Trump: universal background checks are off the table

Now .... if he'd do the same to red flag laws ....

Small, temporary victory.

This is good news -- for now. However, it's going to be used as grist by the Democrats, in the coming elections. The first test is going to be in Virginia, this coming November. We'll see how it plays out.

Inaction on background checks plays well among the gun community, but doesn't play well among the general public.

Responses from the White House are contradicting this information.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...kground-checks-off-table-white-house-pushback

SharpDog said:

Which responses ?

Click to expand...

I just added a link but multiple news outlets are reporting similarly

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...kground-checks-off-table-white-house-pushback

Somebody wants to keep the Senate and the White House...

Trump's still making American great again looks like.

herrwalther said:

Small, temporary victory.

Click to expand...

Nonetheless, a victory for gun owners. Perhaps "information" Ivanka collected from law makers changed his mind? Hmmmm .... (I have a feeling she probably carried Trump message like, "Do you want to be re-elected and want president's support for your campaign?") ... Just kidding.

Awesome!

Now, keep appointing pro-gun/2A federal judges/SCOTUS justices to tilt the panel to benefit gun owners!

Tommygunn said:

Now .... if he'd do the same to red flag laws

Click to expand...

That could be next. Send Ivanka out again to collect "information" from law makers.

Then send Ivanka out again for 50 state CCW reciprocity ... then suppressor off NFA ... etc. etc.

SharpDog said:

That's from Sunday ... like 20 Trump years ago.


Don't be like Low-Energy Sleepy-Joe, keep up !



I'm watching Fox news, Special Report with Brett Baier (time delayed) and they are talking like this is a done deal.

All I can say is that if WLP is repeating it then IMHO it's true. He wouldn't stick hid neck out or the NRA's over a fake rumor since he and Trump did have that conversation.

Click to expand...

It's actually from 3 hours ago it says and as of late Tuesday evening which is now.

And next week he'll be for confiscation.

And the following week he'll be for opening up the registry.

And the following week....

...... and no end to those negative about the struggle. Hopefully all the names can be remembered.

The way I see, the incumbent isn't willing to risk the ire of too many voters with an upcoming election. That means that if violence committed with firearms features heavily in the news cycle, he's going to look for what he might need to do to avoid a public relations catastrophe. On the other hand, if that kind of violence passes from the current news cycle, he's going to reassure his base. His opposition isn't going to be persuaded to vote for him no matter what. So he's looking to keep the support of his base, but not lose anyone on the fence because of positions that seem radical to those moderate centrists. He knows that George H.W. Bush pandered to the gun control activists and lost the support of his base, lost the re-election to a second term, while that base focused on packing congress with senators and representatives supporting their interests.

His opponents, on the other hand, can't win an election based on gun control. Not unless things get a lot worse. They stand a much better chance of winning by running on less cyclical issues like the economy and minimum wage, healthcare costs and abortion, education and student debt, and potentially on looming international crisis with China, Iran, and Russia that could become urgent between now and the election. But as long as they don't get elected on a strong gun-control agenda as their central issue, they will have to reckon with the fact they were elected more or less as the "anyone but Trump" candidate and therefore do not explicitly have support for a heavy gun-control agenda. This is the same position Obama was in. He knew gun control wasn't why he was elected, and he knew he didn't have the support for it. Gun rights activists will no doubt lament anything that gets passed, but it is certain that it will cost any candidate who enacts further infringement far more than it will cost gun owners. Simply put, unless they get elected explicitly on gun control, they won't have enough credit to afford it. They may very well spend more than credit than they've got, but it will bankrupt them politically. Still, the most affordable option they've got is the UBC utilizing existing NICS technology. Red Flag laws are too vague. Nobody really knows how they'd work on a Federal level. And a ban would be far more costly than any candidate could afford.

