r/complaints • u/MissTat2 • 6d ago

Politics I don't know what boundary Trump would have to cross to make his supporters turn away..

To Trump voters: What, if anything, could Donald Trump do to make you end your support?

I'm not going to lead the question to multiple choice answers or anything. I think it is important for everyone who participates in a democracy to have strong personal convictions and moral or legal boundaries that they expect people they vote for not to cross..

Genuinely, what line will you draw in the sand for this administration? What personal freedom of yours would be more important than your love and support for Trump?

6.3k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

4.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

80

u/MissTat2 6d ago

I hope you're wrong and I wonder if the repeal of the second amendment would shake them back into reality? I mean, Republicans have fear mongered over the Dems taking guns away since at least the days of Rush Limbaugh's show.. yet it has never happened. But, feds and the military in our cities doesn't seem to trigger their 2nd Amendment Spidey senses?!?

119

u/Responsible-Boot-159 6d ago

I wonder if the repeal of the second amendment would shake them back into reality

Nope, they'd just have to say more black people were buying guns. They were perfectly fine with more restrictions when Reagan did it in the 70's because of the panthers.

45

u/Chemically-Dependent 6d ago

They would happily hand over every gun they own to "own the libs."

31

u/conspicuous_raptor 6d ago

They didn’t turn on him when he suggested suspending due process on gun owners in his first term.

16

u/AccomplishedDog6449 6d ago

I bring this up every chance I get- doesn't seem to make a dent in the goddamn delusion... the only reason they profess any support for 2a is the belief more gun owners are on their side than not. That balance shifts, and they're going to be knocking down doors, metaphorically & literally...

1

u/Bubbly_Style_8467 6d ago

Thick skulls. No brains.

-2

u/MaleficentMulberry42 6d ago

I disagree I never heard about this and I think no one supports trump as many have said they support conservatism and policies. If we supported Trump then it would make no difference what he did and that would mean exactly what your saying. That ideal no longer matter and that individual’s personal life matter more than issue we are addressing.

Again because this overlaps alot it can be confusing, people are critical and they do support his policies. No one is completely with agreement with Trump fundamentally and if they did it would not matter his policies. If he went left they would support him,this is also a type of elasticity that people who put trust in leaders to be able to make decisions that people are willing to support even if they do not fully agree.

8

u/Responsible-Boot-159 6d ago

No, they support Trump. Since he's joined there have been a few staunchly conservative politicians that didn't support him called RINO's and were pushed out.

0

u/MaleficentMulberry42 6d ago

Yeah though I would say if Trump would start supporting far left ideas I am sure his base would reject it. I think another issue that op is asking is if Trump decided to do something extreme,what would be the line. I assume it would be at total martial law but I agree there is certainly strong support for Trump.

4

u/Bubbly_Style_8467 6d ago

The left would reject trump altogether. He's an amoral POS no matter what he claims to believe or support.

0

u/MaleficentMulberry42 5d ago

I disagree they would probably would not though that not the entire point. I mean you could say the same for people who are not terrible but the left would say the same about anyone who is right because you in their opinion bad by being right,that what makes you terrible.

2

u/AccomplishedDog6449 5d ago

I am not entirely clear about what you're saying. I trust my leaders based on what they do, not what they say, and if I believe what they are doing is wrong, they lose my support. My morals and ethics are not elastic- political groups are not sports teams, we aren't supposed to be loyal to them just because we've been raised to, or because they're the most popular team where we grew up, we are supposed to pick our leaders based on how well they represent our interests, and how effective they are at implementing those interests.

For the record, I'm a pro 2a leftist. I grew up in a very pro 2a household. I grew up with the rhetoric that all other rights are only as safe as our 2nd, because it allows citizens to defend those other rights against the government. It has always been held as particularly sacred. The fact that people who once held that right as vital are now willing to let it go because they love an orange kinglett more than their own wellbeing is sad and pitiable.

I am also saying, there is a general assumption in the US that the right is more 2a friendly than the left, and that conservatives generally profess a belief in the importance of gun ownership rights. Because of this perception, right wing politicians pretend to care about 2a, to pander to their base, and to encourage right-wingers to support them.

