Trump at CPAC: Democrat Gun Control Will Not Get Past My Desk... lol

[unknown]

Trump at CPAC: Democrat Gun Control Will Not Get Past My Desk

President Donald Trump stressed during his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that the Democrats’ myriad gun control plans will not make all come to an end once they reach his desk.

I'm assuming that this is damage control re: the BumpStockTrump ban.

Try and get some of the 2A people back on board.

Dude is a joke.

[TheTexan]

If you were a constitutional scholar, you would know that bump stocks are not protected by the 2nd amendment.

Weapons that are designed to kill animals, e.g. traditional hunting rifles, are protected by the 2nd amendment.

Weapons that would be useful in warfare, e.g automatic weapons, explosives, SBR's, grenades, and anything else designed for killing people, are not protected by the 2nd amendment.

The Supreme Court calls this the "hunting doctrine". If a weapon is designed for killing deer then it's protected by the 2nd amendment. If its designed for killing people then its not protected and should almost always be illegal.

This is basically constitutional law 101. There is however still some debate among Supreme Court justices on whether or not the 2nd amendment also protects Olympic sport shooting rifles. Some agree with Clarence Thomas that any sport shooting - including clay target shooting - are also protected by the 2A as long as the sport's rules are "well-regulated". But that's an ongoing debate that isn't likely to be settled any time soon.

[The Rebel Poet]

Trump at CPAC: Democrat Gun Control Will Not Get Past My Desk




I'm assuming that this is damage control re: the BumpStockTrump ban.

Try and get some of the 2A people back on board.

Dude is a joke.

Dude, are you guys still bitching about that old Trumpstock ban? He's playing 2a chess with Hillary (your bff). He had to ban them to protect them.

[The Rebel Poet]

If you were a constitutional scholar, you would know that bump stocks are not protected by the 2nd amendment.

Weapons that are designed to kill animals, e.g. traditional hunting rifles, are protected by the 2nd amendment.

Weapons that would be useful in warfare, e.g automatic weapons, explosives, SBR's, grenades, and anything else designed for killing people, are not protected by the 2nd amendment.

The Supreme Court calls this the "hunting doctrine". If a weapon is designed for killing deer then it's protected by the 2nd amendment. If its designed for killing people then its not protected and should almost always be illegal.

This is basically constitutional law 101. There is however still some debate among Supreme Court justices on whether or not the 2nd amendment also protects Olympic sport shooting rifles. Some agree with Clarence Thomas that any sport shooting - including clay target shooting - are also protected by the 2A as long as the sport's rules are "well-regulated". But that's an ongoing debate that isn't likely to be settled any time soon.

+Rep. Only thing I would add is you have to be careful with fake experts. Make sure it's an eminent constitutional scholar like Mark Levin, not some Soros funded crackpot like Napolitano. People here have a bad habit of posting Janet Napolitano videos. Mark Levin is twice the RonPaulForums as Napolitano.

[Superfluous Man]

Trump means it too. He is very serious about making sure that gun control is bipartisan and Democrats don't get all the credit for it.

[Superfluous Man]

+Rep. Only thing I would add is you have to be careful with fake experts. Make sure it's an eminent constitutional scholar like Mark Levin, not some Soros funded crackpot like Napolitano. People here have a bad habit of posting Janet Napolitano videos. Mark Levin is twice the RonPaulForums as Napolitano.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The Rebel Poet again.

[PAF]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The Rebel Poet again.

I “2nd” that, and one for you too.

[juleswin]

Dude, are you guys still bitching about that old Trumpstock ban? He's playing 2a chess with Hillary (your bff). He had to ban them to protect them.

Not just 3d chess, he has to do just enough deep state favors in order to keep their assassins at bay. You don't want him to end up like JFK before the real change starts to happen

[oyarde]

If you were a constitutional scholar, you would know that bump stocks are not protected by the 2nd amendment.

Weapons that are designed to kill animals, e.g. traditional hunting rifles, are protected by the 2nd amendment.

