Well if Dick Cheney were running he could "Trump" that. He shot his "friend" in the face! Beat that!
Seems to me that Perry did everything he could to hobble open and concealed carry in Texas. Might be wrong.
Trump releases policy paper on Second Amendment...
- Thread starter CoRoMo
- Start date
- Status
Seems to me that Perry did everything he could to hobble open and concealed carry in Texas. Might be wrong.
danez71
Member
I didnt really know that.... or maybe to what extent so I did a little reading today.
The 2 older sons are 31 and 37. Introduced to fishing and hunting by their maternal grandfather who was from Czechoslovakia.
In an interview a few yrs ago, the elder son said that Donald Sr didnt understand why they liked hunting and fishing when the we're teens with their grampa but supported their intrests. That article was in Forbes I believe.
As they grew up into adults, they continued hunting and fishing including big game.
Theyve always remained close with Donald Sr.
That could very well explain how/why Donald Sr's thoughts on guns has evolved for the better over the last 15 yrs.
The timing makes sense with them going from teens to adults and remaining close during that time frame.
Imaging them sitting around the table on Thanksgiving talking about their hunts and how restrictive NY is.
All very plausible.
Sam, I'm trying to keep this on his view of guns and not social issues and politics.
But of course, what his views are and how they came to be is/can be closely related to social issues in a broader sense.
Delete before banning
Last edited:
anothernewb
Member
At the risk of digging into it - but it has been touched on, and this is a political thread.
Trump holds no records on voting, but his business methods give a pretty solid insight to how he'll handle things. On multiple occasions, he's taken a business, stood it on it's ear, and made it come out the other side leaner and meaner. He's surrounded himself with competent people and has done research to make competent decisions. And, he's always been outspoken and stood his ground - whatever that ground was at the time.
To negate Trump simply for holding different positions though time ignores a a specific precedent.
Reagan started out a Democrat, and look what happened when he got fed up with them and their party.
not that I'm going to compare Trump to the gipper, but merely to establish the precedent has been set.
Trump holds no records on voting, but his business methods give a pretty solid insight to how he'll handle things. On multiple occasions, he's taken a business, stood it on it's ear, and made it come out the other side leaner and meaner. He's surrounded himself with competent people and has done research to make competent decisions. And, he's always been outspoken and stood his ground - whatever that ground was at the time.
To negate Trump simply for holding different positions though time ignores a a specific precedent.
Reagan started out a Democrat, and look what happened when he got fed up with them and their party.
not that I'm going to compare Trump to the gipper, but merely to establish the precedent has been set.
Nom de Forum
Member
Well Walker is out so he will not be adopting Trump's campaign policy on the RKBA. I have a question for all THR members. Of the six topics in the Trump campaign's statement, how would you prioritize them from most important to least important?
Last edited:
djont57
Member
5, 3, 4, 1, 2, 6
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"I believe Trump changed his views on firearms due to his son who is BIG into firearms competitions, especially involving black rifles. I think the son has educated the father on firearms and the history of arms in general and the importance of the Second Amendment and opened the father's eyes a bit. That is reflected in this statement on the Second Amendment that he released.
I believe he is sincere in his new found beliefs."
This is one of those 'benefit of the doubt' things, that I could conceivably give weight to on a personal basis, but certainly not on a professional one, and most certainly not as it pertains to a profession with such great potential to do us harm (and very little realistic potential to aid us). Now, if I saw a history, of any length, of thoughtful positions on a variety of gun topics --reciprocity, open carry, ammo/magazine/gun restrictions, import bans, NFA items, ATF abuses-- that were on the proper side, I might buy in and at least not suspect him of blowing smoke. But instead, what we have is a solid history of frequent positions on the wrong side of the issue, capped by a jack-knife of a flip flop worded like a think-tank policy paper, and mere rumors of a publicity-hound like Trump undergoing a secret metamorphosis on the issue only now being revealed. Who's to say he's not undergoing another secret 'evolution' on the gun issue as he speaks?
"Reagan started out a Democrat, and look what happened when he got fed up with them and their party."
