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

[GlockSpock]

https://gunowners.org/current-action-alerts/

This shows you relevant ways to contact your Senators/Representatives for corresponding bills and the like. This makes it so easy that there is zero excuse for anyone truly 2nd Amendment not to contact their congressmen.

[Chucktshoes]

3 hours ago, Erik88 said:

I wish we could look back at some of those threads from 2016. You really did warn us, repeatedly. 

Unlike many, I actually paid attention to what he had said over the course of many years and not just what he said on the campaign trail. 

[btq96r]

Hmmm...very little of the "would of been worse with Hillary" train of thought at the moment.  Probably because at least with Hillary, the Republicans would still have been the opposition party and felt a need to hold the line on this.  Now, they're stuck in the dilema on what happens if they take a position opposite of a President who wouldn't hesitate to cut them down to size in a very public way if he felt undercut.

 

5 hours ago, TGO David said:

It's awfully early for Trump to have begun campaigning for whichever actual conservative runs against him for 2020.

If there is more than a token challenger in the 2020 primary for him, I'll be surprised.  One of the more interesting things over the last 18 months or so is how Trump has remade the Republican party in his image.  Some of that was expected when he took the White House based on his grassroots support, but the alacrity with which the party has bent the knee is noteworthy.  He even got the head of the RNC (Reince's successor and Mitt Romney's niece) to drop her maiden name and go from Ronna Romney McDaniel to Ronna McDaniel in all public matters.  He even has Lindsey Graham kissing his ass on Twitter from time to time recently.

 

4 hours ago, Hozzie said:

We may not like it, but I can guarantee his position is closer to the majority than ours. This is simply the inevitable whether we like it or not.

The position may be closer, but position isn't the metric to go by...enthusiasm is.  Anyone can be for or against something, but it's those who are willing to make it their single issue that determine if the topic will have any real change.  Right now, the numbers for enthusiasm in the pro gun camp outnumber the anti gun camp.   That's why Bloomberg's groups and the rest can huff and puff, and we still have all our guns (for the moment).

 

[Omega]

Man, the lefties are chomping at the latest anti-Trump bit.

I'm going to go with a wait and see approach with this; with some letters to our reps of course.  Too much BS is being thrown out there right now, just like after Sandy Hook, but not a dang thing was done then, except the shortages of course.   So far it's a bunch of rhetoric from both sides, I expect another "squirrel" event to take this unto the back page of the paper soon.

And to be perfectly honest, I'd sooner elect a rock instead of Hillary, but will blast Trump as I would Hillary when it comes to our rights.  If he is as smart as many think he is, he is well aware what an anti-gun bill would do to his base, and he has no chance without us.

[Hershmeister]

That was a disgrace


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eRay]

About all I hoped for from Trump was that he could stop Hillary from becoming president. And that is about all I got.

[Whisper]

1 hour ago, Eray said:

About all I hoped for from Trump was that he could stop Hillary from becoming president. And that is about all I got.

As I said many times during the campaign, Trump is the second-worst person in America.  But he had the good fortune to be running against the worst.

[Erik88]

2 hours ago, Eray said:

About all I hoped for from Trump was that he could stop Hillary from becoming president. And that is about all I got.

And if he does more damage than she could have done, is it still a win? He actually just suggested due process be ignored. MacGyver nailed it when it said the GOP would have lost their minds if Hilary suggested the same. I don't think she would have accomplished much at all, the GOP would have stopped her at every turn. Trump is likely going to piss off so many people that the GOP will lose the majority in the house and senate. 

I'm really not surprised Trump has these opinions expressed yesterday but I am shocked he would actually say them. I really thought he knew his base better than that.

[Someotherguy]

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.

Edited March 1, 2018 by Someotherguy

[E4 No More]

I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch over this...yet. To me it's nothing but posturing right now. Emotions are high which facilitates political theater on both sides. Once the details are worked out then I'll judge. I find it comical to see folks who fussed about national reciprocity being a bad idea are aggravated that Trump wants it as a separate bill. Raising the age to 21 to purchase a rifle? Why is that age ok with a pistol but not a rifle? If your child is responsible can't the parent still buy them a rifle as I'm sure many have done with pistols? Seizing weapons on a simple complaint is another issue. If there is a clear-cut process to return their property rather than LEO's being able to keep/sell it then I'm open to it: however, there should be legal repercussions should the complaint be found to be a lie. Your neighbor getting pissed at you and telling the police that you threatened him when you didn't should be liable for your legal fees, for example.

[Omega]

16 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

And if he does more damage than she could have done, is it still a win? He actually just suggested due process be ignored. MacGyver nailed it when it said the GOP would have lost their minds if Hilary suggested the same. I don't think she would have accomplished much at all, the GOP would have stopped her at every turn. Trump is likely going to piss off so many people that the GOP will lose the majority in the house and senate. 

I'm really not surprised Trump has these opinions expressed yesterday but I am shocked he would actually say them. I really thought he knew his base better than that.

I highly doubt that, the sleeping giant which is the conservative movement has awoken, and I'm sure every Senator and Representative has had more emails and calls they can handle right about now. 

[gregintenn]

Yep. You guys warned me, and I didn't listen. I felt molested yesterday.

I still couldn't stomach voting for Hillary. That was simply not an option.

I'd sure like a good option for once.

[Erik88]

1 minute ago, Omega said:

I highly doubt that, the sleeping giant which is the conservative movement has awoken, and I'm sure every Senator and Representative has had more emails and calls they can handle right about now. 

