Trump Forgets His Pledge to Support Second Amendment; Capitulating to Antigun Crowd

Opinion

Donald Trump At National Rifle Association (NRA) Conference (5/20/2016)
Donald Trump At National Rifle Association (NRA) Conference (5/20/2016)

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- When Trump called for a ban on “Bump Stocks,” he ignored his pledge to support the Second Amendment; capitulating completely to the antigun crowd.

As if the Republican controlled Senate’s failure to enact national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation and President Trump’s failure to push forward a pro-Second Amendment agenda during his first two years in Office weren’t bad enough—a serious failure of omission on the part of both the U.S. Senate and the PresidentTrump’s ban on“bump stocks”—an act of commission—is even worse. By foolishly, impetuously, acting to ban “bump stocks,” the President demonstrates a dangerous naivety and ineptitude, along with a disturbingly blithe lack of concern for the well-being of the fundamental, immutable, unalienable, inviolate right of the American  people to keep and bear arms. Trump is obviously oblivious to the deleterious impact his unilateral action shall have—not simply may have—on the Second Amendment itself.

President Trump’s failure to cajole Congress to action, to strengthen our most cherished and important right, is unacceptable. That failure deserves our condemnation. But undermining our most cherished right is alarming and unforgivable. That deserves our lasting contempt. With the radical Left urging Democratic Party House members to impeach Trump, upon issuance of the Special Counsel’s, Robert Mueller’s, report that is due out at any time now, the President can ill afford to antagonize his own base; but Trump has done just that with his flagrant attack on the Second Amendment.

Trump should have left the matter of bump stocks to Congress. Congress, acting through its Article 1 legislative power, can, conceivably, lawfully, take such action to ban them, if it sought to do so, assuming—a big “if”—that the law, depending on the matter of its statutory construction, does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But it is not for the President to take that action upon himself under any set of circumstances. We have a system of checks and balances in our Country, and for good reason.

Congress makes the law. That power is within the province of Congress, not the President. The President’s duty is to faithfully execute the laws Congress enacts. Under our Constitution, the President has no authority to make binding law, in lieu of Congress. Unlike Great Britain and Australia, the Chief Executive has no authority to self-execute laws. The President does not serve as both Chief Executive and Legislator in Chief.”

We have seen how Obama had shown a marked, carefree proclivity to ignore the federal Government’s system of “checks and balances” that the founders of our Republic wisely conceived of and assiduously placed into our Constitution. As Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, makes crystal clear, it is the province of Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Obama, as President, and, no less a lawyer and academician, knew this. Yet, that did not prevent him from unlawfully promulgating and implementing his infamous, illegal “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA), policy, along with the concomitant mess it left for his successor, President Trump.

What was Obama’s motive for DACA? As he said, as reported to the Leftist media echo chamber, CNN:  “… for years while I was President, I asked Congress to send me such a bill. That bill never came. “Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question.” Obama proselytized to Americans, talking down to us as if we were children, suggesting that it is he, Obama, “the Great Father,” who shall teach us all what we ostensibly need to know about law, politics, and morality too, audaciously exclaiming that, as Congress didn’t give Obama what he wants—he—Barack Obama, will make law himself!

Obama’s remarks are a textbook example of propaganda, disseminated to the public by an insincere Press. It is bombastic, simplistic, perfunctory rhetoric; absolute drivel. Obama certainly knew it; and so should Press. This smug, duplicitous attitude on the part of both Obama and the Press serves to make Obama’s remarks and the mainstream media’s reporting of them all the more diabolical and reprehensible.

One salient, critical duty of the Chief Executive of the Nation, set down in Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The laws the President is duty-bound to faithfully execute the laws Congress enacts. The President has no power to issue personal edicts, suggesting they have the force of Congressional law, when in fact they don’t, and cannot ever have. As Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution makes abundantly and absolutely clear: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” There is nothing in Article 1 or in any other Article of the U.S. Constitution reciting that legislative powers, of some sort or another, also vest in the President. Such powers do not invest in the President; only in Congress.

The U.S. Constitution Consists of Fundamental Precepts; Not Simple Platitudes.

Trump, as with Obama before him, has begun to demonstrate a disturbing propensity to ignore precepts of the U.S. Constitution, when he wishes to do so, unmoved by the dictates of either the Constitution or his conscience. His unilateral action banning bump stocks was a calculated move. It is obvious why he took this action. He evidently felt the general public supported it—more of those in favor of it than not. He caved to public pressure to deliver something to the public, because of the worst mass shooting ever to occur in our Nation and an unthinkable tragedy that happened to occur on his watch. That may appear as reason enough to act by some, but Trump should not have fallen prey to the frenzy of the moment, and with such apparent alacrity, abandon, and smug self-assurance.

