Presidential Election 2A Forum Mandate

[LR1955]

Guys:

I am so sick of guys taking shots at Trump over the 2A without a word said about any of the Democrat candidates and their views of the 2A and gun ownership, I will now make this mandate for this election cycle.

If you criticize Trump for any of his statements or actions concerning the 2A and gun ownership during his term as President, you will name one or more of the current Democrat presidential candidates who you think are stronger supporters of the 2A and gun ownership.

If you criticize Trump for something he said about the 2A before he became President, you will still name one or more of the current Democrat presidential candidates who you think are stronger supporters of the 2A and gun ownership.

You will also cite evidence to support your opinion.

LR55

[montana]

Guys:

I am so sick of guys taking shots at Trump over the 2A without a word said about any of the Democrat candidates and their views of the 2A and gun ownership, I will now make this mandate for this election cycle.

If you criticize Trump for any of his statements or actions concerning the 2A and gun ownership during his term as President, you will name one or more of the current Democrat presidential candidates who you think are stronger supporters of the 2A and gun ownership.

If you criticize Trump for something he said about the 2A before he became President, you will still name one or more of the current Democrat presidential candidates who you think are stronger supporters of the 2A and gun ownership.

You will also cite evidence to support your opinion.

LR55

The days of the pro gun democrat is long gone. There has never been a time when the two parties have been so polar opposite, especially with our 2ndA rights. Any person, "who claims to support the 2ndA, owns, shoots a modern semi auto firearm, with a standard capacity magazine and supports a democratic presidential candidate" is being hypocritical to the point of being self delusional or is being very dishonest. Virginia is a perfect example of what the democrats think about our 2ndA rights. If sacrificing our 2ndA rights is preferable, "to the alternative" then so be it. I personally know people with that belief, but they are at least honest about it. If, "political party comes first and our 2ndA rights a far second" then people should cowboy up and own it. At least the debate would be an honest one.

[stanc]

Guys:

I am so sick of guys taking shots at Trump over the 2A without a word said about any of the Democrat candidates and their views of the 2A and gun ownership...

Gene:

The reason I have never said anything about Democratic candidates is because there have been no posts about how pro-2A they are.

I just get kinda tired of people saying that Trump is pro-2A, even though he has advocated some of the same laws called for by Dems.

Now, if somebody wants to argue that Trump is the lesser of evils, that's an understandable position.

But after all of his anti-2A statements and actions, don't try to tell me that he really supports the 2A.

Stan

[LR1955]

Gene:

The reason I have never said anything about Democratic candidates is because there have been no posts about how pro-2A they are.

I just get kinda tired of people saying that Trump is pro-2A, even though he has advocated some of the same laws called for by Dems.

Now, if somebody wants to argue that Trump is the lesser of evils, that's an understandable position.

But after all of his anti-2A statements and actions, don't try to tell me that he really supports the 2A.

Stan

My conditions stand for the 2A Forum.

If anyone here wants to criticize Trump over his 2A stance, they will tell us which Democrat they prefer in terms of their stance on that 2A subject or they will stay off the forum.

I will not tolerate the 2A forum degenerating into a podium where guys can rant about Trump without any sort of comparisons to the alternatives.

Once the Election Cycle is over and the next President has been elected, I may change my mind but until then, it stands.

End of debate.

LR55

[grayfox]

Stan I'm interested to see which other candidate you prefer. I live in Va so I'm seeing first hand the all-out assault on the 2A that that the Bloomberg-bought state politicians are doing in their so-called "sensible gun control" initiative. Once they achieved power it has been Katie-bar-the-door. Gov'ner Whitehat/Blackface Babykiller Northam leading the charge.
Other states take note!!! And for federal elections too!! there is no such thing to them as "sensible" unless you understand it to mean total cancellation of the 2A.

[keystone183]

President Trump has been completely ineffective at advancing any of his stated campaign talking points regarding advancing pro 2A causes. In fact, he has advocated many anti 2a positions. His presidency has in no way helped the 2a. Hurt it even. If you are a single issue voter, and that issue is the 2A, there is no reason to vote for him. Although it would have been foolish to believe his campaign rhetoric on this topic before he was elected.

