DiscussMormonism.com

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/politics ... index.html

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he has directed his attorney general to propose changes that would ban so-called bump stocks, which make it easier to fire rounds more quickly.

"Just a few moments ago I signed a memo directing the attorney general to propose regulations that ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns," Trump said at a Medal of Valor event at the White House, addressing Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
"I expect these regulations to be finalized, Jeff, very soon," Trump said.

...............

Watch the gyrations from the Trumpians now.

It's about damn time. I'm cool with this.

Based on what he said in the announcements, I think he's planning to farther than just bump stocks. Like, say, this trigger. https://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/guns/ ... full-auto/

We need saner gun laws.

Meanwhile, whatever Trump passes for gun laws is an underlying hidden agenda to his eventually declaring Martial Law on an unarmed and defenseless American populace, when he declares our country become a police state to seize and consolidate his power like the little dictator he so longs to be.

He wants to destroy democracy and tear down the Republic as a tool of the Kremlin.

So where are the rabid Second Amendment worshipers? They put the tyrant before their precious liberties?

Believe it or not, the NRA has actually spoken against bump stocks too.

Kevin Graham wrote:Believe it or not, the NRA has actually spoken against bump stocks too.

This is the low-hanging fruit that they were willing to offer to appease calls to action in the wake of the Vegas shooting. I was a little surprised nothing came of it, but there briefly was momentum for it. It's making a come back this time as the same appeasement strategy because the calls for further gun control are building into seething anger.

The interesting thing to me is that Trump traditionally has favored moderate Democrat positions on gun control. He's only had a few consistent positions in his life and this is one of them. It even came up during the campaign where he was willing to diverge with GOP orthodoxy and me-too Clinton's positioning.

Since he's been president, Trump has become a vessel for orthodox GOP positions on everything except Russia and immigration. That includes gun control. I am curious if Trump will snap and revert to his more natural state at some point. This is one where I could see it happening.

EAllusion wrote:Since he's been president, Trump has become a vessel for orthodox GOP positions on everything except Russia and immigration. That includes gun control. I am curious if Trump will snap and revert to his more natural state at some point. This is one where I could see it happening.

If the reports from his conversation with non-politicians at Mar-a-Lago and the like are to be believed, you may be on to something here. He seems to have privately expressed some serious concern about how he should be responding here. Honestly this is one of those scenarios where his ego may be a force of positive influence, all indicators point to the idea that he really doesn't want to be perceived as weak or inept on this.

Xenophon wrote:Honestly this is one of those scenarios where his ego may be a force of positive influence, all indicators point to the idea that he really doesn't want to be perceived as weak or inept on this.

Too late.

Xenophon wrote:

EAllusion wrote:Since he's been president, Trump has become a vessel for orthodox GOP positions on everything except Russia and immigration. That includes gun control. I am curious if Trump will snap and revert to his more natural state at some point. This is one where I could see it happening.

If the reports from his conversation with non-politicians at Mar-a-Lago and the like are to be believed, you may be on to something here. He seems to have privately expressed some serious concern about how he should be responding here. Honestly this is one of those scenarios where his ego may be a force of positive influence, all indicators point to the idea that he really doesn't want to be perceived as weak or inept on this.

The story was one of the wildest things I've ever seen in politics. Or rather, the way it was covered was. Rich people pay the president's businesses for the privilege of being close to him, and he's straw polling them on what his national policy on an important issue should be and genuinely seems open to taking their advice. You have some of the most egregiously obvious corruption we've ever seen happen with the presidency, and it barely produced a ripple in media attention.

For contrast, it got at tiny fraction the coverage that Hillary Clinton got for meeting with Muhammad Yunus, a globally respected intellectual who once donated to her husband's AIDS charity.