There's a lot of mythology about Reagan's legacy & views at this point. Like all mortal men, he was a quite mixed bag, so I don't know why conservatives have such fealty to a man who in practice wasn't half as conservative as they want to be today. I guess it's just he was the last Republican in high office with a decent number of Charisma points (largely because he was so willing to compromise on stuff that, in retrospect, probably shouldn't have been)
TCB
I believe he is sincere in his new found beliefs."
This is one of those 'benefit of the doubt' things, that I could conceivably give weight to on a personal basis, but certainly not on a professional one, and most certainly not as it pertains to a profession with such great potential to do us harm (and very little realistic potential to aid us). Now, if I saw a history, of any length, of thoughtful positions on a variety of gun topics --reciprocity, open carry, ammo/magazine/gun restrictions, import bans, NFA items, ATF abuses-- that were on the proper side, I might buy in and at least not suspect him of blowing smoke. But instead, what we have is a solid history of frequent positions on the wrong side of the issue, capped by a jack-knife of a flip flop worded like a think-tank policy paper, and mere rumors of a publicity-hound like Trump undergoing a secret metamorphosis on the issue only now being revealed. Who's to say he's not undergoing another secret 'evolution' on the gun issue as he speaks?
"Reagan started out a Democrat, and look what happened when he got fed up with them and their party."
There's a lot of mythology about Reagan's legacy & views at this point. Like all mortal men, he was a quite mixed bag, so I don't know why conservatives have such fealty to a man who in practice wasn't half as conservative as they want to be today. I guess it's just he was the last Republican in high office with a decent number of Charisma points (largely because he was so willing to compromise on stuff that, in retrospect, probably shouldn't have been)
TCB
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,713
Hmmmm...that works only as long a our elected officials abide to the enumerated powers bequeathed to them by the Constitution.
There seems to be, ah....somewhat of a problem in that arena over the last 6-7 years.
Or to put it as a once-revered man said not so long ago, this President is doing his best to render Congress irrelevant.
Boy, did he call that one.
I don't trust Trump any farther than I can throw him.
That said, if (God forbid) he gets the GOP nomination, I will grit my teeth and vote for him, as I have for two less-appealing and arguably less "democratically" (pardon the expression) elected candidates in the last two general elections....
I'm as tired of anyone as far as voting for "the lesser of two evils". But if you have Trump and Hillary, or Trump and Bernie? Is that a contest?
Really?
Would you rather play Russian Roulette with the conventional one round in a revolver, or with fully-loaded, racked 870?
Last edited:
Nom de Forum
Member
The creation of the Imperial Presidency began decades before Obama was elected to the office. It is now well entrenched and become orthodoxy. That makes selection of a president more important than ever.
I think anyone comparing Trump to Reagan with regard to being a RKBA supporting Republican should consider the following:
Reagan was 40 when he began to support the Republican Party and just over 50 when he became a registered Republican.
Trump up to his mid-60's was primarily supporting the Democratic Party's policies and now at age 69 has become a Republican in less than one election cycle.
Reagan in the minds of devotees becomes more conservative with each passing decade even though objectively his brand of conservatism was far more liberal than todays.
Trump in the minds of devotees has become a conservative within a blink of an eye compared to Reagan even though decades of political behavior indicates he is still very liberal.
The only real similarity between Trump and Reagan is that Reagan was obviously less pro-gun than what people today would like to believe and Trump is, when judged by his decades of opinions, less pro-gun than his policy statement intends for people to believe.
I think the best we can hope for as a result of Trump's policy statement is that it gets politicians talking about correcting mistakes many of them do not want to talk about.
Last edited:
danez71
Member
Enough with the politics
Jiminy Crickets......
Jiminy Crickets......
Nom de Forum
Member
Dear Moderators,
Trump's political statement describing his political support for the RKBA is difficult to discuss without evaluating its believability of being credible based on his history of political opinions. This type of discussion is S.O.P. for The Press and voter alike in evaluating other political issues that a candidate has mentioned in a definitive statement of policy. If this this type of discussion makes this thread too "Political" for THR shouldn't have been closed long ago? If not, could you please set some more definitive parameters for the discussion to guide posters in making appropriate comments?
