TexasCHLforum.com

was reading through Keep and Bear Arms website, read an article that referenced Trump's position on the 2nd.
Here is the link to the site (article) and Trump site referenced in the article.

http://www.knoxgunguy.com/2016/07/lets- ... tions.html

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/ ... ent-rights

GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.

Is this all talk or does this mean he is against the NFA, and the gun control act of 86? Does he actually think if I want to have a machine gun I should be allowed to have one without jumping thru government hoops? Or is he just against new bans? Over the last couple of months a vote for him is becoming more palatable but I don't see him doing away with any of the aforementioned acts.

jason812 wrote:
Is this all talk or does this mean he is against the NFA, and the gun control act of 86? Does he actually think if I want to have a machine gun I should be allowed to have one without jumping thru government hoops? Or is he just against new bans? Over the last couple of months a vote for him is becoming more palatable but I don't see him doing away with any of the aforementioned acts.

Don't worry about it. He can't do that, even if he wanted to and tried.

Remember the lines in "The Distinguished Gentleman."

Thomas Jefferson Johnson: Terry, tell me something. With all this money coming in from both sides, how does anything ever get done?
Terry Corrigan: It doesn't. That's the genius of the system.

First if all, if he proposed doing away with all federal firearms laws, Senator Feinstein would block every appointment requiring confirmation until he came to his senses, and the rest of the Commies formerly known as Democrats would go along with it. They would shut down the government just like they would to defund Planned Parenthood and other good ideas so dear to their hearts. I'm not entirely confident even some Republicans would back him.

Literally, our system was designed so almost nothing could be done without broad support, even the stuff that makes you mad.

Wether he would or wouldn't it really doesn't matter because there is no way that legislation would get through either chamber of congress, but just having a President that won't sign anymore gun control foolishness would be a YUGE benefit, who know maybe we could get some incremental role back!

crazy2medic wrote:Wether he would or wouldn't it really doesn't matter because there is no way that legislation would get through either chamber of congress, but just having a President that won't sign anymore gun control foolishness would be a YUGE benefit, who know maybe we could get some incremental role back!

I think you have to apply a "political election" filter ( for lack of a better phrase) to the position statement.
So, I personally interpret it to mean no additional laws, and maybe some roll back as crazy2medic states.

I doubt Trump even knows that NFA items are, much less that he'd make their repeal a campaign issue. That's not the point. The point is that if Hillary is elected, she will appoint anti-gun justices to the Supreme Court who will be chomping at the bit to overturn Heller and worse, not to mention continuing to push the envelope of anti-gun executive orders and the constant drumbeat of "gun control" from the bully pulpit. The line is going to crack sooner rather than later.

For all his faults, and there are many including past anti-gun statements and positions, Trump has been fairly consistent about the type of justices he would appoint and he was been a fairly consistent defender of the 2nd Amendment in broad terms since he started his campaign. If you are at all concerned over gun rights, and you wouldn't be on this board if you weren't, there is simply no other choice this election. A Hillary victory all but guarantees that we will see an erosion of the 2nd amendment, if not its outright invalidation. I don't see how we are doing ourselves any favors by questioning Trump's commitment to making automatic weapons more accessible - that's an uphill battle in the best of times, certainly not when we are literally on the brink of losing the country. Trump may or may not be the "savior" but right now he represents our only hope of at least buying some time to mount a better defense.