Trump releases his stand on guns,

[shooter]

  well trump has released his stand on gun control, it sounds pretty good,    im just so used to being lied to that im not sure about this,

  http://conservativetribune.com/trump-plan-2nd-amendment/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=TheFederalistPapers&utm_content=2015-09-18

[Mudinyeri]

From Trump's book, The America We Deserve

It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. After a tragedy like the massacre at Columbine High School, anyone could feel that it is too easy for Americans to get their hands on weapons. But nobody has a good solution. This is another issue where you see the extremes of the two existing major parties. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

[Mntnman]

From Trump's book, The America We Deserve

Shoot! Many or most of the people in THIS group support some kind of infringement. 

[bullit]

Many or most of the people in THIS group support some kind of infringement

You wrote it ....  care to be specific?

[depserv]

Trump says he no longer supports a ban on so-called assault weapons.  Whether he's telling the truth or not is hard to say, since a businessman is probably about as likely to lie to you as a politician.  But to put a clear, unambiguous position in writing would make it hard for him to go back on it.  That's almost as strong a statement as saying something like "read my lips, no new taxes!" and then raising taxes (what kind of an idiot would do something like that?).  A good businessman would know better than to tell such a blatant lie to his customers, or at least I'd hope he would.

I think a lot of people supported the ban in the beginning because of widespread ignorance perpetrated by the big lie machine called the liberal press.  In the time since then loyal Americans have gotten the truth out about it.  Even the Supreme Court, in its Heller Decision, stated that the Second Amendment does apply to military-style weapons.  So it's not unlikely that a person who wasn't paying much attention to the issue at first would change his mind on it after the truth became widely known.

Since we've seen so many liars I'm not sure about Trump, but he's my first choice at this point, for these reasons:

*He has more executive experience than any of the others (probably more than all of the others combined), and the businesses he ran were successful. 

*He's a good negotiator, and is likely to negotiate better treaties and trade deals.

*He has promised to stop and reverse the invasion of third world poor into our homeland, which no one else is promising to do.  This might be the most important issue of our day.  (For those who might not agree with this, read Ann Coulter's book Adios America.)

*He is hated more than any other candidate by the liars of the liberal press, and the RINO establishment doesn't like him either.  Who a man's enemies are says much about his character.  If Liberal bigots and their eunuch RINO enablers are both yelling at us to stop supporting this man, it means that at least they think he's a loyal American who will be a good or even great leader, and they probably know something about him.

*He stands up to the PC thought police and does not let himself get bullied by the liberal press.  I have long said that the only hope for the survival of America as a free republic is for a leader to rise among patriots who will stand up to the liars of the liberal press, and fight back against the America-hating liberal cult.  One who will let himself be bullied into submission by the liberal thought police is not qualified to be president of a free people.  So at a minimum, Trump is one of very few who is qualified, at least in this regard.

On the down side, he's inarticulate and a poor debater; he talks in generalities and gives few details.  His answers to questions are almost always some version of this : I'm really really good, and I'll do a really good job on this.  But you don't have to be a good debater or articulate to be a good leader.  And if he remains popular, I'd say he'll probably be giving specifics as we get closer to the nomination.  He already gave us fairly specific answers on gun control, and has promised to have a tax plan out soon for our consideration.  Give him time and I'm betting more statements will come out. 

But as I said, he might just be a good businessman telling us what we want to hear, who will then do whatever he wants to do after he gets in.  That doesn't seem likely though.  So for now at least I remain one of his supporters.

I also like Dr. Carson, though not quite as much.  Dr. Carson also said once that he (kind of) supported some kind of ban on so-called assault weapons, and now says he does not.  I give him the benefit of the doubt on this just as I do for Trump: his original position was probably based in ignorance, and as the truth has slowly come out about the issue and these men took a closer look at it they decided they had been mistaken, and so reversed their decision.  I like Carson's speaking style way better than Trump's; as a lifelong martial artist I've noticed that the really calm guy is often really good.  You don't have to be a brain surgeon to be President, but it sure can't hurt anything.  I think Carson could make a great president; I just like Trump better.  If Trump does get in, I'd like to see Dr. Carson as Surgeon General, and I think that office could rise exponentially in prominence and do a great deal of good under his leadership.  Then maybe he could be President eight years later.

