Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has campaigned as an ardent advocate of expanding gun rights, but in the past he called for banning assault weapons and a longer waiting period for gun purchases.
Trump’s new gun plan calls for a national right to concealed carry and criticizes “opponents of gun rights” for coming “up with scary sounding phrases like ‘assault weapons,’ ‘military-style weapons,’ and ‘high capacity magazines’ to confuse people.” He has vowed to undo President Obama’s modest gun executive orders and even called for the elimination of all “gun-free zones” at schools.
This stands in contrast to what Trump used to advocate. In his book The America We Deserve, published in 2000, Trump took a much more moderate position, criticizing Democrats who argue for total gun confiscation but also Republicans who “walk the NRA line”:
It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions.
He concluded: “I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record.”
Today, far from calling for a ban on assault weapons, Trump is happily receiving them. A gun shop owner in New Hampshire recently gave Trump an AR-15 as a gift. He had planned to hand-deliver it backstage at a Trump rally, but the Secret Service insisted on receiving the weapon prior to the event and rendering it inoperable for safety reasons.
What are Trump’s true views on gun rights and gun control? It appears that it depends on the audience he’s talking — or writing — to.
Top photo: Donald Trump holds up a replica flintlock rifle at the Republican Society Patriot Dinner at the Citadel Military College on February 22 in Charleston, S.C.
It is really incredible that anyone, including the MSM pundits, is taking ‘The Donald’ seriously! He will say anything! It is all meant to ignite controversy! Donald is not an intelligent man…it’s just that the people who made him what he is today are very stupid and gullible! Don’t climb on the short bus with this idiot!
As opposed to Hilary who has changed EVERY position to cater to the voters? See url below William W Haywood. (Again, everyone can learn and change a position – but EVERY major position?)
https://www.facebook.com/sfraine/videos/1098295776868843/
I’m anti-Trump, but come on, this was 15 years ago. My stance and opinions on many matters have changed in the course of 15 years.
A little off topic but somewhat important. The word “assault weapon” was actually coined by the military denoting a weapon with selectable fire, automatic or semi-automatic. Now the gun industry wanted to sell semi-automatic,(legal) guns to the public. Thus they started calling legal guns assault guns, these were banned during the Brady ban, especially because they were so lethal. Bush II let a provision of the law to expire letting the sale of “assault guns”. They created the monster and now are distancing from “assault” to modern sporting firearms or MSF’s. They created the monster they’re trying to be rid of. I firmly believe in the 2nd amendment but with the lethality of MSF’s a modicum of restraint is called for. The fact that Trump has changed his mind should surprise no one. He does have a permit for concealed carry in the city that’s the hardest to get a permit in. That should be saying something..I think..but with Trump who knows.
You’re pretty uninformed about guns and the legal terms. “Assault rifle” is the technical term for full-auto or select-fire weapons, not “assault weapons”. The latter term was made up by gun control advocates and refers to weapons with certain cosmetic features such as pistol grips, adjustable stocks, etc. None of these features make a weapon more lethal. In fact, the most common style of “assault weapon” in the country, the AR-15, uses an intermediate cartridge that’s much less powerful than most hunting rifles.
The assault weapons ban was absolutely pointless. It banned guns solely based upon how they looked and had no effect on crime. Heck, the vast majority of gun crimes (90%+) are committed with handguns!
First, gun-grabbers are easily identified when they say “I believe in the 2na BUT….” People fond of the 2ndA refer to these gun grabbing lairs as “But heads”.
Second, your irrationality is exhibited by demonizing (“they created a monster”) an inanimate object. There hasn’t been a single documented case of a gun raising itself from a gun safe and walking down the street and killing someone.
Thirdly, I don’t trust Trump with my gun rights.
“What are Trump’s true views on [ANYTHING]? It appears that it depends on the audience he’s talking — or writing — to.”
I don’t trust this buffoon any farther than I can throw him.
Don’t know whether or not Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) is a member of the GOP establishment, but he grand-slammed Trump on Glenn beck’s program the other day: http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/01/26/nebraska-senator-questions-donald-trump-on-core-principles/
There’s really no point in fact checking any politician; and, concealed carry and registration is only a small part of the problem. It’s largely not up to them anyway to make a decision on — only Congress. Soon, or sooner than we may think, the “ban on private ownership” of post 1986 “machine guns” will be found unconstitutional thanks in part to the Heller case and now the Heller Foundation. An AR-15 simply is a rifle with a military style look; the “assault” verbage is just marketing tactic so folks pay for a semi-automatic rifle, really they could have the exact same state of the art M16 at the same price.
For a look at just how fucking crazy Americans used to be read the 1792 Militia Act; Congress wanted every American household to have a specified list of military equipment — to include military rifles (not just military styled rifles). Unbelievable. Today, look how fucking crazy our politicians are by reading the Heller complaint and what a LEO had to go through.
Actually high schools are exactly where military equipment (machine guns, rifles, hand guns) should be. Put a detachment of active duty Marines, Navy boat gunner/ seal or the like, Rangers, Green beret firearms instructors in every public school for instructional purposes – with all the intensity associated therewith to compel respect for the equipment. I’d like to believe in that case parents would feel secure about their high schools.