I hope you're right. Keep in mind that what Trump said yesterday is actually going to seem "reasonable" to a lot of Americans. The GOP will be forced to make a decision. They can either fight Trump(which historically they have not) or agree with him and probably most of the country. We are likely in the minority on this. One doesn't have to look further than this thread to find some support for what he's suggesting. 

[E4 No More]

3 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I hope you're right. Keep in mind that what Trump said yesterday is actually going to seem "reasonable" to a lot of Americans. The GOP will be forced to make a decision. They can either fight Trump(which historically they have not) or agree with him and probably most of the country. We are likely in the minority on this. One doesn't have to look further than this thread to find some support for what he's suggesting. 

While I agree that the 2A has no limitations, the Supreme Court has already ruled that one individual's right does not trump another's right - particularly concerning safety of others. For example, you can't yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater just because you have the right to free speech which also has no limitations in the 1A. I predict the same thing is going to happen here.

[Omega]

Just now, Erik88 said:

I hope you're right. Keep in mind that what Trump said yesterday is actually going to seem "reasonable" to a lot of Americans. The GOP will be forced to make a decision. They can either fight Trump(which historically they have not) or agree with him and probably most of the country. We are likely in the minority on this. One doesn't have to look further than this thread to find some support for what he's suggesting. 

Sure, just as I think it is reasonable to restrict cell phone ownership, which cause more teen deaths,  as they do guns.  I really could care less what some ignorant, not stupid, ignorant, folks think.  Many just don't comprehend what the whole 2A is about, hell many don't understand the actual words let alone the meaning:

https://anotherslice.life/2018/02/19/wait-a-second/#comment-13875

[Erik88]

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) appeared to erupt with glee after President Trump suggested an assault weapons ban should be included in a bipartisan bill on gun reform."

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/03/01/mobapp-sen-dianne-feinstein-giddy-trump-gun-bill.cnn

 

[GlockSpock]

10 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) appeared to erupt with glee after President Trump suggested an assault weapons ban should be included in a bipartisan bill on gun reform."

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/03/01/mobapp-sen-dianne-feinstein-giddy-trump-gun-bill.cnn

 

Edited March 1, 2018 by CZ9MM

[E4 No More]

1 minute ago, CZ9MM said:

https://img.cinemablend.com/filter:scale/cb/a/c/b/f/0/c/acbf0c44d74f242c70ea1420b82e7741afd461e533b3f0fbd1ea2014a5e19fe5.jpg

"Invalid Parameter(s) Passed to Filter"

 

Linky no worky.

[E4 No More]

13 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) appeared to erupt with glee after President Trump suggested an assault weapons ban should be included in a bipartisan bill on gun reform."

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/03/01/mobapp-sen-dianne-feinstein-giddy-trump-gun-bill.cnn

 

I did not hear ANY mention of an AWB in that conversation. In fact, the subject was background checks, and he clearly stated that they wouldn't get everything that they asked for.

[Erik88]

4 minutes ago, SWJewellTN said:

I did not hear ANY mention of an AWB in that conversation. In fact, the subject was background checks, and he clearly stated that they wouldn't get everything that they asked for.

It was a short clip with no specifics. He told her to "put what you want" in the bill. Do you really think she is only interested in background checks? I'm not suggesting it will pass, but anytime we see Feinstein "erupt with glee" we should probably be concerned. 

[E4 No More]

4 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

It was a short clip with no specifics. He told her to "put what you want" in the bill. Do you really think she is only interested in background checks? I'm not suggesting it will pass, but anytime we see Feinstein "erupt with glee" we should probably be concerned. 

"Put what you want" does not equal "get what you want" particularly when he said that she wouldn't get everything she wants. He appeared to me to notice her gleefulness and checked her on it buy saying that she won't get everything she wants.

I'm just saying that people shouldn't get worked up over a discussion. We should see the final bill and then judge.

[MacGyver]

People probably shouldn't get too worried...yet.

I'm not convinced that what we saw yesterday was anything more than the DACA "negotiations" a couple of weeks ago.  And, you see where that went.

I have no doubt that the NRA is out there manning the phones this morning reminding every single member that they've contributed to that they have a list of names waiting to primary them.  Yes, hard line positions are out of sync with most of the population.  But, most of the population doesn't vote in primaries.  That is the ground game that then NRA excels at.

Trump is really a non-entity here.  Sure, he'll do just about anything to move the "they like me" needle. He lacks a fundamental understanding of policy. But, he doesn't make laws - he signs them after Congress passes them.  There are 535 people who have to come to consensus before you really have to worry about what Trump is going to do.

[Chucktshoes]

Man has he really stepped in it with this one. This is the one issue that I believe can have his base throw him overboard as fast as he is willing to throw over every other position he supposedly stands for  

 

http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=13049

[Links2k]

14 hours ago, Eray said:

He is evolving into a real politician.

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

[Erik88]

22 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

Man has he really stepped in it with this one. This is the one issue that I believe can have his base throw him overboard as fast as he is willing to throw over every other position he supposedly stands for  

 

http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=13049

Solid find. 

 

"So far, Trump is looking like he is not going to deliver anything other than blowing his own horn every day and maybe dodging prison in the Mueller probe. Worse yet, the trade-off for his vanity will be the undermining of the one cause that truly defines what’s left of old stock America. By legitimizing gun-grabbing and executive fiat, he has just made it possible for the next President Obama to DACA the gun issue, by issuing new gun laws via executive order. Trump is proving to be one step forward and ten steps backward."