Looks like the bumpstock ban is about to become real

[T.Lex]

Doubt it, jury's still out, but first one must consider the source of the question. Is it really about 2A or is it coming from a TDS standpoint?

Some of the TDS sufferers have openly stated that they'd happily throw gun owners under the bus to rid themselves of the much hated Trump.

Well, its me asking. I only have my own standpoint. Since I've never thought, let alone stated, that gun owners should be sacrificed for Trump's riddance, that clearly doesn't apply to me. (I think he'll quit long before impeachment.)

How can the jury still be out about whether he is 2A? He ordered the bumpstock ban and made sure it was delivered by his administration. Has he secured any additional safeguards for gun owners? Has he advocated for any reduction of regulation for gun importers? Has he done anything pro-2A at all? (Genuinely curious on that last one - I can't think of anything.)

 

[bwframe]

As mentioned above, you are what you post.

While not good, it's not for sure how this bump stock thing will go. Even if totally enacted, we don't know what the big picture will be down the road.

One thing that is for sure, there was only one choice for 2A when Trump was elected. Spending all of Trump's years in office with TDS, looking to trash him from every angle, might be detrimental from a 2A standpoint come next election.

 

[T.Lex]

As mentioned above, you are what you post.

So are you going to post any answers?

 

[bwframe]

Read again, sorry I'm slow...

 

[T.Lex]

Read again, sorry I'm slow...

Ah, right - sorry - didn't catch the edit.

One thing that is for sure, there was only one choice for 2A when Trump was elected. Spending all of Trump's years in office with TDS, looking to trash him from every angle, might be detrimental from a 2A standpoint come next election.

First, for a variety of reasons that might be fun to consider, but ultimately of no value, if HRC had been elected, I don't think there'd be a bumpstock ban. Not because she's pro-2A, but after Obama's inability to get anything passed, it is better for them to have it as an issue than to actually pass something. I'm confident in saying the NRA would not have supported an HRC call to ban bumpstocks. (But, as I'm no fan of the NRA, I could be wrong about that.)

Second, as I've often said, the time to challenge Trump was in the primaries, not the general.

Finally, even if HRC had gotten to this same place on bumpstocks, that just means that Trump and HRC would've been a 2A tie. That's not great.

 

[Mongo59]

If the current administration is pro 2A it's mascot must be Wimpy of the Popeye cartoon; "I will gladly pay you next Tuesday for a hamburger today..."

 

[cbhausen]

Interesting angle... lawsuit challenging the validity of the acting AG (Whitaker) to perform in an official capacity (like signing the bump stock ban):

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/27/firearms-policy-coalition-challenges-matt-whitaker/

 

[T.Lex]

Interesting angle... lawsuit challenging the validity of the acting AG (Whitaker) to perform in an official capacity (like signing the bump stock ban):

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/27/firearms-policy-coalition-challenges-matt-whitaker/

That's a cute argument, but unlikely to carry the day.

I've been on the "other side" of that kind of issue and there's plenty of precedent to support that the administrative act is valid, even if there's a technical deficiency in the appointment process.

Its a bit like swinging for a home run, though. You will probably miss, but if you do hit it... woowee, it'll be YUGE.

 

[Beowulf]

Reading the last couple of pages, I find I'm still seeing references to Trump Derangement Syndrome?

The only people suffering Trump Derangement Syndrome are the people so ideologically blinded that they will continue to support a blatantly anti-2nd Amendment president because he happens to have an R next to his name (a fairly new R, given that he used to be a Democrat).

I honestly don't know what else Trump could do before his base stops supporting him. I mean, he's using unconstitutional authority to take away our 2nd Amendment rights, he's managed to single-handedly tank the economy with idiotic trade wars (which is impressive, given how many moving parts the economy has), and he routinely flat out lies to our faces like we are mentally challenged sheep (and not just regular run of the mill lying, like all politicians do, I mean bald faced lying, like when a 4-year-old with chocolate all over their face and a half eaten cookie in their hand tells you they didn't get into the cookie jar). Yet, some folks on here will continue to lap up everything that comes out of his... mouth.

