The National Rifle Association and the White House are in full on crisis PR mode, assuring the public that Trump is not interested in gun control, but instead, is committed to supporting second amendment protections.
Wednesday, Trump met with legislators from both parties to begin discussion on what he hopes will kickstart the creation of a bipartisan, comprehensive bill addressing school shootings.
Many ideas were discussed, but one comment left most of the second-amendment loving country wondering whether Trump is willing to compromise their rights for political expediency. “I like taking the guns early … Take the guns first, go through due process second,” said Trump.
Watch here:
WATCH: President Trump: "I like taking the guns early … Take the guns first, go through due process second." pic.twitter.com/aydEZdAGq0
— NBC News (@NBCNews) February 28, 2018
I discussed this meeting and the issue at length here. (TL;DR: When Trump speaks off the cuff on policy issues with which he’s clearly undereducated, I do not take him seriously. Add that to the fact that he changes his mind frequently and has a habit of tossing out all sorts of thoughts and ideas to see which ones stick, and I see no cause for concern. Lastly, Trump is not a committed ideologue in any traditional sense. He’s a dealmaker. Remembering as much helps keep the blood pressure within normal ranges.)
Republican lawmakers like Senate Majority Whip Cornyn called the meeting a brainstorming session, promising it would not dictate policy.
Because merely suggesting that gun control or due process are on the table is frightening and taboo, a tremendous amount of backlash ensued. Backlash to which the NRA, the White House, and Trump’s infamous Twitter account are responding.
Trump lunched with NRA leaders Sunday prior to the bipartisan meeting broadcast Wednesday. After Trump riled up half the country during Wednesday’s public meeting, he met (unannounced) with NRA lobbyists again Thursday:
Good (Great) meeting in the Oval Office tonight with the NRA!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 2, 2018
NRA Executive Director filled in the precise blanks:
I had a great meeting tonight with @realDonaldTrump & @VP. We all want safe schools, mental health reform and to keep guns away from dangerous people. POTUS & VPOTUS support the Second Amendment, support strong due process and don’t want gun control. #NRA #MAGA
— Chris Cox (@ChrisCoxNRA) March 2, 2018
Friday morning, the White House reiterated the same. From Politico:
President Donald Trump remains committed to defending Americans’ Second Amendment rights, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a brief exchange with reporters Friday morning that followed hours after the president met with NRA leaders.
Sanders Friday morning emphasis on gun rights marked another volley in the back and forth between Trump, who has voiced support for certain gun control measures in the wake of a mass shooting at a Florida high school last month, and Second Amendment advocates, among them the NRA and members of his own party, who have continued to oppose such steps.
…Sanders on Friday reiterated that the president continues to be a strong advocate of the right to bear arms.
“He’ll continue to support the Second Amendment, that’s not something that he’s backed away from,” Sanders told reporters when asked if the president had made any promises to the NRA during his White House meeting on Thursday with the group’s leadership. “The background check system is something that he’s still very much interested in improving.”
What will come of the meetings, we don’t know, but we’ll certainly keep you posted.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Dammit, the background check system doesn’t need to be improved, it needs to be followed …
Well, one way it could be improved is to put some teeth into the requirements for government agencies to submit required data.
For example, at a minimum, loss of jobs and pensions for federal employees – even military – that fail to report required data. Also, loss of Federal funding for state and local agencies that don’t comply.
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/28/wapo-senate-dems-torpedoing-gun-bill/
You mean like this?
The Dems want barriers to legal ownership. Fixing NICS reduces their opportunities to advance restrictions on legal access to firearms. They need crime just as they need a permanent underclass of people to get their way.
Preach. Seldom is there an occasion where a new law is warranted. In this case, enforcing existing laws and regulations would help tremendously.
As with An earlier comment:
” Alex, I will take face plants for $500″
Or Double Jeopardy…
” Alex, I will take Constitutional Apprentices for $1000″
Good Grief.
Trump PR gets them all the time. Sit down with the Dems make a few faces, shake your head, say we need to look into that blah blah blah, let the headlines blaze and then when the issue cools down continue what you were doing before the latest manufactured crisis. Dems and MSM have been Trumped again.
I am still wondering if Sessions is going to press on next week after the expiration of Trump’s six month moratorium enforcement of immigration laws with regards to DACA illegals. I do not want Trump to extend the enforcement moratorium. Not much longer to wait now.
Why bother? On the one hand, the courts have made the date meaningless by ordering the program to continue. On the other hand, AG Sessions made a firm ruling that the program is unconstitutional, and he would have every noble reason to resign if Trump attempts to extend an unconstitutional program further. I don’t see how the politics or the law matches up with an extension.
