search
top

How’s Do You Trump Supporters Feel Now?

Due process? What’s that? Anything can be sacrificed for a bit of good ol’ fashioned populist “law and order”:

UPDATE: To be clear, I’m speaking to those who supported him in the primary.

58 Responses to “How’s Do You Trump Supporters Feel Now?”

  1. Fred says:

    In order to round up dissidents, you need to have a secret list of dissidents, and other people you don’t like.

  2. Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

    Where’s FiftyCalTX to defend this???

    This isn’t new- Trump supported this back in December. I’m not surprised he’s selling out gun owners, I’m just surprised its before the election. A large reason give to vote for Trump, despite other not-conservative views was his words on gun rights. I never believed him, but it was a reason. And now? We know he’ll sell us out on UBCs and AWBs easily.

    • FiftycalTX says:

      So what’s your point? Think Hitlery is better because she VOWS to destroy the NRA and the second amendment? READ what it says. Trump is going to “talk” to the NRA. And unless I’m mistaken, the NRA will tell him why this is a bad idea.

      • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

        That Trump will sell us out and Congress will go along. Congress would fight Clinton- look how they fought Obama on guns. Trump will push for UBCs, AWBs, TWLBs- you name it!

        I’m sure the NRA will tell him why, but why does he need to talk to them? Shouldn’t he already know??

        With Trump’s terrible polling numbers, he’s going to get destroyed by Clinton in the general.

        But the solution is to join the Dump Trump movement. Let’s nominate a good candidate who can actually challenge Clinton.

      • Jake says:

        At least with Hillary, we know she will always be against us and can be prepared. With Trump, we’ll be constantly looking over our shoulders wondering if he’s going to betray us this time.

        I’d rather deal with someone I know is going to knife me than get stabbed in the back by someone who claimed he would cover me.

        • Alpheus says:

          This is a major reason I’m not going to be able to bring myself to vote for Trump this year. I’d like to say “fortunately, I live in Utah, so my vote won’t matter anyway”, but Trump puts Utah into play…

          Even if Trump wins (and I personally think he has a good chance–after all, he’s running against Hillary!), we would do well to continuously think of him as Hillary with a bad hairdo.

        • David says:

          If Hillary wins no conservative will be President in all of our lifetime. She will let every illegal in and let them vote and every Muslim refugee and they will vote and all you wannabe conservative idiots will be at fault. Vote Trump if you don’t like him vote him out in 4 yrs. Get real

    • Arnie says:

      And I read a headline that Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) was willing to “discuss” the issue. Groan! Is there ANYone running who isn’t a traitor???

      Frustrated!
      – Arnie

      • Alpheus says:

        I’m used to thinking of the Democrats as the Evil Party, and the Republicans as the Stupid Party, and not thinking much about the Libertarians, excepting that my political views have that party’s sympathy.

        This year, the *almost* have viability, so maybe they need a moniker of their own. Given that historically, they haven’t vetted their candidates well, I think the Crazy Party will be a good moniker for them. Indeed, it always has been, it’s just that I haven’t paid much attention to them before…

        (Crazy in general isn’t necessarily bad, either–indeed, America is founded on this crazy principle that freedom actually works!–but Libertarian crazy can turn off a lot of people who would otherwise consider them for a serious vote…)

  3. Joe_in_Pitt says:

    From a 2A perspective this election IMO is going to be no different than 2012. On one side you have a fanatical anti-gunner that you know will screw you every which way possible.

    On the other side you have someone who while not being a “true believer” in gun control, has demonstrated a fondness for it at some point in their past (mostly due to an elitist mindset) and while they may not actively work against us, will have no issue throwing our rights under the bus when its politically expedient (as seen here).

    • Sebastian says:

      My big fear with Trump is that his support for the Second Amendment is razor thin, and will collapse under the slightest pressure.

      I believe this was the case for Bush and Romney, but given both were seasoned politicians, they knew their political interests lied in not crossing us. Bush touted support for the Assault Weapons Ban back in 2000, if you recall, but I don’t think anyone believed he meant it. He said he’d sign it, knowing full well Congress wouldn’t deliver it, and he never pushed it.

      Trump on the other hand doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground politically, and his instinct gravitates toward populist “law and order.”

      • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

        That’s my biggest fear. He’ll go with his liberal instincts, which is anti-gun.

        Romney sort of walked back his anti-gun stance, and Bush never even dealt with his. Like you said, they knew that they shouldn’t cross us.

      • Joe_in_Pitt says:

        I don’t think Trump is either pro or anti per say, I just think he will be apathetic to our rights as long as he gets to keep his armed protection and his CCW.

        This is a guy who has been living by a different set of rules all his life. I don’t remember him speaking out against NYCs anti-gun laws when he was able to carry himself, something he loves to bring up when talking to us.

