Trump publicly spars with Republicans over concealed carry, NRA influence at school safety session

[56FordGuy]

No, he could only suppress the New York liberal inside himself for so long. 

Nobody wanted to hear that when it was pointed out before the election...

[Hozzie]

We heard it and we understood it (most of us).   The other #### sandwich had double meat.  

[MacGyver]

Seems like there are some old morality tales about the perils that come along with getting exactly what it is you think that you want.  

[MacGyver]

“I think they should have taken them away - whether they had the right or not.”

Obama (or Hillary) would have known better than to say this out loud.

[GlockSpock]

38 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

“I think they should have taken them away - whether they had the right or not.”

Obama (or Hillary) would have known better than to say this out loud.

I will admit that I haven't personally read into all of the times police had been called to Cruz's house, but all Trump had to do to "polish" that statement was say "I think police would have been justified based on existing evidence had they confiscated Cruz's weapons". That sounds a lot better.

From my understanding, he made verifiable threats and to some of the calls had to do with domestic violence. Is this correct? If those are true, wouldn't police have been justified in confiscating his weapons based on existing law?

Edited March 1, 2018 by CZ9MM

[E4 No More]

26 minutes ago, CZ9MM said:

I will admit that I haven't personally read into all of the times police had been called to Cruz's house, but all Trump had to do to "polish" that statement was say "I think police would have been justified based on existing evidence had they confiscated Cruz's weapons". That sounds a lot better.

From my understanding, he made verifiable threats and to some of the calls had to do with domestic violence. Is this correct? If those are true, wouldn't police have been justified in confiscating his weapons based on existing law?

From what I have read he most certainly did make verifiable threats as well as throw his adoptive mother into a wall. Unfortunately, many people see "Domestic Violence" as husband beating wife. 

[E4 No More]

1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

“I think they should have taken them away - whether they had the right or not.”

Obama (or Hillary) would have known better than to say this out loud.

Context is everything. He prefaced the statement with "easily adjudicated" prior to that. He was saying that this kid was clearly a threat, and the police should have seized his weapons and let the court sort it out. Who here would argue - with the clarity of hindsight - that had this happened 17 people would still be alive?

Who here have thought about how the HIPPA Laws are causing problems here?

[gregintenn]

I sure hope he's just jerking the Democrats' chain, but I fear he's not.

[DaveTN]

I think we will be okay. He’s kicking around ideas out loud instead of sitting on his hands and saying there isn’t anything we can do; as some are suggesting.

[Wingshooter]

11 hours ago, Someotherguy said:

Well, looks like the senate repubs are on our side in contrast to trump's call for gun control...

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/376172-senate-gop-rejects-trumps-call-to-go-big-on-gun-legislation

 

Senate Republicans say President Trump’s comments Wednesday calling for more ambitious gun-control proposals won’t change the political calculus in their conference, which supports a limited response to the shooting at a Florida high school.

Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), who is leading the GOP response to gun violence in the upper chamber, told reporters after the meeting with Trump at the White House that he still favors a limited approach.

He wants to put a narrow bill on the floor that would give state and local officials more incentive to report relevant information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System known as NICS.

"For me the most obvious place to start is the Fix NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] bill that has 46 cosponsors," Cornyn said of the bill he’s co-sponsored with Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.).

Cornyn warned that the Senate risked a repeat of this month’s failed immigration debate if it tries to draft an expansive piece of legislation.

"I think the best way to start is to start with Fix NICS and then we can see what sort of amendments people that can get 60 votes," he said.

The narrow approach favored by Cornyn is the strategy that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) effectively endorsed the day before.

Trump surprised lawmakers at a White House meeting Wednesday afternoon when he voiced support for a five-year-old proposal sponsored by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to expand background checks for firearms bought at gun shows and over the Internet.

Hours before, Senate Republicans said it had no chance of passing and wasn’t really on the table.

Trump also reiterated his support for raising the age requirement for purchasing assault-style rifles from 18 to 21 years, dispelling uncertainty on Capitol Hill about where he stood on the question.

