“Here’s something you may not know about President Donald Trump’s new communications director, Anthony Scaramucci,” huffingtonpost.com reports to readers who don’t surf TTAG. “He’s an ardent supporter of gun control.” Proof?
Scaramucci, a businessman and longtime Trump ally, has tweeted for years about his support for tighter gun laws, stating in 2012, “I have always been for strong gun control laws.” He’s also made the point that keeping a gun in your house is more likely to harm you or your loved ones than a potential intruder (which is true).
Quick digression:
I hate that stat. The fact that gun owners are more likely to be the victims of a negligent discharge or intra-family “gun violence” is both true and irrelevant. Car owners are more likely to have a car accident than people without cars, too. And?
And while armed self-defense in the home is a low probability event (thanks to gun ownership), it prepares armed Americans for a potentially catastrophic event. Just ask what remains of the Petit family. OK, so . . .
His views are not sitting well with Dana Loesch, the national spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association. On Friday, just as news was breaking about Scaramucci’s hiring,
Loesch tweeted (above) that Trump had made a “concerning” choice in Scaramucci since he has “a contrary position” to the president on gun rights. The tweet was later taken down.
Over to the equally anti-gun rights washingtonpost.com for Mr. Scaramucci’s reaction to the brouhaha over his stance on gun control.
On Saturday, the day after he became Trump’s communications director, he announced on Twitter that he’s deleting his old tweets, which he said are only a distraction.
The People of the Gun were “distracted” alright. But I reckon we’re smart enough to know that politicians have about as much moral fiber as a bowl of Rice Krispies. By thy deed, thy shall be known, and all that. Yes?
Meanwhile, the NRA has something of a problem on its hands. The gun rights group has a longstanding policy of staying stum on breaking news.
Because of the official blackout, Ms. Loesch’s anti-gun media-friendly and let’s face it strident commentary has become the NRA’s de facto official position on politics. More accurately, it’s what the mainstream media chooses to call the NRA’s official position on political matters.
This also applies to statements by the other NRA commentators — despite the disclaimer that proceeds their NRA-funded and produced videos.
Either the NRA’s got to rein Ms. Loesch and the rest of their commentariat in, or start reacting to breaking news. It looks like they’ve opted for the former. Watch this space.
Well, he’s being up front about it.
Time to move on to something else.
It’s OK to disagree with the boss as long as you remember that the boss is in charge.
Am I the only one who’s more than a little disconcerted by the depiction of President Trump as being “in charge”?
Far from in charge applies to everywhere right now. But glad the tweets are deleted. Now I can sleep at night knowing full well that the reset button is alive and well.
I have no trouble with Trump being in charge. Someone will be president. And there’s no such thing as a perfect president. We all know Reagan’s legislative gun control history. But I will always remember that the 50 states are sovereign. I’m glad I retired to Kentucky instead of returning to California. The Kentucky Constitution has a 2nd amendment. California does not.
The problem is the globalist republicans and the globalist democrats and I will also say the globalist libertarians are out to get the president. I never heard such complaints from these people when the globalist Obama was in the White House.
What does globalist even mean to you?
Everything about Trump worries me. But I hope he’s in charge, because I don’t want to start worrying about who else it might be.
Trump is just positioning himself to be the richest man in the world through Russian dealings with Putin when it’s time to leave the whitehouse whether by force, election, or most likely just boredom.
Bwahaha! You believe the Putin/Russia bullcrap? I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Doktor: “Trump is just positioning himself to be the richest man in the world through Russian dealings with Putin when it’s time to leave the whitehouse whether by force, election, or most likely just boredom.”
Let’s remember Obama made millions while in the White House, and is set to make much more from his third autobiography.
Only the Clintons, of the last several occupants of said House, managed to lose money.
It’s (usually) good to be the king.
@Big Bill: “Only the Clintons, of the last several occupants of said House, managed to lose money.”
I don’t know if I’d be inclined to take their word for that. Regardless, the Clintons managed to do very, very well when Hillary was Sec State.
Robert, did you or did you not support Obama and his reelection in 2012? Perhaps we should be questioning your motives as well.
Who is “we”? I don’t know who he voted for. Don’t care. That’s his choice. That’s why my relatives fought in WWII.
This is America. We get to have multiple parties, etc all living under one roof.
Would Robt not be acceptable if he shares a different belief on an issue than you?
We are strong because we choose to stand together as a nation.
Haha, Robert gets very upset if you remind people how hard he campaigned for Obama on this site.