        I have no doubts that if Trump feels enough of his red-blooded conservative “law and order” base supports the idea of a watch-list ban, he will support it.

  4. beatbox says:

    I’m getting the feeling that

    1) He really doesn’t want to be president and is trying to sink his campaign; or

    2) He read a comic book about how FDR got into office pandering to select groups and then turned on them once he was in power.

    Sorta leaning towards the first.

    • Jake says:

      It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if he tried to throw the election to Hillary, or if it came out that doing so was his plan all along.

      The question is, can he drive off enough of his rabid supporters to actually lose?

      • FiftycalTX says:

        Well “throwing the election to Hitlery” was the purpose of running jeb! But if you think Trump was selected so HE could throw the election to Hitlery, I’m afraid you’ve been drinking to much something.

        • beatbox says:

          I think he got into the race to satisfy his ego and build his brand but he didn’t think he would get this far.

        • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

          Well the way he is acting, it sure seems like it. Nobody cares about Jeb either, then or now.

  5. beatbox says:

    And why the heck would you announce that in advance????

    NRA response should be: Oh I’m sorry. I’m booked up right now.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      I’m unclear as to who called the meeting. If it’s the NRA, this might be the last step before rescinding an endorsement. If it’s Trump who called it, yeah, I could see going the direction you mention.

  6. aerodawg says:

    Feel like I’m gonna vomit saying this, but in Trumps defense, it doesn’t state his position, just that he’s meeting about a subject. If he’s getting the NRA view prior to issuing a position that’s a good thing. If he goes in to lecture Barack style, that’s a pretty bad thing.

    • Jake says:

      He is previously on record as supporting the watch list gun ban – at least, as much as Trump can be on record about anything, and as much as anyone can make sense of his ramblings.

      From an article I saw this morning:

      Asked in November on ABC’s This Week if people on an FBI terror watch list should be allowed to buy a gun, Trump responded, “If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it’s an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely.”

      Reached by phone on Monday, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said the presumptive Republican presidential nominee still holds that position. “I don’t think it’s changed,” he said. “I haven’t seen anything contrary to it.”

  7. Matt says:

    A golden opportunity for the NRA to school him in Constitutional law. Notably the 5th Amendment’s due process clause. I hope they take him to the woodshed.

    We’ll see what his support for secret lists will be after that. Endorsements come with expectations. This is a wonderful moment for him to be educated on what comes along with the NRA’s endorsement.

    • BC says:

      Respectfully: he’s running for the presidency. He shouldn’t need “schooling” on ConLaw101 at this point, and the fact that he does demonstrates his lack of fitness for the office.

      This kind of nonsense is exactly why many of us said it was folly for the NRA to endorse him.

  8. Jim says:

    Christ people, calm the fuck down. Trump hasn’t come out in support, he just said he’s meeting with the NRA on the subject. See what he says two weeks from now.

    • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

      The point is that he’s even considering it. Which shows how squishy he is on gun rights (and everything in general). Of course he’ll change his mind in 2 hours, 2 days, and 2 weeks. That’s what he does.

  9. Lance Lot Link says:

    I’m actually have a field day with the lefties on the whole no fly no buy concept.

    I keep agreeing with using the no fly list to ban gun purchases. ….

    My reason of course is since 90% or more of those on the no fly are muslim or have middle eastern names, its not like real americans will be affected, and it won’t be too hard to argue that since they are too dangerous to be let on an airplane and too dangerous to own a gun, the next step – deportation – won’t be too hard to argue, especially if Trump gets elected.

    I congratulate them on giving Trump the tools he needs to deport 1.5 million Muslim Americans.

    Sad thing is, I fear this may come to pass. :(

    • The MILLISECOND you agree with the Left on “No-Fly No-Buy” you have lost. Do that, and you have agreed that the right to keep and bear arms is easily nullified by a secret government list. Do that, and you have agreed that the whole Constitution just a piece of paper, to be tossed aside by a FedGov bent on murdering millions in a bloody civil war. Remember, Bill Ayers (the President’s mentor) said 25 MILLION would have to be murdered to get control.

  10. Roger Wilson says:

    Stopping people on the no fly list or the terror watch list has some merit. However how you get on these needs to be totally revamped.

    • Matt says:

      I am going to play through a thought exercise here for a moment with the understanding I disagree wholeheartedly with the use of secret lists to deny any rights including gun rights.

      Let’s assume we are going to pass a law to deny gun purchases to those on a list with a provision that allows people to challenge their placement and status on the list.

      The only way that even might work is if the law had an ironclad provision that forced the government to investigate a denial and either charge the person with a crime or clear their purchase within a very specific period of time like 10 days. Any failure to clear the flag results in the gun being released to the buyer without exception. Basically a watch list “default proceed”.

