Donald Trump Jr. launches gun rights group, vows to fight Democratic gun control proposals

[RetiredUSNChief]

The problem with ANY large and powerful organization, even those purportedly on the side of freedom and rights, is that they don't always REMAIN that way. With size and power comes a level of corruption entirely in line with human nature.

Even the leadership of such organizations may cause shifts away from what we appreciate, even if it's not being driven by power/politics.

The NRA is, of course, one such example...and repeatedly throughout it's history. A branch of the NRA (the National Revolver Association) pushed for gun control measures with respect to handguns back in the 1920s, perhaps a harbinger of things to come a decade later. And their support for such measures lasted not just years, but decades...a good half century or more, in fact.

There are, as others have pointed out, other gun rights groups out there. We should be careful not to put all our eggs in the same basket, as it were, because those other groups are just as important.

The NRA will either prove itself to be a staunch supporter of gun rights, or they won't. Personally, I'd be happy if they'd ditch their current leadership entirely and separate themselves from the debacle they've caused, at least long enough to regain their credibility in the eyes of people like me. When that happens, I'll reconsider my support to them. Until then...other organizations will have my support.

 

[Craig_AR]

Who the heck is Diane?

The reportedly now senile solid anti-gun senator from California, Diane Feinstein, who sponsored the Clinton era assault weapons ban and has introduced several serious gun control bills since them.

 

[kwguy]

I can’t believe there are people who actually think that Trump was more anti 2A than Obama.

That. Is. Amazing.

 

[rust collector]

The proof is in the pudding. I don't pay for promises. I support folks, regardless of their name, that get positive results. That all remains to be seen, and all the predictions in the world do not change the outcome.

 

[dogtown tom]

I can’t believe there are people who actually think that Trump was more anti 2A than Obama.

That. Is. Amazing.

Name one firearm law or regulation changed under Obama. You can't.
While he IS antigun and the judges he appointed are as liberal as they can be, Barack Obama failed at every turn with anything other than announcements of "executive actions". Those are just strongly worded press releases promising to do what is already federal law.
During his first term he had both houses of Congress and failed to deliver his gun control promises.
vs
Donald Trump, who also had both houses of Congress in his first term and failed to deliver on his Second Amendment promises.
Yet Trump ordered the ATF to rewrite the definition of machine gun to include bumpstocks......a definition that had remained unchanged since 1934. He also stated in 2018:

“Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court, because that’s another system. Because 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. I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida, he had a lot of firearms – they saw everything – to go to court would have taken a long time, so you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”

Not the words of a Second Amendment advocate IMO. But wait, there's more!

Aug. 4, 2019, following mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, a reporter asked President Donald Trump, "The gun problem – what are you going to do about it? How are you going to address it?"
Trump responded, "We’re talking to a lot of people, and a lot of things are in the works, and a lot of good things. And we have done much more than most administrations. And it’s ... really not talked about very much, but we’ve done, actually, a lot. But perhaps more has to be done."

So........he wasn't satisfied with the bumpstock ban and planned more "to be done"?
And for those that had been waiting eagerly for the Hearing Protection Act the last decade?
In 2019:

Asked by a reporter Sunday night if there should be restrictions on silencers, Trump replied, "I don't like them at all."

In my opinion, the ONLY pro Second Amendment acts during his Presidency was appointing judges with a history of pro Second Amendment decisions.
Don't for a second think Trump is a Second Amendment advocate, he not, never has been and will say whatever he thinks the crowd wants to hear. But actions are what's important. He had his chance and failed us.

 

[hso]

The proof is in the pudding. I don't pay for promises. I support folks, regardless of their name, that get positive results. That all remains to be seen, and all the predictions in the world do not change the outcome.

Exactly what we all need to remember. Promises are cheap. Results are all that matter.

 

[WisBorn]

February 2010 Barack Obama signed into law the right to carry a loaded firearm in National Parks following the state laws that the parks are located in. He also reversed a law that was put into place after 9/11 that band carrying firearms in checked bags on Amtrack. So he actually expanded gun rights...

 

[kwguy]

The national park carry bit was actually done by Bush. A judge blocked it, and it was then put into a credit card bill, which was signed by Obama in a last minute, well played runaround against the judge blocking Bush’ expansion on carrying in national parks. Small potatoes in light of the actual credit card bill, which cracked down on fees and interest rate hikes. Of COURSE Obama was going to sign that. The credit card reform bill had been years in the making.

The Amtrak piece was tacked onto a spending bill, and all that did was align the rail system with the airlines as far as being able to check firearms in your luggage. Nothing to lose there, and it even helped expand the TSA, while scoring (obviously) minor political points to make him look like he’s pro 2A (apparently).

Obama didn’t just graciously “give us” gun rights in those two instances because he’s pro 2A. Those were politically expedient, very very minor, compromises.

Obama did everything he legally could to stifle gun rights. It just wasn’t much, and didn’t get much traction because when he had majorities in the congress, he didn’t pursue it. They were doing their healthcare bit. When he lost the house in ‘2010, he lost the ability to generate any legislation. The ONLY reason he didn’t destroy our rights with magazine restrictions, AWB’s, or any of the other draconian laws they dream about is because of the narrow republican majority in the House. Because of that, nothing made it out of committee for a floor vote. Thankfully so.

He, and the rest of the usual suspects cried and wailed about that, and he certainly used his bully pulpit to try to coerce, and several states fell for his rhetoric and nonsense, introducing their own local versions of oppression, but to no real avail on a federal level. That slim majority in the house, fueled by a huge and vocal number of NRA members, as well as new organizations like the GOA, lots of YouTube and social media involvement, which kept us informed of the latest schemes of the administration, held back a lot of pain. It certainly wasn’t because of Obama’s “pro 2A” proclivities. That’s laughable.

Since he couldn’t get any legislation done, he signed a ton of executive actions / orders, and used the ATF to further his agenda. This resulted in things like doctors asking invasive questions about firearm ownership, to extra record keeping for those who buy more than one magazine fed rifle on a border state. And putting certain people on social security and certain vets on the “prohibited list”

That same stuff is being used against us now with the even greater overreach with red flag laws and weaponizing of the ATF. Gee, it’s almost like an extension of methodologies started back then. Hmmm…

Did Trump mess up with the bump stock? Yup. His biggest problem was panicking after the Vegas shooting, and assuming the ATF were the “experts” and letting them deal with, what he probably legitimately saw, as a “machine gun” workaround. That showed technical ignorance of the issue on his part, and a certain level of naiveté. He displayed this naïveté quite a bit, in trusting swampy organizations and people. Not just the ATF. That also killed any further talk of the HPA. Until that shooting, there was plenty of positive momentum.

He was ambivalent on the 2A at the beginning, sure. But he certainly wasn’t anti, and trying to paint Trump as anti, and Obama as a positive for gun rights is simply ridiculous.

if Don Jr. wants to start a pro 2A organization, good deal. It’s better than starting another anti group. We need more groups to start up if there are people who think Obama’s legacy is a positive one for gun rights.

 

[rust collector]

History is important, but is written from the viewpoint of the historian. The issue here is whether DJTJ's group is an asset or a ploy. As with many of this OP's posts, the question calls for speculation and speculation usually leads to tribal diatribes. If commenters can connect the dots (DJTJ and 2A) the thread may remain open. Otherwise, we have other fish to fry.

 

[kwguy]

That’s all there is in this case is speculation. So the question is:

1. Does DJTJ want to start a pro second amendment organization because he thinks it’s important to counter leftist anti 2A moves, believes in the importance of the 2A himself, and maybe hopes doing so could help him politically in the future.

Or

2. Does he want to create this organization to sucker us all into giving money because he really wants to save up to buy a yacht or a Gulfstream 600?

I guess only time will tell.

I know one thing, people will still complain either way, while professing to be pro 2A advocates, because they don’t like him, or his dad, or whatever…

“The last gasp of the Harvard Establishment, let’s see them think their way out of fission”.

 

[hso]

Unsurprising, but this has turned into more of a discussion of politics than of a possible new national 2A organization and what it means for gun owners and 2A supporters.
As others have said,

I guess only time will tell.

and we will have see what that brings to find out.

 

[N555]

I'll have to let them do their thing for a while and see what they're like.
Have to look out for the "we support the second ammendment, but" organizations.
They will cut deals that curtail rights and won't try to take back any of the rights that have been given up, but take credit when there is a win.
Exactly like the NRA did in texas.

 

[SunnySlopes]

I can’t believe there are people who actually think that Trump was more anti 2A than Obama.

That. Is. Amazing.

No. Not amazing. The High Road forum. Liberals abound. Liberalism is a mental illness, and they are liberals.

I think I'm taking a break from this place.

If conservatives had been posting about the political corruption re Klinton, Barry O'Dummy, and Dementia Pedo Joe, the thread would have been locked and the posts erased.

Not so here.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Who's to say that Junior's new organization can't be an asset and a ploy at the same time?
After all, the current, heavily infiltrated NRA is certainly both of the above... .

 

[N555]

Who's to say that Junior's new organization can't be an asset and a ploy at the same time?
After all, the current, heavily infiltrated NRA is certainly both of the above... .

I agree. The nra is not useless, but are of other value. The nra is almost useless as a "gun rights organization" but they draw like 100% of the fire from gun grabbers. Keeping the heat off those who actually do something, that in and of its self is of great value. I donate to them but won't be a member.

 

[Robert]

No. Not amazing. The High Road forum. Liberals abound. Liberalism is a mental illness, and they are liberals.

I think I'm taking a break from this place.

If conservatives had been posting about the political corruption re Klinton, Barry O'Dummy, and Dementia Pedo Joe, the thread would have been locked and the posts erased.

Not so here.

What are you talking about? It is posts and attitudes like yours that get threads lock. THR is a forum for people that wish to discuss the problems facing the rights of gun owners in an adult manner without the childish hyperbole.

Anti gunners are not bound by political parties. While one party is the spearhead for the anti movement, there are plenty in the "pro gun" party that would sell us down the river for political gain. I don't care what party a person claims when it comes to the cause of supporting gun owners and the 2nd Amendment.

Saying things like only liberals are antigun, and then going on to use idiotic name changes does nothing to support or further our cause. In fact it does the exact opposite. These types of childish games are exactly what anti gunners expect from us. We have to be better. If that is too difficult then maybe THR is not the forum for you.

 

[dogtown tom]

.....Since he couldn’t get any legislation done, he signed a ton of executive actions / orders,

If Obama "signed a ton" then it should be easy to find those that affected firearms laws and regulation.....I'll wait while you dig out just a pound or two.
(hint....there are none, zero, zilch, nada)
Further, understand what an executive order vs an executive action actually is. Then read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_Barack_Obama
A good synopsis of how lame Obamas antigun legacy actually was: https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595

and used the ATF to further his agenda.

Such as?
(hint......ATF enforcement actions increased during Trumps tenure)

This resulted in things like doctors asking invasive questions about firearm ownership,

Absolute horsehockey. No federal law, no ATF regulation past or present has required such. If your family doctor asks such questions its because he's nosy, not due to federal law, ATF regs or your imaginary ton o' executive orders.

to extra record keeping for those who buy more than one magazine fed rifle on a border state.

False. No buyer in the border states is required to do ANY recordkeeping involving a magazine fed rifle.
You need to do a bit more research on who does the recordkeeping and what firearms are required to be reported.

And putting certain people on social security and certain vets on the “prohibited list”

Again, false. The Social Security Administration began to report disability-benefit recipients with mental health conditions to the FBI’s background check system. Federal law is clear that only persons adjudicated mentally defective by a court, board or commission or committed to a mental institution are prohibited. Simply receiving medical treatment for a mental illness is not now, nor ever has been a prohibiting factor.

That same stuff is being used against us now with the even greater overreach with red flag laws and weaponizing of the ATF. Gee, it’s almost like an extension of methodologies started back then. Hmmm…

Yet Donald Trump could have ended it. Didn't do it.

Did Trump mess up with the bump stock? Yup. His biggest problem was panicking after the Vegas shooting, and assuming the ATF were the “experts” and letting them deal with, what he probably legitimately saw, as a “machine gun” workaround.

Horsehockey. ATF had consistently made determinations for years that "bump stocks" were not machine guns. Period. Bump stocks clearly did not meet the definition of machine gun in federal law and ATF regulations......and they told him so. In order to ban bump stocks the White House ordered ATF to rewrite the definition of machine gun TO INCLUDE bumpstocks.

That showed technical ignorance of the issue on his part, and a certain level of naiveté.

That's silly. It shows that he is not and never has been a bona fide advocate of the Second Amendment and a mere charlatan. Bump stocks were never a problem during Obamas eight years in office but magically became a problem in Trumps second year.

He displayed this naïveté quite a bit, in trusting swampy organizations and people. Not just the ATF. That also killed any further talk of the HPA. Until that shooting, there was plenty of positive momentum.

It's not naivete, its hubris.

He was ambivalent on the 2A at the beginning, sure. But he certainly wasn’t anti, and trying to paint Trump as anti, and Obama as a positive for gun rights is simply ridiculous.

I don't think anone on this forum is making the claim that Barack Obama was a positive for gun rights.....except being Salesman Of The Year eight years running.
Trump painted himself as an anti, no one on this forum needed to. His actions speak louder than his rhetoric.

if Don Jr. wants to start a pro 2A organization, good deal. It’s better than starting another anti group. We need more groups to start up if there are people who think Obama’s legacy is a positive one for gun rights.

Oh good grief. A hundred more groups will do nothing for gun rights. ONE effective group is all it will take. Sadly, the NRA imploding has diminished their greatest strength, the grassroots membership.
Obamas "legacy" on gun control is clear. He failed.
Trumps "legacy" on gun rights is clear. He failed.
It's yet to be seen how his appointments to the judiciary will pan out.

 

[rust collector]

Now that everyone has marked their territory in the petunia patch, it is time to move on.