Trump releases policy paper on Second Amendment...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm from that industry during that time. I'm not a Fiorina 'fan' and I questioned her strategy during the time.

What the author of that article you linked to didn't mention is that HP board of directors at the time were not well respected.
the HP board has always been a laughingstock. hiring carly was probably their low point. and they can say what they want now, but carly drove that company into the ground. if she has a single accomplishment, i couldn't name it.


His last public statement about his feelings on gun control (to my knowledge) was in his book from back in 2000, The America We Deserve. He stated he supported a moderate position on guns and supported an assault weapon ban.

HOWEVER.. that's 15 years ago.

heck, 15 years ago, the N R A supported the assault weapons ban. those old FUDs HATED black rifles and especially class 3 stuff. their sole purpose was protecting hunting and trap/skeet/HP
 
His last public statement about his feelings on gun control (to my knowledge) was in his book from back in 2000, The America We Deserve. He stated he supported a moderate position on guns and supported an assault weapon ban.

HOWEVER.. that's 15 years ago.

If he had only changed his opinion on one or two things I could understand. However to change your position on all the major topics and your new opinions just so happen to match those of Republican primary voters? Call me a skeptic.

I personally think Trump sees this as the ultimate form of reality TV.
 
Honestly it doesn't matter if he believes it as long as he does it anyway. Some of the other "republicans" running have worse gun control records than any Democrat.
 
Honestly it doesn't matter if he believes it as long as he does it anyway. Some of the other "republicans" running have worse gun control records than any Democrat.

Why would you expect a politician to do something they don't believe in after they are elected?
 
Because they want to get re-elected.

And because Trump's not a politician.

Well Trump is a politician now and he has officially run for president in the past (He ran as a Reform Party candidate and lost to Pat Buchanan back in 2000)

Trump is a reality TV show personality. He says whatever gets the ratings.
 
His last public statement about his feelings on gun control (to my knowledge) was in his book from back in 2000, The America We Deserve. He stated he supported a moderate position on guns and supported an assault weapon ban.

HOWEVER.. that's 15 years ago.

If we as a gun community are so insular and closed-minded, as to think a person can't change their mind about a topic after a decade and a half, then we should all just pack it up and quit trying to promote a pro-gun agenda at all.


Seriously that statement released today by Trump was a profound one, with no compromises. Any number of people on THR could have wrote something just like that, and everyone would slap our back and say "well done!"

We need more allies, not fewer, and to get a well known celebrity to give such a spot-on pro-gun statement should have us all yelling "heck yeah!" - whether they are running for president or not.

Last I checked gun owners were still a minority and we need all the folks we can get, even if you don't personally like the dude, he sent a message to the whole world.

When is the last time ANY OF US reached that many people at once with a pro-gun message? That 2nd amendment policy he wrote hit as headline news on every single media outlet out there.

Agreed.

People can, do, and will change. It's human nature.
 
Well, at least Trump has come out and stated exactly where he stands on the issue, for all to hear. I'd love to see Christie put it out there so plainly, but I doubt it'll happen.
 
A candidate comes out with the most well written comprehensive pro gun policy since before prohibition

And it's not good enough for many THR members.


I guess they would rather have the usual cliché TV ad with a pickup truck and a duck shotgun define the stance on 2a issues


ETA
The man laid out why certain things are important to address as things the left uses against us. THAT IS HUGE people. That goes well beyond lip service into the realm of political strategy
 
So you've redefined some to mean one, and you think Chris Christie is worse on guns than, say Martin O'Malley.

Christie clearly counts as more than one. And yes his record is worse than O'Malley's.
 
I think some of our THR members need to retake High School Civics class.

The real power in Washington lies with the Congress. Only the Congress can pass and repeal laws and it has the power to override the Presidents veto. While the President enact gun restrictions through Executive Actions a willing Congress can override them.

So saying you want a President that will repeal anti-gun laws means you either don't understand your Civics class or you want a King.

As for enforcing laws already on the books about going after criminals that lie on a Form 4473 and attempt to buy a firearm?
 
I think some of our THR members need to retake High School Civics class.

