Can it be?: We may lose more gun rights under Trump than Obama?

[Doug.38PR]

Trump again today stressed wanting to ban bump stocks.

The NRA, last week I believe, decided to stay silent on the issue for now until they see what develops.

The NRA and Republicans dug in and fought hard against Obama and defeated all his attempts to violate our rights. But now Trump and Sessions are proposing banning bump stocks and raising age limits and even other Republicans such as Gov. Rick Scott caving to this.

So we have more to fear from Republicans when they are in charge than we do from Democrats when they are in charge?

I don't get it.

[Jusme]

Fortunately, nothing can be done, ( Constitutionally) by executive order, regarding, arms restrictions. That being said, I too, fear, with Trump's statements, RINOs, will jump on board, and cave to media, and left wing pressure, and make stupid decisions.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Let me think about this for a moment. Is there any gun-related issue to hang our hat on that is worse than bump-stocks? That didn't take long . . . no, there nothing worse. Before getting to upset or casting too large a stone, take a few minutes to learn what is going on in Washington.

Chas.

[RoyGBiv]

Gotta stop trying to play checkers when the game is 3D Chess against a lying, manipulative opponent that doesn't mind knocking over the board when they're losing.

[strogg]

If there's one thing I learned about politics, that is never to rely on party lines for any legislation. Things have a way of going sideways. Think about it. Obama with the national parks carry? Regan and the Hughes Amendment? Basically, the fight is never over. Fortunately, for now, it's just a lot of noise. We'll see how it progresses.

[CleverNickname]

It's almost like Trump is a liberal Republican who's only pro-gun to the extent that it gets him votes, not because of any personal convictions. Who would have thought that a guy who wrote "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun" might not be 100% on our side?

[Oldgringo]

There is a growing ground swell against guns and gun laws as they now exist in this country. If all we lose is bump stocks, I'll be greatly relieved.

[Soccerdad1995]

Let me think about this for a moment. Is there any gun-related issue to hand our hat on that is worse than bump-stocks? That didn't take long . . . no, there nothing worse. Before getting to upset or casting too large a stone, take a few minutes to learn what is going on in Washington.

Chas.

If I thought for one second that giving up our right to own bump stocks would derail or even slow down the antis, then I might be willing to support a limited restriction. But I fear that a victory for the gun grabbers on this front will only encourage them to press harder toward the fulfillment of their ultimate goal.

I am also weary of "scope creep" on any bump stock legislation. The ban on sale / manufacture of bump stocks is one thing. Making it retroactive (i.e. confiscation) and expanding the definition to "any device that increases the rate of fire" is something else entirely. What happens when people realize that common everyday items can be used to facilitate bump firing, and the only way to stop the practice is to ban semi-auto firearms entirely?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Let me think about this for a moment. Is there any gun-related issue to hand our hat on that is worse than bump-stocks? That didn't take long . . . no, there nothing worse. Before getting to upset or casting too large a stone, take a few minutes to learn what is going on in Washington.

Chas.

If I thought for one second that giving up our right to own bump stocks would derail or even slow down the antis, then I might be willing to support a limited restriction. But I fear that a victory for the gun grabbers on this front will only encourage them to press harder toward the fulfillment of their ultimate goal.

I am also weary of "scope creep" on any bump stock legislation. The ban on sale / manufacture of bump stocks is one thing. Making it retroactive (i.e. confiscation) and expanding the definition to "any device that increases the rate of fire" is something else entirely. What happens when people realize that common everyday items can be used to facilitate bump firing, and the only way to stop the practice is to ban semi-auto firearms entirely?

It's not a slippery slope issue. It's not a mission-creep issue. Tell me how to convince Americans who don't own a gun why we "need" bump-stocks or crank-type triggers that simulate machine guns. Don't bother with telling me that "need" isn't an issue with constitutional rights. I know that, but a big segment of the general public doesn't and those that do don't care. I've talked to a lot of gun owners who are furious at the manufacturers of bump-stocks and trigger device manufacturers for giving anti-gunners an issue to fly like a battle flag.

There's a lot bigger war going on now and bump-stocks aren't even on the radar. Attacking Trump, Republicans and NRA helps the enemy.

Chas.

[Soccerdad1995]

Let me think about this for a moment. Is there any gun-related issue to hand our hat on that is worse than bump-stocks? That didn't take long . . . no, there nothing worse. Before getting to upset or casting too large a stone, take a few minutes to learn what is going on in Washington.

