Trump on the Second Amendment

[bwframe]

One issue, what all gun owners should have for the upcoming election:

[video=youtube;mXL0spt-3JI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXL0spt-3JI[/video]

 

[Que]

Who ever said I was supporting Trump? I just said I'd vote for the Republican, as a vote against the anti 2A Democrat candidate.

So back to you, why is this "terrible man" at the top of the polls?

Donald Trump is leading the polls because MANY of his supporters believe all the ills and negative issues we deal with in our country is the fault of "them" and he is the solution for those who see themselves as his "we". He speaks the very same notion of "change" that Obama spouted, but in the dialect his supporters understand. If you look closely, he's not provided any strategies or policies to make these changes. He just says he's against, PC, Mexican illegals, black crime, Muslims and people believe he will fix welfare, immigration, religious terrorists/criminals and crime in general. His machine has really focussed on his pro-2A mindset, but is it real? Will he allow incremental changes he doesn't see as really impeding the rights of gun owner?

"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."

 

[Que]

One issue, what all gun owners should have for the upcoming election:

[video=youtube;mXL0spt-3JI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXL0spt-3JI[/video]

"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."- Donald Trump

For those who do not read, this is not posted as my support of Clinton.

 

[bwframe]

From 16 years ago:

"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."- Donald Trump
...

From today:

[video=youtube;lEWoBQ2jswM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEWoBQ2jswM[/video]

 

[Que]

From 16 years ago:



From today:

[video=youtube;lEWoBQ2jswM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEWoBQ2jswM[/video]

What has he said between 16 years ago and just recently? When did he change his mind or did he? He's not been asked to speak on his statement. If Hillary came out and said she was pro-gun at the beginning of this election, what would you think? Well, I certainly wouldn't believe her and I don't believe him! The guy has given money to democrats as well as republicans, so which is he? Maybe it's all business to him, just like this race.

Anyway, Kirk is right, it's early. My hope is I'll be able to vote for a Republican and jump on the "Any Republican" bandwagon, but for now, I am comfortable where I am. My suspicion is many of the "Any Republicaners" are not really what they say and will not support some of the other candidates if Trump is not the man.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Donald Trump is leading the polls because MANY of his supporters believe all the ills and negative issues we deal with in our country is the fault of "them"

"Them" as defined by the political establishment of the Republican Party, sure. They are ticked and will vote for a Yellow Dog before they vote for the Republican Establishment which they see as traitors, cowards, and morons.

 

[bwframe]

...MANY of his supporters believe all the ills and negative issues we deal with in our country is the fault of "them" and he is the solution for those who see themselves as his "we"...

...My suspicion is many of the "Any Republicaners" are not really what they say and will not support some of the other candidates if Trump is not the man.

You are throwing around a lot of blankets there sir.

We can agree on the idea that I hope to be voting for another R than Trump in the general election. You'd be mistaken though if you believe I or any other INGOer won't call you out for allowing the D gun grabbers to win with your proclaimed abstinence. You can vote for who you want or not vote at all. Your right, no one cares. When you proclaim that you choose to assist anti-gunners in a post on a gun owner forum you should expect to be questioned.

 

[Hoosier8]

Good article. The only problem I have is its reference to mental health. I'm really worried about politicians trying to create laws that would limit our 2nd Amendment rights based on our mental health. I agree with the article stating that we should remove the violent mentally ill from the streets, I just have a problem that 2nd Amendment articles like this keep referring to mental health. It's as though they are trying to tie the two together, making the 2nd Amendment dependent on the other.

I also think that if a persons mental health is in question, then it should be addressed in the legal system and not based solely on a doctors evaluation.

There is already a law that allows States to report people with mental health issues, read that dangerous to others, to NICS but most states fail doing so though it is voluntary.

 

[Hoosier8]

What has he said between 16 years ago and just recently? When did he change his mind or did he? He's not been asked to speak on his statement. If Hillary came out and said she was pro-gun at the beginning of this election, what would you think? Well, I certainly wouldn't believe her and I don't believe him! The guy has given money to democrats as well as republicans, so which is he? Maybe it's all business to him, just like this race.

Anyway, Kirk is right, it's early. My hope is I'll be able to vote for a Republican and jump on the "Any Republican" bandwagon, but for now, I am comfortable where I am. My suspicion is many of the "Any Republicaners" are not really what they say and will not support some of the other candidates if Trump is not the man.

I have held my opinion on Trump but the gun statement was just a breath of fresh air. A year is a long way to go before an election so I usually don't consider anyone as viable until it whittles down a bit. Look at some of the past leaders at this stage, Rick Perry, Howard Dean. There are many more.

[video=youtube_share;RwkNnMrsx7Q]http://youtu.be/RwkNnMrsx7Q[/video]

 

[Que]

You are throwing around a lot of blankets there sir.

We can agree on the idea that I hope to be voting for another R than Trump in the general election. You'd be mistaken though if you believe I or any other INGOer won't call you out for allowing the D gun grabbers to win with your proclaimed abstinence. You can vote for who you want or not vote at all. Your right, no one cares. When you proclaim that you choose to assist anti-gunners in a post on a gun owner forum you should expect to be questioned.

