JD Vance SOLID on the Second Amendment

[VinnieBoomBah]

Something to bear in mind: left-of-center never-Trumpers here might use bumpstocks as an excuse to bash him and question his 2A credentials, but you'll find that in reality other non-2A issues (that we don't talk about here) are more important to them, and they hate him primarily for that. That is their right and I'm not saying that's not legitimate. I have no interest in arguing politics; just a heads-up so you can understand. If you read other threads here closely, that becomes very clear.

There's a lot I don't like and can't defend about Trump or the republican party, nor will I try, but U.S. Supreme Court appointments are vitally important to the future of the Second Amendment, and personally that issue alone would influence my vote, if the right to bear arms was important to me (which it is).

That's just me though. Many here will never vote for him under any circumstances. Just be aware that it probably has nothing to do with guns.

You do know that there are Center and right-of-center never-Trumpers, right? And that while it is true that there are many that will never vote for him under any circumstances there are also folks that will vote for him under any circumstances, and for some of them, their stance also probably has nothing to do with guns.

But that aside, I do agree with you on the importance of the SCOTUS, I'm just not convinced that the the ones we have in there are ruling in favor of 2a issues because of the 2a issue as much as it being hapinstance that whatever it is they really care about happens to have some overlap with a 2a issue

 

[coltemp]

Something to bear in mind: left-of-center never-Trumpers here might use bumpstocks as an excuse to bash him and question his 2A credentials, but you'll find that in reality other non-2A issues (that we don't talk about here) are more important to them, and they hate him primarily for that. That is their right and I'm not saying that's not legitimate. I have no interest in arguing politics; just a heads-up so you can understand. If you read other threads here closely, that becomes very clear.

There's a lot I don't like and can't defend about Trump or the republican party, nor will I try, but U.S. Supreme Court appointments are vitally important to the future of the Second Amendment, and personally that issue alone would influence my vote, if the right to bear arms was important to me (which it is).

That's just me though. Many here will never vote for him under any circumstances. Just be aware that it probably has nothing to do with guns.

Good points. Don't totally agree but hey we can agree to disagree agreeably. (hey that sounds to much like crackle but oh well...)

To your last point which I think is a very important one. That is in large part of why in 2020 we ended up with a vegetable in the white house and a staff that hate anyone who thinks guns are useful tools. It usually doesn't take long to find things you don't like about any candidate. There are none that are perfect.
As Dr Dobson said many years ago. When you have two candidates (or more) that really don't stand solidly for your principles it is our responsibility to vote for one who will do the least amount of damage to the country, state, or local area they are being elected to. In 2020 many would say (and frankly there is way too much chatter about it for 2024) we have two flawed candidates. Maybe, maybe not, but let's assume that the way someone sees it is they are two flawed candidates. By not voting (which was in part why 2020 went the way it did) or voting for some third party fly by night candidate you are violating that principle and opening the door for the worse of the two to be elected to office again. I'm really not sure the USA as we know it can stand 4 more years of the kind of Democrat Biden and his controllers are. I sure as heck fear for what few firearm rights we have left.

In 2024 we have a clear choice between the vision of Trump and the vision of Biden (and whoever is controlling him because it sure isn't himself). Both have track records of 4 years in office. Do you feel more sure of your situation now or four years ago? I know my answer to that.

 

[3MTA3]

You do know that there are Center and right-of-center never-Trumpers, right? And that while it is true that there are many that will never vote for him under any circumstances there are also folks that will vote for him under any circumstances, and for some of them, their stance also probably has nothing to do with guns.

But that aside, I do agree with you on the importance of the SCOTUS, I'm just not convinced that the the ones we have in there are ruling in favor of 2a issues because of the 2a issue as much as it being hapinstance that whatever it is they really care about happens to have some overlap with a 2a issue

We don't get good 2A rulings because of the political preferences of our judges. We get good rulings when we have a majority of originalist (i.e. as written) justices as opposed to a majority of political activist ones. If the law needs to be modified then that us the job of the legislature and not the bench or by executive order.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

We don't get good 2A rulings because of the political preferences of our judges. We get good rulings when we have a majority of originalist (i.e. as written) justices as opposed to a majority of political activist ones. If the law needs to be modified then that us the job of the legislature and not the bench or by executive order.

I understand that view point, I just disagree. I think we get "good 2A rulings" because the core concept, like Chevron Deference effects issues other than 2A, that they care about and not because the Supremes are staunch defenders of 2A

I mean, I hope I'm wrong, but at the same time . . .

 

[CLT65]

You do know that there are Center and right-of-center never-Trumpers, right? And that while it is true that there are many that will never vote for him under any circumstances there are also folks that will vote for him under any circumstances, and for some of them, their stance also probably has nothing to do with guns.

Yes, I know there are never-trumpers all across the political spectrum, and I can respect that. We all have our opinions. I've just noticed that when Trump threads here get off into the weeds, the real reasons many here dislike him come out, hence my post. If it were strictly about gun rights the choice would be obvious, but I do realize that many/most of us are not single issue voters, and that's fine. This is a gun forum though...

Whether I personally like Trump/Vance or not, for me it's a pragmatic choice, and the USSC is a major part of that. To be honest I haven't been paying close attention otherwise; I have more important worries and stresses in my life right now than politics.

 

[bionic knees]

while I am not a big Trump fan I will say that I have voted for him twice and will do so again. Looking at the choice I see no option.

 

[25-06]

We don't get good 2A rulings because of the political preferences of our judges. We get good rulings when we have a majority of originalist (i.e. as written) justices as opposed to a majority of political activist ones. If the law needs to be modified then that us the job of the legislature and not the bench or by executive order.

An "originalist" justice would NEVER grant a president complete immunity. Remember, the founders would have only permitted landed, white men to participate in government.