I honestly can't fathom it. If he still had the (D) after his name and was doing the exact same stuff, you guys would be screaming to high heaven about it. Can we have a little bit of intellectual honestly, please? "But Hillary..." isn't a valid response to when Trump does something unconstitutional, just like "But Bush..." wasn't a valid response to anything Obama did.

 

[T.Lex]

^^^

[For the record, I don't think he's single-handedly wrecking the economy; I do think the trade war is a bad idea, though.]

 

[Kutnupe14]

Reading the last couple of pages, I find I'm still seeing references to Trump Derangement Syndrome?

The only people suffering Trump Derangement Syndrome are the people so ideologically blinded that they will continue to support a blatantly anti-2nd Amendment president because he happens to have an R next to his name (a fairly new R, given that he used to be a Democrat).

I honestly don't know what else Trump could do before his base stops supporting him. I mean, he's using unconstitutional authority to take away our 2nd Amendment rights, he's managed to single-handedly tank the economy with idiotic trade wars (which is impressive, given how many moving parts the economy has), and he routinely flat out lies to our faces like we are mentally challenged sheep (and not just regular run of the mill lying, like all politicians do, I mean bald faced lying, like when a 4-year-old with chocolate all over their face and a half eaten cookie in their hand tells you they didn't get into the cookie jar). Yet, some folks on here will continue to lap up everything that comes out of his... mouth.

I honestly can't fathom it. If he still had the (D) after his name and was doing the exact same stuff, you guys would be screaming to high heaven about it. Can we have a little bit of intellectual honestly, please? "But Hillary..." isn't a valid response to when Trump does something unconstitutional, just like "But Bush..." wasn't a valid response to anything Obama did.

QFT

 

[jamil]

I wonder how tribal it is to use the word tribal to describe others?

Tribal: A strong feeling of identity with and loyalty to one's in-group.

Using terms like "neverTrumper" and "neverNRA" are obviously pejoratives and sounds a lot like this is all about loyalty to an in-group. That kinda makes the term "tribal" appropriate.

Some people just aren't loyal for the sake of loyalty to the in-group. And that is not pejorative at all. I'm one of those people, for example. I don't feel I owe Trump or the NRA any loyalty at all. They must continually earn my support by doing things I want, and not doing things I don't want. Both Trump and the NRA get things wrong and deserve to be criticized for it. That's just being honest. They get some things right too, and deserve support for that. That's not "Never Trump" and that's not "Never NRA". The people who truly are never Trump or Never NRA are not on INGO. Well, maybe Kut where Trump is concerned. Point is, the terms get thrown at people who don't fit absolutes like "never..."

I think the true "Never Trumpers", the people think everything Trump does is automatically bad are intellectually dishonest because they apply unearned scorn. They hate Trump for the sake of hating him. Well, "always" can be just as intellectually dishonest as "never". They're both unreasoned absolutes. As I said, "never-x" requires unearned scorn for the out-group, but "always-x" requires unearned loyalty to the in-group.

 

[jamil]

It isn't "never supported", it is will fight anything he does, good or bad.

Yeah, but I think "delusional" would be more accurate than "Nevertrumper". When I see that term used, as if it's some grand insult, I think, ya, those people would be just fine with being called "never-trumper". But "never" is kinda delusional, so I think that term fits better.

 

[jamil]

QFT

TDS goes both ways I guess. Like I said about always/never. Both are absolutes that require a bit of unearned scorn or loyalty. But the 'D' for the anti side is "deranged". And that's probably about right. The viral video of the lady sitting in the middle of street screaming her lungs out during the protests of Trump's inauguration could be on the poster for TDS. Definitely deranged. The people on the extreme edge of "never" look very "deranged".

For the "always" extreme though, I'd think that looks more like the 'D' is for delusional, which is simply a strong but mistaken belief in something despite strong evidence to the contrary. One can be pro-Trump without being delusional. And one can be anti-Trump without being deranged.

