ChrisWeigant.com

Will The N.R.A. Attack Trump?

[ Posted Wednesday, February 28th, 2018 – 17:21 PST ]

The word "mercurial" is an elegant one, perhaps overly so. When used to describe President Donald Trump -- as it often is -- it lends him a certain majesty that he doesn't really deserve. Mercurial conjures up an image of quicksilver, liquid and shiny but impossible to pin down. Which is why so many in the media use the word to describe Trump, after all. But a more honest assessment would be that Trump just says whatever pops into his head at that particular moment, even if it blatantly contradicts something else he might have said minutes earlier.

A prime example of this was on display today, as Trump met with select members of Congress to discuss possible gun safety legislation in the wake of the Florida school shooting. Here's how the report in the Washington Post began:

Less than half an hour into his meeting with lawmakers on Wednesday, President Trump urged the illegal confiscation of guns, told a Republican (to his face) that he was scared of the N.R.A. and threw a series of wrenches into Congress's legislative strategy on guns.

In other words, another meeting with Trump.

OK, that's a bit snarkier than just calling Trump "mercurial," I have to admit. During the course of the meeting, Trump (quite accurately) said Republicans were "petrified" of the N.R.A., and when Senator Patrick Toomey didn't express support for raising the age limit on buying long guns to 21, Trump told him right to his face: "You know why? Because you're afraid of the N.R.A." Later on, more generically, Trump said of the Republicans and the N.R.A.: "They have great power over you people. They have less power over me."

Those are all pretty extraordinary things for a Republican president to say. Especially a president who met with the leaders of the N.R.A. days after the shooting, so they could feed him talking points to begin using immediately afterwards -- which Trump then largely did, at least for the space of a few days. Last weekend, Trump was in lockstep with the N.R.A.'s agenda. Today, not so much.

Today, the Trump that showed up to the meeting seemed to be of a completely different mind about what to do. He ripped into the Republican positions and vocally supported the Democrats in the meeting -- even Senator Dianne Feinstein, the primary author of the 1990s assault weapons ban, and a nemesis of the pro-gun crowd from that point forward.

Trump, astonishingly, expressed support for the biggest bugaboo the pro-gun people have ever had: proactively taking guns away from people the government thinks shouldn't have them. When red flags are raised with law enforcement, Trump said: "I think they should have them [their guns] taken away, whether they had the right or not. Take the guns first, go through due process second." Trump also told the Republicans present that they should not only support a measure from Senator Amy Klobuchar which would prevent domestic abusers from getting guns, but that they should add it into the stripped-down Republican bills: "If you could add that into this bill... can you add some of the things? Can you add what Amy and Dianne have?" The Feinstein proposal he was referring to was to revive the ban on assault weapons.

Trump went even further, though. Not only did he support all the Democratic ideas, but he actively told the Republicans to drop one of their own agenda items -- allowing one state's concealed-carry permit to be valid nationwide. Trump singled this out as something which should be dropped: "If you add concealed-carry to this bill, you'll never get it passed." Indeed, Trump executed so many breathtaking reversals of his previously-stated positions during the meeting he probably could have qualified for an Olympic medal (if he had performed it on ice, to some appropriate music).

Trump also expressed his desire for one big bill rather than individual measures that were limited in scope. So we have a Republican president pressuring Republicans in Congress to stand up to the N.R.A. and fight them on: an assault weapons ban, concealed-carry laws, age limits to buy long guns, and outright confiscation of guns without due process. Oh, and he also said he'd take care of banning bump stocks on his own, with no congressional action necessary. To state the obvious: if Trump were still a Democrat, the N.R.A. would at this very moment be rolling out a multimillion-dollar "He's coming to take your guns!" ad campaign with the intent of politically burying him.

Will they do so against Donald Trump? It's hard to say. Today Trump not only took the opposing side to pretty much every N.R.A. position, he went further than most Democrats ever would with that offhanded "Take the guns first, due process second" comment. Again, if Trump were a Democrat, this would become an instant rallying cry from the pro-gun crowd. Comparisons to Alice's Red Queen ("Sentence first, verdict afterwards!") would be made, since it's so easy to do. Trump would instantly become the biggest target the N.R.A. ever had, magnified into boogey-man proportions and complete with dire warnings about the loss of freedom and liberty. You know, the usual thing from them, just on steroids.

