BATF is reclassifying previously legal firearms

[ShooterInPA1]

This is a joke, right? Do we need to stretch this thread out and go full derailment to explain it to you?

I think yes you do. In detail.

[ShooterInPA1]

Trump is the antithesis of the two party system. His own party, the GOP didn't want him as the nominee, nor President. The Establishment Republicans have been fighting him since he's been in office. What has Trump done to take away our gun rights? Why do you hate "boomers" ? Many of is are mid 50's and have done a lot to protect gun rights through a constant barrage of illegal laws.

^^^^THIS^^^^

[USMC3531]

Trump hates guns a d supports red flag laws among others, the only reason he hadn't pushed them because he knows the people that got him elected dont support the laws. As a lame duck he has nothing to lose by passing gun laws. I'll be "wasting my vote" for a 3rd party and maybe if more would wake up and stop supporting the 2 party system we could get somewhere...

[dev]

It's always nice reading that so many supporters of the 2nd are going to try and help a Bloomberg, Warren, or Çory Booker get elected. Not enough people had this attitude in 2016. The current state of the 2nd would have been so much better with Hillary.

Ive been so disappointed that guns and ammo have been plentiful and cheap. After Vegas, Parkland and other events where scumbags used guns I'm sure Hillary and any of the current candidates would not have the 2nd under a full assault right now.

And the future of the 2nd would look wonderful right now with whomever Hillary replaced Scalia, Kennedy and Ginsberg with. Not to mention all the Federal judges Hillary would have in place now that will impact cases on the 2nd for decades to come.

The next Democrat president will make harming the 2nd a priority. They will not be going with a small cut here or there, they will go for cutting off the head.

Trump's far from perfect but we need to stop anything that is positive for the 2nd. Thanks to everyone who will be teaching a lesson and helping a Bloomberg become president.

Antis every where applaud your actions and thank you for supporting their cause.

[Berncly]

Trump hates guns a d supports red flag laws among others, the only reason he hadn't pushed them because he knows the people that got him elected dont support the laws. As a lame duck he has nothing to lose by passing gun laws. I'll be "wasting my vote" for a 3rd party and maybe if more would wake up and stop supporting the 2 party system we could get somewhere...

Maybe, maybe not.

But what is proven is that Trump nominates true Conservative judges, that's a fact, and it's indisputable.
The next president will, without any doubt, nominate the next US Supreme Court justice to replace Ginsburg.

Trump will replace Ginsburg with a true Conservative to cement a strong Conservative majority in the US Supreme Court for the next 20 years.
The only way to make that happen is to elect Trump for a second term, and to retain a Republican majority in the US Senate.

That's what this all boils down to, and none of it is open to interpretation.

Vote for Trump and a Republican Senate to secure a pro 2A Conservative US Supreme Court.
Or don't vote for Trump and a Republican Senate, and destroy the simplest and easiest opportunity we have to protect the 2A for the next 20 years or more.

[t1066]

Maybe, maybe not.

But what is proven is that Trump nominates true Conservative judges, that's a fact, and it's indisputable.
The next president will, without any doubt, nominate the next US Supreme Court justice to replace Ginsburg.

Trump will replace Ginsburg with a true Conservative to cement a strong Conservative majority in the US Supreme Court for the next 20 years.
The only way to make that happen is to elect Trump for a second term, and to retain a Republican majority in the US Senate.

That's what this all boils down to, and none of it is open to interpretation.

Vote for Trump and a Republican Senate to secure a pro 2A Conservative US Supreme Court.
Or don't vote for Trump and a Republican Senate, and destroy the simplest and easiest opportunity we have to protect the 2A for the next 20 years or more.

This alone is reason enough to vote for Trump, despite his less than stellar performance on 2A issues and other antics. No n+x dimensional chess involved. I could absolutely hate the man and would still vote for him as long as he keeps appointing the right judges.

[bruce545]

Because the NRA only wants a stalemate


Edited to add

Also because Franklin Armory doesn't buy enough ad space in their magazines.

Yep! It's sort of like healthcare finding a cure for cancer. There's too much money that could be lost from the NRA coffers.

[ideaman]

Shouldn't any change affecting a Constitution Amendment, requires a States of Convention?

[GunLawyer001]

This is a joke, right? Do we need to stretch this thread out and go full derailment to explain it to you?