I think the biggest reason Sessions might have to resign is that people keep calling his office and waking him up in the middle of the 6 hour naps he takes each day.
Touche, but nonetheless, Trump agrees that it is unconstitutional, so extending a program you genuinely, publicly believe to be unconstitutional ought to be a big deal. I write this well aware of the crickets chirping in the background.
Still, he loses nothing by letting the moratorium end and doing absolutely nothing. If the courts drop their injunctions, Sessions has his way by default. He gave Congress six months and Congress did nothing.
When Trump speaks off the cuff on policy issues with which he’s clearly undereducated
Is he? I don’t see any clear sign he’s uneducated about much. I see clear signs he’s not dumb enough to tell the D’rats (or the R’s, or anyone else) what he’s up to. It may indeed be ignorance … or it may just be good tactics.
Gonna agree with you here. I wrote this elsewhere abut Trump targeting video games in the same meeting:
“I know it’s hard, but have patience. Remember Trump signaling his openness to double the DACA demands of the Democrats? He knew they would turn it down.
Two weeks ago EVERYONE was talking about the AR-15 and a possible ban of the weapon. Today we are talking about due process and video games and how you cannot blame outside forces for what the shooter chooses to do.
Trump is playing these people. We are now getting the focus back where it belongs: the individual. Trump met with the NRA today and soon he’ll meet with Video Gamers. The end result of both meetings will be how ‘these are great people’ and ‘we had a good conversation’ and how these groups will be convinced that ‘Trump really cares and really listened to us.’
Nothing will be banned or regulated and mental health will be focused on as it should be. Everyone (except leftist gun grabbers) will come to the consensus that objects are not dangerous, people are.”
It was the conversation between you and Mac45 that crystallized what I ave been seeing for months. Every meeting he has, people keep coming out sayings things like “He’s not at all what I thought he’d be like.” The man is not stupid. He will screw up, true, but he is only a man. I will support him until he DOES something beyond the pale.
I’m not sure what it will take to weaken the NRA’s hold on the Republican party (the NRA barely lobbies to the Democrats), but it seems that even the most horrific massacres, like Sandy Hook, don’t create any opportunity for effective changes. I’m not against guns for self-defense, home protection and hunting and target shooting, but actual necessity of owning an AR-15, and other military grade weaponry, is just not there.
Maybe if news outlets were actually allowed to publish the crime scene and forensic photos of the bodies of the dead victims it might create a long standing motivation among the average American, rather than just a temporary outrage that quickly dies down as the next “news cycle disaster” takes it’s place.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5443599/White-South-African-farmers-removed-land.html#ixzz58VXEVgp7
This is why.
I realize this is South Africa but do you really need me to pull articles from around the world about democratically elected governments making bad decisions?
Or we could show more of the dismemberment of aborted babies which for some reason you and your ilk never seem to worry about. How many do your abortionists slaughter each and every day?
From one link:
Based on available state-level data, approximately 893,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2016—down from approximately 914,000 abortions in 2015.
Or maybe we can ask you why Chicago with it’s strict gun control has lots of children killed, yet we rarely hear a peep out of your kind.
Also you could explain how come Sara Imam is now asking for donations to the dnc. Is she all over her “mourning” period for her 17 deceased classmates now? Talk about slimy democrats dancing in the blood and on the graves of victims.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/02/parkland-survivor-dnc-gun-control/
Oh yeah and don’t forget, one group sells arms, the other defends the 2nd Amendment.
Insert planned parenthood and NRA logos.
I’m not sure what it will take to weaken the ACLU’s hold on the Democratic party (the ACLU barely lobbies to the Republicans), but it seems that even the most horrific massacres, like Sandy Hook, don’t create any opportunity for effective changes. I’m not against newspapers for information, entertainment, advertising, and wrapping fish, but actual necessity of reporting the views of Oscar winners, or on the latest stupid “million X march”, is just not there.
Maybe if news outlets were actually forbidden from publishing the names of mass shooters, or from sensationalizing police shootings to stir resentment, or were required to report on people defending themselves, it might create a long standing motivation among the average American, rather than just a temporary outrage that quickly dies down as the next “news cycle disaster” takes it’s place.
The first amendment is no more privileged than the second.
By the way the AR-15 is not “military grade weaponry”, and is the most sensible choice if you want one weapon for self-defense, home protection and hunting and target shooting, for the whole family.
And news outlets are actually allowed to publish the crime scene and forensic photos of the bodies of the dead victims. What made you think they’re not? They don’t do so because their readers don’t want to see that, and the public would be outraged.
The 19-year-old school shooter who killed 17 in Florida on Valentine’s Day had 150 rounds of ammunition in 10-round magazines. Larger ones would not fit in his bag, Fla. state senator Lauren Book revealed.