Since Trump has an "R" after his name, though, one wonders if the reaction will be the same. Or perhaps it's not just the party label, but in Trump's case his mercurial possibilities. After all, Trump is seldom consistent. Remarks today can be easily forgotten tomorrow. Sometimes, even, Trump doesn't just forget the previous remarks, he actually denies they ever existed or were said by him. That is an opening an advocacy group seldom has with other politicians (for obvious, non-mercurial reasons).

Which means the N.R.A., if it is smart, won't bother demonizing Trump and his remarks today, but instead will quietly schedule another lunch so Trump can be convinced to completely flip all his positions once again. One lunch is a lot cheaper than a multimillion-dollar ad campaign, after all.

Some pundits will gleefully be speculating about a true showdown between Trump and the N.R.A., because it would indeed be entertaining to see Republican politicians twist in that tornado-strength wind. If Trump really has shifted position and won't shift back then it does set up a battle royale on the right, as politicians have to decide whether to buck their own president or an organization that their most fervent base dearly loves. That's a tough choice, obviously.

Personally, I doubt it'll come down to that, though. Trump is not known for his ability to follow through on his splashy televised White House meetings, after all. Now that he's taken every possible position under the sun on gun laws, he may just sit back and let the fur fly in Congress, while tweeting disparaging things from the sidelines no matter what happens. That seems a much more likely outcome.

Today, Trump played the tough guy -- someone who could stand up to the N.R.A. and fight them for what is right rather than what is politically expedient. We'll see how long that lasts, especially if Fox News expresses disapproval tomorrow morning. The biggest question at this point is how the N.R.A. will react. Will they take the bait? Will they enter into a battle royale with Trump? Again, if Trump were a Democrat, we wouldn't even be pondering this question, because the attack ads would likely already be airing. If Trump sticks to his guns (so to speak) and does take on the N.R.A. directly, he is setting up a big fight within his most fervent base. Who will they support -- Trump or the N.R.A.? The next few weeks are certainly going to be interesting, that's for sure.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

68 Comments on “Will The N.R.A. Attack Trump?”

  1. [1] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Now that he's taken every possible position under the sun on gun laws, he may just sit back and let the fur fly in Congress, while tweeting disparaging things from the sidelines no matter what happens. That seems a much more likely outcome.

    Absolutely, especially since he doesn't seem to know a thing about how to actually get legislation passed that isn't being shepherded through congress by a party leader. Trump's mind might be a carnival funhouse, but Paul Ryan's works with the clockwork precision of a Disneyworld Ride. Nothing will get through the House or Senate without Ryan's or McConnell's say-so, and that's the end of it.

    Trump could lambast them, but they've suffered that before already, and all Ryan's got to worry about politically is his cartoon opponent in the midterms.

    So Trump might even be saying to lawmakers privately: "Hey, just doing a little PR here. Nothing to worry about."

    Which they already know, but humoring Trump is a thing folks do these days.

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    If Blotus actually follows through on any of this it will be stunning. Gun-nuts are (what percentage of?) his base. And gun-nuts seem to cherish their weapons above all else. Would they tolerate this? If they did it would be another shock. That would mean their tribal-trumpism is literally their strongest allegiance.

    Alternatively it might mean they're willing to moderate their gundamentalism because they know perfectly well (though they won't admit it) their extreme positions are stupid and dangerous and self-defeating and Blotus would "give them permission" to move towards sanity.

    Then there's the NRA - which is lobbyist for gun manufacturers pretending to be a group for gun enthusiasts. How would the NRA respond? How would the gun-nuts respond to the NRA if it turns against Blotus?

    The deplorables have been willing to put up with every Blotus failing to date. Would this be a bridge too far for the gundamentalists among them?

    As CW says, the NRA may just stay mum for now, waiting and hoping Blotus will revert to form and forget he made any of these statements, or deny them. A week from now we could easily be back to police-blaming and teacher-arming as though this meeting never happened. I think that's far more likely than Blotus making positive gun-control moves.

    If so, will that penetrate the heads of Trumpers? Will it bother them at all? Will they realize how tenuous Blotus' positions actually are? Will it matter to them that Blotus will literally agree with whoever got to him last?

    OTOH: what will I think of Blotus if he actually does follow through with real gun-control? I can't predict my response. It seems so unlikely. What do you do when the bad guy does a good thing? While continuing to do a bunch of other bad things? It would certainly help his eventual his legacy. He'll still go down in disgrace one way or another, but it would be better, I would think, to go down with at least one genuine achievement.

    I expect we'll know pretty quickly how this is going to unwind.

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: But a more honest assessment would be that Trump just says whatever pops into his head at that particular moment, even if it blatantly contradicts something else he might have said minutes earlier.

    And another truthful analysis is that Trump just spews diarrhea of the mouth and flings whatever poo pops into his head, riddled with heaps of venal self-aggrandizement, claiming it's a good thing he's going to do something about guns because it's something that his predecessor(s) never even tried to do *cough* bullshit *cough*, particularly when everyone in the room knows he's full of it.

    manurial

    adjective

    Of, relating to, or of the nature of manure.

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/manurial

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Trying to figure out where Trump stands from what Trump says is like trying to see the hidden shape in a dot picture where there is no hidden shape. You might think you see something, but there is nothing there.

    But even if it was just for a fleeting moment, Trump showed more courage taking on the NRA then the Big Money Democrat Deniers have ever shown standing up to the Big Money interests that control the Democratic Party.

    Come on CW, are you really going to let yourself be outdone by Trump?

  5. [5] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Long story made short: Trump is changing the subject to divert public attention. That's one of his tricks. Another is suing people or things. I think his base will understand and keep still. I notice the NRA is throwing a lot of add money around. They get what's going on.

  6. [6] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, soon, Trump will have no Hope left. And if Jared and Ivanka are forced out of the White House (as I think is becoming inevitable), Trump will be left sitting in the Oval Office holding the only regular day job with regular hours he's held in his life.

    With no family around (oh, sure, Melania might jet down from NY for lunch once in awhile), and all of his most trusted advisors disappearing one by one, I wonder how long Trump will want to keep this job he clearly hates. If he decides not to run for a second term, I might actually not be surprised.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's what ya'all don't get about the NRA... It's simply an organization of Americans.. Of American VOTERS...

    So, when ya'all scream hysterically THE NRA IS CONTROLLING WASHINGTON!!!! what ya'all are REALLY saying is that AMERICAN VOTERS ARE CONTROLLING WASHINGTON..

    Which is as it SHOULD be...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Less than half an hour into his meeting with lawmakers on Wednesday, President Trump urged the illegal confiscation of guns, told a Republican (to his face) that he was scared of the N.R.A. and threw a series of wrenches into Congress's legislative strategy on guns.

    In other words, another meeting with Trump.

    Of course, nothing like that actually happened..

    Another bullshit anonymous report from WaPoop...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    I notice the NRA is throwing a lot of add money around.

    Any facts to support that claim??

    No?? Of course not...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    If he decides not to run for a second term, I might actually not be surprised.

    Except he has already announced he IS running for a second term and has named his campaign manager for 2020...

    Don'tcha just HATE it when facts and reality comes around and bites your bullshit hysterical Anti-Trump delusion on it's ass?? :D

  11. [11] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Except he has already announced he IS running for a second term and has named his campaign manager for 2020...

    Except he's Trump, and could change his mind at the drop of a hat, so there's time. I'm not saying he won't, just that I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

    I wouldn't for that matter, be surprised at anything he did. Bugs Bunny is more predictable.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except he's Trump, and could change his mind at the drop of a hat, so there's time. I'm not saying he won't, just that I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

    "If he decides not to run for a second term,"

    That's what you said...

    Jesus, can't you admit you made a mistake???

    Are you SO ate up with HHPTDS you can't even admit a mistake??

    You are SOOO much like you accuse President Trump of being..

  13. [13] 
    John M wrote:

    [8] Michale

    "Less than half an hour into his meeting with lawmakers on Wednesday, President Trump urged the illegal confiscation of guns, told a Republican (to his face) that he was scared of the N.R.A. and threw a series of wrenches into Congress's legislative strategy on guns.

    In other words, another meeting with Trump.

    Of course, nothing like that actually happened..

    Another bullshit anonymous report from WaPoop..."