If I remember right GOA endorsed Cruz.  There is no question that Cruz would be a good or great president.  And he has a proven record.  The only reason he isn't my first choice is that I like Trump better.  Maybe a Trump/Cruz ticket would be good.

Most of the Republicans running look good, though there are a few RINOs among them, and Christie especially has a record of supporting gun control as an elected official.  When he claims to be a patriot on the issue now I have a hard time believing him.

[Hardwood83]

I don't care for Trump personally. I think he's a vain, preening loud mouth buffoon. In other words a typical TV personality (and politician). Of course he'd be infinitely better then any of the Democrats that could be nominated, just because he doesn't actively hate all America has historically been, like they do. Cruz is my guy, but I would still vote for Trump over any Demoncrat. In that case, I would love to see Cruz as Attny General then appointed to the SCOTUS at first opportunity. How refreshing it would be to have an honest, strict constructionist on the court.

[Mntnman]

You wrote it ....  care to be specific?

From some of the discussions on here I have gathered that many of this forum agree with some forms of infringement.

Many or most feel that felons should lose their right to bear for life.

Many don't think NFA is an infringement or think we should not have silencers and full auto at all.

Some favor infringements related to open carry.

Some are really ok with certain provisions on concealed carry.

Many just have opinions of if you don't do it the way I am ok with, you should not do it.

You have been here long enough that none of this is unknown to you. Respectfully, what do you think?

[Kendahl]

I don't know about Trump. Or any of the other Republican candidates for that matter. The Democratic side is, of course, the enemy no matter which of them wins the nomination.

The big problem with both parties is that they are dominated by extremists on opposite ends of the political spectrum while the majority of the American people are moderate. I wish every election slate had on it "None of the above." If "None of the above" gets the most votes, hold the election over again with a new slate of candidates. Of course, the parties would hate that because foisting extreme candidates on the electorate would backfire. Figuring out what a candidate would do in office is difficult because he needs to veer to the right or left in order to win the nomination and then veer back to the middle to win the election.

I don't know how much Trump can be trusted on gun rights. Yes, he holds a concealed carry permit. So does Chuck Schumer and so did Barbara Boxer.

Trump's greatest strength, which the political establishment is steadfastly ignoring, is the intensity of public feeling about illegal immigration. However, blanket condemnation of Hispanic immigrants is an oversimplification that makes more enemies, unnecessarily, than it does friends. The true picture is that immigration isn't what it was 100 plus years ago. Back then, the country had room for all the hard working people it could attract. An immigrant with no job skills could make a living as a laborer and there were no expensive social services to prop him up. Today, an immigrant without the skills to earn at least a middle class income is a net drain on the country. Trump would make a far more persuasive case if he distinguished between them and well educated legal immigrants like doctors and engineers. We need them since not enough native born Americans are willing to struggle through the difficult college classes required to earn STEM degrees.

Trump's record as a businessman is checkered. He has had four corporate bankruptcies. He made out ok but his investors didn't. His boorish manners costs him supporters. I wish he behaved with the dignity a campaign for the country's highest office deserves instead of treating it like an episode of The Apprentice.

Ben Carson's greatest strengths are his record of personal accomplishment and his polite manner during the campaign. I am disappointed that he didn't have a shrewder answer to the Muslim question. He should have started out by reminding the interviewer that the constitution forbids any religious test for public office. The choice for a candidate is not between his religion and the constitution. It is between his religion and the office. If he cannot in good conscience perform his public duty, he has no business holding the office. This applies to followers of all religions including Islam.

I actually like Carly Fiorina. She has been working hard to master the issues and did very well in the last debate. She has an A rating from the NRA although no track record to back it up. Her biggest weakness is her poor record, first as Hewlett Packard CEO and then in her losing senate campaign. Barbara Boxer was a tough opponent under the best of circumstances but Fiorina failed to present herself well. She seems to have learned a lot since then. It would be interesting to see her up against Hillary.

I think Hillary is the weakest of the Democratic candidates. Her arrogance and abrasiveness alienates potential supporters. Only her organization is keeping her ahead of Sanders. If Biden chooses to run, I think he will become the Democratic candidate. I wonder if his soul searching isn't just a shrewd political move. The bad news for us is that he and Hillary agree on most issues. He is just more likable.