Well, in a classical sense, not really a Civics class. Civics is traditionally about the responsibility of the citizenry under a government, not about the function of government. Civics covers how / when to vote, jury duty, duty to pay taxes, exercising your right to assemble, or even your right to overthrow a tyrannical government. ;)

US Constitution, or American Government classes are generally what teach the function and structure of Government. At least, that's what the classes are called around here. They generally blend some of the traditional Civics concepts in as it requires a context of Government to make any sense of civics. (Civics, which is the totality of the duties and responsibilities of a citizen - but not the function of government - are different in the US as they would be in Russia, or Germany, or Switzerland)

As for enforcing laws already on the books about going after criminals that lie on a Form 4473 and attempt to buy a firearm?

That was pretty well covered in Trumps statement...

Only the Congress can pass and repeal laws and it has the power to override the Presidents veto.

Not strictly true, the Judicial branch also has the power to strike down laws via the Supremacy Clause (article VI, section 2) if they are found to be contradictory to the constitution (as amended); as they did in Illinois, when the State's law with a blanket prohibition the carrying of arms in public was found to violate the second amendment.

I understand what you are saying, but there is a better way to say it without insulting people and telling them they need to go back to school. You can educate, without the bitterness. Make corrections without the rebuke.

The right President could do a world of good for the gun rights movement. No, they cannot repeal laws, but they are in charge of appointing Supreme Court Justices, setting treaties, etc.

You remember when we used to be able to get cheap (but decently good and functional) Chinese ammunition and firearms? That was ended by an executive order signed by HW Bush. One that could be reversed with the stroke of a pen.

Same with Obama's recent executive order banning the import of Russian AK's and Saiga's? That could be reversed with a stroke of a pen.

The head of the BATF and the pace that agency sets is largely in control of the President, as it is part of DOJ, which is an Executive branch agency. That (as we all know) directly affects us. The budget proposed to the Congress to pass is set by the President, and that includes funding levels for various things. Remember when Clinton shut down the Government, grandstanding back in the mid 1990's, by vetoing the budget?

Don't underestimate the power of the President when it comes to gun rights. Sure they can't make life much worse than it already is after the last few decades, but they COULD make it a whole lot better, if they wanted to.
 
tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits...To make America great again, we’re going to go after criminals and put the law back on the side of the law-abiding.

Sounds like an endorsement for extra judicial action by lawful citizens.

Trump's position on a national right to carry is interesting. All the various states' restrictions on firearms is inhibiting freedom to travel and is in violation of the commerce clause of the constitution.

Other than those two gun-related positions, Trump is coming off as woefully inadequate for the job of POTUS. I mean, we've all heard b.s. before, but this guy really takes the cake.
 
Guys, we don't discuss general politics here. If you want to talk about candidates' gun control positions, that's fine and wonderful. If you want to get into all the other stuff they might claim to be for or against, take it SOMEWHERE ELSE. Deepest thanks.
 
Trent,

I was taught about how the Government worked in my Civics class. The education standards for the schools I attended were different and probably longer ago than yours. (Heck we used Big Chief tablets in grade school and chalk boards).

The real power in the Federal Government lies with both Houses of Congress if for no other reason it is where their Representatives have to directly face the people in their district and they can directly hold their Representatives accountable at the ballot box.

As for the Supreme Court Congress has the power to change the portions of the law the Court finds to be unconstitutional. Congress (Senate) controls the Supreme Court by approving nominations made by the President and by determining the number of Justices that sit on the bench. Remember Roosevelt’s court packing scheme in the 1930’s?

The President does not have the authority to set treaties. Treaties have to be approved by the Senate. Obama was trying to avoid this by calling the Iran Nuclear Weapon something else. Of course the Democrat controlled Senate got enough votes to prevent the Senate from passing a measure disapproving of the Iran nuclear deal. Whether this will lead to a challenge in the Supreme Court remains to be seen.

“The President... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....”
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

The Founding Fathers intended for all three branches of Government to struggle with each other for power. In this way they believed no one group could achieve power such as the King of England. Little did they realize that barely over 200 years the Congress would become so corrupted by it’s power and big money that they abrogated their responsibility to American citizens. Our Government has become everything the Founding Fathers were against with overly expansive agencies controlling almost every aspect of our lives.