The continued existence of the natural, fundamental rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are not properly to be left to public whim, and never have been. Public opinion is easily manipulated and ever changeable. The founders of our Republic didn’t intend for the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people to be weakened by mere heat and rancor of a given moment in time. That ought to be clear enough to most Americans if they stop to consider this. It should be clear enough to Congress. And it should be clear enough to the President, too; but apparently it wasn’t. Having taken the action to ban bump stock devices, President Trump did nothing to make this Nation safer. Having bowed to political pressure–something he is, often and admirably enough, not ordinarily inclined to do, but did so in this instance–he reneged on a salient campaign promise he made to millions of Americans, namely that he, like they, fervently and reverently hold the Nation’s Second Amendment in the highest regard, and that he will do his best to preserve and strengthen it. Yet, a ban on bump stock devices does no such thing. Rather, it makes a mockery of Trump’s promise to the American people. Worse, taking the action he did to usurp Congressional authority and prerogative to make law, Trump did much more than simply undermine a campaign pledge; he undermined the very Constitution he swore an oath to preserve and to protect. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution makes plain that,

“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

Trump did not faithfully execute the office of President of the United States by making up his own law. He doesn’t preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States when he takes upon himself–as did his predecessor Barack Obama–the role the framers of the Constitution reserved alone to Congress, namely the authority to make law. And, Trump certainly doesn't preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, when he undermines the fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people as codified in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. 

Whether operating through grandiose self-delusion or blatant deceit, a Chief Executive, who fails to adhere to the limitations on his authority, as our Constitution dictates and mandates, significantly threatens the continued well-being of a free Republic. Under no set of circumstances can suspension or abrogation of our Constitution ever be justified.

__________________________________________________

*We urge all Americans, who support the Second Amendment, to sign the Petition, to overturn the ATF Rule that bans “bump stocks.”


Arbalest Quarrel

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

  • 114
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    20 Comment threads
    94 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    40 Comment authors
    BruceThe RevelatorGreg KWild BillHeed the Call-up Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    Austin
    Guest
    Austin

    To those who are saying that no one needs a bump stock or that they can be regulated through etc. Don’t forget that every one of these were legal purchases and now the owners are looking at becoming felons through no fault of their own. Once that starts……

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Austin

    First they came for machine guns. Next they came for the bump stocks and they said nothing. Then they came for Standard capacity magazines, making the little dandies cry. When they came for their Ar-15 and their bolt action deer rif…. Sniper rifles there was no body left to speak for them.

    Good post Austin

    Bruce
    Guest
    Bruce

    AND how many people posting here have sent a respectful message/letter to the president, their US Senators, & both their US Representatives about this???

    JoeUSooner
    Guest
    JoeUSooner

    I’ve sent two (respectful) messages each, so far… although with minimal apparent effect, sadly.

    Bruce
    Guest
    Bruce

    Very good, don’t stop doing it. I send messages through the websites but also actually US Mail a letter to them from time to time too!

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Bruce and Joe, Yep, personal letters are regarded by politician much higher than emails. And it makes a great hobby. I think it is Zillow that has a great “Politicians prefer unarmed peasants!” post card. The political NUBs really hate those post cards!

    m.
    Guest
    m.

    when I see an end to arrogant, bloviating, condescending, fake-superiority, traitorous, un-Constitutional legislation, i may render some respect. until then my terminology/responses will be commensurate.

    Bruce
    Guest
    Bruce

    Maybe someone like you shouldn’t write a letter m. But the rest of you that can get your point across in a respectful manner should!

    m.
    Guest
    m.

    .i forgot contemptuous.
    .respect has to be earned by action
    .a congress-clown said that America needed to repent of denigrating taquiyya-bama a while back, proper respect was not being rendered – i disagreed

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Bruce

    There does come a time however when repeated action should be discontinued. If the President, Senators, and Representatives choose to ignore us and ignore the constitution then it is up to us to turn our backs on them and let them rot.

    Willfully turning a blind a to continued betrayal does not solve the problem. Just know that walking the fence as you are now can only go so far before perceived wisdom turns into a judgement against your character.

    The Green Watch Dog
    Guest
    The Green Watch Dog

    Revelater,
    Under the DOJ’s guidance, they know nothing about bump stocks?
    Should our President first have consulted with you?
    The majority of Americans do not have a voice?
    What the DOJ summarized in part:
    “Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machine-gun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter”.

    Heed the Call-up
    Guest
    Heed the Call-up

    TGWD, “the majority of Americans do not have a voice?“ It’s not the majority of Americans. Even if that were true, our rights are inalienable. Do you believe you would still have your right to free speech if we decided you didn’t? The bump fire issue is plain stupid, and if you were honest, you would not be posting this bs. Would our fingers be required to be turned in or destroyed once we use them to bump fire a firearm? Would we be in felonious possession of bump fire devices? There are countless Internet videos showing bump firing of… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Heed, That crap that the free lunch dog is quoting is made up at “Main Justice” and Main Justice is completely filled with Barry Soetoro’s left over leftists. They write some lies. The lies spin around in the socialist string pullers’ heads. And it all gets barfed out as “truth” by the free lunch dog.

    Hendy
    Guest
    Hendy

    Blah blah blah “Muh Bump Stocks.”

    Meanwhile states are looking at making people felons overnight due to so called “assault” weapons bans. Nevada is about to be the test bed for a hot civil war with the gov wanting to ban guns and magazines and the people getting ready to tell him no. States are taking people’s firearms away and all these people can complain about is bump stocks.

