President Trump Promises Concealed Carry Reciprocity When Reelected

[NatBoh]

This is not meant for anyone in particular, it’s just a question

If in the next election the choice is Trump or Biden or any other leftist liberal who absolutely positively wants to strip you of your rights

Who’d do you vote for?

It’s too early to know who I’d vote for at this point, but I won’t ever vote for a known grabber. R or D it does not matter, they have squandered their right to be my elected official.

 

[44man]

Catbert!!!!

If for no other reason than 'The Democrat' will take Maryland with well over a 60% margin

Yes maryland sucks that way, and many other ways also but the leftist can’t get my vote no matter where I live. So again I ask the question, Trump or the commie leftists?

 

[44man]

It’s too early to know who I’d vote for at this point, but I won’t ever vote for a known grabber. R or D it does not matter, they have squandered their right to be my elected official.

I guess the choice I now see is who will squander fewer of my rights, the republicans who at least make belief they won’t or the leftists who campaign on taking my rights

If it’s trump or Biden, I have no choice but to vote trump

 

[NatBoh]

I guess the choice I now see is who will squander fewer of my rights, the republicans who at least make belief they won’t or the leftists who campaign on taking my rights

If it’s trump or Biden, I have no choice but to vote trump

A reasonable position for sure. I’m just sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils and then continue to witness further erosion of rights and liberties, albeit at a somewhat slower rate.

 

[Occam]

Well, which is it? Are we expanding background checks, or are we not?

You're deliberately pretending you can't tell the difference between expanding background checks and actually USING the ones that are in place to do things like prevent crazy people from buying guns. Actually getting the reporting agencies to do what the law ALREADY requires (see: killer Air Force guy), not hiding violent histories with long records of police interaction (see: Parkland) is NOT "expanding" background checks. It's bothering to use them as written. We don't need more of them, at all. NICS works fine. But people who are supposed to feed it sometimes don't. How are you not getting this?

Do we have a gun problem or a people problem?

Background checks are indeed about PEOPLE with bad problems. Since you can't actually be asking what you wrote, what's your actual point in asking that question? Be specific.

And no, I disagree. The bill of rights is exactly that. Rights. There is only so much pre-crime that is possible.

Which is why things like NICS are meant to tell people like your local gun shop owner not to sell to someone who has already left a trail of criminality or alarming craziness behind them. Not in the future, but in their actual lives and actions. Is this new information to you, somehow?

"mass shootings" (though horrible) still only make up a tiny percent of gun deaths in this country.

Yeah, true. So? The fact that the overwhelming majority of people don't care that you want a bumpstock and got the impression that the crazy guy in Vegas did in fact use them to slaughter a LOT of people caused just what you might expect: a lot of legislators ready and willing to legislatively ban them, and to use the occasion of such legislation to do a lot worse (AWB 2.0, an actual expansion of background checks, and much more). That got, happily, short-circuited by the executive action now being challenged. The willingness of legislators to head down the ever-more-infringe-y path is a function of their constituents screaming about events like Parkland and Vegas. Doesn't mean it's rational, or that they have their threat calculus calibrated to reality, it just means they are reacting emotionally in enormous numbers and that's all the steam that legislators need to cave in. Trump took the fun out of that by removing support for such legislation in the least damaging way possible under the circumstances. All of which you know. So what's your point?

Until we have effectively addressed the majority of ways that guns are used to end life, let's not infringe on the rights of the 99.99% of gun owners who aren't a threat to themselves or others.

Who are you preaching to, here?

Finally, if keeping "dangerously crazy" people (whatever that means) from having firearms means just one person is stripped of their rights unjustly, then it is not worth it.

I think that dangerously crazy people should be locked up. If they're too dangerous to own firearms, they're too dangerous to have access to gasoline, knives, or their bare hands. But because there are a LOT of them out and about owing to a long, complex few decades of misplaced compassion and wishful thinking, we have them among us. They are (if they've been institutionalized for 30 days+ etc) on the no-guns-for-you list - but we have no mechanism for no-knives-for-you-list or anything else for obvious reasons. Too dangerous should be locked up, but they aren't. That's reality. Not until some small number of them do something terrible. The Parkland murderer gave off YEARS of signals that he was going to end up doing something awful, but contemporary politics kept him out and about. Solve THAT, and much of the how-crazy-shouldn't-have-a-gun stuff just goes away. In the meantime, reality is reality.

