Trump on guns

[BrentN]

I'm simple minded, but in light of the current selection, there is simply NOBODY on the left that would get my vote over ANYBODY on the right. Looking forward to the "D" debates, but I'm not expecting the same kind of fire and banter we've seen in the "R" debates.

 

[Sstrand]

For my money the Rs support Trump or they have NOBODY . . .

Sheldon

 

[etrain16]

It would be interesting to revive this thread a year from now. I'm not committing to any particular candidate at this time because I simply don't know who will still be around a year from now. I will truly be surprised if Trump is still around at that point. I'm more worried about someone like Bush or Christie picking up the nomination. There are a handful of good folks in the race right now, but I fear that money and the RNC will force our hand on Bush or Christie.

 

[Boboclown]

Considering the loons on the other side? Socialist, Socialist, Uncle Joe.. not much there. Another year for line vote.

There is one Democrat candidate who is not anti-gun. His other views? Meh, better than Clinton for sure. Would I want him as president? No, but of all the Democrats I'd rather him be the nominee. You should do some research, you might find out who I'm talking about. As for Republicans, rather have Carson.

 

[capdek]

Just checked out Trump's website regarding his current views on 2A rights.
<broken link removed>
Well, I must say, I was duly impressed. He does specifically address ARs and seems to have clarified his stance on the issue in a way that makes me truly believe he would not go after them if he was elected POTUS. In fact, this entire section is one of the most positive, straight-forward and well written statements on 2A rights I have ever read. If he actually wrote this himself and truly believes it, he has definitely bumped up quite a few pegs in my book. What he says here sounds like it came from a Teddy Roosevelt "talk softly but carry a big stick" type of individual with significant wisdom, intelligence and integrity. But in the media, he is portrayed as being a loud and bombastic a s s - not the kind of personality he reflects on his website. I guess I'm going to look a little more closely at him. If he is simply trying to get people's attention in the media by being loud and somewhat obnoxious, but his real personality is more accurately reflected on his website, then he may very well be the one to support.

 

[Mongo1]

That he is spending his money and not accepting donations from corporations and lobbyists, I believe he will do what is best for our country. The Republican establishment hates him for not going along with their same bullbubblegum of promises never kept and letting the commie lib democrats have their way on everything.

 

[capdek]

Hmm...
If you check out Trumps's homepage, it seems like he is focusing his latest message entirely at gun owners. Then, clicking on the "Positions" link, the only two topics he addresses at all are 2A rights and immigration reform. We already know he has very strong opinions on the flaws in our immigration system, but it does seem a bit strange that he would only be addressing these two subjects on his website. I'm really wondering what gives with this guy. He seems to be somewhat of an enigma at this point in time. Guess I'll have to watch and wait before making any lasting judgements on him.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

Why?

I don't see any huge changes in gun rights in the near future. The House is solidly Republican and will stay that way. The last attempt at an "assault weapons ban" was voted down. We have two solid SCOTUS rulings in our favor (Heller and McDonald) that finally cemented the Second Amendment as an individual right, and the number of states that are either "shall issue" or that don't require concealed carry licenses at all has continued to increase during Obama's presidency. Much work remains to be done, of course, and we should never let our guard down, but in terms of guns there isn't anything Hillary or Sanders or Biden could possibly do to us that Obama would not have already done if he had the ability. The last thing we need is a bunch of panic buying and hoarding like we saw after Sandy Hook.

Let me restate it. Get them while there cheap and available. I think it's a better decision to buy at there lowest price point. That way we don't get tempted in buying during a run on guns and pay to much.

 

[oknow]

from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-marks-departure-on-gun-control/?intcmp=hpbt2



MANCHESTER, N.H. – Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who once advocated certain gun control measures, says he is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and that gun rights should not be infringed upon.

In his second policy announcement of his campaign, Trump argues against expanded background checks and says the government should not place any kind of limits on the types of firearms people can own.

"The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear," he writes in the summary, released Friday on his website. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Period."

The position paper is the second Trump has released so far and mirrors many of the National Rifle Association's talking points. There is little disagreement among the Republican field on the topic and appears aimed at firing up his conservative base.

In the paper, Trump, who has skyrocketed to the front of early GOP polls, offers several specific policy proclamations.

He says he wants members of the military stationed at bases and recruiting centers to be able to carry firearms and wants state-issued conceal carry permits, like the one he has, to be valid throughout the country.


"A driver's license works in every state, so it's common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state," he writes.

He also argues against the expansion of the background check system, saying the current system must first be improved, and says he opposes all restrictions on magazine capacities and gun types.

"Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice," he writes. "The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own."

The positions are at odds with the ones he expressed in his 2000 book, "The America We Deserve."

"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," he wrote then. "With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record."

Trump has also shifted to the right in other policy areas, including abortion rights and health care.

More often, Trump sticks with vague talking points, like calling for better enforcement of laws already on the books, or describing problems without offering concrete solutions.

Under a section entitled, "Fix Our Broken Mental Health System," for instance, Trump declares, "Let's be clear about this. Our mental health system is broken. It needs to be fixed. Too many politicians have ignored this problem for too long."

But aside from calling for an expansion of treatment programs, Trump does not outline how he intends to do so.

"We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas," he concludes.

The paper was released shortly after Trump cancelled a planned appearance at a candidate forum in South Carolina, citing a "significant business transaction" that needed his attention.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Just checked out Trump's website regarding his current views on 2A rights.
<broken link removed>
Well, I must say, I was duly impressed. He does specifically address ARs and seems to have clarified his stance on the issue in a way that makes me truly believe he would not go after them if he was elected POTUS. In fact, this entire section is one of the most positive, straight-forward and well written statements on 2A rights I have ever read. If he actually wrote this himself and truly believes it, he has definitely bumped up quite a few pegs in my book. What he says here sounds like it came from a Teddy Roosevelt "talk softly but carry a big stick" type of individual with significant wisdom, intelligence and integrity. But in the media, he is portrayed as being a loud and bombastic a s s - not the kind of personality he reflects on his website. I guess I'm going to look a little more closely at him. If he is simply trying to get people's attention in the media by being loud and somewhat obnoxious, but his real personality is more accurately reflected on his website, then he may very well be the one to support.

He was recently asked what his favorite book is and he responded "The bible". When asked to cite a single passage in the bible, he could not.
Pretty understandable that he wouldn't have read it.. he's not in it.

 

[oknow]

He was recently asked what his favorite book is and he responded "The bible". When asked to cite a single passage in the bible, he could not.
Pretty understandable that he wouldn't have read it.. he's not in it.

where have I heard that before??

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

I nearly drowned twice in a time span of 30 minutes; if not for the SF divers who pulled me off the bottom, I would have certainly perished in that 33 degree pond that day..... I've never been so scared and overwhelmed.

So here is my analogy, because I think America is on the bottom, stuck in the muck, and about to inhale very-cold water.

I didnt see myself to be in a position to screen the morality, vocabulary, religion, history, capability, looks, or resolve of the divers that day in the water; I didn't resist the diver's help, and I survived...I even survived the imbarrassment of a Green Beret saving a Ranger.....and now, I'm effing proud of it!

I see Trump (and perhaps Cruz) as being in the same metaphorical-position as those divers were that day they saved me, capable to pull America off the bottom, and give us another chance...despite the possible imbarrassment.

 

[boogerhook]

Then people should remember what he wrote down in 2000 on page 120 of his book. I'd be happy with either Ben Carson or Donald Trump. Definitely not Fiorina, actions speak louder than words and what she did with HP is a no-go.

I used to be of that opinion, however, she was at HP during the .com bust and her acquisition of Compaq was a bet she lost, but that does not mean she is not capable. Certainly 100x better than Hillary. ;-)

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

There will be some breathing room after the primary.

It's about the primary because both establishments are "one in the same". There are a few polarized politicians in each party, but they basically all think alike..their personal wealth off the backs of tax-paying Americans.

One example; they passed the bi-partisan S.T.O.C.K. Act (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge), signed it into law (on camera), then quietly gutted the law.

Checks and balances have failed us because we've put establishment politicians in the executive branch ever since Truman (who never stood an election).

We need another Eisenhower.; or close to it,

 

[Stomper]

I'll trust a businessman over a politician any day.



Considering the loons on the other side? Socialist, Socialist, Uncle Joe.. not much there. Another year for line vote.



And that's why most will. They are tired of the political BS and PC crowd running this nation. The Democratic group has pushed further and further towards government control. The Repubs have always chosen a moderate. The pendulum swings but lately it hasn't been swinging back to correction. It's stayed further and further towards socialism without returning.

We need a bull nosed, pig headed, stubborn, non PC person to actually do what they say. When you see who's funding their own campaign it's astounding. IF you believe in something so much... have we forgotten about the term: "Put your money where your mouth is"??? Lately it's been "Put somebody else's money where your mouth is." when it comes to politics.

$.02
I'm 34, but unlike most my age... I'm not a progressive.