    Bruce
    Guest
    Bruce

    I agree Hendy but we should not let anything go by uncontested…

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Hendy

    There is no difference between the assault weapon issue and bump stocks.

    Imagine this, the new definition includes anything that can readily be made to mimic or approach the speed of a machine gun. The definition Trump and the DOJ pushed for makes it so that any semi-automatic firearm falls into the definition of what can be regulated or banned.

    Don’t let your opinion blind you to what is actually happening.

    Barry Hirsh
    Guest
    Barry Hirsh

    Oh yes, there is. One is a comprehensive category of protected weapons. The other is a novelty. One is specifically protected, the other is not.

    Green Mtn. Boy
    Guest
    Green Mtn. Boy

    @ Barry Hirsh

    ERRP,wrong,try again they both are protected.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Green Mtn. Boy

    Awww, ruining my fun. Waiting for the reply to the comment I sent him a few minutes ago asking him to cite where in the constitution he found their statements on categories and novelties.

    Green Mtn. Boy
    Guest
    Green Mtn. Boy

    2 The Revelator

    Yours was correct and spelled out why,I was in the middle of fixing diner and was short on time,unless I wanted something to burn.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Green Mtn Boy

    Well hope you didn’t mess it up. It’d be a shame to waste good food. Anyway, I was joking with you. Ol Barry was working hard at becoming the next green dog.

    Heed the Call-up
    Guest
    Heed the Call-up

    Barry, most parts of a firearm are not required to make it function. Cylinders and magazines aren’t required, triggers aren’t required, sights and scopes aren’t required, stocks, rails, springs, ejectors, etc. The only things needed are a tube, a propellant and a projectile, and a means of activating the propellant. Let us know when you have reduced your firearms to only those basic parts needed to make it function.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Barry Hirsh.

    Care to cite where in the constitution that distinction is made Barry?

    I’m very interested in hearing where in all the founding fathers wisdom they included a specific passage on categories and novelties.

    Barry Hirsh
    Guest
    Barry Hirsh

    This is an overreaction. Bump stocks are not critical firearm components, and are not within the ambit of 2A protection. Are they fun? Sure. But the 2A isn’t about fun; it’s about the bottom line, and conflating this stupid issue with that is shallow, misguided and unfortunate and it undermines and devalues the real principle.

    Attacking the president over this is picayune. Who would you rather have – HILLARY?

    Please. Grow up. This just isn’t that important.

    Bruce
    Guest
    Bruce

    I concur with your post Barry!

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Barry Hirsh, The bump stock was created to help disabled persons to participate in the shooting sports. Maybe bump stocks are critical components for the disabled. So the issue is pretty important to disabled persons. Nor should we allow the false distinction of critical components become a precedent. For example: A fire arm does not need a box magazine. It can be fired single shot. Thus no box magazine is a critical component, and can be banned. Next, no firearm needs a tubular magazine. It can be fired single shot. Tubular magazines are banned and must be removed on pain… Read more »

    Barry Hirsh
    Guest
    Barry Hirsh

    That’s a weak rationalization. If disabled people can’t pull a trigger, bump stocks won’t help them.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Barry Hirsh

    As is the weak rationalization that just because something isn’t necessary or does not serve a purpose it can be banned.

    Don’t make hypocritical arguments Barry

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Rev, Barry thinks that by adding a few extra adjectives to the gun part, he can exclude the part from Constitutional protection. Describe, twist, and prevaricate all you want Barry, parts are still parts.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Barry Hirsh Critical or not, where in the constitution does it allow for any infringement of arms, be it arms, accoutrements, accessories, or otherwise? The Constitutional standard is zero infringement. You’re argument is no different than that “the second amendment only applies to single shots”, the only critical components of a firearm are the barrel, the stock, and a trigger/hammer arrangement to fire it. Extras like magazines, self locking bolts, and gas impingement systems would not be covered if the 2nd is only about the critical components of a firearm instead of all. Your efforts to try and tell others… Read more »

    Bruce
    Guest
    Bruce

    You are falling directly into ” divide & conquer “! We just lost the house and if we don’t support President Trump & the Republican Party it will go right down the drain. I don’t agree with all of his positions but I do not agree with any of the Democrat’s positions on guns & gun laws…..You going to vote 3rd Party now or stay home??? Might as well turn your guns in now…..

    Heed the Call-up
    Guest
    Heed the Call-up

    Bruce, no, we need to get rid of the RINOs and get candidates that believe in our Constitution. All of these politicians (any party) that forsake their oath of office (abiding by and defending the constitution) need to be removed from office.

    Nottinghill
    Guest
    Nottinghill

    @Bruce: HTC and Rev are correct. You’re confusing ”divide & conquer“ with getting screw’d with and finding you’re alone and sticky all when you wake up.
    “Might as well use your guns now?????”, and chase them all out. Is that what you mean?

    Bruce
    Guest
    Bruce

    I ain’t confusing anything! You have to be realistic in this day & age. You can’t keep yelling about it’s against the constitution and that being your only argument. The left/anti-gunners hate us and everything we stand for. They don’t like hunting either. We are getting screwed because we can’t have bump-fire stocks anymore? We are a minority and if you stop voting republican, vote third party, or don’t vote at all we will lose what we have left in a heartbeat….

