search
top

Who Was Managing Trump?

Oh yeah, Chris Cox was. Good thing Wayne ran him off! Remember, Trump is a manhattanite that doesn’t understand the issue well and has a set of quirks and biases that are going to be tough to deal with even for an experienced lobbyist.

I’ll grant you that Trump is probably aware the Dems will never accept that deal. But I’m very worried about Trump with ILA transitioning to new leadership.

22 Responses to “Who Was Managing Trump?”

  1. Mike Q says:

    Trump says a lot of things. Some good ideas some bad ideas. Some serious some not.
    Till we see specifics lets not go off half-cocked. Remember the last time they did a mental health overhaul of the gun laws it brought about some positive changes without making anyone prohibited who wasn’t already prohibited.

  2. I know Trump is squishy on guns at best. He’s no 3%er. But this is an interesting game. If he ties some new gun control measure to border security he draws out the democrats in an interesting way. We’ll see how it transpires, but maybe Trump is just being his squishy Manhattan self or maybe he’s playing chess here, assuming he’ll win more votes than he loses either by proving the Democrats to be hypocrites who care more about aliens than anti-gun americans or by supporting some not-too controversial gun control measure with border security included. Those of us educated on the subject know “red flag” laws can be used for great infringements on rights and applied extremely unfairly, but many people do see them as common sense.

    The problem is in 11/20 we’ll have squishy Trump or an “I’m going to take ’em all Mr. and Mrs. america” Democrat. I’ll still vote for the lesser of two evils, as at the very least we’ll keep getting a more conservative,2nd amendment supporting judiciary.

    As has been said on this blog many times, the Republicans can take us for granted so long as the 2nd amendment is a partisan issue with no pro-gun democrats.

    Honestly, though … while in the pro-gun twitter and social media world any gun control at all is the end of the world, there are a lot of gun owners out there willing to accept this. Gun owners overall aren’t as hardcore as those who choose to constantly comment on the subject online or run blogs/FB pages.

  3. aerodawg says:

    the only thing that gives me solace is the fact our position has an in via Jr. that and the rebuilding of the judiciary that’s going on currently

  4. Joe says:

    The only saving-grace we gave is that the Democrats can’t conceal their bats***-crazy Stalinism, anymore.

    They’re just getting more and more open about door-to-door gun confiscation.

  5. Andy B. says:

    It’s funny how we choose to hear what someone says, isn’t it?

    Maybe I’m the worst example, because when I listened to his spiel, what I heard him advocating was rolling back the hard-won civil rights/civil liberties of mental patients (the better to establish Soviet-style “mental hospitals” for political dissidents?) and limiting the rights of death row inmates to appeal their convictions — at the very time we are learning what percentage of prisoners were innocent or wrongly convicted. And didn’t the Nazis euthanize “mental patients”?

    (BTW, who was it insisted on the reinstatement of the Federal death penalty? It gave me flashbacks to the NRA’s “Crimestrike” and “Project Exile” days.)

    • Alpheus says:

      First of all, while I cannot dismiss the fact that there is a danger of establishing Soviet-style “mental hospitals” for dissidents, I also cannot dismiss the fact that pretty much the *only* way right now to be declared “a danger to self and others” is to harm someone. Too often, when that harm finally comes about, someone dies. Sometimes multiple people die.

      We *absolutely* need to find a balance between “respect the rights of mental patients” and recognizing that maybe, just maybe, preventing schizophrenic people from getting the help they need — particularly people who wander the streets homeless — but certainly people who still have a home, but are going down the path of harmful behavior — isn’t the most humane policy we could have, either.

      As for bringing back the death penalty: if punishing innocent people is a problem, and it is, we need to seriously reconsider how we convict people in the first place. I *strongly* dislike taking the death penalty off the table because sometimes innocents are executed — in no small part because some people really do need killing. I *also* strongly dislike the sense I get that we need to take the death penalty off the table so that we don’t execute innocent people — but then ignore the procedural problems that put those innocent people in that position in the first place. How many people are there who have life imprisonment, but are there innocently, and will never be exonerated because they aren’t on death row?

      Sorry about the rant. I have my own *ahem* red flags that went off when President Trump gave his speech, but I nonetheless appreciated him bringing up potential solutions that could address the problem. I mostly just hope that Democrats will either over-reach, or blanch too much at the idea of working with Republicans, to be able to do anything meaningful with regards to taking away our rights….

      I also hope that enough Republicans will demonstrate a spine when it comes to this issue!

      • Andy B. says:

        I have to apologize for my sensitivity to the subject, driven by, that one of my father’s best friends was killed by the FBI in a mental hospital, when I was a little kid in the 1950s. For me it’s not a question of “can it happen here?”, but, “can it happen again?” The guy wasn’t a criminal, or even a “dissident,” he just had the misfortune of being related to a federal criminal, and thereby catching the feds’ attention. He was drugged under interrogation (possibly an early LSD/hallucinogen experiment?) and when he turned apparently psychotic (saw huge snakes on the steps of his home), committed to a mental facility where he died in electro-shock therapy.