    BULLSHIT Michale. IT'S ON TAPE. GOOGLE IT YOURSELF WHERE YOU CAN SEE AND HEAR TRUMP HIMSELF SAY IT< UNLESS YOU ARE TOO AFRAID.

  14. [14] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'd guess that 45 likes running for President a lot more than actually being President.

    I mean, isn't it a bit unusual for a President to stage campaign rallies in his few months in office? Or pick his campaign manager before he even has security clearances for everybody on his staff?

    This sad little man loves being in front of an adoring crowd who validate him - and given that he is immensely vain and has spend several decades being ridiculed in his home town by all the people he really wants to impress, is anybody surprised?

    I expect he will want to be on the ballot in 2020.

  15. [15] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yup, the NRA definitely need another session blowing smoke up 45's cavernous ass and remind him that the only solution to gun violence is more profits for gun manufacturers.

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    And the gun manufacturers are only going to get more desperate.

    Since the election the Russell 2000 Index (which includes the gun manufacturers below) has gone up 30%.

    Without a scary black guy or a slandered woman in the White House, it seems that the fear of gun control has eased off, and with it, gun and ammo sales:

    American Outdoor Brands — maker of Smith & Wesson guns — down 66 percent

    Sturm Ruger & Co. - down 24 percent

    Vista Outdoor (VSTO) - half its revenue comes from ammo sales - down 53 percent

    Source: http://ritholtz.com/2018/03/piling-up-losses/

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd guess that 45 likes running for President a lot more than actually being President.

    Change Trump to Obama and you are still factually accurate..

    Pointless, but factually accurate..

    I mean, isn't it a bit unusual for a President to stage campaign rallies in his few months in office?

    You mean, like Odumbo did??

    I expect he will want to be on the ballot in 2020.

    You guys really live in yer own little worlds, don't you....

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the gun manufacturers are only going to get more desperate.

    Yea, because the FACTS prove beyond ANY doubt that, anytime the hysterical anti-gun nuts get a wild hare up their asses, gun sales sky rocket..

    Yea.. Gun manufacturers are "desperate"... Only in your world...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    2nd Amendment rights are as much about gun manufacturers making money as abortion rights are about fetal tissue suppliers making money...

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:
  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yea.. Gun manufacturers are "desperate"... Only in your world...

    And on Wall St - which is what they really care about.

    If you don't think they are looking at their share price and wishing Hillary had won, you don't know business.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you don't think they are looking at their share price and wishing Hillary had won, you don't know business.

    Of course their sales would have gone thru the roof if Hillary had been elected..,

    For a time...

    Then when Hillary actually tried to take people's guns??

    Civil war...

    And I don't think the gun manufacturers would want that.. Just as I don't think that the fetal tissue sellers would want a wholesale slaughter of babies...

  23. [23] 
    neilm wrote:

    Then when Hillary actually tried to take people's guns??

    The only politician who has threatened to take anybody's guns (and without due process or via a buyback) is your orange dolt.

    But since we know that he has no idea what he is talking about, he will be reprogrammed by the NRA and abnormal service will resume.

    Hillary stealing your guns - what a fertile, conspiracy addled world you've immersed yourself in.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only politician who has threatened to take anybody's guns (and without due process or via a buyback) is your orange dolt.

    Yea???

    Want me to prove you wrong???

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    Want me to prove you wrong???

    OK, but first, here is the verbatim quote from the meeting:

    “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. Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    “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. Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

    OK, since we're brassing some tacks here..

    Where is your fact that Trump actually said that???

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless, I don't need the answer to that to prove you wrong..

    The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine(clip), as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds.

    That is proposed by Democrats and pretty much includes EVERY modern weapon...

    ANY weapon that has a magazine/clip is banned..

    So, remind me again how it's only President Trump who is for banning guns..

    I seem to have forgotten what with all the FACTS to contrary...

    Once again, I prove you wrong.. And, once again, you'll run away...

  28. [28] 
    neilm wrote:

    “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. Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

    You can hear him say it yourself.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/politics/due-process-donald-trump-second-amendment/index.html

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine(clip), as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds.

    Source? (And I mean the full text of the bill, not a link to a gun nut blog.)