Chas.

If I thought for one second that giving up our right to own bump stocks would derail or even slow down the antis, then I might be willing to support a limited restriction. But I fear that a victory for the gun grabbers on this front will only encourage them to press harder toward the fulfillment of their ultimate goal.

I am also weary of "scope creep" on any bump stock legislation. The ban on sale / manufacture of bump stocks is one thing. Making it retroactive (i.e. confiscation) and expanding the definition to "any device that increases the rate of fire" is something else entirely. What happens when people realize that common everyday items can be used to facilitate bump firing, and the only way to stop the practice is to ban semi-auto firearms entirely?

It's not a slippery slope issue. It's not a mission-creep issue. Tell me how to convince Americans who don't own a gun why we "need" bump-stocks or crank-type triggers that simulate machine guns. Don't bother with telling me that "need" isn't an issue with constitutional rights. I know that, but a big segment of the general public doesn't and those that do don't care. I've talked to a lot of gun owners who are furious at the manufacturers of bump-stocks and trigger device manufacturers for giving anti-gunners an issue to fly like a battle flag.

There's a lot bigger war going on now and bump-stocks aren't even on the radar. Attacking Trump, Republicans and NRA helps the enemy.

Chas.

I understand that this is all part of a bigger strategic battle. But what I do not understand is how giving up one aspect of gun rights, no matter how small, will move our cause forward. My fear is that a small victory will only embolden the antis in their efforts. You have far more expertise on the underlying politics than I ever will, so I will defer to you on this. I just wish that I could better see the connection between this concession and the advancement of gun rights in general.

[bdgyeah]

Exercising common sense and approaching these situations logically is what gun owners an 2nd amendments rights advocates need to do. This all or nothing mentality that is consuming our political discussions these days is stifling progress. Not only on the gun rights issue but also immigration, legal and illegal, national security and a host of others. Me being a gun owner, I am appreciative of the fact that I have my 2nd amendment rights and have opportunity and the ability to defend myself and my family. But I am also one of those second amendment rights advocates that Chas is speaking of that its pointless to try and convince me bump stocks need to be protected. I don't think they do. I will never support any piece of legislation that limits my gun rights. Bump stock bans won't do that. The important issue at hand is convincing people that this tragedy is not the guns fault. Hard to do when 95% of the MSM wants to blame the gun.

[bblhd672]

There's so much drama and breathless "what if" going on now. Charles is right, something has to give. I was encouraged by Mr. LaPierre's CPAC speech, he basically declared war on the failed policies and the plans of the left.
We need to take deep breath and look at history so far.
After every mass shooting there is hysterics and foaming at the mouth by the left. So far, very little has actually changed for the worse.
Obama didn't even try to enact stricter gun laws when he had a Democrat controlled House and Senate.
Clinton's "Assault Weapon Ban" led to nothing in the long run, not even reduced crime.

So to answer the OP's question "Can it be that we may lose more gun rights under Trump than Obama?" I'd say yes, that is a possibility. After all, Mr. Trump was a liberal NY Democrat supporting liberal causes for far longer than he has been a political figure. The key to preventing Mr. Trump from signing new, more restrictive gun legislation is to keep it from ever reaching his desk via the House and Senate.

Ban bump stocks? Yeah go ahead, but you'll never stop people from shooting a pistol or rifle as fast as they and the gun are capable of shooting. I've been a vocal proponent of no more compromise, but if we can get past this with the loss of bump stocks only it will be a miracle.

Want to make a difference? Reach out to your Congressmen, Senators and the President expressing your continued support of the Constitution and ask them to continue to do the same. Ask them to address the serious issues of mental health that is at the root of people deciding that being mass murderers is their only hope. Ask them to overturn progressive policies and programs that encourage the police to turn their heads from enforcing the law when students engage in increasingly criminal behavior.

The progressive socialist left will continue to use every tool available to them to achieve their end goal: elimination of the Second Amendment and an end to our Constitutional Republic. They love it when we fight each other.

[Pawpaw]

I firmly believe the President is, once again, leading the Dumbocrats around by the nose. Remember DACA? He lead them around until they painted themselves into a corner by voting down a plan that would provide a path to citizenship. They're still wearing that black eye.

[Richbirdhunter]

Once you give a dog a bone, he wants another bone.

[Doug.38PR]

Once you give a dog a bone, he wants another bone.