Weapons that would be useful in warfare, e.g automatic weapons, explosives, SBR's, grenades, and anything else designed for killing people, are not protected by the 2nd amendment.

The Supreme Court calls this the "hunting doctrine". If a weapon is designed for killing deer then it's protected by the 2nd amendment. If its designed for killing people then its not protected and should almost always be illegal.

This is basically constitutional law 101. There is however still some debate among Supreme Court justices on whether or not the 2nd amendment also protects Olympic sport shooting rifles. Some agree with Clarence Thomas that any sport shooting - including clay target shooting - are also protected by the 2A as long as the sport's rules are "well-regulated". But that's an ongoing debate that isn't likely to be settled any time soon.

What if I only use grenades and small 105 artillery pc.'s to hunt with ?

[dannno]

Not just 3d chess, he has to do just enough deep state favors in order to keep their assassins at bay. You don't want him to end up like JFK before the real change starts to happen

Said nobody ever.

This was about the anti-gun leftist mobs led by Hogg.

Also, seems to be a big savings to anybody who wanted a $200 bumpstock.. even if they remain legal, which I believe they will, what they learned is that they can save all that money and just buy a rubber band.

Not sure how saving money hurts gun owners.

[Stratovarious]

If you are a Constitutional Revisionist, you side with Weapons
rights being narrowly defined as that which is designed for the use of hunting.
If you are a constitutionalist you already and still know that the right to bear arm is about
the right to self protection, protection against the 'State' , foreign invasion and a means
to insure the 1st amendment doesn't fall right behind the 2nd.
''The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.''
Until Military and Law enforcement turn in their weapons, 'gun control' should be off the table.

Democide only occurs after weapons are registered and confiscated.
Governments are millions of times more effective at killing civilians than
civilians themselves, governments have a very long history of bearing this out.

[Superfluous Man]

Said nobody ever.

This was about the anti-gun leftist mobs led by Hogg.

Also, seems to be a big savings to anybody who wanted a $200 bumpstock.. even if they remain legal, which I believe they will, what they learned is that they can save all that money and just buy a rubber band.

Not sure how saving money hurts gun owners.

Bump stocks are impractical. But that's irrelevant, and up to individual gun owners to decide for themselves. It's none of the government's business.

Hogg is also irrelevant. The anti-gun leftist we need to be worried about is the one in the White House.

[Superfluous Man]

If you are a Constitutional Revisionist, you side with Weapons
rights being narrowly defined as that which is designed for the use of hunting.
If you are a constitutionalist you already and still know that the right to bear arm is about
the right to self protection, protection against the 'State' , foreign invasion and a means
to insure the 1st amendment doesn't fall right behind the 2nd.
''The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.''
Until Military and Law enforcement turn in their weapons, 'gun control' should be off the table.

Democide only occurs after weapons are registered and confiscated.
Governments are millions of times more effective at killing civilians than
civilians themselves, governments have a very long history of bearing this out.

You are right about this.

But aren't you the same person who supported government regulation of suppressors in another thread?

[Matt Collins]

[RonZeplin]

Got to give the police immediate access to taking those guns away.



Really into it.

[Stratovarious]

You are right about this.

But aren't you the same person who supported government regulation of suppressors in another thread?

100%

[dannno]

Bump stocks are impractical. But that's irrelevant, and up to individual gun owners to decide for themselves. It's none of the government's business.

Hogg is also irrelevant. The anti-gun leftist we need to be worried about is the one in the White House.

About the first part, in principal you are correct.

Strategically you are wrong.

About the second part, you are wrong. Trump doesn't want to take the guns. Quite the opposite. Lunatic leftists want to take the guns. That's an important lesson you will need to learn, and soon.

[Superfluous Man]

Trump doesn't want to take the guns...Lunatic leftists want to take the guns.

Notice how you just contradicted yourself. Either lunatic leftists like Trump want to take guns, or they don't.

