drunk driving, or war, or murder, or whatever. There's 2. You're either for it or against.

10 choices would simply be paralyzing. We'd probably see meaningless differences or no differences in candidates and probably less voter enthusiasm or participation. Think about it, are you excited to see 20 candidates on a stage duking it out? Few people can keep track of all the platforms and positions and it's just too much. People tend to need red or blue options, which are generally split ideologically on big or small government, nanny state or self-reliance, evil vs. good, etc.

 

[Geardo]

I've always been told to not gripe without offering a solution... so what is your solution in a binary race?

Is a better system 10 candidates where the winning candidate might get, say 11% of the popular vote and therefore a "majority" and yet not represent 89% of the people's interests?

Not far off. Bill Clinton won in 1992 in a 3-way race by winning only 43% of the popular vote. In that year, we actually had a really excellent President Bush. He was the most qualified man for the job in my lifetime: Navy war pilot hero, CIA director, 2-term Vice President under Reagan (excellent POTUS overall), was part of defeating the Nazis/Japanese and the Russians in the Cold war, and was the Commander in Chief to swiftly defeat Saddam and Iraq. Bush had the 3rd highest approval rating of any POTUS or darn near close to 61%.

Presidential Approval Ratings -- Gallup Historical Statistics and Trends

Do you approve or disapprove of the way ... is handling his job as president?

news.gallup.com

Yet because of a 3rd party spoiler we ended up with the virus known as the Clintons with Bill's 43% popular vote. In spite of his scandal free term and stellar credentials and experience, he lost because of dummies who voted for a spoiler. And we got the Clinton curse. {Yes I know how the EC works, let's not get sidetracked}

So, really, the binary system is the best. In theory and practice, ideally the candidates are powerfully vetted in various stages and the best will rise to the top much like a sports championship. You can't have a coherent game with 5 teams playing each other on the same field. It's just too many variables and too much going on and the "best" won't necessarily win.

What is the better system?

BTW, there really are only 2 coherent sides to most important issues.

Pick and issue. There's really just a "for" or "against" and then generally some middle ground where, in theory, the candidates should naturally gravitate because of the checks and balances built into the system to vet our extreme positions. There isn't 10 pragmatic positions to gun rights or gun control, or abortion, or assisted suicide, or drunk driving, or war, or murder, or whatever. There's 2. You're either for it or against.

10 choices would simply be paralyzing. We'd probably see meaningless differences or no differences in candidates and probably less voter enthusiasm or participation. Think about it, are you excited to see 20 candidates on a stage duking it out? Few people can keep track of all the platforms and positions and it's just too much. People tend to need red or blue options, which are generally split ideologically on big or small government, nanny state or self-reliance, evil vs. good, etc.

My understanding is that "first past the post voting" is what leaves us with these 2 options.

The problem is that the whole country has shifted steadily left for the last 100 years, and a republican today would be considered extremily far left by 1930s standards.

Doesn't matter much anyway. We are probably past the tipping point where we could have voted our way out of this.