Trumps selection of William Barr as AG and the second amendment.

Greetings from the UK.

Those of you who have interacted with me on this site on a regular basis, will be aware that although I prefer steel to lead in almost every conceivable circumstance, I believe that people should have the right, nay have a duty, to defend themselves if they are able, and that a nations people should be supported in possessing the tools necessary to perform that task. Therefore, I tend to agree with my American friends on the matter of the second amendment, and its importance, the importance of its remaining unfettered as much as possible, to be specific.

However, there are quite a few pro-second members here, who partake of their rights with great enthusiasm and dedication, and I want to address a question to these people specifically, because I believe it is an important one, and one that only they will be able to answer in a manner which is in any way enlightening.

I believe it is accurate to say that the vast majority of our most pro-second members here on this website, probably, for whatever reason, voted for the current President. With that in mind, I would like to know from those members, what their opinion is of Trumps record on gun rights, including his knee jerk, reactionary approach to "solving" the mass shooting problem (i.e. bans on certain devices). I would also very much like to hear members opinions of Trumps pick for the office of the Attorney General, Mr William Barr, who, despite being ostensibly a right winger, has been a staunch advocate of the dreaded gun control agenda for practically his entire time in politics, and has stated that ERPO laws permitting the authorities to seize firearms from citizens, are and I quote, "the single most important thing that we can do in the gun control area".

From the outside, this pick appears to be counter to the beliefs of the people who largely speaking voted for Trump, as do several of Trumps other actual actions when it comes to gun control and bans on certain items, so I am trying to figure out if that is something that is felt by the people most effected by these matters, or whether its a product of my having an objective view of the gun debate, being as I am, a UK citizen. I look forward to your responses.

Thank you for your time.

I'm not so sure about the steel bullets. Leads bullets don't create a spark when they hit certain crystal rocks like flint or Chert. From what I see, the steel bullets can start a fire if they hit these crystals. Risk assessment is not properly done these days, they knew of this problem with steel bullets for many decades, that is why they continued with lead. I still use all lead bullets, even at the rifle range. I do not like to start forest fires, the rock can even be buried and not see-able by the shooter.

a reply to: rickymouse

Blades to guns.

Second as I have no opinion and would rather land face first in a puddle of ebola than go into anything remotely political on this site.

a reply to: rickymouse

I prefer blades, not bullets. Theres a level of safety to a blade that I personally value. Put another way, you have to be fundamentally physically incompetent to accidentally kill someone with a knife, where as even trained professionals using firearms experience incidents of collateral damage. In any case, were you going to actually address the question at all?

a reply to: TrueBrit

I think its an error to equate pro- second amendment with Trump supporters in that way. 2nd supporters are more rightly refered to as constitutionalists. They revere the entirety of the document and expect it to be upheld in not just action, but spirit.

Trump, happened to be the candidate most closely representing that concept, between the 2 ultimate candidates for president.

His choices for appointments have not always thrilled me and I am skeptical of Barr's, I have heard some things come out of his mouth that cause me pause, he seems another "deep state" individual to me, beholden to something beyond the people.

The Democrat party has proven to be anti- a number of things that a constitutionalist holds dear...Trumps election and continued support is as much a symptom as it is a desired cure.

I think you are referring to the so called "bump stocks"? If so, those things are useless. Almost everyone I know who purchased one, tried to use it and soon sold it. It either didn't work or worked very poorly. I think it was brilliant move on President Trump's part to throw the left a "bone" to shut them up. "Pray and spray" wastes ammo. Ammo is expensive and the ones who can afford it can afford to purchase a fully automatic weapon as well as the licenses associated with them.

I believe the rhetoric around the Las Vegas shooting prompted the ban on bump stocks. I also believe if enough of the victims and/or their families would sue the Saudi Arabian government for what happened, the truth might come out.

Bump stocks are a later generation of the famed "hell-fire trigger", which led to a warrant issued for the ATF to search the Branch Davidian compound outside of Waco, Texas in 1993. Interestingly, the then-attorney general, Janet Reno had issued a specific ruling that the hell-fire trigger and similar devices are not illegal, because the trigger of a semi-auto pistol or rifle must still be depressed once for each bullet that is fired.

I tried one; they are ignorant as hell. For the simple reason that the barrel of a semi auto, and the whole of the action, is not made to dissipate heat; so there's no pretense of aiming the thing, and an increasing likelihood with each shot that the firearm will fail in a catastrophic fashion.

The bump stock is an improved design; but with the hellfire you had to grab the fore end of the gun and pull away from you while simultaneously pulling back on the trigger with enough force to keep the trigger activated while the gun shook all over hell. There was no way to look down the length of the barrel while using it.

***

DJ Trump has a typical way of 'working a deal' that comes from the business world; he behaves at his most radical/outrageous to begin with. Then when he moves toward the center, he seems like he is giving up more than he actually does. Just look at his rhetoric with the government shut-down: initially he said he was proud for causing it, and now he is ready to trade DACA to get a lightened version of what he promised. Which was always his goal anyway.

During the election, I think trump was at his most radical when he was talking about gun rights. He was doing this to get votes from gun owners, and now he can moderate and pretend to have been a centrist the whole time.