Trump's political statement describing his political support for the RKBA is difficult to discuss without evaluating its believability of being credible based on his history of political opinions. This type of discussion is S.O.P. for The Press and voter alike in evaluating other political issues that a candidate has mentioned in a definitive statement of policy. If this this type of discussion makes this thread too "Political" for THR shouldn't have been closed long ago? If not, could you please set some more definitive parameters for the discussion to guide posters in making appropriate comments?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
It is extremely hard to paint a bright line on these things. If the thread is open, assume we're comfortable with where it's at. If we feel it's crossing over into too much social issue dreck, we'll let folks know that and prune as necessary.
If that becomes too strong a trend, we'll hang the "closed" sign on it.
As it is, this one's run longer than most, and aside from speculative theorizing about completely intangible matters of "trust" I'm not sure how much more good we can wring out of it, but carry on.
If that becomes too strong a trend, we'll hang the "closed" sign on it.
As it is, this one's run longer than most, and aside from speculative theorizing about completely intangible matters of "trust" I'm not sure how much more good we can wring out of it, but carry on.
Lord Teapot
Member
He's stronger on the 2nd amendment than clinton, biden, or sanders, and that's all i need to hear.
Nom de Forum
Member
Perhaps some more good can be wrung out by getting back to something I asked in post #104 that so far only one person has responded to: Of the six topics in the Trump campaign's statement, how would you prioritize them from most important to least important?
To prevent any confusion in assigning priority I have numbered the six key areas of Trumps statement as follows:
1. Enforce the laws on the books.
2. Fix our broken mental health system.
3. Guns and Magazine bans
4. Background Checks
5. National Right to Carry
6. Military Bases and Recruiting Centers
Please read the fine details of these six key areas contained in the statement, and then post your order of priority from most important to least important.
Here is the link to the statement:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
Nom de Forum
Member
So your priority from most to least important is
National Right to Carry
Gun and Magazine Bans
Background Checks
Enforce the laws on the books
Fix our broken Mental Health System
Military Bases and Recruiting Centers
His policy points say he is strong on the 2nd amendment. His personal statements from the past say he isn't and he has not voting record to show what he will really do when forced to make a decision. It is up to the individual to choose which version of Trump they believe.
my .02 I support Trump on the 2a
1. Military Bases and Recruiting Centers (the biggest shame our "armed forces are unarmed"
2. National Right to Carry (I refuse to go see family in Connecticut because I can't take my Glock with me)
3. Fix our broken mental health system (our biggest mental institution is our prison system)
4. Guns and Magazine bans (the market and will of the people takes care of this see Connecticut and their failed ban)
5. Background Checks (this will never be 100% with black market)
6. Enforce the laws on the books (including don't let AKs kill our border patrol see fast and furious)
1. Military Bases and Recruiting Centers (the biggest shame our "armed forces are unarmed"
2. National Right to Carry (I refuse to go see family in Connecticut because I can't take my Glock with me)
3. Fix our broken mental health system (our biggest mental institution is our prison system)
4. Guns and Magazine bans (the market and will of the people takes care of this see Connecticut and their failed ban)
5. Background Checks (this will never be 100% with black market)
6. Enforce the laws on the books (including don't let AKs kill our border patrol see fast and furious)
Last edited:
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"3. Fix our broken mental health system (our biggest mental institution is our prison system)"
Be careful what you wish for, our mental health system would grow to match our prison system, in more ways than one
"6. Enforce the laws on the books (including don't let AKs kill our border patrol see fast and furious)"
F&F had nothing to do with enforcing laws. Quite the opposite, actually
TCB
Be careful what you wish for, our mental health system would grow to match our prison system, in more ways than one
"6. Enforce the laws on the books (including don't let AKs kill our border patrol see fast and furious)"
F&F had nothing to do with enforcing laws. Quite the opposite, actually
TCB
gun_with_a_view
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2014
- Messages
- 471
That is a great idea to make our country GREAT again. Just think if the gubm't could round up all the nut jobs including TRUMP and get them off the streets. This would be HUGE.
danez71
Member
The devil is in the details so I reserve the right to change my mind as details come forth.
1) National Right to Carry - ( The 2A doesn't end at a states border. But the following text is about a CC Permit being honored in every state. IMO, a national right to carry isn't the same as a CCP being recognized in every state.)