GOP leaders at lunchtime Wednesday said that raising the age threshold wouldn’t have enough votes to pass.

“There aren’t the votes there for that,” Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) told The Hill.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who over the weekend indicated support for raising the age for buying rifles, on Tuesday walked back his earlier statement.

And Trump urged lawmakers to fit a variety of ideas into one bill, dramatically expanding the scope of the legislative response that GOP leaders had tried to keep as narrow as possible.

So this puts a thought in my head... Could it be that he’s playing a game of political chess? I know it’s a stretch, but he has an opportunity for a genius move here. He just announced his re-election campaign and campaign manager, so he’s in that mode. What if he’s putting a little concern and fear into his base ahead of the midterms? If the Senate appears to be holding his reins, what better motivational tool to get repubs to the ballot box to strengthen congress than to make it look like we need them to hold it together. Then, he has two more years before his re-election to win our support back. It would be a win for the GOP in the midterms and possibly a win for his image among anti-gunners. He doesn’t have to actually pass much of anything, just make it look like he’s trying to do something. I know it’s a stretch, but he is a forward thinker.

I’m not saying that I really think that’s what is happening, but it is a golden opportunity. Stranger things have happened.

 

Edited March 2, 2018 by Wingshooter

[eRay]

I don't think we can really determine which side of these proposals Trump will come down on. I don't really think Trump even has any idea what he is talking about. We all know Trump takes one position then completely changes his position the next day. Tomorrow he will be probably be denying saying any of these things that we just saw him spouting off.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Eray

[Patrick Henry]

I wonder if Trump thinks out loud, saying whatever pops into his mind, and then assesses the idea and the response it generates?  It is not always a bad way to think especially when brainstorming for new creative ideas.  Saying something and doing it are two different things.  

[Erik88]

12 hours ago, Eray said:

I don't think we can really determine which side of these proposals Trump will come down on. I don't really think Trump even has any idea what he is talking about. We all know Trump takes one position then completely changes his position the next day. Tomorrow he will be probably be denying saying any of these things that we just saw him spouting off.

I think you nailed it. I'm becomming convinced that Trump doesn't stand for much of anything. He will say one thing and then contradict himself and his staff the next day. Maybe McGyver is right, we probably shouldn't worry too much. 

12 hours ago, Patrick Henry said:

I wonder if Trump thinks out loud, saying whatever pops into his mind, and then assesses the idea and the response it generates?  It is not always a bad way to think especially when brainstorming for new creative ideas.  Saying something and doing it are two different things.  

I think conservatives would be a lot less forgiving if a democrat had said the same thing. Even my anti-gun coworker was shocked by his comments regarding due process. 

[Chucktshoes]

2 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I think you nailed it. I'm becomming convinced that Trump doesn't stand for much of anything. He will say one thing and then contradict himself and his staff the next day. Maybe McGyver is right, we probably shouldn't worry too much. 

I think conservatives would be a lot less forgiving if a democrat had said the same thing. Even my anti-gun coworker was shocked by his comments regarding due process. 

Well, when folks elect a populist, they shouldn’t be surprised when he latches onto whatever is popular at the moment. 

[Someotherguy]

14 hours ago, Wingshooter said:

So this puts a thought in my head... Could it be that he’s playing a game of political chess? I know it’s a stretch, but he has an opportunity for a genius move here. He just announced his re-election campaign and campaign manager, so he’s in that mode. What if he’s putting a little concern and fear into his base ahead of the midterms? If the Senate appears to be holding his reins, what better motivational tool to get repubs to the ballot box to strengthen congress than to make it look like we need them to hold it together. Then, he has two more years before his re-election to win our support back. It would be a win for the GOP in the midterms and possibly a win for his image among anti-gunners. He doesn’t have to actually pass much of anything, just make it look like he’s trying to do something. I know it’s a stretch, but he is a forward thinker.

I’m not saying that I really think that’s what is happening, but it is a golden opportunity. Stranger things have happened.

 

I'm fairly certain that no real gun control will be passed in the wake of this particular incident, could be possible when the next mass shooting happens..