For whatever reason, you've chosen to argue like a woke Progressive Democrat.

The truth is, none of us liked the bump stock ban, but there was a serious risk that if Trump had not instructed ATF to do that, then we'd have a statute instead, which would be much stronger than an ATF determination, and would likely have been a chance to throw in mandatory background checks (an excuse for universal registration of all guns) and maybe a ban on standard capacity mags as well.

Maybe Trump supports "red flag laws". So do most Americans, in principle. So do many here, as proven by every instance where cops were criticized because "they knew that kid was nuts yet they did nothing". Some kid shoots up a school after years of everyone being afraid of him, and you guys blame the cops for not stopping the future crime, then you flip around and piously boast that "red flag laws are bad". Well, pick one, either it's the fault of cops for not disarming the wackjob school shooters before they kill, or else red flag laws are bad.

I'll tell you this, at least 1 moderator here is getting tired of your "boot licking" comments. That's another woke Progressive tactic, to evade adult debate and rely entirely on snide personal insults. It was also a tactic of the FBI back in the 1960's, where the guy in the college revolutionary cell who was always pushing for immediate violence and ideological purity, the guy who "knew a guy" who could get dynamite, he was the mole wearing a wire. And he didn't really want to see the group's goals advanced, he had his own agenda.

Maybe you want to watch the world burn, maybe you're one of the guys who admits that he wants everything to go to shit so that his new perfect world can be built on the ashes of the old world. Maybe you just want the Dems to win, maybe Hillary was your dream date and, like half the nation, you can't get over this waking nightmare of a booming economy and resurgent military and other nations respecting us again. Who knows. But you argue like an MSNBC viewer. That's not intended as a personal insult, that's an observation of your factless insults.

[knight0334]

For whatever reason, you've chosen to argue like a woke Progressive Democrat.

The truth is, none of us liked the bump stock ban, but there was a serious risk that if Trump had not instructed ATF to do that, then we'd have a statute instead, which would be much stronger than an ATF determination, and would likely have been a chance to throw in mandatory background checks (an excuse for universal registration of all guns) and maybe a ban on standard capacity mags as well.

Maybe Trump supports "red flag laws". So do most Americans, in principle. So do many here, as proven by every instance where cops were criticized because "they knew that kid was nuts yet they did nothing". Some kid shoots up a school after years of everyone being afraid of him, and you guys blame the cops for not stopping the future crime, then you flip around and piously boast that "red flag laws are bad". Well, pick one, either it's the fault of cops for not disarming the wackjob school shooters before they kill, or else red flag laws are bad.

I'll tell you this, at least 1 moderator here is getting tired of your "boot licking" comments. That's another woke Progressive tactic, to evade adult debate and rely entirely on snide personal insults. It was also a tactic of the FBI back in the 1960's, where the guy in the college revolutionary cell who was always pushing for immediate violence and ideological purity, the guy who "knew a guy" who could get dynamite, he was the mole wearing a wire. And he didn't really want to see the group's goals advanced, he had his own agenda.

Maybe you want to watch the world burn, maybe you're one of the guys who admits that he wants everything to go to shit so that his new perfect world can be built on the ashes of the old world. Maybe you just want the Dems to win, maybe Hillary was your dream date and, like half the nation, you can't get over this waking nightmare of a booming economy and resurgent military and other nations respecting us again. Who knows. But you argue like an MSNBC viewer. That's not intended as a personal insult, that's an observation of your factless insults.

I reply in concurrence..

Yep, that bump stock thing was a load of horse shit. ...we all know it. However, it became a matter of cutting off a finger to save an arm. Had that "concession" not been made, Federal Red Flag and Universal Background Checks would have been pushed hard enough to pass with a statutory Bump Stock Ban. ...and whatever else they threw in, like magazine capacity, renewal of AWB, etc, etc.

With the Bump Stocks being a fringe market, it was far better to let that happen than the recourse. And there was/is enough in both Houses to get more restrictive laws passed.

Trump isn't as pro-gun as some like to think. Sure, he's a lot better choice than Killary would have been. But he is still a New York Republican, which means he's likely to be more anti-gun than a rural Democrat from a conservative state. ...he would have signed a bill instituting Universal Background Checks, Red Flag, Magazine capacity, and AWB.