 

[3MTA3]

An "originalist" justice would NEVER grant a president complete immunity. Remember, the founders would have only permitted landed, white men to participate in government.

And they did not. immune is only granted for official business as n doing the job we elected him or her for. The last sentence is just plain ignorance. Please show us your supporting documentation.

 

[25-06]

And they did not. immune is only granted for official business as n doing the job we elected him or her for. The last sentence is just plain ignorance. Please show us your supporting . At first, white men with property were the only Americans routinely permitted to vote. President Andrew Jackson, champion of frontiersmen, helped advance the political rights of those who did not own property. By about 1860, most white men without property were enfranchised. But African Americans, women, Native Americans, non-English speakers, and citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 had to fight for the right to vote in this country.

And they did not. immune is only granted for official business as n doing the job we elected him or her for. The last sentence is just plain ignorance. Please show us your supporting

At first, white men with property were the only Americans routinely permitted to vote. By about 1860, most white men without property were enfranchised. But African Americans, women, Native Americans, non-English speakers, and citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 had to fight for the right to vote in this country. Hell (pun intended), for the first couple of decades after the Constitution's ratification, some states even restricted voting based on religious affiliation. Following the right religion was seen as a sign that you were likelier to vote for the right candidates. And property requirements for voting didn't fully melt until more than half-a-century after the constitution was ratifiied. Tally it all up, and the early republic (not democracy) extended voting rights to a scant 10 – 15% of the American population.
Maybe consider why the 19th Amendment came to pass.

 

[ivan_drago]

JD is a creature of a faction of big tech. Peter Thiel lifted him up. DJT probably made a deal with Musk, Tiel and others in exchange for massive financial support. Big tech is no friend of 2A.
We will get more wishy washy Supreme Court justices like Amy Coney Barrett, but hopefully we won't get another Ketanji. Giving Clarence Thomas an opportunity to retire.

 

[Olderguy]

He's a Marine! nough said.

 

[CamoDeafie]

He's a Marine! nough said.

Prior service does not mean pro2A. How many politicians claim to be prior service and still anti2A?

 

[Yarome]

Prior service does not mean pro2A. How many politicians claim to be prior service and still anti2A?

This is true. Being in the service can also push folks to never want to touch a firearm again once discharged.

I consider it a plus with Vance, but there are definitely some rotten apples in the Corp. Heck. It was a Marine that testified as an expert witness for the gooberment that a single round from an AR-15 can cut a human body in half or completely sever a human head.

Went ganzo... or... maybe someone just spiked his crayons that particular day(?)

 

[Indy62]

Being in the service can also push folks to never want to touch a firearm again once discharged.

My Dad falls into that category. Riverine Patrol, Vietnam, 67-68

 

[MurseShootrPNW]

JD Vance scores 100% per GOA. Win or lose this fall we have at least one politician we can rely on. Hope this bodes well for the future.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnHNzAIlqno

Good to know Trump/Vance have the 2A squarely in mind when they MAGA.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

2024 Republican Platform Drops Gun-Rights Promises

In its first official platform since 2016, the Grand Old Party (GOP) slashed all mention of its gun policy positions.

thereload.com

In its first official platform since 2016, the Grand Old Party (GOP) slashed all mention of its gun policy positions.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) Platform Committee voted 84-to-18 on Monday to adopt the new 2024 platform language after skipping the process entirely in 2020. The finalized document leans into former President Donald Trump's "America First" outlook and parrots many of his stances on issues ranging from immigration to trade. However, it also minimized the party's emphasis on gun policy compared to its previous platform.

The entire platform discusses gun rights just once, in a preamble statement about the party's dedication to defending "our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms." The final product omits any discussion of tangible gun policy ideas.

 

[FATAL125]

a single round from an AR-15 can cut a human body in half or completely sever a human head.

Really!? What caliber is that!?

That's going on my must have list for sure...

 

[CamoDeafie]

View attachment 1919076

2024 Republican Platform Drops Gun-Rights Promises

In its first official platform since 2016, the Grand Old Party (GOP) slashed all mention of its gun policy positions.

thereload.com

In its first official platform since 2016, the Grand Old Party (GOP) slashed all mention of its gun policy positions.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) Platform Committee voted 84-to-18 on Monday to adopt the new 2024 platform language after skipping the process entirely in 2020. The finalized document leans into former President Donald Trump's "America First" outlook and parrots many of his stances on issues ranging from immigration to trade. However, it also minimized the party's emphasis on gun policy compared to its previous platform.

The entire platform discusses gun rights just once, in a preamble statement about the party's dedication to defending "our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms." The final product omits any discussion of tangible gun policy ideas.

Lets be realistic here. We have 1 real national Party, with two wings/sides of "opposing idealogues"..

1 side, idealogically, actively, and stridently anti 2A,

The other side, idealogically, actively, and stridently neutral/tolerant of 2A, not actively fighting for the citizens 2A rights; not even with Federal justice nominations

Maybe its changing a little by little but it may take a generation, or three for the "not anti2A" side to actually develop into a Pro2A Party edit, by which point, the 2A may well cease to exist the way we want it to be.

both sides are saying what they think their voters want, and both sides are keen on keeping their positions and power concentrated in D.C.

Called it

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

Democrats will take on common sense solutions to gun violence, including universal background checks, safe storage requirements, and a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

DNC Releases 2024 Party Platform Draft, Outlining Historic Record and Bold Agenda for President Biden and Vice President Harris to Finish the Job - Democrats

democrats.org

 

[CamoDeafie]

DNC Releases 2024 Party Platform Draft, Outlining Historic Record and Bold Agenda for President Biden and Vice President Harris to Finish the Job - Democrats

democrats.org