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Bruce Being realistic means making arguments based on factual evidence. Sorry, Donald trump was wrong. Article 1 Section 1 of the constitution states so. Period. The Constitution is the only argument Just because you lack the spine to stand up and demand better of the people you sent to Washington with your vote who turned around and pushed through things that those on the Left have been craving for years, you now come here and whine about people who are actually telling the truth about what your actions have gotten us while demanding we put the constitution to the side… Read more »

    Nottinghill
    Guest
    Nottinghill

    That’s not realism you are using. It’s optimism. The Stuff Things Dreams & Utopias are made of. You keep voting for the RINOs and when you’re 80+ come back post here and tell us all how it went.
    Ask every single gunner here that votes, man or woman over 65yo if this country and the 2A/BOR have become less impeded and America, more conservative due to voting.
    I say congregate, buy firearms, stock up on ammo and we plan for what will be the worst.

    Mark
    Guest
    Mark

    We did not “lose” the House; it was stolen by the communists through dead people and illegal votes. Manipulation and possible hacking into the electric voting machines is another probability. What we also witnessed weeks before the mid-terms were the entire GOP acting cowardly against the communists during the Kavanah hearings. Where was the outrage, the confrontation or attempt to indite Feinstein, Schumer, and other communists on their handling of the circus. And where is the GOP DEMANDING the Clintons, Comey, Mueller, Strozk and all the others involved in the Russian Dossier and more especially the Uranium 1 deal with… Read more »

    GregTorchia
    Guest
    GregTorchia

    Same boat brother damned if I do it and damned if we don’t /l too have Special needs people to support depending on us It’s a heavy load -people don’t understand unless they’re in a similar situation but we’re all prepped and psyched up and ready to roll and that’s how it should be 1776

    Barry Hirsh
    Guest
    Barry Hirsh

    “Critical or not, where in the constitution does it allow for any infringement of arms, be it arms, accoutrements, accessories, or otherwise?” Bump stocks are not and cannot be construed as “arms”. They are not firing pins or magazines, or anything critical to the function of a firearm. They are attachments. Look up the definition of “conflation”. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the government from regulating things that aren’t specifically protected in the Bill of Rights. The federal government is delegated the power to regulate commerce. Since bump stocks move in commerce but are not protected, they… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Barry Hirsh Neither did the accessories necessary in the day constitute arms, or a lack thereof prevent firing a weapon. They are still Protected. Our Founders would not have gotten far without their own bag molds, knapping hammers, ect… In addition, Government does not have the power to regulate Commerce, but Commerce between the states and as a single entity with foreign nations. That means no state can gouge another for prices or tax trade travelling through its borders to steal from another. The courts have flagrantly ruled in violation of the Constitution on the Commerce Clause and have been… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    Arms consist of many parts. All of the parts are protected by our Civil Rights enumerated in the Second Amendment. A bump stock is a part of an arm, ergo protected.
    The federal government is only empowered by the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce not intrastate commerce.
    You may no like it, but there YOU have it.

    Greg K
    Guest
    Greg K

    @Revelator And in support of your notion, in 1942 the Supreme Court set Sail the Title of Nobility endowed, Unconstitutional Regulatory Agencies with that very case history. Wikipedia search “Wickard V. Filburn.” Because the people were outraged, 5 short years later Congress passed the APA “Administrative Procedures Act.” This allowed for “Public Comment.” Currently we are lucky to hear of “Public Comments” the day before or even a week before the Government Agencies take them. Things are way out of control, but hey I’m preaching to the choir. @Barry H It includes ammo, and everything that has attributes of weaponry.… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Greg K Very good for getting my reference! I was going to make Barry work a little, but since that is the case that would come up based on his convoluted thinking, I wanted to put him to work defending the indefensible. Indeed, that unconstitutional reinterpretation opens everything up even to products you already own. After all, if a market share is suffering according to that ruling the government has the authority to force you to buy goods you don’t need and throw out the ones you already have since it affects “Commerce”. It’s without a doubt one of the… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Bruce I wont reward anyone for betrayal by keeping them in power, but I also wont be turning in my guns. If you want to continue to support those in the Republican party who violate the constitution, then that is your choice. Do not demand that anyone else stand with you against their own principles. If you are ok with the Republican party enacting gun control, then I am for sure “Not With You.” Part of the reason we just lost the house was precisely because the Republican party betrayed its base. It did not do what it promised to… Read more »

    tomcat
    Guest
    tomcat

    Obama did the DACA thing by executive order, which was not legal and not challenged by the do nothings in congress.When Trump tried to override the order a judge said he couldn’t because it was already in force. This government is really f.u.and I don’t know if it will ever get corrected. Now we have muzzies in the congress and they hate us anyway and have every intention of overtaking the country. Not only gun rights are being chipped away at with the makeup of the congress, the Constitution is in real trouble from more than one direction.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Tomcat

    Yes. I would argue the most dangerous direction is from those who claim to be gun rights supporters trying to tell others what parts of firearms are critical or not, what firearms they feel are acceptable…. If the 2nd falls, the rest will follow. Those who legitimize the dissection of rights for personal opinions prevent the correction.