Haven’t been posting much…but I felt I had to post something after reading about that outrageous fundraiser that this nutjob has planned for this evening. PLEASE, I hope you all will read my blog post AND spread the word. I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing Trump getting free passes and a huge stage for all his horrible remarks.
http://observergal.blogspot.com/2016/01/outrageous.html
@ Mr Mike T. I assume you imagine that your assault weapon will avail you against a drone strike via Hellfire Missile (or Brimstone speaking as a shill for Bristish M.I.C) ?
No single weapon in the hand of one person will necessarily avail him against any single weapon in the hands of the govt.
But there are an estimated 300 million firearms in the hands of 100 million Americans.
To paraphrase Roy Scheider in Jaws, “You’re gonna need a bigger drone.”
Oh, and remember how them Vietnamese peasants fared against the strongest military in the world?
http://attackthesystem.com/armed-revolution-possible-and-not-so-difficult/
Pre 9-11 opinions on guns don’t count for much these days. I’m sure he probably believes everyone should have one at home now. Before 9-11 I was a big pro-handgun guy, but now I find there is room in the collection for an AR15, with a bump stock. Times change.
I really don’t trust Tumps pro-gun position but that post 9-11 argument is a decent excuse. Does he use that?
Trump is never going to pass through the elite’s vetting process allowing the American people to vote for him. He knows this, of course, and if he himself really wanted the Americans to vote for him he would have to run independently.
Trump’s main function (intended or not) is to create such a circus atmosphere that when he eventually drops out he will make Jeb Bush look irresistable.
Who are these “Democrats who want to confiscate all guns”?
I’ve never heard an elected Dem say that, it’s not in the Party platform…
I’ve heard Repubs make the claim before. Are they referring to anti-gun activists and stereotyping for political gain (a Trump specialty recently), or has the media failed to widely report these confiscation beliefs?
“Who are these “Democrats who want to confiscate all guns”?”
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to name just two. Both have championed the Australian Model of firearms policy. The “buyback” after the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996 was anything but voluntary.
You are misinformed. First, see senator Diane Feinstein, D-CA.
Second, you are guilty of rhetorical argument to dodge the point. There is little practical difference between ban all the guns and ban some of the guns and don’t ban any but make it so complex, expensive, and slow to have guns it isn’t practical to do so. You can argue that few have said ‘nan them all, every one’ but I dont think you can argue that is not their intent.
There is no point in fact-checking Trump, or checking his previous statements against his current positions. Trump is our first truly post-modern candidate. Much like the way Bird played Jazz, Trump’s politics are totally improvisational.
Trump’s past support of the “assault weapons” ban is one of several reasons he’ll never get my vote, regardless of what he says today. His remarks about Edward Snowden are another deal-breaker, as is his cynical demonization of Muslims. Not only is Trump a raging narcissist, his contempt for the Bill of Rights is obvious. (Not that any of the other mainstream candidates are any better. I’m going to either vote Libertarian or write in Ed Snowden for president.)
If we must have police in the US, then at a bare minimum, citizens should be able to legally own the same weapons as the cops. That’s the difference between (1) a government in which the ultimate power rests in the hands of the people, and (2) a government of masters who lord it over a nation of slaves. Putting on a badge and costume, and taking a paycheck from the taxpayer, do not make anyone more trustworthy or morally upright. History shows us with perfect clarity just how “trustworthy” governments and their enforcers can be.
We are already living in a fascist police state, but don’t think it can’t get much worse. Anyone who expects the people of this country to downgrade their defensive capabilities against the modern-day Gestapo is either crazy, stupid, or an enemy of human rights.
I assume this post is satire.
Just in case…”don’t think it can get much worse”? Really? Try living in North Korea. Or Putin’s Russia. Or any number of states in history where the populations have been systematically persecuted (you mention the Gestapo). Then compare that with living in the US today. If you honestly think the US is a fascist police state then you need to get out more and read some books.
But as I say, hoping you were being satirical… :-)
Are you aware of the difference between assault weapons and “assault weapons”, as defined by today’s political vocabulary? Do you know that assault weapons are currently banned on the Federal level, and have been so since 1986?
Alternatively, do you think that Trump’s position on the ban could have changed as a result of that pesky report on the efficiency on Clinton’s “assault weapons” ban, which led to the ban’s expiration? Or do you completely discount the possibility of a person changing their opinion in the face of facts?
They’re only called “assault weapons” when we lowly peasants have them.
Take the Colt 6920 carbine as an example. It’s just like the military M4 carbine, only it has no burst switch, and its barrel is 1.5 inches longer. Like all AR-15 style rifles, it’s very popular with both private citizens and police.
When citizens own this carbine, mainstream media and politicians refer to it as an “assault weapon” that’s “only good for killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible,” and a “weapon of war that has no place on America’s streets.” But the identical weapon, when in police hands, magically becomes a “patrol rifle,” “law enforcement carbine,” or some other fairly innocuous term. And then we’re to believe it’s only a tool for good. It’s not like governments and police ever do anything wrong or abuse their power, right?
I think you mean “assault weapon” (a purely political term that means whatever the particular legislation in question says it means) vs. “assault rifle” (a technical term for a particular kind of firearm).