Tulsi Gabbard sounds like a libertarian-leaning Democrat (Ron likes her!)

[nikcers]

You compared me to Bernie Sanders for opposing Trump's support of gun control. That is a lie. Your "tweet" doesn't make your lie true.

Its the same leap, because Tulsi always has to make her voters happy and democrat voters want gun control. She would be forced to do gun control unless there was a massive movement against it in the congress.

[nikcers]

I am a firm believer in "Setting the Tone" with the American sheep.

Trump said "Take their guns first, do due process later" to the American sheep AND to his base. He banned bump stocks which violated all of the above in my prior post. He also said "raise the age to 21" and immediately following that states have begun to move in that direction.

The actions in his case speak as loud as his words.

But, carry on...

setting the tone like advocating against gun control when he is pressed on it during national television? That talking point he said sounded just like something Rand Paul would say, its almost like he listens to Rand Paul when they go golfing.

[Superfluous Man]

ideas $#@!ing matter dude, if he would of agreed with piers morgan we would have Trump supporters who would agree with him because he is Trump and they would be arguing for gun control, thats how populism works.

Why do they matter when he says contradictory things and his actions don't match his words?

You already said that Obama's words didn't matter. But Trump's do? Why the double-standard?

[Superfluous Man]

setting the tone like advocating against gun control when he is pressed on it during national television? That talking point he said sounded just like something Rand Paul would say, its almost like he listens to Rand Paul when they go golfing.

You keep harping on the same sound byte. Again, why does this one sound byte count for everything for you, and other contradictory statements, and more importantly actual substantive actions, don't?

[nikcers]

You keep harping on the same sound byte. Again, why does this one sound byte count for everything for you, and other contradictory statements, and more importantly actual substantive actions, don't?

Because when I read it I didn't see who said it, it was quoted somewhere and I assumed Rand Paul said it, I could see Rand making the same argument. I hit him hard when he said the other sound byte, but I might as well piss in the wind if I am going to complain about Trump when he is the only thing stopping the democrats from pushing gun control and we don't have any sort of a tea party to stop the left if they win and want to take the guns, they could probably even win the Senate if they won the whitehouse.

[dannno]

Link please.

Not just this post, but several below it also:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6679666

[jmdrake]

Tulsi Gabbard is just as bad, probably worse, she doesn't have Republican voters that she has to court to get elected, she has voters who want gun control that she has to court in order to get elected.

Please quote where I said Tulsi Gabbard was better than Donald Trump or STFU.

[Ender]

Why do they matter when he says contradictory things and his actions don't match his words?

You already said that Obama's words didn't matter. But Trump's do? Why the double-standard?

Unfortunately that's pretty prevalent around here of late.

[jmdrake]

Its the same leap, because Tulsi always has to make her voters happy and democrat voters want gun control. She would be forced to do gun control unless there was a massive movement against it in the congress.

More lies from you a deranged Trump supporter. It it not at all the same leap liar. I am not championing Tulsi Gabbard. I am saying that Donald Trump is also a gun grabber. And that is because he is. He has twice called for a fvcking assault weapons ban you jackass! Once in 2002 and once in 2018! And he has set the stage for banning assault weapons by executive order. Because you have TSDS (Trump Supporter Derangement Syndrome) you mistake his giving the democrats a taking point with his taking it away. The talking point he gave democrats is "Assault weapons can be banned by executive order!" Kamala Harris has already used that talking point. You are a blathering idiot.

[jmdrake]

setting the tone like advocating against gun control when he is pressed on it during national television? That talking point he said sounded just like something Rand Paul would say, its almost like he listens to Rand Paul when they go golfing.

Rand Paul would have never banned a gun accessory by executive order moron.

[jmdrake]

Tulsi Gabbard wants medicare for all when we can't even afford medicare, it would cost 32 trillion dollars over 10 years. She would rack up more debt than Obama.

True. And Trump is still a gun grabber.

[jmdrake]

Some people say this is Trump trying to save gun owners money by avoiding bump stocks. But more importantly than that, this move will allow future presidents to ban other accessories and the one that comes to mind is the high capacity mags. This is why Tulsi doesn't really scare me. The republicans are just as harmful to the 2nd amendment as the democrats.