    Stay principled, and stay safe.

    nam marine
    Guest
    nam marine

    No one needs a bump-stock ! You can legally buy a machine gun if you pay the tax for it.

    The Green Watch Dog
    Guest
    The Green Watch Dog

    Yes, you are correct: You can purchase a machine gun as certain ones are not illegal to own providing you pass registration and can afford one. If one wants a weapon that has no use for hunting and over the top for protection then go for it. We should all go through the process in registration, required safety training, proper storage and full compliance. The GWD.

    Green Mtn. Boy
    Guest
    Green Mtn. Boy

    @ The Green Watch Dog “Yes, you are correct: You can purchase a machine gun as certain ones are not illegal to own providing you pass registration and can afford one. If one wants a weapon that has no use for hunting and over the top for protection then go for it.” In case you weren’t aware the Second Amendment “Is All About Hunting”, NOT. On June 7th, 1789, the night before James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights before the House of Representatives,he sat down to pen the first draft of the Second Amendment. The following is what many… Read more »

    Bruce
    Guest
    Bruce

    Yes that is true but a $200 bump-fire fire stock is allot less money than a registered MG which costs tens of thousands of dollars and is financially out of reach to the average citizen!

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    I need a bump stock to defend my cattle herd, and my life from armed rustlers. Rustlers still do exist because there is huge profits in cattle. Bump stocks are affordable. Machine guns are not. So you are wrong.
    I bet others have lives, that you do not know the details of, that require fast firing firearms, as well. You are also wrong to be deciding for others what they need and don’t need.
    What was your MOS?

    Bruce
    Guest
    Bruce

    If you own a cattle herd than you can afford a registered MG. Unless you need to put suppression fire down to cover your herd you don’t need a MG. Now, by all means go buy one, but you don’t need one! Recreation & collecting…….

    Ron Peete
    Guest
    Ron Peete

    My Letter To President Trump Mr. President, Sir, You ran on a promise to fully support and defend our Second Amendment of The Constitution. Your recent ban on so called Bump Stocks not only violates the Second Amendment it also violates the provisions of the Dick Act of 1902. Why have you given the Anti Constitution, Anti Second Amendment, gun grabbers in the Democratic Party another point to hold over your head concerning gun ownership????? As a “Trump Supporter” and law abiding gun owner I am vastly disappointed that you would not stand firm on the rights of all Law… Read more »

    GregTorchia
    Guest
    GregTorchia

    Well said young man don’t forget about “the wall”

    Norman Dvorak
    Guest
    Norman Dvorak

    Plus if anyone has ever fired a fully automatic rifle like I fired during my tour in Vietnam an M-16 would empty a 20 round magazine in less than a second and a bump stock makes a semi automatic rifle shoot far less than that. I can shoot a semi automatic rifle pulling the trigger real fast a lot faster than a bump stock does. Yes I do remember Donald Trump during one of his debates before being elected when asked his opinion of the 2nd Amendment he replied that he would follow the 2nd Amendment to the letter, PERIOD.… Read more »

    Roy D.
    Guest
    Roy D.

    Dear Government: If you wish to deprive US citizens of their legally obtained, and constitutional, property I guess you will just have to come and get them because they don’t seem willing to give them up voluntarily. Not in several states and we will soon see if that also extends nationally. Perhaps the courts will set things right concerning the bump stock ban and that “crisis” will be averted. It will be but a temporary reprieve. To US citizens: If there is something you want, and you can afford it, you had best be buying it sooner rather than later.… Read more »

    ROBERT PRICKETT
    Guest
    ROBERT PRICKETT

    Why in the sam-hill do you need a bump stock? Is it because you have an abundant supply of ammo that you want to waste?

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Robert Prickett, The issue is not resolved by someone deciding for me what I need, Ergo your question is moot.

    Sho Rembo
    Guest
    Sho Rembo

    I believe it is called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

    Green Mtn. Boy
    Guest
    Green Mtn. Boy

    @ ROBERT PRICKETT

    Robert it has nothing to do with need or want it’s titled the Bill of Rights.

    I would say that 95% or more of the posters to this thread do not have a bump fire stock,nor want one,that is not what this is about.

    Robert
    Guest
    Robert

    Robert Prickett, Personally, I think the “bump stock” is a piece of sh!t and I have no intention of owning one, but it is in the BILL of RIGHTS that the PEOPLES RIGHTS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! It does not say the right of the people to keep and bear arms as long as it is okey with congress or the president, or you! It is not up to the government to regulate arms away from the people or to twist it to meet their interpretation, or the interpretation of the courts. It was meant… Read more »

    DAN III
    Guest
    DAN III

    Prickett,

    Who the hell are you to decide what some citizen desires ? It is about want not need.

    Why do you want to berate those here who believe in Freedom ? Or is it just that you WANT to denigrate Patriots ?

