“My opponent wants to essentially abolish the second amendment. I, on the other hand, received early and strong endorsement of the National Rifle Association. And will protect the right of all Americans to keep their families safe.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Adversarial re-check confirms the rating. The promise was to protect Second Amendment / gun rights. As president Trump actively LED that direction (more than a single supporting vote): on Feb. 28, 2017 he signed H.J.Res.40 (P.L. 115-8) revoking the Obama-era SSA rule that would have reported certain mental-health disability beneficiaries to the NICS background-check system (the NRA applauded) — corroborated by ABC, NBC, Wikipedia, LegiScan; he nominated three Supreme Court justices whose votes produced the 2022 Bruen expansion of gun rights; and his administration threatened to veto House universal-background-check bills. FactCheck.org's own summary states his administration 'advanced more policies that would expand gun rights or prevent efforts to limit gun rights,' with the pro-gun-rights examples 'more numerous.' The countervailing action is the Dec. 2018 ATF bump-stock ban (a restriction Trump himself initiated after the Las Vegas shooting, later struck down 6-3 in Garland v. Cargill, 2024), which prevents a FULL rating but does not reverse the dominant, actively-led pro-gun-rights direction — hence CHAMPIONED (+0.75) rather than FULL or PARTIAL. Applying the same standard to either party, a president who signed pro-direction legislation, seated pivotal justices, and threatened vetoes to advance a promised direction — with one notable countervailing act — earns CHAMPIONED. Sources verified live and accurately quoted (one prior-rationale phrasing was a fair paraphrase of FactCheck's conclusion, not a fabricated verbatim quote; corrected here). Confidence held at 0.72 given the single-but-significant bump-stock counterexample.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.