2) Guns and Magazine bans - (Quick, cheap, and easy (taking politics out if it))
3) Fix our broken mental health system. (People going off the deep end have been the reason for the recent shootings. Not weak laws. Not 'not enforcing laws'. Not because a felon go through the current BGC system) ETA #3 and #4 are tied together so that, for ex., some of the recent shootings that could have been prevented if the mental health records had been reported into the BGC system. I'm not advocating the expansion of back ground checks to include UBC's etc
4) Background Checks - BGC should include mental issues. But just because a guy gets committed for 72 hrs' after he looses his entire family and his house burns down and gets laid off doesn't mean he isn't fine once he wraps his mind around it. ETA #3 and #4 are tied together so that, for ex., some of the recent shootings that could have been prevented if the mental health records had been reported into the BGC system. I'm not advocating the expansion of back ground checks to include UBC's etc
Tied for 5 and 6 are "Enforce the laws on the books" and "Military Bases and Recruiting Centers" - Leave this to the DoD. Its their decision to make. They aren't asking for it but if they did, they should be supported. " After Chattanooga, 'DoD does not support arming all personnel' Staff writers 11:47 a.m. EDT July 21, 2015 " http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/07/20/military-gun-control/30431213/
I just came back from visiting my daughter and SIL. He's military in HI. We visited several bases/facilities/installations etc. I think everyone of them had a 100% I.D. check..... and not a single person was armed at the gate/check point. Dumb IMO but its the DoD's decision; not mine.
1) National Right to Carry - ( The 2A doesn't end at a states border. But the following text is about a CC Permit being honored in every state. IMO, a national right to carry isn't the same as a CCP being recognized in every state.)
2) Guns and Magazine bans - (Quick, cheap, and easy (taking politics out if it))
3) Fix our broken mental health system. (People going off the deep end have been the reason for the recent shootings. Not weak laws. Not 'not enforcing laws'. Not because a felon go through the current BGC system) ETA #3 and #4 are tied together so that, for ex., some of the recent shootings that could have been prevented if the mental health records had been reported into the BGC system. I'm not advocating the expansion of back ground checks to include UBC's etc
4) Background Checks - BGC should include mental issues. But just because a guy gets committed for 72 hrs' after he looses his entire family and his house burns down and gets laid off doesn't mean he isn't fine once he wraps his mind around it. ETA #3 and #4 are tied together so that, for ex., some of the recent shootings that could have been prevented if the mental health records had been reported into the BGC system. I'm not advocating the expansion of back ground checks to include UBC's etc
Tied for 5 and 6 are "Enforce the laws on the books" and "Military Bases and Recruiting Centers" - Leave this to the DoD. Its their decision to make. They aren't asking for it but if they did, they should be supported. " After Chattanooga, 'DoD does not support arming all personnel' Staff writers 11:47 a.m. EDT July 21, 2015 " http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/07/20/military-gun-control/30431213/
I just came back from visiting my daughter and SIL. He's military in HI. We visited several bases/facilities/installations etc. I think everyone of them had a 100% I.D. check..... and not a single person was armed at the gate/check point. Dumb IMO but its the DoD's decision; not mine.
Last edited:
R.W.Dale
Member
We do need to take a look at mental health.
I get there are concerns but as it stands we have no mental health care SYSTEM in this country whatsoever.
Unless you've actually harmed someone you get handed some pills, sent home with s smile and hope you don't get violent.
The really stunning thing about this is it wasn't always this way that at one time we DID have a mental health system
I get there are concerns but as it stands we have no mental health care SYSTEM in this country whatsoever.
Unless you've actually harmed someone you get handed some pills, sent home with s smile and hope you don't get violent.
The really stunning thing about this is it wasn't always this way that at one time we DID have a mental health system
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"we have no mental health care SYSTEM in this country whatsoever"
Any professional psychiatrists on the board want to field this one?
"Unless you've actually harmed someone you get handed some pills, sent home with s smile and hope you don't get violent."
If that were true, our prisons wouldn't be "the largest mental health institution in the country." You're right, that generally, until a mentally ill person becomes a problem to themselves or others, they are not treated as a danger to themselves or others.
