President Trump's legislative magnum opus: Gun Control

Donald Trump will say anything to get elected.

But once he's in office, he will want an achievement for his legacy. If you read "the Art of the Deal," you learn that the best way to achieve great successes is to catch the opposition off guard. You do this in negotiating by becoming famous for a radical, extreme position. All of the supporters of that position give you their support. Then, once they are on board and cannot withdraw that support, you cut a deal with your "mutual enemy" and deliver something the enemy never even expected. Your enemies are so grateful, that it overshadows your former supporters' sense of betrayal. And if they complain, you can call them traitors who betrayed you, instead of vice versa.

Before becoming a candidate, Trump said several times that long term, he favors gun control, and removing guns entirely from urban life. He said this as far back as the 1980s.

He will tell the NRA that "this is the best deal you're going to get." It will have avenues for gun ownership---at a price. And the price goes up over time so that only the ruling class can afford guns. Basically, you'd have to be a private investigator, to keep your "license".

He will use the 'concealed carry permit' apparatus in the states; making it so that only "licensed users" can hold a gun. It goes down hill from there.


Just think about it. Every democrat in congress would vote for any gun control of this magnitude. Eddie Munster, the speaker of the house, would back "common sense reform." The only people to stand against it would be the "gun nut corner"---the ones who have up til that point been Trumps most ardent supporters. They won't be politically adroit enough to explain why Trump is suddenly a bad guy, especially when he paints them as the frenzied zealots we knew them to be all along.

a reply to: redempsh

The biggest problem with disarming us, is our refusal to be disarmed.

No one is foolish enough to come and disarm us.
Talk like that is just ignorant rhetoric from the uninformed.

Even if Trump were to win and propose legislation like that, it wouldn't get implemented. Pure fantasy!

Trump has always been bitterly opposed to the 2nd Amendment, this is widely known.

If he wins the election he will introduce gun control laws that make Clinton look like a Crips member.

a reply to: redempsh

...so you're wildly guessing that Trump might do something that we know Hillary Clinton will attempt to do based on... reasons?

No, sorry, not buying this bridge from you.

a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish

He can introduce whatever he likes, doesn't mean it will get implemented.

No one is taking our firearms.

a reply to: redempsh

Hm. He did agree, in the debate, with Hillary Clinton "very strongly" that if someone was on a No-Fly list or a Terrorist Watch List they should not be able to purchase guns. He also said if they were on that list wrongly, they would "work with them to get them off" but that he agreed.

Go figure. But Hillary wants to "destroy the 2nd." She wants to "take your guns" (which she has NOT said). So if he AGREES with her...does that mean HE wants to "destroy the 2nd Amendment" too? Think about it.


*eyeroll*

a reply to: KawRider9

Nope, you're right. No one will take them.

More and more people will give them up because of the legal headache and suspicion surrounding them.


The whole goal behind "universal background checks" is to finally succeed in tracking the inheritance and gifting of guns. The thing that irks the ATF, FBI et al is that it is legal to share, trade and sell firearms without any record in their files. They will attack this first.

They won't spend dollar one on enforcement. Just like Australia. But the penalties for violating what will amount to a registration law will have an impact over time. Year by year, even law-abiding gun owners will own fewer and fewer guns.

The real audience is the majority of the US public---who do not own guns. To them, $25 a year per gun, to register your gun, sounds reasonable. Then you'll have to carry another $25 per in insurance per gun.

So, $50 per year per gun. And violation becomes a felony, barring you from ever legally owning or transferring a gun in the future....

They don't need cops; they have bureaucracy.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: redempsh

...so you're wildly guessing that Trump might do something that we know Hillary Clinton will attempt to do based on... reasons?

No, sorry, not buying this bridge from you.

Wildly guessing?

How in the actual # is Donald saying "no-fly, no-gun," "wildly guessing," when it comes to his brazenly clear stance on the 2nd?

Nice Hillary deflection btw.

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish
No one is taking our firearms.

Until they do...

Come and Take it.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: redempsh

...so you're wildly guessing that Trump might do something that we know Hillary Clinton will attempt to do based on... reasons?

No, sorry, not buying this bridge from you.

You think that Trump is actually an alternative to hillary???