Alternatives to his candidacy on the democrat side are all more anti 2a than the president. At least rhetorically. If you are a single issue voter and that issue is the 2A, there is no reason to vote for any of them. However, you might have hope that if one of them were to unfortunately be elected, at least the political gamesmanship between the two parties on the issue would ratchet back up, and we would return to Obama era gun rights politics and not actually lose any of our 2A rights.

Just close the forum down...l

[LR1955]

President Trump has been completely ineffective at advancing any of his stated campaign talking points regarding advancing pro 2A causes. In fact, he has advocated many anti 2a positions. His presidency has in no way helped the 2a. Hurt it even. If you are a single issue voter, and that issue is the 2A, there is no reason to vote for him. Although it would have been foolish to believe his campaign rhetoric on this topic before he was elected.

Alternatives to his candidacy on the democrat side are all more anti 2a than the president. At least rhetorically. If you are a single issue voter and that issue is the 2A, there is no reason to vote for any of them. However, you might have hope that if one of them were to unfortunately be elected, at least the political gamesmanship between the two parties on the issue would ratchet back up, and we would return to Obama era gun rights politics and not actually lose any of our 2A rights.

Just close the forum down...l

keystone:

So, Trump is ineffective because he has a Democrat controlled House who will never advance any pro 2A laws, but a Democrat President from the current bunch would give us hope?

Which Democrat running for President would give us more 'hope' of preserving our 2A rights than Trump?

LR55

[lazyengineer]

For the Democrats, I'm guessing Bernie Sanders will likely be the least damaging; but still not nearly as good as Trump. Two reasons: 1) while no friend, gun control is not his passion; and 2) He will be fighting congress so hard on how to best wreck the nations economic and social systems, that Gun Control will be limited. After demonstrating just how bad a decision he was, Congress will then flip R and he gets nothing. That, and there are a lot of judges that know how to read now.

As to Trump 2nd Amendment disappointments - I'm not nearly as wigged out as some folks. What matters most right now is the judiciary; of which he is nicely stacking with judges who know how to read. As to Anti-Trump complaints - the most prolific of which is the BumpStock item; there's a lot more gnashing of teeth over that by others, than by me. First the legality and philosophy: A bump stock discharging is done so via one (1) actuation of the gun, with a mechanical system designed and deployed with intent to cause multiple discharges by that one actuation. Saying but it's moving the trigger against the stationary trigger finger so doesn't count, is thin ice. It's one actuation via operator actuation, and a mechanical system that then causes continued actuation - using the operators finger. What his executive order DID do, is stave off Congress' momentum to pass Gun Control he might have to sign, with more overreach than a cheap piece of plastic nobody cared about. We all know people who had bump-stocks, and the consensus was uniform - fun for a couple mags, but seriously useless and it's off the gun sitting in the back of the closet by the end of the day.

Philosophically, a shooter is responsible for every discharge. Baseline common available items that cause rapid discharges without the operator consciously actuating each and every shot, undermine that. I didn't care that people had bump-stocks (freedom!), but am not loosing a lot of sleep that they've been restricted. Indeed, I think one should legally be able to get a machine-gun with about as much effort as getting a CHL. But I'm the one guy in the gun-internet-forum willing say such things maybe shouldn't exactly be an over the counter item. Gun access isn't a religion.

Also, in addition to his action stopping Congress' momentum to pass gun-control laws he'd have to contend with (don't think it wasn't on the table); his actions also did preserve binary triggers. Someone said those are banned too - of which they most assuredly are not, and actually are better protected now. Since the binary trigger DOES require a manual and conscious activation of each discharge, those are are still legal. You can bet though, they would have been lumped in to any congressional control legislation, had such been passed. Indeed, go look at the fine print of the text of the Democrats Assault Weapons Ban legislation of 2019 (which they indeed did write, with hopes of bringing it up for a vote). The made a subtle change in some language which would have quitely banned binaries. In application, a binary trigger is safe/Fire/giggle. Whereas bumpstocks were safe/poorly-aimed auto. Meaning a binary trigger can be used like a normal trigger all day long, then flipped over to binary. And with Binary, since the rate of fire is directly controlled by its user, the operator naturally adjusts his rate of fire to keep his rounds on target. It's actually far more effective that bump, and even full-auto; where with those the cycle rate is what it is, and if you can't keep on target - too bad.

