Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

[LouderVol]

You're using too much club on your approach. That bump stocks existed was never presented as part of the equation. You specifically asked "why" and I answered with the gun community at large, particularly as it regards the 2A and gun rights, barely moved the needle. How many people, and I'm talking gun people, would get their ire all fired up over the banning of trigger cranks? Depending on how it went down the property issue could still be there but again...you just aren't going to move the needle with that one even among the at large gun community.

Some did get pretty pizzed about the bump stock thing but see above. It's no small conflation to try and run what the reaction would be to something that can only be described as tangentially a 2A issue vs some as yet undescribed (but would have to be definitionally overt to be germane to the conversation) hit on the 2A. Obviously your opinion is your own so fair enough and all that but you seem to be awfully assumptive. Much more so than I can bring myself to be.

depends entirely on who did it. Kamala takes away the cranks and there would be protests. Trump does it and the same people will shrug.

 

[hndog609]

depends entirely on who did it. Kamala takes away the cranks and there would be protests. Trump does it and the same people will shrug.

There's some truth to that but it would be rooted almost entirely in partisanship. To no small extent it's

Kamala takes away X=some pizzed off people on the R regardless of what X might be
Trump takes away X=some pizzed off people on the L regardless of what X might be

Maybe the better question would be to set aside the bump stock issue and see what else there might be. What you suggest would carry a lot more weight if there's any kind of pattern. Now there might be and I'm just unaware but what other policies, even suggested ones, directly attributable to Trump look to be threatening to 2A rights?

 

[LouderVol]

There's some truth to that but it would be rooted almost entirely in partisanship. To no small extent it's

Kamala takes away X=some pizzed off people on the R regardless of what X might be
Trump takes away X=some pizzed off people on the L regardless of what X might be

Maybe the better question would be to set aside the bump stock issue and see what else there might be. What you suggest would carry a lot more weight if there's any kind of pattern. Now there might be and I'm just unaware but what other policies, even suggested ones, directly attributable to Trump look to be threatening to 2A rights?

After the Parkland shooting he also mentioned the need for more red flag laws, and other "extreme risk protection orders".

but again, if it was just rhetoric, I wouldn't worry about Trump, I would have him at worst the same as the Dems. The unconstitutional ban puts him in a category by himself. I don't see any realistic way to look around that.

 

[hndog609]

After the Parkland shooting he also mentioned the need for more red flag laws, and other "extreme risk protection orders".

but again, if it was just rhetoric, I wouldn't worry about Trump, I would have him at worst the same as the Dems. The unconstitutional ban puts him in a category by himself. I don't see any realistic way to look around that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again I'll pretty much never give someone grief for mistrusting a politician. Hell, if you just said you can't bring yourself to trust someone that would eat steak well done with ketchup I'd understand that too. The point I'm making (and I believe others have chimed in on) is that it seems "unlikely" he is much of a threat to 2A rights and is absolutely positively a lesser threat than the likes of Kamala et.al.