You know, like all other freemen. I'd just as soon leave it that way, lest I become disfavored by some bald-glasses doctor, or politician who signs his check.
The real thing you should be paying attention to, is that highly publicized mass shootings by these individuals (as in "not really classifiable as a group in any very useful way for dictating public policy") are criminally overblown by a government & complicit media seeking to deflect from the real source of crime in its own backyard, the city ghettos --bastions of gun control, all, as well as social programs constantly touted as the solution to these and all other criminal problems.
"From think tanks and polling information to data quantifiers to Donalds mouth to our ears."
To be fair, if he is diligent in following whatever he thinks to be 'the pulse' of his constituency, that is kind of how he's supposed to proceed as an elected representative. To be realistic, I think it's a dangerous method to governance (one that nearly all politicians are now guilty of) to rely on polls, since they short-circuit the time between elections that helps dampen ideological drift, making 'snap decisions' based in popular panic or short-sighted benefits more likely. A proper statesman would have some capacity to filter the noise from the chaff, and not simply follow the wind because a poll says to do so is most popular. If all our politicians operate on present-day opinion, we might as well not even have them, and do everything as a direct democracy via internet polls
TCB
Any professional psychiatrists on the board want to field this one?
"Unless you've actually harmed someone you get handed some pills, sent home with s smile and hope you don't get violent."
If that were true, our prisons wouldn't be "the largest mental health institution in the country." You're right, that generally, until a mentally ill person becomes a problem to themselves or others, they are not treated as a danger to themselves or others.
You know, like all other freemen. I'd just as soon leave it that way, lest I become disfavored by some bald-glasses doctor, or politician who signs his check.
The real thing you should be paying attention to, is that highly publicized mass shootings by these individuals (as in "not really classifiable as a group in any very useful way for dictating public policy") are criminally overblown by a government & complicit media seeking to deflect from the real source of crime in its own backyard, the city ghettos --bastions of gun control, all, as well as social programs constantly touted as the solution to these and all other criminal problems.
"From think tanks and polling information to data quantifiers to Donalds mouth to our ears."
To be fair, if he is diligent in following whatever he thinks to be 'the pulse' of his constituency, that is kind of how he's supposed to proceed as an elected representative. To be realistic, I think it's a dangerous method to governance (one that nearly all politicians are now guilty of) to rely on polls, since they short-circuit the time between elections that helps dampen ideological drift, making 'snap decisions' based in popular panic or short-sighted benefits more likely. A proper statesman would have some capacity to filter the noise from the chaff, and not simply follow the wind because a poll says to do so is most popular. If all our politicians operate on present-day opinion, we might as well not even have them, and do everything as a direct democracy via internet polls
TCB
Last edited:
R.W.Dale
Member
The media angle isn't going to change.
We live in instantaneous in an Information Age. I get any major development in the nation popping up on my phone within 15minutes of it happening.
It's simply not realistic to expect 21'st century media to play by rules you grew up with in the 50's when the news was a paper you bought in the morning or .5 hour in the afternoon on one of three alphabet soup networks. The genie is out of that bottle and will NEVER go back in. People consume however much news they wish today primarily online. What you are advocating is rationing of information by the .gov.....what could possibly go wrong?
Complaining about this is like complaining about the sun rising in the east.
If anything we have become desensitized to violent acts by mentally ill people.
We live in instantaneous in an Information Age. I get any major development in the nation popping up on my phone within 15minutes of it happening.
It's simply not realistic to expect 21'st century media to play by rules you grew up with in the 50's when the news was a paper you bought in the morning or .5 hour in the afternoon on one of three alphabet soup networks. The genie is out of that bottle and will NEVER go back in. People consume however much news they wish today primarily online. What you are advocating is rationing of information by the .gov.....what could possibly go wrong?
Complaining about this is like complaining about the sun rising in the east.
If anything we have become desensitized to violent acts by mentally ill people.
Artofgolf
Member
5. National Right to Carry
1. Enforce the laws on the books.
6. Military Bases and Recruiting Centers
3. Guns and Magazine bans
2. Fix our broken mental health system.
4. Background Checks
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