    SAT CONG

    Wayne Clark
    Guest
    Wayne Clark

    I’ve read all these type articles berating Trump’s actions against the second amendment until I’ve grow tired of reading them. All this bitching about him “making laws” that aren’t his right to make, keeps going unchecked by anyone that CAN do something about it! Why hasn’t ANYONE in congress or the senate, just plainly told him…”Donald, this ain’t your job!”? I voted for him because I believed he was best for our country’s security & would finally, have someone that would uphold the 2A & the Constitution as a whole. I respect the office but damn…when you’re doing what you… Read more »

    Quatermain
    Guest
    Quatermain

    If things proceed as they should the bump stock ban will be invalidated by the courts. If things go as they really should the courts will unravel the 1934 NFA for the unconstitutional hoax that it is.

    Bruce
    Guest
    Bruce

    Never going to happen!

    jim smith
    Guest
    jim smith

    While I am opposed to the bumpstock ban, I am withholding judgement on Trump’s approach to implement it. As predicted, attempting to do it through an un-elected bureaucracy has resulted in a lengthy delay to implement it and a lawsuit which may set a long overdue precedent for limiting the ability of bureaucrats to bypass Congress to write legislation. If the ban proposal had gone to Congress during the period of heightened emotions, it might have passed when considering the public outcry and the number of RINOs in Congress. And I’m guessing the courts would have been more inclined to… Read more »

    Petr
    Guest
    Petr

    DACA was in no way an infrungement if US constitution. It was meant to protect chuldren of undocumented pare ts who grew up in America without knowing their motherland.
    trymp blatantly attacks US cinstitution, specifically 1st and now the 2nd amendments.
    trumps is like Ares, gives people power to destroy one another. Speaker Pelosi is iur Winder Wiman who will defeat Ares.

    GregTorchia
    Guest
    GregTorchia

    Speak English much ?or just can’t spell CHI-COM TROLL

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Greg T, Holly molly! You’ve caught a FNGee trolley! And as to Knacker Pelosi … the only thing she can defeat is a full glass of whiskey!

    DAN III
    Guest
    DAN III

    GFY !

    GregTorchia
    Guest
    GregTorchia

    You first Comrade

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Greg, I am pretty sure that the GFY comment was for Petr the chi-com, children protecter, and part time English teacher.

    GregTorchia
    Guest
    GregTorchia

    Sorry I’m just a little over zealous wacko tonight over these democratic assholes please accept my apologies gentlemen

    DAN III
    Guest
    DAN III

    WB,

    Thank you for your support regarding.my comment intended for the Bolshevik, Petr.

    I failed to salutate my remark to Petr. Thus, the misinterpretation by GregT.

    Thanks again. Have a good, tyrannny-free New Year 2019.

    DAN III
    Guest
    DAN III

    GregT,

    As soon as I posted my “GFY” remark intended for the Red, Petr I thought “Oops” ! I violated my own rule of using salutations and failed to address my denigrating remark with a salutation to the deserving Petr.

    The confusion created when folks fail to use salutations results in exactly what you perceived Greg.

    Sorry.for the error. My remark was not intended for you.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Gentlemen, I knew that it was a mere misunderstanding among patriots!

    GregTorchia
    Guest
    GregTorchia

    Sorry dan I’m just over zealous of the democratic —communist take over of the houseOf representatives that doesn’t really represent “we the people”

    Maggot4lyf
    Guest
    Maggot4lyf

    Children of illegals are still illegal. Build the Wall!

    Truckbuddy
    Guest
    Truckbuddy

    This entire article is New York blue pill propaganda. Beware.

    Heed the Call-up
    Guest
    Heed the Call-up

    Truckbuddy, care to elaborate on how you flippantly arrived at your stated belief on this well-written essay? It would be interesting to read your, incisive, logical, and well-reasoned rebuttal.

    Truckbuddy
    Guest
    Truckbuddy

    Insidious erosion of principle, my educated friend. I’m not a fan of the bump stock ban, and do think it a bone to the hysteric. Some of the President’s decisions are perhaps not in the best interest of freedom, but the majority are. He deals with the country and the world, not just your opinion or mine. Microcosm much? I don’t. There is no reason for spewing this much vitriol over a piece of plastic. The level of character damage in the article stinks of ulterior motive, and the origination of the diatribe doesn’t surprise. I merely post a warning… Read more »

    Heed the Call-up
    Guest
    Heed the Call-up

    Truck buddy, this essay is not simplistic, it was well-written, making it easy for most of us to understand the points being made. Trump does deserve to be rebuked for this. It is not relevant whether or not one agrees with anything else Trump has done or whether or not you agree with the ban. Legislating from the Oval Office is just as wrong as legislating from the bench. We have three branches of government, and those two, according to our constitution, do not legally create legislative edicts. So much for getting a well-reasoned, logical reply – not that I… Read more »

    Truckbuddy
    Guest
    Truckbuddy

    But you got one. You just don’t get it. Too much ego?

    The warning is on the bottle.

    Heed the Call-up
    Guest
    Heed the Call-up

    Truck buddy, I have one what? If you mean to say I own a bump stock, you would be sadly mistaken. I don’t even own a rifle, so, no I don’t own a bump stock nor have any use for one.