It works in business, and ironically is the style used by both Putin and the Iranians-- so they should at least understand where DJ Trump is coming From, when he arrives at the bargaining table.

He will use Barr's policies on gun rights as a foil, and make gun-owners actually grateful in the end, that he isn't surrendering the whole store. it's all to keep you talking about DJ Trump on every issue.



Such prowess! Many deals! So many many people tell me that I am a genius for seeing this ahead of time, about Trump's White House. And I'm sure that some of them are very nice people.

a reply to: Graysen

Well said

a reply to: BlueJacket

In that case, where is the outcry from the NRA, and other large, staunchly pro-second amendment organisations, against this appointment?

Could it be anything to do with the good will that the President initially foisted on the organisations and the second amendment advocacy as a whole? Because it certainly seems that way. 62% or thereabouts of gun owners voted for Trump according to stats published by American National Election Studies. The NRA spent MILLIONS out of its warchest, to aid in Trumps election, and that expenditure appears to have been wasted, because otherwise, there would have been no compromise on these issues, regardless of pressure from opposition, or any other sector of the population of the country.

Its already the case that Trump actually has done more to damage the future of gun ownership than Obama did, and you don't need to take my lefty word for it, this is stuff that actual gun owners, members of owners clubs and pro-2A organisations (other than the big ones) are actually furious about, precisely because they feel they have been betrayed, presumably because they voted the man in to stop nonsense like he has been doing and allowing to continue under his watch.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Again, I just think that most felt the alternative to Trump, was far worse.

I am not sure that there are quantifiable data points to say Obama, or Trump was better or worse for gun owners. And if Obama was somehow more so...that doesnt mean that Mrs. Clinton would of been as well....

It really isnt an argument to that effect, its an argument over rights derived from God, expressed in law that are inherent to the species as viewed by the constitution.

Barr, like many appointed by Trump is not my choice for AG. But that is based on my belief in the whole of tge constitution, not just the 2nd or 4th etc...

a reply to: TrueBrit

Crickets?

I guess even if it cost the 2ed amendment trump must be allowed to win....

I don't think the vast majority of gun owners give a rip about bump stocks.

The NRA is the target of the largest smear campaign in US history. It isn't SMERSH from the James Bond films; NRA is a democratic, grass-roots organization that reflects the platform of its individual members.

I can remember in the early 1990s, the NRA was pushing, and pushing hard for instant background checks to purchase a gun from a FFL dealer. The anti gunners didn't want this; they wanted a 30-day background check, as a stalling tactic. The NRA argued that an instant background check would dissuade criminals from even applying, because the police could go to the store and arrest a wanted person on site. The eventual compromise was a 5-day check.

I'm old enough to Remember when the NRA advocated universal registration, back in the early 70s, in exchange for no license to own a firearm (they argued that you shouldn't need a permit to exercise your constitutional rights.)

I think bump stocks are inherently unsafe for the operator, even one who is merely shooting on a closed range. It is a dangerous alteration of the manufacturer's design, and would be like legalizing the disabling of a car's seat belts, or taking the hand guard off of a chain saw. I cannot believe bump stocks ever got past the consumer product safety commission.

I think you'd find that the vast majority of gun enthusiasts would agree with me, if you asked them in a conversation, instead of a questionnaire.

Trump has been a huge service to gun rights, just by saying that license to carry laws are a states rights issue. That answer alone, repeated whenever he is interviewed, has derailed most of the "every town for gun safety" campaigns.


Edit to add:

I didn't vote for trump, so I'm probably not your target demographic anyway.

a reply to: Graysen

Ok, so you are not part of my target audience here, and its their double standards I specifically wanted to address on that issue, but realistically, what the man says and what he does have to MATCH to be of use to the gun owning community, because putting an anti-2a advocate in for the AG slot and all the other junk he has managed to do, places him at absolute odds with those who enthusiastically partake in, and take seriously their second amendment rights, and the reasons for them to exercise them in the first place.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: rickymouse

I prefer blades, not bullets.

You're my people!

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Graysen

...putting an anti-2a advocate in for the AG slot and all the other junk he has managed to do, places him at absolute odds with those who enthusiastically partake in, and take seriously their second amendment rights, and the reasons for them to exercise them in the first place.

Most of the AGs since the 1968 firearms act have been rabidly anti-gun. On both sides. offing statists.

Sessions was probably the least anti-gun in a generation; but he was still against license-to-carry because an armed resident could argue with the cops. He was also against jury nullification, especially as practiced in Texas. Specifically because there was a sheriff's office that raided the wrong house when exercising a drugs warrant. The homeowner shot a couple of the cops, one ended up dead. And the Grand Jury "no-billed' the homeowner. (meaning that the district attorney did not have permission to press his charges against the homeowner).

It sucks that the new boss is the same as the old boss (Eric the Holder). But, other than providing guns to drug gangs in Mexico, there's not all that much the AG can do about legal gun-bearing; since as Trump acknowledges, it's a state's rights issue.

Donald Trump, passed out drunk in a ditch, still beats the hell out of Hillary Clinton and 10 of her friends.