Trump set a disgusting precedent of banning a gun accessory by executive order and Kamala Harris has already picked up the idea of gun bans through executive order as a new talking point.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/har...ssault-weapons

[Swordsmyth]

Link please.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

Dist.2: Tulsi Gabbard - 31%

H RES 397: NATO
Vote Date: June 27, 2017	Vote: AYE		Bad Vote.
This legislation (H. Res. 397) “solemnly reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.” Under Article 5, the member nations of the NATO military alliance “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all.” The House passed H. Res. 397 on June 27, 2017 by a lopsided vote of 423 to 4 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because the United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, but also because the NATO provision that obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war. Moreover, the number of nations that the United States has pledged to defend under NATO has grown from 11 to 28 over the years, as the alliance itself has grown from 12 member nations (including the United States) when NATO was created in 1949 to 29 today. Although NATO was ostensibly formed to counter the threat from the Soviet bloc of nations, some of the nations the United States is now pledged to defend under NATO were once part of that bloc, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic (as part of Czechoslovakia), Hungary, Poland, and Romania.

H R 5293: Authorization for Use of Military Force
Vote Date: June 16, 2016	Vote: NAY		Bad Vote.
During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act. Enacted in the wake of 9/11, the AUMF authorized the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against the terrorists involved, as well as those who aided or harbored them. It was used as the authorization for U.S. military entry into Afghanistan in 2001, and over the years has also been invoked on other occasions by the executive branch to justify U.S. military intervention abroad. The House rejected Lee’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 146 to 274 (Roll Call 330). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”

H R 4909: Use of Military Force
Vote Date: May 18, 2016	Vote: NAY		Bad Vote.
During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was enacted in 2001 for the purpose of authorizing U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Since then, however, the AUMF has been invoked numerous times by the executive branch for U.S. military intervention not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere. The House rejected Lee’s amendment on May 18, 2016 by a vote of 138 to 285 (Roll Call 210). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.” H RES 162: Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Vote Date: March 23, 2015 Vote: AYE Bad Vote. Ukraine Military Aid. House Resolution 162, which calls on the president "to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," allows President Obama to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons to defend against aggression from Russia. The House adopted H. Res. 162 on March 23, 2015 by a vote of 348 to 48 (Roll Call 131). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because foreign aid is unconstitutional but also because this bill would further interject the United States into a foreign conflict. Allowing the U.S. president to provide lethal arms to Ukraine in order to fight Russia is tantamount to waging a proxy war on Russia without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. The House, by giving such power to the president, is relinquishing one of its constitutional responsibilities. H R 4870: On Agreeing to the Amendment 51 to H R 4870 Vote Date: June 19, 2014 Vote: NAY Bad Vote. Weapons to Syrian Rebels. During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) introduced an amendment that would have prohibited any funding in the bill from being used to provide weapons to Syrian rebels. Fortenberry noted on the House floor that "the rebel movement is a battleground of shifting alliances and bloody conflicts between groups that now include multinational terrorist organizations," that "sending our weapons into this chaotic war zone could inadvertently help these extremists," and that "it has already happened." He added: "The naive notion that we can deliver weapons to vetted, moderate opposition groups at war with other rebel militias gives no guarantee that our weaponry won't be seized or diverted." The House rejected Fortenberry's amendment on June 19, 2014 by a vote of 167 to 244 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because arming "moderate" rebels in a foreign country is tantamount to going to war, which would require a declaration of war by Congress. Also, the United States should follow the Founders' advice not to become involved in foreign quarrels

H R 4152: To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine
Vote Date: April 1, 2014	Vote: AYE		Bad Vote.
Ukraine Aid. This bill (H.R. 4152), as amended by the Senate (see Senate vote below), would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. [ The Senate version of this legislation - offered in the form of a substitute amendment to the House version, H.R. 4152 - would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that the U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. ] The House voted for this legislation on April 1, 2014 by a vote of 378 to 34 (Roll Call 149). We have assigned pluses to the nays because foreign aid is unconstitutional. The rationale for providing U.S. aid to Ukraine is that the country needs our assistance to resist Russian hegemony and build "democracy." Yet the oligarchs wielding power in Ukraine are hardly "democrats," and (because money is fungible) U.S. assistance could effectively be funneled to Russia in the form of Ukrainian energy and debt payments.