    If you knew anything about firearms, you would know that a bump stock isn’t needed to bump fire a firearm, just one’s hands. Even a semi-auto pistol can be bump fired. I have never done that, but I have seen videos of it being done. Seems like a waste of ammo, but apparently some people enjoy doing it.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Heed, He is saying that you got a well reasoned reply. The reason that ” You just don’t get it.” is because he forgot to put in the antecedent, to the pronoun one. Without the antecedent, one never knows to what the pronoun refers.

    Heed the Call-up
    Guest
    Heed the Call-up

    WB, I believe you are giving the ignorant poster too much credit. He may have been saying that or something else. Either way, he didn’t give a cogent rebuttal.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Wild Bill

    In support of Heed the Call up, I think you can throw out anything regarding well reasoned from Truckbuddy’s reply after he asked this question..

    “Microcosm much? I don’t.”

    Truckbuddy has a problem with people criticizing Trump. Notice, as soon as heed started referring to the constitution, there was no intelligent reply from Truckbuddy, it was just a “Quick I gotta say something so people will think this heed guy is mental”. Not one single response to the issue of Constitutionality.

    Heed definitely won on an evidence based argument.

    Scott
    Guest
    Scott

    I think ALL of the commenters here willfully FORGET that President Trump had the blessing from the NRA to ban bumpstocks! As Trump is not a politician, he regrettably relied on the ONE organization that was supposedly founded on maintaining the Second Amendment for council in implementing the bumpstock ban. Why is there no marches, and vitriol for the organization actually responsible for the ban? None of us know what was said by our representatives from the NRA behind closed doors to President Trump. Did Trump make a big mistake, yes. But more importantly we should be holding those accountable… Read more »

    george clark
    Guest
    george clark

    And when a ban on semi-auto firearms comes down the pipe ,it will fall the same way of bump stocks. any such decision made by the congress would be a danger to our rights; let alone some ruling by a self imposing president.Did we learn anything from the D.A.C.A. rendering?

    GregTorchia
    Guest
    GregTorchia

    It’s up to us to hold hold hold the onslot Of communism Islamic terrorism and assorted satanic powers that’s right it’s up to me and you not some cop on the street corner not some politician in Washington DC let’s all get real and prepared to roll or get left in the dust and tire tracks across your back 1776 On steroids

    Robert
    Guest
    Robert

    Scott, Okay, you say that giving up the “bump stock” might be stopping something much worse. I get that, but it is not up to the gov’t to say what the people can have for arms. Read the constitution! But besides that, why should the gun owners have to give up anything? Any and all gun laws are a infringement against the 2nd. amendment, and all gun owners should stand together and refuse to give up anything whether we like or have the item(s) they are trying to take. The next thing they take might be something you like. All… Read more »

    Wayne Clark
    Guest
    Wayne Clark

    Pertinent question…when did the NRA become part of the legislative process? As far as I know, they are nothing more than a company lobbying for recruitment. To have any influence over the laws made by Congress, or the presumptive edicts made by our President, is no different than Phillip-Morris “suggesting” how cancer research should be guided. The NRA sold it’s support for the 2A a long time ago & until they are no longer a player in this game of fucking with our rights, we aren’t going to see any positive legislation passed by our bought & payed for, lifetime… Read more »

    joefoam
    Guest
    joefoam

    Trump is a populist, pandering to his perceived supporters. If the MSM continues to sell anti-gun rhetoric the weak minded fools will continue to support the initiatives. I have already written to the NRA and the White House with my displeasure regarding the actions taken by Cox & LaPierre regarding the bump stock ban and ERPOs which they support. I would encourage all to do the same.

    Douglas Morris
    Guest
    Douglas Morris

    so, who’s actually written POTUS Trump>> who’s written their Reps?? who’s raising hell..

    and, are any listening?

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Douglas Morris

    Those of us who have written have gotten either non replies back, or no replies back. It’s the Potomac two step.

    As long as they keep getting elected by people they can tell “If you don’t vote for us, the other guy will win” they have zero plans of changing or actually doing what we tell them.

    dava golino
    Guest
    dava golino

    the president said he would work with Russia, too… He did the opposite. oh well guess every coin has two sides.

    Cecil Brooks
    Guest
    Cecil Brooks

    It’s good that we hold the president accountable for his pledge to protect the second amendment, but lets not forget that if we remove our support, the dems will win in 2020. Go ahead and get on his case, but don’t remove your support!!!

    Green Mtn. Boy
    Guest
    Green Mtn. Boy

    Many may forget the Donald,I wonder if he thinks that the Leftist’s of Move On will carry his reelection should he choose to run again.

    GregTorchia
    Guest
    GregTorchia

    I’m sorry ,,but most of you act as if HillaryElizabeth Warren Jill Stein or Jeb Bush would “not have destroyed “our Second Amendment rights immediately after the election Marshall law the whole nine disarmament yardsWithout congressional approval Or so much as a screw you constitutionalists /Trumps not a politician ,,he’s a businessman that’s why he got the job -if you haven’t read the book “the art of the deal “you might not figure something out on a 4D chess gameSince everybody on this thread thinks they are Sherlock Holmes,Elementary Watson

    The Green Watch Dog
    Guest
    The Green Watch Dog

    “His unilateral action banning bump stocks was a calculated move. It is obvious why he took this action. He evidently felt the general public supported it—more of those in favor of it than not”.
    Yes, We elected a President that represents the voice of our nation. As the PEW Institute shows, the majority of Americans support sensible gun control. Some may be surprised that I (The GWD) support my right to bear arms. thats a good thing! I am not worried whatsoever that big mean Goblins are going to come and scoop up any guns, providing one is not a criminal.