Finally: get your facts straight. It was the Air Force, not the Navy. He got a Bad Conduct Discharge, not a Dishonorable Discharge. Which is not disqualifying for firearms ownership.

Oh no! I misremembered his service branch and thus my entire point is now irrelevant! But how about you get YOUR facts straight? He was convicted in a court martial of a domestic violence charge, and absolutely WAS thus a prohibited person. The record of that conviction never made it to NICS. Fixing that doesn't "expand background checks," it seeks to make it work correctly by making sure reporting agencies (like the DoD) actually do what they're supposed to.

The parkland shooter suffered from a TBI and depression. Both are hardly worthy of "dangerously crazy" or revocation of rights.

He also had a long list of violently abusive encounters with terrified household members resulting a long string of visits by local law enforcement. Many of those events would have resulted in criminal charges and convictions but for the political pressure to ease off of him for some hand-wavy function of his somewhat-Latino heritage. Likewise with the countless occasions that his fellow students, JROTC members, and teachers reported extreme discomfort with his behavior and stated threats. The father of one of his victims has gone to a lot of trouble to document the entire thing for you. Read Pollack's Why Meadow Died for an incredibly painful play by play of how policies of political correctness and "restorative justice" and the usual witch's brew of nonsensical educational and law enforcement policies based on identity politics allowed a repeatedly violent and threatening person to keep a spotless legal history when it came to his NICS check. Why are you soft-selling that guy's long, well documented history of violence?

 

[44man]

A reasonable position for sure. I’m just sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils and then continue to witness further erosion of rights and liberties, albeit at a somewhat slower rate.

I completely understand

I hate politics and politicians

 

[eruby]

Yes maryland sucks that way, and many other ways also but the leftist can’t get my vote no matter where I live. So again I ask the question, Trump or the commie leftists?

If not Catbert, then yes Trump

 

[Blacksmith101]

In the wake of the Parkland and Vegas murders (Vegas being the one that really did the job), bill write-ups were circulating in both houses, based mostly on the Feinstein model. Whips from both parties were seeing significant squirming from the GOP side, with at least a dozen senators saying they'd back such a bill. It got through multiple edits, and there was already celebration in the Pelosi circles about how it was finally their time to get it done ... and the lobbyists, legal types, and reps from every 2A-friendly org were getting swamped with panicked calls from the dwindling minority who saw the inevitability of a bumpstock ban law, with an AWB frosting on that cake. It was days from happening when lawyers pitched the White House with the idea of killing support for the wider bill by administratively beating them to the punch on the one item. It worked, and the Dems were furious at the delightful and total drop of support from the RINO-types in the Senate who had been immediately ready to act on such a bill. The administrative action gave them cover, and the wider legislation died in the face of an inevitable filibuster once those votes were back in the barn where they belonged.

I'll have to find a years-old link to some reading. A couple or three lawyers who worked with the NRA and the shooting sports lobbies were hip deep in the last-minute maneuver and wrote a lengthy play-by-play of what a close shave it was, and named names. A number of legislators interviewed afterwards came right out and said that the play was the undoing of a fresh AWB. Bump stocks were going to get the legislative treatment, or the executive treatment, period. There was no way to avoid it given mass murder in Vegas. We got the MUCH better deal, especially because fighting the executive action in court may actually give us a far better position against other ATF nonsense in the long run.

If you can remember some websites try Internet Archive Wayback Machine to find the archived copies. Here is the link:

Wayback Machine

web.archive.org

 

[MDFF2008]

How to tell people you don't understand the filibuster without coming out and telling people you don't understand the filibuster.

Honestly, I could see Trump pushing Republicans to get rid of the filibuster to do the stuff Trump wants, and be damned what happens when they lose the Senate because it fits Trump's "all about me" personality.