As for Handy, this isn’t “disagreeing on an issue”, it’s the owner of a popular gun website openly campaigning for an anti-gun president.
Yes you are! Sit back and you might learn something beyond that crap the dumbassocrats and liberals are pedaling as their form of BS! I wouldn’t trust Tony Scara as far as I could throw him personally! But as long as Trump keeps a real tight reign on him we’ll see! If he strays, shoot him!
If the last six months are any indicator, it appears that Trump couldn’t even keep a “tight reign” on a paraplegic Cocker Spaniel…
Thanks for staying on top of this. Many of us remember H.W. Bush when he stated “No new gun laws” during his 1988 presidential campaign ad then after the Purdey shooting in Jan. 1989, Bush ordered the halt of imported “assault weapons” until Congress could catch up with a law- and the law still stands to this day. Many of us who were activists screamed at the NRA to revoke Bush’s NRA membership – the NRA did NOTHING but continued their “protect your right to hunt” ad campaigns. What they did to Dana Loesh is what you will see more of in the Trump years to come. Even “con” servative “legend” Ronald Reagan supported the Bush and Clinton in banning “assault weapons,” “hi-cap” magazines, and handgun registration is still praised by NRA leadership and many articles and NRA endorsed Ronald Reagan memorabilia have been promoted by the NRA since then. Want to run a great article about the NRA and what they do in times like these? Interview Jeff Knox of The Firearms Coalition about what he and his dad the late Sen. Neil Knox (machine gun owner and real 2A supporter) went through with the NRA. Trump was just calling for “assault weapons” bans and gun registration just 5 years ago along with calling the Tea Party and NRA extreme. Yes, us older guys in the 2A movement have seen this before and although I don’t have a crystal ball but you know the old saying; “History repeats itself.” It sure will if the patriots and gun activists blindly follow and support any politician.
Why, you think CNN or Hillary or Pelosi or Rand Paul should be in charge?
Sorry for your loss but that was your second dumb comment.
Here’s the first:
“let’s face it strident commentary”
“Strident”?
She speaks the truth.
Man up.
And take the week off.
And what do you think it says about ‘the boss’ that he’s hiring people who are not only ‘indifferent’ but actively opposed to the 2nd Amendment?
And if you’re about to say “well, he’s like Lincoln, willing to listen to people who disagree with him…” GTFO of here. He does no such thing.
This is one of two things: 1) incompetence in not vetting a hire or 2) more indication that Trump and the Administration at large don’t give a shit about the 2nd Amendment.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
No Robert not at all.
Hes not going to have much of a voice or be heard from much.
Even as a “Communications” Director.
Im more concerned about Dana being silenced. I don’t like that one bit.
But as its been said before a politician is only as good as his/her last deed done.
I don’t even have any faith in Trumps word anymore. Its becoming pretty worthless. All the 2A deeds that should have been done already are it seems to be dead issues in Congress even now.
Early days?
More than 10% of the way through the first term, so, no, not anymore they aren’t.
Although truth to tell, I’m also not really happy with Congress either.
If the first 6 or 7 months are any indication of the next 3.5 years to come.
We all are in for a long drawn out bad time. Nothing will get done or worse nothing will change. I think Trumps already learned “draining the swamp” sounded good during the campaign. The reality is other then the Courts which is a very important move in the right direction. No ones willing to give up their power or position on both sides.
Its up to us to kick them out. Come each succeeding election term.
But replace them with who?? Unheard of unknowns the “common’ man is the way I want to go with it. People who have no stake in the current game.
” I think Trumps already learned “draining the swamp” sounded good during the campaign. The reality is other then the Courts which is a very important move in the right direction.”
500 incompetents have been *fired* from the Veteran’s Administration.
That’ a *win* right there…
“People who have no stake in the current game.”
Problem is, once they arrive in DC, they will have a stake in the game.
Are you implying that you had faith in Trumps word before? Is he known for being a man of his word? I think not.
Trump vs. Clinton in 2016 = proof that America is in serious trouble. it may not be too late but it soon will be.
“Trump vs. Clinton in 2016 = proof that America is in serious trouble.”
Not gonna be happening. The Progs have learned their lesson on ‘her’. They have finally woken up to the fact that no mater how un-popular Trump it, the HiladaBeast polls lower than him. She’s poison, and they know it.
We better be very concerned that the Left may try and run the same game we did last time the next time by running a political unknown.
Meaning, for them, someone ‘beloved’, with no record to attack.