    Grigori
    Guest
    Grigori

    “… provided one is not a criminal.”

    So, it is okay when your government/Trump make you a criminal overnight by reclassifying an innocuous part or accessory so that you instantly become a Federal felon overnight, if you did not turn in that part or accessory by a given date?

    Makes perfect sense, ……….. NOT!

    Ansel Hazen
    Guest
    Ansel Hazen

    The problem with your statement “the majority of Americans support sensible gun control” is that you think that means they agree with more restrictive laws. “Sensible” gun control means ending gun free zones and enacting National Reciprocity. Because you know, the 2A isn’t about sitting in a duck blind in some marsh.

    JoeUSooner
    Guest
    JoeUSooner

    Yes, that is EXACTLY what “sensible” means to sane, rational, intelligent humans. Problematically, the Democrat Party leadership does not consist of such humans, and their definition of “sensible” is insane.

    m.
    Guest
    m.

    gwd-sucker, nobody cares what you think about anything

    Grigori
    Guest
    Grigori

    What blows my mind, is the number of good, otherwise intelligent, people who when confronted with Trump’s numerous betrayals, make endless excuses for his behavior. They honestly cannot accept that we have been hoodwinked and believe this is all some discombobulated tactic of his to fix things for us. It reminds me of an abused woman who continually makes excuses for her abusive boyfriend or husband and is too weak emotionally to face the fact that he is a no good POS, always was, and always will be.

    Dan the Man
    Guest
    Dan the Man

    Well said.

    Unfortunately, we will see more gun control from him.

    Grigori
    Guest
    Grigori

    Dan, that is what I fear. Watched a YouTube vid a few days ago. The guy made excellent, very true, points about how if Obama had proposed bump stock bans, Red Flag laws, and increased age limits to own certain guns, people would have been close to rioting and rightfully so. Trump does it and all of a sudden it is no big deal. I used to think sheeple were mostly liberals but it looks like our side has quite a fair share of them

    Dan the Man
    Guest
    Dan the Man

    I saw the same thing in 1986 with Reagan and the machine gun ban, the same thing in 1989 with George Bush 1 and his “assault weapons” imports ban, the same thing with Republican “revolution” inaction to stop the Brady Bill from 1993-94, and the same thing when Bush 2 said he would renew an “assault weapons” ban if the renewal hit his desk in 2004. Now we see Trump in favor of: red flag laws (no 2nd, 4th, 5th or 14th Amendment), bump stock ban, increased background checks, under 21 purchase ban, and he will most likely support the… Read more »

    Mark
    Guest
    Mark

    Grigori, “Our side” is composed of people who were desperate to keep Killary from becoming prez. Trump played into our hands. What I cannot determine is was he always going to betray us or did he enter the prez race believing he could actually help our country? I initially believed he entered in good faith not believing he could actually win but was soon confronted with the-powers-that-be when it was clear he had a good chance of winning. I think he was threatened or bought off at that point to do the biding of Israel and the Bill Gates, Jeff… Read more »

    george clark
    Guest
    george clark

    We played into his hands. we got suckered

    DAN III
    Guest
    DAN III

    Mark,

    What was the alternative if not Donald John Trump ? John “Rino” Kasich ? Jeb “Low Energy” Bush the 3rd ? Or the communist carpet-muncher Hillary “Rotten” Clinton and her band of traitors ?

    It boils down to once again, unfortunately, another election where Traditional Americans are presented with a candidate who is the lesser of two evils.

    chris
    Guest
    chris

    It was plain to see, he was pro Patriot act, civil forfeiture, domestic spying, eminent domain, stop and frisk, assault weapons/high capacity magazine ban.

    Wanted to restart the1033 program giving police military surplus to be used against the people.

    Now its “take the guns first, follow due process later”, bump stock ban, pushing red flag laws.

    He is consistent in his anti Constitution, founding principles of the country words and actions. He hasn’t changed one bit.

    GregTorchia
    Guest
    GregTorchia

    Nobody said shit when he -“Obama “gave $150 billion in laundered money to the Iran cabal – so they could shoot rockets up your ass —but that was OK??Didn’t nobody riot then or take to the streetsWhen Obama decided to activate DACA without any congressional approvalNobody said shit would constantly President Obama gave over $100,000 every year to the Muslim brotherhood nobody said shit about that or took to the streets/What you see here is blind trust in a man made by God that’s it bottom-line /come on look at our options!

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Grigori, Maybe he is a POS, but he is not a professional. As we all recall the choice was between him and 17 professional politicians, and had any of them been successful, the fix would have been in.
    Then the choice was between him and Hillary Clinton, professional politician, federal felon, and national betrayer. Had she been successful, the fix would have been in.
    Now, what are these “numerous betrayals” that you spoke of?