What Gun Owners Want From Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
Speedo66

Speedo66

Member
Joined
May 31, 2008
Messages
11,066
Location
Flatlandistan
Interesting, well balanced article on what gun owners want/expect from Trump, and what he might actually do. Nothing written in stone since he hasn't commented about it yet. As with most politicians, he's backing away from much of his more severe campaign rhetoric which to me is mostly a good thing, but it will be interesting to see what's in store re: gun rights.

The fact that two of his sons are shooters and hunters can't hurt. Personally, I'd be satisfied with the removal of suppressors from the NFA.

Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/gun-supporters-trump.html?_r=0

P.S. Don't bother reading the comments section unless you've got a very strong stomach.
 
The article appears to mainly focus on the state ballot issues and how they somehow prove that most citizens want more restrictions. The article then cites a few ballot initiatives to prove the point, like the one in California that passed (back ground checks for ammo purchases). California is the most messed up state in the union. It's literally going socialist before our eyes. Conservatives need to watch CA closely and notice how it governs its citizens. It's really scary. What happens today in CA is what will be happening in 10 years in places like NV, WA, OR and other blue leaning states. CA has been taken over by progressive communist/socialists.
 
Of course, the article neglected to mention that the future of the Supreme Court’s ideological balance proved to be a critical factor for many Republican voters. In exit polls, about 1 in 5 voters said the Supreme Court appointments were “the most important factor” in their decision, and those voters favored Trump by a 57% to 40% margin, according to ABC News.

The election dashes the hopes of anti-gun leftists, who lost their best opportunity in more than 40 years to create a majority on the high court.

HKGuns said:
Sorry, there is nothing typically balanced coming from the NYT. I refuse to click on that link.
Click to expand...
The problem is that ignorance is endemic to the mass media such as The New York Times, which has long since shirked its responsibility to call a spade a spade. Information has become a commodity to be bought and sold like any other, a commodity controlled by governments and corporations. News reporting has been replaced by marketing: the marketing to the people of the agendas of governments, corporations, politicians, the military and many other special interest groups with the money and connections to influence. Journalism used to be about uncovering truth, but today it is largely about manipulation — journalists have become whores to the establishment.
 
I couldn't get past the paywall, so I would like to see:

1) National CCW reciprocity. I know some people are concerned about states rights, but anti-gun owner states generally make it so difficult for their own residents to get a permit, that they can limit the number of concealed carriers by lobbying for a provision that requires a carrier to obtain a permit in their own state in order to carry in the more-restrictive state. Yes, tourists from other states with valid permits would still be able to carry in the restrictive state, but those are presumably a small number of people compared to the oppressed resident population, so that seems OK to me.

2) Get the BATFE out of firearm regulation entirely. I don't see what they offer other than charging money and delaying purchases - possibly the best example of bad government I can think of. Also, get the federal government out of miscellaneous weapon regulation entirely. Switchblade commerce restrictions? Give me a break!

3) Require any state that requires background checks to provide free background checks on demand to facilitate a purchase. No B.S. about "the system is down" - if a valid rejection doesn't come through in 5 minutes, you are good. State is liable for invalid rejections - just a token fine of $500 or so for wasting people's time.

4) No special taxes on guns or ammo anywhere. That revenue is needed to maintain public lands? Then start collecting if from everyone - there's no reason gun and ammo buyers should be financing public land upkeep by themselves.

5) No restrictions on firearms that can be purchased (like CA's "safe gun roster") unless those restrictions apply universally. If I can't buy a gun, then nobody can - not government employees, not rich collectors, not movie prop companies - nobody!
 
Speedo66 said:
Interesting, well balanced article on what gun owners want/expect from Trump, and what he might actually do. Nothing written in stone since he hasn't commented about it yet. As with most politicians, he's backing away from much of his more severe campaign rhetoric which to me is mostly a good thing, but it will be interesting to see what's in store re: gun rights.

The fact that two of his sons are shooters and hunters can't hurt. Personally, I'd be satisfied with the removal of suppressors from the NFA.

Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/gun-supporters-trump.html?_r=0

P.S. Don't bother reading the comments section unless you've got a very strong stomach.
Click to expand...

I agree that the two very pro gun sons are a big help. Trump himself has had a carry permit for some two decades. Overall there is reason to be optimistic of advances against more infringements on a Federal level and perhaps hope of rollback on some onerous existing conditions of 1934,1968,1986.
 
Donald Jr. hunts, shoots High Power, and loads his own ammo. Wants suppressors legal across the counter.

If you wanna warm your heart, watch his interview with the president of Silencerco.
 
JJE said:
I couldn't get past the paywall, so I would like to see:

1) National CCW reciprocity. I know some people are concerned about states rights, but anti-gun owner states generally make it so difficult for their own residents to get a permit, that they can limit the number of concealed carriers by lobbying for a provision that requires a carrier to obtain a permit in their own state in order to carry in the more-restrictive state. Yes, tourists from other states with valid permits would still be able to carry in the restrictive state, but those are presumably a small number of people compared to the oppressed resident population, so that seems OK to me.

2) Get the BATFE out of firearm regulation entirely. I don't see what they offer other than charging money and delaying purchases - possibly the best example of bad government I can think of. Also, get the federal government out of miscellaneous weapon regulation entirely. Switchblade commerce restrictions? Give me a break!

3) Require any state that requires background checks to provide free background checks on demand to facilitate a purchase. No B.S. about "the system is down" - if a valid rejection doesn't come through in 5 minutes, you are good. State is liable for invalid rejections - just a token fine of $500 or so for wasting people's time.

4) No special taxes on guns or ammo anywhere. That revenue is needed to maintain public lands? Then start collecting if from everyone - there's no reason gun and ammo buyers should be financing public land upkeep by themselves.

5) No restrictions on firearms that can be purchased (like CA's "safe gun roster") unless those restrictions apply universally. If I can't buy a gun, then nobody can - not government employees, not rich collectors, not movie prop companies - nobody!
Click to expand...

There has been an excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment for years. I have no problem with that. The money is pretty well spent for the purposes to continue hunting and fishing.

#5 I totally agree with. If it's not legal for the public it shouldn't be legal for anyone.

The most important thing to me is getting Constitution Conservatives on the Supreme Court.
 
Cannibul said:
There has been an excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment for years. I have no problem with that. The money is pretty well spent for the purposes to continue hunting and fishing.

#5 I totally agree with. If it's not legal for the public it shouldn't be legal for anyone.

The most important thing to me is getting Constitution Conservatives on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
I agree with this...Pittman-Robertson has been a great financial aid in acquiring public lands for hunting.
Conservatives on the SCOTUS is the only real protection our 2nd Amendment rights can really depend on. Eventually liberals will regain control of Congress and renew their assault on our Bill of Rights. A generation or two of Constitutionally conservative rulings will go a long way to preserving the Republic as envisioned by the Founders.
 
I know that hunters and fisherman have paid a lot of money over the years in the form of this tax, but they get no credit. How about this: Any facility that gets Pittman-Robertson money has to post a notice saying they do and where the money comes from? As much as I hate the idea of creating another federal regulation, I think it's important that the public knows who's actually paying for these facilities.
 
zb338 said:
I will be happy if I can just keep my guns and keep on shooting. I don't need anything special. Just leave me the hell alone.
We have enough gun laws on the books we don't need any more.

Zeke
Click to expand...


I completely disagree with this.


We need a numerous positive SCOTUS rulings on such things as carry outside the home for everyone, making so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines legal and not bannable, stopping excessive taxes on guns and ammo, stopping bans on certain types of handguns and rifles such as California's policy, and many other important 2nd Amendment issues.
 
Last edited:
We need to keep continually working to keep our way of life just like the anti's are working continually to destroy it

I find it interesting that some guys that gripe about their rights tend to let others do the heavy lifting. If you're not a member of the NRA or other groups, this is a great time to get involved. We have a window of opportunity like never before. When you have your enemy down, you don't let them up. You step on their throat and run a sword through their heart.
 