  30. [30] 
    Paula wrote:

    So the gun-nuts-not-happy part seems to be happening:
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/1/1745792/-The-Donald-Trump-fan-base-is-in-meltdown-after-Trump-suggested-new-gun-restrictions#read-more

    I wondered if Blotus flirting with real gun-control would be their redline or not.

    Not clear to me yet if Blotus has commenced backpedaling - Kelly (Liar) Conway has been out doing some of her trademark history rewriting but leaks from the WH say the WH is in (yet again) turmoil with no one knowing what Blotus will do/say next.

    Guess it depends on what gets sent to FOX. Blotus will follow FOX's lead. My bet is Blotus will soon be trumpeting the NRA's positions again.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can hear him say it yourself.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/politics/due-process-donald-trump-second-amendment/index.html

    My sound on my pooter crapped out yesterday.. Is it an actual audio clip?? Or just CNN saying that Trump said it???

    Source? (And I mean the full text of the bill, not a link to a gun nut blog.)

    OK.. So, if I PROVE to you that it's an actual bill sponsored by a Democrat, you'll concede the point???

  32. [32] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Where is your fact that Trump actually said that???

    Not surprised that he is asking...it was pointed out somewhere in one of the talking head shows this morning that foxiganda has yet to show the footage or talk about it. since, according to M, most of us live in an alternate universe maybe he will accept it from the you tube channel from WH.gov.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QI6gT7zxXg

    Exchange begins at 46:34 to 47:08

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Exchange begins at 46:34 to 47:08

    Which would be great if I could actually hear it. :D

    But, OK.. I'll take your word for it that it says what you say it says..

    Not surprised that he is asking..

    Of course it's not a surprise.. Ya'all have claimed SO MANY things that Trump said that turned out to be BS..

    Regardless of all that..

    I *AGREE* with Trump..

    Getting guns out of the hands of psychos is paramount.. "due process" can come later...

    Now, if only we could get the Democrat Party to get behind REAL Mental Health legislation that would converge mental health databases with gun own/carry applications..

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK.. So, if I PROVE to you that it's an actual bill sponsored by a Democrat, you'll concede the point??

    I can't wait around for you to make up your mind.. :D

    The Assault Weapons Ban of 2018 will prohibit the sale, transfer, production, and importation of:

    · Semi-automatic rifles and pistols with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine/clip;

    · Semi-automatic rifles with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds;

    · Semi-automatic shotguns with a military-style feature;

    · Any ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds;

    · And 205 specifically-named and listed firearms.
    https://cicilline.house.gov/press-release/cicilline-introduces-assault-weapons-ban-2018

    I added the "clip" because Democrats have proven that, as far as they are concerned, 'clip' and 'magazine' are interchangable...

    Regardless, this proves that a GUN BAN is a mainstream Democrat Party push.. Democrats want to ban every modern firearm, handgun or rifle...

    I really hope that Democrats push this for all their worth...

    Nothing would guarantee a GOP wave better...

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    Restricting sales to one class of ordinance (e.g. machine guns, semi-automatic rifles, bazookas, etc.) is not the same as saying:

    If your family think you are a nut, and the police agree, we can take away your guns and then figure out if you are a danger or not.

    Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree with Trump on this, but it isn't what the assault weapons ban you reference is saying. And admit it, if Hillary had said the same words that Trump said, you'd be freaking out and predicting a police state with babies being thrown in open flames and the hounds of hell running loose.

  36. [36] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Dow plunging after Trump announces that he's seriously considering 25% tariffs on Steel and 10% tariffs on Aluminum (there's tape of this too, Michale).

    Turns out, most of the cheaper steel being produced in the world turns out to be from our allies, in particular South Korea.

    This is more than a shot across the bow. The markets have been (remarkably) reticent to respond to Trump's outlandish statements, but this was apparently a (steel) bridge too far. Imagine what happens if he actually makes this law by executive order.

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    So another country wants to spend its tax dollars selling us steel below their costs because they've over invested (there's central planning for you), and instead of saying: "Thanks", we say, "Let's up the price of cars and everything else made of steel for 325M people to pretend we are going to save a few thousand jobs."

    And the thing is, this comes from a clown who wants us to believe that he is a great business brain.

    And even if you do agree that it is worth it to try to save steel jobs (which we won't, let's face reality), China are going to retaliate and target Trump country (soy bean farmers watch out!).

