Sunday, October 10, 2010


Trump for President. Via Alphecca.

Alphecca, like a good little gun blogger, zeroed in on The Donalds political position on firearms and noted he’s a little from column A, a little from column B. In other words, unacceptable. Alphecca also noted that Trump is one of the privileged few that can actually GET a conceal carry permit in New York.

This last bit got me thinking. What if The Donald was elevated to Emperor of the US after a free and fair election with just a little tweak on his policies. Yes, he’s bad on the assault weapons thing. But he’s Emperor now, and he just re-wrote the 2nd Amendment into language even Sarah Brady can’t argue with. Like I said, ARs, AKs, FALs, M1As even M1 Carbines are to be turned in to the police. All 8 round enbloc Garand clips too, but not 5 round ones, so you got that going for you. 8 is dangerous, 5 is fine. Or something.

That’s the bad news. The good news, to get where he is and not be a hypocrate, it is not a permanent thing that Open Carry and Conceal Carry are all Vermont/Arizona/Alaska style. And it is much easier to buy a pistol. Most of the country also adapts Kennesaw Georgia rules, and adults are EXPECTED to go strapped. No restrictions on handguns beyond what is there now for your average state. No Glock 18s, for instance, will be any more available than they are now.

Trumps reasoning behind this is that rifles are offense weapons, but pistols are defense.
And now the whole gun-control issue is put to bed forever more thereafter. The NRA and GOA have come to a permanent Peace with MAIG, Brady, and VPC.


How do us gunnies like THAT hypothetical? (as outlandish as it is…)

I, for one, well part of me, is relieved. I don’t have to keep fighting that political battle, here or elsewhere. Part of me is perturbed at the alteration of the 2nd, the loss of real rifles, and the whole POINT of the original intention and meaning of the 2nd.

Could we be happy, never to be hassled about carrying a SIG around just as often and to as many places are we now tote a cell phone? We are certainly not a defenseless population, then. We are all equalized. Universal pistol carry isn’t the best way to counter tyranny, but it’s pretty effective.

What say all of you?


bluesun said...

Unacceptable. My thought is that gun control of any sort proves that the leadership doesn't trust citizens, and if they don't trust me enough with something completely arbitrary like magazine sizes, I won't trust them with the leadership of my country.

That, and my 10/22 would be pretty stupid if I could only do five shots at a time.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Nah, sounds like he's trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Keep in mind that he's not going to be running alone, he'll have to staff up his Admin (and saying "You're Fired" after 3 weeks in Office won't cut it), and, well, you just can't trust a RINO. Remember, he wrote the Book "On the Art of the Deal", and every RINO will side with the DemiCommies before they side with the Republitards on Social Issues. Besides, how many more Billionaire Politicians do we need? Isn't Romney, Fiorina and Whitman enough? Rather have a scrambling to pay her bills Witch from Delaware than someone who doesn't know or remember what it is like to ration your gasoline so you could afford food. Donald just wants to be Pres. so he can lower taxes on his business and increase his profit margin, that's all.

Me said...

My rifles--and my machine guns--are defensive tools as well...just with a bit more stand-off capability and punch.

Joel said...

You know how you can tell when a politician is lying, right?

If Trump or anybody else doesn't want to be frightened by my weapons, they can leave me the hell alone. Problem solved. In the meantime, I don't need their blessing or permission for a damned thing.

Jenny said...

I think you just hit on why this needs to be handled at the State level. It sounds like a wonderful step up (at least as regards daily life) for y'all in the Northeast.

.... it would be hell here, and frankly don't think Alaskans would stand for it.

Plus as you said, it subverts the entire Constitutional purpose of the 2A. Even given Northeast corridor style laws, its a bad trade, in my opinion. Practical effects aside, I believe you'll dramatically lower the chance for that "oh... I get the citizen/subject thing now" lightbulb to come on.

Hans said...

Not just no, but hell no. The simple truth is that the gun banners will never be happy until every citizen is deprived of any means to (legally) acquire a firearm, just look at Great Britain. One 'compromise' after another until there was almost nothing left, and now they're trying to strip the last meat away from the bone. The only compromise that is acceptable is the one that puts us in a stronger position for the next push.