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


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

New York – -( 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:

  • 114 thoughts on “Trump Forgets His Pledge to Support Second Amendment; Capitulating to Antigun Crowd

    1. 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……

      1. @ 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

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

        1. 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!

          1. @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!

      1. 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.

        1. 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!

          1. .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

      2. @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.

        1. 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”.

          1. 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 rifles and pistols using nothing but one’s own hands. How do you suggest regulating that? Or how about professional shooters that fire as quickly, and more accurately than someone bump firing? Are we going to require that they not shoot as fast? What rate of fire is “reasonable” and who gets to determine that?

            1. @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.

    3. 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.

      1. @ 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.

        1. 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.

            1. @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.

            2. 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.

            3. @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.

          1. 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.

        2. @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.

    4. 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.

      1. @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 of federal felony. And next, no double barrel needs a second barrel. Thus the second barrel is not a critical part, and can be banned.

          1. @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

            1. @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.

      2. @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 what is necessary for them to have or not have do not match the constitution.

        As far as Donald Trump goes, he just succeeded in doing something that Hillary in all likely hood would not have been able to get done. In addition to that, people like you now defend these actions. What is the difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton if they both carry out the same results? Are you suddenly happy with it now that the Republican party is the one enacting these violations?

        The Constitution is that important, and there are those of us fighting this who are the grown ups in the room. The children who do not want to see, hear about, or talk about the fact that their choice for president lied to them and betrayed them are the ones that need to grow up. You have a choice, you can choose your opinion, or you can support the constitution. Your above statement shows that the two are at odds with each other, or that you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

        1. 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…..

          1. 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.

          2. @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?

            1. 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….

            2. @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 and join you.

              No thank you. There is no president, and no congress without the Constitution. It is the document that defines them and limits their powers. We are done moving to the left. If you want our votes, you are going to have to come all the way to the right and join us, not the other way around.

          3. 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.

          4. 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 Russia be impeached and given the remedy in the Constitution?
            The GOP sickens me as they have failed just as much as the communists have – 2 sides of the same coin. They are BOTH worthless – the gallows waits for them all.
            NO ONE is going to prison!
            I supported the republicans Trump recommended – they did not win. we have been the position of voting for the lesser of 2 evils….. still evil. And we’re constantly told how terrible it would have been should Killary had won. The difference is only in the amount of time it will take for all elected politicians (of both sides) to pass laws to destroy this country. I have come to the conclusion only a Second Revolution will save this country and being a father and primary care-giver of a child with severe medical conditions. He depends on me for everything and frankly, I do not wish to die if few are awake enough to see what is going on.
            I do not what the true alternative is at this time. I will do what I can but voting doesn’t work anymore.

            1. 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

          5. “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 are subject to government regulation.

            You may no like it, but there you have it.

            1. @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 doing so since the Early 1800’s

              For example, a man grows crops on his own land because he is poor and wants to feed his family. He does this to save money and ensure his kids don’t go hungry. The government shows up and says since he is not buying food at the store he is affecting commerce within and between the states. They fine him, and since he is poor they take his money, his land, and watch as his family suffers. Is this a position you agree with, because it is the absolutely idiotic argument you just made.

            2. 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.

            3. @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. by your definition, they could come out and make a hilt illegal on a knife.

            4. @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 most heinous and obviously unconstitutional reaches by the judiciary during the 20th century.

        2. @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 do despite having control of all three branches. You vote how you want, but you will be responsible for your own stupidity. Anyone who says “but the other guys might win” is not thinking for themselves. Claiming you have no choice is the same as cowering in fear. You did not make the choice, so now it is making you.

          As I said, its your choice. Either stand for the constitution or be a hypocrite. The only person dividing in this case is you. I’ve never left the constitution. I feel sorry for you.

    5. 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.

      1. @ 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.

      1. 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.

        1. @ 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 scholars believe to have been the original and unedited version of that amendment.

      2. 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!

      3. 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?

        1. 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…….

    6. 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 abiding gun owners!!! Therefor my Question to you: Just where DO you stand on the Second Amendment and the “Right of the People too keep and bear Arms???