Honestly, after Vegas, it sounds like the Republicans were about to jump ship and support an AWB, and Trump found a way to keep things together as best he could. I think this may have been a case where absolutism would have resulted in a total loss.

I don't believe this promise though, it sounds like pandering in the face of knowing he's losing.

 

[44man]

If not Catbert, then yes Trump

Ok
I don’t understand catbert, I am a simply redneck raised at the end of a 2 lane road to nowhere across a bridge on an island

Please explain, and like I am a 5 year old lol

But yes trump over any leftist commie is how I must vote also

 

[MeatGrinder]

Ok
I don’t understand catbert, I am a simply redneck raised at the end of a 2 lane road to nowhere across a bridge on an island

Please explain, and like I am a 5 year old lol

But yes trump over any leftist commie is how I must vote also

Catbert is a character from the Dilbert comic strip.

 

[Occam]

Honestly, I could see Trump pushing Republicans to get rid of the filibuster to do the stuff Trump wants, and be damned what happens when they lose the Senate because it fits Trump's "all about me" personality.

If the GOP takes a slim majority in senate, they won’t kill the filibuster. Too much inevitable blowback and they know it.

Honestly, after Vegas, it sounds like the Republicans were about to jump ship and support an AWB, and Trump found a way to keep things together as best he could. I think this may have been a case where absolutism would have resulted in a total loss.

It was only a dozen or so in purple states. Yes it was a near disaster.

I don't believe this promise though, it sounds like pandering in the face of knowing he's losing.

Again, all he promised was that he’d sign it if it was put on his desk. His words. Headline is clickbait.

 

[Boats]

You're deliberately pretending you can't tell the difference between expanding background checks and actually USING the ones that are in place to do things like prevent crazy people from buying guns. Actually getting the reporting agencies to do what the law ALREADY requires (see: killer Air Force guy), not hiding violent histories with long records of police interaction (see: Parkland) is NOT "expanding" background checks. It's bothering to use them as written. We don't need more of them, at all. NICS works fine. But people who are supposed to feed it sometimes don't. How are you not getting this?

Background checks are indeed about PEOPLE with bad problems. Since you can't actually be asking what you wrote, what's your actual point in asking that question? Be specific.

Which is why things like NICS are meant to tell people like your local gun shop owner not to sell to someone who has already left a trail of criminality or alarming craziness behind them. Not in the future, but in their actual lives and actions. Is this new information to you, somehow?

Yeah, true. So? The fact that the overwhelming majority of people don't care that you want a bumpstock and got the impression that the crazy guy in Vegas did in fact use them to slaughter a LOT of people caused just what you might expect: a lot of legislators ready and willing to legislatively ban them, and to use the occasion of such legislation to do a lot worse (AWB 2.0, an actual expansion of background checks, and much more). That got, happily, short-circuited by the executive action now being challenged. The willingness of legislators to head down the ever-more-infringe-y path is a function of their constituents screaming about events like Parkland and Vegas. Doesn't mean it's rational, or that they have their threat calculus calibrated to reality, it just means they are reacting emotionally in enormous numbers and that's all the steam that legislators need to cave in. Trump took the fun out of that by removing support for such legislation in the least damaging way possible under the circumstances. All of which you know. So what's your point?

Who are you preaching to, here?

I think that dangerously crazy people should be locked up. If they're too dangerous to own firearms, they're too dangerous to have access to gasoline, knives, or their bare hands. But because there are a LOT of them out and about owing to a long, complex few decades of misplaced compassion and wishful thinking, we have them among us. They are (if they've been institutionalized for 30 days+ etc) on the no-guns-for-you list - but we have no mechanism for no-knives-for-you-list or anything else for obvious reasons. Too dangerous should be locked up, but they aren't. That's reality. Not until some small number of them do something terrible. The Parkland murderer gave off YEARS of signals that he was going to end up doing something awful, but contemporary politics kept him out and about. Solve THAT, and much of the how-crazy-shouldn't-have-a-gun stuff just goes away. In the meantime, reality is reality.

