Trump Supporters Silent as President More Successful at Attacking 2nd Amendment Than Obama

[Elderberry]

The Free Thought Project December 20, 2018

President Trump is doing what Obama couldn't and is using federal agencies to unconstitutionally go after the Second Amendment.

Just as some gun rights groups flip-flop on protecting the right to keep and bear arms from federal encroachment, so has Republican President Donald Trump. Not only has he ramped up federal gun control enforcement, but he has unilaterally implemented new federal gun control in the form of a bump stock ban.

As we’ve pointed before, the effectiveness of this policy is moot: the feds have no constitutional authority to restrict firearms. https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/07/09/no-federal-power-over-guns-even-if-the-2nd-amendment-never-existed/

It’s important to keep in mind that this isn’t merely something occurring under Trump’s watch but out of his control. The president actively pursued an unconstitutional firearm restriction through an unconstitutional method via agency rulemaking. If the constitution did not delegate authority to the Congress or the president to enact such a rule – and the Second Amendment makes that adamantly clear – then obviously a bureaucracy has no such power, either.

Before Trump supporters turn a blind eye to this or rationalize his actions, they should honestly ask themselves how they would respond if Obama tried to do the same thing.

Oh, wait. He essentially did.

More: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/trump-ban-2nd-amendment/

[Cyber Liberty]

I guess I can't be called a "Trump Supporter" because I haven't like a single thing he's had to do on this subject.   

[ABX]

Tread harder daddy.

[jmyrlefuller]

As we’ve pointed before, the effectiveness of this policy is moot: the feds have no constitutional authority to restrict firearms.

That is utterly false. Even the Second Amendment text itself requires those who keep and bear arms to be "well-regulated," and the Fifth requires the protection against unnecessary loss of "life, liberty and property," which unrestricted firearms certainly threatens.

They may not be able to ban firearms, but they can indeed restrict them to a limited extent.

[DB]

What did people really expect from the guy who wanted to ban "assault weapons" the previous time he ran for president. There are no underlying principles guiding him.

[Frank Cannon]

Mindlessly stupid article written by the Addicted to Outrage crowd. The ONLY thing in play here is Bump Stocks. It's an item 99% of gun owners didn't know existed prior to the shooting and makes a gun fully automatic which not even the NRA supports.....

NRA's Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox Issue Joint Statement

The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.

https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

[Oceander]

Mindlessly stupid article written by the Addicted to Outrage crowd. The ONLY thing in play here is Bump Stocks. It's an item 99% of gun owners didn't know existed prior to the shooting and makes a gun fully automatic which not even the NRA supports.....

NRA's Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox Issue Joint Statement

The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.

https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

Agreed

[DB]

Mindlessly stupid article written by the Addicted to Outrage crowd. The ONLY thing in play here is Bump Stocks. It's an item 99% of gun owners didn't know existed prior to the shooting and makes a gun fully automatic which not even the NRA supports.....

NRA's Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox Issue Joint Statement

The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.

https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

It is still just more feel good legislation that makes absolutely zero difference to those bent on killing people. All it does is further restrict lawful peoples activities making criminals out of those who do not comply with the latest government mandate.

Laws should be based on what is effective. Not what is emotionally satisfying at the moment at a cost to someone else's liberty.

[Oceander]

It is still just more feel good legislation that makes absolutely zero difference to those bent on killing people. All it does is further restrict lawful peoples activities making criminals out of those who do not comply with the latest government mandate.

Laws should be based on what is effective. Not what is emotionally satisfying at the moment at a cost to someone else's liberty.

Making it harder for someone to get the effect of full auto is not pointless. 

[DCPatriot]

What did people really expect from the guy who wanted to ban "assault weapons" the previous time he ran for president. There are no underlying principles guiding him.

You're confusing/conflating "principles" with ideology.

[DB]

Making it harder for someone to get the effect of full auto is not pointless.

And not likely to save one life. Something that can be done with a rubber band and a small amount of effort. A law that only applies to the lawful.

Where does it end? Just a little nibble here and there over and over...

[RoosGirl]

Making it harder for someone to get the effect of full auto is not pointless.

Not at all pointless, except for good ol' boys who know how to get shit done and anyone who wears pants with belt loops. NSFW.


Sorry...

[DB]

You're confusing/conflating "principles" with ideology.

No. Trump has said he uses his "gut" to decide what to do and that it works better than his hired experts advice.

That is neither ideology nor principles. It is only based on today's feelings and how hard the wind is blowing otherwise known as populism. That is why it can and has changed on a dime.

[Frank Cannon]

Not at all pointless, except for good ol' boys who know how to get shit done and anyone who wears pants with belt loops. NSFW.


Sorry...

Apples and oranges. With a bump stock you have conventional control of the weapon. With this hillbilly shit you are literally shooting from the hip. A lot less likely to hit your target with the belt loop.

[RoosGirl]

Apples and oranges. With a bump stock you have conventional control of the weapon. With this hillbilly shit you are literally shooting from the hip. A lot less likely to hit your target with the belt loop.

Oh, you think that MFer in Las Vegas was aiming at a target?

[DCPatriot]

No. Trump has said he uses his "gut" to decide what to do and that it works better than his hired experts advice.

That is neither ideology nor principles. It is only based on today's feelings and how hard the wind is blowing otherwise known as populism. That is why it can and has changed on a dime.

My point is that he's not driven by political ideology.   Conservative or liberal.

He's the CIC.  Thank God.