Civics and American Government are forgotten about not only by many people and the media (perhaps deliberately). Americans have lost so much trust in the Federal Government hat according to recent survey 1/3 will support the military taking over. We are in the 11th hour of the American experiment. King George III may well be proven right when he thought that the American System would fail. He was only off by 200 years.
 
Last edited:
Since Trump has not held a political position would that make him less corrupt or more?
Does the President of the United States have any real power or he/she just a representative of the US?
 
Since Trump has not held a political position would that make him less corrupt or more?
Does the President of the United States have any real power or he/she just a representative of the US?

You should familiarize yourself with Executive Order...
 
The Founding Fathers intended for all three branches of Government to struggle with each other for power. In this way they believed no one group could achieve power such as the King of England. Little did they realize that barely over 200 years the Congress would become so corrupted by it’s power and big money that they abrogated their responsibility to American citizens. Our Government has become everything the Founding Fathers were against with overly expansive agencies controlling almost every aspect of our lives.

I agree completely with this. There are many underlying issues here but among them is a sizable group of long term career politicians separated from society, living in their own political world, continuing to make decisions on our behalf about *our* reality.

Back to the topic - Trump may be an outsider, but we've seen what two and a half decades of political insiders have done to our country. For him to throw down the gauntlet on gun rights this early, to alienate that liberal section of the population that he *would* have had if he'd gone moderate instead, should send a serious message to all of us.

Think about it. If Trump was running solely on his celebrity what he did with the gun control issue was suicide. He's a businessman - and if the last few years hadn't turned him in to a hardline conservative for other reasons, being a businessman surely would have influenced him. The writing was on the wall for years but Obamacare really cemented a lot of business owners in to hard conservatives. Socialism is bad for the vast majority of businesses. Period.

I don't find it strange at all that he'd espouse the hardline conservative stances in to his political base, including taking a strong stance on 2nd amendment rights. Many business owners I know have had a similar shift in mindset over the last decade. (Business owners by and large don't like being told what they can or cannot do, and REALLY hate being forced to do something! LOL!)

Frankly, given how unexpectedly strong of a showing the man has made to date, I'm *beyond* relieved that he's issued such a rock solid 2nd amendment statement.

Sure, there are other candidates that align more closely with my personal beliefs on other issues, but if Trump gets nominated, I'm not going to be upset about it one bit.

Some of the people on this forum sound like they'd actively work against him if he were picked by the GOP for the 2016 ticket; given the democratic lineup and their views on gun control, I can't fathom how.
 
I am very skeptical of Trump but applaud his temerity to control the overton window instead of just playing defense. If 2a supporters just defend and compromise on the relentless anti attacks, we will lose, albeit slower than if we just gave up. The Don has now set the standard that will force the others to match or show their true colors. Rand Paul has taken the 2A to another level entirely and shows the critical link to 1a, 4a, 10a, etc. that will expose those candidates that claim to be pro2a but vote for other things that undermine 2a with unforeseen consequences. See below. I look forward to the rest of the field try to out do these two on the 2a issue now. Time to play offense and puke up some of the garbage the antis have forced us to eat.

Rand Paul is a strong supporter of second amendment rights, he has been endorsed by the gun owners association of America. He is a supporter of a gun rights bill that states if a gun and it's ammo is completely manufactured in a state, then the federal government has no right to regulate it because it does not cross state lines. He is a lifetime member of the NRA. How many politicians professed to support Gun rights and then voted for the Brady bill? How many politicians claim they are supporters of the 2nd amendment and then vote to restrict handguns? We need to send people to Washington that not only understand the 2nd amendment but the entire Bill of Rights. How many supposedly pro-Gun politicians supported the McCain-Feingold Act, which makes it illegal for gun rights groups to buy advertising criticizing a federal legislator for voting for gun control? Apparently, these fair-weather friends don’t believe the 1st amendment applies to paid political speech. How many supposed pro-gun politicians voted for the Patriot Act which gives the government the right to search your home without a warrant, when you’re not home, leave listening devices, and use any and all information to create a prosecution on any charge regardless of their original reason for the search? Gun rights advocates need to know that the 2nd amendment is only as good as the fourth amendment. If we are not free from unreasonable and warrantless searches, no one’s guns are safe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top