        When I was a kid, the scenario described by Ken Kesey in One Flew Over the Coocoo’s Nest” was not just imaginary. People found themselves committed to mental institutions with little or no legal process, and could be kept there for life, with no appeal practically available to the average person. Even now, adjudication of mental illness in some states reduces to no more than the opinion of some dingbat doctor who may not like the patient’s looks, or his politics, or you name it.

        I’m thinking of the case of Russ Laing here in Pennsylvania, who was taken to a mental hospital and his firearms confiscated, to cover up a screwup by his local SWAT team. He was eventually vindicated in court, but I maintain that was only because his became a cause celebre with Pennsylvania gun owners. Had he not been “connected” his case would have passed unnoticed. Ironically, I’m told he committed suicide not too long after his vindication, so maybe the bad guys won, after all.

        • Alpheus says:

          I have sensitivities going the opposite direction: I have a sister who’s schizophrenic, but whose disease is mananged; I’m also aware of people who need help but simply aren’t getting it.

          About the only way they can seem to get it is to hurt other people, and sometimes that means they end up in prison for life, or even on death row.

          • Andy B. says:

            Wow. Maybe we should put our perspectives together to look for an answer.

            The problem is, we probably wouldn’t make anyone rich with our solution, so it would get no attention.

            (Note to self: If you ever think you have the answer to any problem, turn it into a big business if you want to see it implemented.)

            BTW, I too have a relative with serious problems, who doesn’t seem to get any more attention than it takes to make doctors prosperous. When his father was still alive, a family rule was “don’t give him access to any tools.” It still holds. And fortunately, he himself seems to know his hazards and limitations.

            • Alpheus says:

              Sadly, you’re probably right about this.

              Clayton Cramer has had this concern for years, too.

  6. RAH says:

    Trump is a deal maker I am not comfortable dealing away my right to give a firearm to a family member for Democrats to give on a wall. Trump also suggested the red flag laws which are a real problem and prone to abuse If Trump dealt away the ability to loan or give away firearms to family members then he will lose intensity with his base. I will still vote but many might not .

  7. Richard says:

    Unfortunately, the NRA is crippled right now. Since these events will recur, the NRA needs to be not crippled. That means a new CEO for starters.

  8. Shawn says:

    I see a few scenarios here besides nothing happening.

    First is we get a bill made that is a red flag/immigration related bill and since democrats care more about illegal aliens than United states citizens the bill gets mixed reviews, no one is happy about it and the bill fails because many democrats won’t vote for it. Or passes the house but not the senate. Or just outright fails on the senate.

    Second scenario dems go all out attaching insane things like a full out gun bans with confiscation. Which is fine by the Democrats because they want all 100 million plus gun owners to be exterminated so making them felons is a consolation prize. Republicans kill the bill or even some democrats think it goes to far and again won’t vote for it. The worst thing you can do an election cycle is pushing extreme gun control. A few dems in red states vote against it out of political fear. Basically a sandy hook situation repeat.

    Third scenario which I think is the most likely it is that you get a red flag bill introduced with some immigration reform caveats which pisses off some Democrats and then the republicans decide to introduce bills of there own and dems force votes on the most erroneous bills you could ever imagine. Everyone gets pissed at each other along party lines and nothing passes.

    Fourth is we get a red flag bill passed and signed aiding the republicans to lose bad in 2020 and the democrats take over everything permanently and then pass legislation in January 2021 to ban private gun ownership. All guns illegal. All semi automatic rifles illegal. All handguns illegal. All shotguns illegal. All guns must be given to the government. Guns owners don’t. Democrats try to enforce it and the results will be ugly.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      Do you just go around posting this to multiple gun forums/blogs until you get a bite?

  9. Charlie Foxtrot says:

    I thought you were OK with the NRA accepting the premise of red flag laws: https://www.pagunblog.com/2019/04/30/everyone-should-serve-on-a-non-profit-board/. I am confused.

    What happened today was in the planning for a long time by the NRA. It is the usual game of tactical retreat under pressure. There isn’t really any other game plan. I was surprised that the laundry list wasn’t longer and included bans on stuff.

  10. dwb says:

    Its not Trump that needs to be managed, its the Democrats. We lost a lot of swing districts in 2018. It was a good opportunity to rebuild the “blue dog” moderate Dems, and we missed it. More pro-2A Dems who will stand up to the socialists is what we need.

    • Richard says:

      Moderate Democrats are a myth. Those who call themselves that just see a greater need to lie but then they vote straight party line.

      • dwb says:

        They did not use to be, and I voted for some back in the day.

      • HappyWarrior6 says:

        I wouldn’t go that far. We should help cultivate the movement again and let them “be not afraid”.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Red Flag Laws Are Getting Trump’s Support – My Blog - […] at Shall Not Be Questioned brings up an interesting point. Now that Chris Cox has left or been ousted…
top