 

[jamil]

Reading the last couple of pages, I find I'm still seeing references to Trump Derangement Syndrome?

The only people suffering Trump Derangement Syndrome are the people so ideologically blinded that they will continue to support a blatantly anti-2nd Amendment president because he happens to have an R next to his name (a fairly new R, given that he used to be a Democrat).

I honestly don't know what else Trump could do before his base stops supporting him. I mean, he's using unconstitutional authority to take away our 2nd Amendment rights, he's managed to single-handedly tank the economy with idiotic trade wars (which is impressive, given how many moving parts the economy has), and he routinely flat out lies to our faces like we are mentally challenged sheep (and not just regular run of the mill lying, like all politicians do, I mean bald faced lying, like when a 4-year-old with chocolate all over their face and a half eaten cookie in their hand tells you they didn't get into the cookie jar). Yet, some folks on here will continue to lap up everything that comes out of his... mouth.

I honestly can't fathom it. If he still had the (D) after his name and was doing the exact same stuff, you guys would be screaming to high heaven about it. Can we have a little bit of intellectual honestly, please? "But Hillary..." isn't a valid response to when Trump does something unconstitutional, just like "But Bush..." wasn't a valid response to anything Obama did.

The bumpstock thing really pisses me off too.

But to answer the question, I'll ask one. What would make the left stop supporting bat-**** crazy SJW socialist politicians? What's the alternative? If you're firmly on the left and believe in social justice, and all the things that leftists believe, and you believe that Trump is literally Hitler, there is not really a lot of wrong that a leftist candidate can do to end support, other than betraying those beliefs. And I don't mean they just fail on a few ideological points. I mean, betray the social justice/egalitarian ethos. Short of that, such a politician is going to continue being supported by the left base no matter how crazy, especially if you think the alternative is literally Hitler.

Most of the Trumpers I've talked to, and even some delusional ones, don't really like the way that Trump behaves, but they want a wall, they want to reaffirm the nation's borders, they want the illegal immigrants sent back home, they're tired of being called Nazis and racists as they're neither Nazis nor racists (at least not any more racist than the average person). They're loyal to Trump because he fights back, and he advocates for the things they want. They accept some shortcomings because he's the only person doing the overall job they want.

Give people a saner alternative who also advocates for those things, and is as capable of standing up to the media, and I think that's the answer to your question. A better alternative keeps market choices in the sane range. If people see this as a binary choice between bump-stocks and literally Stalin, then Trump will get away with a lot. Of course, if Trump betrayed the core ethos, then they'd drop him. If he started speaking in his rallies about the need for open borders, and an instant and unearned path to citizenship for all undocumented workers, etcetera, then literally Stalin could look at least a little better than now.

 

[jamil]

QFT

Well, on some points yeah, on others, nah. The supporters aren't the only people suffering from TDS. There is both good and bad. Never is just as TDS as Always. Making absolute statements like "The only people..." is like an early warning sign for delusion creeping in.

 

[Dead Duck]

For the record.....
Trump is the Proest 2nd Amendmentest President we have at the moment.

Do we have better choice right now?

 

[Kutnupe14]

For the record.....
Trump is the Proest 2nd Amendmentest President we have at the moment.

Do we have better choice right now?

At the moment... he's also the best looking, smartest, most fit, with the best hair,

 

[Dead Duck]

At the moment... he's also the best looking, smartest, most fit, with the best hair,

When did we vote Sarah Palin in?

 

[jamil]

At the moment... he's also the best looking, smartest, most fit, with the best hair,

Hold on there. It was said awkwardly—there is only one president at a time—but the sentiment is spot on. Of the people who have a shot at becoming POTUS in 2020, Trump is the most supportive of the 2A. There is not a Democrat who has a shot at it who is even neutral on gun control. The next election, for anyone supportive of gun rights, is a trade-off between anti-gun zealots and Trump, for all his faults, real amd imagined. In terms of gun control, the choice is between someone who abused his power as president to ban bump stocks vs someone who would surely abuse his or her power to ban guns.