Visualize Tom Hanks or Oprah for President, with maybe Lizzy Warren as the ‘experienced voice’ for vice president…
When asked, my Magic 8-Ball™ showed Rock. I thought maybe it leaked too much Magic Ball juice and had gone senile….. until I started noticing “Run The Rock 2020” memes and serious op-eds.
Clinton vs Bush would have been that sign… Trumps win was a political hand grenade thrown in by those who wanted the status quo disrupted. So whatever happens the last election was a huge win based just on that. What probably really pisses you off is those who voted Trump arnt going anywhere no matter what the Global Elite do to Trump.
How does the NRA delete a tweet by Dana Loesch?
No one hyperventilating here asked that question?
I love the NRA, and Dana Loesch–and, I think Trump will make a great @POTUS despite the kabuki theater Congress, Fake News Media, and people who listen to the MSM.
“How does the NRA delete a tweet by Dana Loesch?”
Either she was told to do so and complied, or the NRA has the ‘keys’ to the Twitter account…
“Either they’ve got to rein Ms. Loesch and the rest of their commentariot in or start reacting to breaking news…”
Why? She’s probably doing a better job than they are, and if she says anything too much off the reservation they can just disavow it as not being from them. Seems like an okay position to be in.
I am “disturbed” by this BS. But then I never thought Trump was a champion of the 2A. Just NOT the Hildebeast….meh.
I find it disturbing that Dana Loesch is being silenced by the NRA. If Anthony Scaramucci’s ideas about “gun control” have “evolved”, let him prove it as Communications Director. It will become self-evident soon enough either way.
I know Ms. Loesch gets a pay-check from the NRA, and the NRA wants to control its messaging, but this all smacks too much of the tactics of the Progressive Left and that is what disturbs me.
I also know from my own experience that a person’s ideas about major topics can “evolve” {a concept utterly foreign to the Party Line Bound Left}, so I’ll take Scaramucci’s word for now and see what happens.
I’ll join Jay in Florida in agreeing Trump’s word is “becoming pretty worthless”, as well.
Thank you Mrs Loesch for being consistent in your criticism. I wish the NRA had not deleted your tweet.
Done with NRA. They won’t get anotber dime frpm me.
Not my choice but I didn’t get to choose.
“Every Trump position has a time limit.”
Congress, quit screwing around and pass National Reciprocity & Hearing Protection Act. Your days are numbered.
LOL. As if.
So many of you keep saying that President Trump is no friend of the 2A. So help me out. What has Trump done to warrant such remarks? He has already said that he was wrong in supporting the AWB and that the facts show it had no impact on crime.
Agreed. Trump has stated he will sign a national reciprocity bill and the HPA/SHUSH bill when they arrive on his desk. Don’t blame him for congress’ inaction on basically everything, and people need to stop taking him literally – it’s not like he intended to lay the bricks in the wall himself.
It seems pretty clear that Ryan and his butt boys will try to see if they can drag their feet for the next four years and pick up where they left off.
So very much this. And Congress will continue to preserve the status quo by and large unless a large number of GOPe get primaried running up to 2018.
He could get in front of the cameras and publicly nudge congress to get off their butts and pass HPA and national reciprocity. Obama did it for the Affordable Care Act. The POTUS, for better or worse, can substantially influence our congress(wo)men/other.
The guy’s name is “Anthony Scaramucci” and he’s against guns?
Wait until the Mafia hears about THIS.
He’s against YOU having guns, which is identical to the mafia position; they get theirs either way.
Hey, you leave New Jersey politicians out of this!
Lawyers defend clients that they know are guilty to the best of their ability, every day of the week. Indeed, it’s their ethical duty to do so.
It’s Scaramucci’s duty to fulfill his job description says to the best of his ability. Until he fails to do so, I see no reason to panic.
Scaramucci is Trump’s go-to on explaining his (ever evolving, it seems) policy positions.
He’s the one who shows up for the Sunday political TV shows.
Think along the lines of James Carville…
I don’t think Trump cares very much about gun rights. I don’t think it will be part of the messaging, or at least not a big part, either way.
I’m not too surprised. Being the White House Communications Director basically means you’re a professional liar.
Except Spicer. He was an enthusiastic amateur liar.
Rather; politicians are the professional liars, White House Communication Directors are simply high-powered whippingboys, who get paid big bucks to run Triple-D in realtime (Deflect, Deny, Divagate). It’s a high-risk/reward gig; drafting a successful admin onto book deals & consulting, or just becoming a discarded tool.
But in any case…. spox peeps are puppets, not policy-advisors.