The Donald and The Bill are golfing buddies. Donald and his daughter attended Chelsea's wedding. He's a shill. I'm working on another thread about that one....

a reply to: RomeByFire

There is a HUGE leap between cross referencing the no fly list with the FBI's background check system and going to a nationwide licensing system like the OP is wildly guessing about. This is like saying a candidate who advocates stricter penalties on drunken driving will try to require a mandate to install breathalyzer ignition locks on all American vehicles.

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish

He can introduce whatever he likes, doesn't mean it will get implemented.

No one is taking our firearms.

And yet, hilariously, so many people support Trump because Hillary will take their guns.

The powers that be will, slowly but surely, disarm the US population.

They wouldn't be so foolish as to come and take them- not until less than 5% of us still have them.

They will indoctrinate the young to dislike, or irrationally fear firearms- then simply wait for them to grow up.

Fun fact, people die- corporations (including the us government) do not. If your children don't want guns, they'll simply sell them off to the state sponsored gun grabs when you die- all in the name of a "better place"

The holdouts will be ostracised and eventually outlawed, at which point they can be crushed as rebel scum.

All it takes is a society that forgets- and who here can honestly claim that society remembers what happened last year, let alone last decade?

The children growing up trained in firearm safety today might very well be the last generation to own the key to their freedom- and there's nothing anyone can really do to stop it.

originally posted by: redempsh


More and more people will give them up because of the legal headache and suspicion surrounding them.

And then he'll convince you all it makes sense by telling you gun owners are like a bowl of skittles...

originally posted by: lordcomac
The powers that be will, slowly but surely, disarm the US population.

They wouldn't be so foolish as to come and take them- not until less than 5% of us still have them.

They will indoctrinate the young to dislike, or irrationally fear firearms- then simply wait for them to grow up.

Fun fact, people die- corporations (including the us government) do not. If your children don't want guns, they'll simply sell them off to the state sponsored gun grabs when you die- all in the name of a "better place"

The holdouts will be ostracised and eventually outlawed, at which point they can be crushed as rebel scum.

All it takes is a society that forgets- and who here can honestly claim that society remembers what happened last year, let alone last decade?

The children growing up trained in firearm safety today might very well be the last generation to own the key to their freedom- and there's nothing anyone can really do to stop it.

WOW!

You pretty much nail it!

originally posted by: redempsh
The only people to stand against it would be the "gun nut corner"---the ones who have up til that point been Trumps most ardent supporters. They won't be politically adroit enough to explain why Trump is suddenly a bad guy, especially when he paints them as the frenzied zealots we knew them to be all along.

Thank you for the brief insight on how the liberal mind works.

This is what you get when you give a liberal 2 cents of thought.
Change back...

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: redempsh
The only people to stand against it would be the "gun nut corner"---the ones who have up til that point been Trumps most ardent supporters. They won't be politically adroit enough to explain why Trump is suddenly a bad guy, especially when he paints them as the frenzied zealots we knew them to be all along.

Thank you for the brief insight on how the liberal mind works.

This is what you get when you give a liberal 2 cents of thought.
Change back...

I'm not sure what you mean; that I'm brainless because I question trump?

You can read all about this kind of "last minute compromise" in his book. It's in Chapter 5: Use Your Leverage.

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: redempsh
The only people to stand against it would be the "gun nut corner"---the ones who have up til that point been Trumps most ardent supporters. They won't be politically adroit enough to explain why Trump is suddenly a bad guy, especially when he paints them as the frenzied zealots we knew them to be all along.

Thank you for the brief insight on how the liberal mind works.

This is what you get when you give a liberal 2 cents of thought.
Change back...

I'm not sure what you mean; that I'm brainless because I question trump?

You can read all about this kind of "last minute compromise" in his book. It's in Chapter 5: Use Your Leverage.

EDIT TO ADD:
This tactic has been used repeatedly in US politics. See the "Gang of Eight" and the republican gang-members supporting immigration reform, against their own party.

Or, the Democrat revision of filibuster rules in the 111th Congress, to keep republicans from filibustering supreme court nominees. Republicans voted for this.

This tactic (last minute sellout) is only used by seeming conservatives, when it advances a liberal agenda. Liberals never feel the need to sell out their principles, to get a win.

Fabianism at work

a reply to: redempsh

Hard on for Trump huh. Keep saying more things about him. Doesn't matter what; good or bad. Can't stump Trump.