[Swordsmyth]

Obama signed executive orders that were pro second amendment. He didn't have to do that but he did it anyway. Congress didn't make him do it, but he did in anyway. By contrast Trump signed an anti second amendment executive order. I am no Obama fan. But Trump's record, so far, is worse on gun control than Obama's. That's just a fact. I could care less what a politician says. I care what he does.

You are ignoring all of the anti-gun things O'Bummer did, I have been highly critical of Trump's bumpstock ban and other 2ndA related failures but there is no way that O'Bummer was better.

[jmdrake]

You are ignoring all of the anti-gun things O'Bummer did, I have been highly critical of Trump's bumpstock ban and other 2ndA related failures but there is no way that O'Bummer was better.

You mean like Obama signing an executive order allowing reversing Ronald Reagan's ban on guns in national parks? No. I didn't ignore that.

https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-...ngress-3367595

Trump's bumpfire stock ban by freaking executive order is a gun control enthusiast's wet dream. I can't think of any executive order on gun control that is worse. If you have a specific example by Obama or anyone else please post it.

[Swordsmyth]

You mean like Obama signing an executive order allowing reversing Ronald Reagan's ban on guns in national parks? No. I didn't ignore that.

https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-...ngress-3367595

Trump's bumpfire stock ban by freaking executive order is a gun control enthusiast's wet dream. I can't think of any executive order on gun control that is worse. If you have a specific example by Obama or anyone else please post it.

I mean like having every government agency buy up all the ammo to create a shortage and send prices through the roof.
I mean like leaning on banks to refuse to do business with gun companies.
I mean like harassing gun dealers and not renewing their licenses over technicalities.
I mean like operation fast and furious that was intended to create an excuse for sweeping gun control.
There is much more too and Trump stopped most of it when he got in office.

[Zippyjuan]

I mean like having every government agency buy up all the ammo to create a shortage and send prices through the roof.

Fake news. It was panic buying. People afraid Obama was going to take their guns so they ran out buying supplies. Dealers started running low on some ammo so people panicked even more- buying more than they needed in case they couldn't find it in the future. That led to more shortages and panic buying.

https://www.fool.com/investing/gener...ry-solved.aspx

National Shooting Sports Foundation public affairs director Mike Bazinet recently related how "there are a lot of wild stories" about the ammunition shortage, with some people even blaming the U.S. government for "buying up all the ammo." But according to Bazinet, that's simply not the case. In fact, "government purchases have gone down over [the] last three years."

He may be right. In 2014, the National Rifle Association, or NRA, helped to debunk the "government conspiracy" thesis for America's .22 ammo shortage. Laying out the facts and figures in a multi-page spread in American Rifleman, the "official journal of the NRA," the NRA described how:

The dollar value of ammunition sales in America doubled between 2007 and 2012. Highlighting the obvious, the NRA noted that sales really "started to climb fast as gun sales began surging" in the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election.

Federal Premium Ammunition -- now a subsidiary of Vista Outdoor (NYSE:VSTO), according to S&P Capital IQ -- attributed ammo shortages to "high demand for our products," and said flat out that the biggest increases in ammunition purchases are coming from "the civilian market." (This means you.)

Olin Corp's (NYSE:OLN) Winchester Ammunition agreed that it is "experiencing an extremely high demand."

And privately held Freedom Group, which manufactures Remington cartridges, said, "it's clear to us that any lack of supply in the marketplace has been from consumer demand."

And then there was the interview with privately held Hornady Manufacturing. There, President Steve Hornady explained to the NRA, "People walk into the store, they don't see as much as they want so they take everything they can get. The next guy who comes in can't get anything, so he panics."

Panic and prudent price-comparison habits rarely go hand-in-hand, of course. This naturally results in higher prices for ammunition.

[jmdrake]

I mean like having every government agency buy up all the ammo to create a shortage and send prices through the roof.
I mean like leaning on banks to refuse to do business with gun companies.
I mean like harassing gun dealers and not renewing their licenses over technicalities.
I mean like operation fast and furious that was intended to create an excuse for sweeping gun control.
There is much more too and Trump stopped most of it when he got in office.