As far as I'm concerned, while everyone else is loosing their minds on the useless bump-stocks, I think it's all part of the 4D ChessMastery; and while not my top choice, I'm not going to loose my crap and freak out on Trump on it. Thinking 3 moves down, it actually was a smart play, as far as I'm concerned.

Just my opinion.

[Bigs28]

I spoke up about binary triggers and sorry they are just illegal in Florida.

[keystone183]

keystone:

So, Trump is ineffective because he has a Democrat controlled House who will never advance any pro 2A laws, but a Democrat President from the current bunch would give us hope?

Which Democrat running for President would give us more 'hope' of preserving our 2A rights than Trump?

LR55

My personal opinion is, he's ineffective because he doesn't care, and moreso because again in my opinion, his daughter and sil, are anti 2a. And yes, as evidenced by the last very anti gun democrat in the office for 8 years, during which on a national level we saw no real erosion of rights.

And again i speculate, maybe any of them, assuming at lease one house of congress is held by republicans.


ETA: My theory also helps explain why trump was ineffective with a republican house. And senate.

[Cheyenne Bodie]

Oh good, I was worried this site wouldn't be full of Trump apologists like every other backwoods fudd forum on the internet. These new rules should solve that.

[montana]

For the Democrats, I'm guessing Bernie Sanders will likely be the least damaging; but still not nearly as good as Trump. Two reasons: 1) while no friend, gun control is not his passion; and 2) He will be fighting congress so hard on how to best wreck the nations economic and social systems, that Gun Control will be limited. After demonstrating just how bad a decision he was, Congress will then flip R and he gets nothing. That, and there are a lot of judges that know how to read now.

As to Trump 2nd Amendment disappointments - I'm not nearly as wigged out as some folks. What matters most right now is the judiciary; of which he is nicely stacking with judges who know how to read. As to Anti-Trump complaints - the most prolific of which is the BumpStock item; there's a lot more gnashing of teeth over that by others, than by me. First the legality and philosophy: A bump stock discharging is done so via one (1) actuation of the gun, with a mechanical system designed and deployed with intent to cause multiple discharges by that one actuation. Saying but it's moving the trigger against the stationary trigger finger so doesn't count, is thin ice. It's one actuation via operator actuation, and a mechanical system that then causes continued actuation - using the operators finger. What his executive order DID do, is stave off Congress' momentum to pass Gun Control he might have to sign, with more overreach than a cheap piece of plastic nobody cared about. We all know people who had bump-stocks, and the consensus was uniform - fun for a couple mags, but seriously useless and it's off the gun sitting in the back of the closet by the end of the day.

Philosophically, a shooter is responsible for every discharge. Baseline common available items that cause rapid discharges without the operator consciously actuating each and every shot, undermine that. I didn't care that people had bump-stocks (freedom!), but am not loosing a lot of sleep that they've been restricted. Indeed, I think one should legally be able to get a machine-gun with about as much effort as getting a CHL. But I'm the one guy in the gun-internet-forum willing say such things maybe shouldn't exactly be an over the counter item. Gun access isn't a religion.

Also, in addition to his action stopping Congress' momentum to pass gun-control laws he'd have to contend with (don't think it wasn't on the table); his actions also did preserve binary triggers. Someone said those are banned too - of which they most assuredly are not, and actually are better protected now. Since the binary trigger DOES require a manual and conscious activation of each discharge, those are are still legal. You can bet though, they would have been lumped in to any congressional control legislation, had such been passed. Indeed, go look at the fine print of the text of the Democrats Assault Weapons Ban legislation of 2019 (which they indeed did write, with hopes of bringing it up for a vote). The made a subtle change in some language which would have quitely banned binaries. In application, a binary trigger is safe/Fire/giggle. Whereas bumpstocks were safe/poorly-aimed auto. Meaning a binary trigger can be used like a normal trigger all day long, then flipped over to binary. And with Binary, since the rate of fire is directly controlled by its user, the operator naturally adjusts his rate of fire to keep his rounds on target. It's actually far more effective that bump, and even full-auto; where with those the cycle rate is what it is, and if you can't keep on target - too bad.