I knew you would go there, but that's cool. As I stated before and have not changed, I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. If that's reason to miss dinner invitations or trips to the range when I'm in Indy, I understand.

 

[bwframe]

...If that's reason to miss dinner imcitations or trips to the range when I'm in Indy, I understand.

Not on my account.
Sorry I couldn't sell you, my friend.

 

[Twangbanger]

There's really no need to worry about this. To the extent that it matters, prospective Republican Primary voters have more good options this year than most. We have multiple candidates available who appear to be pro-2nd Amendment. If you care about curbing illegal immigration and stopping Amnesty, the Trump big-hitters, then there are at least two candidates within the (ostensibly) pro-2A group who (ostensibly) match up with that viewpoint as well. INGO Jamil poll favorite Ted Cruz seems to be positioning himself for a decent shot at the nomination, aided by the Trump phenomenon. If this were an ordinary election year, without Trump involved, Jeb Bush would already have this wrapped up by now without us even realizing it. His money, organization, and connections would make him the automatic front-runner, all the media attention being lavished on Trump right now would instead be going his way. Instead of Trump, it would be "Bush this, Bush that." We'd be headed for an inevitable Bush/Clinton race and wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it. But thanks to Trump sucking the oxygen out of the room during the early months, Bush hasn't been able to get into the open and take "his" spot. It's given everyone just a bit of time in which to reflect on how unimpressive the 3rd iteration of the Bush family is. He is now sucking hind-teat, down in territory where his money may not matter. Believe it or not, it's actually possible that the 3rd installment of the McCain/Romney trilogy just might have already been pre-defeated. For that alone, Trump deserves a participation medal. I don't see how it could have been done any other way.

And then there's the fact Hillary outpolls them all and is going to win anyway. Just not worth worrying about. Cruz, for all his correct views, has that "turns off women and independents" personality and will lose. So if the F.U. coalition wants to "send a message" to the GOP with a Trump nomination, I say let them. Nothing positive can happen in American Presidential politics until and unless control of the GOP is somehow wrested away from the cabal of donors who are controlling it. If they get a clue about what the average person cares about...and a person with Cruz's views and a non-scary personality appears down the road? Who knows. It'll be at least 8 years before it can possibly even matter, so we've got nothing but time to work on this little internal renovation project.

 

[tbhausen]

If Trump flip-flipped on 2A, it took him a Hell of a lot longer to "evolve" then it did for Obama on abortion.

 

[cbhausen]

I will support ANY Republican Presidential nominee over Hillary, ANY. As for any future legislation further infringing on the Second Amendment, I'm not worried... yet. If things get to the point I worry about I won't be caring much about said legislation. Take that as you will. I will fight, even with two kids arriving any day now. Check that, BECAUSE OF two kids arriving any day now.

 

[cbhausen]

If Trump flip-flipped on 2A, it took him a Hell of a lot longer to "evolve" then it did for Obama on abortion.

Or gay marriage...

 

[Twangbanger]

If Trump flip-flipped on 2A, it took him a Hell of a lot longer to "evolve" then it did for Obama on abortion.

I'm just pleased that such a flip-flop, going in our direction, is even possible. If you lived through the 80s and beyond, you're used to it going the other direction. Regarding the Trump situation in general, there is a lesson there, and the GOP has 8 years to learn it, before they get their next chance at the White House. We are not ever beating Hillary, but a very large gap has been revealed in how politicians see things vs. the rest of us.

Republican Party, are you listening?

 

[bwframe]

I will support ANY Republican Presidential nominee over Hillary, ANY. As for any future legislation further infringing on the Second Amendment, I'm not worried... yet. If things get to the point I worry about I won't be caring much about said legislation. Take that as you will. I will fight, even with two kids arriving any day now. Check that, BECAUSE OF two kids arriving any day now.

I don't disagree on the fight. That said the first rule of winning the fight is avoiding one in the first place.
Back to the same conversation here - Voting against the threat matters more that voting for any individual.

 

[Hoosier8]

Well, well, this is interesting.

Trump County, USA


America’s most reliable bellwether county has fallen for the wild man from New York.

The most accurate pundits in the history of American presidential politics reside far from the Beltway, on a 403-square mile patch of land along the western border of Indiana. At the intersections of U.S. Highways 40 and 41, and off Interstate 70, you find yourself in Vigo County, with its 108,000 residents and its ho-hum county seat, Terre Haute, situated along the Wabash River. Terre Haute is the land of Clabber Girl Baking Powder—and its citizens call it the “Crossroads of America.” It’s the place where both Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh and labor leader and Social Democratic Party founder Eugene Debs were born, and home to the U.S. penitentiary where the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh died.

And, in nearly every presidential election since 1888, voters here in this blue-collar county have selected the winning candidate, missing only twice: Once, in 1908, when they opted for Williams Jennings Bryan instead of William Howard Taft, and again in 1952, when they chose Adlai Stevenson rather than Dwight D. Eisenhower.

 

[ATM]

I don't disagree on the fight. That said the first rule of winning the fight is avoiding one in the first place.
Back to the same conversation here - Voting against the threat matters more that voting for any individual.

The State is the threat, not any individual.

 

[bwframe]

The State is the threat, not any individual.

Thank you for your input, my friend.

Now back to those of us who actually vote...