Trump and 2A

[T-Unit]

Outside of pistol braces and forced reset and binary triggers, Trump is limited with what he can do. The least he can do is make it cheaper to buy guns and ammo by not being an omnipresent threat like a Donk president is.

The stuff that I want changed at the federal level is removal of Hughes, suppressors, and short barrel long guns from the NFA. That all requires Congress and it's not going to happen outside of SCOTUS striking those laws down, which SCOTUS has been hesitant to touch in Federal firearms laws. They have no issues striking down municipal laws regarding 2A matters.

 

[PappyM3]

Outside of pistol braces and forced reset and binary triggers, Trump is limited with what he can do. The least he can do is make it cheaper to buy guns and ammo by not being an omnipresent threat like a Donk president is.

The stuff that I want changed at the federal level is removal of Hughes, suppressors, and short barrel long guns from the NFA. That all requires Congress and it's not going to happen outside of SCOTUS striking those laws down, which SCOTUS has been hesitant to touch in Federal firearms laws. They have no issues striking down municipal laws regarding 2A matters.

There’s also the frame/receiver rule. And part of that is that FFLs now need to retain 4473s permanently. Having that reversed would be possible.

Trump could also reverse various importation bans on ammunition and surplus files.

He could stop the current illegal ATF policy of shutting down FFLs for typographic errors on paperwork

He could have the ATF get rid of their illegal database.

He could force the FBI to create an actual usable method of getting one’s name off the NICS list if it wasn’t supposed to be on there.

He could also have the ATF open up 90 windows to register new machine guns, but I think the chances of that are effectively nil.

There’s a good bit he could do.

 

[Coyote33]

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/DCfGls8Sw7w/

 

[42!]

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/DCfGls8Sw7w/

Here’s the problem, we were against the appointment of anyone who was a political activist when the were against us, it would be hypocritical to support a political activist now. And hypocrisy is a big point for me.

I want a knowledgeable bureaucratic drone. He knows guns, the law, and the constitution and follows that in what he does and does not do. I’d also want him to take a common sense approach to enforcement, no need to pull an ffl for simple, correctable, clerical errors.

Does this mean no massive changes without legislative action, yes it does. But I’m not ready to throw out legislative control, when it will set the president that will allow a flip in 4 years

 

[headednorth]

Here’s the problem, we were against the appointment of anyone who was a political activist when the were against us, it would be hypocritical to support a political activist now. And hypocrisy is a big point for me.

I want a knowledgeable bureaucratic drone. He knows guns, the law, and the constitution and follows that in what he does and does not do. I’d also want him to take a common sense approach to enforcement, no need to pull an ffl for simple, correctable, clerical errors.

Does this mean no massive changes without legislative action, yes it does. But I’m not ready to throw out legislative control, when it will set the president that will allow a flip in 4 years

Im ok with hypocrisy. The left set the precedent years ago

 

[42!]

Im ok with hypocrisy. The left set the precedent years ago

So you're ok when it's used against you?
Sorry, this is a hard line for me. It's the foundation of any morality. If you're ok with it, then you can justify any immorality.

 

[headednorth]

So you're ok when it's used against you?

No, but do you think the left would hold back if we play nice?

 

[42!]

No, but do you think the left would hold back if we play nice?

my morality is not dependent on what others do, or do not do.

 

[headednorth]

my morality is not dependent on what others do, or do not do.

Ok, see you in the camps

 

[PeterC]

my morality is not dependent on what others do, or do not do.

Your morality doesn't include an 'eye for an eye' ? Do unto others as they would do unto you ?

Ok, be happy being a victim because, be assured, your (our) enemy will show you no mercy to get what they want.

Sad.

 

[42!]

Ok, see you in the camps

not funny, my grandparents made it out of Poland, the rest of my family on my fathers/grandfathers side didn't. f*** you

 

[42!]

Your morality doesn't include an 'eye for an eye' ? Do unto others as they would do unto you ?

Ok, be happy being a victim because, be assured, your (our) enemy will show you no mercy to get what they want.

Sad.

The eye for an eye saying is about punishment for injuries done to your person, and I have no problem with that. as for "Do unto others as they would do unto you ?" you are quoting it wrong, it's Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And it's about judging the morality of your actions separate from the actions/morality of others. It which case I'm far more in line with the idea than you, apparently.

And being moral doesn't make you a victim, it's about how you fight, not if you fight. And what's left of you when you are done.
By your judgement, it would be ok for the native Americans to just start slaughtering everyone else, after all it was done to them. Or for me to just go out and start killing Germans, no this would not be ok either, because mass murder is morally wrong.

Without a moral compass, any atrocity can be justified.

 

[Kevin_NH]

Keep in mind, Red Flag laws sound awesome on the surface. Woman in danger, take the guns, figure it out.

What people who aren't into guns don't understand is the bonding process or the costs. I don't know the daily rate for a gun, but if you have 10 of them, it's 10xratexdays, which adds up quickly. If we are ever in the minority again, which may (WILL) happen, so at least listen to this, there needs to be a stipulation that the seizing agency has to cover the costs until determination if a Red Flag law is passed. If it is adjudicated in favor of the defendant, the claimant needs to pay for the guns' storage, and the guns released immediately even if the claimant doesn't pay right away. Legitimate cases will still be brought forward, sham ones will at least feel the sting.

If it's GOING to pass, jam that little bit in there. Best time to think about defense is when you don't need it.

Also consider the example of Vermont,, where in 2018 Middlebury PD used their ERPO law to raid the gun safes of an uninvolved 3rd party because a student planned to rob him to get guns to use for a school shooting. They trumpeted the success of this action despite the targeted individual not being an appropriate subject for ERPO and the news coverage repeatedly stated "The firearms had been all encased and secured in safes"

Middlebury police chief defends weapons seizure over alleged shooting plot

Chief Thomas Hanley said the threat was credible and authorities needed to act.

www.mychamplainvalley.com

 

[42!]

Your morality doesn't include an 'eye for an eye' ? Do unto others as they would do unto you ?

Ok, be happy being a victim because, be assured, your (our) enemy will show you no mercy to get what they want.

Sad.

We’ve also gotten far off the point, hypocrisy. It’s not whether or not an appointee is an activist. It’s whether or not you stood against them because they are an activist. If you oppose them because they are an activist, and then support someone else because they are an activist, that’s hypocrisy.