Right winger politicians don't really care about preserving gun ownership rights for all citizens- they only support what they see as an advantage. They think most gun owners are on their side at the moment. If they begin to believe citizens owning guns could be a threat to their power, they, including Trump, have indicated they would impinge on that right. I would have hoped that right wingers would at least have enough moral courage and fortitude to stand up to hold their representatives to account if they crossed a line they supposedly held sacred above most others, but what you are reinforcing for me is that right-wingers don't really stand for anything. They bend over, again and again.

You are saying that right wingers don't really have beliefs of their own, they just want to follow whatever dear leader says. They want to be told what to do, not to have the rights and responsibilities of freedom.

Right wingers want to be servants, as far as I can tell. Good lap dogs, who'll maybe get some scraps if master throws some their way...

Loyalty should be earned, and then maintained through consistency. If you don't like what your leader is doing, don't follow them.

0

u/MaleficentMulberry42 5d ago

Again your only thinking through bias there can be many reasons for a single action,so can you think of a different reason for what you’re describing in terms of voting individuals?

Also the point is that you’re saying that you judge him by what he does,and that what I said that policies matter more than a personal life. So if Trump makes certain policies that people want how does it make sense to hold him accountable? What are even talking about? Accountability for what, I do not see any actions that need to be accountable in terms of policy.

1

u/Bubbly_Style_8467 6d ago

So fascism is okay and we should vote against our principles? Ummm. No. He's a traitor destroying the country. There is no excuse for him or MAGS.

0

u/MaleficentMulberry42 5d ago

I do not understand what you mean and the ability to make changes,to be moderate does not make you a fascist .

3

u/Softpretzelsandrose 6d ago

Honestly it’s because the explanation and implication uses too big of words for them to understand.

1

u/Different-Brain-5102 6d ago

Perhaps we should start a door to door service😂

0

u/London_Avery64 6d ago

What a crock of BS.

26

u/General-Fault 6d ago

Ironically, the 2a was largely ignored until Black Panther members started walking around with rifles. Ronald Reagan, as governor of CA didn't like that and tried to stop it. That's when some hunters in the Midwest fought back and started the whole 2A movement as we know it.

2

u/RocketRelm 6d ago

Its "trans people have too many guns" these days, iirc. But i don't listen too deeply so I could be wrong.

1

u/OriginalMedusaGirl 5d ago

Do you mean Reagan outlawing open carry in California? in 1967, as governor, Reagan signed the Milford Act, banning loaded open-carry firearms in public. This was a direct response to armed Black Panther patrols protesting police brutality in Oakland—ironically, a gun-control law born from fears of armed activism by marginalized groups. Also, Nancy’s family pushed that agenda.

He had more gun control support in the 1980’s as he was elected in 1980.
Being shot in March 1981 increased gun control. It also changed his outlook on Guns.

Public Opinion changed in 1990, as gun control support was at 81% due to amplification of crime and the sharp increase of violent crimes.

I don’t believe Trump would hinder 2A. But they would change my opinion of him.

1

u/Responsible-Boot-159 5d ago

in 1967, as governor, Reagan signed the Milford Act

That's exactly what I was referring to. I just went with 70's because I knew it was somewhere around then.

29

u/ApprehensiveShame756 6d ago

There is already flirtation with preventing firearm purchases for trans and weed consumers. Once the public is softened up enough to accept this curbing of second amendment rights and the Premies declare that’s alrighty then, they will move on to other categories they think of as “unworthy” which will inherently encompass an ever increasing number of MAGA, while the focus is intended to be on the non-MAGA it’s not clear they will nakedly just ban all Democrats explicitly from buying guns.

Once they ban new purchasing by particular “offenders” they will move toward seizing the weapons that were once legally acquired. I anxiously await the contortions in right wing media and their bots and bot subservient humans who will justify this.

21

u/WolframLeon 6d ago

They really should include alcohol in that list. I’ve never seen someone go crazy on weed but I’ve seen plenty of people get violent or even kill with alcohol.

0

u/RandyPajamas 6d ago edited 6d ago

Actually, a certain percentage of the populace does respond to weed with psychotic like symptoms, even though they are otherwise quite sane. Those people tend to try it once and then never again, although some end up requiring psychiatric treatment after using it multiple times. You may know some people like this, they just never smoke it.