      The reason for that positive release is to prevent a purchase appeal from being held up indefinitely by foot dragging because the law doesn’t force them to clear someone or by defunding the agency department handling the appeals process. No funds, no people or no will, then you will not have “no gun” for those on your government watch list.

      And any attempts by folks like the Attorney General to mess with that process allow for fines and imprisonment from the AG down to the official who is processing the appeal. Such a law would grant the citizen who was the result of the investigation both standing to sue or request prosecution and order the government to pay for their suit.

      Something like that is the perhaps the only way I might, might, support denials of rights under color of law without due process. By placing provisions in them that both revert to the status quo if the government fails in their duty (“default proceed”) and provides severe penalties and the means for the citizen so affected to go after the government for their failure. Only if the government charges the suspect and gives them their due process in court are they off the hook.

      As I said, a thought exercise…

  11. The_Jack says:

    Here’s the NRA’s statement.

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/nra-statement-on-terror-watchlists

    Seems like what the GOP floated at the end of last year.

    And at least has more due process angles.

    So that seems to be the NRA’s play.

    The question is if they got Trump to go along with it.

    • Bram says:

      i like it.

      • Jake says:

        I don’t.

        How long has the investigation against Hillary been going on, now?

        A sale delayed “while the investigation is ongoing” could be placed on hold for years, with no recourse. “A right delayed is a right denied.”

    • Matt says:

      Due process appeals are worth nothing if the department that is tasked to do it never receives funding or has no incentive to do so. The devil is in the details of what that due process would look like before such a proposal could be considered.

      This is an extremely slippery slope I don’t think we should be endorsing anyone sliding down.

    • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

      I’m okay with this process on two conditions:

      1. The Due Process provisions are actually good.
      2. We get something else out of it, like National Reciprocity.

      • Sebastian says:

        At this point, I’d almost rather trade suppressor deregulation. National Reciprocity relies on Congress’ 14th Amendment powers, which might not mean shit if Hillary can turn the court.

  12. David says:

    Shouldn’t we wait until after the meeting to see what he and the NRA say at AFTER their discussion?

  13. Chris from AK says:

    Here’s the NRA Statement:
    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/nra-statement-on-terror-watchlists
    WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2016
    Fairfax, Va.— The executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists:

    View Related Articles
    We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.

    It could be done within the framework of the existing NICS system. Just flag folks on the secret watchlist as a NICS delay requiring more research in accordance with USC section 25.6(c)(1)(iv)(B). The Gov then has three days to present a case and get an indictment before a default proceed kicks in.

    As a compromise I’d even be willing to let the government request a few days of “overtime” on the 72 hr delay with approval from a judge allowing them to seat a grand jury and present evidence for the indictment, which is grounds for a denial under current law. If it is truly a high-priority terror case with lots of evidence in the hopper, it should be pretty easy to get a grand jury to buy at least ONE charge. If there isn’t sufficient evidence for an indictment then they can get lost.

    Of course, such a compromise would require us to get something — requiring the feds to process NICS denial appeals, strengthening FOPA, gutting some of the executive actions (like the VA/SS Admin shenanigans), etc. But it would take the whole “terror loophole” off the table, and preserve due process.

    • Sebastian says:

      I’m figuring the same thing. The legislation will let the FBI put a hold for three days, after which it’ll default proceed. They will have three days to take action. I’ll be curious to see whether a FISA court ends up involved in the final decision about whether to deny the sale. That would make me very wary. But I suspect it means they have three days to bring charges or the sale goes through. I think NRA will be wary of extending the default proceed, because we’re being attacked on that in the states and federally.

  14. David says:

    That NRA-ILA statement was issue PRIOR to the meeting. I’m interested in post-meeting statements from both.

  15. Like I says:

    I feel great, because I know a Hillary presidency will be 100 times worse.

    Why don’t you wait to see what becomes of the meeting? Have you read NRA’s statement on the meeting and the topic?

    Trump knows how to generate publicity to later confound and deflate the Left. Let’s wait to see what happens before we freak out.

  16. Like I says:

    I’ve enjoyed your blog over the years, but your continued hand-wringing over Donald Trump borders on imbecility.

    Hillary is a known quantity, and with the SCOTUS implications any true gun owner or “patriot” would be insane to vote or abstain from voting in a way that would help her get elected.

    Trump has been THE MOST vocal 2A supporter in the race since he entered the race.

    If you are willing to be a big baby and hand Hillary the election I suggest you sell your guns or give them to somebody who values them, as you clearly are not mentally stable enough (see previous imbecility reference), or sincere enough, about the Second Amendment to own firearms.

    Sorry to be so rude, but I’ve had it with you bozos who are willing to hand Hillary the SCOTUS just because your candidate (i.e., the guy who couldn’t even win the primary, let alone a general election) did not win the nomination.