[Mntnman]

I think Carson's answer was super shrewd. They can only pin him on it by misrepresenting what he said. That doesn't work on the kind of voter that he is targeting. He has gained many new followers and raised quite a bit of money from many small donors since he voiced his opinion. One thing you have to remember is that the ones trying to use it to destroy him are always going to play that card. I think he baited them. The ignorant that fall for it are going to fall for it. He still said what he needed/ wanted to say to those he was saying it to.

They tried to accuse him of supporting an assault weapons ban, also. If you listen to what he said, that is not true. His measure for policy will always be the Constitution.

[Mudinyeri]

From some of the discussions on here I have gathered that many of this forum agree with some forms of infringement.

Many or most feel that felons should lose their right to bear for life.

Many don't think NFA is an infringement or think we should not have silencers and full auto at all.

Some favor infringements related to open carry.

Some are really ok with certain provisions on concealed carry.

Many just have opinions of if you don't do it the way I am ok with, you should not do it.

You have been here long enough that none of this is unknown to you. Respectfully, what do you think?

I've been around here for a while too.  I think, at least in most instances, you have confused what some feel should be (or is) lawful with what is expedient.  There is a difference.

[Mntnman]

I was just quicky listing some things. I am still sure a large part of this group agrees with some of the things that are infringements, especially felon's rights being infringed.

[Mudinyeri]

I was just quicky listing some things. I am still sure a large part of this group agrees with some of the things that are infringements, especially felon's rights being infringed.

Do you believe that the framers of the Second Amendment believed that "shall not be infringed" applied to felons (or the equivalent at the time)?

[Mntnman]

I believe that allowing the rights of someone else to be subverted will only lead to the escalation to you losing your rights. We already have an example with the poor fella from Lincoln and his knife.

Don't you believe that once your debt to society is paid you should have your unalienabe rights restored? Not being able to purchase firearms after a felony conviction is a relatively new development in the history of this country. If a prohibited person wants to obtain a gun, they still will. The more likely result in such legislation is that a good person will be left without defensive arms, or worse, wrongfully prosecuted. There are ways to address people wishing to do harm and acquiring weapons that don't weaken the protections that the Constitution provides us.

[depserv]

Do you believe that the framers of the Second Amendment believed that "shall not be infringed" applied to felons (or the equivalent at the time)?

I think it makes as much sense for a felon to lose his 4th and 5th Amendment rights as it does for him to lose his 2nd Amendment rights, and I think that should make sense to one who believes that the criminal is the problem, not the device he uses.  I also think that the one being lost but not the others is one of the things that set the 2nd Amendment on a slippery slope that led to things like losing the right even for a misdemeanor charge of domestic assault.  A misdemeanor is like a speeding ticket, and in fact speeders probably cause at least as much death as domestic abusers, but you don't lose your right to drive for getting a speeding ticket (thank God), even though there's no right to drive, but there is a right to have a gun.  The point to this is that these kinds of things are based in the premise that the 2nd Amendment is a privilege, not a right.  If it's a right, it should carry as much weight as other rights, like the two I mentioned.  So if you lose the one, you should lose the others; if you keep the others, you should keep the one.

There has to be such a thing as reasonable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms: no one would want a rich traitor like George Soros to be able to legally own atom bombs, for example, and we don't want people being able to buy nerve gas over the internet.  But we are now very far onto the unreasonable side of any realistic definition of reasonable.     

[farmerbob]

 

[Mntnman]

The Nuge was asked what his definition of arms was as applied to the second amendment. He said "I don't know but anything you can carry on your person, absolutely. " I agree with that but I also think artillery for sure. Privateers used to be our best armed navy.

[Kendahl]

All of everyone's rights all the time isn't logically possible. It's rare that a conflict can be resolved without one party's rights taking precedence over another party's rights. The constitution guarantees the right to life and liberty. But some people (e.g. Nikko Jenkins) use their lives and liberty to deprive others of theirs. I think everyone here would agree that it is right and proper to respond by depriving the assailants of their liberty and even their lives if that's what it takes to preserve the lives and liberty of their victims. One of my objections to the anti-self-defense crowd is that they knowingly put violent criminals' welfare on the same moral level as their victims'.