If Trump set up a pro-2A machine and matched Bloomberg dollar for dollar in spending to COUNTER Bloomberg's anti-2A machine, I'd vote for him without hesitation.

 

[BanjoGeek]

Careful with that, never the best idea to vote solely based on party. Better than not voting, but still not the best idea.

I NEVER vote democrat. I view a democrat law maker as strictly a commie pure and simple. If that's not the best idea so be it. The ruling party determines everything and even if a democrat were pro 2A their views don't see the light of day because the ruling party decides everything from bills to be put forth to committee members and right down the line. From my perspective a straight republican vote is the best way to go for the good of the free world. Just my opinion but I'm right.

 

[Boboclown]

I NEVER vote democrat. I view a democrat law maker as strictly a commie pure and simple. If that's not the best idea so be it. The ruling party determines everything and even if a democrat were pro 2A their views don't see the light of day because the ruling party decides everything from bills to be put forth to committee members and right down the line. From my perspective a straight republican vote is the best way to go for the good of the free world. Just my opinion but I'm right.

Well, an opinion is an opinion. The problem is that there's a difference between a Democrat, and a Liberal Democrat. Adding to that, if the president really had enough power to make a difference we'd have even more strict laws. A president COULD propose a bill, which would go the congress. At the same time, he could veto a bill that comes from Congress. Executive orders (because I'm sure that might be brought up if I neglect them) only applies to federal and state agencies. However, congress can pass a bill that would defund an executive order, which the president can veto, but congress can overturn a veto with a 2/3rd vote. The supreme court can nullify an executive order if it is unconstitutional. Also, our vote for the president doesn't matter. The time our vote does matter? State and local. So once more, RESEARCH the candidates. A Republicsn can be anti-gun, and a Democrat can be pro-gun. Sorry, but yes that can happen. Hell, there were Democrats who voted against gun control, and Republicans who voted for it. A bit of research can shed light on that.

 

[BrentN]

Well, that's my problem, bobo, I do research the candidates, and find myself voting R every time. Like many, I play the "lesser of the evils" game, and yep, R, invariably. On top of that, I have attempted correspondence with many of my state and U.S. reps, I got ZERO replies form Cantwell(D), Murray(D), and previously Baird(D), nothing, not even a form letter acknowledging me (obamacare, gun legislation, and a couple of other events I considered important). Yet, Orcutt(R), replied to an e-mail with a phone call, to my home 730 pm one evening, what even I would consider his own time, and we talked for maybe 40 minutes. Maybe you're looking at Betsy, across the river from me, as your pro 2A "can happen" D, but it's such an extreme minority it's laughable.

 

[gaijinsamurai]

If you want to risk having your AR-15 banned then vote for Trump. He has consistently supported a ban on so-called 'assault weapons'. All you need to do is do a quick Google search to find out. In particular, check out <broken link removed>. Here is a direct quote from him in 2000:

"I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record."
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

So, back in 2000, he clearly wanted to ban so-called 'assault weapons' and had no problem with a 72 hour waiting period to purchase a firearm.

Now check his current website to see if he has changed his mind on these specific topics or if he doesn't address them specifically. If he doesn't address them specifically, it's a pretty safe bet he hasn't changed his mind on them.

Personally, I can't believe some gun owners are falling for this big talking charlatan. And Carson has also been very ambiguous on gun rights - especially again on the so-called 'assault weapons' issue. If you want a true 2A supporter in the White House, look for the candidate that has a proven track record over the long term. I know that would likely mean voting for a 'career politician' and I can certainly understand how unpalatable that might be to many. If you do insist on a political neophyte, at least look for someone who comes out clearly and unambiguously as a true supporter of all 2A rights. From the little I've seen after scratching the surface a bit, I'd pick Fiorina over Trump and Carson. And from the list of 'experienced' candidates, there's little doubt about Paul and Cruz - they are 100% on all 2A issues. Just my opinion FWIW.

Agree 100%. He will not get my vote.

 

[freestoneangler]

On top of that, I have attempted correspondence with many of my state and U.S. reps, I got ZERO replies form Cantwell(D), Murray(D), and previously Baird(D), nothing, not even a form letter acknowledging me (obamacare, gun legislation, and a couple of other events I considered important).

I did not have that problem... but for what it's worth, you did not miss anything. Patty (you couldn't blow my butt out of this Senate chair) Murray, or her staff, replied to my letter asking not to support Barry-Care. It was even less than I expected .

Regrettably, WA will be stuck with these two much like CA has been with Mutt & Jeff for the past quarter century. Our only relief is that we do not plan to remain in WA.