[dannno]

Notice how you just contradicted yourself. Either lunatic leftists like Trump want to take guns, or they don't.

Trump is neither a lunatic nor a leftist.

[RonZeplin]

Trump is neither a lunatic nor a leftist.

He is both, on steroids.

[Stratovarious]

''Gun Control Will Not Get Past My Desk''

I hope this doesn't mean he'll 'sign' it on Nancy's desk.

[Anti Federalist]

Democrat Gun Control Will Not Get Past My Desk

So, I'll assume that when Lindsey Graham puts his stamp of approval on it, it will be "OK"?

Lindsey Graham: Democrats, GOP Can ‘Come Together’ for Gun Confiscation Law

[RonZeplin]

Democrat Gun Control Will Not Get Past My Desk

But Republican/NRA gun control is good to go.

[CCTelander]

So, I'll assume that when Lindsey Graham puts his stamp of approval on it, it will be "OK"?

Lindsey Graham: Democrats, GOP Can ‘Come Together’ for Gun Confiscation Law

Yep, pretty much. And there's likely to be plenty of that Republican endorsed gun control coming down the pike.

The Republican Blowhard in Chief opened his big fat mouth and came out in favor of various egregious gc measures. Quite predictably and right on cue (thanks to the cover Trump provided) the NRA threw their support behind gun control, as they've done many times in the past. These in rapid succession accomplished 2 very dangerous results:

1. It cut the legs out from under 2nd Amendment activists, stealing the initiative they fought so hard to win and have been enjoying for about 20 years now, and giving it for free to the gun grabbers. And

2. Signaled to Republicans nationwide that it's now ok for them to support gun control again. And they will. This same scenario has played out several times in the past, always resulting in significant numbers of Republicans betraying us on gun issues, often ones with very high ratings fron NRA.

But hey, Trump's got this. Nothing to be concerned about. Just buy a $#@!ing rubber band.

[TheTexan]

What if I only use grenades and small 105 artillery pc.'s to hunt with ?

You can check with your local fish & wildlife service. Let them know you'd like to hunt with your tribe's traditional weapons

[dannno]

MARCH 11, 2019 5:50AM

Bump Stock Ban Bumps Up Against the Constitution


The new rule, making felons of an unknowable number of Americans, was set to take effect March 21. To prevent this, a group of Second Amendment organizations filed a lawsuit in federal court. They sought a preliminary injunction to stop the government from enforcing the new rule, but were denied. Because the effective date is so close, the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was expedited. Cato filed a brief addressing issues that no other amicus discusses: that the executive branch cannot use the administrative process to accomplish legislative goals that Congress declined to enact.

https://www.cato.org/blog/bump-stock...t-constitution

I just want to remind everybody that I am on record, from the beginning, saying that Trump purposely made a move that he knew the courts would knock down in order to throw cold water on the anti-gun nuts.

You can squawk all you want, but it looks like I am going to be correct. Again.

[enhanced_deficit]

Trump at CPAC: Democrat Gun Control Will Not Get Past My Desk

To be fair, he's been pretty consistent and probably wants GOP-MAGA to take credit or share.






CPAC 2019: Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, and Alessandra Bocci banned from speaking

[CCTelander]

I just want to remind everybody that I am on record, from the beginning, saying that Trump purposely made a move that he knew the courts would knock down in order to throw cold water on the anti-gun nuts.

You can squawk all you want, but it looks like I am going to be correct. Again.

Because Cato filed an amicus brief? Really? You can't possibly be that hopelessly naive.

Educate yourself on this issue and its history or STFU. You're opinion is less than worthless as is.

[fcreature]

I'm hearing rumors that Lindsey Graham is taking up gun confiscation laws as bipartisan legislation and that he said Trump has given him his support.

[dannno]

Because Cato filed an amicus brief? Really? You can't possibly be that hopelessly naive.

Educate yourself on this issue and its history or STFU. You're opinion is less than worthless as is.

Keep squawking, we'll see how it turns out.