I ain’t worried about this particular joker.
FWIW, I thought Spicer was essentially good at the job, didn’t come off as a total clown, and clowned media drones hard when given an opening. But he certainly knew it was a temp job, and appears to have played it as such.
I see it totally.differently. I see it as that the NRA bitch-slapped Scaramucci and Trump. And the administration folded instantly. Scaramucci”evolved” on his position, just like he evolved on Trump (who he called “a political hack”). Just like Trump himself “evolved” on his position on gun control, the AWB, and abortion.
The NRA immediately won the fight, so now they’re cleaning up.
I don’t have a problem with it. Scaramucci is no longer anti-inflammatory, so Dana’s tweet became inaccurate dirty laundry, so they cleaned up their mess and now the whole team is presenting a United front.
Sometimes you don’t want to know how the sausage is made.
At least Scaramucci’s flip-flop is a 180 in our favor
Scaramuci is also opposed to a wall on the southern border.
Nothing burger. Not everybody you hire will agree with you 100%. But as the man said, he serves Trump.
That stat about guns in the home…you know it isn’t accurate, right? The actual danger is if their is drug use, alcoholism, a history of crime or violence in the home….those are what determine how dangerous a home is, not the presence of a gun. Even kellerman had to walk back that talking point and change his numbers when he was called on it…
I must admit that my jaw got a bit tight when learning about this guys views on legal citizens firearms. I then read someone say he is the message delivery boy and NOT the policy wonk. Agree. However, Scaramucci has Trumps ear, I don’t. So yes, I’m still concerned but not in a panic. Dana, you get em. Keep up the good work and thank you.
” However, Scaramucci has Trumps ear, I don’t.”
Trump’s sons have an even louder voice in his ear, and we *know* their position on guns.
Currently, I’m not concerned…
I don’t like Suckmucci on a personal level or on a policy level. Fing elite Bloomberg banker. He better keep his lie hole shut while he works for us or I’m taking it out on Trump.
“I hate that stat.”
It’s the worst one and, ironically, also the most common one. I have nothing going on tonight, so I’m just going to rant about it for a minute…
The form I’ve most often heard it in is, “You’re x times more likely to shoot yourself or a loved one with a firearm than your are to shoot an intruder.”
1) I put a variable in there because the number changes every. single. time. I hear it. I’ve heard 6, 42, 120, and a couple dozen other numbers. Nice. Moving on…
2) Probabilities out of context are meaningless, which is exactly what that is. It doesn’t tell you the actual values of the probabilities (a number between zero and one), it only tells you one probability with respect to another, which means it tells you nothing.
Guns aside… suppose I buy a lottery ticket, and my odds of winning are 1:300,000,000 (one in three hundred million). Now, suppose I buy 99 more lottery tickets, and I now have a total of 100 lottery tickets. By purchasing those additional tickets, I am now 100 times more likely to win that lottery than I was before. Sounds great, right? No, it is not, because my odds of winning are now 1:3,000,000 (one in three million), which sucks. Those are horrible odds, and no one in their right mind should ever expect a success with those odds, even though they are a whopping 100 times greater than they were in the first scenario.
3) Death is not a lottery. The way you die is not a single selection in which your fate is drawn from a hat among a thousand other possible fates. Guns aside… if I pound a ton of whiskey with car keys in hand, right before I leave to go to some important thingy, there’s some probability that I will die in a car accident. However, if I drop my keys into a vat of lava on my way to the garage, then my chances of dying in a drunk driving accident just plummeted to near zero. Likewise, with guns, properly observing the four rules alone will make the odds of shooting yourself or a loved one infinitesimal. And that’s to make no mention of the hundreds of other things you can do to make those chances even smaller.
4) I’ll bet my immortal soul that whoever came up with that “statistic” presented it the way that they did (defining one probability with respect to another without actually defining either of them) because they knew that if they gave the actual values for those probabilities, nobody would give a flying fuck. I mean, in order to claim that one value was “42” times greater than the other, they had to know the those values, right?
“Nah, fuck it,” they said. “Our followers are only looking to validate their pre-existing beliefs. They’ll gobble this up as truth because they want it to be true. Plus, have you heard our gun safety brethren talk statistics? They’re a train wreck with that shit!” …they said.
And you know what? They were right. They banked on the fact that the average anti-gunner lacks basic knowledge of… most things, and that as long as they did a little mathematical gymnastics, their “fast fact” would thrive.
each of your one hundred chances holds the same one in three hundred miilion chance, no?