      Day after day we have the outright treasonous acts of members of both the Democrat and Republican politicians in Washington DC paraded before us with NO ONE being arrested or going to jail!!! Case in point The Clinton’s, The Obama’s, the Bush’s and Mueller!!! This and the capitulating to the anti gun group pressure is very disappointing and frustrating to me and millions of others in this country!!!

      The Second Amendments states that our gun rights “Shall Not Be Infringed” and it means exactly that!!! You ran on that and I expect you to live up to that promise!!!

      1. 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. It kind of made me mad when he enacted the law about the bump stocks when that is Congress’s Job and he didn’t follow the 2nd Amendment as he promised.

    7. 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. How many wish they had known what would transpire after Dec 2012.

      1. 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?

        1. @ 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.

        2. 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 for the people to have arms of equal or more power of the government to be able to defend against a tyrannical government. It is impossible for the people to have such arms if the government would have the right or power to regulate arms because they could regulate arms away from the people by banning arms they do not want the people to have so the people could pose no threat to them if and when they become tyrannical. Constitutionally speaking, it is not governments or your descission what arms the people can have or who can have them (red flag laws).
          You cannot fight back against a bully with your hands tied behind your back.

        3. 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

    8. 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 shouldn’t be, you need to be plainly told so & he’s not. HE SWORE AN OATH to uphold our Constitution. SOMEBODY, make him hold to that!
      Enough writing about it already!

    9. 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.

    10. 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 uphold such a ban since Congress is composed of elected officials.

    11. 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.

        1. @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!

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

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

            2. WB,

              Thank you for your support 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.

          2. 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.

        1. 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”

      1. 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.

        1. 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 in the same manner as the article was written. Simplistic, but a warning nonetheless.

          1. 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 was actually expecting one.

            1. 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.

            2. @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.

            3. 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.

            4. @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.

    12. 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 that have been behind EVERY incremental loss in the Second Amendment for the last 30 years…The leadership at the NRA! The other thing none of us know is whether this ban (bumpstocks) was to head off something more sinister that was in the making. Personally bumpstocks are nothing but a novelty toy I am glad to see go away, if for no other reason than to buy time, and get the focus off of the semi-auto bans that were being discussed…until the real bans start coming down the pipe.

      1. 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?

        1. 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

      2. 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.
        That is the only way to stop them from eventually taking every firearm.
        If the gun owners do not stick together they will take them all!
        And then, they will take our freedom!

      3. 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 Congress.
        I hope Pelosi got a tan while she was in Hawaii on our dime. Maybe she won’t look so much like the walking dead then. Just thought I’d throw that in for good measure.

    13. 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.

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

      and, are any listening?

      1. @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.

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

      1. 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!!!

    16. 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.

      1. 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

    17. “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.

      1. “… 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!

      2. 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.

        1. 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.

    18. 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.

        1. 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

          1. 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 3D gun ban, parts kit ban, make your own gun ban, etc.. The 2nd Amendment has been destroyed even further in CA, NY, NJ, MA, MD, VT, FL, WA, etc. and not a WORD from Trump or his “best people” about these unConstitutional actions except for praise for Gov. Scott passing his gun control. Yet, many dummy gun owners are still wearing Trump hats believing he is defending the 2A. No surprise here as I had eyes and ears from 2012 and back when Trump stated favor of an “assault weapons” and hi-cap magazine ban, said the NRA and the radical Tea Party had too much control of Washington D.C. and that the Republicans were too right wing. I said that we would have gun control if Trump won the presidency and most were too caught up in the BS to believe it.

            Until gun owners start talking about the real reasons for the Second Amendment, which is a defense of one’s life and liberty against tyranny and genocide, then we will continue to lose our rights with the NRA’s right to defend yourself against robbers and rapists arguments.

            Conservatives are very good and one thing, getting conned.

          2. 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 Bezos of the world. Based on his comment about seizing guns first and then letting due-process later revealed his true colors. Such a disappointment to his base except the die hard fans who are the sheeple on “our side”.

            1. 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.

            2. 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.

          3. 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!

      1. @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?

    Leave a Comment 114 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *