Why Donald Trump would be worse for gun rights than Hillary Clinton

Apparently, when I went to Lackland for training, I entered a dimension portal, because six months later now that I’ve popped out, I’m in some alternate universe where Donald Trump is a Republican presidential front runner and Bloom County is politically relevant again. It’s pretty weird. What’s even weirder is the headlong rush some of my fellow conservative travelers have undergone to embrace Donald Trump and proclaim him as the savior of Republicans and of course, the 2nd Amendment. A lot of that 2A-fervor is based on his official position paper, which if you ask me is worth exactly the same as the paper it’s printed on. Or the electrons or whatever since you’re reading this online and no one has hard copies of anything anymore.

donald trump header image

Right now, Trump is saying all the right words, touching all the right talking points, and generally doing an excellent job of looking like a pro-gun Republican candidate. And if you think he wouldn’t throw gun rights under the bus faster than one of his casino bouncers will kick you out for counting cards, you’re stupid. Actually, you might be terminally stupid. Let’s play out a hypothetical scenario for a bit, just to illustrate my point.

First, you have to operate from the assumption that Trump’s professed love for the 2nd Amendment is insincere and exists only to pander to the conservative base. So he somehow gets elected, and then bam, there’s a mass shooting. With a Republican majority in both houses of Congress and a Republican president, Trump feels compelled to act. He feels this way because he is in love with his own image, the Donald Trump of the People, and after someone shoots up another school, the People are upset. Something Must Be Done. So he sells us out, and next thing you know there’s a universal background check bill in Congress that he’s promised to sign. The NRA is playing defense because they have to convince members of the President’s own party to go against him, which is never easy nor a guaranteed thing.

Now take that same scenario and have it run under President Hillary Clinton instead. NRA is ALREADY primed for a fight, because there’s a Clinton in office, and they come out swinging the second she says “gun control” on TV. The bill dies in committee, and Hillary goes back to looking for a war to fight so she can prove she’s as tough as one of the boys or something.

Most of this goes back to an old phrase: better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. Hillary Clinton, for all her faults, is absolutely the devil we know. President Hillary Clinton could do a lot of damage this country for sure, but gun rights? Probably not. Anything she says or does that even smells a little bit like gun control is going to result in NRA and the entire gun owning internet losing their collective shit and blowing up every red-state Congressman’s phone for days. Which is exactly how it should be. But is the reverse of that true? If you get a squishy Republican who doesn’t really care about gun rights in office, and especially one like Trump, the odds of them selling us out for the sake of their image and getting away with it are a lot higher.

That’s the thing with Trump. Everyone seems so sure that he’s not full of shit, when every single thing about his record in business says that yeah, he’s totally full of shit. Ultimately, Trump would sell gun owners out in a heartbeat. Here’s why: like I mentioned above, Trump is in love with his own image. He’s a narcissist, or egoist or whatever you want to call him. People like that are dangerous, because they’ll act to preserve their own self-image at the cost of everything else.

The best case scenario for Trump as President is the same as the best case for Hillary: we keep the wolf away from the door for another four years. But the worse case for Trump is a lot worse than Hillary. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that Trump is any real kind of ally.


  1. I totally agree with you! Trump isn’t tested all his positions are super shallow with little policy substance. It seems like all of his positions were thought up at some conservative high end fund raiser. It doesn’t make me beleive that he believes anything he says. He just says it to get better poll numbers.

  2. I would NEVER vote for Hillary and definitely not another DemocRAT after all the damage this administration has done. I’d rather take my chances with the Republican who wins the primary. How could any Patriot even consider putting the lying, evil, criminal Hillary in OUR White House?

    1. I’m still trying to figure out how 1. There is any relevance behind this article; 2. Is this speculation? Because that’s what it sounds like; and 3. Where is the proof(I mean, I understand there is no such thing as journalistic integrity anymore), but seriously, this sounds like pure speculation. I’m not left by any means, but this sounds like paranoid, typical, “far right wing nut” writing to me. Please, do your research, site it in your article, and maybe more than just your followers will read this. Oh and before everyone starts telling me how much of a piece of shit I am for not falling in line, save it. It’s not going to offend me. I know the law, I know the constitution, and I spent over a decade fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (which is where my love of guns comes from).

      1. Marty, this post is what those of us in the media refer to as an “editorial” meaning that it is my opinion, which I then support with some hypothetical examples. Its goal is to get people to think, preferably to challenge their own assumptions. I see in your case I’ve failed.

  3. Even more than legislation, the key gun rights issue with the next president will be who gets on the Suprrme Court.

  4. No, you never said to vote for Hillary. However, at this point The Donald is the only republican with a declared pro-gun stance. The only other public voice is the socialist Bernie Sanders. So, if we can’t trust a republican to have our backs in this fight – by simple implication of your premise – then voting for Billary is our only recourse. Keep up the stress, the anger and the fight. We all know that if you are a politician and your lips are moving we should probably be patting ourselves down to see what is missing. But, you seem to think the only useful position at this point is to jump behind the 8 ball.

  5. Trump lacks the humility that is required for the job. He is the Radio Shock Jock(ROCKTOBER!) of the Republican party while Ben Carsons is the NPR reporter.

  6. I agree. With one potential counter point. Hillary’s SCOTUS appointments would be pretty damn horrific. There’s perhaps a chance Trump’s will be less so.

    I suppose Trump would be more likely to sign a pro-gun bill than Hillary, provided the timing is such that it flatters his vanity.