Last edited:
JJE said:
I know that hunters and fisherman have paid a lot of money over the years in the form of this tax, but they get no credit. How about this: Any facility that gets Pittman-Robertson money has to post a notice saying they do and where the money comes from? As much as I hate the idea of creating another federal regulation, I think it's important that the public knows who's actually paying for these facilities.
Click to expand...

Great idea. Let the tree huggers know who's paying.
 
yokel said:
The problem is that ignorance is endemic to the mass media such as The New York Times, which has long since shirked its responsibility to call a spade a spade. Information has become a commodity to be bought and sold like any other, a commodity controlled by governments and corporations. News reporting has been replaced by marketing: the marketing to the people of the agendas of governments, corporations, politicians, the military and many other special interest groups with the money and connections to influence. Journalism used to be about uncovering truth, but today it is largely about manipulation — journalists have become whores to the establishment.
Click to expand...

Like someone on another forum said, there's a war going on for your mind and your money.
 
I'd seriously like to see the removal of the short barreled rifle tax stamp, make them legal just like any other firearm.

Why should I have pay $200 to the ATF and fill out a bunch of forms and wait 6 months?
 
The NFA rules were made like pork sausage. The authors/politicians just threw things in a pot and invented a punitive gun tax. The "Silencer" myth came from Sherlock Holmes novels. The SBR was a rebuff to the German stocked Lugers and Mausers of WWI. The Senator said Americans did not need stocked handguns. They could shoot handguns without them. The whole NFA hearing reads like a bad comedy.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act
 
While I certainly understand the sentiment of "I just want to be left alone", the best way to achieve that is to push back on the stupid laws - let the Brady bunch fight national reciprocity, the repeal of the NFA, and a ban on assault weapons bans. Let them argue that silencers and SBRs are so terrible, and look like fools in the process. ...and let the Federal govt do what it is supposed to be doing - PROTECTING our rights and freedoms.
Right now, we are just fighting a losing battle, albeit slowly, angainst their repeated "compromises".
 
Dog Soldier said:
The NFA rules were made like pork sausage. The authors/politicians just threw things in a pot and invented a punitive gun tax. The "Silencer" myth came from Sherlock Holmes novels. The SBR was a rebuff to the German stocked Lugers and Mausers of WWI. The Senator said Americans did not need stocked handguns. They could shoot handguns without them. The whole NFA hearing reads like a bad comedy.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act
Click to expand...

It was originally proposed to add handguns to the NFA.

Stop and think about that one.
 
I believe that fairness in the media plays a big role in our gun freedoms. It has become obvious from this election that bias has made TV news the propaganda machine for a liberal federal government. Not too different from foreign governments with propaganda machines & censorship capabilities. The new administration has an axe to grind in that regard & I hope something can be done about it, even though I can offer no solution.

We hear in the news about shootings everyday but almost never about a crime being thwarted by a good guy with a gun. It's easy to gather stat's on shootings, but hard to gather stat's on crimes that didn't happen because a gun was there & in the right hands. It's also very hard to count thoughts in a bad guys mind like "I better not try anything here because someone in this group maybe armed."
 
Every Amendment in the Bill Of Rights have established parameters, save one. The 1st Amendment "Freedom of the Press" has escaped it's responsibilities set forth in 1791.
The 1st Amendment Freedom of press refers to the accurate reporting of the actions of the Governments. The 1st Amendment has been hijacked by the Left. The Nation has lost it's balanced reporting. It is time to question the Presses place in our political system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

BSA1
  • Locked
Gun Owners Targeted for Supporting Trump
Replies
1
Views
486
Robert
Robert
Speedo66
  • Locked
Big Money Law Firms Join Forces For Gun Control
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
RX-79G
R
Speedo66
  • Locked
Shooting Clubs from the Left
Replies
12
Views
632
GEM
G
Speedo66
  • Locked
Gun Amnesty in Australia Produces Mostly "Rubbish Guns" According to Expert
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
Sunray
S
Speedo66
  • Locked
Quite a Conundrum-Open Carry at the Rupublican Convention
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Ric
Ric
Back
Top