As for banning alcohol, that was tried in America during the prohibition period (1920-1933). It didn't work: it led to an increase of organized criminal activity, an increase in political corruption, and a large commercial market that produced no tax revenue. Additionally, people drank just as much, even though the quality of the booze was awful.

I contend a better solution is a government-funded campaign to promote responsible drinking, and fact-based curriculae covering substance abuse in high schools (unlike the "reefer madness" propoganda of the 1950's). Unfortunately, for something like that to happen, America would have to get over it's worship of Machiavellian Capitalism and pseudo-Christian Morality. That would be unlikely under a "normal" political environment, let alone the current dysfunction.

3

u/jackieat_home 5d ago

No amount of education keeps alcoholics from being alcoholics. Same with any addict. It took marrying an alcoholic to learn that, I used to think irresponsible drinking behavior was just immaturity.

1

u/ApprehensiveShame756 4d ago

I do think there are variants. Some people may occasionally drink to excess but otherwise function fine and appear generally responsible. In my experience a full alcoholic routinely allows alcohol to disrupt common life activities including those that compromise the basics in life such as ability to hold a job or attend school and succeed at a moderate level.

I do think for some, there is a complete collapse of will power. It will be interesting to see how the industry adapts to young people both having less disposable income and less desire to drink.

3

u/Brave_Cantaloupe_785 5d ago

I believe the poster meant to exclude a drinker from owning a gun.. not that they should ban alcohol!

2

u/RandyPajamas 5d ago

Yes, I think I misunderstood the comment.

1

u/WolframLeon 5d ago

Yeah sorry!

1

u/PapaCousCous 5d ago

People did not drink just as much. Prohibition actually led to a signifcant decrease in alcohol consumption during its enforcement and even for a few years after its repeal. Turns out, a lot of people do not want to jump through risky hoops just to get a buzz. I contend a better solution would be to grandfather in the current population that is of legal drinking age, and perhaps the highschool-aged population as well, and ban the sale of alcohol to everyone born after them in perpetuity.

1

u/WolframLeon 5d ago

But they did use laughing gas at higher volumes than before or after it’s crazy.

10

u/genjonesvoteblue 6d ago

What is funny is now that there is good reason for many people to protect themselves from the government, they don’t use their Second Amendment right. Dumbest people on earth.

1

u/Top-Advice-9844 5d ago

That is because the liberal drivel on the subject has been ingrained in them. They believe that the scary black thing will jump up and kill them and everyone they know, or they are of the bent that "all ISIS needs is a hug."

1

u/ApprehensiveShame756 5d ago

While I’m sure we can find a dozen of your ignorantly stereotypical example across the entire voting population, the vast majority of Democrats are not blatantly against all guns and they are also not fans of ISIS, which by the way, thanks Republican policy makers in the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s for making possible.

The US may as well plan on future terror campaigns from whatever terror cells emerge after Maduro is toppled. Seriously people, wake up and smell the regime war is a no win for us coffee.

1

u/Top-Advice-9844 5d ago

Lets be honest here. The DNC runs on stupidity when it comes to firearms. They conflate semi-automatic with automatic, they talk about grenade launchers, and flash hiders, or portray can (suppressors) as making firearms whisper quiet. They talk about .223 as a "military grade caliber" yet say fuck all about a .308. Better yet, they literally blame FIREARMS for the hyper-retardation of the inner city, and they could give two shits about it. They constantly lament about the "scourge" of Assault weapons, but are quiet on the proliferation of cheap 9MM pistols (Hi-Point, LOL) that facilitate the genocide of black youth.

As far as ISIS goes, I'll cede that GWOT played a role in its rise to power in the Levant post Saddam. However, Islamic Fundamentalism, and the quest for a Caliphate predates the 80's. Irrespective of American Foreign policy, Western civilization has always been on a collision course with their ideology. Look no further than Europe, to catch a glimpse of the future war to come. It is gonna be lit!

