I've been saying this for a while.

Consider the following:

The gun lobby supports Republicans. People buy more guns when Democrats win. When Republicans win, gun owners feel complacent and don't panic buy.

If your preferred candidate wins, and gun sales go down, is that really winning?

Scared gun owners will give to the NRA. They will buy guns from manufacturers that donate to the NRA.

By scaring gun owners into panic buys, Trump is enriching the NRA for the 2018 midterms.

Kind of like when your local consumer reporter says on TV News that it's a goodtime to buy gas this week because gas prices are down, and local refineries are in the process of maintenance, and prices are sure to go up next week. This doublespeak could be applied to just about everything.

AKA 4-D Motherfucking chess. /s

weak

It's obvious that's what he's doing. If he hasn't already, he'll deny he said anything about guns.

Trump is helping the NRA and gun/ ammonium manufactures buy pushing regulations that they oppose.

If so then what could he possibly due that doesn't help them? If he opposes legislation that they oppose, then he's a stooge for the NRA. If he supports legislation they oppose, as per your claim he's helping the NRA.

The result is a clusterfuck of logical fallacies: special pleading, moving the goalposts, catch-22, and the fallacy of relativism.

A better argument would be that the gun industry itself only loses when gun violence isn't publicized, so both "sides" are merely working from different ends at creating an environment conducive for high weapons sales.

It is that the president may intentionally have a position on firearms that will not produce any change in the law,

Which is why your argument doesn't stand the tests of soundness and validity. You are presupposing his position on an issue and using that supposition to create a Catch-22 where any position Trump takes is proof (to you) of your original hypothesis. That's circular reasoning. It doesn't work.

Ask yourself what evidence would indicate that trump is not attempting to bolster gun sales?

So which laws could be passed to hurt gun sales, as opposed to the ones that Trump has proposed that you feel will increase them?

Basically it seems that you are saying that certain gun laws supported by Trump will actually increase sales rather than decrease them. So then, what's the difference between those types of laws and the types that you believe would be necessary to disprove your claim, and that actually are effective?

you still didn't answer the question

If he seriously pushed for gun control then he’d actually be opposing the NRA. If he drops sound bites here and there with no serious intention of enacting policies then he’s just drumming up fear to support the gun industry.

Relatively speaking though, at this point, he's been as open to some level of gun reform as any POTUS in recent memory. There's certainly a lot of politicking that goes on for both sides, but it seems disingenuous to call a foul before the pitch has been thrown.

Not crying foul at all, just laying out the rules for what a foul would look like. I'm just answering your question of what Trump would have to do to actually not help the NRA.

This is forum-sliding at its finest. Any time a vacuum is created it helps sales. The argument was on the table waiting to be picked up. Downvote.

He's pro gun restrictions because that's what his flavor of the day is, he'll switch sides whenever it benefits it don't worry.

First he tried to shill for the NRA but when that didn't help him enough politically he's jumped on the pro-reform bandwagon (which is kinda brave I have to admit) but we'll have to wait and see how he proceeds.

An acquaintance of mine told me when Obama was elected he went out and bought some guns because Obama was going to 'take guns away'. When I see him I often ask him "have your guns been taken away yet?" to remind him how much of a dumb ass he was.

Then this an actual good thing he is doing, surprisingly.

This is all fear mongering bull shit. The only thing Trump is really saying is that we should be careful about people who make openly violent threats against innocent people. That's it, if you are paying attention at all, and it's common sense. Yes, if you aren't guilty of the crime of making openly violent threats against innocent people, then you may be forfeiting your rights. In the same way, you forfeit your right to freedom when you commit violent crimes. If you make threats, your guns may be taken away and you may lose your right to purchase guns. This is common sense. This is not draconian.

The big problem here is WHY are so many people reaching states of violent desperation. I have some ideas on this, but people are giving in to the usual media hysteria over Trump's comments over guns and mental health.

I have a strong suspicion that the new classes of antidepressants and antipsychotics introduced in the 1980's were one of several capstones of project MK Ultra. They were designed to exacerbate mental health problems which exist naturally in some small percentage of our population, triggering them into a mostly irreversible state of lifelong hopelessness, nihilism, and uncontrollable rage, simultaneously numbing their fear consequences.

This is coupled with an intentionally unfair social structure which some people cannot cope with. At a root level, our prosperity is robbed from us at each and every step, tied directly to the monetary system. This is part of the international cabal control structure which may or may not be imploding presently.

He’s also forcing those who oppose him to either agree with him on this issue, or support the opposite side of the issue when they absolutely don’t — a political Faustian bargain for them.

A very dangerous political strategy for Trump if his base takes him at his word instead of seeing through his political move.

Not a bad theory. I tend to think he's just flailing for policy, but it's equally possible he's making a sales pitch: putting the scarcity principle into effect. He'd have to be getting some insanely good kickbacks to risk losing that section of support - the voters who will vote for whoever lets them keep their guns over any other policy.

If he seriously pushed for gun control then he’d actually be opposing the NRA. If he drops sound bites here and there with no serious intention of enacting policies then he’s just drumming up fear to support the gun industry.

Not crying foul at all, just laying out the rules for what a foul would look like. I'm just answering your question of what Trump would have to do to actually not help the NRA.