As far as Trump's actual motives in this push, hell man I just don't know anymore..It's like trying to figure out which direction the leaves are gonna blow in lol..

My problem with this whole "chess move" thing is not that he is doing it, it's what he is playing chess with..I am 100% fine with political chess on issues like immigration, foreign policy, and the economy, none of that stuff is directly protected in the bill of rights, and he is free to wheel and deal on them issues as he see's fit...

In contrast, I am NOT ok with any politician playing political chess with anything in the bill of rights..

I will not support anyone gambling with my natural rights..

[suspiciousmind]

I cringed so hard. Wishing Rand had gotten into office now..

[monkeylizard]

[volshayes]

“Take the firearms first, and then go to court because that’s another system. Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures — I like taking the guns early."

This comment comes real close to shredding the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments.  A very fine line being walked there.

Wonder what actions he might want to take should something really big happen like the country go into severe recession or even depression - and we know that will never happen again because history never repeats itself.

I would personally prefer that he use the Constitution and Bill of Rights for some guidance.

[monkeylizard]

 

6 minutes ago, volshayes said:

This comment comes real close to shredding the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments.  A very fine line being walked there.

There's nothing fine about it. It very clearly crosses it, stomping it along the way.

[volshayes]

12 minutes ago, volshayes said:

“Take the firearms first, and then go to court because that’s another system. Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures — I like taking the guns early."

This comment comes real close to shredding the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments.  A very fine line being walked there.

Wonder what actions he might want to take should something really big happen like the country go into severe recession or even depression - and we know that will never happen again because history never repeats itself.

I would personally prefer that he use the Constitution and Bill of Rights for some guidance.

 

3 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

 

There's nothing fine about it. It very clearly crosses it, stomping it along the way.

I was trying to be a little more "politically correct" as they say, but you pretty much nailed it !

[GlockSpock]

So, according to some of the left leaning blogs, the NRA met with Trump and Pence last night and reconciled his views to theirs.

https://splinternews.com/the-nra-warns-america-its-still-in-charge-when-it-comes-1823455624

I personally find it quite humorous myself. Wednesday Trump makes claim that politicians are "Afraid of the NRA". Thursday Trump meets with NRA, quickly changes stances. At least, that's what I hope. I'm not a HUGE fan of the NRA, but they are something. In my opinion, they are just too anti-gun for my views

Hopefully though, what literally happened was that Cox politely informed Trump that the views Trump were forming would alienate a meaningful portion of the people that put him into office. One can hope.

Edited March 2, 2018 by CZ9MM

[E4 No More]

Personally, I took his afraid of the NRA remark as just a friendly jab that wasn't delivered very well.

[gregintenn]

So has this chit storm effectively blown over or what?

I'm having trouble keeping up.

[Wingshooter]

1 hour ago, gregintenn said:

So has this chit storm effectively blown over or what?

I'm having trouble keeping up.

I was wondering the same thing. I haven’t watched much news lately. When they started talking about dianne Feinstein and phallic-shaped guns, I gave up on the conversation.  

https://www.mediaite.com/online/after-dianne-feinstein-posts-twitter-pic-of-phallic-shaped-gun-erick-erickson-says-i-want-one/

 

[DaveTN]

13 hours ago, gregintenn said:

So has this chit storm effectively blown over or what?

I'm having trouble keeping up.

Yes. As those of us that support him know; he speaks whatever is on his mind and hides nothing. Those that hate him use those statements to jump on everything he says. It is what it is. 

As far as being over; I think you will see Congress ban bump stocks and raise the age to 21. I think big changes will be proposed on background checks, but I suspect it will be both sides that fight them because neither side will want their mental health information available to the government.

I hate hearing “Close the GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE” because using that term is not being truthful, and many folks don’t understand that. It is “STOP PRIVATE GUN SALES WITHOUT A BACKGROUND CHECK IN ALL STATES.”  That will become a States Rights issue and because of that probably be argued for a long time with it eventually being decided by the SCOTUS if passed.

Even though background checks will no more keep a mass shooter from getting a gun than drug laws keep drug abusers from getting drugs; we will see changes in the background check system.