None of that comes close to being as bad as banning a gun accessory by executive order. It's simultaneously a violation of executive power and a violation of the second amendment. Also Bush set the precedent for Fast and Furious with Operation Wide Receiver. Trump alone has set the precedent for a president banning a gun accessory by executive order. Today the bumpfire stock, next president it will be the high capacity magazine.

[PAF]

You mean like Obama signing an executive order allowing reversing Ronald Reagan's ban on guns in national parks? No. I didn't ignore that.

https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-...ngress-3367595

Trump's bumpfire stock ban by freaking executive order is a gun control enthusiast's wet dream. I can't think of any executive order on gun control that is worse. If you have a specific example by Obama or anyone else please post it.

I mean like having every government agency buy up all the ammo to create a shortage and send prices through the roof.
I mean like leaning on banks to refuse to do business with gun companies.
I mean like harassing gun dealers and not renewing their licenses over technicalities.
I mean like operation fast and furious that was intended to create an excuse for sweeping gun control.
There is much more too and Trump stopped most of it when he got in office.

Which proves the point: what one “side” cannot accomplish, the other “side” picks up.

The 2nd, and ALL other Rights are violated every day, every year, EVERY administration.

Picking a “side” does nothing except delays the inevitable. But as long as people have a team it keeps them entertained.

Left, Right, march in lock-step.

[Ender]

You are ignoring all of the anti-gun things O'Bummer did, I have been highly critical of Trump's bumpstock ban and other 2ndA related failures but there is no way that O'Bummer was better.

Nerp.

Few people remember that the only two major gun bills Obama signed into law actually expanded the rights of gun owners. One was a measure that allowed Amtrak passengers to carry firearms in checked baggage, and the other allowed the carry of firearms in national parks, reversing President Reagan’s policy that required guns to be locked in the trunks or glove compartments of vehicles upon entering national parks.

Obama did announce a set of “executive actions” aimed at better enforcement of existing federal gun laws, but even the Charles Koch-founded Cato Institute said of these executive actions that “apoplectic opponents and overjoyed supporters are both probably overreacting.” Despite Obama being largely ineffectual on gun control policy, firearms sales spiked during his second term amid fears that he would enact gun control measures. Conversely, gun sales slumped when Trump was elected, in tandem with a perception among the hardcore gun owners that he would be comparatively lax on gun control and there was therefore no rush to equip oneself with hardware allowing for rapid sprays of bullets to be flung every which way.

The most significant gun control action from Obama was a second-term regulation requiring the Social Security Administration to supplement the federal firearms background check system with information about individuals who received Social Security benefits for mental illnesses. This measure was aimed at prohibiting mentally ill individuals from buying firearms, and approximately 75,000 people would have been impacted by the rule, according to official estimates. Trump quietly nullified the rule early in 2017 before it had fully taken effect.

Trump, though, is sending mixed signals on gun control. While he revoked Obama’s very modest mental health background check measure, he just promulgated a new rule banning bump stocks, the gun accessory used in last year’s Las Vegas massacre to mimic an automatic rate of fire. If you don’t yet know what a bump stock is, basically it’s a replacement butt for an AR-15 (or some other style of semi-automatic weapon) that has a piece partially extending over the trigger; a bump stock then uses the kick of the gun, which agitates the gun frame, to marginally depress the trigger during the recovery from each recoil, resulting in the rapid fire of successive rounds so long as the trigger finger remains held in place. Bump stock owners have 90 days to turn in or destroy their bump stocks (with no compensation) under the new Trump Administration rule.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/12/seco...bama-ever-was/

[Swordsmyth]

None of that comes close to being as bad as banning a gun accessory by executive order. It's simultaneously a violation of executive power and a violation of the second amendment. Also Bush set the precedent for Fast and Furious with Operation Wide Receiver. Trump alone has set the precedent for a president banning a gun accessory by executive order. Today the bumpfire stock, next president it will be the high capacity magazine.

I am not defending Trump's bumpfire ban, but it doesn't even come close to signing on to the UN treaty that was going to gut the 2ndA like O'Bummer did and Trump withdrew from.

O'Bummer did lots of other anti-gun things designed to kill the 2ndA by a thousand cuts and the bumpstock ban is likely to be overturned by the pro-gun judges Trump has picked while O'Bummer picked judges that would have gutted the 2ndA, if the Senate hadn't stopped Garland we would be in real trouble.