Yes, each individual ticket holds the same probability of success, but you, the owner of multiple tickets, have a greater overall chance of winning with each additional ticket you purchase. I guess my point was that even if you buy a million tickets in that same scenario, your odds are still only 1:300, which are still terrible odds, which is the part that the anti-gun people conveniently left out of their awesome little “fast fact.”
I’d like to know the dates of his original tweets…. but somehow they were cut off the images….
It all depends on the final results.
The appointment of Scaramucci is very disconcerting.
If Trump doesn’t deliver for gun owners, with or without Scaramucci, he’ll be a one-termer.
Without the support of NRA members, it would have been Hillary in the oval office.
The first thing that popped into my head, when I heard about Spicer’s replacement?
“I see a little silhouette of a man,
Scaramucci, Scaramucci, will you do the Fandango?
Thunderbolt and lightning; very, very frightening me!”
8P
I don’t care what his personal opinions on guns are, he’s only the Communications Director. Now if he was Attorney General or ATF Director I’d be concerned. But he has no authority to put his opinions into practice.
I think the Communications Director may be a key person in getting Paul Ryan to move forward with national reciprocity and the HPA.
He is the voice of the White House.
I think it’s fair to say any of us over the age of ten have changed our minds on at least one important item.
I know I have.
To do so shows not a wishy-washy spine, but an ability to listen to opposing ideas, weigh the3 facts, and alter a position is the facts warrant it.
Those who refuse to change their minds in such a fashion are far more to be worried about than those who are willing to change. Such people are so worried about what other people think that they will ignore the obvious in other things, too.
Changing your mind is fine, but where’s the evidence that Scaramucci has done so? He spent years in the pro-gun-control camp, and now that he wants a job where that position is inconvenient, he suddenly claims to have “evolved” his views. Do you really think he’s changed his mind, or is it not far more likely that he’s just saying whatever he has to to get the job and mollify the pro-2A people who voted for Trump?
I don’t think it’s that big of a deal, since the spokesman job isn’t one that has a lot of influence on policy, but let’s not pretend this douche has had a come-to-Jesus moment and seen the light on the right to keep and bear arms, okay?
I hope Scaramucci is gone quickly, I am a total second amendment person, look at this persons past and try to tell me if he has the chance he would not do damage to pro gun people, and maybe through a back door. If the NRA and President Trump think this is OK, then I divorce myself from both!!!!!
The NRA is a big sellout in my book. I support them because they are our best defense against gun control. However, I will support the smaller organizations that are more pro-gun than they are, and hopefully one of those organizations will eventually become bigger than the NRA.
I’m so sick of the NRA’s milquetoast approach to getting our rights back.
“I hate that stat. The fact that gun owners are more likely to be the victims of a negligent discharge or intra-family “gun violence” is both true and irrelevant.”
This is why you cannot trust ANYONE who is passionate about an issue, even if they’re on your side of that issue. They will misconstrue and misdirect to advance their agenda. Some might use the word “lie”, but I couldn’t possibly comment.
In this post, the author bemoans an anti’s use of the supposed stat that a gun is more likely to be used to harm yourself or your family member, than it is to be used against a potential intruder. He then attempts to discredit the relevance of that stat, though not denying its veracity, by comparing it to cars. That is, people with cars are more likely to have car accidents than people without cars. That’s a false analogy.
The guns scenario assumes possession of a gun as its premise. It then compares the likelihood of two outcomes: harming yourself or family member WITH the gun versus using the gun against a potential intruder. In both cases, the presence of the gun is assumed and both outcomes share a common premise, i.e., possession of gun. Only the next step outcomes are at issue. Well.
Relating that to the scenarios of car accidents involving people with cars versus car accidents involving people without cars in fallacious precisely because the latter case doesn’t even involve cars. The premise of the car accident comparison is entirely different because it focuses on outcomes that don’t share a common premise, i.e., involvement of car.
Thus, the car accident scenarios really have no basis of comparison to the gun possession outcomes scenarios. In attempting the discredit a stat which he himself admits is true, the writer succeeds only in discrediting himself. There are superior counterarguments to make here, to be sure. Instead of making one, the author whips together a ham handed analogy and sends the people of the gun off to cocktail parties, backyard BBQs, and office water cooler debates with weak sauce.
Don’t want to silence Dana…..she only speaks the truth…..I wonder if she would marry me. LOL
Like Trump he is an anti-gun New Yorker, but Trump is at least clever enough to lie about it.
Comments are closed.