Clinton urges intel 'surge,' assault-weapons ban in wake of Orlando attack

[btq96r]

11 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

You can bet your ass that the NRA boys had a serious talk with him. He had to make them believe to win their strong support. I have some faith that they are not easily fooled. 

What were they going to do, not endorse the Republican nominee against Hillary?  Their support, and the timing of it was as much about staying politically relevant as it was anything else.

 

8 minutes ago, SWJewellTN said:

In a way I think the willingness to change one's position based on further information is a sign of intelligence. As long as it's based on information rather than the wind I'm ok with it. When I was young I thought I was a democrat. Would I be more acceptable here if I had remained so?  I don't respect anyone who digs in their heels and gives no heed to new facts as they arise. Given his being a New Yorker and their long history of being anti-gun, I wouldn't expect him to be pro-2nd his entire life. People like Kasich, on the other hand, are a different matter. He can state how pro-2nd he is but his actions demonstrate otherwise.

Normally I'm a proponent of being able to push a politician into doing the right thing with political pressure, which is where I'd say we are with Kasich now.  Gun rights in Ohio improved under his watch as Governor, and if he did it just to please the voters, that works for me.

But Trump isn't a normal politician, so I don't know if the same rules apply to him when it comes to the public keeping him in line on the issues.

 

ETA: Trump may well have evolved on the issue in a genuine way...but he needs to be consistent for a while to make me think he's really pro-gun.  Mandating that all Trump properties allow carry for those legally authorized to do so would be a start.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-gun-free-zones-guns-allowed-properties/story?id=39266544

Edited June 14, 2016 by btq96r

[E4 No More]

1 minute ago, btq96r said:

What were they going to do, not endorse the Republican nominee against Hillary?  Their support, and the timing of it was as much about staying politically relevant as it was anything else.

 

Normally I'm a proponent of being able to push a politician into doing the right thing with political pressure, which is where I'd say we are with Kasich now.  Gun rights in Ohio improved under his watch as Governor, and if he did it just to please the voters, that works for me.

But Trump isn't a normal politician, so I don't know if the same rules apply to him when it comes to the public keeping him in line on the issues.

I would imagine that having the majority of people agreeing with Trump serves his narcissism the best, and that can be depended upon. And I don't imagine Trump would risk NOT having the NRA nod.

[mikegideon]

32 minutes ago, btq96r said:

What were they going to do, not endorse the Republican nominee against Hillary?  Their support, and the timing of it was as much about staying politically relevant as it was anything else.

Really? Staying politically relevant? You gotta quit reading Huffpo. :-)

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, btq96r said:

This is what it comes down to.  I know that we focus on the guns here, but Hillary's aims aren't that limited.  Incidents like this will be used to justify everything the NSA is doing, and everything they wish they could be doing.  Next they'll use social media postings to justify law enforcement actions, ect...

It's not just the Second Amendment that Hillary sees as an impediment.  Trump's the same way, and he's on record as being all for the "deep state"  He's just paying lip service to the Second, so that, coupled with Hillary's reputation has enough people distracted and failing to see this is a two headed problem. 

 

[mikegideon]

39 minutes ago, SWJewellTN said:

I would imagine that having the majority of people agreeing with Trump serves his narcissism the best, and that can be depended upon. And I don't imagine Trump would risk NOT having the NRA nod.

You gotta have some narcissist in you to go for that job. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It makes them think about the (future) history books.

[btq96r]

10 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

Really? Staying politically relevant? You gotta quit reading Huffpo. :-)

Yes, really.  With all the anti-Hillary work they will roll out, they can't let an election go by without an endorsement for someone against her. I have a feeling the Libertarian candidate wasn't a serious thought for the ILA...so, Trump by default.

[mikegideon]

Just now, btq96r said:

Yes, really.  With all the anti-Hillary work they will roll out, they can't let an election go by without an endorsement for someone against her. I have a feeling the Libertarian candidate wasn't a serious thought for the ILA...so, Trump by default.

They didn't have to roll out such a strong endorsement. Their credibility is worth more. 

[xsubsailor]

 "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

                                        Benjamin Franklin

[btq96r]

Just now, mikegideon said:

They didn't have to roll out such a strong endorsement. Their credibility is worth more. 

Was it really so strong?  They more or less got it over with once Trump became the presumptive nominee, wrapping it up into all the other events of the annual convention, and since then, they haven't been promoting Trump, but attacking Hillary.  It felt like a "take your medicine" moment they were forced into when Cruz dropped out. 

It's clear that after the endorsement, there isn't going to be a public effort to support Trump, just attack Hillary.  The official NRA Facebook feed has zero pro-Trump content, just anti-Hillary, and anti-liberal stuff since they endorsed him.  Also, the post of their endorsement with the video has the NRA engaging with discontent members, and it's easy to see that Trump was the least bad option they had. 

I'd think if Cruz had won the nomination, they would be praising him to the sky and pointing out his record to justify it.

[mikegideon]

6 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Was it really so strong?  They more or less got it over with once Trump became the presumptive nominee, wrapping it up into all the other events of the annual convention, and since then, they haven't been promoting Trump, but attacking Hillary.  It felt like a "take your medicine" moment they were forced into when Cruz dropped out. 

It's clear that after the endorsement, there isn't going to be a public effort to support Trump, just attack Hillary.  The official NRA Facebook feed has zero pro-Trump content, just anti-Hillary, and anti-liberal stuff since they endorsed him.  Also, the post of their endorsement with the video has the NRA engaging with discontent members, and it's easy to see that Trump was the least bad option they had. 

I'd think if Cruz had won the nomination, they would be praising him to the sky and pointing out his record to justify it.

I don't recall them praising any candidate... ever.

https://www.nrapvf.org/