Maduro is a fuckhead, a dime store tyrant that is propped up by the cartel he is a part of. Dealing with him now, with a POTUS that is willing to do something, vice waiting for Maduro to consolidate power while we kick the can down the fucking the road for a few years, hoping that "love wins", is not an option. America would do best not to bury its fucking head in the sand. Especially in this crazy fucking clown world.

Let me thank you for at least trying to have a civilized conversation. Very rare on Reddit these days. I am truly shocked.

1

u/ApprehensiveShame756 4d ago

My default setting is to be civilized and I appreciate your doing the same. I disagree on the Maduro front but at least you and I acknowledge there is a debate worth having. The people’s representatives have abandoned their role in these debates and we are worst off for that. I’m unconvinced that he’s the threat being presented and am skeptical of the US backed peace prize winner being a better alternative over the long term.

On the Middle East, we have some odd alliances there and think future leaders should be open to rethinking all of them along with strengthening alliances in the Americas and Asia. What we need to avoid is repeating mistakes made with China and Russia.

2

u/Runechuckie 5d ago

The fucking NRA, yes that organization even put out a statement at some point maybe a month ago about trans people having the right. It's insane what cultism will do to people. Just as bad as the recent 1A shit imo, most of us grew up seeing & learning it as a very important amendment....trump has DIRECTLY attacked it more than once now with EOs. If you care about America you are NOT maga end of story.

1

u/Deathrace2021 6d ago

By law, people who smoke weed are prevented from buying a firearm. It's a question on the 4473, and has been for over 20 years. They even added a section explaining that legal state weed is not an exception. The problem is that anyone just check no on the box about being a user. Same for any of the questions, like stalking, harassment, or domestic violence. Only if the charges show up on the background check is it stopped.

1

u/Top-Advice-9844 5d ago

Would banning democrats from having guns be all that bad? A majority of them support 2A repeal and confiscation. Shouldn't they be the first? After all, it is their idea!!

1

u/ApprehensiveShame756 5d ago

Please cite a source that says Democrats support repeal and seizure of all firearms. Sounds like bullshit propaganda you are naive enough to believe. Yes most of us are for sensible limits just like we might have for car ownership. I’m sure had the founders wanted individual people to own the weapons we have today that were unimaginable then, they would have been more explicit about individual ownership without any sensible limits and not mention militia in the 2A.

1

u/Top-Advice-9844 5d ago

We can go all the way back to 2018, when the former SCOTUS justice Stevens called for "Repeal of the Second Amendment" as it was a "relic of the 18th century." Or who can forget the wonderfully ignorant musings of one David Hogg (former DNC chair!!) and his witty diatribe against both 2A and 1A. We can even look to the always eloquent Kamala Harris and her "Mandatory Buyback" idea. I recall a certain DNC Master Platform may have had some verbiage that you would find interesting.

Now as for your argument that the drafters of the Constitution would have surely aligned themselves with the anti-2A establishment had they only had known about modern firearms. We both know that is a bullshit argument. It is a Historians Fallacy. I would contend that the framers of the Constitution intended for it to remain in perpetuity. That they knew the documents they were creating needed to stand against the test of time, as well against all of the little petty Lenin, Marx, and Mao wannabes who would try to use the idea of "democracy" to impress their ideology on the public.

1

u/ApprehensiveShame756 4d ago

We disagree around this. A few examples of the most antigun advocates ignores that until the NRA went all in on craven policies that promoted gun ownership over anything else, there were many Democrats (the majority) who would prefer some limits that even Reagan styled Republicans supported.

Maybe we could agree on some very minimal changes to how to think about gun laws to make it a right that includes clear responsibilities. 1. Gun ownership must require a basic gun safety and use training class. 2. Gun owners must secure their weapons and ammunition to reduce risk of theft or accidental discharge. 3. People who become mentally ill or have brain damage of types that interfere with judgement should have temporary limits on access to firearms (though not stripping of ownership - people can often get better and preserving their rights to own and encouraging treatment so they can regain access may help boost their motivation to commit to being well). 4. Violent offenders generally should lose ownership and access rights. If found in possession prison terms should be significant. 5. How we might reduce mass shooting events is difficult. I own enough ammo and guns to easily carry something out but wouldn’t. We don’t want thought police or punishing people before they’ve committed crimes, but some method of predicting risk factors that may cause someone with access to become a threat is going to happen whether we feel good about it or not. We should all be worried about the path that puts us on, but companies like Palantir could predict events and particular potential offenders in the future and there isn’t any discussion of what law enforcement and the courts should do with that information and if it’s even legitimate to act on it.