As far as I'm concerned, while everyone else is loosing their minds on the useless bump-stocks, I think it's all part of the 4D ChessMastery; and while not my top choice, I'm not going to loose my crap and freak out on Trump on it. Thinking 3 moves down, it actually was a smart play, as far as I'm concerned.

Just my opinion.

Well stated, I couldn't agree more. I would love to see any law abiding gun owner, be able to own any firearm, ever made, without the endless red tape, or needing a Trump bank account. That said, we have a nation today that can't agree on which gender or bathroom is appropriate, so good luck getting NFA items put back on the shelves. Keeping our semi automatic firearms with standard capacity magazines is a huge battle right now and it is not a little fight. We have a leftist governor in Montana, that has publicly supported banning them. This would have been political suicide in Montana, just a few years ago. The left "democrats" have taken off their false facade "moderate restrictions" and it is plain to see to all, what they really intend for the future of this nation and our 2ndA rights. It isn't pretty. The real silver bullet, "that can kill the leftist assault on our 2ndA gun rights" will be the supreme court. Imagine the supreme court after Hillary or anyone of the democratic candidates appointed judges! Enough said. Trump 2020

[LRRPF52]

The real question is, "Who will be Trump's VP in 2024, and who will Trump endorse in the future?"

I could see incremental legislation passing that would allow multiple sales after one NFA background check on things like SBRs and Suppressors, especially with Trump Jr. pushing it.

A lot of people like to cherry-pick anyone associated with Trump that is anti-2A, while ignoring the fact that his sons are so pro-2A that in Trump's words, "They have so many guns, it scares me." We should not short-change the Trump family for their richness and diversity.

[keystone183]

The real question is, "Who will be Trump's VP in 2024, and who will Trump endorse in the future?"

I could see incremental legislation passing that would allow multiple sales after one NFA background check on things like SBRs and Suppressors, especially with Trump Jr. pushing it.

A lot of people like to cherry-pick anyone associated with Trump that is anti-2A, while ignoring the fact that his sons are so pro-2A that in Trump's words, "They have so many guns, it scares me." We should not short-change the Trump family for their richness and diversity.

Well, to be fair, trump has cherry-picked those associated with him, and the ones who are some of his most trusted advisors aren't the ones who would seem to be pro 2a......

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/red-flag-supporting-ivanka-trump-now-putting-behind-scenes-efforts-gun-control/

ETA...forgot..... Also, all the democrat candidates are anti 2a.

[stanc]

Stan I'm interested to see which other candidate you prefer. I live in Va so I'm seeing first hand the all-out assault on the 2A...

I'm in CA. I've already experienced all that you in VA are now seeing.

There is no candidate that I like. Not that it matters. CA is dark blue.

As to Trump 2nd Amendment disappointments - I'm not nearly as wigged out as some folks. What matters most right now is the judiciary; of which he is nicely stacking with judges who know how to read.

Small consolation. The courts have never overturned a Federal gun law, and even conservative judges have held that the government can implement gun control laws.

As to Anti-Trump complaints - the most prolific of which is the BumpStock item; there's a lot more gnashing of teeth over that by others, than by me.

What his executive order DID do, is stave off Congress' momentum to pass Gun Control he might have to sign...

Why would he have had to sign any gun control bill? Why could he not have vetoed such a hypothetical bill?

I think you are rationalizing.

Philosophically, a shooter is responsible for every discharge. Baseline common available items that cause rapid discharges without the operator consciously actuating each and every shot, undermine that. I didn't care that people had bump-stocks (freedom!), but am not loosing a lot of sleep that they've been restricted. Indeed, I think one should legally be able to get a machine-gun with about as much effort as getting a CHL. But I'm the one guy in the gun-internet-forum willing say such things maybe shouldn't exactly be an over the counter item.

So, you're in favor of "reasonable" gun control legislation?