[Frank Cannon]

Oh, you think that MFer in Las Vegas was aiming at a target?

I don't care what he was doing. He had a bump stock that made his weapon illegal and killed a shitpile of people with it.

Do you support the use of bump stocks or any other devices that convert semi auto to full? Do you think full auto should be legal?

[RoosGirl]

I don't care what he was doing. He had a bump stock that made his weapon illegal and killed a shitpile of people with it.

Do you support the use of bump stocks or any other devices that convert semi auto to full? Do you think full auto should be legal?

LOL  He killed 58 people are what you're pushing is that the bump stock was illegal?  I don't know if you know this, but the killing part is illegal.

And yes, I think full auto should be legal.  People don't decide not to go on killing sprees because they can't get their hands on a full auto.

[Meldrew]

I don't care what he was doing. He had a bump stock that made his weapon illegal and killed a shitpile of people with it.

The bump stock didn't make his rifle illegal.  What he did with it made it bad but still not illegal. Bump stocks were legal at the time and should continue to be because...

Do you support the use of bump stocks or any other devices that convert semi auto to full? Do you think full auto should be legal?

Bump stocks do not make semi-auto guns full auto. You still have to press the trigger each time to expel each round.  Bump stocks (and rubber bands or belt loops or even really fast trigger fingers) do not change the design of the gun.  They use the recoil energy to help you pull the trigger for the next round.  A bump stock is an inert piece of plastic incapable of firing anything by itself yet it has been classified as a firearm by ATF and this executive order in order to ban them by executive action. As a piece of law it's an abomination - nowhere in the Constitution does it say it's OK to make law by calling a thing something it's not then banning it by executive fiat - and thus adds yet another hurdle to the 22,000 other hurdles that surround the Constitutional right "that shall not be infringed". 

Do you think full auto should be legal?

For the record, they are legal.  It just takes a $200 tax and up to a year for .gov to decide if they want to let you have it. 

As an aside, I work in a gun store.  This has come up more than a few times in the few days it's been out there.  It's not going over well with the faithful.  The phrase "more gun laws than Obama" comes up several times a day. 

[Sighlass]

Anyone that has been around guns knows that full automatic is not really that effective in the long run without the benefit of a clip feed system with an butt-load supply of ammo. One simply can not aim well and you have to change magazines too often to make it worth your while to run full autos. The LV shooter was not most folks would consider a brilliant person. Spray and Pray with a target rich environment was all he did with the advantage of height making it hard to return fire. I honestly believe any gun person here at TBR could of done more damage without the bump fire.

What is at issue, is the slippery slope of eroding gun rights and Trump has emboldened those that would go beyond what he has. Bump stocks are stupid novelty, but what isn't a laughing matter is he and others in power don't understand the seriousness of greasing that slippery slope.

Not Trump's best move, and that is the understatement of the day.

[Fishrrman]

From the article:
"he [Trump] has unilaterally implemented new federal gun control in the form of a bump stock ban."

I don't blame Mr. Trump for this.
Imagine what o'er-the-hillary might have accomplished.

Anyone who didn't realize that bump stocks would be "going away" after the Las Vegas massacre (the shooter had TEN AR-15's fitted with them) is blinder than Ray Charles on a good day...

[Frank Cannon]

LOL  He killed 58 people are what you're pushing is that the bump stock was illegal?  I don't know if you know this, but the killing part is illegal.

And yes, I think full auto should be legal.  People don't decide not to go on killing sprees because they can't get their hands on a full auto.

Good luck with that. Not even mainstream hard core Pro 2nd A groups think that is a rational position.

[RoosGirl]

Good luck with that. Not even mainstream hard core Pro 2nd A groups think that is a rational position.

Is that what you think?

https://www.gunowners.org/goa-file-bump-stock-suit.htm

[Frank Cannon]

The bump stock didn't make his rifle illegal.  What he did with it made it bad but still not illegal. Bump stocks were legal at the time and should continue to be because...
 
Bump stocks do not make semi-auto guns full auto. You still have to press the trigger each time to expel each round.  Bump stocks (and rubber bands or belt loops or even really fast trigger fingers) do not change the design of the gun.  They use the recoil energy to help you pull the trigger for the next round.  A bump stock is an inert piece of plastic incapable of firing anything by itself yet it has been classified as a firearm by ATF and this executive order in order to ban them by executive action. As a piece of law it's an abomination - nowhere in the Constitution does it say it's OK to make law by calling a thing something it's not then banning it by executive fiat - and thus adds yet another hurdle to the 22,000 other hurdles that surround the Constitutional right "that shall not be infringed". 
 
For the record, they are legal.  It just takes a $200 tax and up to a year for .gov to decide if they want to let you have it. 

As an aside, I work in a gun store.  This has come up more than a few times in the few days it's been out there.  It's not going over well with the faithful.  The phrase "more gun laws than Obama" comes up several times a day.

Bullshit. Bump stocks allow the shooter to empty a magazine as fast as the action on the gun will allow. The result is the same as full auto.

Well as an aside the people who frequent your gun store are stupid azzholes. Some gimmick that is not even a part of a gun is being banned and they are acting like it is the Clinton gun ban? Give me an effing break.

[Frank Cannon]

Is that what you think?

https://www.gunowners.org/goa-file-bump-stock-suit.htm

I said mainstream. The GOA hasn't done jack shit to effect and protect my rights in their 40 years of being around. They are mostly a bunch of Ron Paulers who want grenade launchers legalized.