Trump’s Phone Calls With Wayne LaPierre Reveal NRA’s Influence
Days after considering the implementation of universal background checks, President Donald Trump has sidelined the issue.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/trump-background-checks-nra/596413/

From those of us that are still NRA members...... you’re welcome.

herrwalther said:

Small, temporary victory.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Basically because of what it says in the second sentence in the quote in the OP.......

he's not waffling on this anymore

Click to expand...

Been a while since the last last massacre. Folks have toned down a tad and like most of the recent mass shootings, folks tend to relax a bit once the shootings become old news. Seems as folks relax, they are more prone to accept that maybe the government really is going to do something about the mental health issue. Come tomorrow, or next week when schools open up again and another crazy gets their hands on a gun and kills a bunch of innocent kids, I'll be surprised if the waffle maker don't get pulled out again.

Trump called NRA chief...

Click to expand...

Sounds like cultural appropriation especially if the chief is from the same tribe as Elizabeth Warren...

I wonder who makes the headlines. I heard this over and over yesterday, the guys got a name.

DeepSouth said:

From those of us that are still NRA members...... you’re welcome.

Click to expand...

...and SAF member, FPC member, drinking from my GOF mug right now...

See appeasors, non-callers? Us calling for you never hurt us at all. And to the point, helped YOU. Now to be sure, the fight isn't over so I will add...for now.

You still have time to phone your Reps, email etc. , and join the continuing fight for all or our freedoms, me , you , him, her, our kids, our unborn future generations. Yes just like us, stumbel throu yer werds, get a few facts straight, stay on message & let your voice be heard.


I am getting older, and will not be around for ever to carry another man's water forever.

All presidents do this sort of thing since the presidency has become the focus of government. They float trial balloons, sometimes mix in language that they are considering this policy or that policy, and then when significant political resistance occurs, the policy trial balloon is pricked and disappears from the public agenda. A lot of time these trial balloons are never intended as serious policy but simply a way to reassure the public that "something is being done", even if it is only a few statements or to give hope to one's political base.

Trump does this faster, louder, and as someone said, that was Sunday this week, this other statement is from Tuesday, and who knows what the policy will be on Friday. It is a pattern that caused a lot of folks to feel some angst over voting for him in 2016 primaries and the general election.

On matters that Trump cares little about except for political support, I have seen this pattern over and over again and I suspect being on all sides of the issue often gives folks with political principles serious heartburn to have their issues treated this way. For example, I don't think Trump really cares about a transgender policy in the Pentagon but his advisers told him it was a deployment issue for those using hormonal and/or surgery to transition. Thus, in some issues, Trump simply delegates the policy to someone lower and then it is hashed out in Congress and the courts.

FWIW, Don Trump Jr. is the guy that is pro-2A in the family and Ivanka is the 'can we agree on common-sense measures advocate'. Leaking their positions or playing their parts, whatever, it allows Trump to triangulate and persuade people that "he cares" just as past presidents have done. Reagan's cabinet and advisers were famous for having policy differences between them hashed out in the papers and in Congress while Reagan floated above it. Obama and GWB did the same thing on a lot of issues.

Trump's priorities seem to be the economy and trade and to some degree immigration. Other issues including national security (aside from China and trade), day to day diplomacy (not dealing with trade, economy, etc.), education policy, etc. have been left to the dept. secretaries and policy advisers with Trump being the tie-breaker if something important comes up.

Confusion reigns: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/20/trump-gun-control-1470362

Discussing general Trump politics is not appropriate, BTW. Gun control is.

In any case, I will opine that if laws are not passed, it cannot be seen as a victory, even if WLP trumpets it. If anything, it is a defensive action and defenses crumble. It points out that expanding gun rights (such as the HPA, reciprocity, the SAGA act - which would have negated state bans, freeing up SBRs, etc.) have completely been abandoned by the supposed progun party. They squandered any opportunity early on. The only chance for expansion is SCOTUS and I would not pin my hopes on them coming up with a definitive progun decision.

The failure of the gun world to come up with a convincing message for maintaining the semis in private hands is the greatest strategic weakness. Just depending on a reflexive progun vote from what might be a shrinking base won't work over the long run.