    This is asinine.

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    “Our Steel and Aluminum industries (and many others) have been decimated by decades of unfair trade and bad policy with countries from around the world,” Mr. Trump said on Twitter Thursday morning. “We must not let our country, companies and workers be taken advantage of any longer. We want free, fair and SMART TRADE!”

    Smart trade is where we win.

    Take an iPhone. Simplifying this down, there are three major costs to delivering a new iPhone:

    1. Design
    2. Components (screen, CPUs, etc.)
    3. Assembly

    #3 is human labor intense and China is battling other countries in a race to the bottom for how cheap they can provide hourly low skilled workers.

    #2 is investment in high tech infrastructure which S. Korea and Taiwan are doing, and again these are commodity markets now (25 years ago these plants were in California and Arizona because they were new technologies).

    #1 is why Apple and their employees are rich - this is where most of the money is spent.

    Steel is somewhere between #1 and #2 - and amazingly pointless industry for the U.S. to invest in or protect.

  39. [39] 
    neilm wrote:

    Steel is somewhere between #1 and #2 - and amazingly pointless industry for the U.S. to invest in or protect.

    sorry, should read:

    Steel is somewhere between #2 and #3 - and amazingly pointless industry for the U.S. to invest in or protect.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Restricting sales to one class of ordinance (e.g. machine guns, semi-automatic rifles, bazookas, etc.) is not the same as saying:

    It's restricting sales to ANY weapon with a detachable magazine or clip..

    That's pretty much ALL weapons, Neil...

    Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree with Trump on this, but it isn't what the assault weapons ban you reference is saying.

    It IS exactly what it is saying.. Banning all weapons with a detachable magazine or clip is banning pretty much ALL weapons..

    You can sugar coat it all you want, but it's SERIOUS legislation to ban weapons from someone besides Trump...

    I met your criteria and, as usual, you are trying to weasel out of it..

    Now ya'all know why I never bother any more..

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's restricting sales to ANY weapon with a detachable magazine or clip..

    OF any weapon...

  42. [42] 
    neilm wrote:

    It's restricting sales to ANY weapon with a detachable magazine or clip..

    OF any weapon...

    Really. There are no firearms that don't have a detachable magazine or clip?

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    Really. There are no firearms that don't have a detachable magazine or clip?

    Because I have one.

  44. [44] 
    TheStig wrote:

    This message isn't on the White House door mats, but think it should be-

    Welcome to Donald's Inferno.

    Abandon Hope, all ye who enter here.

  45. [45] 
    neilm wrote:

    Abandon Hope, all ye who enter here.

    Or even:

    Even Hope has abandoned here.

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5443707/Pennsylvania-based-church-host-ceremony-featuring-AR-15s.html

    You'd think this was "The Onion" ... but no, these nuts "married" their AR15s and closed local schools because of the number of guns around.

    Wonder what the honeymoon was like ... looks like some of these guys might have shot their bolt during the "kissing the bride/groom" portion.

  47. [47] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale-

    It's interesting that when talking about firearms, the colloquial is verboten but when the discussion turns to science you grasp on to the colloquial even when corrected. Why should we bother if you can't be?

    OF any weapon...

    Really? I haven't seen many swords, knives, battle axes, bows, crossbows, ect. with detachable magazines. Not to mention, were I to wander into just about any gun shop in America, I would find a wide selection of revolvers, break action shotguns, bolt action rifles as well as many variations of internal magazines under (and over) 10 rounds...

  48. [48] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    Of the 17 firearms that I owned during my hunting/shooting years, only a single one - a Browning .22 cal semi-auto pistol- had a detachable clip/magazine. Legitimate hunting guns have no use for high-capacity magazines.

  49. [49] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    C. R. Stucki-

    Though it is sort of funny my goose gun would fall under this law as it has a 3 round mag. Which I am led to believe is the maximum round capacity legally alowed for duck/goose hunting whether internal or external, or at least was when I bought it a few decades ago...

  50. [50] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If Trump wants to arm teachers, is he planning on making sure they have AR15’s or M16’s so that they have adequate firepower to take on a school shooter? Handguns are no match for high powered rifles. That’s why when you see the police responding to mass shootings, they use their rifles and not their sidearms.