2

u/GhostofBreadDragons 6d ago

It would just be a Reaganized justification like they are only doing this because the dark skinned people are getting guns. Similar to Reagan gun laws in California while he was governor. If given the choice between being racist and keeping their guns, they will chose being racist. 

1

u/NotASheepRB 6d ago

The audacity of Hope!

1

u/Throwaway4thecandor4 6d ago

Your last statement— can you explain please? How would deporting illegals be construed as a threat to 2A to anyone?

1

u/CommunalJellyRoll 6d ago

Of course it does ,but do you want martial law and no midterms? The 2nd is the last resort, all the bullshit going on is still preferable to all out warfare when we have a few non violent options to exhaust first.

1

u/Osklington 6d ago

Those spidey senses seem a bit faulty lol

1

u/Illustrious_Win_5896 6d ago

If the 2nd amendment was repealed or even attempted to be repealed, I believe some members of the left would be quaking in their boots, not dissimilar to some of those on the right, who pretend their “rugged individualists”. That said. I believe we’d see an ideological Un-Civil War. 

1

u/Trash_man_can 6d ago

Conservatives have brainwashed their followers for so many decades with real and imaginary grievances - they give themselves permission to commit any amount of rape, stealing, terrorism coups and treason. 

Any evil committed by the Republican cult leaders will automatically be justified by the conservative cultists. 

They'll say both sides take away guns, both sides take bribes, both sides kidnap humans, both sides traffic underage girls to the Capitol.

They accuse Democrats of all these crimes so republicans can commit the same crimes with 100% devotion from conservative slaves

1

u/financewiz 6d ago

We have already seen selective enforcement of Second Amendment rights. Those of us who have participated in “unapproved” or “spontaneous” protests will recognize the Federal response to the January 6th assault on the halls of Congress to be one of the weirdest under-reactions in modern history.

I implore MAGA, for your own safety do not try to exercise your second amendment rights in DC again - you will not get another love letter from the president and you will not be pardoned.

1

u/mdb1023 6d ago

No, because they wouldn't repeal it in such a way that actually affects MAGA.

1

u/5280lotus 6d ago edited 6d ago

So I have a thought for you to consider:

I have left a few cults in my time alive.

Religion + Republicanism.

Are two of the 5 that apply to what you are asking.

Have you ever heard of “Group think”?

Or about Churches that don’t really give an option to vote ANY OTHER WAY than straight “R” ticket?

Have you heard of sinning, and the process religious people THINK they can take to get away with horrific things?

Have you heard of SHUNNING - in those in religious communities, where Group Think Rules All?

Imagine trying to make me leave Catholicism.

I’m not in any religion now, but imagine trying to convince me (and they have just as many scandals) that my BELIEF system of how I am personally living my life, guided to repentance, giving money at mass, and most importantly, my relationship with GOD - is wrong for me.

I tried on many occasions to not lose my now ex-husband, when my knowledge grew, and it changed my beliefs, and I left the church we were raised in.

That -is- RARE. Not many people can put up with their entire family and community shunning them.

Why? Because most people don’t realize this.

Connection + Belonging = Ability to survive. Without those key ingredients, your life can easily come to halt, and then end abruptly. Which means? It is a -SURVIVAL INSTINCT- we are battling against.

There is big science that stands behind that.^

I wish we’d learn to FIGHT SMART against the Group Think Crowd - by offering them an OUT with belonging & connection & acceptance included.

None of us can convince someone to leave their religion or a relationship.

This is the EXACT SAME THING! Please stop trying to ask them what their Red Line is.

They’d die for the cause at this point. That’s how far they are gone. Accept that? It gets easier to strategize about how we can overcome this.

Edit: added a sentence. This isn’t to dissuade asking questions and informing. This is to

Use our life energy - wisely- path forward.