[Swordsmyth]

Nerp.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/12/seco...bama-ever-was/

You and that source are ignoring all of his anti-gun actions just like I said.

[Ender]

You and that source are ignoring all of his anti-gun actions just like I said.

Anti-gun actions that were never made into laws?

[jmdrake]

I am not defending Trump's bumpfire ban, but it doesn't even come close to signing on to the UN treaty that was going to gut the 2ndA like O'Bummer did and Trump withdrew from.

O'Bummer did lots of other anti-gun things designed to kill the 2ndA by a thousand cuts and the bumpstock ban is likely to be overturned by the pro-gun judges Trump has picked while O'Bummer picked judges that would have gutted the 2ndA, if the Senate hadn't stopped Garland we would be in real trouble.

One of your examples turned out to be a conspiracy theory that was debunked by the NRA. The ammo shortage was driven by unjustified fear that Obama was going to ban guns which caused people to panic buy. And we shall see which one of those pro gun judges Trump appointed overturns his bumpfire stock ban. So far it's not looking very good.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1R9230
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed President Donald Trump a victory by rejecting for the second time in three days a bid by gun rights activists to block his new ban on “bump stock” attachments that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly.

[Swordsmyth]

Fake news. It was panic buying. People afraid Obama was going to take their guns so they ran out buying supplies. Dealers started running low on some ammo so people panicked even more- buying more than they needed in case they couldn't find it in the future. That led to more shortages and panic buying.

https://www.fool.com/investing/gener...ry-solved.aspx

FAKE NEWS

O'Bummer had government agencies that had no business having guns buying millions of rounds and he was harassing ammo companies to keep them from expanding production.

[Swordsmyth]

One of your examples turned out to be a conspiracy theory that was debunked by the NRA. The ammo shortage was driven by unjustified fear that Obama was going to ban guns which caused people to panic buy. And we shall see which one of those pro gun judges Trump appointed overturns his bumpfire stock ban. So far it's not looking very good.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1R9230
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed President Donald Trump a victory by rejecting for the second time in three days a bid by gun rights activists to block his new ban on “bump stock” attachments that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly.

The NRA can't be trusted and SCOTUS may have refused to issue a preliminary injunction but there is no way the ban will stand up because the ATF itself had already issued an opinion that said they couldn't legally ban bumpstocks.

[jmdrake]

Anti-gun actions that were never made into laws?

And ^that is what makes Trump's executive order so much worse @Swordsmyth. Trump did through executive order what no president could have done going through congress. There's no way the bumpfire stock ban would have passed if it was brought up for a vote.

[Zippyjuan]

I am not defending Trump's bumpfire ban, but it doesn't even come close to signing on to the UN treaty that was going to gut the 2ndA like O'Bummer did and Trump withdrew from.

O'Bummer did lots of other anti-gun things designed to kill the 2ndA by a thousand cuts and the bumpstock ban is likely to be overturned by the pro-gun judges Trump has picked while O'Bummer picked judges that would have gutted the 2ndA, if the Senate hadn't stopped Garland we would be in real trouble.

The Small Arms Treaty only covered sales to other countries- not domestic laws. More fake news.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1S21RD

The NRA has long opposed the treaty, which regulates the $70 billion business in conventional arms and seeks to keep weapons out of the hands of human rights abusers. The lobbying group argues it would undermine domestic gun rights, a view the Obama administration rejected.

The agreement covers weapons exports, ranging from small firearms to tanks, but not domestic sales.

[Swordsmyth]

The Small Arms Treaty only covered sales to other countries- not domestic laws. More fake news.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1S21RD

FAKE NEWS

[jmdrake]

The NRA can't be trusted and SCOTUS may have refused to issue a preliminary injunction but there is no way the ban will stand up because the ATF itself had already issued an opinion that said they couldn't legally ban bumpstocks.

1) Maybe not, but you haven't given any credible reference to support your conspiracy theory that government ammo purchases caused the shortage. Simple supply and demand economics supports the NRA theory. Gun sales went through the roof and ammo sales, and the predicable shortages, followed.

2) LOL. If overturning the bumpfire stock ban was such a slam dunk the Supreme Court would have issued the injunction.