    Which like the SCOTUS appointments would be a total dice roll… with loaded dice.

    1. True. OTOH, the GOP will be more likely* to automatically oppose her nominees than a Republican president’s.

      * Not that that theory has played out all that well with the current GOPe leadership, but it’s still more likely to happen than with a president that has an (R) after his name.

      1. The last few Republican presidents have had a mixed track record: about half of their justices stay solid, and the other half decide to play the other side. The last few Democrat presidents have had a much better record of appointing “their” kind of people.

        In other words, if the next president follows the precedent on this, a Democrat administration will likely result in a SCOTUS with a serious left-wing bias for the next 20+ years. On the other hand, a Republican administration will likely keep the court with roughly even split with a minor preference for individual liberties.

        While there are plenty of major policy issues in this election cycle, I believe that Supreme Court appointments are the biggest; Of the current court, nearly half will likely not last another decade. Assuming Obama doesn’t get to appoint any more, I believe that at least 3-4 will need to be replaced within the next 8 years. Also, since the trend has also been to nominate younger and younger people to the court, we need to remember that we will be stuck with those people, for good or ill, for quite awhile.

        There is really no perfect/ideal candidate on the right, but pretty much any of them would be worlds better than Clinton, Sanders, Warren, or any of the Democrats that have their name in the game so far.

  7. All other things being equal, I would rather have someone who is on record as being pro gun rights as opposed to someone who is on record as being pro gun control. BTW, the main danger is the next appointment to the Supreme Court.

  8. This is what I’ve been trying to tell people. But, I keep on getting “He’s saying what we want to hear.” This is a “man” that has proven that he will do whatever it takes to get what he wants. He has bank rolled Democrats and professed anti-gun positions before he started running for office. But, since he says what they want to hear, people are choosing him anyways. What will be interesting is what happens when we get past the first few primaries. Will the Republican voters actually vote for him when they are in the voting booth. I’m hoping they won’t be that gullible.

    1. I don’t trust Trump either.

      The real question is which of the other candidates would do the best job, which would do the best job getting people out to actually vote R, and which would least offend those who lean D.

  9. Caleb, your stupid for actually saying/thinking you’ll sit this one out…..it’s possibly that reason alone we have the biggest POS in the WH that this Country has ever seen. Way to go dummy.

    1. I think you meant “you’re” stupid, as in “you are.” That’s okay. As far as my political positions go, I can’t in good conscience pull the lever for either of them, so the only moral action is to abstain.

      1. They’ll both self-destruct well before next March. Might want to take a look at some of the actually electable candidates.

      2. Actually, when you feel you can’t vote for either of the major party candidates, that’s the perfect time to vote third party.

        Even if that means writing in Donald Duck, voting is still better than not voting.

  10. I’m glad others are digging that he’s insincere and that having him as “our candidate” is risky

  11. You can make all the what ifs you care to Caleb but I find nothing of substance in your argument. What if you are a secret Hildabeast supporter trying to muddy the waters? I find that a much easier position to believe. I’m sorely tempted to sit this one out” is something of a clue.

  12. At this point it is about the Supreme court. Trump could get it right. Hillary would get it wrong.

  13. You seem to forget that a Hillary in the White House would probably have the opportunity to fill two, maybe three SCOTUS chairs. Do I have to explain what that could mean for the Second Amendment? You’re suspicious of Trump? Fine, but Hillary is a known commodity. If she gets in Rome will surely burn, but you won’t be fiddling is my guess.

    1. Four of the current justices were born before 1940. I’d be surprised if more than one of them was still on the court a decade from now.

      Two of the four are Clinton appointees, and lean heavily to the left (Ginsburg, 82 and Breyer, 77). Of the other two, both Reagan appointees; one leans consistently to the right (Scalia, 79), while the other is more of a right-leaning moderate (Kennedy, 79).

      Ultimately, I expect that Ginsburg will want to retire soon after the next presidential inauguration. I expect Kennedy and Scalia to go either during the same period (2016-2019) or possibly in 2020. Breyer will probably stay until at least 2020.

      Thomas, currently 67 is a bit of a wild card too, as is Roberts. In the case of Thomas, I’m not sure if we can count on his continued health; In the case of Roberts, If someone has been leaning on him as some recent rulings seem to imply to be a possibility (see: J. Edgar Hoover), I wouldn’t be surprised if he were inclined to exit the court if a suitable replacement could be found to replace him.

      In other words, it’s even money that the next president, if he/she serves two full consecutive terms, is going to get to appoint justices to about half the seats on the court, and possibly up to two thirds of the court.

  14. Doesn’t this cut both ways? Maybe if we were to stroke his ego effectively enough early on, he would be happy to sign universal carry, delisting suppressors, etc? For me personally, I’m not a single issue voter, but SCOTUS appointments would be enough to get me to the polls to pull a Trump lever…albeit while holding my nose. At least I’d have a 50/50 shot at liking his appointments…compared to 100% disliking anyone appointed by a Hillary.

    1. It absolutely could go both ways. I could just as easily have written a piece about how D-Trump could be the best thing to happen to gun rights since the 1700s. But that wouldn’t move the hit counter very much, and in this business, pageviews is life.

  15. Always keep in mind that Trump is first and foremost a really good salesman- he is very good at getting projects up and running. With that, he’s also pretty terrible at actually running the businesses he starts.

    And as a very good salesman, he’s really good at telling the potential customers exactly what they want to hear. The rough and ready style of saying politically incorrect stuff is just part of the pitch, to make him look more honest.

Comments are closed.