Oh no! I misremembered his service branch and thus my entire point is now irrelevant! But how about you get YOUR facts straight? He was convicted in a court martial of a domestic violence charge, and absolutely WAS thus a prohibited person. The record of that conviction never made it to NICS. Fixing that doesn't "expand background checks," it seeks to make it work correctly by making sure reporting agencies (like the DoD) actually do what they're supposed to.


He also had a long list of violently abusive encounters with terrified household members resulting a long string of visits by local law enforcement. Many of those events would have resulted in criminal charges and convictions but for the political pressure to ease off of him for some hand-wavy function of his somewhat-Latino heritage. Likewise with the countless occasions that his fellow students, JROTC members, and teachers reported extreme discomfort with his behavior and stated threats. The father of one of his victims has gone to a lot of trouble to document the entire thing for you. Read Pollack's Why Meadow Died for an incredibly painful play by play of how policies of political correctness and "restorative justice" and the usual witch's brew of nonsensical educational and law enforcement policies based on identity politics allowed a repeatedly violent and threatening person to keep a spotless legal history when it came to his NICS check. Why are you soft-selling that guy's long, well documented history of violence?

Stop fear mongering, and armchair quarterbacking. The amount of dangerously insane people out there isn't a LOT. It isn't even a little. Statistically it is 0%. Most crazy people that I have worked with (~90% of the less than .1%) are harmless except to themselves.

And while it is a slippery slope argument, I admit, do you really want rights revoked because a (in this area) Bloomberg funded doctor said he is crazy? Or have rights revoked because someone made someone else uncomfortable? Which diagnoses should be disqualifying? Schizophrenia? Bi-Polar? Depression? Anxiety? Nervous Breakdown? Feeling Down?

I can agree that the Parkland shooter made a lot of threats. But he was never convicted. And rights shouldn't be taken away outside of due process. Right? Or maybe you are in favor of red flag laws? Like: This guy who is open carrying makes me feel nervous, take his guns. He seems creepy, take his guns. I overheard him say something about killing someone, take his guns. He said on MDS that pedos should be fed to woodchoppers, take his guns. Again, a slippery slope argument, but considering the SWATing, cancel culture society we live in, a realistic one.

Or worse yet:. we cannot corroborate any of these claims but let's take his guns just to be safe.

No. The amount of dangerously crazy people is a lot less than you think it is. The amount of mass shootings is a lot less than you think it is.

The whole debate on gun control shouldn't even be a debate and Trump saying this is just another flip flop of his opinions about guns. Plus, if the AWB had passed both houses, he could have vetoed it instead of your version of a complicated chess game.

 

[44man]

Catbert is a character from the Dilbert comic strip.

Ahhh

Thank you

I don’t believe I have ever read a comic strip so that’s why I would not understand. But now I do

 

[Bob A]

He can go fvck himself, he is an egotistical narcissist who is trying to fool people. He doesn't give 2 cents about our rights.

Describes almost every politician, ever, and certainly 95% of every national level elected official over the last 30 years.

You want saints, go to church. You won't find them in public life.

 

[coinboy]

Says the man who promised it the first time and didn't get it done.

Then he banned bump stocks.

Trump ain't pro gun.

Change my mind...

 

[eruby]

Catbert is a character from the Dilbert comic strip.

And not just a character, but he's the evil H. R. Director at Dilbert's company

I LOVE Catbert

 

[wpage]

Promises, promises, from politicians. Good luck with that.

Trump had his shot. It was a good thing. Its time for a new changer to try to serve God and country honestly the American way.

 

[LAC_MD]

Why didn’t he do it his first term as President?

Yeah exactly… he is full of manure

 

[danimalw]

Describes almost every politician, ever, and certainly 95% of every national level elected official over the last 30 years.

You want saints, go to church. You won't find them in public life.

Agreed,95% of elected officials are all about them and fvck the people.

Tar, feather, Congress.. some assembly required.

I am fortunate that my state senator and representative are in Harrisburg to work for US and take their oath seriously.