    • Sebastian says:

      If you want to vote for Trump, vote for Trump. I don’t blame you. I agree he’ll be better than Hillary on the 2A. But I didn’t support Trump in the primary. That’s who I am addressing here.

      • Joseph says:

        Will you vote for him in the general? PA has a better shot going red than ’04, ’08, or 2012, IMHO.

        • Sebastian says:

          I will not under any circumstance vote for Hillary Clinton. That’s all I’m willing to say for now. It’s very early, and polling this early will change.

      • Like I says:

        The primary is over. We are taking more incoming right now than after Sandy Hook. Now is not the time to be chanting “shall not be infringed!” or clinging to ideological purity. The majority of Americans (for the moment) are not sympathetic to our beliefs, and are not 2A scholars. Optics matter right now, nothing else does for the moment—at least to mainstream voters.

        If you value your guns and you don’t want to vote for Trump, that’s your choice. Just know that a vote for any other than Trump, and championing rhetoric that opposes Trump or tells us how he is not a friend to gun owners will not help the cause. The NRA endorsed him, and they have a much larger brain trust and inside knowledge and influence in Congress than we do. We would do well to follow their lead.

        The time to make a decision is now. Either you are a part of the solution or a part of the problem.

        P.S. Thank you for your years of service for the cause. I look forward to many more.

        • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

          Optics matter right now, nothing else does for the moment—at least to mainstream voters.

          I agree, and that’s why Trump is bad for the movement. He will set us back. The NRA made a practical decision that I disagree with. I don’t care about their “brain trust”. As this very issue shows, it wasn’t wise to endorse him.

          If you really want to help gun rights, join the Dump Trump movement at the convention, and let’s get someone who actually is pro-gun and will fight for our rights.

          • Like I says:

            I’m curious why you don’t trust Trump on this issue?

            “A Congress who will fight her?” Have you been watching all of that GOP “opposition” the last 8 years?

            Have you been watching how many GOP leaders have expressed willingness to “consider” gun control legislation in the past two days?

            • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

              Because I don’t trust him on any issue. But specifically on gun rights, he was for AWBs until he decided to run for President. And now he is seemingly supporting the terrorist watch list ban.

              As for Congress fighting Clinton vs Trump vs Obama- I understand they gave in a lot. But on guns they did not. And other issues they did not. So its a choice between giving in all the time (Trump) vs giving in some of the time (Clinton). I’ll take the later.

        • Sebastian says:

          We are taking more incoming right now than after Sandy Hook.

          That’s not what I’m seeing, but it might seem different where you are. I appreciate you reading. I also appreciate that a court enforceable Second Amendment is the only hope for a lot of states, and that won’t happen if Hillary gets elected. But PA hasn’t been a swing state for several elections, meaning my vote may not really matter. I also get that might change, and I’ll reevaluate closer to the election. But I have trust issues with Trump, and this kind of equivocating doesn’t help his case with me. If I did vote for Trump, it would only be because of the gun issue, or rather, the Supreme Court.

          • Like I says:

            I say more incoming because of additional GOP capitulation, Dems filibustering, and Dems open belligerence and shouting at Ryan on the House floor. Also, the increased death toll/optics.

            I too live behind occupied territory, so I understand your notion of a vote that would not matter. Hopefully PA will be more in play this year.

            We want the same thing, and I think the stakes are too high (I know, we say that every election) to not support Trump.

            I also like that he is willing to call out the Dems and punch back like nobody we have seen since Reagan.

            Regards

    • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

      Thanks for all the insults, but while I’ll never vote for Clinton, I’ll never vote for Trump either. Its not about my candidate losing (even though Trump only got 40% of the vote)- its about not voting for a liberal, authoritarian Democrat of either party.

      Sure Clinton will be bad on SCOTUS and the 2A, but as this very conversation shows, I don’t trust Trump to be any better. At least with Clinton she will have a Congress who will fight her. Trump will have a compliant Congress and we will get all the gun control we’ve never wanted.

    • BC says:

      If you are willing to be a big baby and hand Hillary the election I suggest you sell your guns or give them to somebody who values them, as you clearly are not mentally stable enough (see previous imbecility reference), or sincere enough, about the Second Amendment to own firearms.

      I decline to be lectured by somebody supporting Donald Trump for the presidency about mental stability or sincerity.

  17. Whetherman says:

    I am puzzled at all of the reflections on Trump’s “liberal” instincts, and that they suggest he will support gun control.

    So, Adolf Hitler was a liberal? (And GFY, Mr. Godwin.)

    If Trump “doesn’t know what he’s doing,” I’d suggest assembling every professional from every science related to mass psychology and human behavior, to study his case, because it’s hard to imagine how someone who didn’t know what they were doing would just accidentally push every mass-manipulation button the Nazis pushed in the early 1930s.

    • Sebastian says:

      Actually, Godwin recently said “If you’re thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.”

top