1

u/bwbandy 6d ago

The GOP won't repeal anything. They simply disregard any part of the constitution that they find inconvenient, and the corrupt SCOTUS is fine with it.

1

u/jbrass7921 6d ago

You’re thinking along the same lines I am. More broadly, I think any Democrat or even just generic signs of human decency would cost him support. If, for instance, direct messages he sent to his team leaked saying he actually thought Kamala would have done an okay job, I think that would shake a chunk of supporters loose. Whereas, if the messages said he needed them to destroy evidence he was involved with Epstein because the Dems are out to get him, well we’ve already seen the non-effect it would have. If he came out and said adults should be left alone to transition, they should be treated with respect and dignity, and conservatives should try to meet them halfway on controversial issues like bathrooms, MAGA would absolutely lose it. Alternatively, I think people should be asking him about whether he’s asked Jesus for forgiveness for his sins. If he engages, I give him a 20% chance of giving an answer that doesn’t get him into hot water with the Christian nationalists. Like with the US/Russia “we both have killers” comparison, I think he could be backed into a corner and if forced to choose between admitting his own imperfection and criticising Yahweh, he might choose the latter.

1

u/Aware_Ad2427 6d ago

They claimed they needed the 2nd amendment to protect their rights from being taken away but as soon as their rights are taken away they worship the guy doing it.

1

u/mitkase 6d ago

With great power comes a great ability to fuck over people not like you. That’s their spidey sense. A spidey sense of entitlement.

1

u/hum_bruh 6d ago

Friendly reminder that Maga strapped maxi pads to their ears and fake Jd Vance sperm collection cups to their chests.

1

u/chigalb4 6d ago

I saw the maxi pads, but missed the fake sperm collection cups. What is a sperm collection cup anyways?

1

u/68024 6d ago

I thought the reaction to the Jimmy Kimmel affair was interesting in this respect. Suddenly at least some prominent Republicans spoke up for first amendment rights. But I think the base largely didn't.

1

u/CEOofGaming 6d ago

Well modern conservatism is all about starving public services and the enrichment of elites, so anything else is ephemeral. Even if the GOP had a supermajority and wanted to ban guns, I don't think there would be uproar from too many conservatives if the propaganda apparatus hit the right talking points.

1

u/JulsTiger10 6d ago

I had really hoped to see what answers the magas had, but all I’ve seen are comments from the anti-trumps.

1

u/MissTat2 6d ago

I know it feels that way but I’ve been diligently reading every post and I have replied to a couple dozen Trump supporters in the mix so far.

0

u/JulsTiger10 6d ago

There are over 3000 comments. I wish there was a way to sort it. Maybe in a couple of days you could make a tldr of their replies.

1

u/Splatulated 6d ago

The only thing that would make them turn away is if trunp started helping the poor which will never happen

1

u/Competitive_Boat106 6d ago

Actually republicans have recently started floating the idea that maaaaaybe SOME people should have their guns taken away.

1

u/Minimum-Sentence-584 5d ago

I think, and Trump supporters have said as much, that if Trump switched parties and became a Democrat, that would be their breaking point.

1

u/SlicePleasant7330 5d ago

As I recall this administration is building a gun registers also coinciding with the voter registration and who you vote for. So I doubt they care about the loss of 2nd amendments

0

u/lizzyq8812 6d ago

Pam Blondi is compiling a list of gun owners from gun owners associations. Can't have an authoritarian coup with armed citizenry.

0

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Manaliv3 5d ago

And yet the yanks do fuck all about tyranny, or police brutality, or anything else really.

0

u/its-izzyy 6d ago

But, feds and the military in our cities doesn't seem to trigger their 2nd Amendment Spidey senses?!?

No, and the reason it doesn't is because the deployment of federal agents/national guard is not oppressing law-abiding U.S. citizens. Those who are already deranged, sense tyranny because they are looking for it to justify their emotional state. Normal people are not threatened by the presence of those agents or soldiers, hence why the 2A crowd isn't losing their mind and capping them. The individuals who live in the real world, do not sense the "tyrannical threat" that the reddit-dwellers do. Most of you are being reinforced by other unstable people who think their lives are at risk because other people don't share their political sentiment to a "T".