    Of course Trump would have run in and stopped the shooter with his bare little hands, so maybe we should just have schools use overweight, orange-skinned, human comb-overs as security guards instead.

  51. [51] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Bashi

    I can;t see why it would. Most slide-action ('pump') and semi-auto shotguns have a 5 round tubular magazine which the Feds require to be restricted to 2 shells, for a 3 - shell total (one in the barrel, two in the tube) for migratory waterfowl. Surely those will remain legal under any gun laws.

    My goose gun was an O/U 30 in. dbl brl Browning Citori bored full and full, so capacity was never a factor. I did own a Rem. Mod 870 Pump action for duck hunting, which had to have a tube plug.

  52. [52] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    C. R. Stucki-

    That's why I like and keep the gun. It's bolt action with a detachable magazine. Now that you mention it, it might very well be a two shot mag with one in the chamber. Not too many people know that bolt action shotguns exist. Looks like an elephant gun from the business end. Haven't stocked shells for it in at least a couple of decades. Though, I guess I could use it as a Michale style assault weapon and bash someone over the head with it...

  53. [53] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Now, if only we could get the Democrat Party to get behind REAL Mental Health legislation that would converge mental health databases with gun own/carry applications..

    Unless there is a national gun registry, this would do nothing. You aren’t doing anything about the guns someone already owns, you’d only be preventing them from buying more guns (which isn’t a bad thing, it’s just not enough!).

    It is also easier to tie gun restrictions to a person’s actions than to try to get a doctor to say that they are not mentally stable enough to have access to a gun. If you are involved in a DV, your gun gets taken until a judge says you can have it back. Gotta history of physical violence, your guns go bye-bye! Involuntarily committed for a psychiatric evaluation.... your guns are held until a doctor clears you. There are just too many guns already owned in this country to think that gun control must only focus on keeping unstable people from being able to buy new guns!

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    20

    Red meat for the left...

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-deep-state-takes-out-the-white-houses-dark-clown-prince

    Written by my favorite Republican. Any righties who'd like to learn some facts from an educated intelligent conservative who doesn't mince words and knows his spit should be following every word of @TheRickWilson.

    The almost certain knowledge that Robert Mueller isn’t done with Jared by a long stretch doesn’t make it any easier for Trump, even as the red flags thrown up by Rod Rosenstein over the president’s son-in-law and very special adviser were one more sign of the urgency of closing up the leakiest, riskiest White House in history. The best part of this trap is that Trump (R-Oppositional Defiant Disorder) will be tempted to do the one thing that will make his political situation more politically tenuous and legally risky by restoring Jared’s clearances. It’s within his rights as the president, but he would be dumber than a sack of hammers to do so. A smart president would have already told Jared to pack up and get the hell out, but... oh, who are we kidding?

    This battle was only ever going to end one way, and in the war of the Deep State vs. Team Trump, the bad guys often make it easy by being greedy, sloppy, and stupid. Jared was all three.

    Jared is all three... just like his daddy-in-law Don. While this "we won't take a salary" rhetoric might impress the poor right-wing gullible/easily conned, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that billionaires seeking the presidency aren't exactly doing it for the bi-weekly government payroll check, and unfortunately for them Mueller is following the money.

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    50

    Of course Trump would have run in and stopped the shooter with his bare little hands, so maybe we should just have schools use overweight, orange-skinned, human comb-overs as security guards instead.

    *LOL* I know, right!?

    It's bad enough that Trump buys into his own con artistry self-aggrandizement bullshit, but anyone else who actually believes that Cadet Bone Spurs would run into a building with an active shooter to save the students most certainly needs to have their guns "taken away, whether they had the right or not. Take the guns first, go through due process second" in the manner that Trump is advocating. :)

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really. There are no firearms that don't have a detachable magazine or clip?

    Very old ones or very useless ones..

    That legislation would effectively ban 90% of guns available..

    Once again, I met your criteria and you can't admit you were wrong...

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Unless there is a national gun registry, this would do nothing.

    There already is a national registry..

    You aren’t doing anything about the guns someone already owns, you’d only be preventing them from buying more guns (which isn’t a bad thing, it’s just not enough!).

    If the legislation were in place it would have stopped 90% of the Crowd Based Mass Shootings in the last 20 years..

    It is also easier to tie gun restrictions to a person’s actions than to try to get a doctor to say that they are not mentally stable enough to have access to a gun. If you are involved in a DV, your gun gets taken until a judge says you can have it back. Gotta history of physical violence, your guns go bye-bye! Involuntarily committed for a psychiatric evaluation.... your guns are held until a doctor clears you. There are just too many guns already owned in this country to think that gun control must only focus on keeping unstable people from being able to buy new guns!

    OK, so because you can't confiscate everyone's guns that are already purchased, why bother preventing FUTURE psychos from getting guns...

    Yep, yer a Democrat all right..

    Just HAVE to protect yer social justice agenda, even at the expense of dead kids... :^/

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Trump wants to arm teachers, is he planning on making sure they have AR15’s or M16’s so that they have adequate firepower to take on a school shooter? Handguns are no match for high powered rifles.

    How you can be married to a cop and make such a totally boneheaded statement is beyond me...

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Once again, I met your criteria and you can't admit you were wrong...

    But I encourage you to push your Dumbocrats to support this agenda to the hilt!!

    I mean that.. Ya'all should really support this legislation and make sure any and all of your Dumbocrat...er.. "leaders" support it to...

    Doing so would make 2014 and 2016 seem like a fun Dumbocrat picnic by comparison..

    So, please.. REALLY push your Dumbocrats to support Cicilline's legislation..

    Please... :D

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    If Trump wants to arm teachers, is he planning on making sure they have AR15’s or M16’s so that they have adequate firepower to take on a school shooter? Handguns are no match for high powered rifles.

    I am throwing down a challenge....

    We'll find an old abandoned school.. I'll have my trusty GLOCK 40, combat loaded @ 16 with a pair of extended clips.. You can have a street legal AR15 with 10 50-rnd mags...

    We'll see who can take who out... We'll see who's weapon is outmatched by the other's.. :D

    In CQB, the AR15 is at a distinct disadvantage to the handgun...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FDW6nbv6VoAAipXN.jpg&key=o6T14F667kY8HDG9vVUeSQ&w=800&h=667

    This is exactly why ya'all's hysterical screams for a gun ban on 'assault' rifles is so laughably ridiculous....

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am throwing down a challenge....

    We'll find an old abandoned school.. I'll have my trusty GLOCK 40, combat loaded @ 16 with a pair of extended clips.. You can have a street legal AR15 with 10 50-rnd mags...

    We'll see who can take who out... We'll see who's weapon is outmatched by the other's.. :D

    In CQB, the AR15 is at a distinct disadvantage to the handgun...

    In the interests, we can use the MILES system..

    Or live fire, if you prefer..

    Makes me no never mind.. :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the interests, we can use the MILES system..

    Got ahead of myself there..

    In the interests OF SAFETY, we can use the MILES system..

  64. [64] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I see all the retailers are going to quit selling guns to teens. As I recall, the Sandy Hook teen used his mother's gun, or guns, don't recall which, so that's only a partial cure.

    Michale - How close is your "close" quarters? In a classroom, your handgun probably wins. In the gymnasium, the AR wins.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale - How close is your "close" quarters? In a classroom, your handgun probably wins. In the gymnasium, the AR wins.

    CQB is generally considered 0-20ft...

    In an open area, rifles definitely have an advantage.. Indoors or in an urban setting, give me a good glock with plenty of clips and I can take down a company.. :D

    Although it's no substitute for the real thing (but imminently safer) you can try COD shooters in FFA mode.. :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see all the retailers are going to quit selling guns to teens. As I recall, the Sandy Hook teen used his mother's gun, or guns, don't recall which, so that's only a partial cure.

    It's not really a cure at all.. The vast majority of shooters were over 21.. Of the few who weren't most stole their weapons..

    It's a Placebo law. A WOULDN'T IT BE NICE law.. And, because it basically bans guns from 18-21 year olds, it would be unconstitutional...

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Put another way...

    Try raising the voting age to 21... See how well THAT goes.. :D

  68. [68] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    No legislation at least until this calendar gets a lot shorter.

    https://ballotpedia.org/State_and_federal_candidate_filing_deadlines_for_2018

Comments for this article are closed.